The Dana Show with Dana Loesch - Absurd Truth: Congressional Committee Or Jerry Springer

Episode Date: May 17, 2024

 A screaming match occurs in a committee hearing between AOC, Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Jasmine Crockett. Meanwhile, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya joins us to discuss the WHO urging the US to commit to a new global treaty to prevent and manage future pandemics.Please visit our great sponsors:Ammo Squaredhttps://ammosquared.comEnsure you are prepared for whatever comes your way with ammosquared.comBlack Rifle Coffeehttps://blackriflecoffee.com/danaUse code DANA to save 20% on your next order.  Goldcohttps://danalikesgold.comGet your free Gold Kit from GoldCo today.Hillsdale Collegehttps://danaforhillsdale.comVisit today to hear a Constitution Minute and sign up for Hillsdales FREE Imprimis publication.KelTechttps://KelTecWeapons.comSign up for the KelTec Insider and be the first to know the latest KelTec news.Lumenhttps://lumen.meUse code DANASHOW to get $100 off your Lumen.Patriot Mobilehttps://patriotmobile.com/danaGet free activation with code Dana.ReadyWise https://readywise.comUse promo code Dana20 to save 20% on any regularly priced item.The Wellness Companyhttps://twc.health/danaGet 15% off with promo code DANA.

Dana Lashes Absurd Truth podcast, sponsored by Keltek. It's his life mission to make bad decisions. It's time for Florida Man. So I'm trying to get my head around this headline. Florida Man is accused of stealing $30,000 in Pokemon cards

and is foiled by Atopolis MMA coach. It's a lot of stuff happening here. First off, I know a little bit about Pokemon because when my kids were like super little, they were into Pokemon, and they had the cards and all that. So I know that some of them are very valuable. But $30,000 in Pokemon cards, like, dude, what cards were you going for? You know what I mean? Like what he, so this was earlier, actually, about 10, two weeks ago.

The guy entered pro play games in Miami. He wanted to see a binder full of Pokemon cards. He snatched him, attempted to flee. The store's general manager said that they felt so helpless because it was like watching 30 to 40, thousand dollars of their hard work just walk off and then bystandard's confronted them and then so they say topless they make it sound like it's a woman it was a shirtless mama you stupid it's newsweek what's the matter with you a shirtless uh mama guy he the shop owner i guess was yelling outside because it was kind of a strip mall thing and two march martial arts coaches went out to help and they caught him and they

whooped him on camera it's pretty entertaining video but uh yeah that's how yeah they they can be like super super like for instance there there's like what is it the PSA grade 10 illustrator card that that one dude who's on YouTube got for like 5.2 the most expensive card ever that's wild like you thought beanie babies were bad I even remember those that was a big deal in the 90s wasn't it I just remember as a kid and it wasn't kids who had beanie babies it was like adults who had them it was weird it was like those little porcelain things that people would collect what were the name of those They were like little dolls or something. Precious moments?

Was that it? I don't know. Did they have the big eyes? I'll have to look it up, but yeah. I don't know. A Florida man busted for battery. This is gross. No.

No. This guy used his soiled diaper as a weapon. According to the smoking gun, this happened with an 18-year-old Damien Kasten, who was arguing with his brother. And Kasten, cops reported, is paralyzed but ambulatory by using his upper body. I'm reading the charging ducts.

Casting damage walls, he apparently took his diaper off and threw it at his brother and struck his brother in the chest. And then that, so now he's charged with domestic battery. I am fascinated by this. The guy with the wheelchies, he, because he took his diaper and threw his diaper and became a weapon. And that's like a assault. What the hell's going on? Come on.

It's our friends over at Keltec, the sub 2K. And this is the third generation. Now, the Gen 3, it's been shipping now. It's a 9mm carbine, and it's easy to store, easy to deploy, super accurate, and it's fun on the range. It's a, like I said, 9mm carbine. Previously with the other iterations, you had to take your optics off, but you do not with the Gen 3 version. No more attaching and reattaching your favorite optics. Because with a simple twist and fold motion, that patent pending rotating foreend, the whole thing folds in half optics.

and all. It accepts Glock mags. Glock 19s fit flush. Glock 17 and stick mags with the mag going past the grip, all fits. And a redesign trigger mechanics, lighten five-pound pull. The action's been updated, easier to rack. Also, the internal buffer means softer recoil. It's just a great carbine for the whole family. And it's made right in America, family-owned Florida-based values at their best. To learn more about Keltek's sub 2K Gen 3, visit Keltekweapons.com. That's K-E-L-T-E-C-Weapons.com and tell them, Dana sent you. You just voted to do it. You just voted to do it.

Order, order. I'm trying to get clarification. Look at calm down. No, no, no, no, because this is what you all do. I'm trying to get-cate. You're not recognized. I can't hear you with your yelling. Calm down.

No, please calm down. Don't tell me to calm down. Come down. Because y'all talk noise and then you can take you. You're out of control. If I come and talk about her, you all go have a problem. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. All right.

Chair. Order. Chair now recognizes Ms. Green for four minutes and 21 seconds. Four minutes. Let Ms. Green top and then you all can, I'll recognize. I move to strike her words for a second time based on her second set of personal remarks attacking another member. Because you all cannot seem to apply the rules of the committee. We have to do this every time. I'm recognized. I'm recognized. I'm going to go ahead and start talking. I know. I know. Look. I don't know if you notice it. I have two hearing aids.

I'm very deaf. I'm not understanding. Everybody's yelling. I'm doing the best I can. Can we not recognize Ms. Green and let her get? We cannot because of the rules of the committee, Mr. Chair. That is what I'm trying to communicate in the present moment. We have a moat.

Okay. As opposed to any other moment? So this is the thing that is most entertaining to me today because this is the snapshot of politics. All hell broke loose. in the house. And I like the joke that Babylon B said, we just need to have, like, its own girl Congress. Just have girl Congress and then the regular Congress and then the girl Congress can fight about stuff because that's how it started. Welcome back to the show, Dana Lash with you. Top of the second hour. Can we, this is, I will say this is how it started. Can we play it just

place that because this is, this is how all of this started. It had to do with eyelashes. Listen. Do you know if any of the Democrats on this committee are employing Judge Mershon's daughter? Please tell me what that has to do with Mayor Garland. Is she a porn star? Oh, Goldman. That's right. He's advising. Okay. He's advising. Who? What? Do you know what we're here for? You know we're here about AG?

I don't think you know what you're here for. Well, you don't want to talking about. I think your fake eyelashes are messing up. No, ain't nothing. Hold on. Hold on. Order, Mr. Chairman, would you bring the order of your committee? I do have a point of order, and I would like to move to take down Ms. Green's words. It gets crazier now. That is absolutely unacceptable.

How dare you attack the physical appearance of another person. Move her words down. Oh, oh girl, baby girl. Oh, really? Don't even play. Baby girl, I don't think. We are going to move and we're going to take your words down. I second that motion.

So who will have to. What is that? Ms. Green agrees to strike her words. I believe she was apologizing. No, no, no. Terry, hold on. Then after Mr. Perry is going to be recognized, then Ms. I'm not apologizing.

Well, then, you're not sure. I am not apologizing. I mean, Comer's just like, the hell. I just want to get done with this. And then he comes, he's like, I'm deaf. I just want to get done. Oh, my gosh. It's Congress, everybody.

Your tax dollars pay for this. welcome back Dana Lash again oh man the greasy skids of Congress yeah the greasy skids of Congress greasy for who knows why but I again I do agree I think we need a separate girl Congress just take y'all's drama over there I didn't even know this had to do with the what was it the ongoing like Green had asked she was looking to see if anybody there in sitting in the committee had actually been working with

Judge Roshan, that's Jennifer Van Larson, that's independent reporting that was stolen by some plasticine grifters and, you know, they try to pass it off as their own original reporting. But she's the one who broke all that stuff over at Red State. And it,

she was asking as to whether or not any of the Democrats on the committee had benefited from that lady's fundraising. You know, Steve's Right. I mean, I was waiting for somebody to go, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. I'm just waiting for it. Waiting for a chair to get thrown. There was always a chair to get thrown. I wonder how many chairs they went through. It's always a chair to get thrown. But did they get it back on track after that? I don't know. I just wanted to, you know, I don't know. Did they get it back on track? I think so. I mean, I am just mesmerized. And I said earlier,

I don't know how I feel about stuff like this because as someone, I mean, I told you yesterday, I cut my teeth in activism in the streets in St. Louis, like literally running around raising money and raising hell. And I, you know, I kind of always felt that the stuff in Congress, there's a lot of very improper things that happen and are done and carried out over the American people. And they're given this veneer of propriety from the processes through, which it happens. Now, they sit there and their businessware at their little oak desks and they sit in this committee room and they gavel in and they gavel out and they go through all these

processes and it looks very official and very orderly. But the stuff that's being done is neither orderly nor official, nor is it moral, nor is it half of a constitutional. And they go through this whole, this whole Rube Goldberg of the appearance of propriety. And yet what's being done to you isn't proper at all. What's being done to taxpayers isn't proper at all. And so it's, it's like they think that somehow, though, keeping it there, ensconced in the well-carpeted committee rooms, that that makes it somehow more, it makes it right, it makes it proper, it makes it moral, makes it good, right? And I just don't know. I just, so part of me is like, I understand that civility is really the last line of defense against a completely just

broken down society. But at the same time, there are a lot of people who don't deserve civility. And I'm not in a position to indulge people with the welfare of giving it when I don't feel it. So you know what I mean? Like I don't know, right? Right? Am I being wrong on this? Or should we be like, no, this is, you know, they can't act like this. Everybody be adults. Should always strive to treat people fairly, Dana. I think people should be treated as they deserve. That's me. Yeah, there's actually an argument for that too. This is where my very diogenistic cynicism comes in. But most of mine, the reason I go to the, that route is because, you know, it's like anger. It's like drinking poison, expecting your enemy

to die. It's not going to happen. You got to find a center. Got to find your calm. It's not that. It's, they just get dramatic over everything. Well, that's what I mean. This is the lesson for them is what I'm saying. I do think that the eyelash thing, that was like kind of some weak sauce. I mean, you didn't have to. What was the point of that? But still, the strike those words, but still, the strike those words, it's like, I don't know, was that disparaging? She's like, she just said maybe your eye lash. She's like maybe your eyelashes are doing this. I mean, they're like stage size.

You know, I don't know. To each to their own, but, you know, I'm just saying, you know. The time is now to revolutionize how you approach health and wellness. So I want to introduce you to Lumen. It's a groundbreaking handheld metabolic coach. And with Lumen, you can track your metabolism through your breath and get real-time insights on whether you're burning fat or carbs. And the best part is that the Lumen app provides tailored guidance to an

enhance your nutrition, your workouts, your sleep cycles, even stress management. So it works pretty easy. You just breathe into your lumen device first thing in the morning and you get the snapshot of your metabolism for the day along with a personalized nutrition plan. And plus you can use it before and after workouts and meals ensuring that you're always in tune with what's happening in your body. It helps to, helps your body, helps you read your body signals. And it gives you an accurate metabolic reading, whereas usually would have to go to a lab for that. Your metabolism is your body's engine, and it powers everything that you do. So optimizing it with Lumen means easier weight management, improved energy levels, better fitness

results, better sleep. So if you're ready to take the next step in your health journey, head over to lumen.m-e and use code Dana Show for $100 off your Lumen device. Remember, that's L-U-M-E.m-Lumen.m-E. Lumen.m E. And don't forget to use code Dana's show for $100 off. Thanks to Lumen for sponsoring this episode and helping everybody achieve their health goals. And now, all of the news you would probably miss. It's time for Dana's Quick Five.

I don't like robots that do human stuff. It's like weird and think for themselves. So in this freak robot that apparently was made in China can learn, I don't know, really was it? Or is this China being like, no, no, no, we don't have like, crappy tech at all. I don't believe when I read stuff like this. But they said apparently they're trying to expand this humanoid robot offerings that they have. And they have this S-1 and apparently it can actually hold 22 pounds per arm.

It can go at a pace of 32.8 feet per second. And it's only wires and metals right now. And they said apparently it even can do calligraphy and open and pour. wine, flip a sandwich in a frying pan, and it also folds in irons laundry. I don't want it to do all that stuff. I don't need all that. Humans, you've got to be careful here. You're going to outsource everything you do in life to robots.

I cannot wait for this. South Park is going to tackle because of Cartman. The Ozimpec craze in an end of obesity special. The seventh Paramount Plus South Park storyline in date has been announced, and they're calling it the end of obesity. and so Cartman is denied access to life-changing medication and the kids jump in action. And so he's being told that his weight is out of control and he needs to get on smegalitude, smeglitt, whatever that is.

He needs to get, isn't it like a derivative of it? He needs to get on that. That's what he's got to get on. So this is going to be so, I'm so watching this. Also, inflation is a problem, but I don't know what's going on to Amazon. Amazon workers say they're struggling to afford food and rent. They're also struggling to not run their trucks head first into people that I know. I'm just saying.

But they said that they're having their warehouse workers are struggling. I don't know. I always like wonder when I, you know, you kind of do wonder this stuff. Like how? It's more inflation than Amazon. Yeah. Like what? Yeah.

Like how's it going there in the Amazon warehouses? Frozen human brain tissue brought back to life in a major breakthrough. I feel like we shouldn't be doing this. They said that they may be able, scientists may someday be able to freeze brains, bring them back to live. life following a major breakthrough in cryogenics. This would explain some of the stuff I've been seen on Twitter lately in terms of behavior. Again, though, this is one of the things where they say, well, it's researchers. Some of the researchers are from China, which makes me question the

viability of any of it. We have a lot more on the way, including the latest. We've got culture and a St. Louis Police officer under fire because he lit a cigar while arresting a suspect. Welcome back to the program, Dana Lash, with you at the bottom of the second hour. And I've been very eager to talk to our next guest because when we went into, when pandemic and lockdown and everything else happened, we live in an era where we have more access to information than we ever have before. And you would consider this such like a great period of enlightenment, a great period of being able to ask questions and get answers and have honest discussions and not try to relegate people who are simply asking questions and wanting transparency, relegating them to like the trash heap of censorship. And in fact, what we got was the exact opposite, which then made people distrust everything that they were hearing even more. And as it turns out, for good reason. Joining me right now, you're very familiar with Dr. J. Batataria, professor at Stanford School of Medicine. And he's been very outspoken with all of this, particularly too with the censorship.

Obviously, we've talked about Biden v. Missouri or Murthy v. Missouri at this point. And also his new piece that he has over at Real Clear Policy talking about the, the World Health Organization, now urging, not just us, the United States, but over 190 other governments, to agree to this global treaty to prevent and manage future pandemics. And I got to say, Dr. Batatari, I'm a little surprised by this because aren't we still conducting our own inquiry into this? How can we even come to a position of entering into a treaty with them when we're still doing a looking at everything that we did wrong? I mean, Dana, I think you hit it right on the head. The problem is that the WHO failed during this pandemic. They absolutely failed.

They failed. And they've elevated the people who potentially may have been contributed to causing the pandemic. The chief scientific advisor of the WHO is a man named Jeremy Ferrar, who was the head of Welcome Trust, which supported the Wuhan Lab and the Eco Health Alliance. the WHO mismanaged the pandemic recommending lockdowns at scale, essentially copying the Chinese approach. We should not be trusting them with more power. And that is exactly what this double-hedral treaty is asking for, that we should give them more power over our health decisions,

over our management of future pandemics. It's not wrong to have international collaboration on pandemics. I want to make sure people understand this clear. But the problem is that these people do not deserve our trust. and to come now around and say we should keep the same people in charge as if they did nothing wrong before we've done an honest investigation of all of the problems that they caused, I think that's just a tremendous mistake. And it's interesting, too, where you mentioned, you know, some of the misleading information the government gave, particularly with gain of function because now it's, now, even though we've known it the whole time, now the stories are coming out. Oh, it's official National Institutes of Health. They came out and said, yes, you know, we did fund gain of function research, even though we were denying it.

it makes it difficult to believe them. And to your point, too, with the WHO, correct me if I'm wrong on this. But I remember distinctly when China was talking to the WHO about entering into kind of group projects like this with other nations. Taiwan was excluded, even though they had been leading in terms of contamination and prevention and reducing numbers of infections. But nobody wanted to talk to them about what they were doing because of the animosity with China and Taiwan. Oh no, that definitely happened. And the WHO, Taiwan is persona non-grada, or I guess country non-grada in the WHO because of the Chinese influence there. In fact, there was a very awkward moment of one of the lead, sort of the lead official of the W.H. This man named Bruce Allward was being interviewed by this journalist.

And she asked him about Taiwan. This is like early 2020. And he pretended to not hear her and then like logged off the Zoom call because he couldn't talk about China, about Taiwan. I think a world organization devoted to health is a good idea. We need honest, transparent leadership. We need open communication. We should not be having the kind of sort of anti-science decisions not being checked by other scientists. And certainly we should not be having this leadership that led us through very poorly this pandemic just get more power. I mean, the prime.

seems to be of this WHO treaty is that the only problem was they didn't have enough power, that they didn't take over the decision making of countries enough. And I have no idea why anyone in the United States thinks it's in an American interest to do it. For all 190 countries, anyone that's listening, I'd recommend don't sign on, ask more questions, demand more answers before you say, yes, please take my sovereignty. Yeah, especially when, as you've noted as well, there's a lot of questions as to what actually this entails, because you said, that when you read the current draft of this whole treaty itself, it doesn't talk about harm prevention. It talks about things like fighting misinformation, which you have some experience.

Right. I mean, their problem, they think that the problem was that there were outside critics of their anti-science policies. They changed the definition of the vaccine during the, of what a vaccine is during the, during the pandemic. They changed the definition of herd immunity. They embraced social distancing with no science, admittedly, absolutely no science behind it. They recommended lockdowns to the poorest countries where millions of people starved as a consequence of it. So they, you know, the problem, and you know, it's fine, I guess, that you can be wrong. The issue is like science corrects itself by allowing people to criticize each other, to talk to each other. What the WHO wants to do is essentially silence criticism.

That's what, when they write, we want to suppress misinformation. What they mean is they want people to stop criticizing them effectively. And they essentially are leaning into this movement, unfortunately, worldwide movement to censor people who disagree with government policy and to use their control over social media to do that. Yeah. And which you've been censored. You've been targeted just because you've been asking questions and sharing transparently information, which if that's the goal, I love you. You said, you know, science corrects itself, which it does. I mean, if this is purely academic and it's purely, you know,

to find answers and to remedy these issues, well, then there's no, then you want to take all good ideas and you want to have those answers. But that's not what was wanted. No. And in fact, as you mentioned with Missouri v. Biden or Matthew Murphy v. Missouri at the beginning of the, of your segment, that essentially just solicitors understand, I'm sure your listeners understand data, but like the we actually have Andrew Bailey. He's going to be on later later this hour. Oh, yeah. He's amazing. He's one of my heroes. I love the, I love what he's done. And so, What that case found was that the U.S. government, the Biden administration essentially was going to social media companies and telling them, you know, censor these people and these ideas, or else we're going to go after you. We'll use our regulatory party to destroy you.

This is the threats to social media companies. And of course, they complied. I was put on a Twitter blacklist, the day I joined Twitter for the crime of sharing the idea that lockdowns were a bad idea. I think that the COVID era has revealed powers that our government shouldn't have. And it is incumbent on ourselves to hold the government to account and to put in place traditional American notions of checks and balances. I mean, the First Amendment is a great idea. The problem is we didn't have one during the COVID era. And I think that that's part of the reason why the United States fared so important.

poorly, the world fairs so poorly. And the WHO, what it wants is a power grab. It wants to suppress speech. It wants to censor people so that people won't criticize them. I mean, it's not that all the criticisms are fair or good or right. I mean, but that's just the way that the marketplace of ideas works. The good ideas rise to the top because they're true. The bad ideas don't.

You can't ex ante say, oh, I know exactly what good ideas and bad ideas are. I'm the government, therefore you shouldn't criticize me. That is a recipe for catastrophically bad decisions. And this treaty, I know that from what I've been able to see, I don't think that the president has signed on to it. But I am interested to see if this is going to be treated like as an actual treaty and go through the process as is required in the Senate. I just saw a letter from, I think, 49 different senators led by Ron Johnson. All Republican demanding that if it is, if the United States does want to consider this, that it be treated. treated as a treaty, that it actually be subject to a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

I mean, I think that American people deserve at least that. If we are going to sign away our sovereignty in this way, at least two-thirds of the Senate should agree on it. And we should have a massive public debate. It should become a central issue of the presidential election, right? If we are deciding, I mean, we saw what happened in the last four years, every single American's welfare is at stake in these decisions. It's not a theoretical thing.

It will happen again. And if we give the kinds of powers the WHO wants, it's going to impact the life of every single American. And I think you're right with this because you've noted, doctor, that we've not repudiated the failed policies that, I mean, had such a disastrous effect, not just on our population in our country, but elsewhere. So why would we even entertain this idea? Because that's what it is. I mean, all of this is going to happen again because we did not thoroughly repudiate it the first time. I entirely agree with that, Dana. And the, I mean, I, I, you know how naive I was, Dana.

In 2022, I wrote a piece, actually in 2021, I wrote a piece of the Wall Street Journal calling for a honest COVID commission. Kind of like if you have a plane crash, you see what happened and you make some reforms. In 2022, I put out a blueprint for a, for what an honest COVID commission would ask. There's something called the Norfolk Group document. It's still online. You can go check me and my friends, we wrote this thing. Just questions that you should ask in honest code. none of those questions have been answered by any official body.

Not one of them has been answered by any official body. And at this point, it's quite frustrating. I mean, I honestly thought, because of the catastrophic mistakes we made during the pandemic, that scientific bodies would come together and say, well, for the good of the people, let's do an not to a portion blame, but just to say, here's what we're wrong, here are the reforms we need, let's undertake them. I have not seen that happen in the United States. I mean, we do have the Republican Congress overlooking with this COVID Commission

starting to make some progress. But it needs to be a bipartisan thing. Public health is not politics. You don't win with 50 plus one in public health. You need basically universal support. And you gain that by being honest about ideas, about evidence. We have not had that to date. We haven't had it.

And I worry that we won't. I love what you had said previously. We're talking with Dr. J. Badatari, where you had said that going back in Enlightenment in the Gutenberg Press and the democratization of ideals and that we are at this, you know, sort of second, maybe second enlightenment. But we have a choice. You know, are we going to go towards being able to actually access and share information?

Are we going to go towards tyranny? And I don't honestly think we've made that decision as a society yet, do you? We have not. I would have thought it would have been the easiest decision to make in the history of mankind. But we, like, what's happened, what's, it's interesting because when the internet sort of exploded, people thought, this is an engine for. unleashing the creativity of the world, communicating with people from way far outside of our normal realm and the interchange of ideas would just lead to human flourishing. But it turns out

that the same technologies can be used for control or suppression or creation and maintenance of authoritarian power. And so we do. We face a decision. Are we going to use these technologies that allow us to talk with each other very freely outside of the control of anyone looking over our shoulder and then use that the same way that Guit and repress allowed people to print books and communicate with each other, which led to the scientific revolutions that we enjoyed. Or are we going to allow authoritarian powers to use that same technologies to contain us, to suppress us, to censor us, to allow us to put us in a corner where we just have to bow to the powers on high, you know, who say that they are the science itself.

Yeah, that's a great point. Dr. Jay Badacharya, we so appreciate your speech on this and your fight in this. And of course, you know, we're watching the SCOTUS case as well. We're talking to the AG, Andrew Bailey coming up next hour. So it should be a good conversation, too. And I definitely am going to mention this, but it's so good to have you on. I would love to have you back. But thank you. Thank you for your transparency and your honesty and your true criticism. It's, we need more of it. We appreciate you. Thank you, Daniel. Thanks for having me on. Of course. Thank you.

Thanks for tuning in to today's edition of Dana Lash's absurd truth podcast. If you haven't already, make sure to hit that subscribe button on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast.