June 23, 2025 • 33 mins
In this episode, Tudor Dixon and Kyle Olson discuss the Democratic Party’s internal divisions, focusing on the political influence of teachers’ unions—especially the American Federation of Teachers and its president, Randi Weingarten. They examine Weingarten’s role in shaping education policy and Democratic strategy, the party’s shift toward progressive activism, and challenges in maintaining voter support. The conversation also addresses concerns about national security, Chinese student influence in universities, and the broader impact of education policies on local communities and upcoming elections. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network. For more visit TudorDixonPodcast.com
Check out the latest from The Midwesterner
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. Today, I have Kyle
Olsen with me from The Midwesterner, and Kyle, I want
to kind of go through what's happening on the Democrat side,
because everybody says that they're melting down. But there's a
few key points that I want to get into. And
one last week we saw that Randy Weiningarten, who is
the president.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Of the American Federation of Teachers, so.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
The teachers' union the second largest, right, yes, there's two, yes, Okay.
So we find out that she decided she didn't want
her appointment to the DNC, which she has apparently had
since two thousand and nine. She was on the Rules
and by Laws committee. And it was funny because this
came out and conservatives were like, wait a minute, we
(00:45):
didn't know she actually had a position within the DNC,
which I think shocked people somewhat. I don't think people
were totally stunned by it, but I am stunned by
it because here is somebody who was making decisions about
whether or not our kids could be in school while
holding a position with the Democrats who were in charge
(01:07):
at the time, so a powerful position within their party,
making decisions about the rules of how they run their party.
And she's also in charge of funds that come from
so they're completely siphoned off of what the taxpayers pay
the teachers. So she's taking public funds and using them
(01:29):
and funding an organization that puts her on a committee.
I mean, you cannot make this stuff up.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Well, I think it shows the unions, whether it's the
NEA or the AFT or the UAW or SCIU or
any of them, they run the Democratic Party. Unions run
the Democratic Party, and so for all of the conventions
and everything that we see on TV, the unions are
(01:55):
calling the shots. So it's not entirely surprising to me
to see that she's on a committee because the unions give,
you know, millions of dollars to the party every year
and and they control it. But I think, I think
what it shows is that the the A f T
(02:16):
and the other unions, but the AFT in particular, because
that's what we're talking about, is a political organization, right,
and they are not about how can what what can
we do to make sure kids can read, or that
we increase graduation rates or we close the the you know,
racial gap, or any of those achievement gap, any of
(02:37):
those sorts of things. They're not They're not concerned by that.
What they care about is political power, electing the candidates
that are going to serve them, and winning at the
bargaining table. That's all they care about.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
I mean, I would almost argue, though, that that is
secondary to what they do politically, and it should be first.
Collective bargaining should be first for them. They should be
trying to get the teachers the best possible wage. But
I would almost argue that what we've seen with Randy
Winengarten at the HELM has been that she is pushing
an agenda more so than taking care of teachers. Even
(03:11):
when I hear her do these speeches, she's not. I
have not, and maybe I'm not paying enough attention. You
can correct me if I'm wrong, But I have not
heard her out there saying teachers need to be paid more.
I have heard her out there screaming about political rhetoric,
screaming about Ukraine, screaming about President Trump, screaming about keeping
(03:32):
kids out of school because teachers were having to write
their own obituaries and all this. I mean, remember that
when they had teachers writing their own obituaries. But to me,
it's very important to think about her even wanting to
be on the Rules and Bylaws Committee because you're in
a position where you think that you can make rules.
And she was suddenly open with us about, yeah, we're
(03:54):
actually making the rules for the CDC. Remember that. So
they're making these decisions as to what will happen to
kids during COVID. She somehow had a connection, which obviously
she's high up in the DNC, so she's high up
with all the Democrat leaders. So she gets this connection
with the CDC and she starts making these rules about
(04:15):
whether or not we can put kids back in school.
She felt like that was her decision. Now, think about
the fact that she felt like that was her decision
to make these political decisions because it wasn't medical. It
was political, and as soon as you have Randy Weingarten
making the decision, it's not medical at all. So she
felt like she was in that position. We have a problem,
(04:38):
like you just said, where kids can't read across this nation.
It's not just in certain areas. We have a consistent
problem across the country, but we also have a problem
where there have been woke agendas and pushed on our
kids at our school, and I believe that comes from
her too.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Well, of course it does. That's the culture of the
Union and the AFT in particular. They have they have
promoted this concept of teaching the whole child. So it's
not just a matter of writing and reading and math
and all of that. It's providing services that most people
would argue families provide, doing laundry, doctor's appointments, those sorts
(05:20):
of things. Their their their idea is they want the
school to sort of be the community center and where
people kids' families live their lives and have all of
their needs met. That's what they ultimately want. Now in
terms of salaries, yes, the union cares about salaries, but
they also care about what they call working conditions, and
(05:41):
that is I mean, I've seen contracts literally that that
dictate what the room or what the temperature of the
teacher's lounge is going to be, or what the color
paint in the teacher's lounge is going to be. This
is and this is why these a lot of these
contracts are hundreds of pages long, because they want to
(06:02):
negotiate about every single thing. And again they're not negotiating
about well, what are we going to do to make
sure that we instead of a forty percent reading proficiency,
we're going to get to sixty percent or eighty percent.
They're not negotiating about that.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Well, I also think, I mean, you make a great point.
They aren't negotiating because there's no one holding their feet
to the fire. There's no one saying, well, okay, if
you don't hit these numbers, then we're going to have
to reduce the amount of money each school gets. And
I guess if that's the purpose of the teachers' union,
is that they're going to negotiate dollars, well, then there
has to be some accountability to if you get these dollars,
(06:41):
then what are you as a union going to do
to ensure that the people that are doing the jobs
are accomplishing the goal of the job. Which seems that
seems to me like teaching one oh one because or
business one oh one, I would say, because if we
had people in our own company who weren't completing the task,
(07:01):
they wouldn't get paid. But for some reason in our schools,
if and I'm not saying I'm not talking about any
specific teachers, but if there is a school that is
failing and there is consistent failure among multiple students, there
has to be some accountability for that, but there's not.
Right now, how does the system.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Work, Well, it's I think a lot of times it's
there is not student growth because there's week leadership, and
the leadership has got to hold the teachers accountable and
the week leaders don't do that, and so you don't
see you don't see change. But in terms of what
(07:43):
the union is really trying to do, I mean, you
go back to the pandemic and Randy Weingarten's objective again
was about the adults, and it was she was looking
out for the teachers and the adults in the system
not and so she wanted to, you know, keep them safe,
and she in her way to do that was to
(08:06):
keep kids out of the classroom and keep everyone remote,
so then that way that the adults wouldn't get sick.
And she it didn't bother her that there were you know,
there was there were years where kids were falling behind,
they weren't reading, weren't learning how to read, et cetera.
That didn't that didn't bother her.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
So Mike Pompeo runs called her the most dangerous person
in the United States. And I think a lot of
people thought that was an exaggeration at the time, But
I would say, look at how long she's been here.
I mean, how long has she been the president of.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
The AFT Over ten years, at least.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Over ten years, So this amount of timing. I've seen
pictures of her with Hillary Clinton that looked like they
were twenty years ago. So she's been politically active for
a very long time.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Sure.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
And the reason I say this is because we talk
about this woke agenda that's being pushed in the schools,
and concern about the woke agenda that's being pushed in
the schools, and like, oh, could that be coming from
Randy Weingarten. Well, the reason that she decided she doesn't
want to be a part of the DNC anymore is
because she was upset about what happened with David Hogg.
So you all remember David Hogg. He was one of
(09:17):
the victims in the Parkland shooting. He's one of the
students was there, he witnessed what happened. He came out
as an activist for students, and he continued to stay
as an activist on the Democrat side. And I would
say that he wouldn't say this, but I would say
that he leans toward the socialist side, which I would
also say that, though he wouldn't say that, he did
(09:39):
just openly endorse the man who is running for mayor
of New York, who has come out multiple times and
said he is a socialist. So if you are endorsing
socialism and you're putting your name on that, then you
must believe in socialism. And I think, honestly, I do
think that this is a problem with some of the
people in David Hogg's generation, that he doesn't realize what
(10:00):
he's saying is socialism. I think he's so has so little.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
I don't think but that the way you just said
that was he would be bothered if he knew that. No,
I think he is.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
I don't think he is right. Yeah, absolutely No, I
don't think that he is in any way bothered by it.
I think he just likes to come out and say
this is not what I'm for. If I mean, this
guy has clearly stated that he is a socialist, this
is Zorin, and he's come out and endorsed him. So
I do think that that's the direction he's going now.
I say that because the reason that Randy wine Garten
(10:34):
decided she didn't want to be on the Rules and
Bilaws Committee anymore was which was June fifth that she
came out and said this. I think it was June
eleventh that the Rules and Bylaws Committee conveniently said David
Hogg doesn't fit the requirements to be the vice chairman
of the DNC. He had been elected. They're saying, oh,
(10:55):
something about his gender. He couldn't be because of his gender,
and she would have been essentially yes, that wasn't that
wasn't acceptable. So poor poor David Hawk. That wasn't the
reason though. The reason, I mean that was the technicality
that they caught him on. So they're like, oh, thank goodness,
(11:16):
we're such a whoa, that's it. We're such a woke organization.
We can come up with a technicality to kick him out.
But that is that is what would you call it.
That's the technicality they used to get rid of someone
who said he was going to primary primary there candidates.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
It's just but it's just so funny. It's like they
didn't realize he was a white male before, but then
suddenly when he's like stepping out of line.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Yes, right, because it's not all a joke. All of
these checking the boxes is a joke. I mean, look
at what they ended up doing with Kamala Harris. Well,
I'll say, this is the same thing they did with
Joe Biden. They're like, oh, you don't actually fit anymore yet,
let's put you back behind the curtain Wizard of Oz.
So this is what they're doing with David. But she
(12:01):
must not have loved this. She was not, and she
openly came out and said she was not happy about
what they did to David Hogg. And she resigned before
it was officials, so she would have been on that
committee discussing the fact that he was going to be
kicked out, and she resigned on the fifth. He gets
kicked out on the eleventh. He had come out and
(12:22):
said he was going to spend twenty million dollars to
primary people that were not with what they think the
Democrat Party. What did he say? He said they were
like weak minded or they weren't strong enough, and he.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Was going to go out socialist enough.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
Right, and they were in strong blue districts, so strong
blue Democrats had been there for a long time. He
was going to go out there and primary them, and
he has this this organization's called Leaders We Deserve. So
when he started to become an activist and had like
the March for Lives or something like that, and which
(12:59):
was like to talk about kids at high school kids,
he then recently, I think in twenty three he created
Leaders We Deserve. And it's significant because in the last
quarter of twenty four he had projected that he would
raise a million dollars and in small dollar donations like
twenty five dollars donations, he ended up with three million
(13:20):
from just the fourth quarter. So I know that when
they heard that he was going to primary people, they
got nervous because to me, that is significant. Right now,
we're hearing that the DNC is in total chaos, that
they can't raise money, that they don't have any money,
that they're looking for unique ways to bring in money.
But for some reason, this socialist kid brought in three
million dollars from in smaller dollar donations in three months.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Well, I think what's happening is they're in disarray and
you've got people like him who are trying to pull
the party to the left, which is hard to believe
that it can go any farther left. That's what they're
trying to do. And I think that there's others who
realize that if they go farther left, it's going to
(14:06):
be a total disaster. And so they don't really have
a leader. And this is really the fundamental problem that
they have as they're trying to fight President Trump's agenda.
They don't really have a leader. So you sort of
see these heads kind of popping out. Remember it was
a couple of months ago, it was Corey Booker, and
(14:27):
so you see sort that these people kind of you know,
pop up and there's a struggle going on. And so
you've got you have people like David Hogg who wants
to throw out these incumbents, which historically they don't do.
It's like they protect the incumbents. They leave those people alone.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
You don't want to have to spend money to defend them,
especially when you are in a situation where you're trying
to win back the house. So for them, if you
look at this, I can see why they're mad because
they're like safe seats. Don't mess with our safe seats.
Let's make sure we woing back. They have President Trump
in office, it's like their worst nightmare. You know, they
want to win the House, they want to win the Senate.
(15:04):
And you've got a kid who somehow has fundraising power
and he's out there every day and he's not going
to slow down. And he's got the support of the
teachers union. So now suddenly do they go with him?
And they are losing their unions and they already lost.
So the public unions are still with them, but the
non public unions have left them.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Yeah, a lot of the trade unions, yea, the blue
collar trade unions have. But David Hogg, he is he
has This is not going to sound right, but he
has perfectly exploited what happened at Parkland and leveraged it
for political purposes, which I think is completely disgusting. But
(15:47):
he has perfectly figured out how to manipulate the media,
how to grow a list, how to raise money, how
to leverage all of that for his political ends. And
so now what we're seeing is he was elected as
one of the vice chairs, much to the dismay of
(16:10):
you know, all of the other people there. They figured
out how to throw him out, but he's not going away,
and I think the other sort of divide or you know,
chaos that's going on in the party is there was
just this No King's Day protest and it was a
lot of the it was indivisible, it was the Party
(16:34):
for Socialism and Liberation. It was a lot of far
left groups that are organizing. And if you look at
the map that they put out, their major events were
all in twenty twenty six Senate race states. I mean,
this is not this is not a coincidence about what's
(16:54):
going on. And I believe so you said, what David
hagg is trying to do. He's trying he's identifying these
blue districts and he's trying to find candidates that are
farther left. And I think what's happening is when you
see the No King's which people sort of laugh and
you know, laugh it off. You can't laugh it off.
(17:16):
Their goal is to organize five percent of the country
and have their information, have them activated, and if they're
capable of doing that, that would be a major, major thing.
And No King's Day they organized and they have data
on three and a half percent of the country. They
(17:39):
had one of their calls, one of their organizing calls
by the ACLU, which was involved, they had over twenty
thousand people on the call.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
But see, this is where I okay, So this is
where I argue that Republicans get to the point where
they get people in office and they think, okay, we're
in good shape, and they don't do this. And I mean,
I don't see a lot of events outside of the
standard Lincoln Day dinner. I don't see big events where
people get to see speakers and get to feel like
they're a part of something bigger than them. And that's
(18:09):
happening on the Democrat side. And people have said to me,
watch out. Just what you just said, watch out, because
as they continue to engage people, we're not And I
just heard this. I was in Detroit a couple days ago,
and I just heard people saying, Hey, there's people over
on this side of the state that feel like everybody
was here during the election and now they've kind of
(18:30):
stepped away and they want more answers, they want more attention.
People do crave attention when you've asked somebody to come
over to your party and be a part of your party.
And I believe this from our friends over in Dearborn
and ham Trammick, when you have asked them take a
step out of what is acceptable in your community and
come out there and campaign with us and join us.
(18:51):
You better show up again. And that's what they're doing.
They're recognizing that, and that's what look after twenty sixteen,
they got so organized, and that's what people need to understand.
It was malicious, but it worked. They created these nonprofits,
They went out, they started newspapers, they were doing these
types of these protests. Like you said, everybody's on an
(19:13):
email list. Now everybody's out there together. They're well funded.
They have these people then in there in their system
to go out and knock doors so that when those
center races come around, they win the Senate and we go,
how did that happen? Because there's not a team on
our side doing this right?
Speaker 2 (19:32):
Well, I think Republicans, I think conservatives and liberals are
fundamentally different. I think conservatives generally speaking, are you know,
are independent. They don't want someone telling them what to do.
But I think liberals generally speaking, I mean, it's the
very premise of a union. It's that we're going to
have we're going to have someone telling us what to do.
(19:54):
Someone's you know, for the greater good. And so that's
what we're seeing happening. And so this No Kings thing,
it's it's a collection of you know, all of these
different groups, unions, et cetera. And their goal is to
affect twenty twenty six. Because if they can affect twenty
twenty six, they know that's how they stopped Donald Trump.
(20:16):
If if they if the Republicans can lose the majority
in the House and or the Senate, Trump's Trump's legislative.
You know, agenda is on the rocks. And that's what
it's all about. And so go back to twenty twenty
what did they do. They isolated the whole George Floyd situation,
(20:39):
and they rallied and they organized, and they quote unquote
protested over that, and they use that one moment and
it's the same thing. Now it's the ice raids, and
it's what happened in Los Angeles, and they they identify
this one thing that they can rally you know, their
side around, and I think that they are doing it
(21:02):
very effectively. And I think that Republicans and Conservatives who
just sort of, you know, laugh it off or dismiss it,
they've got to realize that they that the left is energized. Yes,
they're in disarray, but they're getting organized. And where the
I think where the DNC and where the Democratic Party
(21:23):
is sort of falling away. These this no King's indivisible,
et cetera, are filling that void.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next. On
the Tutor Dixon podcast, there was a Democrat that was
recently on Fox and they were asking him, how is
this happening to the party. Why is it that you're splintering,
and they are splintering because they do have this faction
that wants to go further left. I would say that
(21:52):
they are in a situation where I think that there
were people who were saying that this was happening to
the Republican Party in twenty twenty, but I think I
think that what I see on the Democrat side is
way worse than what happened in twenty twenty. There were
arguments in twenty twenty over COVID and something that was
a moment in time. What they're arguing about is truly
(22:15):
defining them for the long term. So they have this
group that is like the trans rights group, the social
issues group, the side that has social issues on there.
That's all they're focused on and really what we've found
is social issues are not great in elections. They don't
really help either side. There's very rarely the social issue.
(22:37):
I think marijuana. They won big lely with the marijuana,
and then they thought, oh, all social issues marijuana and
abortion were good. The rest of these things for them,
let me clarified, they were good for them, But the
rest of these things I think are really splintering them.
And I heard this Democrat on Fox saying we have
(22:59):
a problem with our side right now because they aren't
telling people we want to do this for you. He said,
we used to come to people and say we want
to provide this for you, we want to give you
this free, and we want to give you that free,
which obviously I don't like, but at least they were
talking about what they thought that people needed. He said,
Now we're on issues that people aren't interested in, or
(23:22):
we're just saying Trump is bad. Hate Trump, and he
said Trump is bad is not a message of what
Democrats are going to do for you.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Right And so what we're seeing play out right now
with these protests and these far left groups, is that
going to translate into electoral success into winning on election day?
Because I think that I haven't seen polling, but I
would guess most normal people are not really attracted to
(23:50):
that sort of thing. And you look at Trump's polling,
and he's never been more popular. I mean, even when
he's in the even when his popularity is in the
high forties, he's never been more popular. So he and
he's sticking he And the thing is, he was very
clear in twenty twenty four about what he wanted to do,
(24:13):
what he stood for, what he was going to do
when he got in office, all of that, and he's
doing it. Whether it's he talked about tariffs, he's doing that.
He talked about deportations, he's doing that. He talked about
securing the border, He's doing that. So people are seeing, oh,
he's doing what he said he was going to do.
Now a lot, yes, a lot of it is through
(24:36):
executive orders. Securing the border, I mean that's you know,
that's in his purview, so he can do that. But
a lot of it is executive orders. So the Congress
has to step up and actually codify a lot of
what he's doing in the executive orders into law. So
that way, if for whatever reason, the Democrat wins in
(24:58):
twenty twenty eight. They don't just undo it everything. But
the point is he's popular, and that's obviously complicating what
the Democrats and the far left groups are trying.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
To do, and the things that he's done that they
don't like, like defunding NPR and PBS. I find it
funny because I haven't seen Democrats coming out and screaming
about that, because what are you going to say, the
people should pay for a news station? Why should that
be the case, especially in today's market, If you have
such a good product, it is so easy to monetize
(25:31):
something like that, and they claim their product is so
crucial they should be able to monetize it. If you
cannot pay for your own news services, then maybe you
shouldn't exist. But to have the people have the taxpayers,
who fifty percent of them don't agree with the messaging
that's coming out of PBS and NPR, to have us
fund a propaganda machine is so outrageous. So even when
(25:54):
they have complained about the things that Trump has done,
they haven't really been able to deep dive into them
because then and they would expose their own problems.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
But also, he's been running at light speed, so it's
like he does something when they're getting ginned up to
complain about that, he's moved on to something else and
they have not been able to keep up. And so
he's been doing. His administration has been doing so much
every single day that it's very hard for them to
(26:23):
keep up and be effective.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
I always wonder if they're like, oh, crap, we should
not have given him those four years to thing, because
they ended up with him again and he was ready
to go and he has. I think really that four
years allowed him to prepare for this and to move
at the speed that he's moving at because I mean,
if he had gone straight through, think of you would
(26:45):
have had that same team, there wouldn't be the players
that are there now. I think that this team that
he has put together has been so amazing together and
the things that they have discovered and the speed at
which they're working. I just wonder how often the Democrats
have looked back and on, man, we really screwed up
with Joe Biden.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Right, Yeah, I think that's I think that's fair. If
he would have won, if he would have been declared
the winner in twenty twenty, I'll put it that way,
it would have been a continuation of the first four years.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
But I mean, now you see them coming out and saying, oh, yeah,
there were people the Chinese were providing driver's licenses. I mean,
there really is a question they really and that I
think they are terrified of him looking at that election
and saying what happened because even in the state of Michigan, now,
in the last election, we somehow caught this Chinese national
(27:39):
who was voting. And you have to question how many
times did this happen, how many states did this happen?
And remember the secretary of State in Michigan said, I'm
collaborating with these other secretaries of state to make sure
he can't get elected.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Right, And it's not just the presidential election, because you know,
maybe ten thousand people voting in the eight in a
presidential election may not affect the presidential election. But there's
local elections, right, there's state legislature, there's county elections that
that could have made a difference. We don't know, and
it needs to be investigated, correct, So it needs to
(28:15):
be investigated. And you know, I'll just say one of
my concerns about he's negotiating a deal with China right now,
and one of my concerns is that part of it
is that he allows It's like I've seen three hundred thousand,
I've seen five hundred thousand Chinese students to stay in
the country, and that's concerning to me because you look
(28:38):
at what's happening in Michigan. We have the Midwesterners has
reported about nine students at the university Chinese national students
that are at the University of Michigan who have been
charged with crimes ranging from voting in the twenty twenty
four election, trying to bring in these you know, these
the toxins that will affect the food supply. There were
(29:02):
individuals who were caught taking photos and surveilling a military base,
and so what is going on And I think that
that needs to be scrutinized before as part of a
Chinese trade deal to ensure that we're not just allowing
(29:24):
Chinese spies to come into America on our university campuses,
in businesses, et cetera. That's got to be dealt with.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
I think when it's happened in your own state and
you see it here and you think about your own
child going to a university where they if they were
testing a biotoxin, they could go into the farmer's field
and kill off our wheat supply and kill off our grains.
What else were they willing to test? Because obviously we
know COVID leaked from the Wuhan lab and that was
(29:57):
really just the beginnings of what they have when it
comes to bioweapons. But the fact that these students smuggled
it in and kids don't think that way, that has
got to be the government.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
I don't think there's any doubt, and so that has
got to be It's got to be investigated. It should
be investigated by the State of Michigan. The House of
Representatives has the power to do that. It should be
investigated by the CCP Committee in the US House. It
certainly should be investigated by the FBI and the DOJ,
(30:29):
et cetera. But I think that this we cannot just
continue to allow Chinese students into America without an extremely
extremely thorough vetting. And if they can't pass the vetting
or there's questions remain, they shouldn't be allowed to come here.
And what's disturbing about the whole thing is that these
(30:52):
universities and these states are making this economic argument, like, well,
if we don't have three hundred thousand students all the
money we're going to lose. Well, at some point, our
national security has to be more important than tuition.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
a Tutor Dixon podcast. I've heard the argument that kids
in Michigan aren't being because our our scores are low
and they don't need to take them. You know, so
kids in Michigan are losing their spots at college, university
or colleges and universities because they're bringing in Chinese students,
(31:29):
and the whole, the whole education decline in the United
States has caused these places to be open at these
elite universities, and now you have students from other countries
taking spots that once would have been students from the
United States if the education levels had stayed at the
rates they should have been.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
Well, this is a whole This should probably be a
whole other episode. I know we're going because I mean,
one of my complaints about about state you know, state universities,
public universities is that they're there is an economic incentive
for them to accept out of state students because they
get more from them than in state students, right, And
(32:09):
so here we Michigan tax payers are giving Michigan, Michigan State,
you know, several other state universities millions of dollars, hundreds
of millions of dollars every single year, and they are
educating students. And then those students are just they're going
back to China, they're going to other states. They're they're
(32:29):
leaving Michigan states.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
I mean, they're not. We don't are graduating on stay.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
So why should we as Michigan taxpayers be paying to
educate students who have zero intention of staying in Michigan.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
Right.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
That's a whole other episode.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
That's a whole other episode. On that note, I will
say thank you for being here Kyle Olsen with The Midwesterner,
and I just want to have you plugged The Midwesterner
for a little bit because you're you are putting these
stories out, you're covering this stuff every day, and you
guys are really smart about what you're doing.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Well, thank you. Yes, you can find us at the
Midwesterner dot news. And we're right, we're covering what's going
on in Lansing, the fight in state government over spending,
in policy and everything else. What's happening in our universities,
what's happening in our K twelve schools, what's happening in
our communities. The incursion of the CCP into Michigan communities
(33:22):
and the attempts to do that. So there's there's a
lot of things that we.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
Cover from Twitter.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
Is the Twitter handle, our Twitter handle x is ths
in the but th underscore Midwesterner.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
Okay, check it out. Thank you so much for being here,
and thank you all for listening to the Tutor Dixon podcast.
For this episode and others. Go to Tutor Dixon podcast
dot com, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
get your podcasts, and you can watch it on Rumble
and YouTube at Tutor Dixon. Thank you so much. Join
us next time and have a blessed day.
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. Today, I have Kyle
Olsen with me from The Midwesterner, and Kyle, I want
to kind of go through what's happening on the Democrat side,
because everybody says that they're melting down. But there's a
few key points that I want to get into. And
one last week we saw that Randy Weiningarten, who is
the president.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Of the American Federation of Teachers, so.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
The teachers' union the second largest, right, yes, there's two, yes, Okay.
So we find out that she decided she didn't want
her appointment to the DNC, which she has apparently had
since two thousand and nine. She was on the Rules
and by Laws committee. And it was funny because this
came out and conservatives were like, wait a minute, we
(00:45):
didn't know she actually had a position within the DNC,
which I think shocked people somewhat. I don't think people
were totally stunned by it, but I am stunned by
it because here is somebody who was making decisions about
whether or not our kids could be in school while
holding a position with the Democrats who were in charge
(01:07):
at the time, so a powerful position within their party,
making decisions about the rules of how they run their party.
And she's also in charge of funds that come from
so they're completely siphoned off of what the taxpayers pay
the teachers. So she's taking public funds and using them
(01:29):
and funding an organization that puts her on a committee.
I mean, you cannot make this stuff up.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Well, I think it shows the unions, whether it's the
NEA or the AFT or the UAW or SCIU or
any of them, they run the Democratic Party. Unions run
the Democratic Party, and so for all of the conventions
and everything that we see on TV, the unions are
(01:55):
calling the shots. So it's not entirely surprising to me
to see that she's on a committee because the unions give,
you know, millions of dollars to the party every year
and and they control it. But I think, I think
what it shows is that the the A f T
(02:16):
and the other unions, but the AFT in particular, because
that's what we're talking about, is a political organization, right,
and they are not about how can what what can
we do to make sure kids can read, or that
we increase graduation rates or we close the the you know,
racial gap, or any of those achievement gap, any of
(02:37):
those sorts of things. They're not They're not concerned by that.
What they care about is political power, electing the candidates
that are going to serve them, and winning at the
bargaining table. That's all they care about.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
I mean, I would almost argue, though, that that is
secondary to what they do politically, and it should be first.
Collective bargaining should be first for them. They should be
trying to get the teachers the best possible wage. But
I would almost argue that what we've seen with Randy
Winengarten at the HELM has been that she is pushing
an agenda more so than taking care of teachers. Even
(03:11):
when I hear her do these speeches, she's not. I
have not, and maybe I'm not paying enough attention. You
can correct me if I'm wrong, But I have not
heard her out there saying teachers need to be paid more.
I have heard her out there screaming about political rhetoric,
screaming about Ukraine, screaming about President Trump, screaming about keeping
(03:32):
kids out of school because teachers were having to write
their own obituaries and all this. I mean, remember that
when they had teachers writing their own obituaries. But to me,
it's very important to think about her even wanting to
be on the Rules and Bylaws Committee because you're in
a position where you think that you can make rules.
And she was suddenly open with us about, yeah, we're
(03:54):
actually making the rules for the CDC. Remember that. So
they're making these decisions as to what will happen to
kids during COVID. She somehow had a connection, which obviously
she's high up in the DNC, so she's high up
with all the Democrat leaders. So she gets this connection
with the CDC and she starts making these rules about
(04:15):
whether or not we can put kids back in school.
She felt like that was her decision. Now, think about
the fact that she felt like that was her decision
to make these political decisions because it wasn't medical. It
was political, and as soon as you have Randy Weingarten
making the decision, it's not medical at all. So she
felt like she was in that position. We have a problem,
(04:38):
like you just said, where kids can't read across this nation.
It's not just in certain areas. We have a consistent
problem across the country, but we also have a problem
where there have been woke agendas and pushed on our
kids at our school, and I believe that comes from
her too.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Well, of course it does. That's the culture of the
Union and the AFT in particular. They have they have
promoted this concept of teaching the whole child. So it's
not just a matter of writing and reading and math
and all of that. It's providing services that most people
would argue families provide, doing laundry, doctor's appointments, those sorts
(05:20):
of things. Their their their idea is they want the
school to sort of be the community center and where
people kids' families live their lives and have all of
their needs met. That's what they ultimately want. Now in
terms of salaries, yes, the union cares about salaries, but
they also care about what they call working conditions, and
(05:41):
that is I mean, I've seen contracts literally that that
dictate what the room or what the temperature of the
teacher's lounge is going to be, or what the color
paint in the teacher's lounge is going to be. This
is and this is why these a lot of these
contracts are hundreds of pages long, because they want to
(06:02):
negotiate about every single thing. And again they're not negotiating
about well, what are we going to do to make
sure that we instead of a forty percent reading proficiency,
we're going to get to sixty percent or eighty percent.
They're not negotiating about that.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Well, I also think, I mean, you make a great point.
They aren't negotiating because there's no one holding their feet
to the fire. There's no one saying, well, okay, if
you don't hit these numbers, then we're going to have
to reduce the amount of money each school gets. And
I guess if that's the purpose of the teachers' union,
is that they're going to negotiate dollars, well, then there
has to be some accountability to if you get these dollars,
(06:41):
then what are you as a union going to do
to ensure that the people that are doing the jobs
are accomplishing the goal of the job. Which seems that
seems to me like teaching one oh one because or
business one oh one, I would say, because if we
had people in our own company who weren't completing the task,
(07:01):
they wouldn't get paid. But for some reason in our schools,
if and I'm not saying I'm not talking about any
specific teachers, but if there is a school that is
failing and there is consistent failure among multiple students, there
has to be some accountability for that, but there's not.
Right now, how does the system.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Work, Well, it's I think a lot of times it's
there is not student growth because there's week leadership, and
the leadership has got to hold the teachers accountable and
the week leaders don't do that, and so you don't
see you don't see change. But in terms of what
(07:43):
the union is really trying to do, I mean, you
go back to the pandemic and Randy Weingarten's objective again
was about the adults, and it was she was looking
out for the teachers and the adults in the system
not and so she wanted to, you know, keep them safe,
and she in her way to do that was to
(08:06):
keep kids out of the classroom and keep everyone remote,
so then that way that the adults wouldn't get sick.
And she it didn't bother her that there were you know,
there was there were years where kids were falling behind,
they weren't reading, weren't learning how to read, et cetera.
That didn't that didn't bother her.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
So Mike Pompeo runs called her the most dangerous person
in the United States. And I think a lot of
people thought that was an exaggeration at the time, But
I would say, look at how long she's been here.
I mean, how long has she been the president of.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
The AFT Over ten years, at least.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Over ten years, So this amount of timing. I've seen
pictures of her with Hillary Clinton that looked like they
were twenty years ago. So she's been politically active for
a very long time.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Sure.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
And the reason I say this is because we talk
about this woke agenda that's being pushed in the schools,
and concern about the woke agenda that's being pushed in
the schools, and like, oh, could that be coming from
Randy Weingarten. Well, the reason that she decided she doesn't
want to be a part of the DNC anymore is
because she was upset about what happened with David Hogg.
So you all remember David Hogg. He was one of
(09:17):
the victims in the Parkland shooting. He's one of the
students was there, he witnessed what happened. He came out
as an activist for students, and he continued to stay
as an activist on the Democrat side. And I would
say that he wouldn't say this, but I would say
that he leans toward the socialist side, which I would
also say that, though he wouldn't say that, he did
(09:39):
just openly endorse the man who is running for mayor
of New York, who has come out multiple times and
said he is a socialist. So if you are endorsing
socialism and you're putting your name on that, then you
must believe in socialism. And I think, honestly, I do
think that this is a problem with some of the
people in David Hogg's generation, that he doesn't realize what
(10:00):
he's saying is socialism. I think he's so has so little.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
I don't think but that the way you just said
that was he would be bothered if he knew that. No,
I think he is.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
I don't think he is right. Yeah, absolutely No, I
don't think that he is in any way bothered by it.
I think he just likes to come out and say
this is not what I'm for. If I mean, this
guy has clearly stated that he is a socialist, this
is Zorin, and he's come out and endorsed him. So
I do think that that's the direction he's going now.
I say that because the reason that Randy wine Garten
(10:34):
decided she didn't want to be on the Rules and
Bilaws Committee anymore was which was June fifth that she
came out and said this. I think it was June
eleventh that the Rules and Bylaws Committee conveniently said David
Hogg doesn't fit the requirements to be the vice chairman
of the DNC. He had been elected. They're saying, oh,
(10:55):
something about his gender. He couldn't be because of his gender,
and she would have been essentially yes, that wasn't that
wasn't acceptable. So poor poor David Hawk. That wasn't the
reason though. The reason, I mean that was the technicality
that they caught him on. So they're like, oh, thank goodness,
(11:16):
we're such a whoa, that's it. We're such a woke organization.
We can come up with a technicality to kick him out.
But that is that is what would you call it.
That's the technicality they used to get rid of someone
who said he was going to primary primary there candidates.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
It's just but it's just so funny. It's like they
didn't realize he was a white male before, but then
suddenly when he's like stepping out of line.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Yes, right, because it's not all a joke. All of
these checking the boxes is a joke. I mean, look
at what they ended up doing with Kamala Harris. Well,
I'll say, this is the same thing they did with
Joe Biden. They're like, oh, you don't actually fit anymore yet,
let's put you back behind the curtain Wizard of Oz.
So this is what they're doing with David. But she
(12:01):
must not have loved this. She was not, and she
openly came out and said she was not happy about
what they did to David Hogg. And she resigned before
it was officials, so she would have been on that
committee discussing the fact that he was going to be
kicked out, and she resigned on the fifth. He gets
kicked out on the eleventh. He had come out and
(12:22):
said he was going to spend twenty million dollars to
primary people that were not with what they think the
Democrat Party. What did he say? He said they were
like weak minded or they weren't strong enough, and he.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Was going to go out socialist enough.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
Right, and they were in strong blue districts, so strong
blue Democrats had been there for a long time. He
was going to go out there and primary them, and
he has this this organization's called Leaders We Deserve. So
when he started to become an activist and had like
the March for Lives or something like that, and which
(12:59):
was like to talk about kids at high school kids,
he then recently, I think in twenty three he created
Leaders We Deserve. And it's significant because in the last
quarter of twenty four he had projected that he would
raise a million dollars and in small dollar donations like
twenty five dollars donations, he ended up with three million
(13:20):
from just the fourth quarter. So I know that when
they heard that he was going to primary people, they
got nervous because to me, that is significant. Right now,
we're hearing that the DNC is in total chaos, that
they can't raise money, that they don't have any money,
that they're looking for unique ways to bring in money.
But for some reason, this socialist kid brought in three
million dollars from in smaller dollar donations in three months.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Well, I think what's happening is they're in disarray and
you've got people like him who are trying to pull
the party to the left, which is hard to believe
that it can go any farther left. That's what they're
trying to do. And I think that there's others who
realize that if they go farther left, it's going to
(14:06):
be a total disaster. And so they don't really have
a leader. And this is really the fundamental problem that
they have as they're trying to fight President Trump's agenda.
They don't really have a leader. So you sort of
see these heads kind of popping out. Remember it was
a couple of months ago, it was Corey Booker, and
(14:27):
so you see sort that these people kind of you know,
pop up and there's a struggle going on. And so
you've got you have people like David Hogg who wants
to throw out these incumbents, which historically they don't do.
It's like they protect the incumbents. They leave those people alone.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
You don't want to have to spend money to defend them,
especially when you are in a situation where you're trying
to win back the house. So for them, if you
look at this, I can see why they're mad because
they're like safe seats. Don't mess with our safe seats.
Let's make sure we woing back. They have President Trump
in office, it's like their worst nightmare. You know, they
want to win the House, they want to win the Senate.
(15:04):
And you've got a kid who somehow has fundraising power
and he's out there every day and he's not going
to slow down. And he's got the support of the
teachers union. So now suddenly do they go with him?
And they are losing their unions and they already lost.
So the public unions are still with them, but the
non public unions have left them.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Yeah, a lot of the trade unions, yea, the blue
collar trade unions have. But David Hogg, he is he
has This is not going to sound right, but he
has perfectly exploited what happened at Parkland and leveraged it
for political purposes, which I think is completely disgusting. But
(15:47):
he has perfectly figured out how to manipulate the media,
how to grow a list, how to raise money, how
to leverage all of that for his political ends. And
so now what we're seeing is he was elected as
one of the vice chairs, much to the dismay of
(16:10):
you know, all of the other people there. They figured
out how to throw him out, but he's not going away,
and I think the other sort of divide or you know,
chaos that's going on in the party is there was
just this No King's Day protest and it was a
lot of the it was indivisible, it was the Party
(16:34):
for Socialism and Liberation. It was a lot of far
left groups that are organizing. And if you look at
the map that they put out, their major events were
all in twenty twenty six Senate race states. I mean,
this is not this is not a coincidence about what's
(16:54):
going on. And I believe so you said, what David
hagg is trying to do. He's trying he's identifying these
blue districts and he's trying to find candidates that are
farther left. And I think what's happening is when you
see the No King's which people sort of laugh and
you know, laugh it off. You can't laugh it off.
(17:16):
Their goal is to organize five percent of the country
and have their information, have them activated, and if they're
capable of doing that, that would be a major, major thing.
And No King's Day they organized and they have data
on three and a half percent of the country. They
(17:39):
had one of their calls, one of their organizing calls
by the ACLU, which was involved, they had over twenty
thousand people on the call.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
But see, this is where I okay, So this is
where I argue that Republicans get to the point where
they get people in office and they think, okay, we're
in good shape, and they don't do this. And I mean,
I don't see a lot of events outside of the
standard Lincoln Day dinner. I don't see big events where
people get to see speakers and get to feel like
they're a part of something bigger than them. And that's
(18:09):
happening on the Democrat side. And people have said to me,
watch out. Just what you just said, watch out, because
as they continue to engage people, we're not And I
just heard this. I was in Detroit a couple days ago,
and I just heard people saying, Hey, there's people over
on this side of the state that feel like everybody
was here during the election and now they've kind of
(18:30):
stepped away and they want more answers, they want more attention.
People do crave attention when you've asked somebody to come
over to your party and be a part of your party.
And I believe this from our friends over in Dearborn
and ham Trammick, when you have asked them take a
step out of what is acceptable in your community and
come out there and campaign with us and join us.
(18:51):
You better show up again. And that's what they're doing.
They're recognizing that, and that's what look after twenty sixteen,
they got so organized, and that's what people need to understand.
It was malicious, but it worked. They created these nonprofits,
They went out, they started newspapers, they were doing these
types of these protests. Like you said, everybody's on an
(19:13):
email list. Now everybody's out there together. They're well funded.
They have these people then in there in their system
to go out and knock doors so that when those
center races come around, they win the Senate and we go,
how did that happen? Because there's not a team on
our side doing this right?
Speaker 2 (19:32):
Well, I think Republicans, I think conservatives and liberals are
fundamentally different. I think conservatives generally speaking, are you know,
are independent. They don't want someone telling them what to do.
But I think liberals generally speaking, I mean, it's the
very premise of a union. It's that we're going to
have we're going to have someone telling us what to do.
(19:54):
Someone's you know, for the greater good. And so that's
what we're seeing happening. And so this No Kings thing,
it's it's a collection of you know, all of these
different groups, unions, et cetera. And their goal is to
affect twenty twenty six. Because if they can affect twenty
twenty six, they know that's how they stopped Donald Trump.
(20:16):
If if they if the Republicans can lose the majority
in the House and or the Senate, Trump's Trump's legislative.
You know, agenda is on the rocks. And that's what
it's all about. And so go back to twenty twenty
what did they do. They isolated the whole George Floyd situation,
(20:39):
and they rallied and they organized, and they quote unquote
protested over that, and they use that one moment and
it's the same thing. Now it's the ice raids, and
it's what happened in Los Angeles, and they they identify
this one thing that they can rally you know, their
side around, and I think that they are doing it
(21:02):
very effectively. And I think that Republicans and Conservatives who
just sort of, you know, laugh it off or dismiss it,
they've got to realize that they that the left is energized. Yes,
they're in disarray, but they're getting organized. And where the
I think where the DNC and where the Democratic Party
(21:23):
is sort of falling away. These this no King's indivisible,
et cetera, are filling that void.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next. On
the Tutor Dixon podcast, there was a Democrat that was
recently on Fox and they were asking him, how is
this happening to the party. Why is it that you're splintering,
and they are splintering because they do have this faction
that wants to go further left. I would say that
(21:52):
they are in a situation where I think that there
were people who were saying that this was happening to
the Republican Party in twenty twenty, but I think I
think that what I see on the Democrat side is
way worse than what happened in twenty twenty. There were
arguments in twenty twenty over COVID and something that was
a moment in time. What they're arguing about is truly
(22:15):
defining them for the long term. So they have this
group that is like the trans rights group, the social
issues group, the side that has social issues on there.
That's all they're focused on and really what we've found
is social issues are not great in elections. They don't
really help either side. There's very rarely the social issue.
(22:37):
I think marijuana. They won big lely with the marijuana,
and then they thought, oh, all social issues marijuana and
abortion were good. The rest of these things for them,
let me clarified, they were good for them, But the
rest of these things I think are really splintering them.
And I heard this Democrat on Fox saying we have
(22:59):
a problem with our side right now because they aren't
telling people we want to do this for you. He said,
we used to come to people and say we want
to provide this for you, we want to give you
this free, and we want to give you that free,
which obviously I don't like, but at least they were
talking about what they thought that people needed. He said,
Now we're on issues that people aren't interested in, or
(23:22):
we're just saying Trump is bad. Hate Trump, and he
said Trump is bad is not a message of what
Democrats are going to do for you.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Right And so what we're seeing play out right now
with these protests and these far left groups, is that
going to translate into electoral success into winning on election day?
Because I think that I haven't seen polling, but I
would guess most normal people are not really attracted to
(23:50):
that sort of thing. And you look at Trump's polling,
and he's never been more popular. I mean, even when
he's in the even when his popularity is in the
high forties, he's never been more popular. So he and
he's sticking he And the thing is, he was very
clear in twenty twenty four about what he wanted to do,
(24:13):
what he stood for, what he was going to do
when he got in office, all of that, and he's
doing it. Whether it's he talked about tariffs, he's doing that.
He talked about deportations, he's doing that. He talked about
securing the border, He's doing that. So people are seeing, oh,
he's doing what he said he was going to do.
Now a lot, yes, a lot of it is through
(24:36):
executive orders. Securing the border, I mean that's you know,
that's in his purview, so he can do that. But
a lot of it is executive orders. So the Congress
has to step up and actually codify a lot of
what he's doing in the executive orders into law. So
that way, if for whatever reason, the Democrat wins in
(24:58):
twenty twenty eight. They don't just undo it everything. But
the point is he's popular, and that's obviously complicating what
the Democrats and the far left groups are trying.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
To do, and the things that he's done that they
don't like, like defunding NPR and PBS. I find it
funny because I haven't seen Democrats coming out and screaming
about that, because what are you going to say, the
people should pay for a news station? Why should that
be the case, especially in today's market, If you have
such a good product, it is so easy to monetize
(25:31):
something like that, and they claim their product is so
crucial they should be able to monetize it. If you
cannot pay for your own news services, then maybe you
shouldn't exist. But to have the people have the taxpayers,
who fifty percent of them don't agree with the messaging
that's coming out of PBS and NPR, to have us
fund a propaganda machine is so outrageous. So even when
(25:54):
they have complained about the things that Trump has done,
they haven't really been able to deep dive into them
because then and they would expose their own problems.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
But also, he's been running at light speed, so it's
like he does something when they're getting ginned up to
complain about that, he's moved on to something else and
they have not been able to keep up. And so
he's been doing. His administration has been doing so much
every single day that it's very hard for them to
(26:23):
keep up and be effective.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
I always wonder if they're like, oh, crap, we should
not have given him those four years to thing, because
they ended up with him again and he was ready
to go and he has. I think really that four
years allowed him to prepare for this and to move
at the speed that he's moving at because I mean,
if he had gone straight through, think of you would
(26:45):
have had that same team, there wouldn't be the players
that are there now. I think that this team that
he has put together has been so amazing together and
the things that they have discovered and the speed at
which they're working. I just wonder how often the Democrats
have looked back and on, man, we really screwed up
with Joe Biden.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Right, Yeah, I think that's I think that's fair. If
he would have won, if he would have been declared
the winner in twenty twenty, I'll put it that way,
it would have been a continuation of the first four years.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
But I mean, now you see them coming out and saying, oh, yeah,
there were people the Chinese were providing driver's licenses. I mean,
there really is a question they really and that I
think they are terrified of him looking at that election
and saying what happened because even in the state of Michigan, now,
in the last election, we somehow caught this Chinese national
(27:39):
who was voting. And you have to question how many
times did this happen, how many states did this happen?
And remember the secretary of State in Michigan said, I'm
collaborating with these other secretaries of state to make sure
he can't get elected.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Right, And it's not just the presidential election, because you know,
maybe ten thousand people voting in the eight in a
presidential election may not affect the presidential election. But there's
local elections, right, there's state legislature, there's county elections that
that could have made a difference. We don't know, and
it needs to be investigated, correct, So it needs to
(28:15):
be investigated. And you know, I'll just say one of
my concerns about he's negotiating a deal with China right now,
and one of my concerns is that part of it
is that he allows It's like I've seen three hundred thousand,
I've seen five hundred thousand Chinese students to stay in
the country, and that's concerning to me because you look
(28:38):
at what's happening in Michigan. We have the Midwesterners has
reported about nine students at the university Chinese national students
that are at the University of Michigan who have been
charged with crimes ranging from voting in the twenty twenty
four election, trying to bring in these you know, these
the toxins that will affect the food supply. There were
(29:02):
individuals who were caught taking photos and surveilling a military base,
and so what is going on And I think that
that needs to be scrutinized before as part of a
Chinese trade deal to ensure that we're not just allowing
(29:24):
Chinese spies to come into America on our university campuses,
in businesses, et cetera. That's got to be dealt with.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
I think when it's happened in your own state and
you see it here and you think about your own
child going to a university where they if they were
testing a biotoxin, they could go into the farmer's field
and kill off our wheat supply and kill off our grains.
What else were they willing to test? Because obviously we
know COVID leaked from the Wuhan lab and that was
(29:57):
really just the beginnings of what they have when it
comes to bioweapons. But the fact that these students smuggled
it in and kids don't think that way, that has
got to be the government.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
I don't think there's any doubt, and so that has
got to be It's got to be investigated. It should
be investigated by the State of Michigan. The House of
Representatives has the power to do that. It should be
investigated by the CCP Committee in the US House. It
certainly should be investigated by the FBI and the DOJ,
(30:29):
et cetera. But I think that this we cannot just
continue to allow Chinese students into America without an extremely
extremely thorough vetting. And if they can't pass the vetting
or there's questions remain, they shouldn't be allowed to come here.
And what's disturbing about the whole thing is that these
(30:52):
universities and these states are making this economic argument, like, well,
if we don't have three hundred thousand students all the
money we're going to lose. Well, at some point, our
national security has to be more important than tuition.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
a Tutor Dixon podcast. I've heard the argument that kids
in Michigan aren't being because our our scores are low
and they don't need to take them. You know, so
kids in Michigan are losing their spots at college, university
or colleges and universities because they're bringing in Chinese students,
(31:29):
and the whole, the whole education decline in the United
States has caused these places to be open at these
elite universities, and now you have students from other countries
taking spots that once would have been students from the
United States if the education levels had stayed at the
rates they should have been.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
Well, this is a whole This should probably be a
whole other episode. I know we're going because I mean,
one of my complaints about about state you know, state universities,
public universities is that they're there is an economic incentive
for them to accept out of state students because they
get more from them than in state students, right, And
(32:09):
so here we Michigan tax payers are giving Michigan, Michigan State,
you know, several other state universities millions of dollars, hundreds
of millions of dollars every single year, and they are
educating students. And then those students are just they're going
back to China, they're going to other states. They're they're
(32:29):
leaving Michigan states.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
I mean, they're not. We don't are graduating on stay.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
So why should we as Michigan taxpayers be paying to
educate students who have zero intention of staying in Michigan.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
Right.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
That's a whole other episode.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
That's a whole other episode. On that note, I will
say thank you for being here Kyle Olsen with The Midwesterner,
and I just want to have you plugged The Midwesterner
for a little bit because you're you are putting these
stories out, you're covering this stuff every day, and you
guys are really smart about what you're doing.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Well, thank you. Yes, you can find us at the
Midwesterner dot news. And we're right, we're covering what's going
on in Lansing, the fight in state government over spending,
in policy and everything else. What's happening in our universities,
what's happening in our K twelve schools, what's happening in
our communities. The incursion of the CCP into Michigan communities
(33:22):
and the attempts to do that. So there's there's a
lot of things that we.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
Cover from Twitter.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
Is the Twitter handle, our Twitter handle x is ths
in the but th underscore Midwesterner.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
Okay, check it out. Thank you so much for being here,
and thank you all for listening to the Tutor Dixon podcast.
For this episode and others. Go to Tutor Dixon podcast
dot com, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
get your podcasts, and you can watch it on Rumble
and YouTube at Tutor Dixon. Thank you so much. Join
us next time and have a blessed day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.