Lars Larson Northwest Podcast 2026-06-30

Hi in the 80s. Just quiet, ladies and gentlemen. You're ready for the big so? In exactly 15 seconds, we'll be on the air. Live! is the Lars Larson Show. President Trump has one badass president. He secured the border at the level we've never seen before. Honestly, provocative talk with Lars Larson. For our country and for our children, the best is yet to come. Broadcasting across the Pacific Northwest and covering Oregon, Washington, and Idaho on the Radio Northwest Network. And now, he is an existential threat to democracy. Here's your host. Quiet, please. Lurz Larson. Welcome back for the Lars Larson show. Well, the United States Supreme Court has decided the issue of birthright citizenship and the U.S. Supreme Court got it absolutely dead wrong. And it's going to do tremendous damage to the United States of America. And I'm going to tell you why. Because, number one, the Supreme Court's decision cannot be overridden by having Congress pass a law. It must be, if it's going to be overridden, it must be overridden by a constitutional amendment. Now, there are only 27 of those to get a 28th that would define birthright citizenship, what it is and what it is not. As I said, the Supreme Court got it wrong today. He's going to require a constitutional amendment. And what does that take? It means you've got to introduce legislation, have it passed by two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and then be ratified by three-quarters of America's states. 37 of them would have to ratify that. We're talking about something that is at least a decade away if you can make it happen. And so what did the Supreme Court's decision do? It effectively legalized birthright tourism. And this has been going on for decades now. Even the liberal media used to do stories about this. 60 Minutes did. The New York Times did. The LA Times did. And they documented the fact that there are whole businesses, many of them set up in Los Angeles. And why? Los Angeles and San Francisco. Because they're an easy hop across the Pacific Ocean from most of Asia. And there are wealthy people in Asia who want to have an American citizen child. And why? It's a great retirement. plan among other things and it may be your escape hatch if someday you decide you've got to get out of communist China or South Korea or some other awful place in Asia and that you want to come to the United States having an American citizen anchor baby Well, there are businesses that charge tens of thousands of dollars so that a pregnant woman may come to the United States, have her baby, and now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts, the Chief Justice, among others, plus the three usual liberal suspects on the court, thanks to them.

And he said those exclusions are proof as to why birthright citizenship cannot be conferred to children of illegal aliens. He said a person who is subject to any foreign power is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Samuel Alito got it right. And Brett Kavanaugh, who agreed with the majority's judgment, but dissented in part, he said the court should have dealt with the issue of citizenship on a narrower basis instead of involving protections brought about by the U.S. Constitution. And then you've got House Speaker my... Johnson who actually got interrupted during a press conference with the news of today's decision and he seemed particularly concerned about the birthright tourism that's been going on take a listen it's become a tourism birthing tourism they call it you know a trend where people would just come and you just come onto the soil and have your child and then they're they're able to avail themselves of the welfare state and everything else. It's been abused. It has been abused, and now thanks to John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett and the other three crazy liberal justices, it is going to continue to be abused. In fact, they can almost do it out in the open now. I suppose the only way to fix this, because it can't be fixed by an ordinary act of Congress, is going to be to say, you can't visit the country if you're pregnant, and we're going to strictly enforce the limits on visa. overstays. But then Samuel Alito suggested something really disturbing. I want to quote him directly. Suppose that a country is a strategic adversary or enemy of the United States. Suppose the child never visited the United States and was inculcated with a hatred of this country. According to this court, that person is a citizen of the United States. Even if he plots to harm this country, he cannot be deprived of his status as a citizen, at least under the current precedent. Samuel Alito was saying, in my judgment, the court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country's future. Suppose a person's only connection to this country is that he was born here to a mother who was present just long enough to give birth and quickly return to her native country. He said, you could literally be born in Guam. You could get American citizenship as a result of that. You could be raised as an enemy of the United States. And now, according to this court, he says, that person is a citizen of the United States. He can enter and leave the country as he leases. He can travel the world on a U.S. passport, and you can't deprive him of his status as a citizen. Absolutely outrageous. Back in a moment, you're listening to the Lars Larson Show and the Radio Northwest Network. American American American

If you don't want to talk but want to be heard, email Lars at Talk at Larslarson.com. He actually will read it. Now, here's Lars Larson. That makes a lot of sense, a lot of nonsense. Right, your body will write. You know he got a right to sit. This is the Northwest nonsense. How much longer do we have to sit for this nonsense? great moment every day where Lars brings you the cold, hard facts without any liberal wokeness from the daily dead fish wrapper or mainstream media bias. Well, today's other major Supreme Court ruling throws down a challenge to Oregon and Washington. Will those states actually stand up and defend the rights of young women? The majority of America's states legally protect girls and women from unfair competition against biological boys. Oregon and Washington... not only do not protect female athletes they actually protect the rights of so-called trans athletes to best them in sports and we've seen the result in track and field Fractions of a second usually determine the winner or the loser, but when biological males masquerading as girls and calling themselves trans jump on that track, they often set new records and finish literally dozens of seconds ahead of the real girls. In sports like swimming and volleyball, we've seen girls beaten badly and in some cases even suffer serious injuries. Well, today the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states are allowed to ban trans from girls' sports. 27 states, a majority, already do that. The decision marks the first time that the High Court has weighed in on the national fight over transgender athletes. Idaho was the first state to pass a law, and its statute was one of the two directly upheld. This decision was expected given how oral arguments went. For Washington State, the decision comes as voters are getting ready to decide initiative IL-26-638 this November, a measure that was... reserve girls sports for biological females only. Today, I'm sure you're going to hear a lot of reporters on television especially, bemoaning the fate of trans athletes as though they're the real victims. What they should be doing is demanding answers from politicians like governors and lawmakers. Are you going to stand up for girls or go politically correct to preserve your own miserable backsides? Plan to get your calls at 866. Hey, Lars, that's 866-439-277. Send your emails to talk at Larslarsen.com. Our question of the day, brought to you by Multlima Medical Clinic, no pills, no shots, no surgery, and get better fast. At Multlima Medical Clinic, Kevin writes, and Lars, for that killer in Idaho, the reports are now the defense costs were $8 million. That's for the public defender. The murderer puts up exactly zero in his own defense. Two questions. One is a potential poll question. Should there be a cap on the amount of legal fees for a public defender? The other is for your friendly former DA. Is it an outrageous charge for a public defender? All the best. Signed Kevin. And now today's Daily Grill. Insane. Are you come?

Ridiculous. They get more and more ridiculous. Flat out dumb. You're even Denver than I thought. Who deserves today's Lars Grill of the Day? Maybe they're just really, really stupid. Presented by Oregon City Garage Door. How to give today's daily grill to the city leaders of the city of Portland, consider this. Now that Portland's downtown business prospects have nearly died, just like Seattle, officials seem bound and determined to drive a stake. through the heart of the city. Portland officials are set about this week to do another round of increases in parking meter fee hikes. Three of the city's five parking meter districts will see rates rise by 20 cents, beginning Wednesday, hourly street parking, 3.20 an hour in downtown 280 in northwest Portland, and there are other areas of the city where it actually costs even more than that. The city will also tack on an extra five cents to each parking meter transaction. That raises a source. afforded fees and surcharges to as much as 65 cents on top of the hourly rate, which means that going to downtown Portland may cost you very close to $4 an hour to park your car. Send your best email to talk at laurslarsan.com. Elizabeth writes in, Lars... It's been nice, but now it's over. I called it months ago. I even knew it would be around the 4th of July. The Supreme Court of the U.S. just committed high treason. U.S. citizenship now just became an empty McDonald's wrapper blowing in the wind. Now comes the emboldened part. Please be safe, Lars. Nothing's going to stop him now. They're never going to deport the parents of an instant citizen. The only thing I predict is mass amnesty. I hope the Lord takes me soon. Be safe, love Elizabeth. Elizabeth, thanks so much. Send those emails to talk at laurslarsan.com. And I'm curious about the naysayer. David, welcome to the program. You know that we love naysayers on this program. What do you and I disagree about that makes you one? Yeah, so it's about the right citizenship that we've been talking about here. So the way I look at it is the 14th Amendment, it's pretty explicit about who is excluded. And, you know, I agree with you. There could be debate about who was supposed to be included when the, you know, slaves were freed. So that's, I agree with you on that. But however, it's so ambiguously stated that. You don't really, you know, it doesn't explicitly say that, you know, illegal aliens to be. Sure it does. You just haven't read it because do you know what the words of the 14th Amendment are? Hang on, hang on. Yeah, so the jurisdiction thereof. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, did you come in legally and were you in the country legally? Well, hang on. So if you're here illegally, can you be arrested? for being here illegally. So that means you're within the jurisdiction there is, right? No, it does not. No, it does not. Well, why not? Well, I'll give you an example that actually has to do with the 14th Amendment. Would you agree that Native Americans so-called American Indians are citizens of sovereign nations?

Yeah, sure. Okay. They are also American citizens, but they are citizens of sovereign nations, which is why they had to specifically cover them in dealing with the 14th Amendment, because otherwise the 14th Amendment would have said, you answer to a different government, therefore you're not a citizen, but Native Americans are in fact citizens. So you know from that, and the same thing is true of the children of diplomats. If a diplomat comes to the United States, If the 14th Amendment read the way you said it does, that that diplomat's child would not become an American citizen, which could create a real problem. Let's say the Chinese ambassador was here, and his pregnant wife came to stay with him while he served as ambassador to the United States. His wife bears a child, and we say that's an American citizen child. All of those things had to be answered for the 14th Amendment. Do you get that? That's true. Yeah, I understand that. The diplomats, they're explicitly excluded, right? It tells you right in the 14th Amendment. By that, but what was not included was people who simply come into the country illegally. That's why I said the U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong today, and we're going to rue this day. It will do so much damage to this country. You've got the Lars Larson Show. The Lars Larson Show.

Interviews, interviews, podcasts, local, and national news. Interviews, podcasts, local, and national news. Get it all at larsson.com. Now. Back to the Lars Larson Show. Welcome back to the Lars Larson Show. Well, after years of biological males having a place in girls' locker rooms to satisfy the trans crowd, the U.S. Supreme Court has just drawn the line? Has the damage already been done? And can we fix the damage that has been done? I thought we'd put that question first to John Schweppy, who is a senior policy advisor at the American Principles Project. John, my audience already knows how I feel about this subject, but I'd like to get... your take on it, given the Supreme Court's decision today about transgender representation. Well, it's a tremendous victory, Lars. And I'll just take you back 10 years ago. You know, we were in a completely different political situation where it really seemed like the trans movement was ascendant. You'll remember the North Carolina bathroom bill where you had Republicans basically in mass saying they didn't want to fight on this issue anymore. Ten years later, because of Donald Trump, because of the Supreme Court justices he appointed. We now have the ability to say no, no men in women's sports. And it's an amazing accomplishment for the folks who have worked on this. And also, you know, for justice, I think. Well, the only thing I wonder about John. is the Supreme Court specifically said states can outlaw transgender athletes, meaning biological boys competing against girls. The reverse is not so much a problem because when girls then identify as boys and want to run or compete in sports, they uniformly lose. But when boys or boys want to compete against girls as transgender girls or women, so called, they often do tremendously better. And this argument that somehow all the different have been erased by hormone treatment and things like that. Practical experience in watching Leah Thomas and others who've competed as biological males competing against females, it doesn't work out too well. But given that we've already got that situation, all the court said was a state can outlaw it. Do we then have to sit there and look at the 27 states that have outlawed it and the 23 that have not and wait for the other states to fall into line? Or is there a better solution than that? No, I certainly think the answer, and I actually, you know, my interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling, it was similar in Dobbs where, you know, they said the states, the people in their legislatures can prohibit abortion. That always meant Congress. And I think that also could mean Congress here. And so for Republicans going forward, you know, our priorities on this issue remain. We need to ban men and women's sports, codify it through Congress, get 60 votes in the Senate.

ban sex changes for kids. You know, all these things are still, I think, on the table politically. And Democrats continue to dedicate themselves to the trans movement. And so it remains a political vulnerability for them. This is something that John Thune, I mean, Speaker Johnson actually has taken these votes, but John Thune should be looking his lips at ahead of the 2026 elections. For some reason, he really hasn't been. I'm not sure I totally understand that. Do you have any idea what's wrong with that guy? Because I, for the life of me, do not understand why they don't forge ahead and pass, for example, the SAVE Act, especially given the Supreme Court's decision. You can have count ballots that come in up to weeks after the election, then all the more reason the pass safe. And yet John Thune can't seem to get it together. What's the problem there? No, I'm completely, we hear from our folks at American Principles Project all the time, their frustration with the Senate. And, you know, obviously we're talking about the Save America Act recently, but it just seems like there's just not much of an interest in politics. And my argument to folks like that is go get a different job, if that's the case, if you don't have an interest in playing politics, because we're trying to save the country from the Democrats. And the only way to do that is to hold these guys accountable. Unfortunately, you know, we haven't really seen the type of leadership from leader soon that we'd like to see. And I, you know, it's early in his tenure, but he's kind of kind of got to kick it into gear now, I think. And really certainly put Democrats up for tough votes. ahead of the elections. Well, is there any likelihood that you could see John Thune replaced by somebody who would actually be willing to say blow up the filibuster, which I hate the filibuster anyway. I'd love to see it gone, but John Thune's not going to get rid of it. He could, but, I mean, he could go to his members and say, look, let's get rid of the filibuster and let's get some things done. But I think a lot of his members say, now when we don't have to make tough calls, we're more likely to get reelected and we like having our job. Yeah, I really, you know, when he says that there's not the support to do that, I do believe him. Now, obviously, leadership sometimes is pushing people into uncomfortable situations to do the right thing to the American people. And I wish you would consider that a little bit more, especially on the Save America Act. But, you know, I think ultimately it's going to take aggressive maneuvering in primaries and getting to the point where, you know, we saw in Texas, right, John Cornyn losing his seat. Bill Cassidy losing his seat. You know, I think more, more action like that where grassroots conservatives are saying enough is enough. I think that's actually really helpful towards hopefully getting someone in there who's more like a, frankly, more like a Mike Lee who's willing to take these votes and to do the tough things. Well, let me ask you this. Is this a tactic? Because for the most part, John, I've avoided saying the kids. should have to pay the penalty. And for years on this subject, I've had people say, well, why don't the girls all say, we're going to sit out if we have to compete against a team with a biological boy? And I said, then you're making girls have to take a responsibility and the punishment for something that's being done to them by adults. It's the adult coaches, the sanctioning associations, and all that. Don't make the kids have to pay for the mistakes being made by adults. But at this point, with the Supreme Court's decision,

Should states like Idaho that have banned transgender in girls' sports just say, we're not going to compete in states that allow biological males on the teams to compete against our girls? It's dangerous, it's unfair, and we're just going to decline to do any of those competitions. Do you think that might get people off the dime? Yeah, I think it's on adults to protect women in their private spaces and, you know, protect these girls in private spaces, in sports. You know, the idea we had that volleyball player a couple of years ago who was, you know, hurting people. And so I think I think that's really what you have to do. But the idea that we should put this on 15-year-old, 16-year-old girls, that they should somehow be, you know, the adult. We're the adults, we're the ones who are passing laws, we're the ones who are supposed to be protecting them. I just think that's a little bit too much. Obviously, if a 16-year-old stands up for her rights, that's great and we should applaud her. But the idea that that's their responsibility, I think, is just, I think it's absurd, frankly large. I would love to hear some of the coaches in, say, Idaho, or some of the other states, the 27 states that have banned transgender participation in girls' sports and say, okay, we're just not going to play games out of state. We're going to play in the other states that actually have legitimate competition. And if you're allowing male ringers to be on your female teams, then we're not going to go along with that. John, thanks so much for what you do. We appreciate you coming on the show. That's John Shweppy, who's a senior policy advisor at the American Principles Project. Glad to get your calls at 866. Hey, Lars. And of course, I know I'm going to get some naysayers, but two major decisions today. The U.S. Supreme Court deciding that birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens is valid, and they are dead wrong about that. They've also decided, though, on a positive note, that boys cannot compete against biological girls just by calling themselves trans, and that's a great big victory right there. Back in a moment, you're listening to the Lars Lars Show. to Radio Northwest. Hey this.

If you're surrounded by Northwest liberals. I cannot stand these morons any longer. If you don't come with me a sense, I should run amok. Come to the place where common sense prevails, the Lars Larson Show. Hey, welcome back to the Lars Larson Show. It's an interesting day. We had a couple of major decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court. And this one seemed to be a story that fit in well with the decision about transgender athletes and especially protecting girls and women from having to compete against biological men. males. It's amazing. that there is a league being formed or that has been formed in the Tri-Cities area. So the, you know, Richland, Kennewick, and Pascoe, where women can play only against women. Imagine that. What a concept. Let's see. There are 100 men's teams in the Tri-Cities. Mary Reamer says a self-described soccer nut. So Reamers wanted to organize an outdoor women's league in Pascoe. She recruited people in the grocery store checkout lines and over social media. This is from O.P. She said, I see someone who's fit. I think, oh, do you play soccer? Soon, 100 women had signed up ranging from 16-year-olds to those in their 40s, semi-proes, former Division I athletes, and current and former high school players all compete together. But it is all women playing soccer against women. Dear calls now. If you want to join the best conversation and talk journalism, it's here every day at 866. Hey, Lars. That's 866-439-277. Send your emails to talk at Larslarsen.com. Our ex-pull question's kind of odd. Should Portland ban right turns at red lights for pedestrian safety? They're considering... making 200 of the city's intersections off limits for right turn on red. I would say no to that, but we can get back into the details of it later. Today's Expoil is found at Lars Larson Show and at Larslarson.com and brought to you by Ultimate Truck Services. Find them at Ultimate Truck Service.com. John is on the line. John, thanks for calling in. Thanks for listening on our flagship station, KXL. What's on your mind? Well, I'm kind of disappointed. I wanted to see LeBron James play in the WNBA. Wouldn't that be interesting? If they put a ringer in? Against Griner. Anyways, there is one sport, I think, women could compete in with men and want to get your opinion. What would that be? Target shooting. I think some women can shoot as good as guys. I think there are a lot of women who can shoot at least as well as guys. But that's a different kind of situation, isn't it, than most of the other sports, like sports that involve swimming or running or playing various kinds of games. Should we allow biological males to compete against females? Because right now...

Idaho has a law against it. The Supreme Court has upheld that law. Oregon and Washington have deliberately said, we are not going to have a law like that. So they're forcing girls and women to compete against biological males. And should we see some reporters out there asking questions of, say, Governor Kotech and Governor Ferguson, are you going to champion the cause of girls and women? Or are you going to leave the law the way it is now? Yeah, well, why don't they just put in a trans division? I can tell you why. And I wanted to comment, too, about the... that birthright citizenship. Okay, before you do that, the reason is that separate but equal has never been viewed as valid. It wasn't valid when it came to drinking fountains. It wasn't valid when it came to lunch counters or kids going to school saying, well, we've provided a school. It's not the same school. You have the black kids and the white kids going to different schools, but they're separate but equal. That has never been something that the courts were willing to accept. You either say... Are you saying that trans athletes aren't equal? No, I'm saying what I'm saying is that if you said we're going to create this special category for you that is outside of the competition that all the other athletes take part in, that would have been like saying we're not going to have, well, it would have been, to some extent, like in baseball they had what were called in the day, term of art of the day, the Negro leagues. And they said, we're going to have these leagues, but they are only for black Americans. Well, that's not legitimate to say. Because you are different, we are going to put you in this whole separate category, and you're not allowed to compete with the other athletes, I don't think that that would be accepted. What did you want to say about birthright tourism? Well, if you're a pregnant woman to get a visa or to visit, that you have to require the INS would require them have to go through counseling from Planned Parenthoods. Now, let's not even go there, but John, thank you very much. By the way, this segment of the Lars Larsen Show is brought you by E-Legacy. You've spent your whole life building your wealth. Don't leave it unprotected. Set up your kids for success by creating a customized estate plan with E-Legacy. I've done it myself, Tina and I did. Go to e-legacylars.com to set up a complimentary consultation. That's e-legacylars.com. Now, let me mention this. I've argued for quite some time that allowing these massive homeless camps or even smaller homeless camps in the Pacific Northwest is dangerous. It's dangerous for the people in the camps. It's dangerous for the people who live nearby to the camps. They are oftentimes the scene of crimes. They are oftentimes the scene of medical emergencies. They often feature situations in which children and their safety are put at risk.

Let me give you this most recent example. A child reported missing and endangered from Mesa, Arizona, reported missing in May. was found at the Olympia homeless camp. The U.S. Marshals discovered her, found her about 10 days ago. They got a notice from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that the girl was potentially a victim of sex trafficking in Washington state. So the investigation by a deputy in charge of missing children's cases in Western Washington brought them to the 3,200 block of Martin Way East. Now remember, Olympia is the capital city of the state of Washington, an area known as the jungle, a 20-acre homeless encampment known for high rates of violence and community safety concerns. U.S. marshals and officers from Washington State Department of Corrections canvassed the area last Friday, safely located the child, authorities turned her over. This child had been missing since May. and was only found when they were told, well, maybe she's in Washington State. I want to ask you something, do you think that if the authorities ever see a child living in a place called the jungle, living in a place with no permanent housing, no permanent toilets, no permanent facilities for being able to wash up or get clean or store food, wouldn't that automatically be a place that would be too dangerous to leave a child? Yeah, I would think so too. Except that's not the way the authorities in the Northwest handler. Back in a moment, glad to be with you. It's the Radio Northwest Network, and you're listening to The Lars Larson Show. The Lars Larson Show.

information you need when you want it. FM News 101. KXL is Portland's number one source for news and information. KXL FM, Portland, Vancouver, Salem. From ABC News, I'm Michelle Franzen. Before closing out its term, the Supreme Court issuing decisions for three remaining cases. It includes rejecting President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship under a 14th Amendment clause. Justices reaffirmed all people born in the U.S. or citizens. The Supreme Court also upheld state bans on transgender athletes in women's and girls' sports. Just as Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion says it's reasonable to have separate sports teams for boys and girls pointing to the enhanced... physical differences between the sexes. The court's holding is that states may ban transgender athletes from girls and women's sports, with Brett Kavanaugh citing the need to reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition. The three liberal justices on the court wrote separately to express their disagreement with the majority's opinion. ABC Stephen Portnoy. In Venezuela, search and rescue continues following last week's major earthquakes. Nearly 2,000 are confirmed dead. Officials say that number could soar into the tens of thousands. ABC's James Longman is in Venezuela. Teams from over 20 countries are working around the clock, dogs and drones, carefully navigating the collapsed to find them missing. Tell her to tuck our feet back in. In hard hit La Guerra, where nearly 200 buildings fully collapsed, a U.S. team rescued a 51-year-old woman trapped off. after a 10-hour effort. And in Carabayada, the rescue of a 21-year-old man who was buried under the rubble for 106 hours. We met the youngest survivor. Diana managed to keep her 18-day old son Juan David alive for 30 hours under the rubble. You have heard of inflation for everyday goods and feeling it, but discretionary spending also going up, especially for live events, now dubbed as funflation. Across the US, admission prices, including for con- Concerts, theater, and sports events are up 27% in the past five years, driven in part by factors like higher touring costs and more elaborate shows. ABC's Elizabeth Shulsey. You're listening to ABC News. Man, I love this place. I've been certain here since I was a kid. Now, seeing my grandson out on the water, it means everything to me. Watching him and taking in the blue waves, the sea breeze, the blurry horizon. If you have geographic atrophy or GA, subtle changes in vision could mean it's progressing toward irreversible vision loss. Iservey is proven to slow GAAP progression and could help preserve your vision for longer, so you may keep seeing the world around you. Iservey or a vasencaptid pegel is an eye injection. Don't take it if you have an infection or active swelling in or around your eye. Iserva can cause eye infection, retinal detachment, or increased risk of wet AMD. Iservey may cause blood in the white of the eye, blurred vision, or a temporary increase. increase in eye pressure. Do not drive or use machinery until vision has recovered after an eye injection or exam. Ask your retina specialist how you can slow your GA with ISERVE. To learn more, call 1-855 I-ZERVe or go to IZERVe.com, paid for by Estelleus Farn.

13 seconds will be on the air. This is the Lars Larson Show. President Trump has one badass president. He secured the border at the level we've never seen before. Honestly, provocative talk with Lars Larson. For our country and for our children, the best is yet. to come. Broadcasting across the Pacific Northwest and covering Oregon, Washington, and Idaho on the Radio Northwest Network. Lars and Knows. He is an existential threat to democracy. Here's your host. Quiet, please. Lars Larson. Hey, welcome back to the Lars Larson show. It's a pleasure to be with you. I'm glad to get to your phone calls and emails in a moment. At 866, hey, Lars. And if you're a nays hair, you go right to the head of the line at 866 439-277. Send your emails to talk at Larslarson.com. You can vote in our poll on X. We post a brand new poll question every day. This one, should Portland ban right turns at red lights for pedestrian safety? I would answer that one, no. I think there's a reason that we have an extraordinary number of accidents involving pedestrians in cars, and it's not because of right turn on red. But I do want to bring up a separate subject. A Portland City Council member who's now seeking re-election, and there are a dozen of these jokers, just got caught ducking almost $8,000 in past due property taxes after three separate notices. Can you trust a guy like that with an $8.5 billion city budget when he can't pay his own bills? I thought we'd put that to Jason Williams, who's highlighted this story, and I think he's right to do that. Founder of the Taxpayer Association of Oregon, you also find what he writes at Oregon Catalyst. Jason, welcome back. That's good to be here, yes. It just happened to be that one of the socialist candidates in the city of Portland was the one who didn't pay his property tax. And that's Mitch Green, right? Yes, yes. So he's one of the four socialists on the council. And he's also the guy who stood in front of a socialist rally with the banner above him that said, tax the rich. But apparently, I guess taxing the rich doesn't apply to himself. And he's also the guy that voted for the street fee, where that's the street fee that just put on your water bill there in Portland. And he's the guy also part of the few counselors that went to Europe. They spent $47,000 of taxpayer dollars going to Europe as a city councilor and going to car-free cities to learn how to have a car-free city. So this guy has spent a lot of money on the public dime. He has touted tax the rich, but he's not paying his own property taxes. And by the way, Portland City Commissioners or council members, they make pretty good money, don't they? Aren't they making around $10,000 a month, maybe more?

I think so. I think so. And he says he just didn't get the notice, but there were three notices that were sent to him. And he's not the only person. There was another... another mayorial candidate, Sarah in our own, who was a socialist who tried to run against Ted Wheeler, and she too got caught not paying her taxes. So there's something, I mean, the only people I could find of people not paying their taxes that are either candidates or in office are a socialist. I don't know what that means, large. It just seems like they would be in their heart. They want to pay as many taxes as possible, and yet, for some reason, they're not. Well, and in fact, his explanation saying he bought his house in 2023, three years ago, and then last summer... Just two years later, he refinanced his property for some reason. And by the way, if you bought it in 23 and then you refinanced it last year, it wasn't because the mortgage interest rates are lower. They aren't any lower at all. So I don't know why he'd be refinancing unless he was in money trouble. And he said he was under the impression that the property tax balance would be settled as part of closing. Well, ordinarily, if you buy a house and you have a mortgage on it, you pay your property taxes. every month with your you know with your mortgage payment unless you choose not to do it that way and the fact that you owed almost eight thousand bucks this guy doesn't sound like he does his own bills very well and that means i don't i don't very much trust him with eight and a half billion dollars in a city budget Yes, you're exactly right. And as I said, he got three notices sent to his home saying, you know, you had not paid. So this is a big deal. You know, socialists should be wanting to pay their property taxes and income taxes. And if they can't pay it, why should we be paying even more? We could use not an increase in taxes if just the people that are avoiding it are paying theirs. And one quick word about turning the red light. In my family, there's been a lot of friends that I've had in Portland. Their accidents have been because there are so many people walk in the streets of Portland intoxicated on drugs, homeless just wandering around. Sometimes they're on a bike. And when you're high on drugs and on a bike... There have been so many run-ins, and as they talk, Portland says, well, we've got to stop these accidents. Well, I'll tell you what, if you're not flood our streets with tweakers and meth heads and, like, zombie people walking around everywhere, you will reduce the pedestrian accident deaths. But these pedestrians are...

are high in Portland, and that's causing a lot of problems. So I just have to get that in. And I've got to tell you, when I've talked to the cops about pedestrian accidents to begin with, they said routinely, at least 50% of them are the fault of the pedestrian. I mean, as much as you have to decide who was at fault here, was it the person who was high walking across the street. So I think your explanation makes sense, and simply telling car drivers you can't turn right on red because the city has decided to allow the population of the drug addicted. and the alcohol addicted to be wandering around in the street makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. That is Jason Williams, the founder of the Taxpayer Association of Oregon. Would you trust an elected official who doesn't pay his own property taxes to manage taxpayer money? Let's go to Tom. Hey, Tom, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Well, I was under the impression, oh, thanks for taking my call. Sure. I was under the impression that Trump couldn't do the executive action, but the Constitution says immigration shall be determined by Congress. Am I wrong in my assumption that really nothing has changed except that if executive acted is off? Something did change, and here's why. Because up till now, Tom, what they've done with the 14th Amendment has been sort of a working definition. What does the 14th Amendment mean? And they have decided to grant citizenship on that basis. Now... The Supreme Court has said, you are not allowed to interrupt that. And that now that the court has found that when a baby is born in America, whether the parents were here legally or not, that baby is automatically an American citizen. How that changes things is it means the Congress can't fix it by just changing a law. Let me give you an example. Decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the states that were using the death penalty were doing it illegally. And so the states had to go back and rewrite the law so that they did it legally. In this case, the court has said, that baby, born to an illegal alien, is automatically a citizen. The only way to change that would be to have an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and it's probably at least a decade to be able to change the Constitution. It takes two-thirds vote in the House, two-thirds in the Senate, three-quarters of all the states ratifying it, and usually the process takes at least. years. So if you can't fix it by changing the law, in the case of the death penalty, all they had to do is rewrite the law and say this is the process by which we will achieve the death penalty. If you do it in this case, now that the Supreme Court has said the 14th Amendment automatically confers citizenship, even on the children of illegal aliens, you can't fix that with a law. can only be fixed by amending the Constitution, and that is a tall order. Back in a moment, you're listening to The Lars Larsson Show and the Radio Northwest Network. When I tell...

How taxes? What's seeing you, Robin Hood? So you think you're overtax? Overtaxed, overworked, and paid off with a knife of plough or a rope. Why, you speak treason? This is the Lars Larson Show. Hey, welcome back to the program. It's a pleasure to be with you. I'll be glad to get to your phone calls and emails in a moment. You know, the Supreme Court's decisions come down, usually the big ones, come down at the end of their term. Well, their term ends at the end of this week. And then they don't come back. until famously their first day is the first Monday in October. So what have they decided to do? Well, yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court said we will hear a case that involves a state law that keeps parents in the dark about their runaway kids. who are suffering from mental problems. I'll make you dig into the details of that in just a moment. First, welcome to the Lars Larson Show. If you want to join the best conversation and talk journalism, it's here every day at 866.6.6.6.439-277. Send your emails to talk at Larslarsen.com. And you can vote in our poll on X. We put up a brand new poll question every day. You can find it at Lars Larson Show and at Lars Larson.com. What did the Supreme Court decide to do? Well, let me tell you first, the process by which cases end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, it is complicated, and it usually does not leave the court hearing all that many cases. Thousands of cases are submitted to the court. They only take a very small number of those cases and agree to hear them. This is one of them. The Supreme Court announced yesterday it will consider the legality of a state law in Washington state to protect so-called runaway transgender youth that opponents say tramples on parental rights. I think it's a very easy case to make. Your child goes to school. and encounters a social worker, either at the school or a social worker who works for the state. Your child volunteers that he or she believes that they are actually of the opposite gender. And you would think, well, in that case, the school will certainly pick up the phone and reach out to mom and dad and tell them your child is troubled and you need to help your child, and we'll be glad to help you help your child. That's not what they do. Because a law was passed. And what it does, the law was passed just three years ago. And here's what it allows. So imagine the scenario. Your son, say in this case, your son goes to school, tells a teacher, I'm really troubled about my gender. The teacher says, well, have you see the school counselor or the school nurse, and you volunteer your difficulties with gender to them. And they say, we will make sure. that you are able to change your gender identity and we will keep it a secret from your parents. The law that was passed three years ago allows operators of emergency shelters to notify state authorities instead of parents when the children seek refuge. So your son or daughter, who's been counseled by strangers at school,

to change gender, change name, change their sexual identity, or gender identity, whichever one you prefer, and then says, but what can I do? I have to go home to my house. And they say, no, you don't. You can run away, and you'll be sheltered at one of these emergency shelters. Now, it used to be the law that the emergency shelters had to contact your parents and say, your child is here, your child is troubled. We need to help you care for your child. They passed a law that literally circumvents the parents. The court is going to take a look at guidelines for reuniting runaway youth with their families, and a law that allows children as young as 13, that's the number 13, to get outpatient treatment, meaning... some of the so-called gender affirming care, where they'll feed your son or daughter hormones to try to artificially change them as much as medicine can from boy to girl or girl to boy, and that you can do all of it without a parent or guardian's consent. That law is being challenged, and now the U.S. Supreme Court has said, we'll take it up. Now, if you say, well, when are we going to hear the result of that, if they hear it this fall after they begin their term, first Monday of October, they might hear it in October, November, December, January, whatever. They will likely hold back the decision on this one until the same time this year, or sorry, next year. So it would be somewhere in June or July of 2027. So you're not going to hear about it very soon. But in this case, there are parents who said, look, we're fighting with the state about knowing what's going on with our children. And they actually took this case to Stephen Miller, who's now the deputy chief of staff to President Donald Trump. And they said, we don't even know where our kid is. And they argued that the same goes for health care decisions that a child may be considered like obtaining so-called gender-affirming care. And what they want to establish, this is Jean Schar, who's the lead attorney for the parents who are fighting this, we're looking forward to establishing to the court's satisfaction that parents have legal standing to challenge laws like this one, laws that are designed to keep parents in the dark about their children's gender identity, about consideration of gender transition, and other subjects. The state law in question, the one that's going to be examined by the Supreme Court, requires parents to be notified within 72 hours, three days of their child's arrival at an emergency shelter unless, and here's the workaround, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. If there are signs of abuse or neglect, or the shelter staff can inform the state which would take the lead on reaching out to parents. they will be able to say why these parents are a bunch of rednecks, and they don't believe in this transgender stuff, and so we don't want to tell the parents where their kid is. Do you think that ever should be the case?

And they're saying the case, the court fight stems from Senate Bill 5599. And it expanded the list of reasons that a young person feels they could be, not are, but could be, subject to abuse or neglect. In other words, I want to transition from boy to girl, girl to boy. I'm afraid my parents won't like that. And because you fear what your parents' reaction might be. The state takes charge of a child and decides to keep the parents in the dark about where that child actually is. Does anybody think that that sounds right? I mean, the idea that somebody who's working as a bureaucrat, somebody is working at a public sector job, knows more about what is right for that child than the mother and the father of that child seems absolutely bizarre to me. And they're saying the lawsuit that they brought to challenge this law because it deprives certain parents, but not all parents, of their fundamental right under the Constitution to direct the care and the upbringing of their children. U.S. Supreme Court, as of yesterday, has agreed to hear that case. It'll be fascinating to see where they go with it, especially after today's big decisions. 866-439-277. Send your emails to talk at larsson.com. Vote in our poll on X. You'll find that at Lars Larson Show. And you're listening to the Radio Northwest Network.

The Lars Larson Show. Have something to say? Have something to say? Give Lars a call at 866 Hey Lars. That's 866. Hey Lars. Now, back to the Lars Larsson show. Hey, welcome back to the Lars Larson Show and the Radio Northwest Network where we endeavor to serve the Pacific Northwest States, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho with honestly provocative talk. And if you want to join the conversation, it's 866. Hey, Lars. That's 866 439-277. Send your emails to talk at Larslarsan.com. Let's go to George. George, who's a naysayer. George, we love naysayers on this program. What do you and I disagree about that makes you want? The 14th Amendment, I think the way the law was written, it includes the children of illegal aliens that citizens of the United States because they are both born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction. jurisdiction thereof. If the writers of the Constitution didn't want it to apply to all citizens born in the United States, it would have limited to the children of slaves, but it was not written as an exception to the children of slaves. It was written for all citizens. Then why did they put in the phrase and subject to... In other words, George... Think about it this way. When lawyers or people who write laws, write laws, they don't put in extra words just because, I don't know, you get paid more for putting more words in. Why didn't they just say any person born on American soil is an American citizen? Wouldn't that have been the simple way to say it? Well, in the case of diplomats, they are not citizens. Oh, but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, they had to go back and correct that for diplomats. They also had to correct it for Native Americans because they had inadvertently left Native Americans out. and they meant to include them, even though Native Americans do have their own allegiance to their own separate sovereign nations within the United States. So I don't think that answer works, does it? But if it was written specifically for the children of race, I think it would have been written as a lot specifically for the children's race. Okay, you can think that all you want. Can you find that anywhere in... the discussions that came about when they passed the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

I don't know the way the world went, but I can tell you what the way the law was written, the way the law was written, it includes the children of illegal aliens. Really? Where does it say illegal aliens in there? Where does it say even foreign nationals who've come into the country illegally are covered by this? Because if you're saying that you have to see it written in there, tell me where you're reading illegal alien between the lines. Look, it doesn't say the four citizens were born. It says all citizens born, all persons born in the United. And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That's the part everybody wants to leave out. Let me go to Daniel. Hey, Daniel, welcome to the Lars Larson Show and the Radio Northwest Network. What's on your mind? So I'm a Washington resident, so I'm very, very happy that the Supreme Court is going to hear this case in regards to the secrecy that is basically allowed school to basically have. So the whole thing is that, like, if this was really, if care for the student was actually the big motivator, then just like if anybody else. If anybody's household with their parents has anything questionable happening to the safety and well-being of the child, CPS gets involved. Yep. And so that's what gets happened. If somebody sees something questionable in my house, something called CPS, somebody shows up in my door. And that just is what it is. But now, instead of just that normal procedure that's been around and everybody has accepted that that is appropriate. They've given this subversive bypass to all of that because it's specifically for this, quote-unquote, gender-affirming nonsense. And so that's this weird exclusion that is nothing more than a power grab. And it's just a huge cesspool of what happens is that now, because now they're feeding off of the fear of what these children may be experiencing. and the turmoil that they're already experiencing, because if that's been called in the question, then these individuals definitely need help. But now the people that could be and should be, and 98.5% of the time are the best caretakers for them being their parents, are not taken out of the process. And by the way, Daniel, think about the other things that parents routinely decide. It sounds like you have kids, right? Yes, sir. I've got adult stepkids. Now, if you're, and I don't want to get too personal with you, but let's say your 15-year-old daughter comes home and says, Dad, I'm going to go spend the night at my boyfriend's house. And you said, no, you are not allowed to spend your night to spend the night at your boyfriend's house. And now, that's something she says she wants to do. She thinks she's old enough to decide to do that. You know she's not old enough to decide to do that. And you don't see the school saying, well, if the girl wants to spend the night with her boyfriend, she should be able to do that. But all of a sudden on this one issue, as you've identified, if it has to do with transgender, then all of a sudden the schools say, well, we're going to defend the right of the girl to make adult-level decisions about gender, about gender affirming care, so-called, about mutilation.

and taking dangerous drugs, hormones and such, and having parts of your body cut off, well, she can decide to do that. We don't let kids decide a whole bunch of things. We don't let them decide alcohol, cigarettes, sleeping around, or any of the rest of that. But all of a sudden, when it comes to trans, the kid has the right to decide. And Daniel, you're right, and I'm glad the Supreme Court's going to take it up as well. Let's go to Kevin. Hey, Kevin, welcome to the Radio Northwest Network. What's on your mind? Hey, Lars, I would like to talk about the Supreme Court anchor baby decision today. Sure. I am the child of two immigrants, legal immigrants, and I am absolutely apoplectic about this. I could not be angrier, okay? Amy Coney Barrett and Judge John Roberts intentionally misread the what will. 1860s when they wrote this law. Okay, John Roberts illegally adopted his children from Ireland and laundered them through Spain, so he's a CIA asset. And Amy Coney Barrett is an attention-seeking academic, and both of them just wrecked America today by purposefully misreading 170-year-old text. so they can get paths on the back when they go to their restaurants in Washington, D.C. Yep. And do you know what, Kevin? Do you know the only way to immediately deal with this? Keep our borders sealed up tight and become very tough with every kind of visa. And we need to start asking. They do ask to some extent now. If a woman wants to come and visit the United States and she is pregnant at all, she may be turned down for that visa and told, we cannot afford to let you come here because your child will automatically become an American, and we're not going to allow that. You watch that happen. It's the only rational way to deal with this right now. Until and unless we get a... The Lars Larson Show.

information you need when you want it. FM News 101 KXL is Portland's number one source for news and information. KXL FM, Portland, Vancouver, Salem. From ABC News. Davis, anchor Prime streaming weeknights on ABC News Live. Before closing out the current term, the Supreme Court issued decisions on remaining cases in one of the biggest justices blocked President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. ABC News legal contributor James Sample says it reaffirms people born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment. This is a ruling that was an issue that was never a close question. Every single court that looked at this executive order said it was unconstitutional. Today's ruling is not. just a victory for birthright citizenship. It's a victory for the principle that you cannot rewrite the 14th Amendment with a stroke of an executive pen. In another closely watched case, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on trans athletes from playing in women and girls sports. Here's ABC's Devon Dwyer. 29 states that have similar laws as West Virginia will continue to stand. And I will note that 21 states don't have bans on transgender athletes. Those are unaffected by this decision, but certainly a blow to that transgender community. and student athletes on this last day of Pride Month. Indirect talks to finalize a peace deal between U.S. and Iran took place in Qatar today. U.S. delegates met with mediators, but not with Iranian officials. Following last week's back-to-back earthquakes in Venezuela, officials say the death tolls risen with nearly 2,000 confirmed deaths. ABC's James Longman is in Venezuela. The devastation is near absolute. Either every building completely demolished or very badly damaged. Rescue crews are still picking through the rubble. There is hope here that maybe, possibly survivors might be found. A real danger, though, of unstable buildings coming down on these ongoing rescue operations, but increasingly now with more bodies being pulled out. This is a recovery operation. ESPN confirms that LeBron James told the L.A. Lakers, he will continue his career, but elsewhere where he lands is still undecided. You're listening to ABC News. Man, I love this place. I've been certainly here since I was a kid. Now, seeing my grandson out on the water, it means everything to me. Watching him and taking in the blue waves, the sea breeze, the... Blurry horizon? If you have geographic atrophy or GA, subtle changes in vision could mean it's progressing toward irreversible vision loss. Iservey is proven to slow GAE progression and could help preserve your vision for longer, so you may keep seeing the world around you. Iservey or a vasencaptid pegel is an eye injection. Don't take it if you have an infection or active swelling in or around your eye. Iserva can cause eye infection, retinal detachment, or increased risk of wet AMD. IZERVe may cause blood in the white of the eye, blurred vision, or a temporary increase in eye pressure. Do not drive or use machinery until vision has recovered after an eye injection or exam. Ask your retina specialist how you can slow your GA with eyesurvey. To learn more, call 1-855 I-Rvey or go to IZERVe.com, paid for by Estella.

At the case. Ready for the bit so? In exactly 15 seconds, we'll be on the air. is the Lars Larson Show. President Trump is one badass president. He's secured the border at the level we've never seen before. Honestly, provocative talk with Lars Larson. For our country and for our children, the best is yet to come. Broadcasting across the Pacific Northwest and covering Oregon, Washington, and Idaho on the Radio Northwest Network. And now. He is an existential threat to democracy. Here's your host. Quiet, please. Lars Larson. Hey, welcome back to Lars Larson show. It's a pleasure to be with you on a Tuesday. Always glad to get your calls at 866.6.6.6.439.527. Send your emails to talk at Lars Larson.com. Washington State's Attorney General. And I don't think much of him. He has given one requester. unredacted public records, but another person who asked for the same records got them with very heavy redactions. Is government transparency becoming somewhat selective? I thought we'd check in with T.J. Martinell, who's an author, writer, award-winning reporter from the Seattle area. You can find his work at the Center Square. T.J., welcome back. Yeah, thanks for him back on. Would you mind telling my audience why these records from Nick Brown's office are so very important in describing what the role of the Attorney General was in the, I guess, recently passed so-called millionaires tax? Yeah, so there's a couple things going on with these records that I got unredacted, and we're not entirely sure how I got them unredacted initially, but the Attorney General's office was actively involved in writing the bill, and not just writing the bill so that it would pass legal scrutiny, but that deliberately to trigger a lawsuit so that it would have the state Supreme Court overturn. basically 100 years of legal precedent that makes a progressive income tax in Washington State illegal. And so this is very different from a lawmaker going to the Attorney General's office and saying, hey, I want to introduce your response to this bill. Can you give me a memo, you know, going into detail about the legal problems that might actually come out. And wouldn't that be sensible if every single piece of legislation actually got vetted a little bit, and lawmakers could then say, well, we should probably pass it a different way to make sure it's done right. In this case, they were actually looking for a way to trigger the lawsuit, right?

Yeah, and the Attorney General's office was giving them feedback like, oh, don't call it an excise tax, remove this marriage penalty. Don't make it clean so that there's nothing else that they could possibly use as an excuse to overturn the income tax on for another reason. And that's, so this is what was going on with the, and the other thing to add is that the Senate and the House have their own attorneys. So one thing that they have yet to answer, uh, or, or respond to is questions of why didn't, why didn't, um, the senator, the bill sponsor consult with the Senate attorney. instead of going to the Attorney General's office, to discuss this. And again, they're discussing how to overturn, they're discussing a political strategy to overturn a hundred years almost of state Supreme Court rulings, because it wasn't just one. There was a whole bunch of other ones where they, and every single one of them came to the same conclusion. And so they're, that's really the significance of the records that I obtained. Well, is it possible that the reason they went? to the attorney general instead of their own special attorney that is assigned, you know, both the House of the Senate. Did they do it that way because they thought it would be less transparent or less visible to the public if they went to the AG instead of going to the House or Senate attorney? I mean, yeah. That's a good question. I think it's more of the fact that the Attorney General's office is a partisan position. It's an elected position. And the attorneys for the legislature, they're just, they're not elected. They're just hired. And so they may have, there may, this is all speculation. But what I'm wondering is that the attorneys would have just said, look. I'm not comfortable with helping you overturn legal president in that regard. You know, if it gets, and again, if the Attorney General's office is defending a bill that's been passed by the state legislature, that's one thing. But, and then defending it in the way that would cause legal president to be overturned. But when you're actively helping lawmakers. figure out legal strategies for how to trigger a lawsuit that can only result in one or two very specific court decisions. That's another thing. And also keep in mind These are all, it's all tax, they're all funded by taxpayers, and it would result in the legalization of progressive income tax, which Washington State residents have rejected since the 1930s. Hey, what did we, tell my audience in a thumbnail, what did we learn from the under-redacted records? I mean, I assume they were released inadvertently, and it was done by error because you have, you know, government employees who...

who don't necessarily do the best job in the world, so they accidentally released it unless you can think of a motivation for them to do it. But what did we actually learn about by getting all that unredacted info? I mean, I think the level of involvement and collaboration that was going on between the bill sponsors and the members of the Attorney General's office, And so, you know, this is, we've had previous members of the state Supreme Court and a former Attorney General, Rob McKenna, call out this collaboration and saying that it was not something that they would have done. So. You know, is there anything unethical about it? That's, you know, one could debate that. I wouldn't say anything illegal. But it's just a question of, is this what the... The other thing is the Attorney General is there to represent not just the legislature, but the people of Washington State and to protect the Constitution. And so are they doing that? Are they representing... the people of Washington who have repeatedly said that they don't want a progressive income tax or an income tax in the state, are they representing them as well? And is this an appropriate use of taxpayer money? Couldn't agree with you more. And by the way, T.J., I would love it if we got a lawmaker. You know, I mean, as a reporter, I've been involved in trying to get a piece of legislation and that it dealt with public records. You know, I'd like to do, I'd like to zero out the attorney-client privilege when it has to do with state bureaucracies. I mean, it's one thing if you, T.J. Martinel, go hire an attorney. Say, T.J. has a right to have privacy between him and his attorney. I have the right to have that. But if you're a state lawmaker... working on behalf of the people and you're going to an attorney general or to a senator house attorney who's working for the people and drawing a public paycheck there is no reason to have attorney client privilege there i would love to see a law that would say attorney client privilege is erased anytime it involves state bureaucracies, state attorneys, and state representatives. You don't get attorney-client privilege in that case. And I'd love to see what would happen if they introduced that bill. What kind of argument could they make against erasing attorney-client privilege? Because it's always floored me. You go to the people's representatives and say, I'd like to see that attorney opinion that you got. And they say, I can't see it. Attorney-client privilege. I said... You're being paid by the public. The attorney's being paid by the public. You're talking about the public's business. How dare you cut the people who are paying the bill and affected by the law out of the entire process? That is T.J. Martinell. You can find his great stories at thecenter square.com. T.J., it's always a pleasure to have you on the program.

If you want to join, the best conversation in talk journalism happens right here every day at 866. Hey, Lars. That's 866-439-277. Send your emails to talk at Larslarsen.com. Vote in our poll on X. You'll find the question every day at Lars Larson Show and at at Lars Larson.com. Coming up in just a moment, Oregon's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Office, you know, D-E-I. It just cost taxpayers another two-thirds of a million dollars to buy another golden parachute. We'll get into that, and your phone calls and emails coming up next. American. Disagree with Lars? Great. Maysayers go first at 866. Hey, Lars. No. Back to the Lars Larson Show. Hey, welcome back to the Lars Larson Show. So Oregon's DEI office just cost taxpayers another two-thirds of a million dollars. Imagine that. $630,000 that's going to buy a big, fat golden parachute for a young lady, Leanne Johnson, who left the Oregon Health Authority. She was the DEI person, the person in charge of their diversity, equity, inclusion office. And one of the things I think is just the dumbest about this. I don't know if she was doing a good job or not. There are various stories. One was that she was fired because there had been concerns about workplace discrimination. There were other concerns about whether or not she was doing her job well. She was put off the job for a period of time, and she is getting back pay for all of this. I guess the general concern I've got. is that there are an awful lot of public sector jobs in both Oregon and Washington where they hire people to do the jobs and if the people do the jobs well they get paid the regular amount of money if they do the job badly and they're let go then they sometimes make even more money than they did if they did a good job now talk about a perverse set of incentives to say Gee, maybe I should get myself fired early, and then I'll get a year's worth of severance pay for taking on that job. In any case, I'll tell you details on that. And we've got some emails as well that I want to share with you. If you want to join the best conversation in talk journalism, it's here every day at 866. Hey, Lars. That's 866-439-277. Send your emails to talk at Larslarsen.com. And this segment of the Lars Lars-Larsen show is brought to you by e-legacy. You've spent your whole life building your wealth. Don't leave it unprotected. Set your kids up for success by creating a customized estate plan with e-legacy.

Do this. Go to e Legacy Lars, one word, elegacylars.com, and set up a complimentary consultation. Believe me, Tina and I have used E Legacy, and we began using them years ago before they ever came on the show, but I'm glad to have them as one of the sponsors of the Lars Larsson show today. They did a great job for us back when they weren't an advertiser. So the ex-pole question today, should Portland ban right turns at red lights for pedestrian safety? Portland is considering banning drivers from turning right at a red light for over 200 intersections. They say the ban is designed to reduce pedestrian accidents. And it comes at a time when the city is enacting traffic so-called calming policies to slow vehicles down. Many streets are being repaved for buses and bikes only. That creates traffic jams. They're not building any new freeways. Many streets are losing lanes to things like bioswales. It creates even more traffic. And now they're going to slow things down some more and say you can't turn right on red at 200 intersections. Does that make sense? My answer to that is no. It doesn't make any sense. The X poll today can be found at Lars Larson Show and at Lars Larson.com and brought to you by Ultimate Truck Services. If you rely on trucks for business, Ultimate keeps your biggest assets on the road and running right. Find them at Ultimate Truck Service.com. Two major U.S. Supreme Court decisions. today that we've talked about a fair amount. One of them has to do with birthright citizenship and crazy, the Supreme Court Chief Justice, joined in by Amy Coney Barrett, decided that they were going to, they were going to uphold the idea of birthright citizenship, even for people who are illegally in America. This is going to be a wide open invitation for birthright citizenship and birthright tourism. It is an extraordinarily bad idea. Oh, and then yesterday's ex poll read this way. Should an HOA, a homeowners association, be allowed to find you for flying the flag on America's 250th birthday? It's happening in some place in America. 98% of you join me in a no vote. Only 2% of you voted yes. Let's go to Jeff in Bend, listening on KBND and the Radio Northwest Network. Hey, Jeff, welcome to the program. What's on your mind? Hey, I was just curious, Lars. So, you know, if you are a big company and you hire somebody to be in charge of DEI, right, then aren't you by default then saying that you're engaged in racist practices? Yes. By default, you should be hiring everyone and treating everyone as an equal, right? So if you have to hire somebody to specifically include certain groups of people, then you are by default saying you don't do that already. And then on top of that, you hire a DEI policy person whose job it is to discriminate. So.

Because you're now saying, no, you can't just hire people based on their merits because we've got to check boxes. So it's twofold, it's like a double whammy. Like you're saying you're a racist or you're, you know, maybe not a racist, but you're not hiring. No, no, definitely a racist. Because Jeff, any time you say we want more diversity, they generally mean skin color, what's between your legs. and what kind of sex you like, whether it's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or whatever. So it's usually those three categories when they talk about DEI. So if you say, well, what does that actually mean in practice? It means that instead of hiring somebody based on their skills and abilities to do the job you're hiring for, whether it's a truck driver, whether it's an architect, you're going to hire them based on those other characteristics. And you're right. It's illegal to do that, Jeff. I'm not the most politically correct or woke person you're ever going to find. But if I told my producers, hey, the next time I hire a producer, I'm going to do what Joe Biden did. I'm going to hire a person of color, and I'm going to hire a female. I would be breaking the law. I would get sued. The person suing me would win, and there'd be a lot of money. They would have to be paid because I'd be saying I'm going to hire somebody not based on what they can do. but based on their personal characteristics like skin color, gender, and sexual preference. So you're right, it's illegal to do that. And here's the state of Oregon saying, we're going to hire somebody who's going to be in charge of forcing us to do things based on skin color, sexual preference, and gender. And you're right. It's absolutely ridiculous that they would hire the person to begin with. And then... When it turns out she's not doing a very good job, I don't think anybody's that confused. Think about it this way. You've got a Supreme Court justice in Catenji Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was a DEI hire. Joe Biden said he was going to choose one who's female and a person of color. How'd that work out? And when it came to Kamala Harris, what kind of vice president do you think Kamala Harris ranks as? The word. She's very bright? No, she's clearly a DEI hire. I mean, look, look, I have a hard time listening to anyone tell me anything that voted for Kamala Harris. Because you voted for Kamala Harris. It's like the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. Exactly right. That is Jeff. Jeff, thanks very much. Appreciate the call. Back in a moment. Glad to get your calls. In a moment, California just slapped another fee on Napa's struggling vineyards is your favorite wine next on the chop. The Lars Larson Show.

Larslerson.com. That's talk at larslarsen.com. Now, back. I'm not a big wine drinker, but I know the wine business is a big business in many parts of America. In fact, I would argue that a lot of the wines that are made in America do a lot better than the fancy ones that come out of places like France. But California, one of those states that is famous or infamous for having its big vineyards and producing a lot of wine is now out, I guess, trying to put the wine vineyards out of business altogether. I thought we get the straight story on that from Richie Greenberg. who's a columnist for the California Post, a political commentator, and a previous candidate for San Francisco mayor. Ms. Greenberg, welcome to the program. Hey, Lars, thank you so much for having me on. It's a pleasure to be here. So tell me why California wants to slap more fees on vineyards that are already having a tough time. Yeah, it's an interesting question because it's actually an interesting dynamic between the three different parties. You've got the state, the state regulators, you've got the county of Napa, and then you have the growers, the growers who are growing the grapes themselves and producing the wine. So you have this fight, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, the, uh, and, uh, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and,

Then you have the state that wants to impose, starting back a little over 10, 12 years ago or so, with mandates that control groundwater. And then you have the county in Napa that wants to be in the middle and is afraid of state takeover if the wineries and the vineyards are not in compliance with monitoring. So it's a little complicated chess game. It's not just so simply saying one or one thing or another. And that's the dynamic. That's the problem here where the county of Napa that is fearful of having Sacramento intervene in forcing groundwater usage. And I'm just going on a limb here because I don't know about Oregon's. production is but you would think that anywhere around the country that has the potential for a you know over usage of water potential for droughts and the need for conservation that there needs to be some control somewhere and and that's what we're seeing here with this the situation now I guess what I wonder about is is you'd think the marketplace alone would be enough to get people to conserve. The same reason that I'm constantly told that farmers use too much of pesticides. All the farmers that I know say that stuff costs a lot of money. We don't waste a drop of it, and we don't buy any more than we have to. So when I see that Napa is saying, well, we have to charge you a fee of $99 for every irrigated acre of land that you're growing grapes on. that charging people more for the water or charging this special fee of 99 bucks an acre is somehow going to solve the groundwater problem. It sounds like all it's going to do is add cost to the grapes that are produced. And what, about half the wineries in California are already having trouble just making a bottom line? This sounds like it'll put a bunch of them out of business. Yeah, exactly. And the thing is that there have been hearings. In Napa and elsewhere, they bring in the owners and management of these different wineries and producers saying that, in fact, it's as if you don't know, I'm talking to the legislators, right? It's like you don't know how the wine production and growers actually work, because you cannot. over water the ground because that would actually be detrimental to the growth of the grapes. So that's what's really strange about this. It's like they're being blamed for something that is really not actually happening. You know, it's funny, Richie, because about a decade ago, my wife and I tried to grow, you know, a few hundred wine grapes on a piece of property. And, of course, I live in the Northwest. So we didn't have very good luck because California grows like 10 tons an acre. And the Pacific Northwest is more like two tons an acre. But still, it was kind of fun as an experiment. But one of the things I heard from people who grew grapes was because I talked to them and I say, how do you make great grapes? And they said,

Make them think they're trying to kill you. And you said, what do you mean? You say starve them, you know, just shortchange them on water. I mean, make them think they're dying. It causes them to produce the best fruit. And I said, okay, you know, torture the grapes as much as you can. So when you made that comment about irrigating them, yeah, the folks who are growing really great grapes, understand, you don't give them a lot of water, you starve them, or whatever the hydro equivalent of starvation is. Can conserve possibly. But yeah, this is just such a, it's an interesting, an interesting take on how you'd have government intervention and trying to find ways to extract money one way or another and blame and pointing the fingers. As if the, these growers don't have. enough regulation and enough compliance and regulation and fees that they're already dealing with that make it unsustainable. I keep hearing and reading more and more online about these growers that are probably going to have to fold their business after decades and decades of family business. And it's just, you know, it's another. another nail in the coffin of California industry, like the petroleum production. Let me ask you, since it's a political year this year, Richie, because Richard, you ran for San Francisco mayor. If Steve Hilton becomes the governor of California after the November election, do you suppose things might change in the direction they're going? Oh, absolutely. We're going to see a seismic, a tidal wave of... of change here if he and you know, fingers crossed that we do hope that somehow he does get elected because then he can change the course. We have Gavin Newsom, who has been such a tyrant and just absolutely detrimental to the state of California on so many levels. And I'd be happy to come back on and speak to you in the future about... I know we're going to be talking about Gavin Newsom down the line, Richie, because, you know, I mean, Gavin Newsom has been very good for the Gavin Newsom family. He's figured out how to channel lots and lots of tax dollars. through his wife's charity and through his wife's non-government organization, straight to the Gavin Newsom bank account. So I'm sure we're going to have you back to talk about that. That's Richie Greenberg. Richie is a columnist for the California Post, a political commentator, and previous candidate for mayor in the city of San Francisco. Glad to be with you on a Tuesday. Always glad to take your calls at 866. Hey, Lars. That's 866-439-2-77. Send your emails to talk at Larslarson.com. And you're listening to the Radio Northwest now.

Hey, you... with Lars Larson. Hey, welcome back to the Lars Larson show. It's Tuesday. It's the Radio Northwest Network. We serve the Pacific Northwest States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho with honestly provocative talk. And your calls are welcome at 866. Hey, Lars, that's 866-439-277. Let's go first to Ron in Tacoma, listening on the network and on KVI. What's on your mind? Well, I'm just... I want to touch base with you on the wines from the wines from California. Before they start weighing in on anything, Lars, maybe it would be a good idea to maybe work on their quality, like maybe get the pesticides out of their products, because that seems to be a big deal in California wine. Well, tell me this, though, when you say the pesticides out of their products, how would you suggest if people are growing wine grapes, as I have already admitted, I was a failure at trying even a small number of wine grapes, but how do you keep the bugs? and the other problems off your wine grapes if you don't use pesticides. You know, I'm not in the wine business, but I know it shouldn't. It would seem to me that before you start making any sort of other rules, you might want to work on that first as all. Well, is it actually a problem, though? Because, Ron, we've got regulatory agencies. We have the EPA that's decided, and whether they're right or wrong, we can argue about that. But if the APA takes a look at all the pest sides, all the herbicides that are sold commercially, both for home use and for use by farmers. then they're deciding whether or not the product can even be used, and there are lots of pesticides and herbicides that are not allowed to be used or sold in the United States at all. And then after that, you have state and federal agencies that will regulate how much of that stuff ends up on the crop and how much of it ends up in the final product. Are those protections not enough? And if so, tell me how you know that. Well, I don't know that that's enough. You know, I can't go to the negative or the positive on this. I just know that it is an ongoing issue. Well, for example, no, but where is it an ongoing issue? Because there are activists out there that are constantly harping on it. Because I'll tell you what, every subject under the sun has activists harping on it.

Global warming has activists harping on it. Oil has activists harping on it. I mean, everything under the sun, there's somebody out there whose ox is getting gourd, and they're unhappy about it. But does that actually mean there's a problem there? When you go in and buy fruits and vegetables, and I assume you do occasionally buy fruits and vegetables at the store, are you confident that they're safe? I am. I mean, you take them home and wash them anyway, but... Are you confident they're not safe? And if so, what tells you they're not safe? I'd just like to know what you're using. Are you actually using information? Or are you just pulling it out of I read it on the Internet, which is really not a good source of proof? Well, it's, you know, usually it's a good source if it's a reputable agency. But I'm not, I have no action going either way. It just seems to me that... Nobody wants to fix any of the problems. They just want to complain. Well, hold on. What is the, but you've got to identify that there is a problem to begin with. Is there a problem with pesticides or herbicides being found on, say, wine grapes that find their way into the final product? And if so, where did you get that information? I'd like to know. I got the information off the internet, and it's very concerning when you read it. Some guy on the internet said it. Are you telling me you actually make serious decisions about your life based on some guy on the internet said it? I don't even expect people to trust me that much. Well, no, but I don't even, as I said, I don't, I expect everybody to hear what I say, understand the logic I use to get there, and then go out and double check it for themselves, which is why, Ron, I cite my sources on almost everything we talk about. I'll say, I got this out of this source, or I got this from this newspaper, or that broadcast. I tell you where I'm getting the information. I understand that, but. I, as a person on your show, I get drowned out from that because you get to do that. You have all day on the radio. I have maybe three to five seconds to maybe two minutes depending on how lucky I am on my time. Well, except all I'm asking you is when you see somebody on the Internet saying, hey, there's dangerous stuff on the grapes. All I'd like to know is where did you get it and why did you believe it? I mean, do you believe? I read it repeatedly and I've seen it on some newscast. I don't buy California wine, so I practice what I preach. And let me ask you something. Do you think if we actually looked at how they produce wine grapes in California and how they produce wine grapes in Oregon? and Washington, do you think there's a dime's worth of difference in the kinds of products, kinds of pesticides and herbicides they use in the three states? I'm willing to bet they are virtually identical. They could be, but I just... Except you're afraid of California grapes, but you're not afraid of Oregon or Washington grapes, right? No, I didn't say that.

I don't buy Washington wine either. So, you know, I have my sources where I buy wine. So it's it. Where's it coming from, China? Where they're not China. There's other countries besides China that has wines. Okay. Fair enough. I just, I just find it funny because I wonder what makes people believe some of that stuff? Oh, let's see. Oh, my goodness. A young black bear wandered into Wilsonville on Monday night, according to officials, and they had to corral it and move it away. Well, I guess the wildlife is getting closer and closer and closer all the time. Glad to have you with me, and always glad to take your phone calls and your email. Speaking of emails, Charles Wright, Tin Lars. Don't you find it interesting that the super majority of all of these children say that they are queer, gender, queer, sexually disturbed, are all coming from upper middle class white women? When's the last time you saw a gender confused black person? When's the last time you saw a gender confused Mexican, Chinese, Russian, or Spaniard? It's white upper middle class Americans that are sick in the head, signed Charles. And then, let's see, what's this one? Lars, do you fact check Trump? You should. Well, you should know if you listen to the show. Of course I do that. And Evan writes in, Farmer from Rose, Lars, much of the claims of pesticides and wines come from testing that is much more sensitive than a decade ago. A pesticide may have been a harmless tolerance level of many parts per million, but these reports may be detecting parts per billion. It is a non-issue. Evan, you're a farmer. I'm glad to have that information from you because that's exactly how I suspected that it would be. And Doug writes in, Lars, now that the Supremes have come out and allowed anchor babies, how about pushing for a regulation that prohibits dual citizenship? That might help stop the influx of communist Chinese baby tourism trips. Remember, so-called progressives hijacked that word. They are now considered regresses, signed Doug. Doug, thanks very much. I appreciate. Send the emails to talk at Larslarsen.com. Download me up at 866-439-277. Send your emails to talk at larsson.com and check out our feed on Instagram as well. You're listening to the Radio Northwest Network. The Lars Larson Show.