Woke & Broke: The Stunning Collapse of the DNC

Summary

---

Ruthless Podcast

Episode: "Woke & Broke: The Stunning Collapse of the DNC"
Date: July 28, 2026
Hosts: Josh Holmes, Comfortably Smug, Michael Duncan, John Ashbrook
Key Guest: Senator Ron Johnson

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the deepening financial and leadership crises inside the Democratic National Committee (DNC), highlighted by recent damaging media leaks and the growing influence of Democratic Socialists within the party. The hosts dig into the recent New York Times exposé, the shambolic state of DNC finances, intraparty backstabbing, and the collapse of establishment control. Senator Ron Johnson joins for an extended discussion on the upcoming Fauci hearings, public health establishment failures, congressional dysfunction, and filibuster reform. The tone is classic Ruthless: irreverent, sharp, and packed with inside-the-beltway political snark.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. DNC In Crisis: Phone-Throwing and Leaks

00:00–10:32

• Ken Martin Meltdown: The show opens with the New York Times story on DNC Chair Ken Martin, exposed for both mismanagement and losing his temper—specifically, throwing his phone at a junior aide's desk.
  • “You got a guy like Ken Martin who's just getting beat up by his literal best friends in the New York Times.” (A, 00:00)
  • “It pisses me off when anything leaks out of this building.” (Ken Martin, quoted by hosts at 00:11, 08:46)
  • The crew mockingly dissects the “inner circle” leaking to the press, observing: “Four people came running forward...” (B, 09:02)
• DNC Leadership Vacuum: The panel agree the DNC’s main problems are chronic: lack of leadership, internal paranoia, and an aura of panic.
• Satirical Color: The hosts riff on Ken Martin’s “non-masculine left-handed phone toss,” comparing him to Hal McRae, then joke about the DNC’s HR department as a "hedge maze of cubicles... nothing but trannies—super pissed, ready to file complaints." (A/D, 07:59)

---

2. Cooking the Books: DNC's Money Misery

10:32–24:13

• Vendor Shenanigans: Hosts detail the DNC instructing vendors not to bill until after the midterms—bluntly noting, “That’s illegal.” (A, 05:04)
• Reverse Mortgage Gags: The DNC put up its HQ as collateral for a $15M loan.
  • Classic dunk: “I never expected the DNC to do a reverse mortgage on our entire organization.” (C, 18:01)
• Kamala Harris’s Role: The panel blames Harris for burning through donor cash in her 2024 campaign, leaving the DNC with crippling debt (16M in cash, 18M in debt as of June).
  • “Kamala Harris blows up, right? Leaves the DNC cash-strapped in debt, and then Ken Martin in the Democratic establishment proceeds to hide the ball.” (D, 21:11)
• Fundraising Fail: “Why does he need to have an all-staff if he's trying to get a message out? He can just say it to his inner circle and the Times will have it the next day.” (B, 09:51)
• ActBlue Anxiety: Discussion suggests Democrats are worried Republicans have figured out ActBlue’s role in low-dollar fundraising; potential Republican hearings add stress.
  • “If they're genuinely worried that Republicans have caught on to the shenanigans... this is a mess that doesn't get any better.” (B, 23:13)
• Notable Quote: “If Republicans can draw breath and be normal, they ought to do okay in the elections... Just look under the hood of what's going on, the Democratic Party. Boy, oh, boy.” (A, 02:32)

---

3. Leadership None: Establishment vs Democratic Socialists

24:13–34:03

• Discussing the “complete lack of leadership” among traditional Dems (Holmes, 24:50), the show identifies up-and-comers like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) as the true drivers of party energy and primary victories.
• “Ashbrook’s Law”: The media only attacks one Democrat when it benefits another. “The mainstream media does not attack a Democrat unless there is a second Democrat who benefits. And the great question... is which Democrat wants Ken Martin out?” (C, 00:19 & 12:03)
• Primary Calendar Shuffle: South Carolina now leads, an obvious move (per hosts) to avoid another Bernie Sanders surge and to better control the selection process, not for diversity or voter empowerment.
  • “They rearranged the whole primary calendar ... It has everything to do with trying to figure out how to get a f---ing hammer and sickle to represent your party in 2028.” (A/B, 31:39)

---

4. The DSA Takeover & Far-Left National Platform

25:37–33:20

• On-Air Litmus Test: Fox News’ Shannon Bream quizzes a DSA leader, who bluntly endorses abolishing the Senate, ICE, prisons, and more.
  • “Abolish the Senate.” (F, 25:53, candidate: “True.”)
  • “Abolish borders and give amnesty...?” (F, 26:04, candidate: “Yep.”)
• The hosts call this an election-year “gift” for Republicans and contrast it with decades of gradualism (“Incremental, incremental, incremental... The grassroots has no more patience.” —B, 27:31)
• Democratic Strategy Problems: Unlike previous cycles, there’s no effective counterbalance from the center: “Huge void of leadership at the bingo that is providing any balance...” (A, 28:01)
• DSA’s Growing Power: “They could determine every piece of policy through a Hakeem Jeffries majority... 8, 10, 12 DSA elected members of Congress could hold the entire agenda hostage.” (D, 33:20)

---

5. Intraparty Strife: The Case of Talarico and Black Voter Outreach

34:03–37:49

• The hosts lampoon Texas Democrat James Talarico’s efforts (and failures) to connect with Black voters—a topic the show claims to have “called” weeks ago—by playing comments demanding campaign cash be sent directly to Black-owned organizations, polling groups, and media.
  • “[Talarico] has given out money to white geotv organizations... but he's not giving it to black infrastructure.” (G, 36:06)
  • “There are literal protection rackets that are more subtle than that.” (D, 37:26)
• Summary: Democrats are accused of transactional, pay-for-play politics with core constituencies and being astonishingly upfront (and sometimes clueless) about it.

---

6. Main Guest: Senator Ron Johnson Deep Dive

38:27–70:52

On Fauci, COVID, and the Medical Establishment

(38:27–56:16 | Key Quotes, Major Themes)

• Johnson previews the Fauci hearing, insisting there’s “still a lot more accountability... a lot more documents to uncover” (E, 40:28).
• On Fauci’s motivation: “If you're a medical researcher, everybody wants to be Jonas Salk, right?” (E, 44:07) – but Johnson posits potential cover-ups, conflicts of interest, and misplaced faith in universal vaccination as drivers.
• Laments the medical field’s hostility toward cheap treatments like hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin, referencing smear campaigns (“fish tank cleaner,” “horse paste”). Describes public health’s “culture of intimidation.” (D/E, 47:55–49:19)
• Details the tragic breakdown of trust in American medicine due to COVID-era policy, accountability dodging, and DEI “corruption”:
  • “Evidence-based medicine has turned into a monstrous joke DEI inside our medical schools...” (E, 53:09)
  • “I come into Covid revering doctors and nurses... And then you see what the medical profession did during COVID...” (E, 55:11)

Policy Complexity: Dysfunction in Congress & Filibuster

(57:06–70:52)

• On reconciliation and sausage-making: “The Senate is the exact opposite of simplicity... there's 15 committees involved.” (E, 58:39)
• Medicaid/Medicare fraud rampant—cites example of hospice fraud in L.A. (E, 60:43-61:44)
• Unpunished voter fraud and election integrity occupy a long segment near the end. Johnson repeats that unless the GOP acts swiftly, Democrats will abolish the filibuster and make sweeping changes when next in power:
  • “I'm 5,000% sure... the minute they have the power, they're going to end the filibuster...” (E, 65:04)
• Johnson’s proposed solution: force Democrats to vote on raising the filibuster threshold to 67 votes and make that the permanent rule.

---

7. Listener Comments & Closing Banter

72:54–76:49

• The hosts share listener mail about New Jersey’s fraudulent vote totals, whale (orca) hunting, and inject humor suggesting whales/orcas should be “hunted not only because they’re a renewable resource, but for sport and fun.” (B, 74:36)
• They plug new Ruthless merchandising—America250 hat—before formally wrapping.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "The mainstream media does not attack a Democrat unless there is a second Democrat who benefits." (C, 00:19 / 12:03)
• "I never expected the DNC to do a reverse mortgage on our entire organization." (C, 18:01)
• "We're worse than bankrupt. We've put the House up and clearly this. The problem here isn't our spending." (B, 22:19)
• “The DSA’s beliefs in black and white. This is what they've all signed up for… The Dem Party and the DSA are one in the same.” (B, 27:31)
• Sen. Johnson: "Evidence based medicine has turned into a monstrous joke... there are so many people... who don't trust their doctors anymore, will avoid going to a hospital like a plague." (E, 53:09)
• "The Senate is the exact opposite of simplicity." (E, 58:39)
• "I'm 5,000% sure... the minute they have the power, they're going to end the filibuster..." (E, 65:04)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00–10:32: Ken Martin saga, NYT leaker drama, DNC HR dysfunction
• 10:32–24:13: DNC’s money problems, reverse mortgage joke, Harris’s debt legacy, ActBlue fears
• 24:13–34:03: Power vacuum, DSA ascendant, primary calendar manipulation
• 25:37–33:20: The DSA platform video, Republican electoral “gift”
• 34:03–37:49: Talarico Black voter outreach, transactional politics
• 38:27–70:52: Sen. Ron Johnson interview—Fauci hearing, public health, reconciliation, filibuster, election integrity
• 72:54–76:49: Listener comments, whale jokes, merch promo, show close

---

Tone & Language

True to form, the Ruthless team balances political wonkery with caustic humor and a relentlessly critical, anti-woke perspective. They gleefully roast Democratic Party dysfunction, lampoon left-leaning media, and push their Midwestern, common-sense conservative bona fides—sometimes crossing into coarse or edgy territory (“Nothing but trannies — super pissed...” (A, 07:59) or “You can also plug the blowhole of a sperm whale...”).

---

Summary for Listeners

Anyone interested in the internecine collapse of the DNC, the rise of unapologetic socialists within Democratic ranks, nuts-and-bolts of institutional failure, and a lengthy, unapologetically right-leaning critique of COVID-era governance will find this episode packed with fire-breathing banter, sharp inside jokes, and a deeply skeptical view of the left’s future.
Senator Ron Johnson’s appearance provides especially detailed insight into both current investigations (Fauci hearing) and how congressional process shapes (and stymies) policy.

---

For further engagement:

• View Ron Johnson’s report on COVID and Fauci at his Twitter or PSI Committee link.
• Respond to this episode’s "Question of the Day": What will the DNC mortgage next?
• Grab merch at store.ruthlesspodcast.com

---

Transcript

[A]

You got a guy like Ken Martin who's just getting beat up by his literal best friends in the New York Times. Well, it turns out he threw his phone at the desk of a junior aide.

[B]

It pisses me off when anything leaks out of this building and then they've got four people willing to go back, leaks and leak it for.

[C]

The mainstream media does not attack a Democrat unless there is a second Democrat who benefits. And the great question of this story that comes to my mind is which Democrat wants Ken Martin out?

[A]

Poor old Ken Martin.

[D]

Poor Ken.

[C]

I never expected the DNC to do a reverse mortgage on our entire organization.

[D]

Earlier this month, the House Ways and Means Committee took an important step in addressing the abuse of the 340B program, which was designed to help low income patients access affordable health care by allowing certain hospitals to purchase prescription drugs at heavily discounted prices. But recent scrutiny by lawmakers has revealed widespread abuse of the program. For example, hospitals, clinics, and their for profit partners pocketed over $100 billion in profits from 340B medicine markups in 2024 alone. With no rules requiring that money be used to help patients afford medicine. Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith said tax exempt hospital empires look less like hospitals and more like hedge funds making stock investments, purchasing stadium naming rights, and even participating in political activism. That's why the Ways and Means Committee passed Congressman Greg Murphy's Tax Exempt Hospital Transparency act, which will increase transparency into hospitals and help rein in waste, fraud, and abuse. Visit AmericansForOpenGovernment.com to learn more.

[E]

Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please.

[C]

This program has become one of the

[F]

most influential podcasts in America.

[B]

I love the personality. You guys are killing it.

[E]

I just saw you're number one.

[B]

So congratulations.

[G]

Thank you.

[A]

It's an honor and a pleasure to welcome the great Sean Hannity. Guys, I love you. Congratulations on all your success.

[B]

This is why you listen to the Ruthless Podcast, because nobody else would ask that the only political podcast worth listening to is the Ruthless Podcast. It's time for our main event, the Ruthless Podcast.

[A]

Good Tuesday to you. Welcome back to the Ruthless Friday program. I'm Josh Holmes along with comfortably smug Michael Duncan and John Ashbrook. Left to right, across your radio dial. As always, we got a hell of a show for you. Senator Ron Johnson is here. He's going to talk to us about the Anthony Fauci hearing that is captivating so much news this week. And there's, of course, been all kinds of revelations. He's going to bring to light a little bit of what the committee is thinking about exposing this week before it happens. So all of you are inside of all of that, which is terrific. We also have come to the reluctant conclusion that at least as far as we see it, if Republicans can draw breath and be normal, they ought to do okay in the elections. Now, that may be something that escapes our reach at some level, but if you have just a look under the hood of what's going on, the Democratic Party. Boy, oh, boy.

[D]

Yeah, boy, oh, boy. And also what I love about this episode is it's a we told you so episode.

[A]

Yes.

[D]

And as a listener or a viewer of the ruthless variety program, you know all of this because we've been telling you for months. But it always feels good when you get to do an episode where you're proven right.

[A]

The old back patter, you know it is true. You all know this because we literally have been saying this for a year, starting with the Hamas caucus and then just the disorientation, shall we say, of any sort of leadership and their political apparatus and then the vacuum of no leadership whatsoever. And it's all kind of led to this. And now the New York Times, the Gray lady, the paper of record for the Democratic establishment, has weighed in and they're not happy. They have written inside the phone, throwing drama at the troubled, broke Democrat Party.

[C]

Hate to hear it.

[A]

I'm going to just give you just a little flav and then we can jump off and react to all of this. The flav is the Democrat Party is so short on cash that leaders at its headquarters have undertaken new gambit to mask the severity of the problems, asking vendors not to send bills until after the midterm election.

[B]

That is so wild. We're going to get. Oh, man, we're going to get.

[A]

In terms of that.

[C]

Say that to their lender.

[A]

I just, I just want to tell you like, one, that's illegal. But two, after our first break, we're going to put a finer point on that particular opener. Cause I, I do think it's worth exploring. Let me go on. So much is going on politically right. So much is going politically right for the Democrats these days. President Trump's approval is down, gas prices are up, an unpopular war in Iran drags on. But dysfunction and debt inside of one of the party's key institutions, which is getting crushed in fundraising by its Republican counterpart, are creating rising anxiety for top Democrats. Who do you think that is, folks? Poor old Ken Martin.

[D]

Poor Ken.

[A]

At the center of it, according to the New York Times, is ken Martin, the 53 year old party chairman. Who's found himself increasingly isolated, gripped by the fear that he will lose his job, and is relying on vanishingly small circle of people that he trusts.

[B]

I bet that circle didn't grow after this article.

[A]

Certainly not. No. I mean, all of X was flooded with Democrats being like, get him the fuck out of here.

[D]

I think most of his circle probably has background quotes in this article.

[B]

His entire circle provided the information in his article.

[A]

It's true. Mr. Martin's fraying nerves are showing in a peak of frustration in early July. We're talking about a couple of weeks.

[B]

That's the thing.

[A]

This is not something stuff.

[B]

This is the inner circle.

[C]

Rapid response.

[A]

Yeah, it is, it is, it is. After our, you know, what do we do two months ago that he was just like going nuts.

[D]

Well, and he did that interview with Pod Save America.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

Where they were asking like very simple, straightforward questions and he's basically like, no, you have it wrong. Things have never been better.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

You know, people like me.

[A]

Well, it turns out he threw his phone at the desk of a junior aide. I like it that it's specific. At the desk of general vicinity. You wouldn't want an assault charge associated with it.

[B]

Yep, that's the thing.

[C]

You know, when it comes to phone throwing, I always think of the legendary baseball manager Hal McRae. And when he threw his phone, it was a statement.

[A]

Oh yeah, well, it was the twist around.

[C]

The twist he pulled out of the wall. It flew off who knows how far. Okay. And when I think of Ken Martin throwing his iPhone, I just, it's like

[A]

for all of you right handers picture throwing something left handed.

[C]

Exactly, exactly.

[D]

Oh, you don't think it was a masculine throw?

[B]

No, I do not.

[A]

I do not. Well, as it turns out, the phone tossing incident resulted in a formal complaint to the DNC's human resources department.

[B]

That's gotta be a nightmare of an HR department. Can you imagine all sides of it?

[D]

Imagine how big it is.

[A]

Think about what the human resources department at the DNC looks like.

[D]

I bet it's a hedge maze of cubicles. Just so bureaucratic.

[A]

Just nothing but trannies. Super pissed, ready to like they're. They're going to file complaints like they want. They want heads around the office and beyond. Mr. Martin is taken to making macabre jokes to colleagues about how long he will remain in his post. A dark humor, I guess, which I can appreciate at some level because at least it's a self awareness. Even though his term doesn't end until 2029 during a May meeting with a Full staff in the DNC. Mr. Martin said, it pisses me when I see leaks out of this building. According to four people who heard the remarks, adding, no more.

[B]

So the hilariousness of that moment of him being like, it pisses me off when anything leaks out of this building. And then they've got four people willing to go back, leaks and leak it. Four. Not like one guy's like, I'm gonna leak. Four people came running forward and be

[D]

like, there's your circle smoke.

[B]

Yeah, I hate leaks.

[A]

Leak it. I mean, it's just so good. My success is your success.

[C]

That was my favorite line. Can we just stop right there? What kind of a person looks at his staff in the eye and says, my success is yours. Let me just make things clear to you.

[A]

Well, he puts a finer point out. He says, so the weaker I am, the weaker all of you are.

[B]

So insane.

[C]

It is.

[A]

Mr. Martin has not addressed the entire party staff since.

[B]

Amazing, dude. That was me. That was me. So, like, in two months, he's not had an all hands. This is going into a midterm.

[D]

I kind of like that. That's a power move. It's like trickle down public relations. You know, you get a good story from me and boy, oh boy, you're gonna look good.

[B]

Well, honestly, like, why does he need to have an old staff if he's trying to get a message out? He can just say in a closed meeting among his inner circle and the Times will have it the next day. Like, you know, if you just want to send a. A reply, I'll just. It'll happen via the Times. Just say, this is an off the record meeting.

[C]

Also, the idea that it's a difficult job, for crying out loud. He's supposed to raise money from rich people so that they can spend it on ads and vote turnout for the midterm election. Yeah, the, like, one that there are

[A]

three to one favorites to win, by the way.

[G]

It's.

[C]

It's a very simple job. Just do it. I don't understand how the guy is incapable of just completing these very just, like, assignments.

[B]

Park your ass in the Hamptons and just take money from these fucking Hollywood people. They're over. And he still can't accomplish even that.

[A]

Can't do it. I mean, these people are unimpressed because they're not raising any money.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Which is kind of the root of all of his problems, not the least of which is nobody respects him. Nobody. And I saw it like it was Hakeem Jeffries or somebody was asked about this latest turf off full. And he was like, oh, I still have confidence in get Martin or whatever. But then you look at like who the messenger is and it's like, well, nobody really has confidence in Kim Jeffries either. No, it's all just sort of a self licking ice cream cone in terms of on the Democratic side, who is supporting whom and meanwhile their party's being taken over by socialists. We're going to get to that next segment. And that the juxtaposition of what is supposed to be the Democratic establishment, the people who are gonna win this election for Democrats, is so weak that you got a guy like Ken Martin who's just getting beat up by his literal best friends in the New York Times, nobody really coming to his defense whatsoever. And then the socialists of America being like, no, it's now our time, it's now our time.

[D]

Leave it to Josh Holmes to get to Ken Martin's root.

[A]

Yeah, well, I mean, it's just.

[D]

What? Did I say something?

[A]

I don't want anything to do with this. Rotate.

[C]

Let me just say though that I cannot help but read this story through a very specific lens. And that lens is that the mainstream media does not attack a Democrat unless there is a second Democrat who benefits. And the great question of this story that comes to my mind is, is which Democrat wants Ken Martin out?

[B]

That's the thing. It's Ashbrook's law of politics and media. And like, if you can understand that, it's like the world opens up to you. Because as I'm seeing this, every single one of these paragraphs, I'm like, ashbrook's law. Ashbrook's law. Ashbrook's law. The reason the New York Times is putting this out there is they want to help Democrats. They're like, this guy can't hack the job. Clearly. And they want every Democrat coast to coast to know. The New York Times is like, slack Channel, by the way, is like more communist than Mao's crew. Like, they take out people in their own paper, like, who are like. When Tom Cotton has an editorial where he was like, guys, I guess crime should be illegal. And they were like, we have to have a discussion about this. Unbelievable. They fired the people who allowed that to be published. That's how insane the Times is. So they are trying to help the communists complete the takeover. They're done with this guy. The feeling of these New Yorkers. They've seen the New York Times writers have seen Mamdani's rise. Darrelliza, all these idiots who have taken out incumbent sitting Democrat congressmen and like, that's good. We need that energy. We need the Communists to finish the takeover. They're like, I bet fundraising would go up if we just let Communists get there. That's why you're hearing about any of this.

[G]

Yeah.

[A]

And also, like, there's some 20, 28 schisms in there, which we're not covering this episode, but they did, like, rearrange the whole primary calendar.

[B]

That's interesting.

[A]

That is, I think, indicative of this larger issue, which is Democrats writ large. There's a segment of them that they just want to win no matter what, and that is the establishment. They don't care basically what their party looks like, who's in charge of it. They just want to make sure the Republicans don't win and that they have the power. And those people are largely still in charge of the infrastructure behind things like the dnc, as evidenced by the fact that they took a primary calendar that has been in place since the 1960s in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, et cetera, and just turned it on its head change. It all made South Carolina first completely disregarded Iowa. I'm not sure they've said how they're going to deal with New Hampshire because it has a state law that says that their law is literally to put the primary before every other similarly situated primary. They've not said anything about that. But then you've got Michigan and a bunch of other states that Democrats with the Hamas caucus, they got to satisfy. The Hamas caucus.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Their whole thing is like, can we figure out a way to game the system again? Again, in a way that gives us a candidate that is electable in some ways, like, we can't possibly have our people vote. We gotta set this up, man.

[B]

Right.

[C]

It really is their first primary, is which states are voting first in the primary. And I think New Mexico is in the fray now. And I think we should do a deep dive episode on this in the coming weeks.

[A]

I think we should, because it. But it's all part of the same thing, which is a profound lack of leadership that is being led around basically by the Thai. And it's Ken Martin's tie that's happening here. And so I think as long as he's willing to just sort of go along for the ride on all of it, I think they're probably going to keep him there, but he's going to take a whip before he does for our enjoyment, for our enjoyment when we come back. It's not even his leadership that's totally the issue. The crux of the problem is the money issues. Let's delve into that right after this.

[H]

America has a powerful advantage. Abundant oil and natural gas right here at home. But energy security requires more than energy in the ground. It requires sustained production, resilient supply chains, and importantly, modern infrastructure like pipelines that move energy to the places it's needed. To families, businesses, and communities. Energy security is not just about what we produce. It's about whether we can deliver it safely, reliably, and efficiently when people need it most. That's how America protects consumers, supports our economy, and leads from a position of energy strength. Learn [e-mail] paid for by the American Petroleum Institute.

[A]

Okay, so finances are a real issue at DNC headquarters in the Democratic Party writ large. And there's been a lot that has been written about committee versus committee, super PAC versus super pac. And Democrats, who usually enjoy massive advantages at all levels of fundraising, committee candidate, super PAC are now. They don't have it. Right. And the biggest problem child is the dnc. This whole Ken Martin thing that we're talking about, but we never imagined it was going to get this bad. Notice did a report that the DNC put up its headquarters as collateral to obtain its massive loan.

[B]

Oh, boy, this is amazing.

[A]

All right, so the Democrat National Committee put its physical headquarters in Washington, D.C. up for a collateral last year in order to obtain a 15. It was only 15 million.

[C]

Listen, I know they're in dire straits. I never expected the DNC to do a reverse mortgage on our entire organization. Okay.

[E]

Do you think one of the kids

[C]

there was watching the ads and they saw Tom Selleck say, I know what's what, and they were like, Listen, Ken, Mr. Chairman, we could do a reverse mortgage on this building.

[A]

I've been around and I know what's what.

[D]

When you're Ken Martin and you're getting to the end of your reign, you've earned a vacation.

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[D]

And the only way to finance something like that sometimes is with reverse mortgage.

[C]

He has earned it. You don't want to leave that to your kids.

[A]

It's always been a piece of shit building, and it's sort of hidden away on the House side of which is

[B]

how you know, it is the cap.

[A]

Well, I mean, we all. The RNC is also on the House side, so I don't want to throw too many stones about that, but it's like kind of down the hill. You know what I mean?

[D]

Yeah, It's.

[G]

It's.

[A]

And you look at the building and you're like, is that really it but that's really it. And apparently they only get a 15 million dollar note for this bad boy. And you know, be that as it, as it might, people are pissed. Quote, Ken gaslighting us about DNC's finances and not being transparent about the financial situation makes us doubt if he can oversee the DNC during the most important primary of our lifetime. Said a DNC member granted anonymity.

[C]

Of course, to your point about 2028, this is about the future.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, this is. So anyway, those objectives have been complicated by the DNC's current lack of money. This is all according to notice federal disclosures from June showed it only had about $16 million in its account and $18 million debt. Now, recall, most of that is the billion dollar campaign that Kamala Harris ran where she raised more money total than anybody else in a presidential election. She did it in four short months and yet blew through all of that and left the DNC with this extraordinary tap. And there's been a lot of articles about how she's, she's running for president, she's back in, she's great. But you have to think that where she left the party, regardless of what you think of Ken Martin, has to be somewhat of a conversation piece within the Democrat Party, does it not?

[B]

And I think for our folks, especially the ones who are on YouTube, can we throw graphic6 up there? So that when we're talking about the money situation, I think it's important to have this content or context rather. So this is talking about cash on hand. According to the latest FEC filing. So for Democrats on their side, total 117.8 mil, okay. Republicans, 275.1 mil, okay? The DNC cash on hand is negative 2.2 mil. They've got 18 and a half million in debt, 16.3 cash on hand. And they're telling their like vendors, please just send the bill out, don't send the bill. Which is wild. Can't do that shit.

[E]

You're not allowed to do this.

[D]

So Kamala Harris blows up, right? Leaves the DNC cash strapped in debt, and then Ken Martin in the Democratic establishment proceeds to hide the ball on the autopsy for all of that time. And it's like, why are you trying to save this woman when she just put you in all this debt? Because I got to think a lot of that is the reason why the donors haven't come back to the organization. They're like, how can you ask me to max out to the DNC when you won't tell me what Went wrong.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And to me, that's the funniest part of this whole fucking thing is like, Dem donors being like, what? You people spend more than you bring in. I'd never expect that from the Democrats. I thought our party stood for something better than that. Like, what have you been giving money to?

[A]

You need to give people's money.

[C]

Why?

[A]

I never. It's true. It is such a funny thing when you consider a bunch of libs sitting around trying to figure out how to manage a budget.

[B]

And then again, it comes back to. They're like, oh, well, shit, we're. We're.

[G]

We're.

[B]

We're worse than bankrupt. We've put the House up and clearly this. The problem here isn't our spending. It isn't Kamala spending how much to have, like, Oprah do a. Do an event and how much to have a call her daddy set built Clear. It's not the spending. The problem here is we need donors to fork. We need more money coming in.

[A]

Yeah, it's those donors.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

They need more money from these rich people. If only they'd give us more money, everything would be solved.

[D]

It's.

[B]

Who'd have expected these idiots? It's not even.

[A]

It's not even the rich people. It's the. The spanking machine that they have through the NGOs.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, right, right.

[A]

They sort of like, work through at a small dollar level that keeps them competitive at all. And, like, some of this stuff has been exposed, which I think probably provides a lot of the anxiety that we're dealing with here. I mean, the candidates are still doing rocket fuel numbers in the Democrats.

[B]

That would be the funniest thing is if they're like, oh, shit, everyone's starting to find out about the Act Blue shit. That's why they're really nervous. I mean, is they're like. Usually it'd be like, oh, there's always more money in the banana stand. Just turn on Act Blue. You know what I mean? But, like, if they're genuinely worried that Republicans have caught on to the shenanigans happening there because there's going to be hearings and all this other shit, this is a mess that doesn't get any better.

[A]

Well, I'll tell you, the guy that's, like, rifling Nokias at his staff is probably not gonna hold the bag on that.

[C]

Nope.

[A]

You know, he's probably got some things to say once he's free to do so. Well, it's an interesting thing, and as you look at it all, the obvious question is, what it is that they're going to mortgage next for any sort of competitive election. So when you like and subscribe to the ruthless Variety program, we ask you to answer a question of the day. And our question of the day today is what will the DNC mortgage next? Your future is probably top months,

[F]

but

[A]

in terms of hard assets, it's worth a question and they should probably answer. So when you do that, we read all of them. Get back to the very next episode. We're going to get back to your comments from last week later in the show. But I have a few lightning round things that I think intersect okay here. Well, and where they intersect is a huge vacuum of Democratic leadership on the official establishment level. Ken Martin, Akeem Jeffries, Schumer.

[G]

Right.

[A]

I mean it's just whatever, whatever Barack Obama is. And then, you know, I mean like the invalid that was Joe Biden, it just doesn't exist in terms of direction of the party. So who has filled that void? And it's been the Democratic Socialists of America. And they've won all of these primaries, they've all the energy. The Democrats don't want to acknowledge it, but they're winning. And I think they're about to win next week in Michigan too. But it's like it's just this battle. Shannon Bream, good friend of the program, she's in here once every few weeks where we do FOX News Sunday. She's just got an incisive, disarming way of asking questions to people who are mentally unstable.

[B]

It's a great talent to have this. This what we're about to show is such a gift to every report.

[A]

It's just unbelievable. Clip one place so we're going to

[F]

put up on the screen a few of the things that are part of your platform. And I want to ask you, just give me sort of a true or false on these. Abolish the Senate.

[A]

True.

[F]

Okay. Replace the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them.

[G]

Yep.

[F]

Abolish ice.

[E]

Absolutely.

[F]

Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone currently in the US Illegally as a long term plan. Yep. Defund the Pentagon. Absolutely. Abolish prisons, at least in large part.

[A]

Yeah.

[F]

Again as part of a long term program.

[H]

Yeah.

[F]

So no prisons, government or public ownership of most large corporations.

[A]

Yeah, absolutely.

[B]

Dude, that is such a gift. And here's the thing is for so long Democrats have tried to tiptoe around this shit and they've seen it as like they've even told their ground truths for years of like no, no, no incremental Incremental. Incremental. If we pass Obamacare, that gets our foot in the door, that gets our claws in. Eventually we'll go to single payer and just control it and make every American completely dependent. The grassroots has no more patience for that shit. They want guillotines in the streets tonight. They want it now. And so when you're hearing the DSA has backed this candidate, the DSA has backed this candidate, and you've been seeing them essentially just like running the table, winning every primary, taking out incumbent Democrat members of Congress, taking them out coast to coast, happening in Colorado. This is not just like a New York City kind of thing. It's gonna happen in Michigan. Like Holmes said, this is their belief system in black and white. This is what they've all signed up for. This is in every single race coast to coast. The Democrat Party and the DSA are one in the same.

[D]

Well, it's just great though that we have it all on video now. I did Fox and Friends and Killmeade asked me about this video clip and I was like, look, the only thing it's missing is paid for by the Republican National Committee, not authorized by any candidate or candidates committee because this is a midterm gift in every swing district across across this country, as Republicans need to use this to let the American people know this is not just a referendum on Donald Trump. It is a choice between sanity and

[A]

that there's always in every election cycle, whether it's a presidential or a midterm, some group of relatively influential folks who are off the deep end, whether it's right or left, and there is a huge effort by the opposing party to sort of like brand a party as a whole as downstream of what it is that they're talking about there. And the problem Democrats have had with Republicans on this is that it's never, it's always been kind of a fringe element in that it doesn't represent the party as a whole. And people can kind of see through that and spend kind of a problematic technique over the years. Problem that you have with these Democrats is the huge void of leadership at the bingo that is providing any balance or counterbalance to that message. They're afraid of it and so they don't address it at all. And that what you just saw is running the party, they're winning all of their elections.

[B]

And on the same token, you cannot, as I imagine some Democrats are going to try to do, discredit that by being like, that's just this lady's views. That's the national co chair of the DSA. That's the DSA's document of their beliefs. Whenever you hear about a DSA backed candidate, whenever you hear like this is how they tried to do with the antifa thing a while back, remember they're like, well, it's not like we support antifa even though the head of the DNC is photographed holding up the antifa guy for idiots. You know what I mean? Like this one they can't wriggle out of because already you've seen their candidates who have defeated incumbent Democrat members of Congress are all DSA backed. Subscribe to these beliefs. This is who that party is. That's it.

[C]

And I heard on Fox just today that there are 150,000 members of the DSA spread around this country. This is a growing movement on the Dem side and you better believe that they are going to continue to take control of that party in a way that you could not imagine.

[G]

Yeah.

[A]

And part of that just quickly is the fact that nobody within the Democratic Party has had any direction, ability to direct that party one way or another. We've talked about how they didn't really have primaries in 16, 20 or 24. How they've essentially handpicked Senate candidates and House candidates all around. Like they never want their members to actually vote on the direction. They never want Democratic primary voters to actually have a say. And when you do that over a decade long period of time, anxiety grows, the bubble blows up and it becomes more aggressive and more egregious and more crazy over time. And you just saw them now rearrange their primary calendar to try to do the same exact thing for these people. Recall, all of this is an outgrowth of Bernie Sanders. Where is the first state that Bernie Sanders lost both the 2016 and the 2020 primary election?

[B]

South Carolina.

[A]

Oh, it's weird that they chose South Carolina first.

[B]

Like, what if we skip that other shit so that Bernie can't ever have a shot again?

[A]

Like, why is nobody talking about this? We all act like, whoa, look, Democrats have, they've rearranged the count. They're worried about Iowa. What they want is representation and the importance of black voters within the Democratic way. No, it's not.

[B]

No, it's not.

[G]

It has everything to do with trying

[A]

to figure out how to acknowledge, get a fucking hammer and sickle to represent your party in 2028.

[G]

That's it.

[A]

That's the only thing they're concerned about. And so what does that do? It makes that crazy lady have more power. It goes from 150 to 250, 250, to 350, 350 to 450. Because no one within that party has ever talked to any of them about their concerns about anything. They become radicalized. They've created an entire process to disenfranchise their VOT voters.

[C]

And the younger people who are now all over every single one of these newsrooms, they're like, you know, I've never been comfortable with the Department of War or the Pentagon budget. I think that should be cut. They're like, you know, I just, I don't really like the Senate as it sits. It sort of stands in our way. I think we should eliminate that. I don't like prisons. I'm uncomfortable with prisons. Therefore, I think the DSA has the right point of view. Like they're playing into this younger set of reporters who have come up in the last 10 years, who have taken the jobs of the older libs, who took the buyouts. And it is the perfect storm.

[B]

That's the NYT slack, that's the New York Times slack.

[A]

It's true. I mean, they're asking blind men to pick a color palette.

[D]

Well, and the important.

[B]

That's what's happening.

[D]

The important thing, it's easy to laugh at, but the important thing, listener and viewer, is these people. If they get elected, and most of them will, because they come from safe blue districts, they could determine every piece of policy through a Hakeem Jeffries majority in the House.

[A]

Because they're afraid.

[D]

Because they're afraid of these people. And whoever wins the House will likely have a very small majority. And so 8, 10, 12 DSA elected members of Congress could hold the entire agenda hostage. If you don't abolish prisons, if you don't do all these things, if Democrats

[A]

win the House, I'll bet you dimes to donuts, Hakeem Jeffries meets with that lady.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

And that's the thing is think about

[A]

how, think about that.

[B]

Think about how much of their policy for the Dems in the House especially has already been influenced by the squad. This is the squad on stereo. This next generation that's going to be in there. The full on DSA communists are coming in. They're going to weigh more power than the squad has ever had. Watch.

[A]

Let's take another victory lap, fellas. While we're at it, we might as well. We're feeling our oats here a little bit on the Tuesday Talarico. So this cat, remember a few weeks ago we talked about how he was just sort of a product of the establishment. Basically a heathen's view of what a religious person should look like. And with that, there was a whole bunch of African American people in Texas who were like, not as far as we can see, like it's not. It's problematic. Well, he tuned into one of the things that we had outlined here on the Variety program and he does that. Very litigious, but he does that.

[B]

Yeah, he is.

[A]

Takes a look at all of that stuff. Here's what he came up with in Clip two.

[I]

Well, there is no way to win Texas without black Texans. If we're going to do that effectively, we have to show up for, invest in and live listen to black communities. And that's what we've been doing over the course of this campaign. You know, we, we have been convening black business leaders, black faith leaders, black elected officials.

[B]

Drink every time he says black all

[I]

over this state, in the big metro

[A]

areas and in this Wonder Bread he's

[C]

got standing next to him and black

[I]

churches all over Texas. I've been appearing on black media here in DFW and Houston and national black media. And then we've been holding these town hall discussions, including in Houston on Sunday and in desoto yesterday. We are polling better with black Texans than any Democrat in modern Texas history.

[C]

Oh, boy.

[A]

So you wonder. He's doing the polling and he's investing in the communities.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

Well, it's an interesting, you know, most of the time you would like to just align, say, look, my agenda is the black agenda and we are one and the same in terms of what it is that we want. He's like, no, we're investing, that's key. And we're pulling. Where did he get that?

[G]

Clip 3. Talarico has given out money to white geotv organizations and white infrastructure and Hispanic infrastructure, but he's not giving it to black infrastructure. I have already told them, Roland, they need to pay for black infrastructure. They need to pay for media. With you and not just cnn, you know, and other people like you. I've told them that we have people like using hit strategies with Terence Woodbury, the name drop.

[B]

That is so awesome.

[G]

People better than him.

[B]

That's a problem.

[G]

We don't want no white posters. They don't know how to poll us.

[A]

They don't know how to poll them.

[G]

It takes money to get the vote out.

[B]

It takes money to get the vote out.

[G]

Inspiration doesn't get the vote out. So Talarico needs to pay for us to get our votes out. Only then does Talarico have a Chance to win. If he continues to do what he has been doing, I believe Talarico is going to lose.

[B]

That is so awesome. So we brought that up weeks ago and we're like, watch, watch. It's gonna happen, Calrico. If only Ken Martin could learn from her. Yeah, how it's fucking done. You don't say like, we're building a coalition. You say, here's the polling group, here's the routing number, and here's the account number. Send it to this gentleman. And all of a sudden the votes start turning up. Like, just tell people where to send the money.

[F]

There are.

[H]

There.

[D]

There are literal protection rackets that are more subtle than that.

[B]

Like, the Italians listening are like, whoa, Just say waste management.

[A]

Oh, my God. It's to Yolanda. She's just so great. She should be at the dnc. She chair the thing.

[C]

I love her.

[A]

At least she's straightforward about what it is that they need. Well, Dallarico is listening. As it. As it turns out, we got to get to a big interview. Listen, this guy is going to give you not only some insight into what you're about to see with this big hearing with Anthony Fauci that you've been reading and seeing so many things about, but just a broader overview and one that you don't always get everywhere and in a long form discussion. I find it incredibly valuable. Senator Ron Johnson. Well, this is a gentleman you've heard here before on the Ruthless Variety program. We're not chugging beers this week.

[I]

Thank you.

[A]

But he's in charge of an awful lot of stuff. And one of the strong conservative voices we have in the United States Senate. Senator Ron Johnson, Wisconsin. How are you, sir?

[E]

Thanks for having me on. Thanks for not humiliating me with another trucking contest, but I feel a little overdressed.

[A]

That's fair.

[C]

An important job.

[A]

Yeah, I guess that was the Milwaukee. Was it the debate?

[D]

It was the debate, yeah. It was like 105 degrees. That beer went down smooth.

[G]

Yeah.

[E]

No, and fast.

[A]

Johnson's got no comment on any of that. You'll have to go back and rewind the tape on all of that. But listen, you're up to an awful lot here over the next couple. Couple of months. One of the things that's coming up this week is this big hearing in the committee that you chaired, the Homeland security committee with Dr. Fauci. Can you give us a little preview of what it is that we're working with here?

[E]

You mean St. Fauci

[A]

Self refers.

[E]

Yeah. Well, again, I think our response to Covid was a miserably failed response. You know, freedom robbing. It didn't work. I mean, it simply didn't work. And, you know, the fact that Fauci has skated now for six years without accountability, this begins at accountability. And, you know, I appreciate Chairman Paul calling this hearing. You know, doggedly getting the documents, again, it's like pulling teeth getting these documents. We finally got some hard drives, you know, whatever those little thumb drives are called, with some of the information from some of his devices. We haven't had time to go through them because we just got them. So there's still a lot more accountability. I think there's still a lot more documents to uncover. But what Senator Paul is releasing right now, I appreciate the fact that a lot of people are reading. We're kind of getting that crowdsourcing because nobody has enough time to go through all of them. So this will be the beginning of it. But I don't think it'll be the end of the accountability. I think there's a lot more to come.

[A]

Well, an awful lot of it falls into the category of things that you have sort of inferred and understood early on, before the American public had and started delving in more deeply and asking more specific questions about not only what did he know when. What were the primary motivations for the recommendations? Were they withholding information? What were they doing during this tumultuous, incredibly disruptive moment in time for the country and so much of the country. And look, I think we're included in this is like, I just want to box that up, put it in the past, because it was just horrible. But if you're destined to not repeat that in the future, you kind of have to delve into it and understand what those decisions were so we don't do it again.

[E]

So what they were doing throughout the pandemic and they're still doing today is creating fear so they can control everything. It's really just that simple. You know, my run ins with Fauci began pretty early during the pandemic when he was talking about shining on the economy, you know, where I said, you know, he's overhyping this, just like he overhyped aids and he did overhype aids. And you could catch this, you know, through household. No, no, you could. Okay, so he created fear during AIDS because he wanted to create a vaccine. He's always been about creating vaccines for things. I think the first public run in is when I just compared the basic fact. You can't shut down the American economy. We Tragically lose tens of thousands of lives on the highway every year. We don't shut it down. It's a risk you have to accept. Life is a risk. And when he heard that, he said, oh, that's way out there. No, it wasn't. It was a pretty good analogy. And so again, none of our response to Covid made sense to me at all. I was always pushing early treatment. The minute I heard something about this weird drug that I couldn't pronounce for about four months, hydroxychloroquine. I think there's a state center in Michigan that was treated with this early, successfully. Let's hop on that. So I called up Novartis. My big concern is if this worked, are you going to have enough? And at that point, the CEO was talking to me all the time. He donated 30 doses of hydroxychloroquine to the national stockpile trial. It wasn't getting distributed. He had a log jam there. But somewhere about mid May, we went radio silent. You're going to have all these trials coming due. And never talked to him since that. I think that was the point in time where they decided we're going to have this, I'll call it vaccine right now. But it's an experimental gene therapy injection. Okay, so the decision was made. So that's why they sabotaged hydroxychloroquine. Rick Bright basically did that with guidance ivermectin later on. I mean an incredibly safe drug. I mean, I've got the comparison charts. There's hardly any adverse events reported on a Nobel prize winning drug. Anti parasitic. That also has some pretty phenomenal properties, maybe even for cancer, but certainly for Covid. So the FDA sabotaged that as well. Why? Well, if you had infective treatment, you don't get emergency use authorization on what was always Fauci's dream as a universal vaccine program. If you want to prove that, there was a panel at the Milken Institute, I think in October 2019 with Dr. Rick Bright, the guy who tanked hydroxychloroquine. With his guidance, the fda, where they're bemoaning the fact that we don't have the universal vaccination campaign. I mean, the flu just isn't doing it. We need a pandemic. Well, by God, they got their pandemic.

[A]

Can I ask you, why is that his primary motivation?

[E]

Well, everybody, if you're a medical researcher, everybody wants to be Jonas Salk, right? They want to go around history from that point. If you're a drug Manufacturer, you want a vaccine that you can push everybody because you have liability protection, which is what we see, the childhood vaccine. So all of the effort into vaccines, or in this case, injection, goes into getting it approved. And once it's approved, you're home free because nobody who approves it wants to later on admit, oh, that was a bad idea. This is killing people.

[A]

But just as a Fauci motivation, like I understand drug manufacturers and everything else, why, if you're in charge of the whole thing, do you risk your entire reputation on something it's not of monetary. Maybe monetary value in terms of the fame that he adhered. And we see a lot of that. The diary that has come out, that he was very serious about pursuing all of that.

[D]

Pretty high opinion of himself.

[A]

But why lock into one version of events like he did?

[E]

Again, this is just what's passed through my mind. I have no proof on it. But let's just suppose that Anthony Fauci knew full well that he'd been funding gain of function research. Certainly did before the. The moratorium. Continue to do it. Even with the moratorium. I mean, there's 16 ways on Sunday getting around that he knew who Ralph Barrack was, he knew who Peter Dasak was. Probably knew that they were transferring this technology to the Bat lady in China. I mean, just think of that for a minute. I mean, obviously, you know, this is dangerous technique. This is, you know, we do all this bioweapons research under the guise of. We're trying to defend against somebody who's doing it. So we create bioweapons ourselves so we can do a countermeasures. Right. It's just to end around. Around the conventions that we've signed against bioweapon research. Right. So anyway, so. So you're fully aware of this. All of a sudden you have a lab leak and you go, this could be pretty. This could actually lead to, like, a real pandemic. Holy.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

So now you go, what can we do to, you know, so this doesn't turn into a worldwide, you know, millions of people dying eventually? Well, I mean, do you start flattening the curve? Do you desperately say, well, start wearing masks, even though, you know, masks aren't going to work? Do you tell people, start distancing yourself? Do you glom on to. Because you're a vaccinologist, you believe in vaccines. We've got to get a vaccine out there to stop this pandemic at all costs. Okay, So, I mean, could it be that. Yeah. Or it could just be, you know, he's got financial. Like Bill Gates had financial interests in Biontech just push a vaccine. Because that's their belief. I mean, I can. I can't really. I can't explain it. It made no sense to me whatsoever.

[C]

But I got to imagine that some of what you guys are going to get to the bottom of at this hearing.

[E]

I don't really expect to get to the bottom of anything in this hearing. I mean, he's practiced at this. These are complex enough issues. I've looked at a number of different areas I can question and go, I'm not going to be able to make any progress there or there. And the reason I say that is based on our report, which has been completely ignored by the legacy media in terms of what Peter Marks knew, we're starting to interview some of these people. They were in charge of safety, surveillance. Completely unrepentant. I mean, completely. And you can put something that is so logically apparent in front of them. They just go, I don't believe that.

[G]

Yeah.

[E]

So, no, that's. That's your opinion. I mean, you just. You can't nail them down. They are impossible to nail down. So I think the most we can really do is lay out the evidence for the American people and have them decide for themselves. I don't expect, you know, all of a sudden, you know, like a Perry Mason moment where, oh, you're right, I'm a miserable failure. You know, I killed millions of people. You know, well, not expecting that.

[B]

The.

[D]

The thing I found at the time, during the pandemic to be the most frustrating, you talked about hydroxychloroquine and later ivermectin, is they were asking us to trust the science on everything. And it seemed like parallel to that was a PR campaign to smear everyone at all turns, you know, hydroxychloroquine. They were calling fish tank cleaner ivermectin, horse paste. And it seemed like there was a culture of intimidation in public health, which, like, I thought, we're all on the same team. We're human beings. We want to beat this virus. And at various times it felt like they were working against the idea that we could come to some consensus here because they had another agenda at the same time. I just remember as American, not as a partisan political person, being like, this is really weird that they're forcing us into this PR campaign on things that I thought we were all trying to learn at the same time. And that just felt weird. And so I wonder, in the course of this, are there other Examples based on the evidence and research y' all have been working on that you can point to and say, Dr. Fauci, you knew this wasn't true and yet you were telling it to us anyway.

[E]

My own personal opinion, yes. There's probably dozens of things. We can take a look at that. But again, will we. Can you explain it concisely enough and convincingly enough that he won't be able to skirt around it? Yeah, I'm just saying it's. Trust me, I've been racking my brain, you know, going, what can we do? By the way, this is not unusual for the medical establishment to. Again, the highest pain, to destroy people who are expecting an apology. Sorry. With Semmelweis, this is a doctor that. This is in the 1800s, watching OBGYNs back people that deliver babies come up from the morgue and deliver a baby, and then concerned about a high infant mortality rate. And he just suggests you, well, maybe you ought to wash your hands. They destroyed him for that. He ended up in an insane asylum. Dying, insane. I mean, the medical profession destroyed him. And that's happened time and time again. So establishment medicine is not real keen on protocols outside what they do. And of course, our medicine now is being driven by protocols. The doctors who should be at the top of the treatment pyramid are being crushed at the bottom. And a lot of it has to do with our legal environment. So if you practice a protocol dictated by the Fauci's of the world, our federal health agencies, who are thoroughly corrupted, captured by big Pharma, you follow their protocols, like remdesivir. By the way, nurses call that run. Death is near. You're home free, you're safe. But you move outside that. I mean, for example, you prescribe Ivermectin, they destroy your career. And again, you mentioned the word smear. I've got personal experience in smear now. I've of my own reputation, but all the doctors that have told the truth in front of my public events, in terms of hearings, they've been destroyed. McCulloch, Corey, now you got Wafik Eldiri. Again, if you're outside of what the mainstream medical establishment is preaching, what they want to provide, I mean, they destroy you. I mean, you got. I can't remember. Brzezinski, I think, down in Texas. I don't understand the technology in terms of cancer cures with peptides Kessler. FDA spent like $67 million trying to criminalize him. He's still in practicing. His son's actually doing this. And they had Congressional hearings where a little boy who had a brain tumor cured by this is now a firefighter. They bring him in, but they still destroy him. And he's kind of staying off the radar because he doesn't want to be destroyed. But I mean you have this time and time again in terms of, I mean, Pierre Cory, not only did he push ivermectin, but he also wrote a book. And he wrote a book War on Ivermectin. Really good book. Now he's written a war on chlorine dioxide which has been noted as the universal anecdote by I think darpa. And yet it's not patentable. It cured malaria in African country. They kicked the guy out who did it because, you know, they have more problems with starvation. I mean, I could go on. There's so many examples of cheap generic therapies like ivermectin that get destroyed because it threatens the incumbent drug, that are patentable, that are highly, highly profitable cancer drugs. Now you've got ivermectin combined with some other drugs are showing some pretty interesting results. I mean you think oncologists can take a look at that as opposed to literally the poisons they inject in people to kill tumors and kill off your immune system, everything else. So no, I mean there's just example after example of our medical establishment turning a blind's eye. I think evidence based medicine has turned into a monstrous joke DEI inside our medical schools are again, Covid opened up a lot of people's eyes to this capture and corruption. Right. It's also, and I think this is tragic, there are so many people, a growing percentage of Americans who don't trust their doctors anymore will avoid going to a hospital like a plague. We're going to hold a public event on the hospital protocols. I've started reading the testimonies. They're heart wrenching. And what's so amazing is how similar they are and how disparate treatment was if you were unvaxxed versus vaccinated if you're, I mean this is different hospitals from different areas of the country. And yet this almost the exact same comments of doctors to, you know, their, their families. It's like, oh, what do you expect? Your dad's going to die, he's unvaccinated and then they put him on the, the run. Death is near the remdesivir protocol venom and let's say 90% of the people who put on a vent died. It was not a, it was not a cure.

[A]

How do you, how do you balance. Because all this stuff is just. I mean, you're right that everything since COVID has been upside down. I mean, we were all born and raised to think, you go to the doctor, they're sacrosanct in terms of their advice and the medicine that they prescribe and everything else. And obviously, that all got thrown out. How do you balance the uncovering of the corruption that you're talking about and this specific case with COVID and an overall trust in a medical system that also has massive innovation in terms of saving lives over a period of time? I got to imagine that's where you want to land both individually as a senator and in terms of your committee and everything.

[E]

Just my own personal. My daughter was born with transfusion of the great arteries. So, I mean, first day of life, they had to do a balloon septostomy, open up a bigger hole in the heart to get her downstream so she could have open heart surgery at the age of 8 months. They re baffled the upper chamber of her heart. Geez, her heart operates backwards. She's 43 years old now, has a couple children through surgery.

[A]

Medical miracle.

[E]

Yeah. So I come into Covid revering doctors and nurses. I mean, they saved my daughter's life. They gave her a chance at life. And then you see what the medical profession did during COVID and you go, oh, my God, like, I didn't even know. In defense of diet, I mean, one thing I've said repeatedly in events is I'm truly in awe of the knowledge mankind has accumulated over the millennia and how rapidly it's increasing. But what we don't know vastly exceeds what we do. I mean, you understand the complexity of the body's immune system. How can you be so arrogant to look at a vaccine and go, oh, this only positively impacts our immune system. What about the possibility of screwing it up? Particularly putting, like, six different vaccines in a little baby's arm? Right. So, again, my hit on the medical profession. No doctor can understand everything. They can kind of understand their specialty. But even there, they have to be humble enough and modest enough to recognize. I still don't know at all. I got to keep learning. I got to keep thinking.

[A]

Is this an area where AI you

[E]

think, oh, I think AI Improves tremendously. Impossible. Okay.

[A]

Seems to me like when we're talking about a bunch of subjective questions, when you have a balance of objective data, it's got to be a good.

[E]

I mean, again, a doctor can't. Can't take the time to go through all of the relevant information. Whereas if just an Individual. You start typing all the stuff in and you type in the fact that I was in this foreign country where this parasite exists. Now, doctors are never going to get to that question. But if you're concerned about your health and you want to take charge of it, you want to throw it into an AI system, now you can go to a doctor and go, here's what it's saying, here's what I said. So, no, it should be an enormous help and enormous aid. But again, a lot of doctors denigrate it. They shouldn't. They should embrace it and use it properly.

[A]

Yeah, no, listen, I agree with you. We got a couple other topics. You got a big new job here. Unfortunate passing of your colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, who was running the budget committee. Just an incredible guy. I know you got along with him well and had both battles.

[E]

One of a kind.

[B]

Yeah.

[E]

Irreplaceable. I mean, you know, his wit and that's. He, he primarily use wit to kind of advance his idea, you know. But where, where he was passionate, he would use his passion as well.

[A]

Oh, for sure, 100%. But you now have a gavel on a budget committee that has become pretty important here over the last few weeks when they're talking about things like reconciliation. Johnny, I know you had some thoughts on that.

[C]

Yeah, well, I was just curious. I mean, you know, now we have a budget chairman who has a background in business manufacturing, which is very near and dear to my.

[A]

He's going to talk about parts and

[C]

I will not talk about parts or plastics, extrusion. All the things that I would like to.

[E]

Materials, polyester, tool, polyester, Piper.

[B]

Exactly.

[C]

I would like to get into here.

[E]

Bias oriented.

[C]

But I do, I do want to ask you. You know, the House sent over a package to the Senate and you know, there are two lead, two bodies in the legislature and it's not like you can just flip a switch and pass what the House wants. Because there are a whole host of people in this country who want more. Like maybe more money for defense, more money for agriculture, all of that sort of stuff. So I wonder if you could walk us through what to expect here for reconciliation 3.0 when it comes to the Senate.

[E]

Well, people need to understand. And you do. I mean, there's a completely different dynamic in terms of passing something to the House versus the Senate. Quite honestly, the Senate's done it to itself again. I come from the private sector. I like to simplify things. The Senate is the exact opposite of simplicity. So, I mean, I know Jodi Erickson. I've Had a number of conversations with him. He had a certain idea of reconciliation 3, 3.0, as a lot of us did. The White House kind of caught wind of it and invited him out to Camp David and basically think about it differently. Well, basically took the pen. I mean, that's fine. I mean, you've got. I mean, the administration does have to lead. Okay. And so they skinnied it way down. Really said don't. Don't worry about paying for it. And by the way, we've never paid for defense supplemental before.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

So, I mean, I understand that. Got ag culture. You obviously have a big part of trying to pass this is to get as much as a SAVE act or Save America act as we can possibly do it. But the House can. The president can certainly lean on House members probably more effectively than every senator because threaten the primary and everything else. And so it's just easier for the president to exert his influence, I'll say, on the House. Now it comes over the Senate where if you want to pass this byzantine complex parliamentary bird bathing. Okay. It's not just three committees that are instructed. Just got a member from the budget staff. 15.

[A]

You're like, how do we not do that?

[E]

Including finance. Okay.

[C]

That opens up a whole bag.

[B]

It does.

[E]

And that's what people understand is, I mean, we open that up, we risk rolling back some of the. And I will say, meager gains we got on, you know, eligibility and food stamps, making people work. Yeah, yeah.

[B]

We.

[E]

We get accused of slashing Medicaid. Right.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

Wall street journals came out in their op ed saying it's up 10% year over year.

[G]

Yeah.

[A]

It's crazy.

[E]

We didn't cut it. And we, we barely scratched the surface of trying to claw back just some of the. What I would call legalized fraud in Medicaid.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

You know, Medicare, Medicaid fees and, you know, provider fees and certain. And taxes. That's not health care. It's just a way to artificially drive up the cost of health care for citizens so that states and hospitals get more of the federal treasury, which we don't have. The nine to one match is producing all kinds of fraud because states don't have any skin in the game, so they're happy to sign up anybody, provide funding for anybody. And the example I loved, not only just the Somalian fraud. Okay. That kind of started this process, but based on that, you know, Dr. Oz starts taking a look at, you know, again, using information. That's how you manage things. Right. You need information, sees that a third of all hospice centers are in Los Angeles, in America. A third of there are that many people dying in tough shape in the City of Angels. So he stopped funding for 400 of them. Not one complained.

[I]

Yeah.

[E]

How many millions went into those hospice centers over the years? So, I mean, that's the only way you reduce the level of fraudulent spending is you just can't spend it. You can't, because you can't recover it through prosecutions. Not even close. I think right now, the last time I looked, Department of Justice has prosecutions against $4.5 billion worth of fraud. The range of fraud is somewhere between $250 billion a year and a trillion. Yeah, there's your range. And we're prosecuting 4.5 billion. We won't recover that. We'll just put people in jail for it maybe.

[D]

You know, interesting story here. We just finished moving my parents up to be closer to us here in the D.C. area. And so as part of that process, they've had to, you know, move things like their health insurance and all of that. And so in that process, they discovered that there was an illegal immigrant who was using their Medicare. And they're in the process of the, with the insurance company of moving it. And the insurance company was only really concerned with the fact that my parents might have access to the medical records of this illegal immigrant, not the fact that this illegal immigrant was fraudulently using my parents account to access medicine. And it's like when that sort of fraud is endemic in the system. How do you fix that?

[E]

Well, let me hit on insurance companies. Even worse, because of the enhanced subsidy.

[C]

Right.

[E]

Other subsidies are still in place which were quite generous, but the enhanced subsidies create an awful lot of zero premium policies. The result is you had unscrupulous brokers who by the way, were incentivized by the insurance companies to sign up people without their knowledge. So you produce all these no claim policies as well. So I mean, Paragon, I think estimates about 6 million fraudulent policies. Now what do insurance companies have a lot of actuaries, right? I mean, they are looking at the data left and right. They didn't notice.

[A]

No, I know.

[E]

Okay, so I mean, and again, they were providing bonuses to these brokers. They knew exactly what was going on. But again, because we set this thing up to easily defraud the federal government.

[A]

Because you mean to say that Obamacare wasn't well crafted. Senator Johnson, how dare you?

[E]

That's why I ran. I knew it wouldn't work. I was right. I was right again. But again, when it's Just so easy to defraud the system. It's designed to be easy to be defrauded.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

I mean, everything you guys are talking about, I feel like underscores the fact that reconciliation 3.0 through the Senate is much more time consuming process than anybody could print as of today. Right.

[E]

I mean, it depends on what we want to get out of it and whether there would be a concerted effort to do something in the lame duck reconciliation 4.0 to satisfy other people's wants and desires. Now, this is like maybe a little bit. This is going to be a very small needle that I'm going to have to try and thread here. This is not going to be easy.

[C]

Like maybe election integrity, maybe some money in there for election integrity.

[E]

Well, again, I don't know where you guys stand in this.

[C]

Well, we would.

[E]

Maybe some of you revere the Senate more than I do. I hate to say that it's not the world's greatest delivered body.

[G]

Okay.

[E]

It's a mess. I don't know how much more broken it can be. I know I'm one of the first ones to come out. And I would say reluctantly, trust me, when Democrats have all the levers in the House Senate, I would like the filibusters, stop their destructive policies. But I'm like 5,000%. I'm actually increasing that. You say? 150. Now, I'm 5,000% sure that the minute they have the power, they're going to end the filibuster pac, Supreme Court, turn dc, Puerto Rico into states. I mean, do you really think a party that would open up the border and flood America with millions of unvetted people, including criminals, drug, human sex traffickers, violent gang members. You think they'd blink an eye to preserve the Senate and it's this pristine, revered institution? No, they will do it. So I'm just suggesting we probably ought to recognize that reality and act first and try and prevent them from ever getting that power by passing election integrity measures. It is galling. I'm probably the only guy that held a hearing in December 2020 examining the irregularities of the 2020 election. I mean, in Wisconsin, I mean, Zuckerberg took over the Green Bay polling station. They were doing things in a, in a back room that nobody else could enter. What's going on there? You know, central count in Milwaukee is a joke. It's just designed to reduce confidence. You had balloting in the park. You had people going to nursing homes and voting for seniors. But, you know, it had a court case in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, they dismissed it. Cloak of lashes, whatever that is. Okay. But I mean, other courts, these 80 courts apparently looked at. They didn't look at evidence. Very few did. Most of them dismissed under some guys. And I understand it, when you have an election, the pressure is so high to quickly certify that once certified, it's just like doctors, you know, if they recommended the COVID injection, somebody died. They don't want to admit it.

[C]

Right.

[E]

They don't want to admit that that injection caused. So same thing. Election officials, they certify election. They don't want to be proven that. Oh, yeah, you kind of overlooked these 10,000 ballots here. The losing candidate, they don't have the funds. I mean, they're in debt, so they don't have funds to investigate this stuff. So voter fraud largely goes uninvestigated, which is why it's very easy for people to say, oh, it's never been proven. I know it's. You can't prove something you never try to prove.

[G]

Yeah.

[A]

Look, I think we're largely with you on the voter fraud component. We saw yet another example in New Jersey last year.

[E]

It's just a mistake.

[A]

It's a software error, as a matter

[E]

of fact, an innocent mistake.

[A]

Software error.

[G]

Yeah.

[A]

We're going to have to have you on for another hour. I actually appreciate the way that you argue this, and I'd love to have a longer form discussion at some point about the longer term game, filibuster and all that stuff, because I think these are important conversations that we have, but

[E]

time's running short right now.

[A]

But I think my larger issue with that is you don't have the votes for it. You don't. We can talk about it as long as we want.

[E]

We wouldn't know until we took a vote, which is. Why do you think so? So again, what I'm suggesting, here's my game plan. I laid this out in the Wall Street Journal. The first vote we ought to have is a Rule Change of 67 votes.

[B]

Literally.

[E]

Democrats are telling me to my face we didn't vote to end the filibuster. No. We just voted to reinstrue the talking filibuster. No, you didn't. You voted to end the filibuster one time, which means you ended the filibuster, Right?

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

So I thought it'd be really interesting to take.

[A]

You'd love to put them on the record on that?

[E]

All of us on a record.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

Okay. Well, I don't.

[A]

I don't deserve it.

[E]

I'm just Saying, so vote for a rule change. That's a 67 vote threshold. Okay.

[D]

Yeah.

[E]

And see how it'd be really interesting to see where the Democrats. I'm all for this. So if that fails, by the way, the reason I do that is the only way I can see Democrats not ending the filibuster. If you have to get them on the record voting not to end it.

[I]

Okay.

[E]

I don't know, I don't think that'd be good.

[A]

I've seen Dick Durbin vote for it, against it, for it, against it, against it and for it with impunity in 20 years.

[E]

So the second vote then would be, I know this wouldn't be binding, but the second vote would be okay, now let's vote on a real change to make sure that it is hard and fast. Senate rule that you can only end the filibuster with 67 votes. You can't do it using nuclear option.

[A]

Now again, listen, this is, this is, these are productive conversations. This is a more intellectual.

[C]

This is what you did with a guy.

[E]

Depending on how the votes turn out. I mean Democrats won't agree to that. Then maybe some of my Republican colleagues will go, huh? They are going to end it. Remember, we did not have the votes to end the 60 vote threshold on nominations until Democrats were so obnoxiously obstructive, we realized. And by the way, Katie Britt did a great job of gathering the information present to the conference. Trump wasn't even get 500 nominees confirmed. On average a president gets about 1100 in the first year of his term. 1100. He wasn't even get to 500. So we did not add the votes. A few weeks before that, all of a sudden we had 53 votes to end the 60 vote threat. So what's left of it really? Yeah, I mean every time we're down pretty much the bottom of the hill right now and we're stretching reconciliations. Reconciliation was initially meant only for deficit reduction and then Dole expanded it to well, we can name. So again, we have rules until we don't want to follow those rules and we change them.

[A]

Rod Johnson, it's always such a fun conversation.

[D]

I appreciate it.

[A]

I imagine you're going to be busy at work obviously this week with these hearings into the fall, helping a bunch of colleagues out, ensuring that we've got a Senate Republican majority because without them that we're screwed.

[E]

We are screwed. The Democrats get power, this nation is over. I mean it just is. It's over.

[A]

Yeah, I, listen, I wish I could disagree with that. But I think you're right. Thank you for so thank you.

[E]

Thanks for having me back on.

[A]

Appreciate it.

[C]

I mean, very interesting conversation. And I would encourage everybody, if you want to learn more about what he is finding out about Fauci and everything that the Biden administration did to cover up the COVID activity, you need to go to his Twitter account. You need to read his op ed that he posted there where he goes into great detail. And then you need to follow the link to his report from the PSI committee. Yeah. He hand delivered it unmasked how Biden health officials purposely tried give it a

[A]

flash for the camera so they can

[C]

see COVID 19 vaccine safety signals. This is from Senator Ron Johnson. I think you need to read it this week because the news about Fauci is only going to get bigger as week progresses.

[A]

It's a it and it's on a rich card stock.

[D]

Rich card stock.

[A]

Which is how you know it's serious.

[D]

Well, it's very detailed. But what I appreciate about Ron Johnson, probably as a fellow Midwesterner, is there's a lot of common sense that backs up a lot of the science and the things that he's talking about. And I think when you marry those two things, you'll agree with him and us that like, there's a lot that just didn't make sense about that period of time.

[C]

Totally.

[D]

And the way that it got hijacked by Anthony Fauci and the Democrats is something we have to stay on so it doesn't happen again.

[A]

Also, if you're an astute listener, made a little bit of news on the filibuster front.

[C]

It sure did.

[A]

Not sure that's going to ruffle some feathers on every side of the aisle with that, but it's interesting.

[C]

And you're always going to get honesty out of that guy.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

To Duncan's point about the common sense Midwesterner, I like to think it's because of his background in manufacturing.

[A]

Here we go.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Big parts guy. Just all parts all the time. All right, you guys want to get in some comments?

[D]

Yep.

[A]

All right, so our question from Friday, we were talking about the fraud news in New Jersey. What's the real number of fraudulent votes in New Jersey? And we expanded that to be whatever you want to do across the country. To do that, we always start with

[C]

a voice first one from Kelly Lehrer. Kelly writes, I'm from New Jersey. Irvington probably has just the 6600 helicopter. Cheryl got caught in blaming a company that just inputs information that is given to them, I think it's close to a million nationwide. Complete total of 20 million. That is from Kelly Lehrer.

[A]

Interesting, Interesting. All right, dunks.

[D]

Comment 2 is from Ruth for the truth. Ruth writes one illegal vote is too many because every vote disenfranchise American citizens vote.

[B]

That's right, that's right. That's the thing.

[A]

Yep, that's right. And they were talking about just like the underplaying of the 6600. They're like, Ah, it didn't affect any election. Like Nick, tell it to 6600.

[C]

Right.

[A]

New Jerseyans.

[C]

Right.

[A]

It's just completely ridiculous.

[B]

All right, smuggles, comment three. This is from Paul S0309. This doesn't have to do with the topic, but they wanted to talk about orcas and they said orcas have never killed a human in the wild. They only kill their handlers in captivity. They recognize another apex predator in us. That's a lot of orcas are incredibly dangerous and should be hunted not only because they're in renewable resource, but for sport and fun.

[C]

They're demons. And I couldn't disagree with him more. I think I would direct him to Herman Melville.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Okay. There's an entire book written about whales and how they try to kill regular people.

[B]

They're all bad.

[D]

Sperm whales.

[B]

They're all bad huge varieties.

[C]

Just read to the middle of the book and he details all of the species of whales. Yeah.

[A]

You can also plug the blowhole of a sperm whale. You can, I think, I don't know,

[D]

you just got to distract them.

[A]

Maybe that's how they got their name in the first place. But either way, I think it's suffice it to say that this is a comment that at least our animal expert disagrees.

[C]

There was a point in the 80s when all of these whales were put on a pedestal and I think it's been to humanity's detriment. These things are a great resource for us.

[D]

I appreciate Paul's comment and the fact check there and I appreciate that the orcas recognize another apex predator in us, but I think maybe they just need a reminder.

[C]

Yes, exactly.

[A]

Good reminder.

[D]

And why would we ever give them a chance to strike first?

[C]

Right. They think they're tricking us with the white patches on the side of their heads like those are their eyes. I mean the reality is these things have gigantic teeth and they would eat you in a second.

[A]

Smugglesworth, we've always been a a fan of the above all energy policy here on the Ruthless Variety Program. Would they provide some fuel as they always have.

[B]

Historically. Their blubber is heating oil.

[A]

That's exactly right. Remember our question of the day today, which is what will the DNC mortgage next? When you like and subscribe to the Ruthless Friday program, we get to your comments whether we agree with them or not. And get back to the very next episode. Remember, we got some new merch out there. America250 hat, dad, hat. You gotta have this thing. Yep, we're gonna start wearing them. I. I have my. Forgot mine. And I think you forgot yours today. Dunks.

[D]

It's a nice hat.

[A]

It's a great hat.

[D]

Sort of like a khaki look.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

So it pairs with a lot. And also has the American flag over the Ruthless logo, which is just. It's a nice little feature.

[A]

It is. You go to store. Ruthlesspodcast.com you can pick one of those up with that. Fellows, I think we did it.

[B]

I think so. Absolute banger of an episode. Gentlemen, thank you so much to Senator Ron Johnson. And thank you you to the listener. Remember, if you have not yet, go to the YouTube and hit that subscribe because it's more fun in videos. So until next time, minions, keep the faith, hold the line and own the libs. We'll see you on Thursday. Stay ruthless,

[E]

Sam.