February 13, 2025 • 42 mins
In this conversation, Jennifer and Jamie discuss various political topics, focusing on the Department of Education's role, the implications of health leadership under a new secretary, the potential impact of Kash Patel on the FBI, and the influence of social media on public perception. They explore the effectiveness and necessity of federal education programs, the challenges faced by health officials, and the ongoing scrutiny of law enforcement agencies. The discussion also touches on societal issues reflected in social media memes and the public's response to government actions.
Department of Education, Health Secretary, Kash Patel, FBI, public trust, social media, education reform, government accountability, healthcare, political commentary
SOURCES https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/trump-calls-education-department-a-con-job-says-he-wants-agency-immediately-shut-down-linda-mcmahon-education-secretary-nominee-schools-students-crisis-in-the-classroom
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/what-does-hhs-do-what-to-know-as-rfk-confirmed-as-trumps-health-secretary/3673705/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-fbi-pick-kash-patel-clears-senate-panel-headed-confirmation-vote-2025-02-13/
https://www.wtoc.com/2025/02/13/i-aint-hard-find-woman-with-warrant-out-her-arrest-taunts-sheriffs-office-social-media/
CHAPTERS 00:00 The Department of Education: A Compliance Agency? 06:56 RFK Jr. as Health Secretary: A New Era? 18:51 Kash Patel: Restoring Trust in the FBI? 25:20 Accountability in Law Enforcement 27:59 Building Trust in the FBI 30:39 Political Dynamics and Education 31:43 Social Media and Women's Rights 35:24 Elon Musk and Government Spending 39:18 Humor in Law Enforcement Responses
CONTACT US Blog - https://substack.com/@reasonablearguments Website - https://reasonablearguments.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ OUR CHANNELS YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@Reasonableargumentspodcast
FACEBOOK Jamie - https://www.facebook.com/repjam Jennifer - https://www.facebook.com/jenniferbashsrq Reasonable Arguments - https://www.facebook.com/reasonableargument/
INSTAGRAM Jamie – https://www.instagram.com/repjam/ Jennifer - https://www.instagram.com/jennifer_srq/ Reasonable Arguments - https://www.instagram.com/reasonable_arguments/
TIKTOK Jamie - https://www.tiktok.com/@repjam Jennifer - https://www.tiktok.com/@jenniferbashsrq Reasonable Arguments - https://www.tiktok.com/@reasonablearguments
X Jamie – https://x.com/repjam Jennifer - https://x.com/jennifer_srq Reasonable Arguments - https://x.com/reasonableargue _______________________________________________________________________ HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT US? Please Subscribe and Share!! It means more than you will ever know. _______________________________________________________________________ CHECK OUT OUR BOOKS Jamie’s – American Speeches That Changed History - https://amzn.to/3CGtkYS Jennifer’s – Sarasota Summer Adventures - https://sarasotasummeradventures.com/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:52):
Hi.
All right, so we're just gonna jump right in today, because we're gonna be talking aboutall of the departments today.
Well, maybe just three, but.
pretty big departments.
So let's start off by talking about the Department of Education, or as President Trumpwould say, the con job that he wants to get rid of.
(01:14):
So reading this today, and it's interesting because finding that they are bringing inLinda McMahon from the WWE to basically get rid of this department and work herself right
out of a job because what's she going to do once the department's gone?
(01:37):
And then reading more about the Department of Education because of course I have neverresearched this before in my life.
Just finding things that they that the Department of Education does and I know that youand I have talked about this before and you have always felt that the Department of
Education was kind of a waste of time and money and stuff like that.
(01:58):
a lot more about the Department of Education if you had read my blog, Reasonable Argumentson Substack.
So thanks for letting the audience know that you zipped right past that one.
I must have missed that one come through my email.
I'll have to go back and look.
All right, so some of the problems that people are seeing with the Department of Educationare that schools are falling behind, students are not scoring as well as other countries,
(02:26):
there's too much federal control, too many rules and not enough results, obviously, andstudent debt is out of control.
So...
you know, they're saying with bringing it back into the states might be a good thing.
But what actually happens to the students that are currently relying on the federaleducation programs that, you know, for disabled people and things like that?
(02:55):
So how does like the states are going to have to then take on that responsibility, right?
So there's a couple of things.
I recently debated someone who was an advocate for the Department of Education at theUniversity of South Florida.
And about two thirds of the way through the debate, she's like, yeah, well, you know, theeducation department isn't really about educating or tests or scoring or anything.
(03:21):
And I was like, well, thank you for agreeing that we're spending billions of dollars notto educate our children.
because the Department of Education has just become a compliance agency.
It's become a way for the federal government to enforce its will upon states, and that'sit.
And so there are programs a lot like USAID that we've talked about in the past.
(03:41):
There are programs that need to probably stay.
For instance, Pell Grants, which are grants for underserved high school students who aregoing to college.
existed prior to the Department of Education and they were managed by the Department ofTreasury.
So there's no reason why Pell Grants can't go back to the Department of Treasury.
(04:02):
What you were speaking about with underserved children, can go over to Health and HumanServices.
The one thing that the Department of Education falls under the Department of Educationthat is clearly a federal, the one and only federally constitutional,
responsibility is education on Indian reservations and that can go back under theDepartment of Interior with the Department of Indian Affairs or the Bureau of Indian
(04:32):
Affairs.
there's nothing that the Department of Education is doing that number one has anything todo with education and number two, any programs that exist that cannot be done, that need
to stay with the federal government that can't be done under a different department.
So is the Department of Education, is it a new program or is it something that has?
(04:56):
developed in 1979 under Jimmy Carter.
It was voted in under 1979.
But you have to go back to the 50s and 60s for the impetus for Democrats wanting theDepartment of Education.
And it all came about because of Brown versus the Board of Education.
And the federal government wanted another tool in its toolbox to ensure the desegregationof schools.
(05:21):
so, and we all, I don't think anybody's going to argue for.
quote, segregation of schools.
But by 1979, the segregation of schools was effectively over.
so to the extent that it can be over.
so now a compliance agency was created.
(05:42):
And what does a compliance agency do?
As we see time and time again, the federal government grows.
And it becomes more of a compliance agency in more areas of the
of people's lives and more area of trying to make states comply with arbitrary federalrules that may or may not apply to that individual state.
(06:05):
So if the, know that many conservatives believe that education should be local, but howwould shutting the department down, how do you think that would actually improve schools?
Because obviously there would be growing pains if they have to start doing things on theirown at this point.
(06:25):
there's not gonna be growing pains because nearly all education is governed by the statesalready.
And so there's not really, there's a question of maybe some money going to states to fillthese programs that may need to stay that are managed by the Department of Education, but
(06:45):
nearly all education is governed by local and state governments already.
The Federal Department of Education has nothing to do with education.
So there won't be any growing pennies.
So do you think that keeping the department and just having it for the specific programsthat you had mentioned, the Pell Grants and for the students with disabilities and things
(07:07):
like that, do you think that it would be beneficial to keep the department for those?
not have a cabinet level agency for something that's not mentioned in the Constitution.
We just shouldn't.
And so, you know, you can, there's no reason to have a federal Department of Education.
(07:28):
Okay.
All right.
So let's move on to our next subject, which is RFK Jr.
being confirmed as health secretary.
So he is sworn in today.
And first I want to ask about Rachel Levine.
(07:48):
Cause again, that was another thing that I have never really researched.
I mean, I've heard different things and stuff like that, but never really researched herspecifically.
And so she was brought in during the Biden administration.
And just a question as far as her being a transgender man, woman, do you think that all ofthe man...
(08:21):
transgender man and do you think that all of the woke things and transgender everythinglike that started because of her or was it started prior to her?
has been a fundamental march towards ridiculousness, starting back with the Obamaadministration.
(08:44):
It certainly went on steroids under the Biden administration.
it's, know, these DEI efforts that are being utilized to transform and to even mutilateour children are
Number one on constitution, number two, immoral.
(09:06):
And number three, there's no reason for our taxpayer dollars to be spent on.
Okay, so some see RFK as a problem just because he doesn't have the background that RachelLevine did as far as healthcare background.
He has obviously been against vaccines and everything like that.
(09:30):
He's very much into more holistic approaches of healthcare.
And so I guess we have to really decide them being him being skeptical about aboutvaccines sorry could his leadership hurt public trust when when or if another pandemic
(09:52):
were to break out.
Well, you know, there's certainly something going on.
I'm not sure that it's vaccines when in the last 25 years we've gone from one in athousand children being diagnosed with autism to now about one in 110.
And so, you know, whether that is more children should have been diagnosed 25 years ago,that's certainly a possibility.
(10:16):
We have, we're called reasonable arguments.
We're willing to look at all possibilities, but you know,
Some people suggest that that's vaccines, know, even 25 years ago, certainly when Nathanand Curtis were born, there were a dozen vaccines, not 110 or whatever children are
getting these days in their first five years.
(10:37):
you know, so there's, there's some, you know, we can talk about lead, we can talk aboutplastics.
There's all, there are a lot of health issues.
can talk about red dye, you know, some of the things that, that Robert Kennedy
is a believer in that is harming the health of Americans.
so, and quite frankly, a lot of countries around the world have outlawed some of thesethings.
(11:01):
You know, so, you know, do we need to make sure that the pendulum doesn't go too far toofast?
Yes, we need to make sure the pendulum doesn't go too far too fast the other way.
But we also need to make sure that we have a logical, reasonable discussion.
about how these things are happening, why they're more prevalent in America than otherparts of the world.
(11:27):
And, you know, we should be the healthiest people in the world and, and we're not.
And so, part of that is us, know, laziness, not enough exercise, too much alcohol, all thethings that you want to talk about, but, certainly some of these things have to do with
antibiotics and food and growth hormones.
(11:48):
in chickens as they're growing and all the things.
we need to look at things and balance what, we need to balance feeding our population withthe health of our population, right?
And so, it's a delicate balance.
I hope we don't go too far too fast, but we certainly need to take a good look at all ofit.
(12:13):
So him, he really doesn't have any experience of running a large department or anythinglike that.
And this is, and obviously this department is something that is very heavily scrutinized,especially after COVID.
So what do you think are gonna be his biggest hurdles as far as starting there?
(12:34):
let's be honest.
lot of Democrats are being hypocritical about, you know, Pete Hegseth, they've gone downthe list of throwing things against the wall.
they're not qualified.
They're not capable.
They haven't done this before.
You know, there's not a whole lot of people who, who have run a federal department before.
And so, you know, what Donald Trump is saying is like the people who have done it in thepast have failed.
(12:57):
They failed the American people.
You know, the mainstream media has failed the American people by not holding governmentofficials and bureaucrats feet to the fire on all this spending.
Why are we just finding out about it after quote, a person who would be qualified to run adepartment, Elon Musk, who's a CEO of thousands and thousands of employees and billions of
dollars, you know, he's the one person and they're critical of him too.
(13:21):
So they're just, they're just criticizing anyone for anything.
And quite frankly, it's falling on deaf ears because the American public sick of
Well, mean, just as an American for yourself, I mean, do you have concerns with him beinga little more strong minded, not against medicine and against big pharma and stuff like
(13:43):
that?
I mean, is it do you do you think that he's going to cause waves and maybe create someissues?
Florida, for instance, we have what we pass a law called the right to try.
So for instance, so, you know, we have a large senior population, which, you know, so wehave a lot of healthy seniors, but we also have, you know, every, every ailment people can
(14:07):
have.
And so if people are dying of those ailments, we no longer have to go through FDA approvalin Florida to, you're, if you're dying of a disease and there's something that's out there
that
maybe can help you, you now have the right to try.
You the question is who pays for it?
How much does it cost?
And does insurance cover it?
And the answer is probably not, because it hasn't gone through FDA approval.
(14:30):
you know, and it's the same thing with holistic medicine.
You know, you have the right to try.
You should have the right to go down a holistic path as long as you know, hey, if you takethe pharmaceutical, you have a 98 % recovery rate.
If you go down the holistic path, maybe it's 50%.
but you might live healthier for the days you have left and people have the right tochoose that.
(14:54):
And so I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I just think that it's, because every medicine you take has some sort of impact on yourbody if you're taking it for a positive impact, but there's always another force out there
that's possibly negative that's impacting you.
And so people have the right to say,
(15:16):
you it's their body, they have the right to say, you know, hey, I'd like to try thiscourse of treatment, as long as they know their options.
And I think part of it is the financial part of it.
You know, do I, if I go down this 98 % likelihood to live, but I'm gonna bankrupt myfamily, do I wanna put my family through that?
(15:42):
Or do I have a 50 % shot over here?
but I definitely don't bankrupt my family.
Maybe I take the 50-50 shot and if I end up on the wrong 50%, I've done what I can for myfamily and you know, I'm willing to live and die with that.
So does this department have the authority to make Big Pharma lower their prices and stufflike that?
(16:08):
Do they have that authority?
Or who has that authority?
the thing, you have to be careful about trying to dictate prices for anything, right?
Because if it wasn't for big pharma, we wouldn't have people living to 90, 95 years oldhealthy, you know?
The number of, or let's put it this way, the number of people who would be living to thatage healthy would be the same percentage of people who were living to that age healthy in
(16:35):
1950, right?
And so, you know, and I think,
I think we all agree that that the number and percentage of people living longer,healthier is much greater.
And certainly when we look around the world, the world looks to US big pharma forsolutions to medical problems throughout the world.
(16:57):
And if it wasn't for the innovation of big pharma, would not have, we would not havepeople living.
Cancer would not be cancer would still be the C word, right?
Like, you got cancer.
good luck, we're going to try to cut that out of you.
And if you lived through the surgery, you know, and you live another two years, you might,we might've gotten it all.
But now with all the, all the effectiveness of strategies to handle cancer that you can gothrough and, even for, you know, what they used to, you know, like breast cancer, they
(17:33):
used to be, okay, here are your three options.
Now there's, you know, there's
18 different types of cancer or how many there are and there's 30 options for each one,know, so you have to really educate yourself on what it is you want to do and what your
tolerance level is, what your risk level is and what type of cancer do you have and youknow, what's your likelihood, know, the not testicular cancer, but prostate cancer, you
(18:03):
know, is one that's normally slow growing.
So some people, they're 80, 85 when they're diagnosed with prostate.
They're like, I'm not gonna do anything.
It's a slow going cancer.
I'm still likely to die of something else.
So I'm just gonna live with it.
And so, you know, that's the right, I'm gonna live and die with it.
And you know, if it's what takes me out at 95, then okay.
(18:26):
I still had another 10 years.
You know, so I, you know, I don't think you're going to see the dismantling.
of big pharma, don't think you're gonna see price controls necessarily on big pharma.
I think you're gonna see some negotiations on how quickly, you know, things, how can bigpharma balance the billions of dollars they do in research that they have to recoup when
(18:54):
they sell a drug, right?
So, you know, and they have this small window before drugs go generic.
And they have to make their money in that small window.
so, it's whatever it is, seven years, I think, is my recollection.
And so, and then after seven years, it's kind of on the open market and you can get itgeneric.
(19:18):
And so those are all, I mean, maybe they change it to five, you know?
I mean, I don't know, but I don't think you're gonna stop, you're gonna just point blank,say all drugs are 10 bucks a month.
because you're not going to have Big Pharma developing new drugs that are providing thehigh quality of life later in life like we do.
(19:40):
Right.
So do you think that his, you know, he can balance his personal views with what he feelsare already out there?
You know, think he's a Kennedy, right?
And Kennedys are about legacy.
He was raised with legacy and I think he would want to continue some level of legacy.
(20:04):
Certainly not going to be dismantling the health system in America to destroy people'shealth.
I think he wanted this job for the right reasons.
And yes, he has some ideas that may or may not be mainstream.
And you know, I think that voice will be heard within the department, but I...
You know, at the end of the day, think it's going to, you know, I think it'll work its wayout.
(20:29):
for balance.
yeah, let's hope, right?
Okay, so let's move on to Kash Patel, which he is on to, I guess, the second round, if Iunderstand this whole process correctly.
I think he's coming in for a vote here tomorrow or Saturday by the full Senate maybe ordoes he have one more committee?
(20:50):
I know he had a committee today.
It's now the Senate must decide, I guess.
Yeah.
So he is becoming the, he will be becoming, I hope, the FBI director.
Now he is another one that, you know, he really doesn't have too much.
(21:14):
experience, I guess, as far as that.
He is kind of like me and loves his conspiracy theories, and I guess he's very vocal aboutthat.
So I guess the, you know, on the Democrat side, they're worried that he will be toopolitical and not run the department fairly.
(21:36):
But the Republican side is very, I guess, sure that he will fix corruption and
the trust in the FBI?
Because I guess there's been some trust as far as the Russian involvement and everythinglike that.
So question is, he's very loyal to Trump, obviously, and could that damage the FBI'sreputation or make it harder for the Bureau to do its job?
(22:08):
So the FBI has no reputation left after Joe Biden.
And that's unfortunate because there's a lot of good career FBI nerds who do stellar workand have nothing political in their background and don't make political decisions.
And that's been unfortunate that they've been manipulated into these politicalprosecutions and political investigations.
(22:36):
And I think...
people in November of 2024 voted for the FBI to stop that activity.
They did not vote for Democrats to stop that activity and Republicans to start it.
And, you know, I hope that that line is not blurred, you know, but when you look at it, itis 360 degrees of viewing an elephant in the fact that if you believe that Nancy Pelosi
(23:07):
illegally impeached a president of the United States trying to commit a coup withinCongress to remove a president of the United States, which quite frankly, I believe, and I
think Cash Patel believes, that should be investigated because she had information thatwasn't found out for a decade later or nearly five or eight years later that they knew
(23:33):
that Donald Trump did not.
wasn't involved with Russia and all the things they accused him of, which they based animpeachment of the president of the United States upon.
And that is inexcusable, and it should be investigated.
And so while I hope that we don't have, quote, retributions from the FBI, there are thingsthat Democrats have done during the last eight years, both
(24:04):
to Trump and under the Trump administration and under the Biden administration that arefair game for investigations.
So we talked on another podcast about how the FBI is, not all of them, but some of thepeople are kind of running scared.
Is this something that you think Patel will come in and eliminate right away?
(24:29):
Try to weed out, see what's going on?
Like how do you think he's going to approach this on day one?
If FBI agents were using their government positions for political purposes, they shouldrun scared.
They broke the law by doing so.
And they broke their code of conduct by doing so and they should be fired.
(24:51):
Now, there's a fine line.
If somebody was out investigating someone because their superior said so and they went andhad the investigation in good faith and, hey, I'm just a foot soldier.
doing my job, you know, I think there's a fine line between somebody, you know, developingpolitical activity and not.
(25:14):
Like if you're an FBI agent and you were sifting through Melania Trump's underwear, youshould be fired.
Yes.
And if you were an FBI agent who went to Donald Trump's printer in Mar-a-Lago and printedout the word confidential to lay things out on the floor and put pieces of paper on them
(25:34):
that said confidential,
when those documents did not say the word confidential on them, just to influence a presspicture, a picture that you were going to leak to the press that should have been
classified, number one.
And that's what they did.
Well, it's been either admitted or they found it out.
(25:56):
So they printed the word classified.
And there's a famous picture of all this stuff down on Donald Trump's floor with thesepapers on them that say classified.
Those documents didn't have the word classified on them until the FBI agents printed theword classified and put them on for the picture.
So if you were creating photo ops for political purposes, you should be fired.
(26:21):
And if you were directed to do so and you didn't cause enough of a stink that you weren'tfired then or that you quit because you had too much integrity to conduct that type of
activity, you should be fired.
And so, you know, at some point, if you're going to be in the FBI, that should be the lawenforcement that has the most integrity in the United States.
(26:46):
And so if you conducted these political activities or did things that you knew were wrongand just did so because, quote, I was told, like, again, it's a very fine line between
somebody just going off and doing their job and then conducting these politicalactivities.
But if you knew they were wrong, you should have either made enough of a mistake thateither didn't happen, you were fired.
(27:06):
or you should have quit.
Like your integrity should have, as an FBI agent, should have required that of you.
And if you don't meet those requirements, you don't belong in the FBI.
So again, back to my question, because I don't know if you answered it fully, but if theyknow who these people are, do you think that they will be terminated?
I think once they find out who they are, if they do find out who they are, they will beterminated and they should be.
(27:32):
Okay, so what do you think that Patel could do to make, I don't want to say the Republicanpeople trust more, but all in all, what do you think that he could do to build that back
up?
Listen, it's a long, hard road.
You know, I think the number one thing is transparency.
(27:54):
And that's a difficult spot for somebody in law enforcement, right?
The FBI has long had a philosophy, I think a correct one, of quote, not commenting onactive investigations, right?
And that's smart.
I don't think anybody's gonna say that the FBI should be out in, but.
You know, that's part of the problem is the FBI was leaking information all of this wholetime against Donald Trump.
(28:21):
And that's where the lack of credibility comes in today where people do not trust the FBI.
And, you know, so I think.
Who does the FBI actually report into?
is there, is it a department?
Is it like, they write into the president?
I think so.
The FBI director reports to president, I believe.
(28:41):
Okay.
And then.
probably the attorney general.
Excuse me.
Now that I think about it.
Okay.
And how do you think that Patel could come in and show that he will run the FBI fairly andnot let politics get in the way?
Like he can't, I'm assuming he can't come in and start guns blazing and you know, I'mgoing to take you out, I'm going to take you out, I'm going to find out who's guilty.
(29:08):
You know, he probably has to come in and play fair.
he has to be transparent in his actions, which is probably set up some level of committeethat then, unless they've already identified some of these folks, which they may have.
And if they've already identified them, you bring them in, let them say their piece, andcut them loose and send them on their way.
(29:34):
And so that's, I think it probably is a very quick operation.
I don't think it...
you know, to the extent that they have some level of investigation, I don't expect it tobe a long one.
My guess is they know exactly who was at the root of all these things.
And, you know, for the most part, I think frontline employees will, you know, will, Idon't want to say have a pass, but they'll be put on notice that this activity is no
(30:03):
longer tolerated.
It's just crazy because after we watched the OJ Simpson thing and seeing how, just howbackhanded and whether it's true or not in that case, I don't know, but just how
backhanded that this can really be to implicate someone for maybe something they didn'tdo.
(30:24):
Now I totally believe that OJ is guilty.
were watching it, that's like for the record, I believe OJ Simpson did it.
But I also think that the police got so nervous about making the case that they plantedevidence to secure a win and they got caught.
I don't know if I believe that.
I just, I don't know.
(30:44):
the back gate showing up six days after the fact, that's a problem.
They took blood from him.
They took blood from him.
That guy's so guilty.
Rest in peace, OJ.
it.
No, he's here's the thing.
He's not guilty.
He may not be innocent, but he's not guilty because, because a jury said he's not guilty.
(31:09):
yeah, but the civil suit definitely came back and said that he had some whatever, yeah.
I don't like that guy.
Okay, so I guess we just have to keep an eye on what's gonna happen.
I don't know if you saw, but Triple H was behind Linda McMahon today when she was in herhearing or whatever you wanna call it.
(31:31):
Yeah, that's pretty cool, right?
So we'll have to see what happens with Patel and Linda.
guess Linda still has to be nominated in as the Secretary of Education.
And do they even care or confirm?
Do they even care at that point?
I mean, if they know that Trump is getting rid of it, I mean, do they?
(31:51):
listen, there's one thing to say getting rid of it, right?
But it probably takes, it literally takes an act of Congress to do it, to create theDepartment of Education.
It takes an act of Congress to get rid of it in all likelihood, unless there's some legalmaneuvering that I'm unaware.
You know, it's taken 40 years or so already.
(32:13):
So we're, know, does it, are we gonna get rid of the Department of Education under, in thenext 18 months?
Probably not because there's not you don't have the 60 votes to close debate on it and soin the US Senate and so, you know, are you going to have a USAID situation where you just
(32:34):
go in and you you know, you gut everything and you start moving the programs that wouldnormally be under the Department of Education to these other departments so that you have
you know, I worked one time with a project for Altria, which was the Philip Morriscompany.
And they had just expanded their PR team from two to five people.
(32:55):
And there's this multi, you know, national, multi-billion dollar company and they had twoPR people.
And I went up to the two PR people and they're old guys and they brought in a youngerteam.
And I was like, why, how did you get away with being the only two people for 20 years?
Like, well, somebody needed to work when the other one was on vacation.
(33:15):
And I'm like, well, how did you run an entire PR department?
for this multinational, multi-billion dollar company.
And they said, well, how many people do you need to say no comment?
True story, true story.
And then, you know, so how many people do you need to run the Department of Education whenthere's nothing for the Department of Education to do?
(33:40):
I think you probably need a Secretary of Education, a driver, and maybe a scheduler, andyou can get away with three people and clear out the rest of the building.
this drives me crazy.
Okay, so.
I'm driving you crazy or the thought drives you crazy?
just the thought, I don't know.
Okay, so let's move on to the social media portion, which I love.
(34:05):
I love pulling different things from social media.
So the first one I pulled was a meme that shows a man and a woman, and the man is askingthe woman, what do you want for Valentine's?
And the woman's reply is, I want men to stop making decisions about my body.
So what are your thoughts on that?
(34:27):
I don't know that I've ever made a decision about somebody's body.
I'm assuming this is coming down to the losing human rights and all of that.
It's a, you know, I guess she's saying I want to have the right to have abortions and allthose things.
And, you know, the problem is, and we've talked about this in the past, that Roe versusWade didn't give women rights, it restricted state rights.
(34:57):
And so a lot of women over generations were lied to, that they somehow had these rightsthat were not given to them.
They were
restricted rights of states and so you know when the Dodd decision came down it gave thosestates their rights back and so I haven't seen the meme but you know
(35:28):
Yeah, you know, people just, you see these posts still coming out and that, I just, wantto believe that it's just the part of not understanding everything completely that makes
people still post this kind of stuff now.
Hopefully we can.
that this was going to be the election issue that tipped the election in Kamala Harris'sfavor.
(35:53):
And so there's still a group of people, mostly white college educated women, who believethat this will be the issue for the next election.
For instance, I was at the University of Florida's campaign seminar, post-electionseminar, where political consultants, people come together to speak and discuss.
(36:16):
know, a group of master's level students who were studying political campaigning.
And one of the employees for the Florida Democratic Party gave a whole presentation onwomen's rights and how it was the issue for the next 25 years.
And I was like, okay, well, it wasn't even the issue last year.
(36:39):
And so, you know, and it's just, was sitting with someone and we kind of leaned over toeach other and...
It was just somebody who's a data expert.
was like, this wasn't even an issue really last year.
It, you know, how I feel like you're missing the boat.
And especially when there's so many other problems in the world and in the country andwe're finding all this fraud or Elon Musk is finding all this fraud within our government
(37:04):
that was perpetuated over decades by both parties that, you know, that we have to reviewand
and take care of, I just think that this issue falls to the back burner.
mean, certainly within the Democratic Party, the trans issue is a much bigger issue ifyou're running a Democratic primary than the abortion issue, which just shows you how far
(37:31):
the Democratic Party has run off the reservation from the average American.
But I think polling would show you that's the case.
I think it's just people yelling into a canyon, so to speak, and believing the echo is theadoration of their fans.
(37:51):
All right, so the next one is this was posted by, don't think this, not even verified,doesn't even have a verified check.
I don't, no.
But it says, Elon Musk spent 290 million to buy our government to shadow the president andspending $4 million buying his own trucks, which is $110 million profit.
(38:20):
and I guess that was posted by it says the State Department plans 400 million dollar orderfor armored trucks from Musk's Tesla.
Now don't know if this is true.
I haven't fact checked it yet, but this was a post that I saw on Facebook today.
Jennifer, you're the researcher.
You're supposed to fact check.
I have not seen this.
(38:41):
I haven't seen this either.
the truth of the matter is that Elon Musk is volunteering a lot of his time, effort, andtalent to ensure our government can continue to exist because we're spending more than
$6.5 trillion a year, more than $2 trillion per year in deficit spending.
(39:05):
And somebody put on our Facebook, on our reasonable arguments Facebook page, somethinglike, well, how's that money being rebated?
All this money that Elon Musk is finding, where is it being rebated to?
And I'm like, it's not being rebated.
It's money that we're not putting on the credit card.
Just because you have a credit limit on your credit card, Jennifer, don't make fun of himhere, but just because you have credit limit on your credit card doesn't mean that it's
(39:33):
real money to spend.
And so, yeah, no, no, baby, no.
is different than the Jamie in real life.
Then you call it free money?
It's like free money.
I need to mark this clip too.
Holy cow.
(39:54):
Yeah.
you know, but the truth of the matter is, if we haven't saved $2 trillion yet, there's nomoney to rebate anywhere.
And if we save 2.1 trillion, the extra 100 billion,
should go to paying off the debt, not towards any other programs or anything else.
(40:16):
At some point, we have to live within our means and pay down our debt.
And it's taken a long time to get here, just like a lot of families that are in debt.
If you wanna, it's like, oh, I wanna take a four week vacation to Europe, great.
but I'm gonna take the next 10 years to pay it off.
(40:37):
So where are you gonna go for vacation the next 10 years?
Well, instead of doing that, maybe we go camping this year and we don't go in debt.
And that's where the United States is because we're going $2 trillion a year in debt, 1trillion of that is just to manage the debt.
That's just the credit card, that's just the interest.
(40:58):
And then we're spending an extra trillion still on top of that.
And so, you know, we have to reign in at least two trillion a year and we're not even, Idon't think Elon Musk is even close to that.
No, I did look it up and it is fake news.
So no, they have been that that has been denied that they are not buying those trucks, atleast not yet.
So.
(41:18):
Well, and here's the funny part is no emergency services unless you're in a city andyou're giving out parking tickets are going to use electric vehicles for anything because
when you need the power, you need gas.
so no sheriff's department, no military vehicles, there's no emergency charging stationsanywhere, anywhere in the world.
(41:48):
There's charging stations, but there's no emergency charging stations.
So anybody, I don't want my ambulance being run by electric vehicle.
I don't want them to have to stop and charge to get me to the hospital.
They're gonna run on gas, fire trucks, gas, police cars, gas, military vehicles, gas.
So anything else is just BS.
(42:09):
All right, so let's get to our final story, which is a Florida woman story.
So this one is out of Gainesville.
So two days ago, the what's it called?
Alchula, Alchula, Alchula.
What's it called?
Alachua.
(42:31):
I don't know.
I'm not from Florida.
I mean, why don't they just put things the way that.
I mean, okay, the Alachua County Sheriff's Office posted on their Facebook page, do youhave information on the whereabouts of Quantaria Richardson?
You might know her by one of her other names, AKA Alicia Richardson or AKA Panky.
(42:56):
If so, please contact investigator El Mata.
She has an outstanding warrant since December for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
So Richardson actually replied to the post and she said, uh, shit, I ain't hard to find.
Do your job.
(43:18):
And I'm going to say that should was spelled S H I D D D D.
So the Achula County Sheriff, Alachua County Sheriff replied back and said, Hey, AlishaRichardson, low key you ate that.
Lucky for you, we're used to those who play hard to get.
(43:39):
Real talk, be our valentine, slide into our DMs and we will pick you up in a custom greenand white whip.
We have jewelry that will fit your wrist perfectly and we already reserved the best bedand breakfast in town.
See you soon.
So as of today, she still has not been found, but I guess we're going to see what happens,see if she keeps posting.
(44:05):
I can't imagine Seastill and Achula.
Alachua.
What is it?
Alachua.
good Lord.
They need to make these towns a little easier.
That one's not even hard, it's not like Lake Panasoffkee.
Ugh.
So we will keep people updated on whether or not she gets caught anytime soon.
(44:26):
Maybe by Valentine's Day.
We'll see how pretty her jewelry is.
Yeah, that's, that is actually pretty funny.
What's, what's funnier is like they didn't, they responded in a funny way instead ofcatching her and taking a picture of her being arrested and then responding in a funny
way.
So they responded in a funny way and kind of like, Hey, we're coming after you.
(44:47):
It's time for you to run.
So she's in Jacksonville somewhere.
Yeah, exactly.
All right.
Well, that's all we got for today.
Thanks for stopping.
Bye.
thanks for joining us.
Hi.
All right, so we're just gonna jump right in today, because we're gonna be talking aboutall of the departments today.
Well, maybe just three, but.
pretty big departments.
So let's start off by talking about the Department of Education, or as President Trumpwould say, the con job that he wants to get rid of.
(01:14):
So reading this today, and it's interesting because finding that they are bringing inLinda McMahon from the WWE to basically get rid of this department and work herself right
out of a job because what's she going to do once the department's gone?
(01:37):
And then reading more about the Department of Education because of course I have neverresearched this before in my life.
Just finding things that they that the Department of Education does and I know that youand I have talked about this before and you have always felt that the Department of
Education was kind of a waste of time and money and stuff like that.
(01:58):
a lot more about the Department of Education if you had read my blog, Reasonable Argumentson Substack.
So thanks for letting the audience know that you zipped right past that one.
I must have missed that one come through my email.
I'll have to go back and look.
All right, so some of the problems that people are seeing with the Department of Educationare that schools are falling behind, students are not scoring as well as other countries,
(02:26):
there's too much federal control, too many rules and not enough results, obviously, andstudent debt is out of control.
So...
you know, they're saying with bringing it back into the states might be a good thing.
But what actually happens to the students that are currently relying on the federaleducation programs that, you know, for disabled people and things like that?
(02:55):
So how does like the states are going to have to then take on that responsibility, right?
So there's a couple of things.
I recently debated someone who was an advocate for the Department of Education at theUniversity of South Florida.
And about two thirds of the way through the debate, she's like, yeah, well, you know, theeducation department isn't really about educating or tests or scoring or anything.
(03:21):
And I was like, well, thank you for agreeing that we're spending billions of dollars notto educate our children.
because the Department of Education has just become a compliance agency.
It's become a way for the federal government to enforce its will upon states, and that'sit.
And so there are programs a lot like USAID that we've talked about in the past.
(03:41):
There are programs that need to probably stay.
For instance, Pell Grants, which are grants for underserved high school students who aregoing to college.
existed prior to the Department of Education and they were managed by the Department ofTreasury.
So there's no reason why Pell Grants can't go back to the Department of Treasury.
(04:02):
What you were speaking about with underserved children, can go over to Health and HumanServices.
The one thing that the Department of Education falls under the Department of Educationthat is clearly a federal, the one and only federally constitutional,
responsibility is education on Indian reservations and that can go back under theDepartment of Interior with the Department of Indian Affairs or the Bureau of Indian
(04:32):
Affairs.
there's nothing that the Department of Education is doing that number one has anything todo with education and number two, any programs that exist that cannot be done, that need
to stay with the federal government that can't be done under a different department.
So is the Department of Education, is it a new program or is it something that has?
(04:56):
developed in 1979 under Jimmy Carter.
It was voted in under 1979.
But you have to go back to the 50s and 60s for the impetus for Democrats wanting theDepartment of Education.
And it all came about because of Brown versus the Board of Education.
And the federal government wanted another tool in its toolbox to ensure the desegregationof schools.
(05:21):
so, and we all, I don't think anybody's going to argue for.
quote, segregation of schools.
But by 1979, the segregation of schools was effectively over.
so to the extent that it can be over.
so now a compliance agency was created.
(05:42):
And what does a compliance agency do?
As we see time and time again, the federal government grows.
And it becomes more of a compliance agency in more areas of the
of people's lives and more area of trying to make states comply with arbitrary federalrules that may or may not apply to that individual state.
(06:05):
So if the, know that many conservatives believe that education should be local, but howwould shutting the department down, how do you think that would actually improve schools?
Because obviously there would be growing pains if they have to start doing things on theirown at this point.
(06:25):
there's not gonna be growing pains because nearly all education is governed by the statesalready.
And so there's not really, there's a question of maybe some money going to states to fillthese programs that may need to stay that are managed by the Department of Education, but
(06:45):
nearly all education is governed by local and state governments already.
The Federal Department of Education has nothing to do with education.
So there won't be any growing pennies.
So do you think that keeping the department and just having it for the specific programsthat you had mentioned, the Pell Grants and for the students with disabilities and things
(07:07):
like that, do you think that it would be beneficial to keep the department for those?
not have a cabinet level agency for something that's not mentioned in the Constitution.
We just shouldn't.
And so, you know, you can, there's no reason to have a federal Department of Education.
(07:28):
Okay.
All right.
So let's move on to our next subject, which is RFK Jr.
being confirmed as health secretary.
So he is sworn in today.
And first I want to ask about Rachel Levine.
(07:48):
Cause again, that was another thing that I have never really researched.
I mean, I've heard different things and stuff like that, but never really researched herspecifically.
And so she was brought in during the Biden administration.
And just a question as far as her being a transgender man, woman, do you think that all ofthe man...
(08:21):
transgender man and do you think that all of the woke things and transgender everythinglike that started because of her or was it started prior to her?
has been a fundamental march towards ridiculousness, starting back with the Obamaadministration.
(08:44):
It certainly went on steroids under the Biden administration.
it's, know, these DEI efforts that are being utilized to transform and to even mutilateour children are
Number one on constitution, number two, immoral.
(09:06):
And number three, there's no reason for our taxpayer dollars to be spent on.
Okay, so some see RFK as a problem just because he doesn't have the background that RachelLevine did as far as healthcare background.
He has obviously been against vaccines and everything like that.
(09:30):
He's very much into more holistic approaches of healthcare.
And so I guess we have to really decide them being him being skeptical about aboutvaccines sorry could his leadership hurt public trust when when or if another pandemic
(09:52):
were to break out.
Well, you know, there's certainly something going on.
I'm not sure that it's vaccines when in the last 25 years we've gone from one in athousand children being diagnosed with autism to now about one in 110.
And so, you know, whether that is more children should have been diagnosed 25 years ago,that's certainly a possibility.
(10:16):
We have, we're called reasonable arguments.
We're willing to look at all possibilities, but you know,
Some people suggest that that's vaccines, know, even 25 years ago, certainly when Nathanand Curtis were born, there were a dozen vaccines, not 110 or whatever children are
getting these days in their first five years.
(10:37):
you know, so there's, there's some, you know, we can talk about lead, we can talk aboutplastics.
There's all, there are a lot of health issues.
can talk about red dye, you know, some of the things that, that Robert Kennedy
is a believer in that is harming the health of Americans.
so, and quite frankly, a lot of countries around the world have outlawed some of thesethings.
(11:01):
You know, so, you know, do we need to make sure that the pendulum doesn't go too far toofast?
Yes, we need to make sure the pendulum doesn't go too far too fast the other way.
But we also need to make sure that we have a logical, reasonable discussion.
about how these things are happening, why they're more prevalent in America than otherparts of the world.
(11:27):
And, you know, we should be the healthiest people in the world and, and we're not.
And so, part of that is us, know, laziness, not enough exercise, too much alcohol, all thethings that you want to talk about, but, certainly some of these things have to do with
antibiotics and food and growth hormones.
(11:48):
in chickens as they're growing and all the things.
we need to look at things and balance what, we need to balance feeding our population withthe health of our population, right?
And so, it's a delicate balance.
I hope we don't go too far too fast, but we certainly need to take a good look at all ofit.
(12:13):
So him, he really doesn't have any experience of running a large department or anythinglike that.
And this is, and obviously this department is something that is very heavily scrutinized,especially after COVID.
So what do you think are gonna be his biggest hurdles as far as starting there?
(12:34):
let's be honest.
lot of Democrats are being hypocritical about, you know, Pete Hegseth, they've gone downthe list of throwing things against the wall.
they're not qualified.
They're not capable.
They haven't done this before.
You know, there's not a whole lot of people who, who have run a federal department before.
And so, you know, what Donald Trump is saying is like the people who have done it in thepast have failed.
(12:57):
They failed the American people.
You know, the mainstream media has failed the American people by not holding governmentofficials and bureaucrats feet to the fire on all this spending.
Why are we just finding out about it after quote, a person who would be qualified to run adepartment, Elon Musk, who's a CEO of thousands and thousands of employees and billions of
dollars, you know, he's the one person and they're critical of him too.
(13:21):
So they're just, they're just criticizing anyone for anything.
And quite frankly, it's falling on deaf ears because the American public sick of
Well, mean, just as an American for yourself, I mean, do you have concerns with him beinga little more strong minded, not against medicine and against big pharma and stuff like
(13:43):
that?
I mean, is it do you do you think that he's going to cause waves and maybe create someissues?
Florida, for instance, we have what we pass a law called the right to try.
So for instance, so, you know, we have a large senior population, which, you know, so wehave a lot of healthy seniors, but we also have, you know, every, every ailment people can
(14:07):
have.
And so if people are dying of those ailments, we no longer have to go through FDA approvalin Florida to, you're, if you're dying of a disease and there's something that's out there
that
maybe can help you, you now have the right to try.
You the question is who pays for it?
How much does it cost?
And does insurance cover it?
And the answer is probably not, because it hasn't gone through FDA approval.
(14:30):
you know, and it's the same thing with holistic medicine.
You know, you have the right to try.
You should have the right to go down a holistic path as long as you know, hey, if you takethe pharmaceutical, you have a 98 % recovery rate.
If you go down the holistic path, maybe it's 50%.
but you might live healthier for the days you have left and people have the right tochoose that.
(14:54):
And so I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I just think that it's, because every medicine you take has some sort of impact on yourbody if you're taking it for a positive impact, but there's always another force out there
that's possibly negative that's impacting you.
And so people have the right to say,
(15:16):
you it's their body, they have the right to say, you know, hey, I'd like to try thiscourse of treatment, as long as they know their options.
And I think part of it is the financial part of it.
You know, do I, if I go down this 98 % likelihood to live, but I'm gonna bankrupt myfamily, do I wanna put my family through that?
(15:42):
Or do I have a 50 % shot over here?
but I definitely don't bankrupt my family.
Maybe I take the 50-50 shot and if I end up on the wrong 50%, I've done what I can for myfamily and you know, I'm willing to live and die with that.
So does this department have the authority to make Big Pharma lower their prices and stufflike that?
(16:08):
Do they have that authority?
Or who has that authority?
the thing, you have to be careful about trying to dictate prices for anything, right?
Because if it wasn't for big pharma, we wouldn't have people living to 90, 95 years oldhealthy, you know?
The number of, or let's put it this way, the number of people who would be living to thatage healthy would be the same percentage of people who were living to that age healthy in
(16:35):
1950, right?
And so, you know, and I think,
I think we all agree that that the number and percentage of people living longer,healthier is much greater.
And certainly when we look around the world, the world looks to US big pharma forsolutions to medical problems throughout the world.
(16:57):
And if it wasn't for the innovation of big pharma, would not have, we would not havepeople living.
Cancer would not be cancer would still be the C word, right?
Like, you got cancer.
good luck, we're going to try to cut that out of you.
And if you lived through the surgery, you know, and you live another two years, you might,we might've gotten it all.
But now with all the, all the effectiveness of strategies to handle cancer that you can gothrough and, even for, you know, what they used to, you know, like breast cancer, they
(17:33):
used to be, okay, here are your three options.
Now there's, you know, there's
18 different types of cancer or how many there are and there's 30 options for each one,know, so you have to really educate yourself on what it is you want to do and what your
tolerance level is, what your risk level is and what type of cancer do you have and youknow, what's your likelihood, know, the not testicular cancer, but prostate cancer, you
(18:03):
know, is one that's normally slow growing.
So some people, they're 80, 85 when they're diagnosed with prostate.
They're like, I'm not gonna do anything.
It's a slow going cancer.
I'm still likely to die of something else.
So I'm just gonna live with it.
And so, you know, that's the right, I'm gonna live and die with it.
And you know, if it's what takes me out at 95, then okay.
(18:26):
I still had another 10 years.
You know, so I, you know, I don't think you're going to see the dismantling.
of big pharma, don't think you're gonna see price controls necessarily on big pharma.
I think you're gonna see some negotiations on how quickly, you know, things, how can bigpharma balance the billions of dollars they do in research that they have to recoup when
(18:54):
they sell a drug, right?
So, you know, and they have this small window before drugs go generic.
And they have to make their money in that small window.
so, it's whatever it is, seven years, I think, is my recollection.
And so, and then after seven years, it's kind of on the open market and you can get itgeneric.
(19:18):
And so those are all, I mean, maybe they change it to five, you know?
I mean, I don't know, but I don't think you're gonna stop, you're gonna just point blank,say all drugs are 10 bucks a month.
because you're not going to have Big Pharma developing new drugs that are providing thehigh quality of life later in life like we do.
(19:40):
Right.
So do you think that his, you know, he can balance his personal views with what he feelsare already out there?
You know, think he's a Kennedy, right?
And Kennedys are about legacy.
He was raised with legacy and I think he would want to continue some level of legacy.
(20:04):
Certainly not going to be dismantling the health system in America to destroy people'shealth.
I think he wanted this job for the right reasons.
And yes, he has some ideas that may or may not be mainstream.
And you know, I think that voice will be heard within the department, but I...
You know, at the end of the day, think it's going to, you know, I think it'll work its wayout.
(20:29):
for balance.
yeah, let's hope, right?
Okay, so let's move on to Kash Patel, which he is on to, I guess, the second round, if Iunderstand this whole process correctly.
I think he's coming in for a vote here tomorrow or Saturday by the full Senate maybe ordoes he have one more committee?
(20:50):
I know he had a committee today.
It's now the Senate must decide, I guess.
Yeah.
So he is becoming the, he will be becoming, I hope, the FBI director.
Now he is another one that, you know, he really doesn't have too much.
(21:14):
experience, I guess, as far as that.
He is kind of like me and loves his conspiracy theories, and I guess he's very vocal aboutthat.
So I guess the, you know, on the Democrat side, they're worried that he will be toopolitical and not run the department fairly.
(21:36):
But the Republican side is very, I guess, sure that he will fix corruption and
the trust in the FBI?
Because I guess there's been some trust as far as the Russian involvement and everythinglike that.
So question is, he's very loyal to Trump, obviously, and could that damage the FBI'sreputation or make it harder for the Bureau to do its job?
(22:08):
So the FBI has no reputation left after Joe Biden.
And that's unfortunate because there's a lot of good career FBI nerds who do stellar workand have nothing political in their background and don't make political decisions.
And that's been unfortunate that they've been manipulated into these politicalprosecutions and political investigations.
(22:36):
And I think...
people in November of 2024 voted for the FBI to stop that activity.
They did not vote for Democrats to stop that activity and Republicans to start it.
And, you know, I hope that that line is not blurred, you know, but when you look at it, itis 360 degrees of viewing an elephant in the fact that if you believe that Nancy Pelosi
(23:07):
illegally impeached a president of the United States trying to commit a coup withinCongress to remove a president of the United States, which quite frankly, I believe, and I
think Cash Patel believes, that should be investigated because she had information thatwasn't found out for a decade later or nearly five or eight years later that they knew
(23:33):
that Donald Trump did not.
wasn't involved with Russia and all the things they accused him of, which they based animpeachment of the president of the United States upon.
And that is inexcusable, and it should be investigated.
And so while I hope that we don't have, quote, retributions from the FBI, there are thingsthat Democrats have done during the last eight years, both
(24:04):
to Trump and under the Trump administration and under the Biden administration that arefair game for investigations.
So we talked on another podcast about how the FBI is, not all of them, but some of thepeople are kind of running scared.
Is this something that you think Patel will come in and eliminate right away?
(24:29):
Try to weed out, see what's going on?
Like how do you think he's going to approach this on day one?
If FBI agents were using their government positions for political purposes, they shouldrun scared.
They broke the law by doing so.
And they broke their code of conduct by doing so and they should be fired.
(24:51):
Now, there's a fine line.
If somebody was out investigating someone because their superior said so and they went andhad the investigation in good faith and, hey, I'm just a foot soldier.
doing my job, you know, I think there's a fine line between somebody, you know, developingpolitical activity and not.
(25:14):
Like if you're an FBI agent and you were sifting through Melania Trump's underwear, youshould be fired.
Yes.
And if you were an FBI agent who went to Donald Trump's printer in Mar-a-Lago and printedout the word confidential to lay things out on the floor and put pieces of paper on them
(25:34):
that said confidential,
when those documents did not say the word confidential on them, just to influence a presspicture, a picture that you were going to leak to the press that should have been
classified, number one.
And that's what they did.
Well, it's been either admitted or they found it out.
(25:56):
So they printed the word classified.
And there's a famous picture of all this stuff down on Donald Trump's floor with thesepapers on them that say classified.
Those documents didn't have the word classified on them until the FBI agents printed theword classified and put them on for the picture.
So if you were creating photo ops for political purposes, you should be fired.
(26:21):
And if you were directed to do so and you didn't cause enough of a stink that you weren'tfired then or that you quit because you had too much integrity to conduct that type of
activity, you should be fired.
And so, you know, at some point, if you're going to be in the FBI, that should be the lawenforcement that has the most integrity in the United States.
(26:46):
And so if you conducted these political activities or did things that you knew were wrongand just did so because, quote, I was told, like, again, it's a very fine line between
somebody just going off and doing their job and then conducting these politicalactivities.
But if you knew they were wrong, you should have either made enough of a mistake thateither didn't happen, you were fired.
(27:06):
or you should have quit.
Like your integrity should have, as an FBI agent, should have required that of you.
And if you don't meet those requirements, you don't belong in the FBI.
So again, back to my question, because I don't know if you answered it fully, but if theyknow who these people are, do you think that they will be terminated?
I think once they find out who they are, if they do find out who they are, they will beterminated and they should be.
(27:32):
Okay, so what do you think that Patel could do to make, I don't want to say the Republicanpeople trust more, but all in all, what do you think that he could do to build that back
up?
Listen, it's a long, hard road.
You know, I think the number one thing is transparency.
(27:54):
And that's a difficult spot for somebody in law enforcement, right?
The FBI has long had a philosophy, I think a correct one, of quote, not commenting onactive investigations, right?
And that's smart.
I don't think anybody's gonna say that the FBI should be out in, but.
You know, that's part of the problem is the FBI was leaking information all of this wholetime against Donald Trump.
(28:21):
And that's where the lack of credibility comes in today where people do not trust the FBI.
And, you know, so I think.
Who does the FBI actually report into?
is there, is it a department?
Is it like, they write into the president?
I think so.
The FBI director reports to president, I believe.
(28:41):
Okay.
And then.
probably the attorney general.
Excuse me.
Now that I think about it.
Okay.
And how do you think that Patel could come in and show that he will run the FBI fairly andnot let politics get in the way?
Like he can't, I'm assuming he can't come in and start guns blazing and you know, I'mgoing to take you out, I'm going to take you out, I'm going to find out who's guilty.
(29:08):
You know, he probably has to come in and play fair.
he has to be transparent in his actions, which is probably set up some level of committeethat then, unless they've already identified some of these folks, which they may have.
And if they've already identified them, you bring them in, let them say their piece, andcut them loose and send them on their way.
(29:34):
And so that's, I think it probably is a very quick operation.
I don't think it...
you know, to the extent that they have some level of investigation, I don't expect it tobe a long one.
My guess is they know exactly who was at the root of all these things.
And, you know, for the most part, I think frontline employees will, you know, will, Idon't want to say have a pass, but they'll be put on notice that this activity is no
(30:03):
longer tolerated.
It's just crazy because after we watched the OJ Simpson thing and seeing how, just howbackhanded and whether it's true or not in that case, I don't know, but just how
backhanded that this can really be to implicate someone for maybe something they didn'tdo.
(30:24):
Now I totally believe that OJ is guilty.
were watching it, that's like for the record, I believe OJ Simpson did it.
But I also think that the police got so nervous about making the case that they plantedevidence to secure a win and they got caught.
I don't know if I believe that.
I just, I don't know.
(30:44):
the back gate showing up six days after the fact, that's a problem.
They took blood from him.
They took blood from him.
That guy's so guilty.
Rest in peace, OJ.
it.
No, he's here's the thing.
He's not guilty.
He may not be innocent, but he's not guilty because, because a jury said he's not guilty.
(31:09):
yeah, but the civil suit definitely came back and said that he had some whatever, yeah.
I don't like that guy.
Okay, so I guess we just have to keep an eye on what's gonna happen.
I don't know if you saw, but Triple H was behind Linda McMahon today when she was in herhearing or whatever you wanna call it.
(31:31):
Yeah, that's pretty cool, right?
So we'll have to see what happens with Patel and Linda.
guess Linda still has to be nominated in as the Secretary of Education.
And do they even care or confirm?
Do they even care at that point?
I mean, if they know that Trump is getting rid of it, I mean, do they?
(31:51):
listen, there's one thing to say getting rid of it, right?
But it probably takes, it literally takes an act of Congress to do it, to create theDepartment of Education.
It takes an act of Congress to get rid of it in all likelihood, unless there's some legalmaneuvering that I'm unaware.
You know, it's taken 40 years or so already.
(32:13):
So we're, know, does it, are we gonna get rid of the Department of Education under, in thenext 18 months?
Probably not because there's not you don't have the 60 votes to close debate on it and soin the US Senate and so, you know, are you going to have a USAID situation where you just
(32:34):
go in and you you know, you gut everything and you start moving the programs that wouldnormally be under the Department of Education to these other departments so that you have
you know, I worked one time with a project for Altria, which was the Philip Morriscompany.
And they had just expanded their PR team from two to five people.
(32:55):
And there's this multi, you know, national, multi-billion dollar company and they had twoPR people.
And I went up to the two PR people and they're old guys and they brought in a youngerteam.
And I was like, why, how did you get away with being the only two people for 20 years?
Like, well, somebody needed to work when the other one was on vacation.
(33:15):
And I'm like, well, how did you run an entire PR department?
for this multinational, multi-billion dollar company.
And they said, well, how many people do you need to say no comment?
True story, true story.
And then, you know, so how many people do you need to run the Department of Education whenthere's nothing for the Department of Education to do?
(33:40):
I think you probably need a Secretary of Education, a driver, and maybe a scheduler, andyou can get away with three people and clear out the rest of the building.
this drives me crazy.
Okay, so.
I'm driving you crazy or the thought drives you crazy?
just the thought, I don't know.
Okay, so let's move on to the social media portion, which I love.
(34:05):
I love pulling different things from social media.
So the first one I pulled was a meme that shows a man and a woman, and the man is askingthe woman, what do you want for Valentine's?
And the woman's reply is, I want men to stop making decisions about my body.
So what are your thoughts on that?
(34:27):
I don't know that I've ever made a decision about somebody's body.
I'm assuming this is coming down to the losing human rights and all of that.
It's a, you know, I guess she's saying I want to have the right to have abortions and allthose things.
And, you know, the problem is, and we've talked about this in the past, that Roe versusWade didn't give women rights, it restricted state rights.
(34:57):
And so a lot of women over generations were lied to, that they somehow had these rightsthat were not given to them.
They were
restricted rights of states and so you know when the Dodd decision came down it gave thosestates their rights back and so I haven't seen the meme but you know
(35:28):
Yeah, you know, people just, you see these posts still coming out and that, I just, wantto believe that it's just the part of not understanding everything completely that makes
people still post this kind of stuff now.
Hopefully we can.
that this was going to be the election issue that tipped the election in Kamala Harris'sfavor.
(35:53):
And so there's still a group of people, mostly white college educated women, who believethat this will be the issue for the next election.
For instance, I was at the University of Florida's campaign seminar, post-electionseminar, where political consultants, people come together to speak and discuss.
(36:16):
know, a group of master's level students who were studying political campaigning.
And one of the employees for the Florida Democratic Party gave a whole presentation onwomen's rights and how it was the issue for the next 25 years.
And I was like, okay, well, it wasn't even the issue last year.
(36:39):
And so, you know, and it's just, was sitting with someone and we kind of leaned over toeach other and...
It was just somebody who's a data expert.
was like, this wasn't even an issue really last year.
It, you know, how I feel like you're missing the boat.
And especially when there's so many other problems in the world and in the country andwe're finding all this fraud or Elon Musk is finding all this fraud within our government
(37:04):
that was perpetuated over decades by both parties that, you know, that we have to reviewand
and take care of, I just think that this issue falls to the back burner.
mean, certainly within the Democratic Party, the trans issue is a much bigger issue ifyou're running a Democratic primary than the abortion issue, which just shows you how far
(37:31):
the Democratic Party has run off the reservation from the average American.
But I think polling would show you that's the case.
I think it's just people yelling into a canyon, so to speak, and believing the echo is theadoration of their fans.
(37:51):
All right, so the next one is this was posted by, don't think this, not even verified,doesn't even have a verified check.
I don't, no.
But it says, Elon Musk spent 290 million to buy our government to shadow the president andspending $4 million buying his own trucks, which is $110 million profit.
(38:20):
and I guess that was posted by it says the State Department plans 400 million dollar orderfor armored trucks from Musk's Tesla.
Now don't know if this is true.
I haven't fact checked it yet, but this was a post that I saw on Facebook today.
Jennifer, you're the researcher.
You're supposed to fact check.
I have not seen this.
(38:41):
I haven't seen this either.
the truth of the matter is that Elon Musk is volunteering a lot of his time, effort, andtalent to ensure our government can continue to exist because we're spending more than
$6.5 trillion a year, more than $2 trillion per year in deficit spending.
(39:05):
And somebody put on our Facebook, on our reasonable arguments Facebook page, somethinglike, well, how's that money being rebated?
All this money that Elon Musk is finding, where is it being rebated to?
And I'm like, it's not being rebated.
It's money that we're not putting on the credit card.
Just because you have a credit limit on your credit card, Jennifer, don't make fun of himhere, but just because you have credit limit on your credit card doesn't mean that it's
(39:33):
real money to spend.
And so, yeah, no, no, baby, no.
is different than the Jamie in real life.
Then you call it free money?
It's like free money.
I need to mark this clip too.
Holy cow.
(39:54):
Yeah.
you know, but the truth of the matter is, if we haven't saved $2 trillion yet, there's nomoney to rebate anywhere.
And if we save 2.1 trillion, the extra 100 billion,
should go to paying off the debt, not towards any other programs or anything else.
(40:16):
At some point, we have to live within our means and pay down our debt.
And it's taken a long time to get here, just like a lot of families that are in debt.
If you wanna, it's like, oh, I wanna take a four week vacation to Europe, great.
but I'm gonna take the next 10 years to pay it off.
(40:37):
So where are you gonna go for vacation the next 10 years?
Well, instead of doing that, maybe we go camping this year and we don't go in debt.
And that's where the United States is because we're going $2 trillion a year in debt, 1trillion of that is just to manage the debt.
That's just the credit card, that's just the interest.
(40:58):
And then we're spending an extra trillion still on top of that.
And so, you know, we have to reign in at least two trillion a year and we're not even, Idon't think Elon Musk is even close to that.
No, I did look it up and it is fake news.
So no, they have been that that has been denied that they are not buying those trucks, atleast not yet.
So.
(41:18):
Well, and here's the funny part is no emergency services unless you're in a city andyou're giving out parking tickets are going to use electric vehicles for anything because
when you need the power, you need gas.
so no sheriff's department, no military vehicles, there's no emergency charging stationsanywhere, anywhere in the world.
(41:48):
There's charging stations, but there's no emergency charging stations.
So anybody, I don't want my ambulance being run by electric vehicle.
I don't want them to have to stop and charge to get me to the hospital.
They're gonna run on gas, fire trucks, gas, police cars, gas, military vehicles, gas.
So anything else is just BS.
(42:09):
All right, so let's get to our final story, which is a Florida woman story.
So this one is out of Gainesville.
So two days ago, the what's it called?
Alchula, Alchula, Alchula.
What's it called?
Alachua.
(42:31):
I don't know.
I'm not from Florida.
I mean, why don't they just put things the way that.
I mean, okay, the Alachua County Sheriff's Office posted on their Facebook page, do youhave information on the whereabouts of Quantaria Richardson?
You might know her by one of her other names, AKA Alicia Richardson or AKA Panky.
(42:56):
If so, please contact investigator El Mata.
She has an outstanding warrant since December for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
So Richardson actually replied to the post and she said, uh, shit, I ain't hard to find.
Do your job.
(43:18):
And I'm going to say that should was spelled S H I D D D D.
So the Achula County Sheriff, Alachua County Sheriff replied back and said, Hey, AlishaRichardson, low key you ate that.
Lucky for you, we're used to those who play hard to get.
(43:39):
Real talk, be our valentine, slide into our DMs and we will pick you up in a custom greenand white whip.
We have jewelry that will fit your wrist perfectly and we already reserved the best bedand breakfast in town.
See you soon.
So as of today, she still has not been found, but I guess we're going to see what happens,see if she keeps posting.
(44:05):
I can't imagine Seastill and Achula.
Alachua.
What is it?
Alachua.
good Lord.
They need to make these towns a little easier.
That one's not even hard, it's not like Lake Panasoffkee.
Ugh.
So we will keep people updated on whether or not she gets caught anytime soon.
(44:26):
Maybe by Valentine's Day.
We'll see how pretty her jewelry is.
Yeah, that's, that is actually pretty funny.
What's, what's funnier is like they didn't, they responded in a funny way instead ofcatching her and taking a picture of her being arrested and then responding in a funny
way.
So they responded in a funny way and kind of like, Hey, we're coming after you.
(44:47):
It's time for you to run.
So she's in Jacksonville somewhere.
Yeah, exactly.
All right.
Well, that's all we got for today.
Thanks for stopping.
Bye.
thanks for joining us.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com