November 3, 2023 • 31 mins
In this episode, Tudor interviews Senator Ron Johnson about corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his family's business dealings. They discuss the FBI's handling of the investigation, the role of the media, and the impact of policies on the manufacturing industry and national security. Senator Johnson criticizes the FBI and the media for their handling of the situation. They also discuss environmental issues, climate change, and the importance of grassroots campaigning. The conversation also covers the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, border security, and the safety and side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday, Wednesday, & Friday. For more information visit TudorDixonPodcast.com
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. Well, the national conversation
these days seems to revolve around the border, the economy,
and sending aid to our friends overseas.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
All of these conversations are.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Filled with debate and controversy, and as the debates continue,
public trust in Congress continues to erode. And then we
have the looming question of corruption in the Biden family.
My guest today has been very adamant the FBI has
let us down when it comes to investigating Joe Biden
and his family's business dealings.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Senator Ron Johnson, welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Well, Tutor, glad to be on.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
We are glad you're on because a lot of us
and a lot of our listeners have been incredibly concerned
with what's going on with Joe Biden's family business dealings.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
And it seems like.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
You're kind of calling out the FBI for having some
information that they have labeled misinformation rather than put out
there as what could possibly be happened have been happening
behind the scenes with the Biden family. Do you believe
that he was getting money from corrupt business dealings?
Speaker 4 (01:01):
Sure, Well, let's first kind of frame this from a
macro standpoint, as concerning as the Biden crime family corruption
is as much as that compromises our president and puts
our national security at risk. As even more concerning is
the corruption that has been revealed in federal law enforcement,
the FBI, Department Justice intelligence agencies, and then of course
(01:23):
the corrupt media that overlooks all this, that doesn't hold
both sides equally accountable. When it comes to the FBI,
what we have found because of whistleblowers, both the IRS
whistleblowers as well as FBI whistleblowers coming to both center
grassolies in my office. But I think the most recent
revelation showed that the FBI literally had forty confidential human
(01:45):
sources with drogatory information on the Biden family. The FBI
then set up this foreign Influence task Force, which was
appears to be primarily what my staff calls catch and kill.
So wherever some derogatory information would pop up on the Bidens,
this task force would swoop in and basically label that
(02:08):
information Russian disinformation, foreign influence. Designed I mean from a
partisan standpoint, designed to protect the Bidens. I mean, this
is shocking. We are seeing more and more piece, you know,
piece of this puzzle being revealed by Chairman Comer and
Chairman Jordan as well. You asked me a question, do
I think Joe Biden benefit from this? I don't have
(02:30):
the direct evidence other than now we've seen a loan
payment apparently from James Biden to Joe Biden. We've seen
some other things connected to me, it's all pretty obvious.
I mean, millions of dollars that Center Grass and I
revealed flowing into this labyrinth of companies that Hunter Biden
set up to launder money. James Comer has shown there's
(02:51):
a lot more people than just Joe and Hunter and
James and Sarah Biden did a benefit, and they're more
family members. So to me, this has been obvious from
our initial investigation. I don't know that the mainstream media
will ever see enough evidence to make it obvious to them,
but I think it's obvious to anybody who's really paying attention.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Well, in these payments we're talking about coming from countries
like Russia, Ukraine, China, these are adversarial countries and certainly
now well not Ukraine, but certainly now we're seeing the
world erupt. We see what's going on with the Russia.
Where Ukraine conflict. We see that Russia has been talking
to China, to North Korea, to Iran, what's happening overseas
(03:31):
in the Middle East. When you look at that, combined
with the potential payments, does that concern you that his
judgment is clouded when it comes to making tough decisions
and the decisions that we're facing on the world stage
in the coming months.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
And we had a very early example of this administration
where they canceled the China Initiative, which was a Department
of Justice initiative to investigate and try and crack down
on China stealing our intellectual profit on our college campuses.
Why would you cancel that when you realize that's probably
one of the greatest threats that China represents to America's
stealing our stuff and then using our intellectual property, our
(04:10):
technology against us. And the Biden program, So no, you
have to be concerned about this. And Tudor remember the
rationale for the Hair on Fire concerns about the totally
false narrative of Trump campaign collusion with Russia, that if
we would elect Donald Trump and he had contact with Russia,
(04:30):
this could put our national security at risk. That's why
we went through years of torment, a political turmoil on
a completely false narrative that the FBI knew, by the way,
and the Biden Mystery or the bottom administration knew, was
a scheme hatched by the Clinton campaign. I mean, he
can't make exactly all the information the FBI had in
(04:52):
his possession, and yet they ran with this investigation, helped
set up the Moeller Special Council, put this country through
a couple of years of term.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Let's face it, sick. It hasn't ended.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
It has, but the media allows the Hillary Clinton to
continue to go out and say this. She continues to
peddle this lie, even though she knows she paid for it,
she knows she brought this lie to the United States,
and they allow her to continue to say, well, there
was Russian collusion, you know. I mean that to me
is mind boggling that no one says to her, well,
(05:22):
wait a minute, we actually proved that that wasn't true.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
In fact, you were involved in that line.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
Well, her campaign communication department wouldn't tell her that. And
that's really what the mainstream media basically is is the
communication arm of the radical left wing of liberals.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
A democratic Party, and that's a big problem.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
We wouldn't have the corruption in our federal agencies if
we had a unbiased, free press that was holding both
sides equally accountable. I don't want a bias press biased
towards conservatives. I want an unbiased media holding both sides
equally accountable. We don't have that right now. We have
basically mouthpiece. This is for the radical left, for the
(06:02):
Democrat Party.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
I want to go back to something that you said,
because you talked about this program in universities where China
was supposed to be told that they can take our
intellectual property. Now apparently that's been canceled. You and I
both come from the manufacturing world. I was selling tool
and die steel to plastics fabricators.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
You are a plastic fabrication company.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
So you and I both understand how important is that
we protect our intellectual property.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
But beyond that, we spoke to Larry.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Cudlow recently and he was talking about the national security
dangers of this reduction in oil production and what that
means for our plastics industry.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
So I wanted to ask you a little bit about that.
How do you fight this?
Speaker 1 (06:46):
I mean, you come from this industry, you understand that
when we are talking about petroleum, we're not talking about
just powering our vehicles. We're talking about what our toothbrushes
are made out of, our clothing, our cars, everything, whether
it's your cell phone to your shoes, it's made from
something that comes out of the oil industry. So how
much danger are we in right now because of not
(07:07):
only China being able to take our ip but also
the fact that we've reduced our own oil production and
now we put power into the Middle East that wasn't
there before.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
Well, I've said, if you were asked to develop a
strategy to destroy this country, you could not come up
with a better game plan than what the Bide administration
and the radical ext zipplement, the open borders, the embarrassing
and danger strender in Afghanistan than and bold in our enemies,
the war and fossil fuel, which certainly has contributed to
forty your high inflation together with the massive depth suspending.
(07:38):
So let's focus on the war and fossil fuel. First
of all, I'm not a climate change denier. I'm just
not an alarmist. The climate has always changed. There was
just a declaration made by one thousand six hundred and
nine worldwide scientists and professionals, led by two Nobel laureates,
and they got their Nobel Prizes in physics.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Because these are.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Smart scientific people. The declaration said we have no climate emergency,
that the climate change alarmism is all based on faulty
and false science, so let's knock it off. We've spent
something like six trillion dollars combating climate change. Even the
climate change alarmists won't say that we've even bent the
curve down. We're not going to be able to hold
(08:22):
back the tide. So the first thing is we need conservatives,
people that are head screwed on right, pushing back against
that false narrative. Now it's not easy to do, trust me,
I do it. I get vilified, I get ridiculed for
being a climate in science denier. But the science states
that we've always had climate change. And unless there are
enough people willing to call BS on this, we're going
(08:45):
to continue on this path. We've got far too many
Republican politicians that buy into this climate change BS.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Well, let me ask you something about that, though, because
I would argue that our manufacturing companies are not reckless regardless,
and I would be to bet you would say, no,
we're very conscious of what we put in the ground
and what and whether or that has to do with
climate change or just protecting people, protecting animals. We I
would say that the United States is the cleanest manufacturing
(09:14):
country in the entire world because we are concerned with
those things.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
No one's reckless out there.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
Without a doubt.
Speaker 4 (09:19):
Again, that's different between being an environmentalist and I'm a
definite environmentalist. I mean, I love the outdoors, I want
a pristine environment. I get my water out of a well,
I want clean groundwater. And there's no doubt about the
American manufacturing is the most environmentally sensitive and friendly manufacturing
in the world. So again I've always said, you know,
(09:40):
I'm not a big fan of the federal government, but
one agency that I think was very successful was the EPA.
Now it's gone beyond its initial mandate, but what was
originally set up to do, you know, the main pludence.
It was set up to combat, you know, the things
that we're causing fire or you know, rivers to go
on fire. They've done a great job ort reducing and
that's a good thing and we all support it.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
The climate change that is so destructive. It's being used to.
Speaker 4 (10:03):
Scare monger and fear monger for greater government control and
reducing our freedom. And again it's fantasy.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Don't you think that.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
That's a lot of where they've been able to manipulate
young minds though, and make people believe that Republicans are
not environmentalists, which I fight against. I say, no, no, no, no,
stop saying that, because I would say Republicans are the innovators.
We are the ones that own the businesses, that create
the better ways of doing things, that take care of
the earth, that take care of the people. And that
I think is the manipulation is convincing young people that
(10:33):
Republicans are against the environment instead of talking about this
boogeyman of climate.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
The media, the left is always going to twist people's
words and lie and not tell the truth. I mean,
if they don't, if they don't have something that they
can twist and use against you, they'll make something up.
They have no problem lying, they have no problem pushing
false narratives, as we saw with Trump and the hilly
Clinton campaign. So again, in the end, all we have
to do is tell the truth. And from my standpoint,
I think it's pretty easy to push on the climate
(11:00):
change alarmist. I point to the Vostok ice core sample.
You know, four hundred and forty thousand years of scientific
temperature variation proven, and you see five cycles twenty two
point seven degrees variation. You take a look at the
sea level rise in the Bea San Francisco three hundred
and ninety feet since the last glaciation period twenty thousand
(11:21):
years ago. There's nothing we could have done to hold
back the tides or prevent those types of temperaure cycles.
We're not going to be able to prevent this one either.
So again it's it's alarmism. It's based on bad science.
There's more scientists and Nobel Laius coming out saying don't
do not be afraid. The climate has always changed, will adapt,
We can adapt. But you know, just trying to mollify
(11:44):
the left and try and get them not to criticize
you by just going along with climate change is a
losing strategy.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Yeah, I agree, but I think it's a tough hill
to climb, and I appreciate you sharing with us that
information because I think a lot more people need to
be edge cad on how to talk about it. In
a different way. Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll
continue next on the Tutor Dixon Podcast. You and I
are both here in the Midwest. I you're in Wisconsin.
(12:14):
I'm in Michigan. It's becoming a much bluer area. It's
harder for Republicans to win. So tell us your secret
of talking about these things in Wisconsin and how you
continue to win elections and fight for the people.
Speaker 4 (12:28):
I think people realize I honored my promise of always
telling the truth. Now they may not always agree with me,
but they do realize that whatever I say, I genuinely
believe it, and I believe it to be the truth,
and I won't back down.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
And I think people do appreciate the fact that.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
You know, I often said during my second election and
said I win either way, either win my election or
I get to go home. And I was criticized for
being too ambivalent. I wasn't ambivalent. I mean, you can
see that and hear the passion of my voice here.
I ran for a third term even though I didn't
want to, because I couldn't walk away. I couldn't turn
my back on this country. You know, this country is imperiled,
(13:05):
and so I think just being passionate, being honest, being truthful,
being genuine when it comes to electro mechanics, being concerned
far more about the grassroots and getting out and talking
to everybody and convincing you know, members of the county
parties to get out and talk to their friends, family
and neighbors. I mean, you win elections one person at
(13:26):
a time. You need ads, you need all that type
of thing. But you know, my folks and my campaigns
have always been on just working the state hard, talking
to people and asking them to be evangelist for the
truth and talk to their friends, families and neighbors so that.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Strong ground game.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
And honestly, I believe that that strong ground game is
something we have been missing in Michigan, and the Democrats
have done extremely well.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
I think that's a really valid point.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
People need to understand that it's important to get your
friends and neighbors out to talk about it to get
people to vote. It's important because we've got a lot
going on right now. You've talked quite a bit about
the border. Obviously, we're talking a lot about what's going
on in Ukraine, what's going on in Israel right now,
we're looking at the new House speaker wanting to separate
that Israel funding into one individual bill that is not
(14:16):
widely accepted by Democrats, and even Mitch McConnell is not
a fan of that. Where do you stand on the
Israel funding.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Well, first of all, I recognize that when Republicans control
the House and we're the minority in the Senate, the
Speaker of the House is really the leader of the
Republican Party, and I understand the challenge that Speaker Johnson faces,
and I think Republican Center's role ought to be to
support him and not undermine him. First of all, I
completely agree with him. There's broad byparts support to get
(14:47):
whatever Israel needs to Israel and support Israel. Putting together
Israel funding. Any larger package that has definitely controversy elements
to it is going to slow that process down. We
do that, So I think Speaker Johnson very intelligently said no,
let's provide, let's vote on and pass support for Israel.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
And oh, by the way, why don't we pay for it.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Let's pay for it by taking fourteen billion dollars out
of the eighty billion dollars that Joe Biden and Democrats
passed to harass American citizens through eighty seven thousand new
IRS agents. Seems to make sense to me, pretty common
common sense approach. So I completely support the speaker, and
I think Leader McConnell is out of touch with the
(15:30):
Republicans that support us throughout the country, but also even
Republicans in the United States Senate.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Yeah, obviously we're sitting here watching these horrors across the
country of what's even happening with anti Semitism, and certainly
that has fueled a lot of people to say, we
have to protect Israel, but we have to protect people
on our own within our own borders as well. That
seems to be getting harder and harder as we have
an open border with people coming across and they have
(15:57):
multiple different backgrounds, but we know that a lot of
these people that have come across have backgrounds in terror.
So what do you say about I know you've talked
about having the Ukraine aid connected to border funding as well.
What would you like to see at the border right now?
Speaker 4 (16:15):
Well, first of all, that whether you agree or disagree
providing support to Ukraine, it's very true that Democrats President
Biden are more concerned about Ukrainian's borders than they are
our own right now, the completely out of control open
borders is the greatest homeland security threat our nation faces.
Over seventy three thousand special interest aliens that we know
(16:39):
about crossed over during the Biden administration. Over six million
people been led in one point seven million known guidaways.
We don't know who these people are, but we know
they came into this country. We detected them, we just
didn't even encounter them.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
So this is a.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
Massive threat to our national security. So we got to
fix it. And so there will be a legitimate and
concerned to attach to any Ukraine funding true border security
with metrics. I think that's important because no matter what
law we pass, we know that the Bide administration is
a lawless administration. You can't count on them to actually
implement the law. They will circumvent the law. So we're
(17:16):
going to have to hold their feet to the fire.
So I'm working with the Senator John Hovan who really
developed this concept, and we're going to put in strong
metrics that if you'll do an initial trance to Ukraine,
but then future five billion dollar tranchs we might suggestion
would have to be tied to border metrics of actually
reducing the number of people let in down to let's
(17:38):
say the level that it was when Trump lust office.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
I think that's a pretty reasonable approach.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
You mentioned something interesting at the beginning of that. You said,
no matter where you stand on funding Ukraine, I want
to ask you about that because we've had a lot
of people on the podcast who have said, folks need
to understand that America first doesn't mean America only, and
we have to still be the leader out there that
is still in or someone takes that role away from
the United States of America. What is your response to that.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
Well, I think most Americans, you know, we truly do
support Ukrainians who are just fighting for their families, for
their freedom, for their territory. And we all recognize that
Vladimir Putin is a evil war criminal and we don't
want to provide any comfort or support for him, Okay,
but we also have to recognize the reality. I think
there was a point in time. For example, I don't
(18:27):
think Putin ever would have invaded Ukraine had Trump won
re election. I think there was a moment in time,
very early on when Putin didn't just immediately secure the
collapse of Ukraine and take it out over and he
was back on his heels that showing unity and providing
funding I was hoping would deter him from continuing. Just
(18:49):
you know, stop the war, have some kind of peace.
Now the rally situations, we are in a bloody stalemate.
Putin will not lose this war.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
He can't.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
It's losing the war would be an ex stential threat
to him. He has nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons. He
has threatened to use him I believe he would. So
we're not going to defeat Russia. Ukraine can't do what
it would need to defeat Russia, start lobbing missiles into
Moscow to reduce the will of Russian people. So this
cannot be won by Ukraine. This is going to have
(19:20):
to be settled. Every day that goes by where it's
not settled, more Ukrainians die, soldiers and civilians, more Russian
conscripts die. And I take no joy that young men
yanked out of their villages in Russia are being sent
to the front lines to die for Putin. This has
to end, and I think Zelenski right now is getting
(19:42):
the signal that he probably ought to bring it to
an end as quickly as possible, because he can't count
on just an open checkbook for his war effort.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Well, some of the folks you don't want to.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Comfort to Putin, but we've got to encourage this war ends.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
Some of the folks that are running for president have
said they don't believe money should go over there at all,
that they believe there should be support in other ways,
that weapons should be sent, that munitions should be sent.
Is that something I mean, you're saying that those things
are not going to matter. Do you believe that Joe
Biden should be trying to have a diplomatic relationship with
(20:18):
Putin that ends this or do you think that's impossible
with a Joe Biden.
Speaker 4 (20:23):
I think Zelenski needs to really lead that effort. I
was at his inauguration. I met with him a few
months later. He wanted peace with Russia. This is when
Russia had taken over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. But he
wanted you a piece deal. He did not want war.
I'm not quite sure what happened in the intervening time period,
but we obviously know that Putin invaded again. This is
a tough call. Okay, there's no doubt about it. That's
(20:46):
why it is controversial. I would support a bill that
with metrics, did provide ongoing support for Ukraine for a
time period to set number. If we truly got a
change in our asylum laws, got strong border security, and
then metrics as the money was being meted out where
we were actually seeing the border secured. And remember Tutor
(21:09):
under the same broken asylum system. We just had the
Secretary mari Orcus in front of our committee esterday and
he just kept repeating this, it's because.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Our broken system.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
No, our borders out of control is because you have
an open border policy. The root cause of our current
situation is Joe Biden and Secretary may Orcus. So President
Trump reduced the flow of illegal immigrants on the southwest
border to seventeen thousand, five hundred during his administration. Last month,
it was over two hundred and seventy thousand, six million
(21:38):
people into this country either encountered process and dispersed rapidly
or as known gudaways. This is completely out of control.
We can fix this even without changing our law. But
we've got an opportunity now with this the administration's desire
to provide funding to Ukraine to demand we secure our
own boarder.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
At the same time, let's take a quick commercial break.
Will continue next on a Tutor Dixon podcast.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
I've never heard any of these folks that say that
the border is broken, or that the border program is broken,
say what they think should be done. I've never heard
of a solution to that. Have you been have had
people behind the scenes said, boy, reform looks this way.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
Well, we know it, I mean, we know it worked.
Speaker 4 (22:24):
It was consequences. You can't just let people in. You
can't have an open invitation. So you need to increase
that credible sphere standard to more likely than not you
actually have a valve asylum claim and more likely than
not that you're telling us the truth. That'd actually be
a pretty high standard. And then you don't adjudicate the
claim with them in the country waiting to be adjudicated,
because in New York City you don't even get your
(22:45):
first immigration trial now for ten years. So you need
a return to Mexico or return to their home country
or safe third country and let people wait out their time.
If they have a valusylum claim, we will judicate it
while you're not in the US, while you either in
Mexico or your home country if you literally have a
val asylum claim. Those kind of consequences have worked in
(23:06):
the past when we had a flood of much smaller
floods from Brazil. It worked under the Trump administration. It
would work under the Biden administration. If there are metrics
to this Ukraine bill, it won't work. We just pass
the law, because again, this is a lawless administration. Biden
has no intention of following whatever law Congress passes.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Yeah, I mean that's been our biggest issue when people
talk about gun control. We don't follow laws as it is.
What would if you went in and you made a
bunch more laws about guns. How is that going to
do anything if you don't follow the laws you have
on the books about guns.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
I mean, that's been.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
My biggest frustration, is this lawless administration. But it's the
same no matter where you go. I mean, in Michigan,
we have this tragedy on Michigan State's campus, and again,
had this man who was caught with a weapon, and
had he been convicted of the felony he should have
been convicted of in the first place, he would have
never had a weapon on the campus. So, I mean,
(24:01):
I just see this time and time again, where not
following laws. They want to make new laws, they don't
follow the ones they have. It's just a huge problem.
Before I let you go, though, I want to get
to COVID nineteen and the vaccine, because you've been very
vocal about wanting to have the COVID safety data, and
this is something that we've talked about quite a bit.
We've had experts on who have said, this is the
(24:22):
first time we've ever been in a situation where we
haven't been able to review the safety data from these
pharmaceutical companies. Why can we not get this information When
we see people dying of heart attacks at young ages,
we see young people with blood clots, we see young
people with myocarditis and hard issues.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Why is it so hard to get this data?
Speaker 4 (24:42):
Because drug companies and our federal health agencies lied to
us bold face in a number of different instances, and
now they can't admit they were wrong. The BodyCount is
way too high. They told us this would stay in
the our muscle, not by distributed all over the country.
Yet they knew from bio distribution study and rats of
the lipidanoparticle there's going to go all over the body
(25:02):
in constrit and the ovaries and other different different organs,
the adrenal glands. They kept that from us. They lied
to us, They lied to us that this was a vaccine.
It's not a vaccine. This is gene therapy. The vaccine
bi distributes, It attaches to a cell. It injects the
mRNA into your cell. It juices the mitochondria to give
the engine of the cell the energy to produce a
(25:25):
spike protein that is toxic to the body. It's expressed
by the cell and then attacked by the body. G
I wonder why we're having problems that attacks to a
heart muscle. The body attacks a heart muscle, causing inflammation.
That's what myocarditis is. You attach that to a cancer cell.
You juice the myochondria of a cancer cell. What might
that cause? Again, I'm not a doctor, I'm not a
(25:47):
medical researcher. This is just in layman's terms. I'm providing
information in terms of what should have caused federal health
agencies to look at this.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
Far more carefully.
Speaker 4 (25:59):
And now now that we see, for example, more than
thirty six thousand deaths on the veyor system worldwide associated
the COVID vaccine twenty four percent of those deaths occurring
days zero one or two. Now I realized the veyor
system doesn't prove causation, But man, that correlation sure concerns me.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
Why isn't concerning our federal health officials?
Speaker 4 (26:18):
The VSAY system, this was set up specifically to track
adverse events with the COVID vaccine. Ten million people volunteered.
Eight percent of those individuals had to seek medical care
after the vaccine. Twenty four to twenty five percent basically
couldn't carry out their daily activities for a day or
two because of the advers revaction.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
Of the vaccine.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
That's a screaming safety signal, Yet it was buried. Aaron
Sirey had to sue the federal government just to release
that dat. So again, they lied to us. They know
their problems, they've got safety signals, they've got their own analysis.
They won't turn that over to us because they lied
to us, and they don't want to admit they're wrong,
and they certainly don't want to have us be able
(26:58):
to prove that they lied to us.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Well, I think there's so much to unpack and what
you just said. Obviously you're talking about a lot of
these people that are having symptoms within the first few days.
But something you mentioned, one of my relatives was trying
to go through all the research and as much as
he could find online, going through all of this, and
one of the things was the fact that the settles
in the overreast, and that was I have four daughters.
(27:22):
Many of my family members have young girls, and at
that time, we were being heavily pushed to vaccinate our kids,
and we said, no, we're not going to vaccinate our kids.
And then he came up to us and he said,
look at this weird note. And I think it was
I'm not sure it was one of the pharmaceutical companies.
I think it was Pfiser that had this strange note
in their information that said this settles in the ovarias.
(27:44):
And I think, what are the we're talking about my
olecarditis where you can feel it. We're talking about these
folks that have died within three days or had these
terrible symptoms. What are the long term effects and what
are the long term effects on fertility? Because I think
family is absolutely what builds this country, and if they
can take away family that is going to that just
(28:05):
destroys the entire country. Obviously, but what do we know
about the long term effects of this vaccine and how
do we ever find it out?
Speaker 3 (28:13):
Well, your listeners, you can go to a doctor James Thorpe.
He's an OBGYN for forty years. He's written extensively on this.
He's appeared in some of my Senate panels. It's frightening. Again.
Speaker 4 (28:25):
I don't talk publicly about all the things that I've
read that I know because I don't want to frighten people.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
I think the good news is this.
Speaker 4 (28:32):
I think out of a Denmark study, about seventy percent
of people that did get the vaccine exhibit no side
effects whatsoever. Another twenty percent to some mild side effects.
It's pretty well limited. About four or five percent of
the population that are really seeing serious side effects from
the vaccine. So you know, if you're not seeing him,
try not to worry about it. But our federal officials
(28:52):
should be worried about it. They should be concerned, they
should be conducting studies. It's remarkable what studies weren't conducted
and still aren't conducted. And then you can even broaden
this to the childhood vaccines. Now now that gotten into this,
we've we've never tested the childhood vaccines against the true placebo.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
It's terrifying.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
I saw something yesterday showing the number of vaccines that
I took when I was a kid compared to the
number of vaccines that my kids get. And I'm like, man,
how are we not making a bigger deal about this.
It's just something that we've for so long, we've just
gone along with it.
Speaker 4 (29:27):
Well, we gave vaccine manufacturers, you know, absolute liability. It's
a huge profit center. As a result, they make a
lot of money off this, and so they wanted to
keep pushing more and more and more vaccines. It makes
no sense. And what's really tragic about this is our
federal health agencies. Their job should be to ensure safety,
(29:48):
to hold the pharmaceutical company's.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Feet to the fire. But they've been captured by big farmer.
You know.
Speaker 4 (29:53):
That's that's what all the billions of dollars a big
farmer spends on advertising.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
The fact that.
Speaker 4 (29:59):
They're fun through FDA used the agencies are funded through
FDA user fees the sales or drugs, The fact they
have a revolving door of federal health officials back into
fier with Scott Gottlie, FDA commissioner. Now he's on the
board member Phfizer and a big push of the vaccines.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
So again, the.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
Actually they can even advertise the way they do is crazy.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
It is I mean, listen, I'm a sales guy.
Speaker 4 (30:23):
There's no way I would advertise a project where I've
got to list all the side effects.
Speaker 3 (30:27):
Including death. Why would they do that.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
The only reason they'd spend those billions of dollars putting
up those stupid ads that actually scare people more than
convince them to use their drug is that allows them
to capture the narrative. So, for example, during the pandemic,
you had all of these news organizations up and down
the line censoring truth, censoring the real information, calling people
(30:49):
like me nutcases, and vilifying and ridiculing me, and labeling
the information I was providing that was literally just government
information as misinformation.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
Well, we are blessed, we are blessed that you decided
to run for another term, and we are so grateful. Honestly,
I know people across the country are so blessed by
your presence there in Washington, d C. And how hard
you're fighting for us. Senator Ron Johnson, thank you so much.
Thanks for having me on and thank you all for
joining us today on the Tutor Dixon Podcast. For this
(31:20):
episode and others, check out Tutor Dixon podcast dot com.
You can subscribe right there, or head over to the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast
and join us next time on the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Have a blessing,
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. Well, the national conversation
these days seems to revolve around the border, the economy,
and sending aid to our friends overseas.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
All of these conversations are.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Filled with debate and controversy, and as the debates continue,
public trust in Congress continues to erode. And then we
have the looming question of corruption in the Biden family.
My guest today has been very adamant the FBI has
let us down when it comes to investigating Joe Biden
and his family's business dealings.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Senator Ron Johnson, welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Well, Tutor, glad to be on.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
We are glad you're on because a lot of us
and a lot of our listeners have been incredibly concerned
with what's going on with Joe Biden's family business dealings.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
And it seems like.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
You're kind of calling out the FBI for having some
information that they have labeled misinformation rather than put out
there as what could possibly be happened have been happening
behind the scenes with the Biden family. Do you believe
that he was getting money from corrupt business dealings?
Speaker 4 (01:01):
Sure, Well, let's first kind of frame this from a
macro standpoint, as concerning as the Biden crime family corruption
is as much as that compromises our president and puts
our national security at risk. As even more concerning is
the corruption that has been revealed in federal law enforcement,
the FBI, Department Justice intelligence agencies, and then of course
(01:23):
the corrupt media that overlooks all this, that doesn't hold
both sides equally accountable. When it comes to the FBI,
what we have found because of whistleblowers, both the IRS
whistleblowers as well as FBI whistleblowers coming to both center
grassolies in my office. But I think the most recent
revelation showed that the FBI literally had forty confidential human
(01:45):
sources with drogatory information on the Biden family. The FBI
then set up this foreign Influence task Force, which was
appears to be primarily what my staff calls catch and kill.
So wherever some derogatory information would pop up on the Bidens,
this task force would swoop in and basically label that
(02:08):
information Russian disinformation, foreign influence. Designed I mean from a
partisan standpoint, designed to protect the Bidens. I mean, this
is shocking. We are seeing more and more piece, you know,
piece of this puzzle being revealed by Chairman Comer and
Chairman Jordan as well. You asked me a question, do
I think Joe Biden benefit from this? I don't have
(02:30):
the direct evidence other than now we've seen a loan
payment apparently from James Biden to Joe Biden. We've seen
some other things connected to me, it's all pretty obvious.
I mean, millions of dollars that Center Grass and I
revealed flowing into this labyrinth of companies that Hunter Biden
set up to launder money. James Comer has shown there's
(02:51):
a lot more people than just Joe and Hunter and
James and Sarah Biden did a benefit, and they're more
family members. So to me, this has been obvious from
our initial investigation. I don't know that the mainstream media
will ever see enough evidence to make it obvious to them,
but I think it's obvious to anybody who's really paying attention.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Well, in these payments we're talking about coming from countries
like Russia, Ukraine, China, these are adversarial countries and certainly
now well not Ukraine, but certainly now we're seeing the
world erupt. We see what's going on with the Russia.
Where Ukraine conflict. We see that Russia has been talking
to China, to North Korea, to Iran, what's happening overseas
(03:31):
in the Middle East. When you look at that, combined
with the potential payments, does that concern you that his
judgment is clouded when it comes to making tough decisions
and the decisions that we're facing on the world stage
in the coming months.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
And we had a very early example of this administration
where they canceled the China Initiative, which was a Department
of Justice initiative to investigate and try and crack down
on China stealing our intellectual profit on our college campuses.
Why would you cancel that when you realize that's probably
one of the greatest threats that China represents to America's
stealing our stuff and then using our intellectual property, our
(04:10):
technology against us. And the Biden program, So no, you
have to be concerned about this. And Tudor remember the
rationale for the Hair on Fire concerns about the totally
false narrative of Trump campaign collusion with Russia, that if
we would elect Donald Trump and he had contact with Russia,
(04:30):
this could put our national security at risk. That's why
we went through years of torment, a political turmoil on
a completely false narrative that the FBI knew, by the way,
and the Biden Mystery or the bottom administration knew, was
a scheme hatched by the Clinton campaign. I mean, he
can't make exactly all the information the FBI had in
(04:52):
his possession, and yet they ran with this investigation, helped
set up the Moeller Special Council, put this country through
a couple of years of term.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Let's face it, sick. It hasn't ended.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
It has, but the media allows the Hillary Clinton to
continue to go out and say this. She continues to
peddle this lie, even though she knows she paid for it,
she knows she brought this lie to the United States,
and they allow her to continue to say, well, there
was Russian collusion, you know. I mean that to me
is mind boggling that no one says to her, well,
(05:22):
wait a minute, we actually proved that that wasn't true.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
In fact, you were involved in that line.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
Well, her campaign communication department wouldn't tell her that. And
that's really what the mainstream media basically is is the
communication arm of the radical left wing of liberals.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
A democratic Party, and that's a big problem.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
We wouldn't have the corruption in our federal agencies if
we had a unbiased, free press that was holding both
sides equally accountable. I don't want a bias press biased
towards conservatives. I want an unbiased media holding both sides
equally accountable. We don't have that right now. We have
basically mouthpiece. This is for the radical left, for the
(06:02):
Democrat Party.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
I want to go back to something that you said,
because you talked about this program in universities where China
was supposed to be told that they can take our
intellectual property. Now apparently that's been canceled. You and I
both come from the manufacturing world. I was selling tool
and die steel to plastics fabricators.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
You are a plastic fabrication company.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
So you and I both understand how important is that
we protect our intellectual property.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
But beyond that, we spoke to Larry.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Cudlow recently and he was talking about the national security
dangers of this reduction in oil production and what that
means for our plastics industry.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
So I wanted to ask you a little bit about that.
How do you fight this?
Speaker 1 (06:46):
I mean, you come from this industry, you understand that
when we are talking about petroleum, we're not talking about
just powering our vehicles. We're talking about what our toothbrushes
are made out of, our clothing, our cars, everything, whether
it's your cell phone to your shoes, it's made from
something that comes out of the oil industry. So how
much danger are we in right now because of not
(07:07):
only China being able to take our ip but also
the fact that we've reduced our own oil production and
now we put power into the Middle East that wasn't
there before.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
Well, I've said, if you were asked to develop a
strategy to destroy this country, you could not come up
with a better game plan than what the Bide administration
and the radical ext zipplement, the open borders, the embarrassing
and danger strender in Afghanistan than and bold in our enemies,
the war and fossil fuel, which certainly has contributed to
forty your high inflation together with the massive depth suspending.
(07:38):
So let's focus on the war and fossil fuel. First
of all, I'm not a climate change denier. I'm just
not an alarmist. The climate has always changed. There was
just a declaration made by one thousand six hundred and
nine worldwide scientists and professionals, led by two Nobel laureates,
and they got their Nobel Prizes in physics.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Because these are.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Smart scientific people. The declaration said we have no climate emergency,
that the climate change alarmism is all based on faulty
and false science, so let's knock it off. We've spent
something like six trillion dollars combating climate change. Even the
climate change alarmists won't say that we've even bent the
curve down. We're not going to be able to hold
(08:22):
back the tide. So the first thing is we need conservatives,
people that are head screwed on right, pushing back against
that false narrative. Now it's not easy to do, trust me,
I do it. I get vilified, I get ridiculed for
being a climate in science denier. But the science states
that we've always had climate change. And unless there are
enough people willing to call BS on this, we're going
(08:45):
to continue on this path. We've got far too many
Republican politicians that buy into this climate change BS.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Well, let me ask you something about that, though, because
I would argue that our manufacturing companies are not reckless regardless,
and I would be to bet you would say, no,
we're very conscious of what we put in the ground
and what and whether or that has to do with
climate change or just protecting people, protecting animals. We I
would say that the United States is the cleanest manufacturing
(09:14):
country in the entire world because we are concerned with
those things.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
No one's reckless out there.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
Without a doubt.
Speaker 4 (09:19):
Again, that's different between being an environmentalist and I'm a
definite environmentalist. I mean, I love the outdoors, I want
a pristine environment. I get my water out of a well,
I want clean groundwater. And there's no doubt about the
American manufacturing is the most environmentally sensitive and friendly manufacturing
in the world. So again I've always said, you know,
(09:40):
I'm not a big fan of the federal government, but
one agency that I think was very successful was the EPA.
Now it's gone beyond its initial mandate, but what was
originally set up to do, you know, the main pludence.
It was set up to combat, you know, the things
that we're causing fire or you know, rivers to go
on fire. They've done a great job ort reducing and
that's a good thing and we all support it.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
The climate change that is so destructive. It's being used to.
Speaker 4 (10:03):
Scare monger and fear monger for greater government control and
reducing our freedom. And again it's fantasy.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Don't you think that.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
That's a lot of where they've been able to manipulate
young minds though, and make people believe that Republicans are
not environmentalists, which I fight against. I say, no, no, no, no,
stop saying that, because I would say Republicans are the innovators.
We are the ones that own the businesses, that create
the better ways of doing things, that take care of
the earth, that take care of the people. And that
I think is the manipulation is convincing young people that
(10:33):
Republicans are against the environment instead of talking about this
boogeyman of climate.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
The media, the left is always going to twist people's
words and lie and not tell the truth. I mean,
if they don't, if they don't have something that they
can twist and use against you, they'll make something up.
They have no problem lying, they have no problem pushing
false narratives, as we saw with Trump and the hilly
Clinton campaign. So again, in the end, all we have
to do is tell the truth. And from my standpoint,
I think it's pretty easy to push on the climate
(11:00):
change alarmist. I point to the Vostok ice core sample.
You know, four hundred and forty thousand years of scientific
temperature variation proven, and you see five cycles twenty two
point seven degrees variation. You take a look at the
sea level rise in the Bea San Francisco three hundred
and ninety feet since the last glaciation period twenty thousand
(11:21):
years ago. There's nothing we could have done to hold
back the tides or prevent those types of temperaure cycles.
We're not going to be able to prevent this one either.
So again it's it's alarmism. It's based on bad science.
There's more scientists and Nobel Laius coming out saying don't
do not be afraid. The climate has always changed, will adapt,
We can adapt. But you know, just trying to mollify
(11:44):
the left and try and get them not to criticize
you by just going along with climate change is a
losing strategy.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Yeah, I agree, but I think it's a tough hill
to climb, and I appreciate you sharing with us that
information because I think a lot more people need to
be edge cad on how to talk about it. In
a different way. Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll
continue next on the Tutor Dixon Podcast. You and I
are both here in the Midwest. I you're in Wisconsin.
(12:14):
I'm in Michigan. It's becoming a much bluer area. It's
harder for Republicans to win. So tell us your secret
of talking about these things in Wisconsin and how you
continue to win elections and fight for the people.
Speaker 4 (12:28):
I think people realize I honored my promise of always
telling the truth. Now they may not always agree with me,
but they do realize that whatever I say, I genuinely
believe it, and I believe it to be the truth,
and I won't back down.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
And I think people do appreciate the fact that.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
You know, I often said during my second election and
said I win either way, either win my election or
I get to go home. And I was criticized for
being too ambivalent. I wasn't ambivalent. I mean, you can
see that and hear the passion of my voice here.
I ran for a third term even though I didn't
want to, because I couldn't walk away. I couldn't turn
my back on this country. You know, this country is imperiled,
(13:05):
and so I think just being passionate, being honest, being truthful,
being genuine when it comes to electro mechanics, being concerned
far more about the grassroots and getting out and talking
to everybody and convincing you know, members of the county
parties to get out and talk to their friends, family
and neighbors. I mean, you win elections one person at
(13:26):
a time. You need ads, you need all that type
of thing. But you know, my folks and my campaigns
have always been on just working the state hard, talking
to people and asking them to be evangelist for the
truth and talk to their friends, families and neighbors so that.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Strong ground game.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
And honestly, I believe that that strong ground game is
something we have been missing in Michigan, and the Democrats
have done extremely well.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
I think that's a really valid point.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
People need to understand that it's important to get your
friends and neighbors out to talk about it to get
people to vote. It's important because we've got a lot
going on right now. You've talked quite a bit about
the border. Obviously, we're talking a lot about what's going
on in Ukraine, what's going on in Israel right now,
we're looking at the new House speaker wanting to separate
that Israel funding into one individual bill that is not
(14:16):
widely accepted by Democrats, and even Mitch McConnell is not
a fan of that. Where do you stand on the
Israel funding.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Well, first of all, I recognize that when Republicans control
the House and we're the minority in the Senate, the
Speaker of the House is really the leader of the
Republican Party, and I understand the challenge that Speaker Johnson faces,
and I think Republican Center's role ought to be to
support him and not undermine him. First of all, I
completely agree with him. There's broad byparts support to get
(14:47):
whatever Israel needs to Israel and support Israel. Putting together
Israel funding. Any larger package that has definitely controversy elements
to it is going to slow that process down. We
do that, So I think Speaker Johnson very intelligently said no,
let's provide, let's vote on and pass support for Israel.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
And oh, by the way, why don't we pay for it.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Let's pay for it by taking fourteen billion dollars out
of the eighty billion dollars that Joe Biden and Democrats
passed to harass American citizens through eighty seven thousand new
IRS agents. Seems to make sense to me, pretty common
common sense approach. So I completely support the speaker, and
I think Leader McConnell is out of touch with the
(15:30):
Republicans that support us throughout the country, but also even
Republicans in the United States Senate.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Yeah, obviously we're sitting here watching these horrors across the
country of what's even happening with anti Semitism, and certainly
that has fueled a lot of people to say, we
have to protect Israel, but we have to protect people
on our own within our own borders as well. That
seems to be getting harder and harder as we have
an open border with people coming across and they have
(15:57):
multiple different backgrounds, but we know that a lot of
these people that have come across have backgrounds in terror.
So what do you say about I know you've talked
about having the Ukraine aid connected to border funding as well.
What would you like to see at the border right now?
Speaker 4 (16:15):
Well, first of all, that whether you agree or disagree
providing support to Ukraine, it's very true that Democrats President
Biden are more concerned about Ukrainian's borders than they are
our own right now, the completely out of control open
borders is the greatest homeland security threat our nation faces.
Over seventy three thousand special interest aliens that we know
(16:39):
about crossed over during the Biden administration. Over six million
people been led in one point seven million known guidaways.
We don't know who these people are, but we know
they came into this country. We detected them, we just
didn't even encounter them.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
So this is a.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
Massive threat to our national security. So we got to
fix it. And so there will be a legitimate and
concerned to attach to any Ukraine funding true border security
with metrics. I think that's important because no matter what
law we pass, we know that the Bide administration is
a lawless administration. You can't count on them to actually
implement the law. They will circumvent the law. So we're
(17:16):
going to have to hold their feet to the fire.
So I'm working with the Senator John Hovan who really
developed this concept, and we're going to put in strong
metrics that if you'll do an initial trance to Ukraine,
but then future five billion dollar tranchs we might suggestion
would have to be tied to border metrics of actually
reducing the number of people let in down to let's
(17:38):
say the level that it was when Trump lust office.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
I think that's a pretty reasonable approach.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
You mentioned something interesting at the beginning of that. You said,
no matter where you stand on funding Ukraine, I want
to ask you about that because we've had a lot
of people on the podcast who have said, folks need
to understand that America first doesn't mean America only, and
we have to still be the leader out there that
is still in or someone takes that role away from
the United States of America. What is your response to that.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
Well, I think most Americans, you know, we truly do
support Ukrainians who are just fighting for their families, for
their freedom, for their territory. And we all recognize that
Vladimir Putin is a evil war criminal and we don't
want to provide any comfort or support for him, Okay,
but we also have to recognize the reality. I think
there was a point in time. For example, I don't
(18:27):
think Putin ever would have invaded Ukraine had Trump won
re election. I think there was a moment in time,
very early on when Putin didn't just immediately secure the
collapse of Ukraine and take it out over and he
was back on his heels that showing unity and providing
funding I was hoping would deter him from continuing. Just
(18:49):
you know, stop the war, have some kind of peace.
Now the rally situations, we are in a bloody stalemate.
Putin will not lose this war.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
He can't.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
It's losing the war would be an ex stential threat
to him. He has nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons. He
has threatened to use him I believe he would. So
we're not going to defeat Russia. Ukraine can't do what
it would need to defeat Russia, start lobbing missiles into
Moscow to reduce the will of Russian people. So this
cannot be won by Ukraine. This is going to have
(19:20):
to be settled. Every day that goes by where it's
not settled, more Ukrainians die, soldiers and civilians, more Russian
conscripts die. And I take no joy that young men
yanked out of their villages in Russia are being sent
to the front lines to die for Putin. This has
to end, and I think Zelenski right now is getting
(19:42):
the signal that he probably ought to bring it to
an end as quickly as possible, because he can't count
on just an open checkbook for his war effort.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Well, some of the folks you don't want to.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
Comfort to Putin, but we've got to encourage this war ends.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
Some of the folks that are running for president have
said they don't believe money should go over there at all,
that they believe there should be support in other ways,
that weapons should be sent, that munitions should be sent.
Is that something I mean, you're saying that those things
are not going to matter. Do you believe that Joe
Biden should be trying to have a diplomatic relationship with
(20:18):
Putin that ends this or do you think that's impossible
with a Joe Biden.
Speaker 4 (20:23):
I think Zelenski needs to really lead that effort. I
was at his inauguration. I met with him a few
months later. He wanted peace with Russia. This is when
Russia had taken over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. But he
wanted you a piece deal. He did not want war.
I'm not quite sure what happened in the intervening time period,
but we obviously know that Putin invaded again. This is
a tough call. Okay, there's no doubt about it. That's
(20:46):
why it is controversial. I would support a bill that
with metrics, did provide ongoing support for Ukraine for a
time period to set number. If we truly got a
change in our asylum laws, got strong border security, and
then metrics as the money was being meted out where
we were actually seeing the border secured. And remember Tutor
(21:09):
under the same broken asylum system. We just had the
Secretary mari Orcus in front of our committee esterday and
he just kept repeating this, it's because.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Our broken system.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
No, our borders out of control is because you have
an open border policy. The root cause of our current
situation is Joe Biden and Secretary may Orcus. So President
Trump reduced the flow of illegal immigrants on the southwest
border to seventeen thousand, five hundred during his administration. Last month,
it was over two hundred and seventy thousand, six million
(21:38):
people into this country either encountered process and dispersed rapidly
or as known gudaways. This is completely out of control.
We can fix this even without changing our law. But
we've got an opportunity now with this the administration's desire
to provide funding to Ukraine to demand we secure our
own boarder.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
At the same time, let's take a quick commercial break.
Will continue next on a Tutor Dixon podcast.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
I've never heard any of these folks that say that
the border is broken, or that the border program is broken,
say what they think should be done. I've never heard
of a solution to that. Have you been have had
people behind the scenes said, boy, reform looks this way.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
Well, we know it, I mean, we know it worked.
Speaker 4 (22:24):
It was consequences. You can't just let people in. You
can't have an open invitation. So you need to increase
that credible sphere standard to more likely than not you
actually have a valve asylum claim and more likely than
not that you're telling us the truth. That'd actually be
a pretty high standard. And then you don't adjudicate the
claim with them in the country waiting to be adjudicated,
because in New York City you don't even get your
(22:45):
first immigration trial now for ten years. So you need
a return to Mexico or return to their home country
or safe third country and let people wait out their time.
If they have a valusylum claim, we will judicate it
while you're not in the US, while you either in
Mexico or your home country if you literally have a
val asylum claim. Those kind of consequences have worked in
(23:06):
the past when we had a flood of much smaller
floods from Brazil. It worked under the Trump administration. It
would work under the Biden administration. If there are metrics
to this Ukraine bill, it won't work. We just pass
the law, because again, this is a lawless administration. Biden
has no intention of following whatever law Congress passes.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Yeah, I mean that's been our biggest issue when people
talk about gun control. We don't follow laws as it is.
What would if you went in and you made a
bunch more laws about guns. How is that going to
do anything if you don't follow the laws you have
on the books about guns.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
I mean, that's been.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
My biggest frustration, is this lawless administration. But it's the
same no matter where you go. I mean, in Michigan,
we have this tragedy on Michigan State's campus, and again,
had this man who was caught with a weapon, and
had he been convicted of the felony he should have
been convicted of in the first place, he would have
never had a weapon on the campus. So, I mean,
(24:01):
I just see this time and time again, where not
following laws. They want to make new laws, they don't
follow the ones they have. It's just a huge problem.
Before I let you go, though, I want to get
to COVID nineteen and the vaccine, because you've been very
vocal about wanting to have the COVID safety data, and
this is something that we've talked about quite a bit.
We've had experts on who have said, this is the
(24:22):
first time we've ever been in a situation where we
haven't been able to review the safety data from these
pharmaceutical companies. Why can we not get this information When
we see people dying of heart attacks at young ages,
we see young people with blood clots, we see young
people with myocarditis and hard issues.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Why is it so hard to get this data?
Speaker 4 (24:42):
Because drug companies and our federal health agencies lied to
us bold face in a number of different instances, and
now they can't admit they were wrong. The BodyCount is
way too high. They told us this would stay in
the our muscle, not by distributed all over the country.
Yet they knew from bio distribution study and rats of
the lipidanoparticle there's going to go all over the body
(25:02):
in constrit and the ovaries and other different different organs,
the adrenal glands. They kept that from us. They lied
to us, They lied to us that this was a vaccine.
It's not a vaccine. This is gene therapy. The vaccine
bi distributes, It attaches to a cell. It injects the
mRNA into your cell. It juices the mitochondria to give
the engine of the cell the energy to produce a
(25:25):
spike protein that is toxic to the body. It's expressed
by the cell and then attacked by the body. G
I wonder why we're having problems that attacks to a
heart muscle. The body attacks a heart muscle, causing inflammation.
That's what myocarditis is. You attach that to a cancer cell.
You juice the myochondria of a cancer cell. What might
that cause? Again, I'm not a doctor, I'm not a
(25:47):
medical researcher. This is just in layman's terms. I'm providing
information in terms of what should have caused federal health
agencies to look at this.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
Far more carefully.
Speaker 4 (25:59):
And now now that we see, for example, more than
thirty six thousand deaths on the veyor system worldwide associated
the COVID vaccine twenty four percent of those deaths occurring
days zero one or two. Now I realized the veyor
system doesn't prove causation, But man, that correlation sure concerns me.
Speaker 3 (26:16):
Why isn't concerning our federal health officials?
Speaker 4 (26:18):
The VSAY system, this was set up specifically to track
adverse events with the COVID vaccine. Ten million people volunteered.
Eight percent of those individuals had to seek medical care
after the vaccine. Twenty four to twenty five percent basically
couldn't carry out their daily activities for a day or
two because of the advers revaction.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
Of the vaccine.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
That's a screaming safety signal, Yet it was buried. Aaron
Sirey had to sue the federal government just to release
that dat. So again, they lied to us. They know
their problems, they've got safety signals, they've got their own analysis.
They won't turn that over to us because they lied
to us, and they don't want to admit they're wrong,
and they certainly don't want to have us be able
(26:58):
to prove that they lied to us.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Well, I think there's so much to unpack and what
you just said. Obviously you're talking about a lot of
these people that are having symptoms within the first few days.
But something you mentioned, one of my relatives was trying
to go through all the research and as much as
he could find online, going through all of this, and
one of the things was the fact that the settles
in the overreast, and that was I have four daughters.
(27:22):
Many of my family members have young girls, and at
that time, we were being heavily pushed to vaccinate our kids,
and we said, no, we're not going to vaccinate our kids.
And then he came up to us and he said,
look at this weird note. And I think it was
I'm not sure it was one of the pharmaceutical companies.
I think it was Pfiser that had this strange note
in their information that said this settles in the ovarias.
(27:44):
And I think, what are the we're talking about my
olecarditis where you can feel it. We're talking about these
folks that have died within three days or had these
terrible symptoms. What are the long term effects and what
are the long term effects on fertility? Because I think
family is absolutely what builds this country, and if they
can take away family that is going to that just
(28:05):
destroys the entire country. Obviously, but what do we know
about the long term effects of this vaccine and how
do we ever find it out?
Speaker 3 (28:13):
Well, your listeners, you can go to a doctor James Thorpe.
He's an OBGYN for forty years. He's written extensively on this.
He's appeared in some of my Senate panels. It's frightening. Again.
Speaker 4 (28:25):
I don't talk publicly about all the things that I've
read that I know because I don't want to frighten people.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
I think the good news is this.
Speaker 4 (28:32):
I think out of a Denmark study, about seventy percent
of people that did get the vaccine exhibit no side
effects whatsoever. Another twenty percent to some mild side effects.
It's pretty well limited. About four or five percent of
the population that are really seeing serious side effects from
the vaccine. So you know, if you're not seeing him,
try not to worry about it. But our federal officials
(28:52):
should be worried about it. They should be concerned, they
should be conducting studies. It's remarkable what studies weren't conducted
and still aren't conducted. And then you can even broaden
this to the childhood vaccines. Now now that gotten into this,
we've we've never tested the childhood vaccines against the true placebo.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
It's terrifying.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
I saw something yesterday showing the number of vaccines that
I took when I was a kid compared to the
number of vaccines that my kids get. And I'm like, man,
how are we not making a bigger deal about this.
It's just something that we've for so long, we've just
gone along with it.
Speaker 4 (29:27):
Well, we gave vaccine manufacturers, you know, absolute liability. It's
a huge profit center. As a result, they make a
lot of money off this, and so they wanted to
keep pushing more and more and more vaccines. It makes
no sense. And what's really tragic about this is our
federal health agencies. Their job should be to ensure safety,
(29:48):
to hold the pharmaceutical company's.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Feet to the fire. But they've been captured by big farmer.
You know.
Speaker 4 (29:53):
That's that's what all the billions of dollars a big
farmer spends on advertising.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
The fact that.
Speaker 4 (29:59):
They're fun through FDA used the agencies are funded through
FDA user fees the sales or drugs, The fact they
have a revolving door of federal health officials back into
fier with Scott Gottlie, FDA commissioner. Now he's on the
board member Phfizer and a big push of the vaccines.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
So again, the.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
Actually they can even advertise the way they do is crazy.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
It is I mean, listen, I'm a sales guy.
Speaker 4 (30:23):
There's no way I would advertise a project where I've
got to list all the side effects.
Speaker 3 (30:27):
Including death. Why would they do that.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
The only reason they'd spend those billions of dollars putting
up those stupid ads that actually scare people more than
convince them to use their drug is that allows them
to capture the narrative. So, for example, during the pandemic,
you had all of these news organizations up and down
the line censoring truth, censoring the real information, calling people
(30:49):
like me nutcases, and vilifying and ridiculing me, and labeling
the information I was providing that was literally just government
information as misinformation.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
Well, we are blessed, we are blessed that you decided
to run for another term, and we are so grateful. Honestly,
I know people across the country are so blessed by
your presence there in Washington, d C. And how hard
you're fighting for us. Senator Ron Johnson, thank you so much.
Thanks for having me on and thank you all for
joining us today on the Tutor Dixon Podcast. For this
(31:20):
episode and others, check out Tutor Dixon podcast dot com.
You can subscribe right there, or head over to the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast
and join us next time on the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Have a blessing,
Host
Buck Sexton
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
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!