September 12, 2024 • 30 mins
In this episode, Tudor, Sara, and Kyle, discuss the national security implications of the Gotion battery factory, which has ties to the Chinese Communist Party. They explore recent legislative actions by the U.S. House of Representatives to ban the use of Chinese batteries in critical government departments. The conversation highlights the broader risks of Chinese companies operating in the U.S., the need for long-term strategic planning to reduce reliance on China, and the importance of government accountability and innovation in addressing these challenges. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network. For more visit TudorDixonPodcast.com
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. I'm here with Sarah
Broadwater and Kyle Olsen, and you all have heard us
talk about the battery factory in Michigan. This is something
that I think affects the entire country. We know that
this battery factory that is coming over from China called
Goshen is also in Illinois. Illinois. The only place that
(00:22):
they are Michigan and Illinis.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
They have their headquarters. They say they're beachhead, as I
like to say, is in California.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Okay, all right, I don't know what.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
But beach d beach head is like you know, when
you're attacking a country. You established a beach.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Heads in California.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
So I guess, I guess we should consider them attacking
the country because big big news out of Washington, d C.
And I do think this is big news. I know
Kyle's gonna explain. This was a voice vote, so we
don't know exactly who voted for it, but the House
of Representatives passed stay bill that would essentially ban Goshen batteries.
(01:03):
Specifically Goshen, and I think a couple other Chinese battery factories,
but Goshen was specifically mentioned in the bill from use
in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense.
And to me, that is significant because we have come
out and what we've been talking about this for two
years that the battery plant is dangerous because it's associated
(01:26):
with CCP. But think about what that means for the
government to be like, Yeah, it's okay for all of
your tax payer dollars to go into these factories that
they're bringing into the United States, but we won't use
their batteries when it's anything sensitive, like do you want
this battery in your car? I mean, because what's so dangerous?
It doesn't the bill doesn't say what's dangerous?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
No, So right, so the bill bans DHS Homeland Security
from buying batteries from adversarial countries China, and it's specific
fickly names Goshen, which is interesting and and it was
it was passed by a voice vote. And the reason
to me that that's significant is the alternative is a
(02:09):
roll call vote where people actually have to put their
name on a vote. And so this bill did not
at least there's no recorded nos, so Democrats didn't have
a chance to vote no again or vote against it.
So I do think that that's important to point out.
But it's interesting because look how and we've we've talked
(02:31):
about this, but look how far this has come, this
whole issue to the point where now the Congress is
actually passing bills and not just sort of saying, you know,
vague terms like you know, adversarial countries, but actually naming
the company and saying that the US government will not
(02:52):
buy batteries from this specific company.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
I think it's significant because the Midwesterner was the publication
that said, hey, wait a minute. Even in their bylaws,
they're saying that they are connected to the Chinese Communist Party. Now,
in Michigan, we fought this battle and even Republican legislator
legislators were like, oh, that's crazy, you don't have to
worry about it. But we understand that this is a
(03:14):
true threat. And the thing that is bizarre to me,
even with this debate the other night and what's happening
with the entire election, is that the Republicans are not
hammering more on even Christopher Ray, the director of the FBI,
coming out and saying we are in a red flag
zone right now, we are under great threat. We have
this open border, and China is a massive threat too.
(03:37):
I think that he's said that China is the number
one threat to the United States. They government clearly believes
there's some sort of a problem for them to say
we don't want these in our on our military or
government equipment. The question I have is, Okay, can we
delve into that. Are they afraid that these batteries will
(03:59):
be tracked, afraid that these batteries are containing are recording information?
Are they afraid that they'll just have control over these
batteries and they can shut down all of our equipment
when they want to, or can they detonate these batteries?
I mean, what is the fear? Well?
Speaker 3 (04:12):
And I think, yeah, I understand not wanting to use
them in defense contracts and things, but also there's a
civilian threat then too. Without knowing what exactly is going on,
and you hear about you know, all of the utilities
that the Chinese companies owns and the technology all of that.
I mean, I think there is a real civilian threat
that is just as important that we have to think about.
(04:32):
So I understand and I appreciate that they're focusing on
the one, but I don't know how you can focus
on the one without talking about the broader implications of
this too.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
And if it's dangerous enough that the US military should
not be using batteries like this, then why is it okay?
Why is it not dangerous for a vehicle or a
scooter or whatever else uses the battery? Why is that okay?
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Or why are they allowed to own land in the
if the Department of Defense specifically calls them out as
a threat.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
And that's to me, that's the great irony here is
you have you have the Congress, the House passing a
bill saying that DHS and it's it's actually a separate
bill for the Department of Defense, but it's the same
language saying that the federal government will not be, you know,
purchasing batteries from this company because it's a threat. Yet
(05:27):
I mean, yes, Michigan taxpayers, Gretchen Whitmer is giving seven
hundred and fifteen million dollars to this company to build
a plant in the state of Michigan.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
But Illinois was something crazy like six billion.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Yeah, they and they were believe we're getting federal subsidies.
I think it wasn't just state subsidies.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Payable che Well, you paid a lot of the state
money is coming from the the Inflation Reduction Act as
they like to call it, and so it is federal money,
which of course means it is Biden Harris money. So
for them to now suddenly be concerned about this or
not wanting or somehow claiming that the federal government isn't
(06:06):
going to support Goshen, well, that ship is sailed. That's
already happening. But to me, the great irony here is
that the federal government is recognizing that Goshen is a threat. Well,
then why in the world won are we allowing? Are
we giving them tax payer money? But then two, why
are we letting them build a one square mile plant
(06:28):
one hundred miles away from Camp Grayling, which is a
military base, national Guard base where they are training every
year annually. They're training Taiwanese forces. Well, why would they
Why would they be doing that. They're training Taiwanese forces
to repel a Chinese invasion.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Okay, so remind me I want to go back to
the Inflation Reduction Act for a second after we talk
about this, because I think this also kind of plays
into this. I don't know if I want to nicely,
but Reuters Today publishes an article out of Moscow, and
the title of it is Russia says it could combine
with China if they face a threat, and they say
(07:10):
if faced with a threat from the United States. To me,
this is very scary. It says. Putin and g signed
a no limits partnership deal in twenty two, less than
three weeks before Putin sent troops into Ukraine in May.
They agreed to deepen that well what they're calling a
comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation for a new era. The
(07:31):
two countries have not declared a formal military alliance, but
then Putin last week says they are allies in every
sense of the word. Now listen, think about this. China
has the largest navy in the world. China continues to
move closer to the United States. They continue to have
these naval ports closer and closer to the United States.
(07:53):
Russia and China have staged military exercises together. We just
saw that happen, remember, and to me, it was a
very telling message that Joe Biden comes out and decides
to step out of his campaign, and during that address
to the nation, China and Russia fly together into US
airspace over in the Alaska airspace. So we're seeing that
(08:15):
they're doing this, it says, including naval drills that started
on Tuesdays. So they now are doing naval drills that
just started un last already guests yesterday or Tuesday of
this week. Putin is overseeing the launch of maneuvers and
warned the United States against attempts to outgun Russia by
building up its military power in the Asia Pacific region.
(08:39):
So we are being told we're being threatened by these countries.
Why is this not a bigger deal? And to just
kind of bring this back to the batteries, Sarah you
brought up. Could this be a threat to civilians? If
these batteries are in your car and they actually do
decide to invade our country and they shut our cars down,
(09:00):
You're you're trapped, You're sitting ducks. I mean not that
you're you want to have them in the country anyway,
but they have a major advantage if they can just
shut us all down.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
It's it's a grid issue. I mean, you think about
your transportation, your cellular communication, your energy supply. If they
are in control of so much of that and they
decide turn of you know, turn of a switch, it's done.
That's I mean, that is a military threat.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
So and the irony. Another irony is that you know,
Russia is the is the great pariah in American politics,
the boogeyman. And you know, Democrats are constantly accusing Republicans
and Donald Trump of being you know, agents of Russia
and all of that. Okay, so now we know that
(09:49):
Russia is allies with China and has this strategic partnership
and and all of that. But yet we are financing
Chinese companies to grow businesses and plants in Michigan, in
Illinois and elsewhere.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
How dumb can you get? I mean, and why why
aren't Republicans just going bananas about this? You know they
were when this happened with Goshen so many of them
were like, Oh, what's the big deal, it's business development night,
or brought Chinese companies in for a business development. We
have seen over the last ten years since that happened,
(10:29):
what has gone on with China coming in and buying
a property and buying a property that even circles or
makes a perfect square around a military base. They buy
up all the property around. I mean, this is it's
just a national security issue, and it's something that I
don't think we're talking enough about. There will always be
(10:50):
a drive for communism to take over the United States.
There is going to be a drive. There always has been,
there always will be. And we are very connected to
We're way too connected to China with the companies that
we have in China. China wants to come here. But
think about the reverse, how connected we are into what's
happening in China because we have full cities that are
(11:12):
dedicated to making certain products. I mean, you got your
iPhone made over there, but you have a military equipment,
you have all of your pharmaceuticals. We have such a
heavy reliance on a country that hates us and wants
to take us down.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Well, earlier in the week, you had posted an interview
clip that you did back during the campaign with a
conservative talk radio station and host, and one of the
things he said in there he was coming after you
about you going after Goshen essentially, and he said something
along the lines of, well, China is not the CCP.
We're talking about two different things. I'm like, this is
(11:46):
what is. People don't understand they are the same thing.
There is no China and the CCP it is one.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
So you bring up a bigger question, I think. And
so America is very much entwined with China, and there's
a lot that we bring, we import from China, medicines
and everything. How do you how do you detangle that?
Speaker 1 (12:22):
How do you decouple from China? Yeah, I mean I
was I've been mulling this over in my mind. And
you know, from the business standpoint, obviously, it's not easy
because if you've developed business there, then you have developed equipment,
proprietary equipment. It's been run there, it's been tested there,
(12:45):
you have it all. I mean, many of these companies
have all of their eggs in the China basket. So
there's no there's no bringing an iPhone city to the
United States. You just can't have like hundreds of thousands
of people trapped in buildings forced to work for you.
The alternative to that is, as Americans, why would we
ever accept that a company does this? Because why do
(13:07):
you choose China? If you are an American company and
you can tell me we're choosing China because of the
cheap labor, But then why not go to Central America?
And I know the reason not to go to Central America,
and the reason they choose not to is because it
would take long to develop there, because they don't have
a communist dictatorship where you're just dealing with one person
who says, yeah, we'll build it for you overnight. You
(13:28):
actually have to build up that country. And they have crime.
China has no crime because they murder you if you
commit a crime. I mean, they are ruthless. And I
would argue, and I argued this a couple of nights
ago at the event that we were at, But I
would truly argue if you, as Americans, the government should
(13:49):
look at some of these companies and say, wait a minute,
are you breaking human rights laws? Are you committing human
rights violations? Because if you have a campus, which is
what they call it, but you're actually it's like slave labor.
You're forcing people to live in these high rises. They
have to work for you twelve hours a day. They
can't go home to their families but maybe twice a year,
(14:11):
and that's for a few days at a time. They
have to live in there, they have to eat in there,
they have to eat in the cafeteria. I mean, they
go from the building to the factory. Why would we
ever allow a US company to I mean, it's slavery.
They own people, they own people. How can we possibly
allow a US company to own people? And if it's
(14:34):
not even that extreme, if you're looking at it and
you're saying, well, these people are really treated poorly. They
don't have the right working conditions. I can remember when
I was in the foundry industry, we had people that
went over there and they took videos of what they
were doing. The pollution was horrendous. That alone you would
get you would be shut down in the United States.
So why should you be allowed, if you are a
(14:54):
United States company to go to another country and commit
the same environmental crisis, the same environmental disaster. They were
also completely unsafe and there was no regard for human life.
These people would go in and my dad would say,
I mean, they're in the equivalent of a diaper and sandals,
walking around with shards of metal and pouring molten metal.
(15:15):
It's insane. There were no standards. I think that has
changed a little bit, but I guarantee you there are
places where it's still happening, and this is who we're
relying on, and we're relying on it for even our
military equipment. If you want to get machinery, a part
of your military equipment, a part of your humbye, a
part of your vehicle could potentially be being made by
(15:37):
your adversary. It makes absolutely no sense. But who is
the oversight here, who is making sure that we are
not fully embedded in China? And then you talk about decoupling, Well,
what does that look like? How do you go to
American companies and say you have to start to move
your business, you have to start to expand. But honestly,
(15:58):
if you did, if you took just a small percentage
of the businesses in China and you started to say,
we're going to invest in Central America, which is what
China has told them. They've lied to them, they gave
them all these promises, and then they have this imbalanced
trade agreement. China is sucking the life out of Central
America right now. But if they can, then they eventually
own Central America. Why not instead, why aren't we trying
(16:22):
to build up there so we don't have this border crisis?
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Well, and it's not something that will happen in years,
it will be decades. And I think that's where I
talk about China has one hundred year plan, America does
need long term strategic planning on this. I mean the
company that I worked for previously, we had a fifteen
and a twenty year plan on how do we bring
plants from China over to Honduras or areas like that,
(16:46):
partly because the shipping was getting so expensive and so
if there was a way to at least cut down
that and the lead times of things. I think after COVID,
a lot of companies learned that the lead time if
you have a backward around a product goes from three
to four weeks all the way up to upwards of
fifteen weeks. You're going to have unhappy customers at the
end of the day. So what is the incentive to
(17:08):
your point of, how do we use the government to
strategically pick what industries are critically important to us, the
pharmaceutical industry, whatever it is, and start to offer tax
incentives for them, or to offer incentives for them to
build in friendly countries so that in ten years from
now at least we are set up so that we
have some sort of safety net there and then hopefully
(17:29):
as time goes on that gets more and more less,
we get less reliant on them. But it's not going
to happen in a year. And I think that's what
people when we say we want to decouple from China,
people are like, well, it's not going to happen. Ever, well,
it will, but it does take long term planning.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I think that we believe America runs on eight year cycles,
and that's just not true. I mean, people can complain
about term limits and Congress people can be there for
too long, but there is another branch of government that
is there that can be looking at these issues. But
also I think people get confused when you say America first,
(18:06):
they think, well, if you're then saying you're going to
bring everything from China back to the United States, which
is not possible, and that industry in many cases, industries
are certain industries are lost, and that is my fear
with farms, but that was essentially what happened with steel founders.
We have very few left. There's not an expertise. Nobody
(18:28):
wants to build one here because it's hard. It's hard
work and Americans don't want to do that work. And
people can argue with me that that's not true, but
it is true. I mean, that's what we talked to
governors stick from Oklahoma about the other day. He was saying,
we can't get certain industries in. We're trying to do
state visas and take some of that immigration back into
the state's hands so that we can get nurses, so
(18:49):
we can get these people we desperately need. Because if
you're the governor of a state and you don't have
the people you need, you are in trouble. You have
to figure out another way. But I do believe that
that means America first, can just mean not being in
an adversarial not being in a country that wants to
take you over.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
We talk a lot about the bureaucracy, and I think,
you know, I have a lot of thoughts obviously on
the bureocracy. It's totally bloated, and I think they have
motives that are in some ways not pursuing what America
should be pursuing. But there is a role for a
slimmer level of bureaucracy to be working on long term
things like this, and I think that gets lost a
lot of times in the conversation of like, we don't
(19:28):
want any career employees anything like that. I think there's
a role for it, but it needs to be very
strategic about what is its purpose for the future of
the country.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
Yeah, and I thought I've had about these sorts of
if you view business, some of these different businesses through
a national security lens, and if we are I mean
you take EV's for example, if we are going to
be shifting to evs because the government's telling us that's
(19:58):
what we have to do, well, eighty to ninety percent
of the components of the car are coming from a
country that doesn't like us and would rather have us
not exist, and so they are then able to gain
an advantage over the US because they control the pieces
and the components. And so I mean just and I
(20:20):
let me preface this by saying, I think actually we
should be looking at hydrogen and not batteries. But that
being said, an alternative, I think, instead of giving a
company like Goshen hundreds of millions of dollars to come
into the country and build a plant, why doesn't And
again I'm not a proponent of this, I'm just saying,
(20:41):
if this is the mindset of the government, why doesn't
the mind why doesn't the government create some sort of
like a a major prize for a company that creates
a battery that actually lasts and is not highly toxic
and is not you know, having components that are coming
(21:01):
from an adversarial country. Why don't they invest in that
sort of thing versus just what I would call like
what people at Gretchen Whitmer do, is they she's throwing
hundreds of millions of dollars at a company for a
press release to say that she's out creating jobs even
(21:23):
though she's not creating jobs and actually there's not been
a single job created with Goshen, and she announced that
two years ago.
Speaker 3 (21:31):
She gets the headline, and then people forget when the
job's never come.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
But also these are people who don't understand manufacturing. The
Gretchen Wimers, the Kamala harris Is, the Jocelyn Benson's of
the world, who are all saying over saving the world.
They are just trying to get votes. This is all
about these young groups who are out there saying like
this is the answer, and we've got to go with
it right now. Hey, look, I think there's very few
(21:55):
people out there that aren't saying we can always improve.
We can always get better. I believe in that too.
So you can't put the car before the horse. And
there's just I mean, just like you said about China,
you can't bring it all back overnight. You don't have
the infrastructure for this. You cannot just speak a word.
You're not God, you don't speak it, and it happens, okay,
(22:15):
like the government thinks you speak and then everything changes.
You cannot demand these companies make ev vehicles, and in
some case, I think California is like by twenty thirty
or something, everything has to be ev There is no infrastructure.
It is impossible. You cannot force people to take their
bicycles places because there's no place to charge their vehicles.
(22:35):
It's just it's irrational. But it's also people who have
no idea what they're talking about. But actually, I want
to pivot back to the Inflation Reduction Act because part
of that was supposed to be that they were going
to put this infrastructure in. Let's take a quick commercial break.
We'll continue next on the Tutor Dixon Podcast. One of
(23:00):
the things that we kept tearing during the pandemic was
we've got to get high powered internet. That's got to
go to the upper Peninsula of Michigan, Northern Michigan, Detroit,
where these kids couldn't get onto the internet. They were
going to put high speed internet in these areas that
were underserved for high speed internet, and they got and
Michigan got all this money from the Inflation Reduction Act.
(23:21):
So my question is, how do we monitor where that
money goes. Who is actually saying, oh, this is the
breakdown of what we got from the Inflation Reduction Act
and how it's going to go toward the infrastructure part
is going to go toward infrastructure because this has nothing
to do with inflation. And I asked that question because
my neighborhood got fiber internet over the summer. We have
(23:47):
no issues connecting. I mean, hey, that's great. We have
really fast internet now yay, But we had internet. This
was supposed to go to people who have no internet.
This is supposed to go to rural areas that were
desperate for internet. So did she just bring in this
money and buy people's votes by I mean, because people
(24:08):
in my neighborhood are like, oh my gosh, this is amazing.
We have the fastest internet. And I'm like, but you
understand that a government contract went to Frontier. They got
to come in and put internet into a very easy
neighborhood to put internet into, and a massive amount of
home So I'm sure it.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
Was already had it right right.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
So I'm sure it was a high cost house to
house to house. They probably got money for every house
and it you know, where it's hard to put internet
in the up where there are houses that are miles apart.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
Did they get anything where there are parents? When I
worked in state government Indiana, there were parents and ural
parts of Indiana that their mom would get off, get
them off, like get off of work, get them from school,
drive them to McDonald's or whatever the local restaurant was
in town, because that's what had Wi fi. Sit there
for hours until all of their kids finished their homework.
(24:59):
Because everything now there's no like paper homework anymore. It's
all done on a laptop or an iPad. Sit there,
do their homework with them, and then go home for
the day. And that was the routine. If there was
a power outage, if there was anything, I mean, you're screwed.
But that's not who Gretchen Whitmer or Democrats in general
helping with this. That's who they should be trying to
(25:20):
get access to.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
I went to I shop at Walmart. And I went
to Walmart the other night and it was in a
suburban Walmart, and there was a guy standing outside, you know,
like when the where the bell ringers stand before Christmas.
There was a guy standing out there and he had
a little podium and it said, it said, ask me
(25:44):
about how to get fiber Internet. And I thought that
these people shopping at the Walmart in this particular part
of America, they have access to internet. They and I
would make the argument, most people don't need fiber is
it nice? Sure do you need that? No? So where
(26:06):
exactly are these dollars going? And I, like you said,
I thought the point was to get Internet to people
that don't have access to it, not people that have
access to good Internet, And you want to give them
super fast.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
Internet looks even faster?
Speaker 1 (26:21):
Yeah, So you do you trust the people that throw
all of this money around because it's all our money,
all the money that came from Washington d C. It's
all our money, the money that was given away by
the state, it's all our money. These people are making
decisions and it sounds great because if I'm sitting here
thinking about the mom who has to go to Starbucks
(26:43):
or the mom who has to drive to the local
internet cafe. And I know that people are like those
don't exist anymore. There are places where people go when
you are in a rural area and you don't have internet.
Did those people get internet or did they get screwed
by these people who said I'm gonna put it in
the easiest spot because they're handing off government contracts. I mean,
(27:04):
look at Whitmer's State of the State. Generally you don't
have the number of guests that she had at the
State of the State, but she gave away one point
five billion dollars for housing. She's going to build housing,
And all the construction guys were at the front, Republicans
and Democrats, all of them at the front of the
State of State listening, and I'm like, who owns the housing?
(27:27):
Everybody goes, Oh, they're going to have this housing. What
the state's building? What kind of housing? Did they go
to like the local neighborhood and pick up model homes
or is it just like high rises everywhere? And is
it all rental? And if it's rental, in the state
owns it? Where are they do they have to pay
the state? Does the state own land?
Speaker 2 (27:46):
Now?
Speaker 1 (27:47):
I don't want the government and in charge of house
it to make sure that it stays a nice community,
right exactly what just happened. Nobody asks those questions, And
that makes me mad at the debate too, because she's like,
I'm going to provide housing. How that has never been
what we do? I mean, why aren't you providing Why
aren't you bringing businesses here? And then people have to
(28:08):
build their own housing, and they have the money to
build their own housing, and maybe you reduce all of
these taxes that you're charging people, but they'd rather take
They don't want you in charge of your own money.
The reason they can't reduce taxes and they find ways.
I mean, does Whitmer need to take one point five
billion to build housing or would it be better to
(28:29):
give people back their money, which she could have done
with the income tax reduction that she chose to skirt
and not give back to the people. So instead she
thinks she knows better how to spend your money. Are
you sick and tired yet of politicians telling you we
can spend your money better than you.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
That's not unique to Michigan. I mean that happens right everywhere,
and it's the philosophy I mean, Tim Walls is the
same way that their philosophy is. They know how to
spend your dollars, your money better than you. They know
how to make decisions about your health better than you,
which is why they wanted vaccine mandates and mass mandates
and you know, and yes, and you know, turning neighbor
(29:11):
against neighbor and all of that, because that's their philosophy.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
Yeah, they want to take them They want to be
in charge of everything. They want you to be totally
reliant on government. They love to tell you that you
are oppressed and you have an oppressor and they're freeing
you from that by taking your money and showing you
how to spend it. And ultimately, if they take your money,
they're taking your oppressor's money, and you're all going to
be happy together. I mean, it's just this is the
(29:36):
state of the nation today, and these are the things
that I really wish that I would hear people fighting
back on, but we are not hearing that yet. That's
why you come here so that you can hear Sarah
and Kyle and me complain about it. But seriously, no,
we are so glad that you're here with us every week,
and we are so glad that you come to the
(29:58):
Tutor Dixon Podcast and for this episode, go to Tutor
Dixon podcast dot com or the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts
or wherever you get your podcasts, and make sure you
join us the next time on the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
We're so grateful that you are here. Have a blessed day.
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. I'm here with Sarah
Broadwater and Kyle Olsen, and you all have heard us
talk about the battery factory in Michigan. This is something
that I think affects the entire country. We know that
this battery factory that is coming over from China called
Goshen is also in Illinois. Illinois. The only place that
(00:22):
they are Michigan and Illinis.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
They have their headquarters. They say they're beachhead, as I
like to say, is in California.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Okay, all right, I don't know what.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
But beach d beach head is like you know, when
you're attacking a country. You established a beach.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Heads in California.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
So I guess, I guess we should consider them attacking
the country because big big news out of Washington, d C.
And I do think this is big news. I know
Kyle's gonna explain. This was a voice vote, so we
don't know exactly who voted for it, but the House
of Representatives passed stay bill that would essentially ban Goshen batteries.
(01:03):
Specifically Goshen, and I think a couple other Chinese battery factories,
but Goshen was specifically mentioned in the bill from use
in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense.
And to me, that is significant because we have come
out and what we've been talking about this for two
years that the battery plant is dangerous because it's associated
(01:26):
with CCP. But think about what that means for the
government to be like, Yeah, it's okay for all of
your tax payer dollars to go into these factories that
they're bringing into the United States, but we won't use
their batteries when it's anything sensitive, like do you want
this battery in your car? I mean, because what's so dangerous?
It doesn't the bill doesn't say what's dangerous?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
No, So right, so the bill bans DHS Homeland Security
from buying batteries from adversarial countries China, and it's specific
fickly names Goshen, which is interesting and and it was
it was passed by a voice vote. And the reason
to me that that's significant is the alternative is a
(02:09):
roll call vote where people actually have to put their
name on a vote. And so this bill did not
at least there's no recorded nos, so Democrats didn't have
a chance to vote no again or vote against it.
So I do think that that's important to point out.
But it's interesting because look how and we've we've talked
(02:31):
about this, but look how far this has come, this
whole issue to the point where now the Congress is
actually passing bills and not just sort of saying, you know,
vague terms like you know, adversarial countries, but actually naming
the company and saying that the US government will not
(02:52):
buy batteries from this specific company.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
I think it's significant because the Midwesterner was the publication
that said, hey, wait a minute. Even in their bylaws,
they're saying that they are connected to the Chinese Communist Party. Now,
in Michigan, we fought this battle and even Republican legislator
legislators were like, oh, that's crazy, you don't have to
worry about it. But we understand that this is a
(03:14):
true threat. And the thing that is bizarre to me,
even with this debate the other night and what's happening
with the entire election, is that the Republicans are not
hammering more on even Christopher Ray, the director of the FBI,
coming out and saying we are in a red flag
zone right now, we are under great threat. We have
this open border, and China is a massive threat too.
(03:37):
I think that he's said that China is the number
one threat to the United States. They government clearly believes
there's some sort of a problem for them to say
we don't want these in our on our military or
government equipment. The question I have is, Okay, can we
delve into that. Are they afraid that these batteries will
(03:59):
be tracked, afraid that these batteries are containing are recording information?
Are they afraid that they'll just have control over these
batteries and they can shut down all of our equipment
when they want to, or can they detonate these batteries?
I mean, what is the fear? Well?
Speaker 3 (04:12):
And I think, yeah, I understand not wanting to use
them in defense contracts and things, but also there's a
civilian threat then too. Without knowing what exactly is going on,
and you hear about you know, all of the utilities
that the Chinese companies owns and the technology all of that.
I mean, I think there is a real civilian threat
that is just as important that we have to think about.
(04:32):
So I understand and I appreciate that they're focusing on
the one, but I don't know how you can focus
on the one without talking about the broader implications of
this too.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
And if it's dangerous enough that the US military should
not be using batteries like this, then why is it okay?
Why is it not dangerous for a vehicle or a
scooter or whatever else uses the battery? Why is that okay?
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Or why are they allowed to own land in the
if the Department of Defense specifically calls them out as
a threat.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
And that's to me, that's the great irony here is
you have you have the Congress, the House passing a
bill saying that DHS and it's it's actually a separate
bill for the Department of Defense, but it's the same
language saying that the federal government will not be, you know,
purchasing batteries from this company because it's a threat. Yet
(05:27):
I mean, yes, Michigan taxpayers, Gretchen Whitmer is giving seven
hundred and fifteen million dollars to this company to build
a plant in the state of Michigan.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
But Illinois was something crazy like six billion.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Yeah, they and they were believe we're getting federal subsidies.
I think it wasn't just state subsidies.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Payable che Well, you paid a lot of the state
money is coming from the the Inflation Reduction Act as
they like to call it, and so it is federal money,
which of course means it is Biden Harris money. So
for them to now suddenly be concerned about this or
not wanting or somehow claiming that the federal government isn't
(06:06):
going to support Goshen, well, that ship is sailed. That's
already happening. But to me, the great irony here is
that the federal government is recognizing that Goshen is a threat. Well,
then why in the world won are we allowing? Are
we giving them tax payer money? But then two, why
are we letting them build a one square mile plant
(06:28):
one hundred miles away from Camp Grayling, which is a
military base, national Guard base where they are training every
year annually. They're training Taiwanese forces. Well, why would they
Why would they be doing that. They're training Taiwanese forces
to repel a Chinese invasion.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Okay, so remind me I want to go back to
the Inflation Reduction Act for a second after we talk
about this, because I think this also kind of plays
into this. I don't know if I want to nicely,
but Reuters Today publishes an article out of Moscow, and
the title of it is Russia says it could combine
with China if they face a threat, and they say
(07:10):
if faced with a threat from the United States. To me,
this is very scary. It says. Putin and g signed
a no limits partnership deal in twenty two, less than
three weeks before Putin sent troops into Ukraine in May.
They agreed to deepen that well what they're calling a
comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation for a new era. The
(07:31):
two countries have not declared a formal military alliance, but
then Putin last week says they are allies in every
sense of the word. Now listen, think about this. China
has the largest navy in the world. China continues to
move closer to the United States. They continue to have
these naval ports closer and closer to the United States.
(07:53):
Russia and China have staged military exercises together. We just
saw that happen, remember, and to me, it was a
very telling message that Joe Biden comes out and decides
to step out of his campaign, and during that address
to the nation, China and Russia fly together into US
airspace over in the Alaska airspace. So we're seeing that
(08:15):
they're doing this, it says, including naval drills that started
on Tuesdays. So they now are doing naval drills that
just started un last already guests yesterday or Tuesday of
this week. Putin is overseeing the launch of maneuvers and
warned the United States against attempts to outgun Russia by
building up its military power in the Asia Pacific region.
(08:39):
So we are being told we're being threatened by these countries.
Why is this not a bigger deal? And to just
kind of bring this back to the batteries, Sarah you
brought up. Could this be a threat to civilians? If
these batteries are in your car and they actually do
decide to invade our country and they shut our cars down,
(09:00):
You're you're trapped, You're sitting ducks. I mean not that
you're you want to have them in the country anyway,
but they have a major advantage if they can just
shut us all down.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
It's it's a grid issue. I mean, you think about
your transportation, your cellular communication, your energy supply. If they
are in control of so much of that and they
decide turn of you know, turn of a switch, it's done.
That's I mean, that is a military threat.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
So and the irony. Another irony is that you know,
Russia is the is the great pariah in American politics,
the boogeyman. And you know, Democrats are constantly accusing Republicans
and Donald Trump of being you know, agents of Russia
and all of that. Okay, so now we know that
(09:49):
Russia is allies with China and has this strategic partnership
and and all of that. But yet we are financing
Chinese companies to grow businesses and plants in Michigan, in
Illinois and elsewhere.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
How dumb can you get? I mean, and why why
aren't Republicans just going bananas about this? You know they
were when this happened with Goshen so many of them
were like, Oh, what's the big deal, it's business development night,
or brought Chinese companies in for a business development. We
have seen over the last ten years since that happened,
(10:29):
what has gone on with China coming in and buying
a property and buying a property that even circles or
makes a perfect square around a military base. They buy
up all the property around. I mean, this is it's
just a national security issue, and it's something that I
don't think we're talking enough about. There will always be
(10:50):
a drive for communism to take over the United States.
There is going to be a drive. There always has been,
there always will be. And we are very connected to
We're way too connected to China with the companies that
we have in China. China wants to come here. But
think about the reverse, how connected we are into what's
happening in China because we have full cities that are
(11:12):
dedicated to making certain products. I mean, you got your
iPhone made over there, but you have a military equipment,
you have all of your pharmaceuticals. We have such a
heavy reliance on a country that hates us and wants
to take us down.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Well, earlier in the week, you had posted an interview
clip that you did back during the campaign with a
conservative talk radio station and host, and one of the
things he said in there he was coming after you
about you going after Goshen essentially, and he said something
along the lines of, well, China is not the CCP.
We're talking about two different things. I'm like, this is
(11:46):
what is. People don't understand they are the same thing.
There is no China and the CCP it is one.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
So you bring up a bigger question, I think. And
so America is very much entwined with China, and there's
a lot that we bring, we import from China, medicines
and everything. How do you how do you detangle that?
Speaker 1 (12:22):
How do you decouple from China? Yeah, I mean I
was I've been mulling this over in my mind. And
you know, from the business standpoint, obviously, it's not easy
because if you've developed business there, then you have developed equipment,
proprietary equipment. It's been run there, it's been tested there,
(12:45):
you have it all. I mean, many of these companies
have all of their eggs in the China basket. So
there's no there's no bringing an iPhone city to the
United States. You just can't have like hundreds of thousands
of people trapped in buildings forced to work for you.
The alternative to that is, as Americans, why would we
ever accept that a company does this? Because why do
(13:07):
you choose China? If you are an American company and
you can tell me we're choosing China because of the
cheap labor, But then why not go to Central America?
And I know the reason not to go to Central America,
and the reason they choose not to is because it
would take long to develop there, because they don't have
a communist dictatorship where you're just dealing with one person
who says, yeah, we'll build it for you overnight. You
(13:28):
actually have to build up that country. And they have crime.
China has no crime because they murder you if you
commit a crime. I mean, they are ruthless. And I
would argue, and I argued this a couple of nights
ago at the event that we were at, But I
would truly argue if you, as Americans, the government should
(13:49):
look at some of these companies and say, wait a minute,
are you breaking human rights laws? Are you committing human
rights violations? Because if you have a campus, which is
what they call it, but you're actually it's like slave labor.
You're forcing people to live in these high rises. They
have to work for you twelve hours a day. They
can't go home to their families but maybe twice a year,
(14:11):
and that's for a few days at a time. They
have to live in there, they have to eat in there,
they have to eat in the cafeteria. I mean, they
go from the building to the factory. Why would we
ever allow a US company to I mean, it's slavery.
They own people, they own people. How can we possibly
allow a US company to own people? And if it's
(14:34):
not even that extreme, if you're looking at it and
you're saying, well, these people are really treated poorly. They
don't have the right working conditions. I can remember when
I was in the foundry industry, we had people that
went over there and they took videos of what they
were doing. The pollution was horrendous. That alone you would
get you would be shut down in the United States.
So why should you be allowed, if you are a
(14:54):
United States company to go to another country and commit
the same environmental crisis, the same environmental disaster. They were
also completely unsafe and there was no regard for human life.
These people would go in and my dad would say,
I mean, they're in the equivalent of a diaper and sandals,
walking around with shards of metal and pouring molten metal.
(15:15):
It's insane. There were no standards. I think that has
changed a little bit, but I guarantee you there are
places where it's still happening, and this is who we're
relying on, and we're relying on it for even our
military equipment. If you want to get machinery, a part
of your military equipment, a part of your humbye, a
part of your vehicle could potentially be being made by
(15:37):
your adversary. It makes absolutely no sense. But who is
the oversight here, who is making sure that we are
not fully embedded in China? And then you talk about decoupling, Well,
what does that look like? How do you go to
American companies and say you have to start to move
your business, you have to start to expand. But honestly,
(15:58):
if you did, if you took just a small percentage
of the businesses in China and you started to say,
we're going to invest in Central America, which is what
China has told them. They've lied to them, they gave
them all these promises, and then they have this imbalanced
trade agreement. China is sucking the life out of Central
America right now. But if they can, then they eventually
own Central America. Why not instead, why aren't we trying
(16:22):
to build up there so we don't have this border crisis?
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Well, and it's not something that will happen in years,
it will be decades. And I think that's where I
talk about China has one hundred year plan, America does
need long term strategic planning on this. I mean the
company that I worked for previously, we had a fifteen
and a twenty year plan on how do we bring
plants from China over to Honduras or areas like that,
(16:46):
partly because the shipping was getting so expensive and so
if there was a way to at least cut down
that and the lead times of things. I think after COVID,
a lot of companies learned that the lead time if
you have a backward around a product goes from three
to four weeks all the way up to upwards of
fifteen weeks. You're going to have unhappy customers at the
end of the day. So what is the incentive to
(17:08):
your point of, how do we use the government to
strategically pick what industries are critically important to us, the
pharmaceutical industry, whatever it is, and start to offer tax
incentives for them, or to offer incentives for them to
build in friendly countries so that in ten years from
now at least we are set up so that we
have some sort of safety net there and then hopefully
(17:29):
as time goes on that gets more and more less,
we get less reliant on them. But it's not going
to happen in a year. And I think that's what
people when we say we want to decouple from China,
people are like, well, it's not going to happen. Ever, well,
it will, but it does take long term planning.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I think that we believe America runs on eight year cycles,
and that's just not true. I mean, people can complain
about term limits and Congress people can be there for
too long, but there is another branch of government that
is there that can be looking at these issues. But
also I think people get confused when you say America first,
(18:06):
they think, well, if you're then saying you're going to
bring everything from China back to the United States, which
is not possible, and that industry in many cases, industries
are certain industries are lost, and that is my fear
with farms, but that was essentially what happened with steel founders.
We have very few left. There's not an expertise. Nobody
(18:28):
wants to build one here because it's hard. It's hard
work and Americans don't want to do that work. And
people can argue with me that that's not true, but
it is true. I mean, that's what we talked to
governors stick from Oklahoma about the other day. He was saying,
we can't get certain industries in. We're trying to do
state visas and take some of that immigration back into
the state's hands so that we can get nurses, so
(18:49):
we can get these people we desperately need. Because if
you're the governor of a state and you don't have
the people you need, you are in trouble. You have
to figure out another way. But I do believe that
that means America first, can just mean not being in
an adversarial not being in a country that wants to
take you over.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
We talk a lot about the bureaucracy, and I think,
you know, I have a lot of thoughts obviously on
the bureocracy. It's totally bloated, and I think they have
motives that are in some ways not pursuing what America
should be pursuing. But there is a role for a
slimmer level of bureaucracy to be working on long term
things like this, and I think that gets lost a
lot of times in the conversation of like, we don't
(19:28):
want any career employees anything like that. I think there's
a role for it, but it needs to be very
strategic about what is its purpose for the future of
the country.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
Yeah, and I thought I've had about these sorts of
if you view business, some of these different businesses through
a national security lens, and if we are I mean
you take EV's for example, if we are going to
be shifting to evs because the government's telling us that's
(19:58):
what we have to do, well, eighty to ninety percent
of the components of the car are coming from a
country that doesn't like us and would rather have us
not exist, and so they are then able to gain
an advantage over the US because they control the pieces
and the components. And so I mean just and I
(20:20):
let me preface this by saying, I think actually we
should be looking at hydrogen and not batteries. But that
being said, an alternative, I think, instead of giving a
company like Goshen hundreds of millions of dollars to come
into the country and build a plant, why doesn't And
again I'm not a proponent of this, I'm just saying,
(20:41):
if this is the mindset of the government, why doesn't
the mind why doesn't the government create some sort of
like a a major prize for a company that creates
a battery that actually lasts and is not highly toxic
and is not you know, having components that are coming
(21:01):
from an adversarial country. Why don't they invest in that
sort of thing versus just what I would call like
what people at Gretchen Whitmer do, is they she's throwing
hundreds of millions of dollars at a company for a
press release to say that she's out creating jobs even
(21:23):
though she's not creating jobs and actually there's not been
a single job created with Goshen, and she announced that
two years ago.
Speaker 3 (21:31):
She gets the headline, and then people forget when the
job's never come.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
But also these are people who don't understand manufacturing. The
Gretchen Wimers, the Kamala harris Is, the Jocelyn Benson's of
the world, who are all saying over saving the world.
They are just trying to get votes. This is all
about these young groups who are out there saying like
this is the answer, and we've got to go with
it right now. Hey, look, I think there's very few
(21:55):
people out there that aren't saying we can always improve.
We can always get better. I believe in that too.
So you can't put the car before the horse. And
there's just I mean, just like you said about China,
you can't bring it all back overnight. You don't have
the infrastructure for this. You cannot just speak a word.
You're not God, you don't speak it, and it happens, okay,
(22:15):
like the government thinks you speak and then everything changes.
You cannot demand these companies make ev vehicles, and in
some case, I think California is like by twenty thirty
or something, everything has to be ev There is no infrastructure.
It is impossible. You cannot force people to take their
bicycles places because there's no place to charge their vehicles.
(22:35):
It's just it's irrational. But it's also people who have
no idea what they're talking about. But actually, I want
to pivot back to the Inflation Reduction Act because part
of that was supposed to be that they were going
to put this infrastructure in. Let's take a quick commercial break.
We'll continue next on the Tutor Dixon Podcast. One of
(23:00):
the things that we kept tearing during the pandemic was
we've got to get high powered internet. That's got to
go to the upper Peninsula of Michigan, Northern Michigan, Detroit,
where these kids couldn't get onto the internet. They were
going to put high speed internet in these areas that
were underserved for high speed internet, and they got and
Michigan got all this money from the Inflation Reduction Act.
(23:21):
So my question is, how do we monitor where that
money goes. Who is actually saying, oh, this is the
breakdown of what we got from the Inflation Reduction Act
and how it's going to go toward the infrastructure part
is going to go toward infrastructure because this has nothing
to do with inflation. And I asked that question because
my neighborhood got fiber internet over the summer. We have
(23:47):
no issues connecting. I mean, hey, that's great. We have
really fast internet now yay, But we had internet. This
was supposed to go to people who have no internet.
This is supposed to go to rural areas that were
desperate for internet. So did she just bring in this
money and buy people's votes by I mean, because people
(24:08):
in my neighborhood are like, oh my gosh, this is amazing.
We have the fastest internet. And I'm like, but you
understand that a government contract went to Frontier. They got
to come in and put internet into a very easy
neighborhood to put internet into, and a massive amount of
home So I'm sure it.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
Was already had it right right.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
So I'm sure it was a high cost house to
house to house. They probably got money for every house
and it you know, where it's hard to put internet
in the up where there are houses that are miles apart.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
Did they get anything where there are parents? When I
worked in state government Indiana, there were parents and ural
parts of Indiana that their mom would get off, get
them off, like get off of work, get them from school,
drive them to McDonald's or whatever the local restaurant was
in town, because that's what had Wi fi. Sit there
for hours until all of their kids finished their homework.
(24:59):
Because everything now there's no like paper homework anymore. It's
all done on a laptop or an iPad. Sit there,
do their homework with them, and then go home for
the day. And that was the routine. If there was
a power outage, if there was anything, I mean, you're screwed.
But that's not who Gretchen Whitmer or Democrats in general
helping with this. That's who they should be trying to
(25:20):
get access to.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
I went to I shop at Walmart. And I went
to Walmart the other night and it was in a
suburban Walmart, and there was a guy standing outside, you know,
like when the where the bell ringers stand before Christmas.
There was a guy standing out there and he had
a little podium and it said, it said, ask me
(25:44):
about how to get fiber Internet. And I thought that
these people shopping at the Walmart in this particular part
of America, they have access to internet. They and I
would make the argument, most people don't need fiber is
it nice? Sure do you need that? No? So where
(26:06):
exactly are these dollars going? And I, like you said,
I thought the point was to get Internet to people
that don't have access to it, not people that have
access to good Internet, And you want to give them
super fast.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
Internet looks even faster?
Speaker 1 (26:21):
Yeah, So you do you trust the people that throw
all of this money around because it's all our money,
all the money that came from Washington d C. It's
all our money, the money that was given away by
the state, it's all our money. These people are making
decisions and it sounds great because if I'm sitting here
thinking about the mom who has to go to Starbucks
(26:43):
or the mom who has to drive to the local
internet cafe. And I know that people are like those
don't exist anymore. There are places where people go when
you are in a rural area and you don't have internet.
Did those people get internet or did they get screwed
by these people who said I'm gonna put it in
the easiest spot because they're handing off government contracts. I mean,
(27:04):
look at Whitmer's State of the State. Generally you don't
have the number of guests that she had at the
State of the State, but she gave away one point
five billion dollars for housing. She's going to build housing,
And all the construction guys were at the front, Republicans
and Democrats, all of them at the front of the
State of State listening, and I'm like, who owns the housing?
(27:27):
Everybody goes, Oh, they're going to have this housing. What
the state's building? What kind of housing? Did they go
to like the local neighborhood and pick up model homes
or is it just like high rises everywhere? And is
it all rental? And if it's rental, in the state
owns it? Where are they do they have to pay
the state? Does the state own land?
Speaker 2 (27:46):
Now?
Speaker 1 (27:47):
I don't want the government and in charge of house
it to make sure that it stays a nice community,
right exactly what just happened. Nobody asks those questions, And
that makes me mad at the debate too, because she's like,
I'm going to provide housing. How that has never been
what we do? I mean, why aren't you providing Why
aren't you bringing businesses here? And then people have to
(28:08):
build their own housing, and they have the money to
build their own housing, and maybe you reduce all of
these taxes that you're charging people, but they'd rather take
They don't want you in charge of your own money.
The reason they can't reduce taxes and they find ways.
I mean, does Whitmer need to take one point five
billion to build housing or would it be better to
(28:29):
give people back their money, which she could have done
with the income tax reduction that she chose to skirt
and not give back to the people. So instead she
thinks she knows better how to spend your money. Are
you sick and tired yet of politicians telling you we
can spend your money better than you.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
That's not unique to Michigan. I mean that happens right everywhere,
and it's the philosophy I mean, Tim Walls is the
same way that their philosophy is. They know how to
spend your dollars, your money better than you. They know
how to make decisions about your health better than you,
which is why they wanted vaccine mandates and mass mandates
and you know, and yes, and you know, turning neighbor
(29:11):
against neighbor and all of that, because that's their philosophy.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
Yeah, they want to take them They want to be
in charge of everything. They want you to be totally
reliant on government. They love to tell you that you
are oppressed and you have an oppressor and they're freeing
you from that by taking your money and showing you
how to spend it. And ultimately, if they take your money,
they're taking your oppressor's money, and you're all going to
be happy together. I mean, it's just this is the
(29:36):
state of the nation today, and these are the things
that I really wish that I would hear people fighting
back on, but we are not hearing that yet. That's
why you come here so that you can hear Sarah
and Kyle and me complain about it. But seriously, no,
we are so glad that you're here with us every week,
and we are so glad that you come to the
(29:58):
Tutor Dixon Podcast and for this episode, go to Tutor
Dixon podcast dot com or the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts
or wherever you get your podcasts, and make sure you
join us the next time on the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
We're so grateful that you are here. Have a blessed day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
3. Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.