Speaker 1: Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. Today, I have Kyle
Speaker 1: Olsen with me from The Midwesterner, and Kyle, I want
Speaker 1: to kind of go through what's happening on the Democrat side,
Speaker 1: because everybody says that they're melting down. But there's a
Speaker 1: few key points that I want to get into. And
Speaker 1: one last week we saw that Randy Weiningarten, who is
Speaker 1: the president.
Speaker 2: Of the American Federation of Teachers, so.
Speaker 1: The teachers' union the second largest, right, yes, there's two, yes, Okay.
Speaker 1: So we find out that she decided she didn't want
Speaker 1: her appointment to the DNC, which she has apparently had
Speaker 1: since two thousand and nine. She was on the Rules
Speaker 1: and by Laws committee. And it was funny because this
Speaker 1: came out and conservatives were like, wait a minute, we
Speaker 1: didn't know she actually had a position within the DNC,
Speaker 1: which I think shocked people somewhat. I don't think people
Speaker 1: were totally stunned by it, but I am stunned by
Speaker 1: it because here is somebody who was making decisions about
Speaker 1: whether or not our kids could be in school while
Speaker 1: holding a position with the Democrats who were in charge
Speaker 1: at the time, so a powerful position within their party,
Speaker 1: making decisions about the rules of how they run their party.
Speaker 1: And she's also in charge of funds that come from
Speaker 1: so they're completely siphoned off of what the taxpayers pay
Speaker 1: the teachers. So she's taking public funds and using them
Speaker 1: and funding an organization that puts her on a committee.
Speaker 1: I mean, you cannot make this stuff up.
Speaker 2: Well, I think it shows the unions, whether it's the
Speaker 2: NEA or the AFT or the UAW or SCIU or
Speaker 2: any of them, they run the Democratic Party. Unions run
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party, and so for all of the conventions
Speaker 2: and everything that we see on TV, the unions are
Speaker 2: calling the shots. So it's not entirely surprising to me
Speaker 2: to see that she's on a committee because the unions give,
Speaker 2: you know, millions of dollars to the party every year
Speaker 2: and and they control it. But I think, I think
Speaker 2: what it shows is that the the A f T
Speaker 2: and the other unions, but the AFT in particular, because
Speaker 2: that's what we're talking about, is a political organization, right,
Speaker 2: and they are not about how can what what can
Speaker 2: we do to make sure kids can read, or that
Speaker 2: we increase graduation rates or we close the the you know,
Speaker 2: racial gap, or any of those achievement gap, any of
Speaker 2: those sorts of things. They're not They're not concerned by that.
Speaker 2: What they care about is political power, electing the candidates
Speaker 2: that are going to serve them, and winning at the
Speaker 2: bargaining table. That's all they care about.
Speaker 1: I mean, I would almost argue, though, that that is
Speaker 1: secondary to what they do politically, and it should be first.
Speaker 1: Collective bargaining should be first for them. They should be
Speaker 1: trying to get the teachers the best possible wage. But
Speaker 1: I would almost argue that what we've seen with Randy
Speaker 1: Winengarten at the HELM has been that she is pushing
Speaker 1: an agenda more so than taking care of teachers. Even
Speaker 1: when I hear her do these speeches, she's not. I
Speaker 1: have not, and maybe I'm not paying enough attention. You
Speaker 1: can correct me if I'm wrong, But I have not
Speaker 1: heard her out there saying teachers need to be paid more.
Speaker 1: I have heard her out there screaming about political rhetoric,
Speaker 1: screaming about Ukraine, screaming about President Trump, screaming about keeping
Speaker 1: kids out of school because teachers were having to write
Speaker 1: their own obituaries and all this. I mean, remember that
Speaker 1: when they had teachers writing their own obituaries. But to me,
Speaker 1: it's very important to think about her even wanting to
Speaker 1: be on the Rules and Bylaws Committee because you're in
Speaker 1: a position where you think that you can make rules.
Speaker 1: And she was suddenly open with us about, yeah, we're
Speaker 1: actually making the rules for the CDC. Remember that. So
Speaker 1: they're making these decisions as to what will happen to
Speaker 1: kids during COVID. She somehow had a connection, which obviously
Speaker 1: she's high up in the DNC, so she's high up
Speaker 1: with all the Democrat leaders. So she gets this connection
Speaker 1: with the CDC and she starts making these rules about
Speaker 1: whether or not we can put kids back in school.
Speaker 1: She felt like that was her decision. Now, think about
Speaker 1: the fact that she felt like that was her decision
Speaker 1: to make these political decisions because it wasn't medical. It
Speaker 1: was political, and as soon as you have Randy Weingarten
Speaker 1: making the decision, it's not medical at all. So she
Speaker 1: felt like she was in that position. We have a problem,
Speaker 1: like you just said, where kids can't read across this nation.
Speaker 1: It's not just in certain areas. We have a consistent
Speaker 1: problem across the country, but we also have a problem
Speaker 1: where there have been woke agendas and pushed on our
Speaker 1: kids at our school, and I believe that comes from
Speaker 1: her too.
Speaker 2: Well, of course it does. That's the culture of the
Speaker 2: Union and the AFT in particular. They have they have
Speaker 2: promoted this concept of teaching the whole child. So it's
Speaker 2: not just a matter of writing and reading and math
Speaker 2: and all of that. It's providing services that most people
Speaker 2: would argue families provide, doing laundry, doctor's appointments, those sorts
Speaker 2: of things. Their their their idea is they want the
Speaker 2: school to sort of be the community center and where
Speaker 2: people kids' families live their lives and have all of
Speaker 2: their needs met. That's what they ultimately want. Now in
Speaker 2: terms of salaries, yes, the union cares about salaries, but
Speaker 2: they also care about what they call working conditions, and
Speaker 2: that is I mean, I've seen contracts literally that that
Speaker 2: dictate what the room or what the temperature of the
Speaker 2: teacher's lounge is going to be, or what the color
Speaker 2: paint in the teacher's lounge is going to be. This
Speaker 2: is and this is why these a lot of these
Speaker 2: contracts are hundreds of pages long, because they want to
Speaker 2: negotiate about every single thing. And again they're not negotiating
Speaker 2: about well, what are we going to do to make
Speaker 2: sure that we instead of a forty percent reading proficiency,
Speaker 2: we're going to get to sixty percent or eighty percent.
Speaker 2: They're not negotiating about that.
Speaker 1: Well, I also think, I mean, you make a great point.
Speaker 1: They aren't negotiating because there's no one holding their feet
Speaker 1: to the fire. There's no one saying, well, okay, if
Speaker 1: you don't hit these numbers, then we're going to have
Speaker 1: to reduce the amount of money each school gets. And
Speaker 1: I guess if that's the purpose of the teachers' union,
Speaker 1: is that they're going to negotiate dollars, well, then there
Speaker 1: has to be some accountability to if you get these dollars,
Speaker 1: then what are you as a union going to do
Speaker 1: to ensure that the people that are doing the jobs
Speaker 1: are accomplishing the goal of the job. Which seems that
Speaker 1: seems to me like teaching one oh one because or
Speaker 1: business one oh one, I would say, because if we
Speaker 1: had people in our own company who weren't completing the task,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't get paid. But for some reason in our schools,
Speaker 1: if and I'm not saying I'm not talking about any
Speaker 1: specific teachers, but if there is a school that is
Speaker 1: failing and there is consistent failure among multiple students, there
Speaker 1: has to be some accountability for that, but there's not.
Speaker 1: Right now, how does the system.
Speaker 2: Work, Well, it's I think a lot of times it's
Speaker 2: there is not student growth because there's week leadership, and
Speaker 2: the leadership has got to hold the teachers accountable and
Speaker 2: the week leaders don't do that, and so you don't
Speaker 2: see you don't see change. But in terms of what
Speaker 2: the union is really trying to do, I mean, you
Speaker 2: go back to the pandemic and Randy Weingarten's objective again
Speaker 2: was about the adults, and it was she was looking
Speaker 2: out for the teachers and the adults in the system
Speaker 2: not and so she wanted to, you know, keep them safe,
Speaker 2: and she in her way to do that was to
Speaker 2: keep kids out of the classroom and keep everyone remote,
Speaker 2: so then that way that the adults wouldn't get sick.
Speaker 2: And she it didn't bother her that there were you know,
Speaker 2: there was there were years where kids were falling behind,
Speaker 2: they weren't reading, weren't learning how to read, et cetera.
Speaker 2: That didn't that didn't bother her.
Speaker 1: So Mike Pompeo runs called her the most dangerous person
Speaker 1: in the United States. And I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people thought that was an exaggeration at the time, But
Speaker 1: I would say, look at how long she's been here.
Speaker 1: I mean, how long has she been the president of.
Speaker 2: The AFT Over ten years, at least.
Speaker 1: Over ten years, So this amount of timing. I've seen
Speaker 1: pictures of her with Hillary Clinton that looked like they
Speaker 1: were twenty years ago. So she's been politically active for
Speaker 1: a very long time.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 1: And the reason I say this is because we talk
Speaker 1: about this woke agenda that's being pushed in the schools,
Speaker 1: and concern about the woke agenda that's being pushed in
Speaker 1: the schools, and like, oh, could that be coming from
Speaker 1: Randy Weingarten. Well, the reason that she decided she doesn't
Speaker 1: want to be a part of the DNC anymore is
Speaker 1: because she was upset about what happened with David Hogg.
Speaker 1: So you all remember David Hogg. He was one of
Speaker 1: the victims in the Parkland shooting. He's one of the
Speaker 1: students was there, he witnessed what happened. He came out
Speaker 1: as an activist for students, and he continued to stay
Speaker 1: as an activist on the Democrat side. And I would
Speaker 1: say that he wouldn't say this, but I would say
Speaker 1: that he leans toward the socialist side, which I would
Speaker 1: also say that, though he wouldn't say that, he did
Speaker 1: just openly endorse the man who is running for mayor
Speaker 1: of New York, who has come out multiple times and
Speaker 1: said he is a socialist. So if you are endorsing
Speaker 1: socialism and you're putting your name on that, then you
Speaker 1: must believe in socialism. And I think, honestly, I do
Speaker 1: think that this is a problem with some of the
Speaker 1: people in David Hogg's generation, that he doesn't realize what
Speaker 1: he's saying is socialism. I think he's so has so little.
Speaker 2: I don't think but that the way you just said
Speaker 2: that was he would be bothered if he knew that. No,
Speaker 2: I think he is.
Speaker 1: I don't think he is right. Yeah, absolutely No, I
Speaker 1: don't think that he is in any way bothered by it.
Speaker 1: I think he just likes to come out and say
Speaker 1: this is not what I'm for. If I mean, this
Speaker 1: guy has clearly stated that he is a socialist, this
Speaker 1: is Zorin, and he's come out and endorsed him. So
Speaker 1: I do think that that's the direction he's going now.
Speaker 1: I say that because the reason that Randy wine Garten
Speaker 1: decided she didn't want to be on the Rules and
Speaker 1: Bilaws Committee anymore was which was June fifth that she
Speaker 1: came out and said this. I think it was June
Speaker 1: eleventh that the Rules and Bylaws Committee conveniently said David
Speaker 1: Hogg doesn't fit the requirements to be the vice chairman
Speaker 1: of the DNC. He had been elected. They're saying, oh,
Speaker 1: something about his gender. He couldn't be because of his gender,
Speaker 1: and she would have been essentially yes, that wasn't that
Speaker 1: wasn't acceptable. So poor poor David Hawk. That wasn't the
Speaker 1: reason though. The reason, I mean that was the technicality
Speaker 1: that they caught him on. So they're like, oh, thank goodness,
Speaker 1: we're such a whoa, that's it. We're such a woke organization.
Speaker 1: We can come up with a technicality to kick him out.
Speaker 1: But that is that is what would you call it.
Speaker 1: That's the technicality they used to get rid of someone
Speaker 1: who said he was going to primary primary there candidates.
Speaker 2: It's just but it's just so funny. It's like they
Speaker 2: didn't realize he was a white male before, but then
Speaker 2: suddenly when he's like stepping out of line.
Speaker 1: Yes, right, because it's not all a joke. All of
Speaker 1: these checking the boxes is a joke. I mean, look
Speaker 1: at what they ended up doing with Kamala Harris. Well,
Speaker 1: I'll say, this is the same thing they did with
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. They're like, oh, you don't actually fit anymore yet,
Speaker 1: let's put you back behind the curtain Wizard of Oz.
Speaker 1: So this is what they're doing with David. But she
Speaker 1: must not have loved this. She was not, and she
Speaker 1: openly came out and said she was not happy about
Speaker 1: what they did to David Hogg. And she resigned before
Speaker 1: it was officials, so she would have been on that
Speaker 1: committee discussing the fact that he was going to be
Speaker 1: kicked out, and she resigned on the fifth. He gets
Speaker 1: kicked out on the eleventh. He had come out and
Speaker 1: said he was going to spend twenty million dollars to
Speaker 1: primary people that were not with what they think the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party. What did he say? He said they were
Speaker 1: like weak minded or they weren't strong enough, and he.
Speaker 2: Was going to go out socialist enough.
Speaker 1: Right, and they were in strong blue districts, so strong
Speaker 1: blue Democrats had been there for a long time. He
Speaker 1: was going to go out there and primary them, and
Speaker 1: he has this this organization's called Leaders We Deserve. So
Speaker 1: when he started to become an activist and had like
Speaker 1: the March for Lives or something like that, and which
Speaker 1: was like to talk about kids at high school kids,
Speaker 1: he then recently, I think in twenty three he created
Speaker 1: Leaders We Deserve. And it's significant because in the last
Speaker 1: quarter of twenty four he had projected that he would
Speaker 1: raise a million dollars and in small dollar donations like
Speaker 1: twenty five dollars donations, he ended up with three million
Speaker 1: from just the fourth quarter. So I know that when
Speaker 1: they heard that he was going to primary people, they
Speaker 1: got nervous because to me, that is significant. Right now,
Speaker 1: we're hearing that the DNC is in total chaos, that
Speaker 1: they can't raise money, that they don't have any money,
Speaker 1: that they're looking for unique ways to bring in money.
Speaker 1: But for some reason, this socialist kid brought in three
Speaker 1: million dollars from in smaller dollar donations in three months.
Speaker 2: Well, I think what's happening is they're in disarray and
Speaker 2: you've got people like him who are trying to pull
Speaker 2: the party to the left, which is hard to believe
Speaker 2: that it can go any farther left. That's what they're
Speaker 2: trying to do. And I think that there's others who
Speaker 2: realize that if they go farther left, it's going to
Speaker 2: be a total disaster. And so they don't really have
Speaker 2: a leader. And this is really the fundamental problem that
Speaker 2: they have as they're trying to fight President Trump's agenda.
Speaker 2: They don't really have a leader. So you sort of
Speaker 2: see these heads kind of popping out. Remember it was
Speaker 2: a couple of months ago, it was Corey Booker, and
Speaker 2: so you see sort that these people kind of you know,
Speaker 2: pop up and there's a struggle going on. And so
Speaker 2: you've got you have people like David Hogg who wants
Speaker 2: to throw out these incumbents, which historically they don't do.
Speaker 2: It's like they protect the incumbents. They leave those people alone.
Speaker 1: You don't want to have to spend money to defend them,
Speaker 1: especially when you are in a situation where you're trying
Speaker 1: to win back the house. So for them, if you
Speaker 1: look at this, I can see why they're mad because
Speaker 1: they're like safe seats. Don't mess with our safe seats.
Speaker 1: Let's make sure we woing back. They have President Trump
Speaker 1: in office, it's like their worst nightmare. You know, they
Speaker 1: want to win the House, they want to win the Senate.
Speaker 1: And you've got a kid who somehow has fundraising power
Speaker 1: and he's out there every day and he's not going
Speaker 1: to slow down. And he's got the support of the
Speaker 1: teachers union. So now suddenly do they go with him?
Speaker 1: And they are losing their unions and they already lost.
Speaker 1: So the public unions are still with them, but the
Speaker 1: non public unions have left them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, a lot of the trade unions, yea, the blue
Speaker 2: collar trade unions have. But David Hogg, he is he
Speaker 2: has This is not going to sound right, but he
Speaker 2: has perfectly exploited what happened at Parkland and leveraged it
Speaker 2: for political purposes, which I think is completely disgusting. But
Speaker 2: he has perfectly figured out how to manipulate the media,
Speaker 2: how to grow a list, how to raise money, how
Speaker 2: to leverage all of that for his political ends. And
Speaker 2: so now what we're seeing is he was elected as
Speaker 2: one of the vice chairs, much to the dismay of
Speaker 2: you know, all of the other people there. They figured
Speaker 2: out how to throw him out, but he's not going away,
Speaker 2: and I think the other sort of divide or you know,
Speaker 2: chaos that's going on in the party is there was
Speaker 2: just this No King's Day protest and it was a
Speaker 2: lot of the it was indivisible, it was the Party
Speaker 2: for Socialism and Liberation. It was a lot of far
Speaker 2: left groups that are organizing. And if you look at
Speaker 2: the map that they put out, their major events were
Speaker 2: all in twenty twenty six Senate race states. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is not this is not a coincidence about what's
Speaker 2: going on. And I believe so you said, what David
Speaker 2: hagg is trying to do. He's trying he's identifying these
Speaker 2: blue districts and he's trying to find candidates that are
Speaker 2: farther left. And I think what's happening is when you
Speaker 2: see the No King's which people sort of laugh and
Speaker 2: you know, laugh it off. You can't laugh it off.
Speaker 2: Their goal is to organize five percent of the country
Speaker 2: and have their information, have them activated, and if they're
Speaker 2: capable of doing that, that would be a major, major thing.
Speaker 2: And No King's Day they organized and they have data
Speaker 2: on three and a half percent of the country. They
Speaker 2: had one of their calls, one of their organizing calls
Speaker 2: by the ACLU, which was involved, they had over twenty
Speaker 2: thousand people on the call.
Speaker 1: But see, this is where I okay, So this is
Speaker 1: where I argue that Republicans get to the point where
Speaker 1: they get people in office and they think, okay, we're
Speaker 1: in good shape, and they don't do this. And I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't see a lot of events outside of the
Speaker 1: standard Lincoln Day dinner. I don't see big events where
Speaker 1: people get to see speakers and get to feel like
Speaker 1: they're a part of something bigger than them. And that's
Speaker 1: happening on the Democrat side. And people have said to me,
Speaker 1: watch out. Just what you just said, watch out, because
Speaker 1: as they continue to engage people, we're not And I
Speaker 1: just heard this. I was in Detroit a couple days ago,
Speaker 1: and I just heard people saying, Hey, there's people over
Speaker 1: on this side of the state that feel like everybody
Speaker 1: was here during the election and now they've kind of
Speaker 1: stepped away and they want more answers, they want more attention.
Speaker 1: People do crave attention when you've asked somebody to come
Speaker 1: over to your party and be a part of your party.
Speaker 1: And I believe this from our friends over in Dearborn
Speaker 1: and ham Trammick, when you have asked them take a
Speaker 1: step out of what is acceptable in your community and
Speaker 1: come out there and campaign with us and join us.
Speaker 1: You better show up again. And that's what they're doing.
Speaker 1: They're recognizing that, and that's what look after twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: they got so organized, and that's what people need to understand.
Speaker 1: It was malicious, but it worked. They created these nonprofits,
Speaker 1: They went out, they started newspapers, they were doing these
Speaker 1: types of these protests. Like you said, everybody's on an
Speaker 1: email list. Now everybody's out there together. They're well funded.
Speaker 1: They have these people then in there in their system
Speaker 1: to go out and knock doors so that when those
Speaker 1: center races come around, they win the Senate and we go,
Speaker 1: how did that happen? Because there's not a team on
Speaker 1: our side doing this right?
Speaker 2: Well, I think Republicans, I think conservatives and liberals are
Speaker 2: fundamentally different. I think conservatives generally speaking, are you know,
Speaker 2: are independent. They don't want someone telling them what to do.
Speaker 2: But I think liberals generally speaking, I mean, it's the
Speaker 2: very premise of a union. It's that we're going to
Speaker 2: have we're going to have someone telling us what to do.
Speaker 2: Someone's you know, for the greater good. And so that's
Speaker 2: what we're seeing happening. And so this No Kings thing,
Speaker 2: it's it's a collection of you know, all of these
Speaker 2: different groups, unions, et cetera. And their goal is to
Speaker 2: affect twenty twenty six. Because if they can affect twenty
Speaker 2: twenty six, they know that's how they stopped Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: If if they if the Republicans can lose the majority
Speaker 2: in the House and or the Senate, Trump's Trump's legislative.
Speaker 2: You know, agenda is on the rocks. And that's what
Speaker 2: it's all about. And so go back to twenty twenty
Speaker 2: what did they do. They isolated the whole George Floyd situation,
Speaker 2: and they rallied and they organized, and they quote unquote
Speaker 2: protested over that, and they use that one moment and
Speaker 2: it's the same thing. Now it's the ice raids, and
Speaker 2: it's what happened in Los Angeles, and they they identify
Speaker 2: this one thing that they can rally you know, their
Speaker 2: side around, and I think that they are doing it
Speaker 2: very effectively. And I think that Republicans and Conservatives who
Speaker 2: just sort of, you know, laugh it off or dismiss it,
Speaker 2: they've got to realize that they that the left is energized. Yes,
Speaker 2: they're in disarray, but they're getting organized. And where the
Speaker 2: I think where the DNC and where the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: is sort of falling away. These this no King's indivisible,
Speaker 2: et cetera, are filling that void.
Speaker 1: Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next. On
Speaker 1: the Tutor Dixon podcast, there was a Democrat that was
Speaker 1: recently on Fox and they were asking him, how is
Speaker 1: this happening to the party. Why is it that you're splintering,
Speaker 1: and they are splintering because they do have this faction
Speaker 1: that wants to go further left. I would say that
Speaker 1: they are in a situation where I think that there
Speaker 1: were people who were saying that this was happening to
Speaker 1: the Republican Party in twenty twenty, but I think I
Speaker 1: think that what I see on the Democrat side is
Speaker 1: way worse than what happened in twenty twenty. There were
Speaker 1: arguments in twenty twenty over COVID and something that was
Speaker 1: a moment in time. What they're arguing about is truly
Speaker 1: defining them for the long term. So they have this
Speaker 1: group that is like the trans rights group, the social
Speaker 1: issues group, the side that has social issues on there.
Speaker 1: That's all they're focused on and really what we've found
Speaker 1: is social issues are not great in elections. They don't
Speaker 1: really help either side. There's very rarely the social issue.
Speaker 1: I think marijuana. They won big lely with the marijuana,
Speaker 1: and then they thought, oh, all social issues marijuana and
Speaker 1: abortion were good. The rest of these things for them,
Speaker 1: let me clarified, they were good for them, But the
Speaker 1: rest of these things I think are really splintering them.
Speaker 1: And I heard this Democrat on Fox saying we have
Speaker 1: a problem with our side right now because they aren't
Speaker 1: telling people we want to do this for you. He said,
Speaker 1: we used to come to people and say we want
Speaker 1: to provide this for you, we want to give you
Speaker 1: this free, and we want to give you that free,
Speaker 1: which obviously I don't like, but at least they were
Speaker 1: talking about what they thought that people needed. He said,
Speaker 1: Now we're on issues that people aren't interested in, or
Speaker 1: we're just saying Trump is bad. Hate Trump, and he
Speaker 1: said Trump is bad is not a message of what
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to do for you.
Speaker 2: Right And so what we're seeing play out right now
Speaker 2: with these protests and these far left groups, is that
Speaker 2: going to translate into electoral success into winning on election day?
Speaker 2: Because I think that I haven't seen polling, but I
Speaker 2: would guess most normal people are not really attracted to
Speaker 2: that sort of thing. And you look at Trump's polling,
Speaker 2: and he's never been more popular. I mean, even when
Speaker 2: he's in the even when his popularity is in the
Speaker 2: high forties, he's never been more popular. So he and
Speaker 2: he's sticking he And the thing is, he was very
Speaker 2: clear in twenty twenty four about what he wanted to do,
Speaker 2: what he stood for, what he was going to do
Speaker 2: when he got in office, all of that, and he's
Speaker 2: doing it. Whether it's he talked about tariffs, he's doing that.
Speaker 2: He talked about deportations, he's doing that. He talked about
Speaker 2: securing the border, He's doing that. So people are seeing, oh,
Speaker 2: he's doing what he said he was going to do.
Speaker 2: Now a lot, yes, a lot of it is through
Speaker 2: executive orders. Securing the border, I mean that's you know,
Speaker 2: that's in his purview, so he can do that. But
Speaker 2: a lot of it is executive orders. So the Congress
Speaker 2: has to step up and actually codify a lot of
Speaker 2: what he's doing in the executive orders into law. So
Speaker 2: that way, if for whatever reason, the Democrat wins in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty eight. They don't just undo it everything. But
Speaker 2: the point is he's popular, and that's obviously complicating what
Speaker 2: the Democrats and the far left groups are trying.
Speaker 1: To do, and the things that he's done that they
Speaker 1: don't like, like defunding NPR and PBS. I find it
Speaker 1: funny because I haven't seen Democrats coming out and screaming
Speaker 1: about that, because what are you going to say, the
Speaker 1: people should pay for a news station? Why should that
Speaker 1: be the case, especially in today's market, If you have
Speaker 1: such a good product, it is so easy to monetize
Speaker 1: something like that, and they claim their product is so
Speaker 1: crucial they should be able to monetize it. If you
Speaker 1: cannot pay for your own news services, then maybe you
Speaker 1: shouldn't exist. But to have the people have the taxpayers,
Speaker 1: who fifty percent of them don't agree with the messaging
Speaker 1: that's coming out of PBS and NPR, to have us
Speaker 1: fund a propaganda machine is so outrageous. So even when
Speaker 1: they have complained about the things that Trump has done,
Speaker 1: they haven't really been able to deep dive into them
Speaker 1: because then and they would expose their own problems.
Speaker 2: But also, he's been running at light speed, so it's
Speaker 2: like he does something when they're getting ginned up to
Speaker 2: complain about that, he's moved on to something else and
Speaker 2: they have not been able to keep up. And so
Speaker 2: he's been doing. His administration has been doing so much
Speaker 2: every single day that it's very hard for them to
Speaker 2: keep up and be effective.
Speaker 1: I always wonder if they're like, oh, crap, we should
Speaker 1: not have given him those four years to thing, because
Speaker 1: they ended up with him again and he was ready
Speaker 1: to go and he has. I think really that four
Speaker 1: years allowed him to prepare for this and to move
Speaker 1: at the speed that he's moving at because I mean,
Speaker 1: if he had gone straight through, think of you would
Speaker 1: have had that same team, there wouldn't be the players
Speaker 1: that are there now. I think that this team that
Speaker 1: he has put together has been so amazing together and
Speaker 1: the things that they have discovered and the speed at
Speaker 1: which they're working. I just wonder how often the Democrats
Speaker 1: have looked back and on, man, we really screwed up
Speaker 1: with Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, I think that's I think that's fair. If
Speaker 2: he would have won, if he would have been declared
Speaker 2: the winner in twenty twenty, I'll put it that way,
Speaker 2: it would have been a continuation of the first four years.
Speaker 1: But I mean, now you see them coming out and saying, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: there were people the Chinese were providing driver's licenses. I mean,
Speaker 1: there really is a question they really and that I
Speaker 1: think they are terrified of him looking at that election
Speaker 1: and saying what happened because even in the state of Michigan, now,
Speaker 1: in the last election, we somehow caught this Chinese national
Speaker 1: who was voting. And you have to question how many
Speaker 1: times did this happen, how many states did this happen?
Speaker 1: And remember the secretary of State in Michigan said, I'm
Speaker 1: collaborating with these other secretaries of state to make sure
Speaker 1: he can't get elected.
Speaker 2: Right, And it's not just the presidential election, because you know,
Speaker 2: maybe ten thousand people voting in the eight in a
Speaker 2: presidential election may not affect the presidential election. But there's
Speaker 2: local elections, right, there's state legislature, there's county elections that
Speaker 2: that could have made a difference. We don't know, and
Speaker 2: it needs to be investigated, correct, So it needs to
Speaker 2: be investigated. And you know, I'll just say one of
Speaker 2: my concerns about he's negotiating a deal with China right now,
Speaker 2: and one of my concerns is that part of it
Speaker 2: is that he allows It's like I've seen three hundred thousand,
Speaker 2: I've seen five hundred thousand Chinese students to stay in
Speaker 2: the country, and that's concerning to me because you look
Speaker 2: at what's happening in Michigan. We have the Midwesterners has
Speaker 2: reported about nine students at the university Chinese national students
Speaker 2: that are at the University of Michigan who have been
Speaker 2: charged with crimes ranging from voting in the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four election, trying to bring in these you know, these
Speaker 2: the toxins that will affect the food supply. There were
Speaker 2: individuals who were caught taking photos and surveilling a military base,
Speaker 2: and so what is going on And I think that
Speaker 2: that needs to be scrutinized before as part of a
Speaker 2: Chinese trade deal to ensure that we're not just allowing
Speaker 2: Chinese spies to come into America on our university campuses,
Speaker 2: in businesses, et cetera. That's got to be dealt with.
Speaker 1: I think when it's happened in your own state and
Speaker 1: you see it here and you think about your own
Speaker 1: child going to a university where they if they were
Speaker 1: testing a biotoxin, they could go into the farmer's field
Speaker 1: and kill off our wheat supply and kill off our grains.
Speaker 1: What else were they willing to test? Because obviously we
Speaker 1: know COVID leaked from the Wuhan lab and that was
Speaker 1: really just the beginnings of what they have when it
Speaker 1: comes to bioweapons. But the fact that these students smuggled
Speaker 1: it in and kids don't think that way, that has
Speaker 1: got to be the government.
Speaker 2: I don't think there's any doubt, and so that has
Speaker 2: got to be It's got to be investigated. It should
Speaker 2: be investigated by the State of Michigan. The House of
Speaker 2: Representatives has the power to do that. It should be
Speaker 2: investigated by the CCP Committee in the US House. It
Speaker 2: certainly should be investigated by the FBI and the DOJ,
Speaker 2: et cetera. But I think that this we cannot just
Speaker 2: continue to allow Chinese students into America without an extremely
Speaker 2: extremely thorough vetting. And if they can't pass the vetting
Speaker 2: or there's questions remain, they shouldn't be allowed to come here.
Speaker 2: And what's disturbing about the whole thing is that these
Speaker 2: universities and these states are making this economic argument, like, well,
Speaker 2: if we don't have three hundred thousand students all the
Speaker 2: money we're going to lose. Well, at some point, our
Speaker 2: national security has to be more important than tuition.
Speaker 1: Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
Speaker 1: a Tutor Dixon podcast. I've heard the argument that kids
Speaker 1: in Michigan aren't being because our our scores are low
Speaker 1: and they don't need to take them. You know, so
Speaker 1: kids in Michigan are losing their spots at college, university
Speaker 1: or colleges and universities because they're bringing in Chinese students,
Speaker 1: and the whole, the whole education decline in the United
Speaker 1: States has caused these places to be open at these
Speaker 1: elite universities, and now you have students from other countries
Speaker 1: taking spots that once would have been students from the
Speaker 1: United States if the education levels had stayed at the
Speaker 1: rates they should have been.
Speaker 2: Well, this is a whole This should probably be a
Speaker 2: whole other episode. I know we're going because I mean,
Speaker 2: one of my complaints about about state you know, state universities,
Speaker 2: public universities is that they're there is an economic incentive
Speaker 2: for them to accept out of state students because they
Speaker 2: get more from them than in state students, right, And
Speaker 2: so here we Michigan tax payers are giving Michigan, Michigan State,
Speaker 2: you know, several other state universities millions of dollars, hundreds
Speaker 2: of millions of dollars every single year, and they are
Speaker 2: educating students. And then those students are just they're going
Speaker 2: back to China, they're going to other states. They're they're
Speaker 2: leaving Michigan states.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're not. We don't are graduating on stay.
Speaker 2: So why should we as Michigan taxpayers be paying to
Speaker 2: educate students who have zero intention of staying in Michigan.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: That's a whole other episode.
Speaker 1: That's a whole other episode. On that note, I will
Speaker 1: say thank you for being here Kyle Olsen with The Midwesterner,
Speaker 1: and I just want to have you plugged The Midwesterner
Speaker 1: for a little bit because you're you are putting these
Speaker 1: stories out, you're covering this stuff every day, and you
Speaker 1: guys are really smart about what you're doing.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you. Yes, you can find us at the
Speaker 2: Midwesterner dot news. And we're right, we're covering what's going
Speaker 2: on in Lansing, the fight in state government over spending,
Speaker 2: in policy and everything else. What's happening in our universities,
Speaker 2: what's happening in our K twelve schools, what's happening in
Speaker 2: our communities. The incursion of the CCP into Michigan communities
Speaker 2: and the attempts to do that. So there's there's a
Speaker 2: lot of things that we.
Speaker 1: Cover from Twitter.
Speaker 2: Is the Twitter handle, our Twitter handle x is ths
Speaker 2: in the but th underscore Midwesterner.
Speaker 1: Okay, check it out. Thank you so much for being here,
Speaker 1: and thank you all for listening to the Tutor Dixon podcast.
Speaker 1: For this episode and others. Go to Tutor Dixon podcast
Speaker 1: dot com, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts, and you can watch it on Rumble
Speaker 1: and YouTube at Tutor Dixon. Thank you so much. Join
Speaker 1: us next time and have a blessed day.