Hour 3: Seattle Times can't blame Trump for inflation, Schumer farts, guest Jim Ferrell

Thanks for downloading the Jason Ranch Show podcast. I really do appreciate it. Be sure to check out our brand new website, Seattlered.com. News, opinion, analysis without any of the left-wing spin covering the entirety of the Pacific Northwest. Check it out throughout the day, read stories, share stories, and watch exclusive videos. That's Seattle Red.com. Now, back to the Jason Ranch Show. Ouch! Seattle, Good afternoon and welcome to the Jason Rancho. We are here live on Seattle Red 770 a.m. online at Seattle Red.com. We got a ton to get to Federal Way Mayor Jim Farrell stops by to explain why they're getting crime so much under control. And what could places like Seattle learn from what it is they're doing there? But first, speaking of Seattle... An odd story of the Seattle Times about how inflation remains very high in Seattle. And yet, weirdly, they don't explain who's responsible. That's what's trending. What's trending in Seattle? It's another one of those stories that the Seattle Times will do from time to time where they open with the experiences of one seemingly random person that maybe a reporter met and thought their story was interesting to frame a news piece around. And they talk about this woman who complains about the high inflation in Seattle in the general Seattle area. And we are running higher. than the nationwide average. The nationwide inflation average was 3.5% in June. In Seattle, it's 4.9%. So we're going up, but the country is going down. And I read this article, and it goes through a lot of the reasonable complaints most people would have. It's really difficult to fill up their car. It's not as enjoyable now to go out to eat because of how expensive everything is. They basically talk about how we're no longer ordering on Uber Eats, things like that. In one case, they talk to this woman who says that she is selling her home. They're downgrading their home to go to something smaller because it's more affordable. And last year in particular was really difficult. And I completely understand. why they have these concerns. Totally get it. And they're being responsible in how they're responding. But I did a quick search of this article because I wanted to see if they were going to point to one person responsible. Who might they complain and say is responsible for all the... you know, inflationary crises in Washington? Democrats? No. Who would they? Who would the Seattle Times? Oh, who would they? Trump. Right? Isn't that the first thing you would think that they would do? In fact, if you go back and you look at any random story in the Seattle Times complaining about any cost of living issue, you will find Trump's name in every single one of those articles. And so I did, you know, a shortcut on your computer is Control F.

What it is? It comes up as a little box that says fine. Then you put in a name. Where has this been all my life? I know. And Control Alt C is copy. And V is paste, I think. I kind of just do it. And P is print. P is print, yes. I think actually K is save. Right? I use that sometimes. Anyway, the more you know. I looked up Trump. You know how many times they mentioned Trump? Yes. Remember, this is about blaming something or someone for inflation in Seattle. How often do you think they mention Trump? Just the word Trump? Just Trump. 20. Okay. Nope. Go down. 10. Go down. Five. Nope. Go down. One. Go down. Zero. Zero. Because they can't. Because they look at the national number. The national number is going down. The local number is going up. It would seem pretty weird to not, to blame him for that, correct? It would be weird. So you know what they blame instead? Nothing. They don't blame anything for this. They don't point to any politician. They don't point to any policy. They completely ignore Trump because they know they can't pin this on him, which means it's Bob Ferguson and the Democrats' fault, but they don't want to blame them. When they're able to, in any way, shape, or form specifically target Donald Trump, they will jump on that opportunity. They will do that immediately. And usually they do it even though it has no bearing in reality. But they had a hard time doing it here. And so instead, they don't blame anyone or anything. They just talk about this nebulous thing of inflation. Isn't that odd? They jump through hoops to blame Trump. And so when they don't blame him, there's a reason. There's a reason because they know even the liberal readers of the Seattle Times wouldn't fall for that. I just found that kind of interesting. I find that really fascinating. In all of this, they never tell you why. They talk about gas prices a lot in this article. And they were talking to one person who they quote and were like, hey, I live in Seattle, but I was in Tacoma and I saw that gas was like $4 in change. And I remember back where I'm from, it's a little over $5 or closer to $5. So I filled up here because every cent matters. Totally get it. They don't mention the Climate Commitment Act at all in this article, not once. Why is that? They're always looking for places to place the blame. They're always looking at something to point to and say, this is why. And this is when I call out local media and I say they don't connect the dots for people. They will sometimes do transactional stories. They'll tell you the who, what, when, where, why, and how. Sometimes they don't even do all of that. They just tell you the what, maybe the where, sometimes the how. But they don't tell you the why, almost ever. They never connect the dots to policies. They never say the reason why you're paying this much for gas, at least in part, is because of X, Y, and Z. They don't do that because it would expose their side to criticism. They support it. They'll still talk about the struggles, but they don't tell you why. And would you be as a consumer of news in a better position to make some kind of change or advocate on behalf of sanity on policy if you knew the policy is responsible?

They don't tell you that. Now, I know the people listening. You know the Climate Commitment Act is responsible for upwards of 60 cents per gallon. You know that. Not everyone does. And I remember talking to a bunch of police chiefs or sheriffs back when they had the ban on vehicular pursuits. And they kept saying the same thing. They would go to these town halls. They would talk to people in their community. And they would complain about not pursuing bad guys who are fleeing. And they would blame the police departments or the sheriff's departments. And each time they're like, they didn't realize the people complaining that that was based on a law, that we didn't pass that law. We didn't come up with that policy. That was put on us. They had no idea. We all have to understand that the vast majority of people, even in the communities that you would think, are more informed, they still don't really know all the details. The average person doesn't listen to talk radio. The average person doesn't watch cable news. The average person does not follow the news all that closely. They'll watch. Maybe at night they'll tune into Como or if they hate themselves and each other king. They'll watch that and they'll get some transactional story for 15, 20 minutes, maybe. And even then they're doing other things. They'll hear about a murder or burglary. That's not it. And so if you're not getting the dots connected for the public and they're already not really paying attention, how do you think people get to a place where they can enact some sort of change? How do you think they get more involved in elections? They're not getting the information and they don't get all that informed. That's why it's on you, the listener. To talk to your friends and neighbors, family members, making sure they're aware of what's going on. And I just wanted to take that as an opportunity based on this silly Seattle Times story to remind you of the importance of doing that. Let's find out what else is trending. What's trending? Wait, what? We have a bunch of different moments that have gone viral for all sorts of different reasons. And... Let's start in, should we do the least crazy to most crazy or most crazy to least, or are they all kind of crazy? I'm going to say, I don't even know how you would rank them. Okay, I'm going to start with the least crazy in my view. Chuck Schumer was speaking today on the Senate floor. It might be the least crazy, but it might be the most embarrassing, though. It is, it's definitely embarrassing. It's definitely embarrassing. He, well, just listen. And we need a complete investigation that's independent. Now on Iran and the NDAA, when all the Trump administration... And you know how you... You know it was a fart. It's not just hearing it because look, and probably everyone has been in this position where you move weird and the fabric of your pants or your shirt or something rubs against a chair or whatever. You move like a cup of water and it gets scraped on it. It sounds like a fart, but it isn't.

He does this little sly smile. He kind of chuckles when he finishes a sentence. He gets just, he a little, just like this little tiny smile of like, yep, I did it. That's independent. Now on Iran and the NDAA, when all the Trump administration. Oh my God. This is so great. So that happened. Then you have. Michigan Senate candidate Haley Stevens. She's a member of Congress. She's running up against Abdul El-Sayed for the Democratic nomination for the position. He's a crazy socialist. She's seen as the more quote unquote mainstream candidate and certainly in comparison to Abdul El-Sayed she is. But as many people pointed out after they heard this clip from a rally, she also might be a character from Parks and Recreation. I am going to be working on our behalf. I am going to be telling the stories on our behalf. And you better believe I'm going to be doing it. with a little bit of joy, a little bit of enthusiasm, a little bit of energy, and a little bit of stick it to them. Because that's the Michigan way. I'm sorry, Michigan or Wisconsin? Why is she talking like this? This is not how she normally talks. It's so weird. That is so weird. Listen to this. I am going to be working on our behalf. I am going to be telling the stories. She sounds like a parody character. I didn't realize she was a 1930s baseball coach. Now here she. And what did you stick it to them? Energy and a little bit of stick it to them. Because that's the Michigan way. Oh my gosh. How lame. Oh, my God. Who would vote for someone like this? And she's the normal one who's running in Michigan. But then there's Kamala Harris. She gave a pep talk to a WNBA team. And this was in Los Angeles. It was over the weekend. There are a lot of people who are calling this out. I chose not to listen to. I want to listen to it live with you. But I just happened to see this clip was going viral. And everyone's calling it a word salad. Is it as bad as people are saying? Let's find out together. And you are having an incredible impact. I travel our country. Young girls, boys, people of every gender background. There's only two. Race. Watch the W. Okay. So I'll stop her there. young girls and boys and people of every gender and race and age do not watch the W, which I've never heard it be referred to. Is that what they call it? I think it's, I think it is a nickname for it. Is it okay? It sounds like when she's using it, someone told her that's what it's called. I mean, it's not really in the popular lexicon because no one watches the NBA, but the W. Yeah, I mean, shut up. And understand how inspiring it is.

So keep doing what you're doing. You guys are impacting people who you may never meet, people who may never know your name's online, but they are aware of what you are doing. And it is giving them a sense. Real quick, could you name a single player on the LA Sparks? No. Could you name a single player on the Seattle Storm? Is Brianna Stewart still here? I don't know. I don't even think she is. Is that basketball? of their value and their dignity and what they have a right to expect from this world. What does that mean? I don't even understand that. Congratulations on this game, but congratulations as much as anything else for the path you guys are charting. It is extraordinary watch. That's it. I just know. Oh, shut up. She was fine up until the end, which I didn't, what was she trying to say at the end there? That wasn't the worst that we've heard from Kamala Harris, in fairness. Right? That wasn't the worst. Well, no, because there's so many contenders, but I would say this is worse. And we need a complete investigation that's independent. Now on Iran and the NDAA. I'm an adult, and I find that so funny. First Eric Swalwell, now Chuck Schumer. What's with all these Democrat politicians farting? They're so gassy. At least, I mean, that one makes sense given his age. Yeah, it just slips out. It wasn't intentional. So of the three, what are our power ranking? Because we got to judge it by one standard. I guess it depends on what metric you're basing. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So. The most embarrassing. The most embarrassing. How about the most cringe? Well, a fart isn't cringy, I guess. Right? It kind of is. It can be. I mean. Okay. The cringiest of those three clips. And you guys can weigh in at home at 1-800, 465, 877 if you want to send me a text. What's the cringiest? So we got the crazy fart. Hey. When all. whatever we want to call this. Hergy and a little bit of stick it to them. Or this. People who may never know your names are online. Yeah, we don't know their names now. Hers was the least of however we're going to judge this. You think? I was going to say it's the most. You think it's the most? Just because it's the, it was supposed to be really like heartfelt and deep and it's just. It's like know your strengths, Kamala Harris. That's not you. Yeah, it's just like, ugh. The owners are at least like you can just like they're just funny. But I mean. So you're, you wouldn't really, you're saying Kamala Harris is the worst in this story. Really? Maybe it's just because I just find her so inseparable. I find her inseparable too. I'm going to, hmm. As the 253 just pointed out, the fart I will remember forever. I think we remember the fart longer than we're going to remember. That's definitely more memorable. That's true. This is tough. For me, it's between the, I'm probably, I'm leaning towards the fart. But close number two is Haley Stevens. Like a very close number two. I mean, there was a time where I mean, Howard Dean did something kind of similar and it ended his presidential campaign. The Dean scream. I know, but.

They're in the same category. They're in the same category. But Haley Stevens is almost doing a character of a Parks and Rec. I guess I don't really know what she normally sounds like. She does not normally sound like that. Unless, look, I'm not intimately familiar with her speeches. I thought I've heard her do interviews, and she does not sound that kind of, I don't know, I'm not going to call it folksy because it's, it was very rah-rah. But it's just the, this Wisconsin attitude, like, it just sounded like it was a character she was playing. And you can argue that the, the issue with Dean, Howard Dean, it was weird, but he just kind of got a little bit too caught up. In the moment, he didn't know quite how to handle the energy that he was feeling and it was just embarrassing. That was like an OG cringe moment. But the funny thing is, when was the last time we even remembered that? That was a huge pop cultural moment. It was that and around the same time was, don't tase me, bro, don't tase me. Like it was that we used to have real viral moments like that. I don't know if that would catch on today. You think if we had the Howard Dean scream, it would be the same sort of viral sense aid? Do you think it would be more viral? There's a lot more competition. Yeah, and I think in the age of Trump, there's, you know, the standards of what you can and can't say are not the same. Yeah. Okay. Which is, you think, okay, power rank, fart and the Howard Dean. More memorable or? I would say. What's the bigger viral moment? The only thing going in favor of Dean, I think, versus Chuck Schumer, the microphone distance. Yeah. Like, if he was miced better or back there, it'd be much different. He benefits from the microphone being so much further from his offense. And that was like a pivotal campaign moment versus like Chuck Schumer just giving some random speech on the Senate floor. I mean. Yeah. It's funny anyone even picked up on that and then reported it. I don't know if I had C-SPAN on in the background and that happened, would I even notice? R&C research posted it. I know. Everyone was there. So someone, look, any of these accounts that post these viral moments, they're watching everything and they're really intent on it. I don't know if even I was paying close attention, I would have been able to pick that up as a fart because it is so muffled and distant. And kudos to whomever heard that because this is so incredibly boring, like any speech from Chuck Schumer, which every single thing he speaks is read. We need a complete investigation. It would have been a snort. Now on Iran and the NDAA, when all the Trump administration. And the timing, by the way, it was the bridge between the two topics. It was like a note to say, I'm switching topics. Perfect segue. I'm moving on to something else. You know how you know when he's moved on? You hear a fart. It's like the music or the sound effects they play on cable news when they switch. Yes, it's like the swoosh. It's like his version of what's trending. Instead of saying, what's trending?

Oh, God bless them. Most people are able to hold that in. And now I find myself in an awkward spot of I only have less than a minute left. I can't move on. But now I'm wondering, do I want to continue to talk about Chuck Schumer's flatulence? And I feel like I'm stuck between two really bad decisions. Yes. It's like, do I hold in the fart talk or do I let it all out? Chuck Schumer let it all out. Oh, my God. Other people are, some people are going with Haley Stevens about how crazy she sounded. Yeah. I'm going to go. I'm going with the fart. I've decided I'm going with the fart, but Haley is a close number. It's sad that she's the more normal person in that race. Oh, my gosh. Oh, gosh. I'm going to get it to them. I'm going to take on the millionaires and billionaire class. You betcha. It's almost Sarah Palin-esque. No, you know, it's like Fargo. It's like a character from Fargo. It's like the wife. 1-800-4-65-8-7-70 for your text. 1-800-4-65-8-7-70. You still have time to weigh in on Fartgate. When we come back, Mayor Jim, that's a bad tease. I mentioned Fartgate, and then we're all like, we got the Mayor Federal Way coming up in a moment. Well, he'll be a good palate cleanser. Yeah, don't say pallet cleanser after we just talked about farts. It's a Jason Rancho. Thanks for downloading the Jason Ranch Show podcast. I really do appreciate it. Be sure to check out our brand new website, Seattlered.com. News, opinion, analysis without any of the left-wing spin covering the entirety of the Pacific Northwest. Check it out throughout the day, read stories, share stories, and watch exclusive videos. That's Seattlered.com. Now, back to the Jason Ranch Show. The Jason Rant Show. All right, let's break it down with Seattle radio host and author Jason Rantz. Jason, if I didn't know you, my first question would be, do you make these stories up? No, they accepted this proposal. I guess it's a measure of how much they really don't like Trump, isn't it? Long form. For years, Washington's restrictions on police pursuits gave car thieves a pretty clear and obvious advantage. Cops could spot a stolen vehicle but still be forced to let them drive away. And so Federal Way Mayor Jim Farrell says, well, the consequence is pretty obvious, pretty predictable. But so was the turnaround once the lawmakers in Olympia reverse course. Car thefts in Federal Way have fallen some 80% since 2023. Robberies and burglaries have also plunged. So what did Federal Way get right and what should other cities learn from it? Joining me on the line is Mayor Jim Farrow. Welcome back to the show.

Well, thanks for having me, Jason. It's great talking to you. You know, I have to tell you, the past few years, every, you know, once a year I get the crime statistics. And I see, you know, the first year dropped over 50% for car theft, the next year, same thing, the year after that. And we've just been seeing the bottom drop out of this number. I think really, you know, my last assignment at the King County Prosecures office years ago was in the car theft unit. And what we learned a long time ago is it's a very small number of people that are committing most of these crimes. You pull those people out of the population and boom, the numbers collapse. And so that's why, I mean, even just this year, the first six months of this year compared to last year, car theft is down another 54%. So. I think, you know, robberies are down 71% collectively over the past three years. So I think that's what's really going on is once you hold offenders accountable and they're in custody and they're elsewhere, you don't have those same people, you know, committing car theft or robberies. And a lot of these crimes, not just car theft, but Carthie is for using these crimes to. burglarize, you mean like burglaries down 60%. Wow. And so burglaries, robberies, all those things. Those folks are now in custody and they're not out committing the same crimes. So I guess my question in all of this is obviously all the data makes total sense. It turns out when you. criminalized criminal behavior and make arrests. The criminal behavior tends to stop. But I remember at the time before they reversed course, and when I say they, we're talking about Democrats in this case. They were the reasons why we had this ridiculous ban of the Higgler pursuits to begin with. But they initially said that there's no data to back up the claim that their law had anything to do with it. And I imagine the same bad faith response to all of this will be, actually, this is not why the crime is down. seeing a national trend in crime going down. So for the people who do make that bad faith argument pretending that their law had nothing to do with this, what do you say to them? I think it's very difficult to argue against the fact that we've seen this dramatic decrease correlate with the time of when this law went into effect. I mean, it happened immediately. And the fact that it's across the board with key indicators of lifestyle, you know, what we call lifestyle crimes, which is motor vehicle theft, robbery, burglary, those kinds of things, quality of life crimes. I would say the fact that it correlates perfectly with that time frame, I think, you know, establishes a pretty clear connection. But also just, you know, what I think is really happening at the same time is that the legislature finally fixed the drug loss. Because as you remember, we had a state of essentially de facto legalization because the scheme that they had instituted.

did not have any guardrails, did not have any. It required two prior warnings before you could make an arrest, but there was no tracking of the two prior warnings, which made the drug laws unenforceable. Once we were able to even get, you know, those drug laws fixed, the combination of those two, we were cooking with gas at that point. And that's what's going on, is the ability to hold offenders accountable. So the critics will argue on the police pursuits that they create these serious risks for, you know, innocent drivers, any pedestrian who might end up getting hit on the drug charge, they usually respond with your criminalizing addiction. On both of those points, if you could, give us some of the data. We'll start with the police pursuits. Have we seen any... accidents between officers in pursuit to the degree in which you've actually even had to pursue since the reversal? I think the concern was really rooted, you know, about the accident, about, you know, concern about, you know, danger to, you know, to civilians, people not involved. And, you know, and also to the, you know, to the accused, the person that's being pursued. We just haven't seen that. I think we had a situation, maybe about a year and a half ago that ended up in CTAC where a light pole got struck because the person was going. And every once in a while, you will see somebody, you know, down the road, even after we culminate a pursuit. They'll wrap themselves around a poll or fail to manage a corner because of the high speeds. But, you know, those are even in cases where we terminate. We already had, I think that what was really, I think, insulting to law enforcement and to local officials is that we already had standards in place at every jurisdiction to terminate pursuits where it's not safe, whether it's too many people out on the street at a time of day, where the speeds get too high. We already have those standards. And, but yeah, there have been maybe, I'd say very few, but maybe it gives like a pole or a, you know, or some sort of light pole or something. But like I said, those were really when the pursuits were actually then terminated previously to that because the speeds got too high. So we just, the answer to your question is, no, we have not seen that. And but like I said, the jurisdictions have that in place to. You know, if someone's, you know, being pursued, they don't, you know, hurt somebody else in a civilian. With regard to the drugs, what I would say is this. Every place where legalization or these, you know, harm reduction efforts are instituted, the problem gets, you know, really escalates and gets actually worse. They fail. Harm reduction doesn't work. That's right. And it gets worse. And it gets worse for the individuals experiencing it. The most important thing that can happen in the folks that are addicted is to reach a bottom. That bottom is to reach that bottom, whether it's the inside of a jail cell, whether it's the loss of a relationship or a job, it's when they, their support system, when they reach that bottom, and the criminal justice system.

having a role in interceding in that is part of reaching that bottom to where they realize, I'm going the wrong direction. I need to crawl myself out of this and start rebuilding their life. If they never hit bottom, they never really reach that realization. And hitting bottom is absolutely critical for recovery. And that's what we want. We want our neighbors to recover and get off this deadly stuff. Federal Away Mayor Jim Farrell joining me on the line. Obviously arresting suspects only matters if the prosecutors and judges are going to impose meaningful consequences. So are the people federal way police are arresting, are they actually being detained and prosecuted? Yeah, you know, Car theft is one of those things. You know, we've got the Sentencing Reform Act. So it's all in an, actually, it's all on a grid. So if you've got a stolen, you know, if you've got a stolen car and it gets into the, you know, gets charged in the King County Superior Court system or any of the counties for these stolen cars, there's actually great, you know, there's the grid, which, you know, won't get too far into the, getting this, but there's predetermined. you know, sentencing grids and months between this month and that month. But what happens is a lot of these guys have so many car thefts, either pending or, you know, contemporaneous, you know, with multiple charges, is they'll, they're going to, what they call max out. And you can only nine, the score of nine is a max out on the sentencing reform act, which means there's something called, and I'm just getting into the weeds here, but it's important. There's something called a DOSA, drug offender sentencing alternative. And those actually, you know, allow prosecutors to say, okay, we're going to give you this dosa, which means you're going to serve, you know, half the midpoint of the standard range. You know, let's call it 30 months. You're going to serve the 30 months. And then the other 30 months you're going to be on probation. And if you screw that up, then you're going to serve the rest of that 30 months. And so those actually, you can bundle up all the pending cases at once and really get somebody on a pathway to where it's like, okay, the party's over. You're going to serve some time in prison. Then you're going to serve some time in treatment and pay for your crimes and pay your fines. And maybe you don't serve the entire term in prison. If you, you know, don't commit any law violations, don't do drugs or alcohol and do all that. The whole goal here again is to get our, you know, fellow citizens, our neighbors off of drugs out of this way of life and to get them on the straight and arrow and have productive lives. That's what we want. When you took office, at least initially, I think there were, what, 126 officers? And now we're at 154, I believe, is the specific number, according to Cairo 7. Yeah, that's right. How much of the crime reduction comes from pursuit reform versus just having officers actually available to make the arrest?

Well, none of that could have happened if you can't stop people. You probably saw in there that at one point we had a quarter of a million dollars of equipment stolen out of our equipment location here in Frederick Way. We literally had to watch them drive away and we could not legally pursue them. And that was just cartoonish. It was just absolutely crazy. But the other thing is, is you do need to have, you've got to make sure you've got the resources where you can be proactive. You can have sometimes, you know, what we call proact patrols and also special operations patrols. And you can layer things on top of each other, like in our downtown core, especially along Pack Highway, we had a problem, you know, with certain motels and certain hotspots where we had an SO special operations unit really focus in on areas. And whether it's homelessness or criminal or drug activity or that kind of thing, we could focus in. And the other thing is you don't want your officers going pillar to post, you know, 12-hour days. You know, it's like they need to take a break. They need to be able to take a breath. And they're going to be much more productive as well. So you need that manpower. And you need the, you know, the strength in numbers. You also want to make sure that when you, when a serious call happens, that you can respond in numbers. And when a robbery happens or, you know, something like that. we get the kind of response in which, you know, people will think twice before they want to take it further, if you understand what I'm saying. So you want to respondent for us, and you can only do that if you're fully staffed. There are obviously cities like Seattle that are not fully staffed. They continue to struggle with staffing. It's gotten better than what it's been in the past, but obviously not where they want it to be. So what specific parts of your approach in federal way would you recommend that cities like Seattle or anyone else, any other city actually adopts immediately versus maybe something that would require action from the legislature? Well, honestly, you know, this may be a little bit out of what you're talking about. If I were in Seattle, the number one thing I would do, first thing is cover up the graffiti all over that town. It's absolutely unacceptable. And we cover up graffiti within 24 hours anywhere in our city. In fact, on Monday morning, on my management team, I get a picture of any graffiti that's appeared in Federal Way over the past week. And when I see the picture, it's gone. So what that does is sends a message. We're not going to tolerate lawlessness. We're not going to tolerate that. When you see that sprawling all over your city in your tunnels, on your walls, on your street signs, you send the message that crime can happen here. And crime should not happen in a civilized community. So number one, they need to commit to absolutely picking up. Garbage, they need to get the homeless people off the streets and off the right of ways. That all in the open drug market, and I think it's 12th and Jackson or thereabouts. It's causing, you know, long-time restaurateur and the ID to have to move. And it's just absolutely crazy what's happening with the homelessness situation in Seattle. We don't tolerate that. It's not legal. You can't just take over a sidewalk. You shouldn't be able to take over a park.

You need to enforce the laws. And somewhere along the line, somebody made the calculation that we were just going to tolerate, you know, in Seattle, a lawless environment of people letting people scrawl whatever they want on the street signs and on the buildings and let people, you know, be homeless. You can be homeless, but you can't be homeless wherever you want. There's private property and there's public property. So those, honestly, those two first things, and then obviously the enforcement of the drug laws, and not all the, you know, and I think that's a very important thing to, if you've got open-air deliveries occurring, they've got to be interceded on. And then I think it's a matter of making sure that you've got enough folks to respond. And I think lastly, you've got to create a culture. I think there's a concept called de-policing. And I think that is, you know, the dedicated law enforcement officers in Seattle. And I just want to say that first. They work hard. You know, but I think the environment that has been allowed to fester in Seattle is, you know, has been, unfortunately, somewhat anti-police, anti-enforcement. And I think, you know, officers are, you know, justifiably concerned about, you know, going into the fray. and about what will happen because of the culture that's been allowed to persist. And you can't have depolicing in a community. You need really forward-facing... assertive law enforcement to make sure you've got a safe environment. Those are the kinds of things that will make a community safe. Yeah, and not to sound like I'm, it always seems like I'm insulting someone when I say this, but you're not thinking outside of the box or doing anything especially innovative. You're just sticking to the basics, and it turns out the basics actually work. We've been talking with Jim Farrell, the mayor of Farroway. Congratulations for another year on the really great statistics, and hopefully it will continue to go in that right direction. Thank you so much for stopping by. Thanks, Jason. Appreciate it. Of course. You're listening to The Jason Ranch Show. Buying a used car can be stressful. Sunset Auto Family. They take the stress off your plate with a 48-hour used vehicle exchange policy. Pick out a vehicle, drive for a couple days. If it's not the right fit, they're going to help you find one that is without any gimmicks or loopholes because you just get more at Sunset. And people do like that. Sunset AutoFamily.com. Some ironic news when it comes to birthright citizenship, courtesy of Democrats. We'll explain when we return on the Jason Ranch Show. Thanks for downloading the Jason Ranch Show podcast. I really do appreciate it. Be sure to check out our brand new website, Seattlered.com, news, opinion, analysis without any of the left-wing spin covering the entirety of the Pacific Northwest. Check it out throughout the day, read stories, share stories, and watch exclusive videos. That's Seattlered.com. Now, back to the Jason Ranch Show. The Jason Ranch Show. We're in Jason Ramps. Seattle Red 770 a.m. host and also Seattlered.com. Jason, great to have you with us. Jason, Seattle is just continually ground zero. Yeah, and this is really the Pacific Northwest is ground zero for all this nonsense. USA Today is mocking the far left. The quick hit.

A quarter of a percent. Okay. What's the argument then against making sure it's clear that those people who maybe do get to escape the system and participate in birth tourism before we're able to shut down the operation? Why would that be a problem exactly? What's the argument? that they're going to use on the left to justify. You can't just say, well, it's not that big of an issue. Okay, so there are lots of things there aren't happening non-stopping it. We have laws against them because we look at this and we say one is one too many or ten is ten too many. I'd be truly curious. And so my guess is they're just going to ignore that part. probably focus on the language of quote unquote invaders, which they're going to use to claim that that's somehow offensive, it's xenophobic, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That is my guess because otherwise I do not see how you can truly justify your position on this. It just doesn't make any sense. It really doesn't make any sense, which is precisely why the Democrats, I guess, are just going to lean into it because they know they're not going to get called out for it. Speaking of calling out stuff, let's call out Taco Bell. Taco Bell is under scrutiny by federal and state health officials trying to investigate whether or not some Taco Bell locations are connected to this gastrointestinal illness caused by a microscopic parasite that's causing so-called explosive diarrhea. Psycho- Soriasis is the name of this illness. I'm assuming I'm pronouncing it correctly. Multiple local and national news outlets reported that signs appeared of the gastrointestinal issue at Detroit area Taco Bell restaurants. And so they've had to notify customers that the locations are not allowed to serve lettuce, cilantro, onions, pico de gallo, or guacamole because of some national recall. Taco Bell statement said the health and safety of our guests is our top priority. Public health officials have not confirmed a link to Taco Bell or any specific ingredients, supplier, restaurant, or retailer. While authorities continue their broader review, Taco Bell is voluntarily and temporarily removed limited ingredients at select restaurants as a precautionary measure. We will continue to closely monitor the situation and follow the guidance of public health officials. Now, to be clear, neither the FDA nor the Department of Health and Human Services have provided any comment as far as I can tell specifically. Targeting Taco Bell. I haven't seen a recall involving Taco Bell posted anywhere. So it does seem like this is more precautionary. But, you know, you're not taking this kind of effort willy-nilly if you didn't think that there might be.

a likelihood of some sort of connection. So I don't obviously follow the details other than to say you shouldn't be eating Taco Bell if you want to avoid explosive diarrhea regardless of whether or not there's some gastrointestinal illness going around. But dear God, this one sounds awful. I've been trying to not talk about it on the show because it's ill. It's just disgusting. And I figured, hey, now that there's an opportunity for me to tell you not to eat Taco Bell, I suppose I'll take it. And look at the time, right? It's almost 6 o'clock. So some of you are maybe getting ready for dinner, thinking about dinner. What are you going to, what should we have? Well, here's something you probably should not have. Anything that carries the risk of explosive diarrhea, regardless of whether or not there is some sort of illness going around. Not that I've ever had that from Taco. In fairness, Taco Bell. It's just bad for you. You're probably not going to have explosive diarrhea. But you're going to feel awful about yourself having just eaten it. So don't. It's a Jason Ranch show.