Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 654 | What’s REALLY Going On with Taiwan & Pelosi? | Guest: Jason Buttrill

Episode Date: August 3, 2022

Today we're talking to Jason Buttrill, head writer and researcher for Glenn Beck as well as a former Defense Department intelligence analyst, about what's going on between China and Taiwan and what Nancy Pelosi is doing on her trip to Taiwan. Officially, Pelosi went to "defend democracy" or something like that, but since when do Democrats actually care about that? Jason points out that Taiwan is a major world supplier of computer chips, and many are speculating that Pelosi is working to secure chip manufacturing in the U.S. before China invades Taiwan. We also cover some of the history of the region and why there is so much global drama and confusion surrounding Taiwan. We also briefly cover other world events, like the recent killing of an al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan by the U.S. and the latest on the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia. And, we discuss a recent op-ed by none other than George Soros in which he defends his pumping millions of dollars into the campaigns of left-wing politicians. --- Today's Sponsors: HealthyCell — get 20% off your first order at HealthyCell.com/ALLIE, use promo code 'ALLIE'! Patriot Mobile — go to PatriotMobile.com/ALLIE or call 972-PATRIOT & use promo code 'ALLIE' to get free activation! Birch Gold — protect your future with gold. Text 'ALLIE' to 989898 for a free, zero obligation info kit on diversifying and protecting your savings with gold. Good Ranchers — change the way you shop for meat today by visiting GoodRanchers.com/ALLIE & use promo code 'ALLIE' to save $30 off your order, get free express shipping, and donate life-changing food to kids in need! Blaze Socks — get your Blaze patriotic socks at BlazeSocks.com, use promo code 'ALLIESOCKS'! --- Today's Links: Washington Post Opinion: "Nancy Pelosi: Why I’m leading a congressional delegation to Taiwan" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/02/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-visit-op-ed/ Politico: "China sends warships to surround Taiwan amid Pelosi visit" https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/02/pelosi-lands-in-taiwan-00049234 Wall Street Journal Opinion: "Why I Support Reform Prosecutors" https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-support-reform-prosecutors-law-enforces-jail-prison-crime-rate-justice-police-funding-11659277441 --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed. You can watch

this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. Today we are talking to Jason Butrell. He's going to tell us what is really going on with Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan. Is she just a patriot defending democracy or is there something else that we should be talking about? We're also going to get a brief update on what is going on between Russia and Ukraine. He's going to give us his analysis of the Biden administration successful killing of an al-Qaeda terrorist in Afghanistan. And then we are also at the end going to talk about this George Soros op ed in the Wall Street Journal and what it means why we should care. This episode is brought to you by our

friends at Good Ranchers. Go to good ranchers.com slash Alley for a discount. That's good ranchers.com slash alley. Okay, before we get into that conversation with Jason, which you're absolutely going to love, I mean, he just breaks things down when it comes to foreign policy so well. I do want to give you an update about a story that we talked about at the beginning of the week on Monday about moms for Liberty. I told you they had been suspended from Twitter temporarily for criticizing a California bill that basically revoked the rights of parents whose kids want to travel to California for quote unquote gender transition procedures and surgeries. And they also were kicked off PayPal.

They don't really know why. PayPal didn't give an explanation, but basically punished them for the views that they have. PayPal has done this to other organizations and individuals. who speak out against gender ideology who use PayPal as a way to take donations. And now Governor DeSantis of Florida is fighting back. This is according to Florida VoiceNews.com. PayPal unfreezes Moms for Liberty funds after DeSantis announces crackdown on woke banking. So here's what the article says.

Governor DeSantis announced last week that Florida would begin cracking down on woke banking. Bombs of Liberty said many of their donors give automatically via PayPal. Obviously, they weren't able to do that when PayPal froze their abilities to receive those donations. While Governor DeSantis was speaking at their Liberty National Summit on July 15th, they started getting emails that PayPal had stopped processing all of their monthly donors. PayPal froze the organizations of $4,500 and wouldn't let them transfer the money out until the IRS had approved the organization's paperwork.

I mean, this is really an example. of at the very least soft fascism. A way to think of fascism is the wedding of corporate and state power to punish dissent. That's exactly what is going on here. And of course, all of the people who said that they are anti-fascist are for this kind of wedding of corporate and government power. Really scary stuff. We saw it in Canada with the trucking protest as well. Moms for Liberty said PayPal had already accepted the paperwork they filed with the IRS. After DeSantis's press conference, announcing that he wants legislation passed to prohibit companies like PayPal from discriminating against customers. This press conference happened just the other day. PayPal released the funds

and began letting moms for Liberty use them again. So don't you see that it just takes a little strength from the people in power? For so long, Republicans have just said, oh, no, companies can do what they want to do. That's freedom. That's the free market. Well, now we now we see that corporations use their power, they pair it with the government's power, they weaponize it to punish people that do not agree with, that do not go along with the progressive regime. And the only way to fight back, the only way to push back on that is people with power, Republican elected officials saying no. And saying no, we are going to punish the companies that are punishing you, conservative. And so that's what DeSantis is doing. Of course, that's what he did,

with Disney as well. Fully support this. If this is the new form of conservatism, if this is the new form of the Republican Party, I am 100% on board. So once again, go to Santis. This is what I like to see. I want to see more Republicans leading in this way and following his example. Hey, this is Steve Deuce. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality.

We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this Steve Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcast. I hope you'll join us.

Jason, thanks so much for joining us. Tell us why Nancy Pelosi is going to Taiwan. Why does it matter? Taiwan is one of the more interesting things going on in the world right now, mostly because it's just so ambiguous. And I think that's a good word because the original, you know, our original act, the Taiwan Relations Act, was nicknamed strategic ambiguity because it was so confusing.

And it was done that way on purpose, right? It was done that way so that we didn't really know, they didn't really know what we wanted out of Taiwan, vice versa. We didn't want to confront each other on it too much. We kind of just wanted to let it, you hear the word status quo, be what it was, which was ambiguous. Right. So that's just the way they were, you know, hoping that it remained. But Pelosi going there is is interesting on many levels because you really don't know why Pelosi does some of the things she does when she does them internationally. Why is the Speaker of the House undermining the foreign policy of the President of the United States? I don't like the current President

of the United States, but even still, Speaker of the House shouldn't be undermining United States foreign policy. It's not her job. So how is this undermining United States foreign policy her going there? So the official line of United States foreign policy, as confusing as it is versus, you know, as it pertains to Taiwan, is that it's an unresolved issue. It's an unresolved issue. It's been unresolved since, you know, it began around 1950. And by unresolved issue, you mean that Taiwan sees itself as independent. China does not see Taiwan as independent.

And China kind of wants to take over Taiwan the same way that they took over Hong Kong. And so the U.S. is kind of like, well, we don't know. Right. And, you know, we've been trying to stop Taiwan from actually saying, hey, we're sovereign and declaring independence, even though that's what they want. Okay. We've been trying to stop that from the beginning. So when the State Department says, I think he just said the other day, we don't support Taiwan's

independence. That's what they mean. Yes, but you're not really supposed to say that out in the open like that. Right. That's why it was, you know, labeled strategic ambiguity because you're not supposed to make a very public statement. When people say, has that basically been the United States? You've probably seen that a lot from people like on social media or whatever.

A lot of people were putting out like a quote. said, yeah, that's the way it's been since 1950s. I would say technically yes, but also more ambiguous, no. Right? I mean, and again, think of everything going on with Taiwan as like the most confusing Christopher Nolan movies that we've ever seen. Or, you know, like, we're like, wait, this could be taken this way, it could be taken that way.

China's one China policy, right? That is Christopher Nolan's inception. Our treaties and our foreign relations and how we deal with them, that's interstellar, which for me was even more confusing than inception. And then who actually holds claim to the island of Taiwan period, whether it's, you know, the Republic of China, which we can get into that later, which is Taiwan, or if it's China itself, you know, that's tenant, basically. And it's all confusing and no one understands.

But I think a good way to start with is just kind of go back into the history, like why this is coming to a head now. But basically the thing between Taiwan and China is the maybe the only unresolved civil war that's still going on. Of course, when Mao overthrew the Republic of China, you know, back in the 50s, the leadership just picked up left as they were getting beat back and driven to the shore, hopped on boats and went to Taiwan. So the current government in Taiwan has its roots from the Civil War.

the government that Mao kicked out, and now they're on Taiwan. So you can see why this is very symbolic to China. They never finished the job. Right. This would be like if General Lee and our Civil War didn't give up and said, no, screw you guys, we're going to keep fighting, and we're going to take the United States back one day and went to the island of Cuba and just set up.

And they continued to call themselves the United States of America or the Confederates of America or whatever. And it was still frozen to this day. Right. Okay. That's a good comparison to kind of help people understand what's really going on. And some people don't even know what Mao's Cultural Revolution was. I know it's hard to sum up in a sentence, but can you just talk about what it was and why there is still so much tension there? Mao's Cultural Revolution? Yeah. Well, Mao, so Mao basically was let you have to destroy your history. You have to destroy everything, all your values, everything that made you who you were. And you have to be brought up in this mold. of communism.

So everything culturally identifiable to them at the time, they completely destroyed. The people that left Taiwan, they were fighting against that. They were the ones that were alive during this area. They were the ones that were fighting against that. I'm not going to go to bat for the Republic of China because I'm sure the people that left and went to Taiwan

because I'm sure they did a lot of messed up things too. But those were the people that were around in that era and then left. Yeah. Now was a communist in the 20th century. his cultural revolution was basically trying to implement communism everywhere. That and the whole great leap forward killed tens of millions of people, not just by killing dissidents as totalitarians always do, but also through famine. So the people that went to Taiwan were kind of rebelling against that communist revolution.

And those tensions are still there today because, of course, the Chinese Communist Party is still communist and still holds on to a lot of Mao's values, right? So they see Taiwan as a threat. Sure. Yeah, an actual threat and a symbolic threat because they never actually got it done. China's one China policy is very interesting to me too because everyone has a different kind of description for it. And you've even seen that from U.S. leaders as far as people in Taiwan. So Taiwan and China, they don't recognize each other as actual governments. Taiwan doesn't see the PRC as an actual government, you know, government, the people in control of China.

And China likewise does not recognize the Republic of China, Taiwan. So when they say one China, and this was even said way back in the day when Nixon and then Carter and then it was solidified, you know, in 1979 with the Taiwan Relations Act, that look, everyone agrees that there is one China, that Taiwan, people in Taiwan and the people of China are the same people and that there can't be more than one China. But the problem is that the wording on our end is very ambiguous because we're not really saying that the people in Taiwan aren't the legitimate government. Even though we've told China that we say that the PRC is the legitimate government of China, Taiwan thinks that, yes, there is one China. They agree, but they think that they are the ones that, you know what I'm saying? It is so convoluted and is so confusing. And that's exactly the way they've kind of wanted it to be. Yeah.

That's why when you have like the, you know, the State Department coming out and saying, no, we do not, you know, support sovereignty. We don't support independence in Taiwan. That's when you come out and say it so bluntly. You're basically agreeing with the People's Republic of China, with the Chinese Communist Party. So what's stopping China from just taking over Taiwan the same way they took over Hong Kong a couple years ago? So New Gingrich went in 1997. China did not like it then.

but they didn't have the military capability to do it. They still don't really have the military capability to do it, or they would. They're on a timeline to eventually get everything they want. They were on a timeline to take back Hong Kong, and a lot of people were saying, hey, you know, this is outrageous, you know, is supposed to be two parties, you know, are two systems, you know, one country. True, but in the agreement with Hong Kong, it was always that China would take full control eventually.

There was, I can't remember how many, decades it was until the two systems was just going to be thrown out the door. China just accelerated it because they're more in a position to accelerate right now. The thing with Pelosi that really pisses me off is that now, since China's growing in their military capability and economic power, they're accelerating the timeline with Taiwan. So when you when you asked me earlier about, you know, why Pelosi's visit was so important are so damaging. That's one of them.

You're accelerating a timeline, which is going to be painful. You know, people will die when this happens. She's accelerating that timeline. And we don't even know if, you know, why is Pelosi even doing this? Yeah.

Is it purely legacy? Because I remember it was back in the, this was right after Tiananmen Square. I remember she did this big public? Remember that? She unfurled that thing. Well, I saw a clip that was going around recently, and I think that was people were trying to say,

look, she's always been an ally of Taiwan. This is her taking a stand again. against the CCP, which look, I'm for taking a stand against the CCP. And if that's what it was for, I'd be happy, I guess, that, you know, for that kind of courage. But it's hard for me to believe that someone who has sold out the United States so consistently to the CCP in a variety of ways economically and so on that she would really be taking the stand out of sheer bravery and virtue. Right. And that's the left in a nutshell, right? They put this mask of virtue on But what are they doing behind the scenes?

And we know what the Pelosi's do behind the scenes. That's what makes this. This is almost like the Bidens, you know, when they talk about, you know, again, being virtuous or just, you know, having, you know, the country's interests in mind. But you have the president's son flying off with you and doing deals in China or doing deals in Eastern Europe and all this stuff. They're crony capitalists is what they are. They're everything the left says they hate, but they are the poster childs for this. And Nancy Pelosi is one of the worst as well. How are we supposed to know what you really want to do when she was headlining that chip act to boost, you know, semiconductor production here in the United States?

Yeah, tell us a little bit more about that because that's what a lot of people are saying this is really about. So what does that mean? Well, you know, I don't know if that was it really about, but it definitely looks suspicious, right? I mean. And what is that act? So that's supposed to boost semiconductor production in the United States by granting subsidies to, you know, chip companies here in the United States. What does that have to do with China? Why are people saying that that actually helps China and that this somehow has to do with Pelosi and Taiwan? So Taiwan is by far the biggest semiconductor producer in the United States. So you can see where the conflict of interest start coming in. So there was that very public selling of her husbands when he sold that Nvidia stock took a loss. and Vidia gets all of their chips pretty much from the largest company in Taiwan that makes superconductors. She actually, that was part of her trip, is she got a tour of their manufacturing plant like yesterday, hours ago, I guess.

So this could be about making her and her husband more money. It could be. We don't know. And when they're so, when it's that corrupt and that, you know, it's, it's that cronyish, if that's a word, you don't know what their true motivations are. What we do know is they've made tens and tens of millions of dollars, the Pelosi family, by gaming the system, right? I mean, this is what we hate about government, right?

It's like when they claim to be for everyone, but they all become multi-millionaires when they were just regular people when they first got into office, you know, it's bull is what it is. Yeah. But we don't know. Right? So like she's either chasing a legacy or just doing photo ops like she did in Tiananmen Square. Maybe this was her last hurrah, you know, because she's, what is she, 81? Right. Maybe this is her last legacy defining moment.

You know, when I stood up to China, even though you're accelerating a timeline and making it, making military conflict closer. Yeah. That's the danger we're talking about. And all for a photo op or for what, stock? Yeah. For more stocks? And Taiwan seems eager to welcome her. Also, Pelosi, she wrote, or someone wrote for her, an op-ed in the Washington Post, and I'll just get your reaction to what she says.

It's a little bit different than how you're describing it. She says that the Taiwan Relations Act set out America's commitment to a Democratic-Taiwan providing the framework for an economic and diplomatic relationship that would quickly flourish into a key partnership and fostered a deep friendship rooted in shared interests and values. And she says, yet disturbingly, this vibrant, robust democracy is under threat. In recent years, Beijing has dramatically intensified tensions with Taiwan. They've ramped up patrols of bombers, fighter jets, surveillance aircraft near and even over Taiwan's air defense zone. In the face of the CCP's accelerating aggression, our congressional delegations visit should be seen as an unequivocal statement that America stands with Taiwan, our democratic partner, as it defends itself and its freedom. So that's why she says that she's going. Well, so Taiwan Relations Act, like I said, was a very important.

very, very confusing. It was very confusing on purpose. They were not a democracy when we did that act. That came later in the timeline. I think the only reason, really, the only reason that we had to do it is because the Soviet Union was around at the time and we were fighting a cold war against the Soviet Union. We wanted, it was not only, again, symbolic, but it was also very strategic to have the other largest communist, you know, entity in the world, China. opposed to the Soviet Union. So that was a big ally. That's when Nixon began it in the early 70s.

It's why Carter continued it. That was a huge shift in global geopolitics when we brought the Chinese in with us against the Soviet Union. That was the only reason we continued to, you know, try and deal with Taiwan. And before that, it was because we supported the Republic of China. We did not support communist Mao.

That was the, it was practical geopolitics. It had nothing to do about, feelings and it had nothing to do with, you know, setting a framework for democracy in Taiwan, had nothing to do with that. And this is a problem with things that remain that are old like the Taiwan Relations Act. And it's, you saw this, you know, in the breakout of World War I, old treaties, old alliances will bring larger conflicts later in line when things change. The world is not what the world was after World War II. The world is much different. And another example, and we might have talked about this before, but Japan, there's no reason why Japan should still be under a Constitution clause or amendment that says they can't build up their military more.

We imposed them on them. MacArthur supervised that. They should get rid of that. It's a legacy of World War II. They should be the ones countering China and offering friendship and protection to Taiwan. They're right there. They're in the region. That should not be us.

We should not be responsible to grant security for a country that's, what, 10,000 miles away. That should not be us. If you want to see, and you asked a good question before, why doesn't China, why haven't they just done this already? You know, and why do they think they can do it now? Well, they're pretty much at the point where they can make a significant case that they can pull this off. And that is, you know, take Taiwan. How can we really defend them? And the answer is we could have back then, you know,

after World War or during the Cold War, we could have back then. Right now, I don't know if we could. We could put up a good fight, but you're looking at a country that's right next door to the other country that might invade them. How are we going to cross six to 10,000 miles and put up an adequate defense on that? The world is not the same. It's different. Yeah.

And we should not be acting the same way we were post-war II or during the Cold War, in the immediate years post-cold War, of being the security grant for all these people. It really shouldn't be our job. And it even says in the documentation in the Taiwan Relations Act and all the other communicators during the time that, look, this is a problem between Chinese people. Chinese people need to figure this out. Chinese people in Taiwan, Chinese people on mainland China. This is something you guys need to figure out. Our security grantee said, look, all we're saying is we don't think that it should be a kinetic coercion.

It shouldn't be violent. There shouldn't be violence. there shouldn't be blockades, none of that stuff, then we'll come in and help you if it happens. But you need to figure that out. The problem is they're just never going to figure it out. Eventually, it will come down to them, whether militarily or I can't think of any other way they would.

But, you know, the two brothers are going to have to fight it out probably and figure it out themselves. Yeah. But the United States should not be the ones, you know, based off of an old treaty that says, hey, we're going to go in. And remember, this goes back to the Soviet Union. and us fighting the Soviet Union.

How ridiculous is it now that this is leading our foreign policy between China and Taiwan now? It's insane. And China is obviously upset by this. They said that they're running targeted drills, missile tests around Taiwan in response to Pelosi's visit, said that these operations are designed to safeguard national sovereignty. China vowed to resolutely thwart external interference in Taiwan's independence and separatist attempts. 21 aircraft entered Taiwan's air defense zone. U.S. officials have decided, this is all according to Politico, have decided that China's

threats are nothing more than an intimidation tactic, but the Pentagon did deploy four U.S. warships, including an aircraft carrier in waters of East Taiwan. I mean, are we looking at provocation of war with China? Because that kind of freaks me out. Yeah. The military exercises by China is pretty much what I expected. I didn't think that they were going to do anything to Pelosi, the plane, or even start actually firing missiles or anything. They're not quite ready to do that.

This is what they want to do, but they're not quite ready. Do they want a hot war with the U.S.? I think that they'd be willing to do it over Taiwan because of the symbolic nature of it and what they need. But the U.S. should not be willing to do it is what you're arguing. No, no, no. The U.S. is not in a position to carry that out. Yeah. And I'm sure there's going to be tons of people that will disagree with me on that.

feel the same way with Russia and Ukraine. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. I do agree that the world is changing. People need to come to that agreement as well. It's not a unipolar world anymore. And that we should not be going around as you said being the safeguards for countries that need it. Right. We shouldn't be the granted of security for all these people anymore.

That is not the world, even though all these people, and you'll hear from, you know, foreign policy, experts on mainstream media, they're still talking as if it is 1985 or the end of the Cold War 1991 or two. Right and left. That's right and left. Exactly right. We are not that country. The world is not that world. China is more than capable of trying to do this and probably can do this. we are not capable of responding to everything else that is going on in the world and coming out victorious everywhere. We're just not. Like I said, it's not a uniproa world anymore where the United States is the sole superpower capable of pretty much doing whatever they want to do with no other country being able to respond. Yeah.

Some of these countries now are capable of responding. Some of these countries are forming other alliances, you know, to counter us. And they're more than capable of doing it. Yeah. It's now a multipolar world. And that's the reality. And really, that's pretty much where it should be. There shouldn't be one nation in the world running off to take care of all these problems. Other countries can take care of their own problems. We've got plenty of problems we have here at home that we should be focused on. And America is not what it was in 1985. I'm not even sure there's a will to be that country that's running around to other countries. And I'm not sure if our military has the capability or the willpower. I mean, think about the cultural rot that has infected a lot of the military, even though a lot of them are still some of the best people in the country.

I mean, I also doubt our capability to do the things that it seems like our elected officials want us to do, which is, as you said, be the guarantees of safety and security for the world. I just, I'm not sure that we can even do it if we want it to. It's funny you say that because yesterday I was watching all the developments going on. And there was one article that popped up in my feed that said, you know, the United States. States Air Force is, you know, ready and willing to respond if needed. Very second article I saw said, U.S. Air Force host Drag Queen Story Hour on base, blah, blah, blah, blah. I was like, are you kidding me right now. Yeah. And their recruiting numbers are so far down. Because, I mean, who wants to enter the military as, I mean, they're so often working class young men, very often

young white men who are now hearing from top officials in the military that they are going to be analyzing and dismantling what they see as white rage and toxic masculinity in the patriarchy. I mean, who wants to serve that country? Who wants to serve with that military? It's sad. I just want to get your quick reaction analysis to the al-Qaeda leader, Amen al-Zawahari. That was apparently killed by U.S. forces. Is this a win?

What do you think? I'm glad he's dead. Yeah. So you can take a win from that. One of the, that definitely deserves to be a headline, but there needs to be another headline right next to that headline that says Al-Qaeda reestablishes its base of operations in Afghanistan. Yeah. Which I did not really see that. I don't think at all right after that happened.

This guy got killed in a posh neighborhood in Kabul, the capital. not in some deserted farmhouse, you know, out in a desert somewhere where, you know, he was trying to hide. He was not trying to hide, right? Who was he meeting with when he was there? Was he meeting with the Taliban defense secretary or whatever he's called? Was he meeting with the other radical, Al-Qaeda's radical enough, but the more radical militant arm of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan called the Haqqani Network? Was he meeting with them? probably yeah probably um what a tragedy uh everything that we fought to get rid of what a tragedy

in that uh the al-Qaeda is now back in the capital of afghanistan and operating so openly that's much thanks to our disastrous policy and pull out last year ago i guess it was a year ago now right yeah yeah exactly a year ago yeah and i think pretty much everyone agreed that we needed to get out of there and needed to pull out. That was not the question. The question was how we did it. And the way they did it, it looked as if the Biden administration was doing it again as a symbolic something for his, for Biden's legacy or for the Democrats. It was almost like they were looking for some kind of political win or something like that and forced this issue way too early. And strategically, I can't even imagine how our military generals

signed off on what went down. Just catastrophic, absolutely catastrophic. But yeah, the killing of the al-Qaeda leader, like I said, I'm glad he's dead. He was a bad guy. A new leader will rise up. They probably already declared who that is. And they're still operating out of Afghanistan as if it was the year 2000, which is just insane. Yeah, just insane.

Give us an updated analysis of what's going on between Ukraine and Russia, if you can. a lot of people saw and were very put off by, to say the least, the vogue spread of Zelensky and his wife. It just seemed a little out of touch. A little out of touch. There was the most ridiculous photo in that spread. They were all ridiculous, right? But the worst one was she was like in this like very expensive coat, you know, and she was like

gazing off into the distance and there was like this war-torn scene behind her and a couple of troops, you know, looking off in different directions. I was like, how ridiculous was that photo shoot? They basically went out to some place. I'm sure it was safe wherever they were at or she wouldn't be there. Of course. But they brought in these soldiers to be like prop pieces. And like, hey, take some time off the war just so you can pose here with the first lady or

whatever she's called over there. Absolutely ridiculous. Totally tone deaf. But he's a showman, right? Zelensky, which is kind of funny now because the mainstream media is starting to criticize him a little bit. Yeah. I think I've seen a couple things.

I haven't really looked deeply into. because I've kind of been, you know, about it for the past few months, but I have kind of noticed that some mainstream outlets have criticized him a little. Well, now it's back in style that you can acknowledge the fact that Ukraine's an incredibly corrupt country. Yeah. All of a sudden, which is weird, because we've given Ukraine a blank check. Like, how many times you hear Biden okay is another $500 million?

Like, what? I think just yesterday. Just yesterday. I saw tens of millions of dollars. And I've heard from Ukrainians, actually, that the money is just being laundered. I think it was Ron Paul. I'm going to butcher the quote, but he said foreign aid is money sent from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. And that seems to be what's happening here, as it happens in most cases when we send tens of millions of dollars to these poor war-torn countries in the name of compassion. Every time you hear about another several million or billion dollars going to Ukraine right now, everyone should Google $1.8 billion goes missing or what? whatever in Ukraine, $1.8 billion of aid.

This was after 2014, after that, you know, their little revolution, we gave them $1.8 billion. It went missing out of their state bank, private bank. And then they think that it got laundered through Cyprus and other shell companies. But we continue to give them money. But I think it's funny now, though. But now they're bringing that up. They stopped talking about that, Alley, when the president's son, then vice president's son, started dipping his toes into some of that corruption through Burisma and all that.

Then they didn't want to talk about it. They didn't want to talk about it. And as Biden was running for president, they definitely didn't want to talk about it. They were shutting down articles, the New York Post laptop article. They were shutting down some of these articles. They might expose some of that involvement. But now, as we kind of see people are turning against Biden, now they're turning on the lights again. Now they're like, oh, maybe we can't talk about this stuff again.

You know, maybe we can't bring that up. But the situation in Ukraine is interesting because Russia has, economically, they're not in a great spot. But to be a great power, Russia? Russia. Okay. To be a great power, you need to have a strong economy, you have a strong military. They don't have a strong economy, but they were banking on that they had this strong military and the world perceived them as being strong militarily.

And that is completely thrown out the window in Ukraine. They did not look like a professional military force at all. They had basic problems. They did not, you know, for the military people listen to this right now, combined arms and their ability to execute combined arms. that's, you know, troops on the ground, artillery, planes, all that stuff, make it work cohesive. They did not do that at all, as if they'd never even looked at it or even heard about it. Wow.

They had, you know, conscripts out on the front lines just kind of walking around aimlessly. They got their butts kicked in the beginning of this war. They really did. It was a, they wanted to do a shock and all, you know, thing, and they got their butts kicked, and they got driven all the way back to the areas where they kind of pretty much already controlled in eastern Ukraine. So what's happening right now and how is it going to resolve? Is it going to be resolved? Yeah, Russia, if they wanted to, could really make their country suffer and just put overwhelming, you know, numbers at this and possibly come out more on top than they are right now. I don't know. That's a big if because they're already running out of munitions, like smart munitions, things like that. And then people are just kind of getting pissed off and just annoyed with it, I think. But the West of the United States has provided a lot of weapons, a lot of good weapons, smart weapons, effective weapons. And then people are just kind of getting pissed off and just annoyed with it, I think. But the West of the United States has provided a lot of good weapons, smart weapons, effective weapons.

that they're at least showing that, hey, if you want to stick around for this for a while, we're going to make this as painful as possible for you. I still think that this ends in some kind of treaty that helps Putin save face, but is going to give Ukraine some relief, but they're not going to be completely happy with it. So it's going to be something where, you know, they agree to cede eastern Ukraine or formally say, okay, fine, you have Crimea, or something like that, where Putin can say, see, our special military operation worked, we got what we wanted, I gave you what we delivered, but that is not at all what he wanted. He wanted Ukraine. He wanted to topple the government. He's not going to get that.

So in my opinion, eventually, and I hate making predictions, but I think the most plausible outcome would be that. They maintain control of that little sliver in eastern Ukraine, and they formally get, you know, seated Crimea. Well, to bring our focus back home just really quickly, just because I wanted to cover this today and I want to get your reaction to it, you mentioned earlier that we've got a lot of problems to be fixing and addressing here. One of those problems is, of course, George Soros and his attempt to, quote unquote, reform prosecutors. I don't know if you saw that he wrote in op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. And he said, people have had enough of the demagoguery and

divisive partisan attacks that dominate the debate and obscure the issues. Gosh, just makes me roll my eyes. The system is rife with injustices that make us all less safe. The idea that we need to choose between justice and safety is false. So basically what he's talking about here, he's addressing the criticism that, of course, he and his foundations have gotten for funding these progressive DAs in these blue cities that are not prosecuting crimes that are allowing people back into the streets pretty much based on their skin color. They're meeting these arbitrary quotas and saying, okay, we've arrested too many black people this year. We're not going to arrest. We're not going to prosecute. We're not going to keep them in jail, basically catch and released. And the recidivism rate,

of course, is very high. People are being murdered. I see stories every day. People are being murdered by someone who should have been in jail if our justice system worked. And a lot of this is due to the funding of George Soros of these progressive DAs. And so basically he's saying, look, I'm not going to stop. I'm not going to stop doing this, even though in the cities with the top 10 cities with the most murders per capita, if you look at the politics of the district attorneys, they are all Democrat. The mayor is Democrat, even if the states are Republican, St. Louis, Baltimore, Birmingham, Detroit, Dayton, Ohio, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Kansas City, Memphis, Cleveland, all run by Democrats, many of them funded by George Soros. He's not going to

stop. I mean, if anyone cared about this country who is in charge, what he's doing would be barred, prohibited, illegal, but it's not. What's your take on all of this? Yeah, it's absolutely insane. Think about any other country. How would they react if a foreign billionaire goes around basically inciting chaos on your largest cities? Right. How would they react? We can barely even discuss this. Like this conversation right now, remember Fox News and New Gingrich brought this up? And they cut him off? Yes.

They cut him. Fox News. Fox News said, oh, no, no, no, that's a conspiracy theory. I've been told, of course, before, but by left-leaning people, that's an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Insane. Yeah. Absolutely insane.

He penned, I think it was $29 or $30 million what Soros has spent on some of these district attorneys. It's absolutely ridiculous. I think that, in that, in his little op-ed, I mean, it was ripe with just inconsistencies. hypocrisy. Orwellian, double speak, I mean. He was talking about, so he, he acknowledges mental health, right? So he's like, yeah, mental health issues, you know, and so that's why some of the, you know, there's chaos, not because of my district attorney is not prosecuting. So mental health is one of the reasons. So the cure for that in his district attorneys is less laws and less action on the streets. But he also mentions gun crime. He mentions, oh, yeah, an overwhelming amount of gun. So more laws for that.

he won't acknowledge mental health on some of the on some of the gun crimes and some of the mass shootings where's the consistency there right it's obviously this is completely partisan you're trying so my completely tinfoil hat thing is that he uh is anything even really tinfoil hat anymore i mean conspiracies just keep on coming true they all come true eventually it's nuts but like everything that we've already talked about or just hypothesized because some of this stuff doesn't make sense yeah why would they do this but like this does not make sense unless you want the judicial system to completely come crashing down. Of course. You want chaos. You want anarchy. Because why would he be funding that here? He's not

an American. Of course, I think that he has an interest in the collapse of America and Western civilization and has for a very long time. He's not funding these progressive DAs. I mean, maybe he is in some other countries, but I don't think that he is funding the same kind of lawlessness in China. So I think someone should ask themselves why here. Yeah, well, the Chinese system is exactly what they want. It's the same people, the guys over in Davos, World Economic Forum. They're all billionaires themselves. They're all the elite of the elite. They've already made their money. They've made their power. Now they want a system like China where you have to have a government official in every single company. You have to government. So you want to bring

everybody down to parity while you stay at the very, very top. It's the socialist, you know, communist system in a nutshell. But it's different. It's it's more like, you know, 21st century fascism. It's, it's, it's cause chaos so people can say someone save us, government step in and something and then they take their power and that's it and give these private companies the illusion that they really own their property and their business when we tell them everything what to do. An equity and social justice is the Trojan horse by which they're accomplishing all of that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, we do have a lot to focus on here in the U.S., but thank you for giving us an analysis of everything that is going on around the globe.

No, it was great. I really do appreciate it. Thanks, Jason, so much for coming on. I encourage people to follow you. You're on Twitter and all that good stuff and people can catch you there. Thank you. All right, guys. Hope that you enjoyed that explanation from Jason. I told you he breaks it down really well. If you want him to come back on for a part two to kind of get into more detail of anything that we talked about, we had a limited amount of time. There were a million questions I could have asked him. So we'll bring him back if that's something that you want us to do. I know you guys love him as a guest. Tomorrow, we are going to be talking about all of these stories that you are hearing that these women are unable to get miscarriage care.

They're unable to get ectopic pregnancy care. I am going to talk to a journalist who just wrote an almost 5,000 word piece for National Review looking at each and every abortion law and figuring out whether that law is actually causing this prevention of care or inhibition of care for these women that. are suffering from miscarriages or ectopics. And if not, if it's not the law's fault, then what is really going on here? What's going on here with the lawyers, with the doctors, with the hospitals, with the insurance companies?

We're going to analyze all of that tomorrow and get a lot of insight and clarity from Alexandria to Sanctis. If you haven't checked out our merch, make sure you do that. We've got lots of fun stuff. We'll include the link in the description today so you can check that out. And we will see you guys back here tomorrow. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political.

They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.