Gov. DeSantis Suspends Soros Backed State Attorney

Today on Sekulow, Governor DeSantis suspends a Soros-backed state attorney.

How did it happen and what could it mean? We'll talk about that more today on Sekulow. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

The prosecutor, state attorney for this judicial circuit, Andrew Warren, has put himself publicly above the law. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments. Or call 1-800-684-3110. Most recently, after the Dobbs decision was rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court, he signed a letter saying he would not enforce any laws relating to protecting the right to life in the state of Florida. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

We want to start off the broadcast today. Getting into it a little bit, you may have seen the news reporting that Governor DeSantis removed actually one of the state attorneys, Andrew Warren, from the Tampa area, Hillsborough County in Florida, because he signed a pledge not to follow or enforce the state law of Florida. Now it happened to be in this case, the state law in Florida was the 15 week abortion ban. But people are already saying, you know, the governor in New York has the same kind of power over the DA's.

And so you can complain all you want about Alvin Bragg. She could take action. We saw voters in California recall, in San Francisco of all places, district attorneys. So we are seeing to a point where George Soros, and this was a Soros backed state attorney. Today recommitted to investing millions of dollars in those local DA races and standing behind his candidates. So he is not going anywhere when it comes to the funding and the backlash that we've seen of the DA's unwilling to enforce, whether it's criminal laws, whether it is the 15 week abortion ban in Florida.

The list goes on and on. We're seeing it around the country, whether it's people getting attacked in the streets or just violent crime, or just its lawlessness in general. And it's bizarre because the lawlessness is coming from the law enforcement officials. You know what's so interesting about this is, first of all, I want people to be thinking about this, that George Soros is spending money on local district attorney races. Which tells you how important they view these local DA's.

Now, when you take an oath as a prosecutor or a government lawyer, you swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the state of, in this case, Florida. The prosecutor doesn't get to pick and choose the laws he wants to enforce. So you're going to have this issue of prosecutorial discretion versus non-enforcement of the law. Andy, you were a DA, I was a DA, I mean assistant DA's. This idea that you're just not going to enforce the law is not in the DA's prerogative.

It is not. It is repugnant to the DA's prerogative or the state's attorney or the attorney general. It is not the province of a district attorney or in Florida, they call them the state's attorney, to decide which law has been acted by the legislature that a district attorney likes or doesn't like is going to prosecute or is not going to prosecute. Prosecutorial discretion is one thing, prosecutorial refusal to prosecute is another.

And we'll get into the difference in the next segment, but you have to understand what's going on here. George Soros is being really smart. He is funding local DA races for precisely this reason. That he could get district attorneys or here, and he said state attorneys, to not prosecute laws that are on the books passed by the legislature signed by the governor in Florida.

Basically make those laws null and void or try to, and we're seeing that happen in the criminal realm, now we're seeing it when it comes to social issues. So you saw the surge in violent crime, and he's spending millions of dollars. This is not like a $10,000 donation to a local DA's race. He's spending millions of dollars backing candidates who say, I don't care what the law is.

I'm going to choose not to enforce this part of the law at all. But Governor DeSantis took action. Under most state constitutions, the governors have this ability, a lot of people don't know that, to step in.

So the New York governor can complain all she wants about the New York City DA, but she has the power to remove it. 1-800-684-3110. If you've got questions about this, comments on this, that's 1-800-684-3110. We'll share this broadcast with your friends and family and of course support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow.

Just to restart a little bit, recap if you're just joining us. So yesterday we saw Governor DeSantis take this action. People may be surprised that you can take this kind of action against a state attorney in Florida, in the Tampa area, who signed a letter saying, I will not enforce the new Florida 15-week abortion bill. So not pick and choose or we're going to make this a priority, but actually signed a letter saying, I will not enforce the law. And so Governor DeSantis used his power as governor under the state constitution of Florida and removed this state attorney. By the way, it's a Soros backed state attorney. The next day, today, George Soros has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal saying he is not backing down from his support of these controversial district attorneys. Again, it's a way to radically impact the country by bypassing Washington DC completely. So while Soros is spending millions, I guarantee you he's spending, it's a lot more effective dollars if you're willing to commit to these, what he's really trying to do is a social change. He makes the idea that we have too many people in prison. You can have that debate, you can have that discussion in America that we have too many minor crimes that lead to long-term imprisonment and people that keep going back. But this is not what these issues are about. That's not why people in San Francisco recalled his DA that he backed. They recalled it because they couldn't walk down the street anymore because of the amount of drug addicts, crime, and the fact that it was not a safe place to be anymore. We see a lot about LA and New York, but these people all around the country, I think this is a reminder, they could be in your backyard like Hillsborough County, Florida.

Tampa, Florida, a pretty conservative area of the country, but we had our primaries yesterday, there's a lot of people on those ballot, you know most of the time you don't even get a choice on a lot of those races, but a lot of people you don't get any voter education on, that's the way they want it. And then they come in and you realize, wait, they are radically changing the idea of, there's an idea to say we're going to prioritize this kind of crime because this is something plaguing. So if you were in San Francisco you would say drugs and homelessness and the street crimes. So we need to clean up our streets.

So that means we got to put resources here, maybe we won't have resources for some of the other more minor things, but we'll get to that. That's different than saying I'm not enforcing the law. That's right. And so as I said in the first segment, when you become a lawyer, and especially when you become a government lawyer, you swear an oath to the Constitution and the laws of your state. For Mr. Warren it would be the state of Florida. The laws are passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. That's how it works in every state. The laws are created by the legislative branch of government.

The governor executes those laws. You cannot have a local district attorney, or here they call a state's attorney, picking and choosing which laws he's going to enforce, which is precisely and exactly, Andy, what's happened here. And we need to draw the distinction between prosecutorial discretion, which is for real, and not enforcing the law.

Yeah, let's talk about that for just a second. Discretion means a determination, not that I'm not going to enforce the law, but that there may be a reason why I should not prosecute this particular case. Not that I'm not going to enforce the law, but maybe witnesses have died, maybe witnesses' memories have been bad, maybe too much time has passed, maybe there is a sentiment that I'm never going to get a conviction on this because of the sentiment in the community. That's discretion. That's judgment. That's what you use in making prosecutorial decisions. But you never, ever say, I'm not going to prosecute that law, period, ever, because I don't believe in it, or because the legislature and me disagree as to whether there should be that law.

That is not an option. Would that be a violation of oath? Yes, it would be a violation of your oath, because you said at the beginning, I take an oath to the Constitution and the laws of the particular jurisdiction.

That's like me when I prosecuted in Georgia, saying, I don't think I'm going to prosecute that particular law because I just don't like it. This is, as Jordan said, this is a serious bypass of Washington and a decision to just go straight to the roots of the matter to the DA's. Listen to what the Tampa former police chief said. He said, let me tell you something, Andrew Warren is a fraud. These are his words.

Did you get that? I've never been good at sugarcoating anything. He's a fraud. He's misled the people of Hillsborough County. And when you listen to what Governor DeSantis said, he's pointing out exactly what the problem is here. Yeah, and how it happened. So I think DeSantis, who comes out of the political world, comes out of being a former member of Congress, as well as up for reelection too, which is not getting as much attention, but he talked about how this works. How does this happen in a place like Tampa?

Take a listen. Here's what Soros is doing. It's actually smart on his part. They can't get these things enacted in a legislature where you're just going to let criminals run. So what they do, he will get involved in these Democrat primaries and a Democrat area.

He'll flush a million dollars to get the radical to win the primary. Then they usually win the general because of the party affiliation difference in the jurisdiction. So then you get them in there. And what they do is they want to change the criminal justice system through non-enforcement. So it's a total end run around our constitutional system.

Yeah, so this is it. So you spend a million dollars. That is a ton of money for one of these races.

These are local races. And you go inside the primary. So you go to a place you know what the Democrat will win. So one of the districts that's going to be Democrat, even if you live in a conservative area, but if you live down towards anywhere, a major city, you likely have got Democrat elected officials where there's no Republicans running. So you go in and you back the radical within that race with a million bucks. They easily win the primary.

The other candidate has no chance. And then they go in with an agenda, which is not usually how officials, whether you are the attorney, but law enforcement. The idea that you're going with a political agenda. I want to reshape policy, even though I have very little policy role.

Using their budgets to go after times that which are plaguing the community. This idea that you pick and choose the laws is not the way it's set up to be. I mean that could wreak havoc. Just think about that for a moment. I'm going to do this law, but I'm not going to do this law. And they did that. They ran on those quote, criminal justice reform issues in California. And those DAs are being recalled. And this was not about that.

This is about a law passed by the legislature signed by the governor involving the issue of abortion. And if the right was doing this, they would be up in arms saying lawlessness. I think where Soros is, he's 91 years old. So his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, likely coming from his team.

But he's got kids. They are running this. This is not going away. And he's saying this in the Wall Street Journal. You have not scared me away.

I'm doubling down on these efforts. So you have to be very vigilant. If you are a voter in major cities or major urban areas and you see one of these DAs start, someone running who's got way too many ads, way too many signs and way too much money behind. And sometimes they're taking on the local DA who's been there for decades. Might be a Democrat affiliation because that's the only way to get elected in those areas.

But wasn't a political person at all. And they come in, you don't know who they are, but oh, they've run a lot of ads. They look nice and flashy. And then they come in with, and they're like electing a politician a lot more than a law enforcement official. So they come in and they don't just say, this is our problem here. We don't need to worry about this much here. They literally say, there's a law in the books of Florida. I'm never going to enforce this. Never.

Well, that's what, that's exactly what he said, which is outrageous. Let's go ahead and take a call. Yeah, let's go to Donna in New Jersey on Line 1. Hi Donna.

Hi, thanks for taking my call. My question is, how is George Soros legally putting these funds into these positions? He's an American citizen.

So he can, there's multiple vehicles just like any of us. So this is the game that George Soros is playing is kind of daring someone else. Now, on the right, you would have to have, you see this investment at the federal level, certainly in big races, statewide races, even house races sometimes. But you haven't really seen on the conservative investment in these types of races. Now, some of that is because you could spend a million dollars behind a Republican DA candidate in a major urban area. They're not winning. Like, you've got to have that D next to your name. So some of this is you've got to be creative. Like DeSantis said in that statement, you go to the places you know you're going to win if you get through the primary.

So, I don't think it's a, it's not a major issue for people outside. It's mostly happening and you have to live in a Democrat district. So Soros is saying, this is already Democrat, all back a Democrat with so much money. The people who show up and vote, that's the name they're going to know. They're going to vote for that person. And then they'll start enacting these social policies via the DA's office, state attorney's office. And we've seen it. We even see Democrats complaining about it to the point where in San Francisco, they actually recalled their Soros-backed DA. But he's doubling down today. So after this move by DeSantis, he's saying, this money is not going to stop going to these races. I think we're actually going to see more of these people, not less at first. I think people need to understand the role that the local district attorney plays in local government.

And Andy, we only got a minute here before the break. Right. Rhonda Santos was right, was saying it's actually a smart move.

Oh, it's a very smart move. He says, well, we lose in Washington. We lose in the Supreme court. I'll tell you what we'll do. We'll just bypass that. We'll just go down when these states who enact pro-life laws. And we'll just say to the DA's down there, we support those of you who are candidates and who are saying we're not going to enforce the law.

What a brilliantly insidious move on Soros's part. So if you've got issues like this in your community, or you got questions, give us a call. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. DeSantis removed him. And DeSantis has authority under their state constitution to do that. That's not true in every state. Yeah, but a lot of states. I mean, New York, it's similar. The governor also could remove the DA from New York City today. And certainly I think there'd be a lot of people in New York support that.

You'd have to have Democrats removing Democrats, but will that actually happen? 1-800-684-3110. Alright, welcome back to Second Hill. We'll continue to take your calls from the DA and the Governor DeSantis move in Florida.

I like these moves. I would like to see more of it. I'd like to see it in a bipartisan way. I think that you see the voters in California, they did it themselves in San Francisco. Against Democrats.

Democrats taking out Democrats because they got fooled into electing somebody with exactly how DeSantis laid it out. Somebody came, the person comes in, they get a million bucks behind them. That's a lot of money.

Even in a major state, that's a ton of money for a race like this. And that's just the starting point. And so people elect them.

You know it's going to be a Democrat. Then they start implementing these policies and you can see a revolt from the people. But in this case, the state attorney signed a letter saying I'm not going to enforce the law.

Not I'm not going to prioritize this or we need to focus on this and I think this is a distraction, but I am not going to enforce the law. So Governor DeSantis takes this action. I think that we need to see more of this in states where you've got governors with the ability.

Other states where you've got the recall ability. Because we're seeing the social engineering coming from these DAs and state attorneys is pretty, the impact it's having is massive with the crimes. So again, we'll continue to take your calls on that.

I do want to shift too because there was big news yesterday. We talked about Joe Manchin's Build Back Better, I want to call it that. Because he hates Build Back Better, he doesn't like talking about it. That's really all this is. It's a green new deal repackaged in a pipeline that probably will never be built in West Virginia. He says it gets approved, but they don't ever get built.

But what does it have in it? Because you might have seen the news that Kyrsten Sinema was able to take out some of the tax provisions. Great if you're a hedge fund manager. Doesn't impact you if you're a middle class American, working American, because guess what? The IRS is doubling their size to come after you. So Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin didn't do anything about the $80 billion to the IRS. About doubles their budget. So you think, okay, is this to redo things so that we can start paying our taxes easily electronically? No, that's only $3 billion of taxpayer services.

Over 10 years. So there's not going to be anybody answering the phone. You're still going to be faxed into, as we've learned through people's homes, we can't release this, this is a privacy. Except for all these documents are around people's houses. We had an HVAC contractor call us yesterday, he was at Maine IRS in Washington, said it was empty when he went through, that the desks have not been moved since 1950, the typewriter is still there, there's no employees there.

Yeah, the IBM Selectrics. Yeah. And Ben Sisi let us know, it's the only agency via FOIA, you still have to fax it to your FOIA. I mean, this is what, look, I mean, you're giving an incompetent agency $80 billion, Harry, to be more incompetent.

Absolutely. And so they can go after the middle class simultaneously, of course, with Senator Sinema's carve out for the rich. They will get richer at the expense of the middle class. How does that work, Harry?

I mean, what does it do actually? So quite simply, carried interest is a form of income or compensation received by managing partners of hedge funds and private equity funds. Different than your W-2 income. Absolutely. Which would normally be taxed at the top rate at 39%.

Yes, 37 to 39%. And so what hedge managers are allowed to do is to reclassify the so-called carried interest income as capital gains income rather than ordinary income. So a hedge fund or a private equity fund is typically organized as a partnership, as if you're a partner, you initially contribute a small portion of the initial capital of the firm, then you go out and attract investors. And so let's assume the hedge fund earns $100 million this year in so-called income.

What happens? Then the hedge fund managers take 20% of that. That's $20 million. But it's not taxable as ordinary income.

It's taxable at 15%. So they're saving more than half, almost a third, two-thirds. Absolutely. And this is from the political party that's saying we're here to help the middle class.

Right. All they did in this to get this passed was bail out the super rich. I mean, this is the top 1% of the 1% that this would even apply to, that this would even matter for. They make a big deal about this today. But what she didn't do is cut funding to the IRS at a time when we have inflation out of control. $80 billion over 10 years. And they say they're doing this to come after middle class Americans who don't get audited as much. They think they can find more money for the federal government by coming after people who can't, who don't get to rely on accountants and lawyers to handle their taxes usually.

But are trying to follow the rules every year. And I will tell you, there's even a budget for more vehicles. This is where this is outrageous.

You can't even get them to answer the phone. So what are we giving for taxpayer services in this $80 billion program? $3 billion.

What are we giving for operational support? $25 billion. I mean, task force to design fee, direct e-filing system, $15 billion. I mean, you look at the numbers of what they're doing and you realize you have an agency that is totally incompetent. And what you're doing is giving this incompetent agency twice the amount of money and you become more incompetent.

When I see for enforcement a $45 billion budget compared to what you just said for taxpayer services, $3 billion. Okay? They don't even answer the phone except maybe 10% of the times.

If you want to communicate with an IRS agent, you do it by fax to their home. Okay? So that's all you're going to get for taxpayer services. But targeting the middle class, the people who make $200,000 or less, okay, you're going to then just make a bestial monster out of the Internal Revenue Service by giving them for enforcement purposes $45 billion. But here's the thing I think that we've got to point out, Harry, and that is, I've said this before, they are incapable of institutional correction. And I think that giving them more money for the problem doesn't solve that. I think that is correct, but it's also quite consistent with the Democratic Party's playbook.

They insist on rewarding incompetence. So as a general rule, Democrats campaign on raising taxes for the rich, but they govern by insisting on tax breaks for the rich and placing an increasing tax burden on the middle class. And that is consistent with this so-called Build Back Better Light bill that Joe Manchin signed onto. So on one hand, they claim they are reducing inflation. On another hand, they claim that this will stave off a recession. But I think at the end of the day, common sense Americans realize that they are being lied to by politicians who have consistently lied to them in the past. Politically, Jordan, they got this through though.

I mean, that's what we need to understand. Unless there's some revolt by House Democrats, Republicans can only do so much. And I think it was down to Kyrsten Sinema, and she was the big donors, got what they wanted, and she's moving on. So I think what we see from Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema is they are Democrats, liberal Democrats, because they're both saying it's a good idea to give $80 billion more to the IRS right now. That is a bad idea.

I mean, and raise taxes. So again, we're going to take your phone call, second half hour coming up, 1-800-684-3110. Mike Pompeo is going to be joining us live to talk about the situation with China and Taiwan. 1-800-684-3110.

We'll be right back. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow.

We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. Next segment, we're joined by Mike Pompeo. We're going to get into all these issues with China. You're seeing the news, the ramp up, the tests, and also the U.S. saying, all right, because they're upset, we won't do our planned military test in the Pacific. This is the second time we've seen military tests be called off because we don't want to upset the Chinese. There's people all over the place on whether Nancy Pelosi should have gone in the first place, but once she announced it, there was pretty much support that you have to go at this point.

And so whether or not this increased tensions behind the scenes, there was a big public spat. China ultimately has not stopped their ramp up since she's left, and they've started canceling more meetings. They canceled a meeting with the Japanese prime minister.

They said he can't come. In retaliation to the U.S., they're also trying to go to our allies and say, because she visited Taiwan, they are taking these military actions. And people are concerned, is this another Ukraine with a much bigger power? Well, you know, the concern was in February, people remembered that the Russians were going to go in, as they did, into Ukraine and that China at the same time was going to go into Taiwan.

Now, the question is, are we going to Taiwan now? And that will change the geopolitical landscape very drastically. I mean, you're talking about an escalation of a conflict here that could be monumental in scope, and the problem is that the United States, unfortunately, we're still very reliant on Chinese products and Chinese trade. So this is a very delicate international situation. It would be very good to get Mike Pompeo's position on this and ideas on this because I think we're in a very dangerous spot. How do you think this plays for them on the political side of things, too?

It's more unrest. They have a lot of influence because of the economics. So the China knows, one, I mean, we've talked about this with Mike Pompeo before, is these semiconductors, yes, it gets upsetting when you're still waiting for things, cars and things like that that are still not 100% back. But how about our tanks and F-35s that also have those same semiconductors that they make? They make them.

I mean, we have software. On the one hand, Amazon Web Services also runs the Chinese Defense Department. Maybe that's good that we're, the American company does that, but the influence level of the Chinese, you look at the NBA, they're making more money there. So you have the politics of China have infiltrated professional sports in the United States, and you see players getting thrown off teams because they make a stance against the way that the Chinese Communist Party is treating the Uighurs in western China, the Muslim minority there, which has been classified as a genocide. So they're carrying out a genocide, they're threatening a war, and they're our number one trade partner. That becomes the problem.

That's not Russia or Ukraine. That is a very complicated issue. We have just said we have to start unwinding from China so that it's not going to have to be a decision between do we stand with our ally or still be able to fill up our stores. And they're also a national security threat. We've talked about that, the acquiring of real estate next to military base. I know ACLJ Action has been working on that.

I mean, this is a serious threat. And, you know, in the Chinese, and historically, the governments in all their different iterations, even before the Communist Party, have a very long-term view on things. That's right. That is a political view that we need to learn from in many ways, because looking at the long game is how they play this, because they have a tremendous ancient history that goes back for eons, it seems. And they look at this thing through the perspective of their own history. We don't have the history that the Chinese have, and they think about this. And one of the great virtues that they have is patience in addition to this.

And in that way, they're like the radical Muslims. You know, we'll wait. We'll wait them out. We have the patience.

But the long view is a Chinese asset. All right, folks. When we come back, we'll be joined by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, ACLJ's Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, to discuss these very issues.

You don't want to miss that. And if you want to interact with us on the broadcast, it's 1-800-684-3110. If it's on the IRS, if it's on the governor's side, this moves on to China. 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back on Secular.

Welcome back to Secular. We're joined by our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Secretary Pompeo, I want to jump right into it. There's so much news with China at the international stage and our own security in the United States. But we had the U.S. Department of Defense announce yesterday that it was delaying a scheduled test of the Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile because of Chinese aggression. I mean, it wasn't like they tried to hide why they were doing it. But what kind of messages did the Chinese have? Nancy Pelosi is back. That trip is over. And yet the ramp up continues to a point where our own military is not testing its equipment. The Chinese must love this.

Goodness, Jordan. Rule one, if you have a scheduled activity and the bad guys tell you not to do it and you don't, bad guys win. And it's not about this test.

You can do the test a week from now or a month from now. It's about the message being sent. Message being sent to the Chinese Communist Party that says you can bully the United States. You continue to push and prod and diminish our country.

It's a message you're sending, frankly, to the American people. It says you don't have confidence in the United States capacity, not just military capacity, but economic and diplomatic. And then finally, to our allies around the world, if you're the Australians, Japanese, South Koreans, and the United States backs off in the face of a statement from the Chinese Communist Party, when we next ask you to do something hard to help us confront the Chinese Communist Party, protect freedom and prosperity for us, for America, our allies are going to say that we are not strong, we are not resolved, and we're not committed to being part of a coalition that will ultimately push back against Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party.

You know, Mike, I think about when you were serving as Secretary of State. Russia was not invading Ukraine, and China wasn't saber rattling as it relates to Taiwan. I mean, they've always had the view of this one China policy and all of that. So now we've got China on increasing, as Jordan said, its military exercises around Taiwan. And is it not, is it conceivable that they would invade the Chinese government, the Chinese party? Sure. Sure.

It's absolutely conceivable. Look, they have said they're going to do what they call reunification peacefully. But it doesn't look very peaceful to me today.

And this is a larger point, Jay, that I think you were getting to. President Reagan understood peace through strength. He understood that the bad guys understand only power. They don't understand words. They don't understand nuance. They understand power and demonstrations of resolve and clarity and transparency, the things that we modeled for four years. And when we did that, we were pretty darn successful at keeping these regimes from putting Americans at risk. And when you're not, when you say that a minor incursion into Ukraine might be OK, when you withdraw Americans from Afghanistan and get 13 killed and leave a bunch behind, whether it's Chairman Kim in North Korea or Xi Jinping in China or the Ayatollah in Iran, they are going to become more aggressive and present greater risk to the United States. Benjamin Disraeli, I want to pick up on that power statement for a second, famously said, and I've said it off on this broadcast, and he was dealing then with the conflict with, guess who, Russia, Turkey was a whole, it was called the eastern question. He said diplomacy can be war because if diplomacy backed with power, sends that kind of message.

Jordan, go ahead. Yes, we saw Secretary Pompeo, Speaker Pelosi, she's been very upfront. She said, we're going to stay with Taiwan. We're not going to let China isolate Taiwan. Doesn't seem like that's the message from the Biden administration. And listen, no one wants a war with China. No, because there's so many issues that we can raise there.

But even inside the Democratic Party, it seems to be that there's a rift between where the Biden administration is and where the Speaker of the House is. Jordan, it's absolutely clear. And it's not just clear to you and to Jay and to me, it's clear to the Chinese Communist Party, too, to get to your earlier question. Yeah, that increases the risk that the Chinese will see an opportunity to conduct a military action against Taiwan. It's a pretty straightforward proposition.

Just really had this right. I was America's senior diplomat for a thousand days. Without both the capability to defend America and a President who was prepared to do it, the will and the capability, then the bad guys win because they will constantly push. They don't value human life. They don't think about the world the same way we do. And they want to undermine the United States of America, that great beacon of freedom for the entire world. And they know that if they can take that down, if they can destroy our institutions within and prod and push abroad, then America will be less of a challenge for them to confront. And they can get what Xi Jinping ultimately wants, which is the capacity to dominate the world in important ways for the next hundred years. We've talked about the threat of China with you on this broadcast often.

You've written about it on ACLJ.org. You tweeted yesterday, let me be clear, China under the rule of the CCP is the greatest threat to the U.S. in our history. It touches every facet of American life, military, education, private sector, government, and more.

And that's all true. So we've got to offer, I always like to offer our audience hope and positions that would make sense. What would you do if you were in charge to stop this threat from China? How do you reduce it from being the greatest threat to the United States in our history? We began this and we still had a lot of work to do when we left office, but we began this. It began with communicating clearly to the Chinese Communist Party that we weren't a nation in decline. So that means fixing our schools, all the things here at home, prosecuting criminals. A strong American home gives us the capacity to push back against the Chinese second. They built their country on the backs of American workers.

They destroyed tens of millions of American jobs by stealing our intellectual property and manufacturing it all in China. You've got to stop that. You've got to reverse it. We can do that. It's not impossible to do.

They're not 10 feet tall. We can prevail in this. And then you have to build your military.

You have to build your capabilities and make friends in the region. We did each of those things. We were strong. We put our military back on its front foot. And if we get those right, the Chinese Communist Party will see that a strong America is going to be too much for them and they'll begin to behave in ways that are just fundamentally different than what we're seeing in the news every morning.

We haven't had a chance to talk about it yet. I wanted to ask you about Afghanistan. We saw the CIA and we said that's great that they were able to eliminate al-Zawahiri, leader of al-Qaeda. But there was so much concern in the U.S. immediately that he was in Kabul being put up in an apartment by a cabinet member of the Taliban government. And while the Taliban is still asking the world to do all of these items, so the fact that he was comfortable in Kabul, should it be as scary as it is to Americans that the leader of al-Qaeda felt like he could waltz back into Kabul and be at the home of a Taliban leader yet again and we see the Taliban harboring someone that they know the U.S. is hunting? So it was a great strike, well done for the intelligence community, literally decades of work. It was being worked on before me, it was being worked on by time as CIA director and then these folks finished it, could on them. Al-Zawahiri was no longer operationally important, but he was an important target because he was at the center of killing Americans at 9-11.

But what you mentioned, Jordan, is real. The fact that he was in Kabul in the center city, not in Tora Bora, not in some far-fung place, and felt comfortable walking around there suggests that the Taliban continued to violate the most fundamental parts of the Doha Agreement. They did it on our watch.

When they did it on our watch, Jordan, we went and killed a bunch of them. You have to make sure that if they're violating the agreement, you come right back at them hard. And this administration just watches and violates these central things. And it is going to mean an increased risk of terror in the homeland if we don't put the gas on and put it back in front, making clear to the Taliban, this is unacceptable. You have to change. And when they don't, which would be my expectation, there's no reason to think the Taliban are going to change their colors. And when they don't, you have to apply pressure to them.

All right, let me, last question here, Mike, and that is this. We've got conflict in Russia with Ukraine. We've got China saber rattling. We have unrest, you know, serious unrest in the country, but globally, too. My concern here is that the administration is just reactionary and is never proactive.

And that, to me, causes real concern for our national security, whether it's the border or anything else. Jay, we talked about this not only in the context of the border, but in the context of Iran as well, right? Our Israeli friends can see that we're no longer on our front foot.

We're no longer playing offense. We're on the ayatollah to dictate the terms of how we engage in the Middle East as well. And so for each of those areas, it is important when the Chinese saber rattle, we should acknowledge their saber rattling and come back over the top. If we do that, if we do that, well, we will decrease the risk of war. To your point, nobody wants to fight the Chinese Communist Party. Nobody wants to be engaged in conflict with Putin.

But if you are weak, you will beget the very kinds of conflicts that we aim to try and avoid every day. Secretary Pompeo, as always, we appreciate you joining our broadcast with this insight to China, to Afghanistan, to the Middle East, and appreciate that. Again, folks, we're going to take your phone calls. We come back at 1-800-684-3112. If you've got calls about doubling the size of the IRS, if you've got calls about China, if you've got calls about Governor DeSantis and these DAs and Soros doubling down. I mean, 91 years old, but the foundation, the politics, the family doubling down on the millions of dollars of their own money they're spending to back these radical DAs, we will take your calls on that.

2-1-800-684-3110. I think, again, the threats to our country, I think what Secretary Pompeo said about our country, how do you combat that, a lot is the strength inside. They want to see what is going on domestically.

So when you have all these crime rampant reports all day on the news, and when you have schools crumbling and bridges falling, they're looking to that just as much they are as what politicians are saying. We want to also encourage you to support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice, whether it's fighting for life, whether it's staying atop of the situation with China, whether it's national defense or national security, the ACLJ is there, and we're there because of your support of the American Center for Law and Justice. We encourage you. We're in a matching challenge campaign. This is our second month. We have two in a row. ACLJ.org. We beat last year, last month, which was great, and I want to thank everybody.

But if you haven't supported yet and if you're able, ACLJ.org to double your impact. Back with more in a moment. Alright, welcome back to St. Kilda, where you get your phones, Rod and Bobby, right off the bat. Let me go first to Rod in Oregon on Line 1.

Hey, Rod. Hi, thanks for taking my call. We've been sending a lot of weapons and munitions to Ukraine, and I'm glad, I hope we keep sending more, but my question is, are we restocking those weapons? China's clever enough that they could be waiting for us to deplete our supply and then attack Taiwan. I listened yesterday to General, former Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane, General Keane, and he is very concerned, Rod, about that very issue, that we are not resupplying our military in the proportion to what we are expending with the situation in Russia, Ukraine. And I think if you look at the military readiness issue, that becomes really fundamental for the United States, and historically, if you look at, you know, Neville Chamberlain gets a lot of criticism, and I think rightly so. But what's interesting about, when you study it was, England was not prepared militarily to deal with the Nazis. That was fact.

And now the way he handled it was not the way you would handle it. You would be trying to build your military. But historically, Andy, that has been a big issue when you've got, you're supporting conflicts overseas. The United States supported Great Britain before we got into the war in World War II, but it did, we had to up our production to meet the defense needs of the United States. Well, you're absolutely right, Jay, and one of the things that the French capitulated, as we know, and established the Vichy regime, but they were asking the British to come and save them by giving more air power to the French forces, and Winston Churchill said, I can't denude my own country of its defenses to support you if you won't support yourself. And it's the same that this caller is mentioning. We don't want to deplete our resources so that we don't have what we need to have to fight whoever we're going to ultimately have to oppose, and we have to be careful about that.

I am not confident that policy-wise, this administration, the Biden administration, has that commitment to the military that the Trump administration had. We'll go back to the phones at 1-800-684-3110. Bobby in New York, online too. Hey, Bobby. From Niagara Falls, on the American side, Niagara Falls, New York.

I listened to you from WDCX out of Buffalo. My question is, if a new administration takes over, can it easily be done that these extra IRS agents are let go and that's turned around, or wouldn't that be easy to do? You know, I think you use the example of when you have these big spending programs, whether it's the Affordable Care Act, and you can come back here with a Republican majority, but you don't have quite enough votes to take things away.

It is. Once this money gets spent and on the books, I think you can claw back some. I think it would take revolutionary kind of approaches, which Donald Trump was doing by removing some of these officials.

But the pushback, what you had to go through, so you have to make that calculation. So if I remove this FBI director, who's no good, that no one likes, there'll be a special counsel investigation. Then they'll try to impeach me over a phone call. Think about that phone call too with the Ukrainian President and where Ukraine is now and all the things that were going on behind the scenes that we don't even know about that country, trying to prevent conflict in that region of the world. But no, I think the simple question is, this is Democrats trying to get wins before the midterm elections, hoping they can keep the... How do you feel about the midterms right now? I think that there's some Democrat momentum, just to be honest with people, that we saw. We saw some in the Kansas vote, where they spent a lot more money on the abortion issue.

I don't think that's going to be the number one issue everywhere because most people are going to be voting on the economy, but ultimately it's about the candidates, so they get the people out to vote. I still think Republicans have a very good chance of the House. It's tough for the Senate today, but that's today, and three weeks ago that looked different.

That's going to keep shifting, and it will continue to shift. These kind of statements too, these kind of spending bills, it is a tax hike. It is a bailout of the IRS. It does give Republicans something to say, this is what they're going to continue to do. You think Joe Biden's ineffective, but you get those 50 votes through, we have no way to stop it. Now suddenly he's basically got his bill back better with the Green New Deal inside of it. I mean, listen to Chuck Schumer. They're excited about this big government, big spending.

At its core, the Inflation Reduction Act is a life-saving, job-creating, cost-reducing bill. It's what the American people want. It's what the country so desperately needs, and it's what Democrats will deliver on. So this is their, you see exactly what they're doing politically. They're expecting an avalanche against them in the House. The Senate is looking tough for the Republicans, let's be honest.

I mean, it could happen, but it's not looking great. What you said, Jordan, is the momentum shifts here are going back and forth, and this is important as we look at the political end of this. Yeah, I do think that where you have to look is they are going to sell this as your state's going to have this influx of money and these different resources will have an influx of money. But because of this likely, even today, you see the jobs report, but I think if you actually know these kind of jobs that people are taking, you still see the shortages in a lot of the workforce.

A lot of this is because of coming out of COVID, but at the same time, don't discount. You can't, like, you don't win two months out. We're still in primaries in a lot of states. I mean, you're not, you got to do the reunification of your party, you know, especially these states that had tough primaries statewide.

You got to get people to come back together, be on the same team. And those are two critical states. Can we, can the Republicans get the Senate without Georgia? I just had one that was, again, the Trump-backed candidates did great, but what about the other? You've got to bring the other group of Republican voters back into the fold. How do you feel about that right now? I think that's the biggest question for Republicans.

Can they bring back their core? Democrats are united, even though usually when you have all the branches of government, that's when you start dividing. They feel like they're under attack, the left, because the 2020 election has never ended. I've been in this perpetual politics of January, six committees in January, over and over with the same news. And there's all these things going on in the world. Afghanistan week, COVID, there's monkey, I mean, these things, again, you watch the news and you just watch the local crime in areas go up to a point that they're seizing on that.

They're not at, they're almost like the, they're less, I think, less divided in a sense. I think that's true. Now, Andy, you spent a lot of time in Atlanta too, and that you got a huge Senate race, a gubernatorial race. The spending is supposedly, is every ad... It's tremendous spending and it's because it's, I think it's going to be outcome determinative of the control of the Senate, Jay, quite frankly, in that Senate race and in Pennsylvania too. The money is just going to be poured into the campaign. And as Jordan says, it's extremely mobile between today is August, it's going to be September, then October, and then the November vote.

So there's a lot of movement. Are you convinced, Jordan, that the House, I mean, you look at all the polling and the House still looks like it's going to go overwhelmingly Republican. They've been redistricting, a lot of retirements, the races are more local, and you don't have to have the same kind of unifying.

But at the statewide level, you do. I mean, you can't have, Republican Party, the Kansas example now, the abortion issue on its own does divide differently than just Republican, Democrat. But 30 plus percent of registered Republicans voted with Planned Parenthood.

That's something. So they were not convinced by their conservative colleagues that the vote, the yes vote in Kansas was the right vote. And they still voted. It wasn't like they just stayed home.

They did vote. So I think we have to focus a lot on the conservative movement. They're thinking about like Presidential years, which gets divisive again because primaries and who do you back? Let's focus.

We're getting out of primary season now. We've got to come together. And, you know, because you're the candidate, the conservative candidate is still better than the Soros back candidate.

Think about it that way. And I think that you can bring people together. But that takes the grassroots coming together as well. We'll see if that occurs. There's going to be a lot of efforts for it. Talk to you tomorrow.