Hello, America, and welcome back to another episode of the Last Gay Conservative Podcast. I'm your host, Chad Law, America's binary brother, the holiest homo, and the gayest conservative of all time. Folks, this podcast is focused on restoring common sense conservative politics in the American household, engaging in meaningful conversations about what it means to be American, and embracing the new without forgetting our history. It's very important. But in order to do that, as always, we need your input, as I'm merely a messenger of the common sense collective of folks like you and me. So don't forget the phone number, 866 LastGay. That's 866 LastGay. You can call or text that number. Or if you want, go to the show's description on your device, click the link, it says text the show. Whatever you have to say, we always listen. I mean, of course, unless it's just awful, but that rarely happens, believe it or not. Lots going on this week as the World Economic Forum wrapped up. Congress pushed through a trillion dollars in spending, and ICE is still very much under attack. On top of that, nothing new on Epstein, and the only real two opportunities to learn anything new would be from testimony. Either Jelaine Maxwell or the Clintons, which we know nothing we hear from either of these folks will be the truth. They're very much cut from the same cloth. It's about self-preservation above all else. So I don't know how much we have to look forward to there, and I think those testimonies will make the Democrats look even worse. However, there are a few big stories in the gaily news that I'd like to cover today. First of all, rogue Republicans are breaking their promises to America, big surprise, to advance their own personal agendas as several have aligned with Democrats to ensure child sex change operations continue. Our cars have government kill switches, and over six billion dollars in earmarks, leaving the federal budget for Republican pet projects. Folks, there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats anymore. Seriously. I mean, Republicans now account for 63% of earmarking, which is about where the Democrats were before we ended earmarking under Paul Ryan. Billions of dollars on wasteful pet projects that should be funded by local communities. But I'll break down the who, what, where, and why so you can decide yourself in the upcoming midterms. I'm telling you, the lesser of two evils argument isn't cutting it for me anymore. And the Republicans are literally doing nothing Trump has asked of them. On top of that, you've got Venezuela war powers, Obamacare, and Medicaid all being pushed through or almost pushed through with the help of Republicans, are clearly getting something in return. Folks, the practice of earmarking is no different than that of lobbying. It's all legal bribery, fraud, and theft. But hey, what's another$8 billion in waste, right? Red hot chili peppers. Give it away now. On top of that, I want to give you my take on the Tim Busfield case in New Mexico. I've been watching this carefully, as you know, getting these creeps and pedophiles off the street is something very is something I'm very passionate about, especially when it comes to child predators. But I'm not sure Tim Bustfield is a predator. I mean, he's definitely slimy, gropey, and feels entitled to touch women. But the accusers who are child star parents fit this opportunist mold very well. And last thing I want to do is defend the guy like I did Bill Cosby until the what 75th woman came forward. But so far I don't see any wrongdoing. Furthermore, the prosecutor in New Mexico is an idiot. Did you guys hear her speak at all? She sounds like she's struggling, and her presentation at this bail release hearing was so weak. If she's first chair during this case, the state's gonna lose. 100%. I mean, she's just not polished or put together, which is a huge part of winning and prosecuting celebrity cases. You have to be more polished than the defense, and she's not. Lastly, a little different pace. I watched a show on Netflix called This Is Gonna Hurt. It was recommended to me as some kind of gay content that I might like, but turned out to be a real life account of an obstetrician in the UK's socialized medical system. The show's from 2022 and was created based on the actual journal uh entries of a baby doctor named Adam Kay in the 2010s. This is why I'm not sure people like AOC and Bernie Sanders use the UK's NHS as positive examples of universal healthcare. I mean, I could not believe what I saw when I watched this show, folks. And nine out of ten NHS clinicians surveys say this show is scary, real, and hardly dramatized. So I'm going to review the show overall, but also walk you through how it demonstrates exactly what would happen to our medical system if we introduced universal healthcare in this country. It is scary. Good luck having a baby. I'm not sure how many of you caught Michael Michelle Obama on Call Her Daddy, the podcast. Funny enough, if there's any woman in America that should be called Daddy, it's Michael Michelle. Here she is with how many book deals, Netflix, TV studios, interviews, she's worth how many hundreds of millions? How many homes does she have around the world? Yet she continues to paint this bleak picture for women and girls in this country as she claims her husband only won because Hillary was a woman. She also stated that women should never give up their careers for kids. They don't appreciate your sacrifice. And she's very upset people only know her as Brock's wife. Boohoo. Folks, this is Hillary 2.0. The only difference is Michelle has a penis. Hillary had penis envy. But if I have time, I'll explain her narrative and give you my take and also talk about why this is the type of language driving Gen Z females far as they can away from the left. I'm going to take a quick break, but when I come back, I'll dive right into the evils of earmarks and call out these Republicans who have just voted for child sex changes, federal control of your vehicles, and sent billions home without making any major cuts. Just sad. But now they're back as from 2020. And now Republicans are the biggest appropriators. 70, 63% of the earmarks in the 2026 appropriations bills that just got passed through the House and that are now sitting on the Senate floor for vote are from Republicans. Republican earmarks. Can you believe that? The majority of the earmarks are coming out of Republicans. Over eight billion dollars in 2026 is earmarked for Republicans. That is insane. We are right back to where we were pre-2010, where the earmarking was so out of control and the public trust of the United States Congress was so low, even though the number, the approval rating is about the same. It's about 18% right now. But these people think they can get away with it. Well, I'm not having it. I'm not allowing that to happen. So basically, this is what happens. I'm going to break it down real simply for you. There's all these little subcommittees and meeting rooms in Congress, and they all put together their individual budgets. The appropriators work on funding each one of these little departments. Then it all sort of gets pushed together in a big pile of hundreds or thousands of pages and it goes to the floor for a vote. But before it goes to the floor for a vote, all the representatives get to go and look at the pieces that they weren't actively involved in, right? Because someone might be on the uh defense committee and work with the appropriators on defense funding, but they have no idea what interior funding looks like. So they have to go through and look through and see if there's anything they don't like or whatever. So uh Ralph Norman and Tom Massey both found issues uh in the packages that they wanted removed. Largely unpopular issues. So Ralph Norman from South Carolina looks at this and he goes, Oh my gosh, there's millions of dollars going to child sex change surgeries and hormone replacement therapy for minors. Trump has said this is not supposed to happen. The uh HHS has already changed their guidelines to enhance things like talk therapy involving the nuclear family, et cetera, because new studies are showing that the more talk therapy and the more involved the family is in a compassionate, loving way, inclinations of gender dysphoria go away because there's a lot of over-diagnosis of gender dysphoria right now. And so the guidelines have changed. The studies are showing that these irreversible surgeries and jumping to hormone replacement therapy doesn't work. Even the Endocrine Society came out and said HRT is not a save-all. And even families that are 100% supportive of it should not look to it as a solution or a fix-all. It should be just one of the many tools that centers around psychological therapy. Okay? So on top of that, Pew research shows that over 70% of Americans are against irreversible medical procedures on minors that have to do with gender. So it's nonpartisan. So Ralph Norman goes, guys. So what they do is before they go to the vote, is they can put amendments on the floor to vote to have things removed. And in order to do that, they do it in a big sort of big sweeping amendment. So basically what he does is he comes up with an amendment and it says, look, we all need to vote that we will pass this through once X is removed. And Ralph Norman's X was removing all these earmarks, millions and millions of dollars, going to places like uh San Diego County Children's Hospital, gender-affirming care. So he puts the amendment on the floor. 76 Republicans join 100% of Democrats to keep that funding. Why? Well, it can't be for political points because, again, it's unpopular. So you know what these scumbags have engaged in is quid pro quo from earmarks in order to get little pet self-enrichment projects and kickbacks to their family and friends back home and more buy-a-vote programs. They trade their values, their constituents' values, and the priorities of their constituents, and I would say the priorities of Americans to support these woke nonsense causes. So Adam Pack really exposed all of this from the Daily Collar News Foundation. And it says right here the House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected a measure Thursday evening that would eliminate$1.3 billion in earmarks from a government funding package. Lawmakers voted$291 to$136 on the amendment offered by leading fiscal Hawk Republican Ralph Norman, falling short, well, well short, of a majority. Basically, what it says is Norman's amendment would have nixed all of the earmarks in labor, health, and human services bill, which contained funding for several entities that perform sex change procedures for minors and late-term abortions. And what I love about what Ralph Norman says is these earmarks are against every conservative value that is known. The Heritage Foundation urged everyone to vote yes. 76 broke free and voted no. In demanding earmarks of their own, Republicans have opened the door to Democrats to direct taxpayer funds to entities engaged in practices that most GOP voters find abhorrent. Not even GOP voters, Americans. So that's the first one Ralph Norman and the child sex changes. Then Tom Massey from Kentucky says, wait a minute. I don't want to fund transportation when there's still funding and policy written from the Biden administration that every vehicle sold in America, regardless of price, manufacture, etc., has to be digitally connected to the federal government for what they call under the influence. They're creating technology that can supposedly scan you to see if you're under the influence before you drive. Well, then why not just put interlock breathalyzer systems in all of our cars for God's sakes? I mean, it's ridiculous. So Biden wants to be able to kill your car whenever he wants to. Okay, whether it's gas, electric, doesn't matter. And yet now, 57 Republicans rejected that. Now, if you go around the block or to the barbershop or a coffee shop and ask people, it doesn't matter. Don't even ask them if they're Republican or Democrat. Do you believe the American government should have control over your vehicle? To turn it off, on, drive it, etc. Guaranteed most people would say no. Even under this fake guise of uh in under the influence and safety. They would say no. So again, it's largely nonpartisan. Why do these Republicans vote with the Democrats on an Orwellian measure that is literally the opposite of any conservative Republican principle? Period. These are huge things, guys. These are federal control of your private property and your vehicle and child minor sex change surgeries that Republicans are voting for because they got a little something something. And it's all because of earmarks. And I just I mean, guys, earmarks are legally approved influence trading. That's all it is. And we have to stop pretending these things are harmless. It was so much better when they were banned. They're not community investments, like they say. They're not local solutions. All earmarks are is political currency, taxpayer dollars traded in return for power, loyalty, and votes. And we're allowing politicians to decide who gets money instead of merit and the private market bidding process that we should all be embracing. It's just legalized influence trading. It's exactly what Hunter and Joe Biden do that we all criticize, but the Republicans now are leading the charge in Congress. I cannot believe I'm hearing myself say that 63% of the earmarks in 2026 are coming out of Republicans. It's crazy. Earmarks are just congressionally directed spending, federal funds that should be reserved for federal projects going back to self-enrichment pet projects. That's all it is. And earmarks and fraud go hand in hand. They bypass the competitive uh system, the merit system, the review system. There's no neutral scoring, there's no competition. There's no debate of the best use of public funds. It's one power play. And here's the thing: how we know they don't work is because if a project is worth funding, it'll make it through the competitive process. They only use earmarks because these projects are not either sustainable, they're not economically functioning, or they're fraudulent. I mean, again, before we banned this in 2005, 14,000 earmarks in one year. I remember that year.$64 billion annually. And from 1991 to 2010, hundreds of billions in earmark spending. They created, they literally created a parallel budgeting system driven by politics. That's it. And then under Paul Ryan, we were able to ban it because it got so out of control and they were being used for so many of these extreme, unprecedented socialist programs that Obama wanted. The public outrage, the scandals, I mean, it was crazy. So they banned them in 2011. And it was enforced during the Paul Ryan era, which again, I can't stand Paul Ryan. He's a total rhino, but this is one thing he did right. And guess what? All the side deals disappeared. The leadership couldn't buy votes with projects anymore. They actually had to do their job. That's why Tom Emmer, what a loser. Any whip can get votes with quid pro quo. Anyone can get anything done in life with quid pro quo. Being able to structure, negotiate a deal is what these people are supposed to do, but these aren't negotiations. These are just quid pro quo by a vote scams. When earmarks were banned, Congress had fewer toys to trade and fewer excuses to waste money. Period. Earmarks are not illegal bribery, but they replicate the same incentive structure. Bribery is quid pro quo. Earmarks are quid pro quo. So basically, if leadership like Tom Emmer, big loser, Somali fraud, perpetuator, they want members want projects, leaders want votes, lobbyists want funding, and guess what? Your money that you earn at work becomes the bargaining chip. And why more people aren't outraged over this, I have no idea. So you get to support the bill, then we'll fund your project. If you don't, you lose the funding. It's quid pro quo politics legalized through procedure. And the procedure is largely because these are low IQ people that cannot debate on their own without quid pro quo. Any idiot can use quid pro quo, period. If currency is taxpayer money and the exchange is loyalty, don't insult us by saying you're doing your job and governing. That's not what you're doing. You know, this is corruption by design, folks. And again, this is what's happening in DC. And then we wonder with the Somalis and all the fake illegal stuff in California and the homeless money. It's the same thing. And it starts and born and bred in DC on Capitol Hill. You all remember Duke Cunningham. He took$2.4 million in bribes for defense earmarks. He went to jail. Federal prison. Bob Nay. You remember Bob Nay? He pleaded guilty to trading ill earmarks for favors, travel, gifts, and political donations, which is Largely what this is as well. And then remember the bridge to nowhere.$400 million in earmarks that served fewer than 50 residents. That's the other thing about these projects is that they kick back and reward contractors, vendors, no bid contracts based on zero merit. And when you remove merit and competition, corruption is then the only form of currency you have. That's the business model, is corruption. And I just again, with their back now, okay? The earmarks are back, and Republicans are the biggest spenders. And it is a very uncomfortable truth. In the 2026 funding bills alone, roughly 8 billion in earmarks. 8 billion dollars, people. And Republicans account for over 60% of those dollars. Disgusting. I want to be sick. GOP appropriators now outpace Democrats in total earmark spending by far. The energy and water bill has three plus billion dollars in earmarks. Why does energy and water need earmarks? Interior and environment, same thing. 1.7 billion. This is on top of the necessary funds just to keep these doors open. They add this stuff on top. 1.7 billion in science. The loudest critics like Mitch McConnell are now the largest beneficiaries. Isn't that sick? It's just so disgusting. They're doing exactly what Democrats did before we had to ban these. And if earmarks were corrupt then, how did they just become magically virtuous overnight? Come on. But many of us could get over the waste of money. There's always going to be some waste in anything. But what it does is it actually distorts the outcome. That's what we need to be aware of is that earmark funds are pre-directed. So the agencies lose flexibility and then our urgent needs go unfunded while we promote these self-enrichment projects for politicians. And then what happens is you have one earmark working on a road or something, for example, and then other county projects. So you have all this redundant infrastructure, and then all these politically popular projects like, you know, uh pickleball courts in San Luis Obispo, they're politically popular, but they're not sustainable and they're economically a disaster. And it's just dishonest budgeting. That's all it is. I mean, again, if a capital, if a private capital company allocated capital this way, executives would be fired, people would go to jail, and businesses would close. So we as Americans are losing big time over the earmarks, and the damage is real. These deficit numbers are so scary, and they just keep funding and funding personal pet projects and kickbacks and personal enrichment schemes. More insider politics and less accountability should be the theme of this Congress. You know, bringing money home is not virtuous. It's a misuse of funds. While infrastructure fails, debt explodes, and national priorities stall. All this does is services insiders first and Americans last. Earmarks were banned because they were corrupt. They were wasteful. And they corroded the trust of the public to Congress. We're at the same level. It was so much easier without them. Not because Congress was virtuous all of a sudden, but because one of their largest incentives was removed. The money's bigger now, the hypocrisy is louder, and the public is paying the price again. Folks, you have to tell your congressmen and women to stop this earmarking. And you don't fix corruption by renaming it community funding, and you don't restore trust by reviving the very system that destroyed it, period. Our only hope, folks, is that the Trump administration vetoes these bills, and he should. He promised that he would put an end to this transgender surgery on minors, and he also promised a restore to fiscal responsibility and a breeding of efficiency over bloated bureaucracy. If he was serious about that, he will veto these, tell Congress to get all the earmarks and the community funding out. And guess what? If they don't want to do that, then they have to work together to get two-thirds majority. And hey, when was that ever a problem if they can work together? So Trump better kick these back. I don't foresee it happening, but he should kick these back. And he should be very clear that the earmarks need to go. And that money could be largely spent on the deficit or on true American priorities versus get rich, quick political schemes by politicians and their local community. This is no different than what the Somalis did. It's just our own representative officials committing the same fraud that they've carved out legally for their own benefit. When I come back, I want to talk about Tim Busfield and the terrible performance by the prosecutor in New Mexico. She's gotta go, folks. I'm gonna take a quick break and we'll be back right after these words. Welcome back, America. Let's talk a little bit about this Tim Busfield case. Very interesting. As you know, I'm very passionate about getting these creeps, especially child predators and sexual assaulters and harassers, off the street. Uh, this we've come to a place in this country where uh abhorrent sexual behavior is becoming acceptable because these weak prosecutors don't actually prosecute these crimes correctly. Now, Tim Busfield's a little different. Those of you who don't know, Tim Busfield's married to Melissa Gilbert, who uh was the star of Little House on the Prairie. Uh, he is being accused of uh illegal sexual conduct or sexual contact with minor twin boys. They played the same son character, two boys. They oftentimes do this. They'll use twins because there's only a certain amount of hours that minors can work on set. So, in order to maximize productivity, if they can find identical twins that can act, uh, they'll use both of them. So, according to the complaint, the parents of these two boys say that he sexually assaulted them, essentially. He made illegal sexual contact with their two sons. Come to find out, the sons were written off the show. I guess they weren't great actors, according to the director of photography, that took the stand in this bail/slash release hearing, where the prosecution argued that basically Tim Busfield was too unsafe to be released. And the defense took issue with that. The problem is that the prosecutor in New Mexico is an idiot. She was struggling just to get a basic point across, and she seems really, really dumb and talks like a valley girl. She has no polish, no consistency, and she's a terrible communicator. So we see the writing on the wall, what's going to happen with this case. But the judge did release Tim Busfield, and I believe he made the right decision based on the evidence that was presented. So the prosecutor basically argued that Jim Busfield is a danger to society based on all of this crap that she gathered together that are very indirect and dotted line arguments that he has a past of being a sexual harasser. Well, it looks like he has a past of being kind of gropey and entitled to touch people, but it doesn't look like he is a predator, and all his previous attacks have been against women. So the judge in New Mexico ordered that Busfield be released from custody while he awaits trial on child sex abuse charges. He had been held prior without bond after his arrests on two counts of criminal sexual conduct of a minor and one count of child abuse, and he turned himself in. The defense is claiming that the parents of these children are opportunists that are seeking revenge for them being written out of the show The Cleaning Lady, where again the twins played one single character. The prosecutor arguing to keep him detained was Assistant District Attorney Savannah Brandenburg Koch or Koch K-O-C-H. And boy, I mean, she just sounds so dumb. But essentially, the judge's written and oral reasoning centered around several legal points, which weighed heavily on the fact that the prosecution doesn't have a lot of evidence. I mean, first of all, the guy's not a flight risk. The evidence was characterized as neutral at this stage. In other words, there's not an overwhelming amount of evidence that would claim or make the argument that he's a danger to society. Now, the big thing that I want to talk about that I mentioned a little bit earlier is that the judge actually noted, which you don't see this, but as much as she tried to make it sound like there was a similar of uh similar pattern of conduct, there was not. And that he's never had criminal conduct involving children in his past, which is a huge factor in pretrial detention law. I mean, you have to know the past criminal history, but you can't just group together all these unfounded accusations. She argued that there was inappropriate behavior in patterns through his past, but again, not enough to prove that he deserved to be detained. I don't know why the people didn't just recommend a high bail. Try to keep him locked up when there's absolutely no history of child abuse in his past is crazy. The judge noted that he did. He turned himself in. But folks, I don't want to be like I was with Bill Cosby. You know, I had such a hard time embracing that Bill Cosby was a predator. But again, he had consistent examples of a very clear, concise pattern and multiple accusers. This is not that. But the larger theme is people are crying that he's guilty all of a sudden, is that the fact is, again, guys, we have to embrace the fact that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. And prosecutors have to be held to the standard of ministering justice, not just advocating for victims, as noble as that is, when there's not enough evidence that supports a specific charge. It just becomes a waste of taxpayer money. And in sex crime cases, that obligation really matters because the allegations carry extraordinary amounts of prejudicial force, often long before the verdict is reached. Again, when you narrate public perception, you're also poisoning a potential pool of jurors. So this prosecutor, I mean, she needs to know that past accusations are not automatic proof of guilt. Okay, that's the first thing. The second thing is that sexual harassment, adult sexual assault, and child sex abuse are not interchangeable categories. They involved completely different legal, psychological elements, victim dynamics, different evidentiary standards and demands. Again, what did this person just graduate law school? The ethics require them to avoid the core errors of rules. And again, these evidentiary uh requirements that she has to follow don't necessarily pertain to the bail hearing. But if this is what she is doing in order to argue that he is some predator and just trumping up all these past accusations, it's not gonna work. Prior conduct is sometimes admissible for limited purposes, but it's not a substitute for providing the charged act beyond reasonable doubt. That's what I felt like. She had no reasonable doubt. Even the interviews with the kids, they said no. And so instead of going on and saying what actually was alleged by these victims, when it actually occurred, who they actually are, hard evidence that would of documentation that the uh accusers actually even had time alone with the defendant. I mean, we didn't hear anything about chain of custody, we didn't hear anything about credibility assessment. It was just very odd. It almost sounded like People magazine was making the argument for the prosecution. And the other thing to remember is that these celebrity cases usually illustrate stable patterns, not sudden switches. I mean, not every offender behaves identically, but litigated cases usually show consistent victim types over time. I mean, just the main cases we've seen lately. If we look at Harvey Weinstein, for example, the alleged and litigated conduct centers on adult women and abuse of power in adult settings. Bill Cosby, same thing. Allegation and prosecution centered on adult women. But again, these are stable victim categories, adults. These aren't late life shifts into child offenses. Larry Nasser, who is a child predator, again involved young female athletes, and the pattern wasn't a late life pivot. It reflected established victim types over time, young girls in a medical highly trusted environment. Jerry Sandusky, same thing. Boys, young boys, over long periods of time. And during the entire time, the victim category remains stable. So we have to look at these things. And we have to look at the types of cases that they're making these comparisons to and look at the differences, and that's the big difference. I mean, federal cases reflect long-running pattern involving underage girls and young women over and over again when it was Larry Nasser and Jeffrey Epstein. These people don't flip later in life. So when these high-profile cases are examined over time, what shows up repeatedly is a pattern of persistence, not sudden reinvention of victim age sex categories later in life. And to me, that's enough right there for the prosecution to seriously question the merits of this case. Human nature and psychology do not match. And sure, uh, look, there's always exceptions to the rule, but this is very, very strange. And if prosecutors lump together a person's past allegations, especially different types of allegations, and just present them as sexual deviance, you know, this narrative of sexual deviance, it doesn't work. One, you're contaminating the jury. Two, you're creating reversible errors that then appellate courts will remove, and you're undermining the legitimate legitimacy of the outcomes, period. And that's what I don't understand. It's like ethical, real good prosecutors don't storytell by implication. They state the facts. And she's not yet proven that he's a danger to himself or society. And I am not convinced that this guy is guilty. Like I said, I think he's a creep. I think he's one of these Hollywood types that thinks he can touch anyone that walks by him. But it doesn't seem that he fits the mold of a child predator. And if some video comes out, I'll eat my words. But the bottom line is that so far this prosecutor seems to be very, very bad at her job and already skirting ethical bounds, narrating, and creating arguments based on trumped-up accusations and past experiences of different victim types, different attack types, etc. That's why prosecutors can't treat prior adult misconduct as a proof of new distinct allegation, especially one involving children. Especially when it comes to making the argument of whether or not someone is fit or safe out in public. It just doesn't happen this way. Furthermore, opportunists are everywhere looking at people of prominence for ways to self-enrich. And these people were very, very angry. And you see it all the time with dance moms and reality TV and all these parents that try to vicariously live through their children. And unfortunately, but again, I'm going by the testimony of the director of photography, the kids just weren't that good. And they needed to replace them with actors that could do better. And the parents were pissed. And that is really sick. And unfortunately, anyone who engages in this type of conduct should go to jail too. And I hope that Tim Busfield retaliates and sues her civilly for defamation of character and takes her and her whole family down if it turns out that this case was fraudulent. And it's really looking that way. So it's either one of three things, folks. The prosecutor's a total idiot. She's sitting on a trove of evidence. She just doesn't know how to communicate it. Two, she has no evidence, but she's doing this for publicity and political purposes. Or three, that this is truly a case of revenge and fraud perpetuated by the victim's parents in a typical Hollywood parent get rich quick scam that's going to ruin the lives and families of Tim Busfield and Melissa Gilbert. But boy, Melissa Gilbert sure knows how to pick them, doesn't she? Jesus, man. She's batting a thousand in the man department. But already the prosecutor has set herself up for major failure. And uh we you guys should watch her if you want to be entertained. If you ever want to see what not to do as a prosecutor, watch this woman in New Mexico. She is terrible. You know, and she's now what she's doing is she's weakening the moral force of legitimate and ethical and evidence-based prosecution when it comes to child sex crimes for her own popularity contest. And this is generally what this is about because it's a big media play and she wants to get herself on camera. But you can't lump, you can't take shortcuts, and you can't use one size fits all arguments. And that's why she lost. And that's why so far, based on what I've seen, I think the guy's innocent. Pattern claims have to be based in evidence, period. And she didn't do that. And that's my take. When I come back, I'm gonna talk to you about a new show that I just finished this week called This Is Going to Hurt. Surprisingly, it was recommended to me as a show about a successful gay doctor that my friend thought I would be inspired by and largely appreciate the sort of gay content that's in the show, which I did. But even more so, it was a treasure trove and an eye-opening experience about the truth of universal healthcare. It is crazy. The NHS in the UK is crazy. And this show breaks it down perfectly. We'll be right back after these words. Welcome back, America! I just finished a show on Netflix called This Is Going to Hurt. And boy, did I take it as a warning for America. I mean this show should be what they play for congressmen about why universal healthcare doesn't work. I mean, first of all, this isn't activist fiction, folks. It's based on real data. Diaries from an NHS, which is National Health Services, of the UK. He's an actual doctor. And British clinicians publicly said it was, quote, painfully accurate. If a dramatized version looks this bad, the real system is actually worse, one clinician said. And this matters because tons of US politicians want to import the NHS model and constantly tout the UK as a prime example of universal healthcare. And I know what you're going to say, oh Chad, but it's just a TV show. Kinda. But again, based on real medical diaries and the actual doctors in NHS confirmed it's real. Remember, folks, reality is the only thing that provokes institutional defensiveness, not fiction. So the defensiveness of this really comes from the fact that it's true. The truth hurts. And the bottom line is that universal healthcare and this show really outlines that. But it totally fails because demand is unlimited, resources are finite, incentives are completely removed. The NHS is the clearest real-world example we have. So if it struggles in the UK, you can imagine it would completely collapse the United States, period. So in episodes one and three, it really breaks down how the NHS can't even handle the British population. I mean, just in the first episode alone, the maternity ward, because the guy's an obstetrician, and it's very, very graphic, folks. You see the babies coming out. It's crazy. But this maternity ward is totally understaffed and it's constant chaos. No exceptions. And the doctors have to juggle multiple deliveries because there is no like maternity ward that you book ahead of time, like we have in the US with ocean views. No, it's basically like going to an ER for having a baby. And they have these huge capacity issues. The UK only has 67 million people and they can barely birth the babies that they have. They also have lower obesity and chronic disease rates than we do. So if you think about that, we have 330 million people. Way higher obesity, way more diabetes, way more heart disease, way more health problems. There is absolutely no way universal health care can work. And this show totally proves my point. They say, oh, America needs to spend more. Well, guess what? We already spend more than any other country by like three times. Because spending doesn't counter unlimited demand. And universal care removes demand breaks entirely. And the government can't scale staffing fast enough and everything takes time. It's very, very scary. The other thing that it talks about that I love is that free care definitely is not available care. Okay, just because something's free doesn't mean it's available. And that's the biggest problem with the NHS, is that the patients are sitting there for hours. So they're never denied, they're just delayed. So imagine when you go to the ER and there's a three-hour wait. There are all these people there with getting colds that don't have health insurance. It's that times like 100,000. There's no beds available. And care decisions are completely shaped on space, not need. It's so crazy to watch. You have to check out this show. Universal Care doesn't eliminate rationing. All it does is it's hiding the rationing through wait times and staffing shortages. It's, I mean, it is unbearable to watch these women trying to give birth in these third world type hospitals. And for those of you who want to say that, you know, America already rations care by using pricing, but here's the thing pricing rationale is adjustable and it's visible. And we see that in elective versus non-elective procedures. But when the government rations, it's hidden and it's unavoidable. And so the delays cost serious detrimental outcomes and lots of money. And so the rationing doesn't disappear. Instead of being transparent about how much something is going to cost and having a choice based on cost, it's just hidden and becomes dishonest and removes choice. In this maternity ward that he works in in this hospital, and it's just a regular hospital, there's all sorts of catastrophic birth outcomes. Junior doctors are forced to make high-risk decisions all by themselves. And again, I made sure that all of this was accurate and not largely dramatized. And the only thing that I could find was that because of the short amount of time trying to get stuff in one episode, there are multiple cases back to back that would normally be more spread out. And that was about it. I mean, they literally treat the birthing centers the same way we process cattle for meat. And it is a huge systemic failure of administrators and bureaucrats trying to manage care while doctors and nurses are doing it with one hand tied behind the back. But if you think universal healthcare is a good idea and that UK and Canada are good examples of this, watch the show This Is Going to Hurt. And the real problem is that the little mistakes and near missage that would be huge malpractice complaints and lawsuits here are just normalized. Oh well, left some cotton in her. Oh well, left some scissors in her or whatever it would be. It just becomes completely normalized and then goes down a rat's nest. But the other thing that's so interesting to watch is that there's all these carve-outs so senior doctors can call themselves consultants instead of actual staff of the NHS and charge huge, huge fees to the NHS for their medical, you know, prestige and seniority, yet they barely show up, they make tons of money, and they put all the pressure on junior doctors that would basically be interns here. And so they carve out all these workarounds to keep lazy doctors rich who don't even really do much there. And then it totally deincentivizes the doctors to want to get better, work harder, and there's a huge burnout rate, tons of emotional collapse, and doctors exit medical jobs entirely at a rate at 3.5 times higher than the U.S. because of the structural problems. I mean, NHS doctors are essentially salaried federal government employees. That's all they are. And their pay is tied to tenure, not excellence. So if you are a life-saving, award-winning, you know, cardiothoracic surgeon, there's no reward for that. The only rewards you get is for staying longer and perpetuating this, I wouldn't say poor care, but standard or just about substandard level of care. This show was not intended to be a poor reflection on socialized or universal medicine. It's not. But there was no way you couldn't see that because doctors in the NHS experience burnout way more than doctors in other countries do. And it's a system that doesn't reward excellence, and so eventually excellence goes. I mean, this is the whole point of a private enterprise merit-based market system that we have, because equality is a myth. And even with equ equity and healthcare like they claim to have in the US, there are still huge gaps in care depending on income and class level. These consultant doctors, the senior doctors, they show up briefly, they just direct and point, they earn like 10 times more than the staff doctors do. They run their own private practices. How can you have private practices when healthcare is universal? And then they rely on all the junior doctors to do the frontline labor. They carry all the legal risk. And the reality is that these consultants just exploit the socialist system to stay wealthy and they have to do very, very little. At least the wealthiest doctors in this country, the ones that make the most money, it's tied to the lives they save and their merit and the procedures they do, the schooling they have, the training they have, the cutting-edge technology that they use. That is what determines how wealthy and how rich a doctor is in this country. In that country, it's based on seniority and then becoming a consultant. And then you start seeing the aftermath of this stuff as the characters develop. And what happens is how it always happens is that when there becomes high centralized power that is supposed to remove liability and take responsibility and liability and the stress of that away from the doctor, they actually end up just turning it the structural failure into individual errors, blaming the doctors. The doctors can't negotiate. And then politicians and bureaucrats make these decisions and they get rid of the doctors instead of fixing the structural systems. And that's why centralized power without accountability always fails. And the fact that people are calling for this in this country is absolutely sick. But you don't know how scary it is until you watch this show and you see babies being born in one of these NHS hospitals. It is child abuse. This country would be so much worse off with universal health care, with our larger population, sicker patients. We already have a higher expectation of the level of care. The litigation risks in this country are too high. It is absolutely sad. And that's why no one who would ever want to be a doctor in the UK. And really, who would ever want to go get medical care there, especially having a baby? I mean, so NHS barely functions in Britain. And now that I've watched this show, I am armed with the tools to break down exactly how and exactly why. There is no equity. There's tons of people getting rich off the socialist system without at the expense of the parents. So this is going to hurt, isn't anti-compassion, it's anti-illusion. That's what I loved about it. And universal healthcare doesn't eliminate suffering at all. It doesn't eliminate any suffering, it just redistributes it quietly and bureaucratically. That's it. We need government reform, but not a government monopoly on healthcare, because when healthcare becomes centralized, well, I don't have to tell you, just watch the show. All that happens is patients wait, doctors break down and leave, and everyone ends up paying the price. Not just at the front desk, but through their entire life. The system is a joke. And anyone who claims NHS style universal healthcare in this country would work is largely mistaken. Watch the show, folks. It's called This Is Going to Hurt. It's from 2022, and it just came out, available on Netflix. That's all I have left for today. Allow me to leave you with something Reagan once said. Thomas Jefferson once said we should never judge a president by his age, only by his works. And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying. And just to show you how youthful I am, I intend to campaign in all 13 states. That was the beauty of Ronald Reagan, is he never took this stuff too seriously, and neither can you and I, folks. Go watch. This is going to hurt. Enjoy your weekend. And as always, God bless you, President Reagan, and may God save America.