Hour 1: Primary elections roundup, Seattle far from its housing goals, guest Shane & Jennifer DeGross

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. Coach. The yellow left. I'm walking here. Good afternoon and welcome to the Jason Ranch Show. I am broadcasting from New York and the Seattle Red Mobile Studios online at Seattle Red.com and the Seattle Red app. We've got a ton to get to, including we'll talk exclusively to a foster family from Washington State based in Port Orchard, who said no to the crazy, woke standards that the state was using to punish them and stop them from fostering kids in desperate need of a safe. space, a safe home, a loving family. We'll get into that story. But first, about a little bit of an election roundup based on what it is we know so far. That's what's trending. Brought to you by the Sunset Auto family. What's trending on the campaign trail? So we start this segment with the most updated numbers that we have access to on last night's election. Both, there were a number of elections last night or a number of campaigns that we were tracking. California and Iowa are the ones we'll focus on here. But I posit you this, that everything I say might be wrong, even as I'm saying it, because the numbers are still being counted. So understand that going in, depending on whether or not you're listening to this. literally right now as we're broadcasting or on podcasts, there are going to be elements to this that can change. But, you know, there are some basic facts based on the numbers that we have so far. And you can say a reality TV star just humiliated the progressive establishment in Los Angeles, regardless as to what the end result ends up becoming. It's also undoubtedly true in Iowa. Donald Trump got his nose bloodied a little bit. in at least one of the races. There's a caveat there that we'll talk about. A congressman who quit the GOP in California might lose his job to a guy, his own constituents can barely Google. But I don't think we're even close to being there yet. This is the 2026 primaries, I suppose, across California and Iowa. And there's a lot more that we can say is good for Republicans than good for Democrats in California. Not a mixed bag in Iowa, but not a clear-cut victory for Republicans as of right now. So let's get into specifically the results that in California will probably terrify the consultant class that make a whole lot of money professionally going with these establishment candidates and saying, just do this because of focus groups well, rather than taking seriously the people like Spencer Pratt. who decide to run because of his passion for how poorly the city is being run. Karen Bass is the incumbent mayor. She was on vacation in Ghana while the palisades were burning, burning to the ground. And she's going into a runoff, at least right now, somewhere around 35 to 37 percent support going up against, again, right now, Spencer Pratt, from the hills.

a reality TV star who no one really even thought about as a political threat, but because of his passion in this run, having lost his home to a fire, having seen his neighbors and parents lose their home, he's obviously very fired up, very fired up, as any of us would be, understanding what's truly on the line. But he ran on this, not as a singular message at all, but this was the reason why he decided to run. And he's feeling confident that the numbers are going to hold. He'll still be within five-ish points of Karen Bass. in the coming day. Have you seen up in the battle the next month? Absolutely not. I think the next five months I'm going to have time to build out this team to show everybody the level of Democratic supporters that I have behind me. The heavy hitters that are in this room that are all behind me. And I think this idea that I don't represent Democrats and Republicans and independents, anyone that's just a Los Angeles citizen that one's basic quality of life, I'll be able to show that in five months. Right now the media likes to say, oh, he's this. I'm not that. who said enough is enough and I had to step up. I didn't know I'd be here tonight, but it's obviously God's plan and I'm going to go all the way and I'm going to show everybody that I'm their mayor. Now, it's going to be clear, it's going to be still very tough for him to win in California. Right. And not even just Los Angeles, but California as a whole is a deeply blue state. Los Angeles, Los Angeles County is a deeply blue area. There's no doubt. And he's not a favorite going in. However, I do think he poses a risk that Karen Bass could end up falling victim to. If she doesn't take this seriously, he's going to continue to build momentum. His main campaign has not been around the fires as much as I think it's been around. homelessness, which, you know, the mayor wants to pretend she's been getting ahead of. She's not. She's throwing people into permanent subsidized housing. He's going after the mom vote, basically. And there's a reason why he did as well as he did in this primary. It's because he's connecting with people on an emotional level. And that's how you win elections. But again, It's going to be really tough. It's going to be tough for Steve Hilton, who will see if he hangs on to this lead again over the coming days as we get more of the ballots coming in from mail-in, and there will be a lot. Things are going to start to tighten up. He held a press conference today where he sounded very confident. Last night, he sounded very confident. The words are, change is coming. And I think change is coming to California. And you're seeing that in the results that we're seeing tonight. People are done with the 16 years of Democrat policies that have given us the highest poverty rate, highest unemployment rate, highest costs of living in the country, the crime, the chaos, the homelessness. You know the list. And people want change. And they're voting for change. And it's very encouraging. One further point, I just want to note, as a proud American, someone who loves this country so much, this is my first.

time running for office. And when we just passed that number of one million people, and it's now over a million, voting for me, one million Californians and rising, putting their hopes in me to bring change and put our state back on track. It's an unbelievable honor, something I absolutely take so seriously. I won't let people down. We've got to turn this state around. And I think tonight looks like the first step. down that very important road. Now, there's another thing to keep in mind here. Again, it's not going to be easy for assuming he ends up going into the general. It's not going to be easy for Steve Hilton. And he will be the obvious underdog. It sounds like he's going to be running, again, if he makes it against Xavier Becerra, the former failed health and human services secretary, but former Attorney General of California, Xavier Becerra, or as Joe Biden call him, Javier Milei. The problem for him is that he's still in a deeply blue state. One thing he has on his side is that you've got some initiatives on the ballot that are going to get out the Republican vote and earn the support of Democrats, which is voter ID law. They've got a few, but this is going to be the big one. And people overwhelmingly support voter ID laws in this country, and that includes in California. The other thing that he has going for him, I think, might be that you're going to get Spencer Pratt getting... out some of the vote of the people who don't traditionally vote. And I do think that that could help Steve Hilton, again, if he's able to hang on to the one or number two spot. And that has been changing even last night, but throughout the day, we'll see over the coming days. The other race to pay attention to is Kevin Kiley out in the, I think it's District 6 in California. This was a redrawn map for political purposes. This was part of Gavin Newsom's just disgusting plan. But Kevin Kiley is a Republican who then announced he's going to be running as an independent. Now again, that was purely political. He's doing that because he wants to have a shot in a district that's now red drawn to be very red. The Democrats, while I do still think they can pull off a second place win here, as of today and as of last night, they were running behind the other Republican who was running in Michael Stansfield or Stansfeld. Kylie and Stansfield were in the leap. Kylie, again, unless something dramatically. different occurs. Kylie's going to go into the general. If he's running up against another Republican, well, this is still a Republican win. This was not a pickup that the Democrats had hoped for. Now, Richard Pan, who's the Democrat, he was only down by like 1,200 votes or something earlier this afternoon, early morning. So he could make that up in the coming days with mail-in votes that traditionally end up supporting the Democrats. But it's possible that they completely botched. this particular race in District 6, we will see. Some of the reason why I argue they botch it is because they didn't have like, if there was one Democrat running, that would be one thing. But they had five Democrats running. And Pan pulled off the highest of the Democrats as of this morning of 21%. But you had two others hitting 10 and 11% respectfully. So respectfully, that's not good news for the Democrats. They ended up.

really harming themselves. Again, Pan, it's possible, and one could even argue likely that he'll be able to pull ahead of the Democrat or of the Republican. But it's not a guarantee. So I'm keeping an eye on that particular issue. The other thing is Iowa. We had two open seats, both Republican retirements. Joni Ernst on the Senate side said she's not running. Kim Reynolds on the governor's side said she's not running. And the Senate primary went the way that Trump wanted Ashley Hinson, a very popular and effective congresswoman. She easily won the GOP nomination. She's going to be going up against a state representative in Josh Turrick in November. who ended up beating a Democrat that they thought was going to be close. It turns out it wasn't all that close. The issue. is going to mostly maybe, maybe, maybe be the governor's race where the president endorsed Randy Feenstra, the congressman kind of late in the game and it wasn't enough to beat Zach Lawn or Lan who ended up winning. He had a lot of base support. You know, a lot of Democrats are looking at this and they're saying, oh, this is show, this is clear proof. What's going to happen? is that the Democrats are going to win in Iowa. The Democrats are not going to win in Iowa. I said this last night on CNN. Maybe it's a little bit closer than Republicans would want it to be because there's a lot going against them, including just history. But this is a narrative-driven race. The same way in Texas, it's with James Talarico. They're doing what they did. with Beto or Warc. They find a reason why they can try to justify their over-the-top analysis. Oh, this is going to turn a deeply red state blue for the first time. It's not going to happen. Your best shot is as a governor in a gubernatorial race just because, you know, national trends don't always go the direction of either party. But you're not going to win the Senate the same way you're not going to win the Senate in Texas. You're not going to win in Iowa. It's just absolute nonsense. And at the same time, you know, there's this new Marquette poll that just came out. They did. And I'm consistent. I don't generally like the generic ballot races. But any kind of surge that Democrats once held has been erased virtually. It's now within one point, Republicans down one point on a generic congressional ballot. that's obviously not good for the Democrats. And they keep getting in their own way. I mean, they had a much better shot at winning the Senate had they not decided to go with the Nazi who cheats on his wife on an app that's known for sexual exploitation of minors. And they're not hiding from that, the Democrats. They're just doubling down on backing this guy. Datadweeb, our favorite one from CNN, Harry Enten, says this latest scandal with Graham Platner probably could sink his chances. Google searches for Graham Platner remain.

Up significantly over the past few days. We're talking about up 275% in the last three days versus the three-month average. And more than that, more people search for him on Sunday in Maine that at any point that I could find, even given the past revelations, about the tattoos as well. So it seems to me that this time may, in fact, be different where Mainers focus on Graham Platner is higher. Why are they focused on it? Why they focus on him? Because they support him? Because they are, you know, big, they're inspired by his scandals? No. Of course not. And to be clear, Susan Collins, who's down right now in the polls, she is usually down in the polls. But if you look at the last three times that she is run, take a look at the polls underestimate Susan Collins and Maine. In 2008, the polls underestimated her by eight points. 2014, the same thing. The polls estimated her by 12 points. In 2020, the polls estimated her by 12 points. Oh, my goodness gracious. And she was down about 10 points before any of the revelations came out this weekend, which according to the past polling errors, she would be well positioned to make it quite the race. And if in fact the prediction markets and the Google searches suggest that this race will in fact tighten, well, then Graham Platner's lead may very well be lower than the past errors that have in fact allowed Susan Collins to win like they did in 2020 when she was trailing the pre-election poll. You know, while I'm generally concerned that the Democrats are putting in place. a dude with a Nazi tattoo who pretended not to know it was a Nazi tattoo. I'm not all that worried at this point about me. But again, anything can change. It's very early on in the process. Let's find out what else is trending. What's trending? The homelessness crisis. We were promised in the city of Seattle 500 shelter units by the World Cup, which is now two weeks out. Mayor Katie Wilson has 75. 75. But she does want credit for lighting a fire on this issue. This is what passes for accountability in Seattle now. So you set this goal. You know you can't hit. You miss it by, what is that, 85%. And then you go and explain Tacomo and other news outlets that the real win was the effort, I guess. Oh, okay. I didn't realize that's how it worked. This is our first, the first of the kind of new sites that we've been able to identify this year that we are opening. And I'm really proud of how fast we've been able to get that going. Do you mention the 1,000 unit goal? Let's talk about the 500 unit goal for mid-June and sort of that in line with the world. World Cup 2 and the timing there. We're not going to get 500 by the World Cup, but we always knew that that was a very ambitious goal. Are you disappointed that you can't get to the 500? And is there a reason why? Because I know you fast track it with legislation. We set a very ambitious goal. And again, I think we were really successful in kind of lighting that fire that got everyone moving. Sorry, no, you don't get credit for that. Now, what she's talking about in the 75, it's the Bayside enhanced shelter in Interbay.

It's open this week. You got the 75, what are called pallet homes for single adults. And that is the entirety of what the mayor has to show for her flagship homelessness, let's just call it a sprint before the World Cup match starts on June 15th. And this idea that somehow this is some sort of success story is just bizarre to me. And, you know, I don't understand why they keep setting themselves up for failure. I mean, this is not ambitious to say 500 or 1,000 by the end of the year because we know neither of those would have happened or will happen. We knew that she wasn't going to hit 500 by June. We knew she is not going to hit 1,000 by the end of the year. Ambitious might have been 500 by the end of the year. or maybe like 300 by the end of the year, maybe. But 1,000 was never, ever, ever going to happen. Never. I mean, even this 90-unit village she's proposing in South Park, the neighborhood in Seattle, is still in the community outreach phase. It's not going to happen. We know it's not going to happen. And what no one wants to talk about, I guess, is that they knew it was never going to work, and yet they still sold it as it going to work, only to now spin it. Because early on, you want, you know, to get credit for saying that you're going to do something ambitious. And then when you don't hit it, you now want credit for trying. But you don't go from zero to 500, you know, transitional shelter units in six months in a city where it takes 18 months to permit a backyard cottage. You're not going to be able to site or lease or build or staff. stand up any kind of wraparound services for 500 chronically homeless people in this city on a weird random soccer deadline for the World Cup. It never made any sense. The math never made any sense. The timeline never made any sense. And yet the governor, the mayor decided to say it anyway. And the problem, of course, is even if they were able to reach those goals, it would still be a failure by design. They still embrace housing first instead of treatment first. Housing first is this goal that says we're going to get people put into shelter first. and then we'll address why they're out on the streets, except they never address why they're out on the streets, and they just call it a day. And this is what's been going on in Los Angeles that Spencer Pratt has been able to really hone in on. You know, the mayor there, and we talked a little bit about it just now, the mayor there, Carrie Bass says she's seen a reduction in homelessness, except she hasn't really. She's just putting people into permanent subsidized housing. That is not success because you're not actually treating why they're homeless to begin with. It is permanent. They have no incentive for it not to be permanent. And this was a point that Andrea Suarez from Wehart, Seattle made Tacoma. The mayor's promise of 500 units was aggressive. Treatment first. Find the people that want to get off the street and actually want more from themselves than living in a place intended for a lawnmower. But apparently we always knew this was going to be an ambitious goal, she says. Ambitious goal, the mayor says. Did we know it was ambitious? Did she sell it as an ambitious goal? Because when it was green lit for $175 million.

In this homeless plan back in December, going into January, February when this was all getting pushed, nobody from the mayor's office stood up and said that this was merely aspirational, that this is political theater, that this is a number we picked because it sounds good next to the World Cup. They sold it as a deliverable, not as a stretch goal. But now it's, oh, no, it was just a fire that got lit. The only thing they got lit was our wallets, our bank accounts. And the deeper problem, the one that Andrew Sores just pointed out, is while clearing encampments that the city pretended weren't there, we never really mandated the treatment. Mental health treatment, substance use treatment, all of it. It was always optional. And it's been optional for years and years and years. And to be clear, this is not a Katie Wilson problem. This is a Seattle problem. She's participating in it. She's making it worse. But this was done under Bruce Harrell, under Jenny Durkin, Ed Murray. Every mayor since the Obama administration has stood at some podium somewhere in front of a pallet shelter or something else and promise that this time it's going to be different. We're going to get the shelters open and the services are going to be there. But the services are always voluntary. to the extent that they're even offered, always voluntary. The clients who are homeless, they cycle back to the sidewalk, the encampments come back, the next mayor announces a new number, a new goal, ambitious or not, and they fail. But the one thing that they don't fail at, I suppose, is getting all of us to pay for it. And this is true across Washington State. It's not just in Seattle. King County homeless spending pulls from the state Medicaid match dollars. State Commerce Department grants are paying for a lot of this. Behavioral health funds that could go to Spokane or Tacoma or Vancouver end up coming to Seattle. So every time Seattle promises 500 but then deliver 75 beds, the rest of the state subsidizes the gap. Why not just be honest about that? Why not stand up in January and say, look, we can realistically open maybe 100 units by June, 250, maybe 300 if we really want to get aggressive by Christmas? And the only work if treatment is the front door instead of like, you know, the gift shop. Why not just say that? Because honesty doesn't get you elected. Honesty doesn't get you a ribbon cutting that gets framed, you know, heroically by local media. Honesty isn't going to get you a quote in Como about lighting fires. We didn't miss the goal. We hit the only goal that ever mattered, the press conference. That was it. The 425 people still sleeping outside when the World Cup starts was never really in the plan. And even again, if you were able to get them indoors, we weren't really treating them. We were treating a symptom. We were not treating the actual disease. could have scripted this. In fact, if we go back in January when we did a segment about this, I'm sure I said almost everything I just said. Let's find out what else is trending. What's trending? The environment. We've got an update on the Portland animal rights activists who want to make it a crime to catch trout. Seriously. So the cutely named Peace Act initiative.

Petition 28 is getting close to the November Oregon ballot. It just cleared a little over 117,000 signatures that it needed. They've got 126,000 turned in pending verification, but they just need 117, I think is 17,000, something like that. And what it would do, if it were to get approved, it would strip the legal exemptions that protect hunting, fishing, trapping, breeding. And large chunks of, frankly, farming, it would take away the exemptions from Oregon's animal cruelty statute, which means, you know, some dad teaching his kid to cast a line becomes a criminal. A rancher becomes a criminal. A dude trapping a raccoon and, you know, getting rid of it because it eats its chickens, becomes a criminal. The punchline is that David Michelson, the guy who is the chief petitioner in all of this. said on camera last year, and this is a quote, this isn't going to pass in 2026. His own words was that this is effectively performative. That part, I guess, is my word. But it's designed to shift attitudes. Okay. I don't think it's going to shift any attitudes, but I do have fear that something stupid like this could shift some minds in Washington because we always seem to want to out weird. Oregon. So there's the possibility, I think, that it comes here. But as of right now, it doesn't seem like it's going to pass, but it does seem like it's going to get on the ballot. 1-800-465-770 for your text. Over the years, Sunset Auto Families warranty protection for life has paid out more than $6 million in warranty claims because they value taking care of customers. So stop by for a complimentary warranty health check. It doesn't matter where you purchase your vehicle. The last thing you want is avoided warranty when you need it. The all-new Seattle Red.com. Finally, conservatives in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest have a home dedicated to local news. When I'm out and about in Seattle or anywhere just because I like to go into the field. Conservative analysis and opinion. And the left is saying this is anti-democracy. Seattlered.com is a new experience for Seattle's conservative movements where your comments are welcome and we encourage thoughtful conversation and debate. This is the key piece here. Visit the all-new Seattlered.com.

Welcome back to the Jason Rants Show. Nine years is how long Shane and Jennifer DeGross opened their homes to foster care kids in Washington State. Their own licensing agency called them exemplary. But then the state of Washington decided to pull their license, not for neglect or for abuse, but because they wouldn't promise to call a confused child by their wrong pronouns. DCYF told them no kid over the age of five unless you abandon your religious conviction. So they, of course, fought back with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom. And last month they won. The state scrapped the pronoun rule entirely. And now they get to go back to doing what they love. Joining me on the line, Shane and Jennifer, along with their attorney from Alliance Defending Freedom, Hal Frampton. Welcome to the show. Thank you. Thank you. So I'll start with Jennifer and Shane. You fostered for nine years. The state called you exemplary. They obviously liked what you were doing. They had no issue whatsoever. So take me through the moment you realized the state would, I guess, rather leave a bed empty than let a kid stay in your home. What did that feel like? It was heartrending because there are so many children in the state of Washington that need a stable home to be in. There really is a crisis of families that are available to care for these children. And there are so many children in the foster care system, you know, sometimes they're sleeping in in hotels or on the floor of staff or in cars. And so to see families weeded out of the system, Because they don't accept the state's gender ideology is heartrending. Jennifer, what did the state specifically ask of you? Sure. We were in the process of relicensing in 2022, and we were willing to love and care for any child in our home. But they were asking us to use preferred pronouns. of children in our home to take them to pride parade, to be willing to take them to medical appointments, you know, regarding their gender. And those were just things that we could not agree to. And it's not just shame that the state said no and just kind of moved on. They initially it sounded like coming, they came back with an offer that you can keep fostering, but only children five and under and only if you signed away your. religious beliefs, I guess, as they would apply to anyone who's older than five. When you read that or when you got that, you know, offer, which I'm assuming they considered a compromise, what went through your mind? Well, it was still very disappointing because, you know, they made us go through a waiver process where, you know, we... Would only accept children up to the age of five, and we could still do rest such from 2 to 18, but they also removed the adoptive component of our license. So it was still very restrictive in terms of what we could do, and we still had to be silent on our religious conviction.

Your attorney, Hal Frampton of the Alliance Defending Freedom, also on the line, Hal, the judge who let this case move forward was appointed by Joe Biden, and he still found that the state's rule violated the First Amendment. So how much does it matter that the warning shot came from this specific bench instead of, you know, one that would be perceived as more conservative? Well, I think Washington recognized when that ruling came out that they were just plain on the wrong side of the Constitution on this and that any honest judge in America would see that. And so we were very pleased when the judge allowed the case to go forward and even more pleased when Washington realized that they ought to come to the table and dispense with their unconstitutional policy. put the degrosses back in the position they should have been all along fully licensed and able to foster and adopt a needy child. Was that though strategic in a very disingenuous way from the state? I mean, did Washington fold because they thought they would lose or because they didn't want a precedent on the record? Well, there's already a precedent on the record in the Ninth Circuit, which is very helpful, the Bates case that was one of ours in Oregon. And my sense is that Washington realized between that case, between the judge, allowing this case to go forward and saying some very helpful things in his order about the constitutional problems with their policy, that the writing was on the wall here. Well, and on that case, Blaze v. Hunter, I think it is. nearly identical in Oregon, a law that was on the books. And Washington knew all of that, and they wrote their rule anyway. From a legal standpoint, Hal, was, do you think the state, were they acting in good faith or were they just basically daring someone to sue? I don't know. I know that their position didn't make a whole lot of constitutional sense, that, you know, looking at the Bates case, looking at the idea that essentially something magical happens at the age of five years old that would allow the DeGrosse's to suddenly be unqualified to care for a child, just didn't make a whole lot of sense. And so we were very pleased that the court seemed to recognize that, and then Washington came to the table. Jennifer, during any of the conversations you had with DCYF, did anyone ever explain how shutting you out helped a single child? No, definitely not, because it doesn't. Like Shane said, there were so many kids in need of homes. And so, you know, the state claiming to care for kids and want the best of them, you know, obviously that was not their motive. They were looking out for themselves. And what was the takeaway, Shane, dealing with DCYF, willing to do this to a family such as yours, and you were obviously not the only ones impacted, but they're willing to cast aside the safety of these kids, the security for these foster care kids because they wanted to make some sort of political point on gender?

Yeah, it really is disheartening. There are a lot of foster care families that are Christians. And we as Christians believe that it is a command of God to care for widows and orphans in their distress. So to single us out and prohibit us from caring for children has a ripple effect throughout. all the other foster families in the system that are ready and willing to care for these kids. So we felt it necessary to continue this fight to make sure that other families that hold our religious worldview can still foster children and still help kids. How would you, Jennifer, deal with a kid, let's say, is 14 years old who's been convinced that they are, you know, quote unquote, in the wrong body, someone who's dealing with gender dysphoria? How would you handle a case like that? Yeah, I mean, like any child in our home, we would love them, we would care for them. We would have conversations with them that are open and honest and help them know that they are in a very safe place where they are loved and that this is their family. Shane? Yeah, I would agree. You love them as much as you can and where they're at. You help them navigate these difficult times, developmental times in their life. You tell them the truth, and you love them with the truth. And by God's grace, you shine the light of the gospel into their hearts. Why did you both get into this? Why did you decide to embark on this journey? We knew there was a great need in Washington, you know, thousands of kids without homes. And we had the ability to take kids in. We have a couple children of our own. And we just felt like we could provide a loving home for a child in need. And I imagine there are no regrets at all, despite all of this. No, none at all. I mean, we've had some really great experiences where we've seen some of the children in our home go back to their biological parents, which in the end really is the goal, if that's possible right, to reunite families. And that's just a beautiful thing to watch. Yeah. Hal, what's actually in this settlement that stops DCYF from, you know, drafting version number three with, you know, friendlier language and then starting this whole fight over again, maybe not with the Gross family, but with someone else?

Yeah, good question. What helps with that is that there is actually a provision in the consent order that Washington agreed to and that the court entered that specifically says they are not permitted to deny a license, stop renewal, or attach conditions or restrictions onto a license because of a family's religious beliefs, including speech and actions pertaining to marriage, gender, or sexuality. And so we think that language is broad enough to stop these unconstitutional practices no matter how they rewrite the regulations. So how confident are you then that there's not going to be another chapter to this in some way, shape, or form? Because you guys do this all the time. This is what you're committed to fighting and you've got a ton of cases that you're currently litigating around the country. Well, I know well enough not to predict the future, but I think that we've got a very good court order in place here that protects the next family. We've been talking with Shane and Jennifer DeGras of Port Orchard, along with her attorney from Alliance Defending Freedom, Hal Frampton. Thank you guys so much for fighting this fight. It's an important one. There are a lot of foster care kids, regardless how anyone feels about the topic of, you know, non-binary kids or pushing all of that aside. These kids are in need of a safe and healthy space to grow up. You're providing it. And that the state got in your way is just so disgusting. But I'm glad the Alliance Defending Freedom was there to help you fight. And I'm glad you were willing to fight. There are a lot of people who don't want to take that kind of stance. I get why they might not want to. But you decided to fight this. And you came out on top. So thank you guys so much for coming on. I really appreciate you guys. Yeah, thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. By the way, 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. You pick out a vehicle, drive it for a couple days, and if it's not the right fit, they're going to help you find the one that is without any gimmicks or loopholes. You just get more at Sunset, and people do like them. The all-new Seattle Red.com. Finally, conservatives in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest have a home dedicated to local news. When I'm out and about in Seattle or anywhere just because I like to go into the field. Conservative analysis and opinion. And the left is saying this is anti-democracy. Seattlered.com is a new experience for Seattle's conservative movements where your comments are welcome and we encourage thoughtful conversation and debate. This is the key piece here. Visit the all-new Seattlered.com.

Welcome back to the Jason Rance show. I'm broadcasting from the mobile studios for Seattle. I'm actually in New York City again. I was here last night and then I'll be doing again CNN News Night tonight before I get back into the studio tomorrow. I'll get back into Seattle tomorrow. Hope you'll tune in. I've got some clips posted up on our social media channels if you did not see them. We are at a point where we're now like 12 days away from... the World Cup, not just in Seattle, but obviously Seattle is hosting. That means the entire planet in some way, shape, or form might have their eyes on Seattle. And right now, our surveillance cameras are off. Our hotels are about to walk off the job. And the new mayor is kind of treating the biggest sporting event on planet Earth, like it's almost inconvenient to her ideology. June 15th is when the FIFA World Cup hits Lumen Field, although they renamed it Seattle Stadium. We're going to have six matches, one of which is going to be an actual big deal for the World Cup. One of the U.S. men's national team matches are going to be held here in Seattle. In a perfect world, we have hundreds of thousands of international visitors. I don't think we're going to get that, but billions potentially of TV viewers across more than 200 countries for the entirety of the World Cup. But under the mayor of Seattle, we look really unprepared. Frankly, we look unprofessional and unsurious. Here's how. So we can start with the cameras. So the Seattle City Council, you know, I think it was in January. They authorized and funded a technology-assisted public safety pilot program. The T-A-P-S-P-P-P-P-P-T-P-P-P-P. These are surveillance cameras CCTV, close caption. And they were meant for the stadium district. They were bought. They were installed, ready to go. But the council didn't get its way. Even though they wrote in privacy protections that the data can't be handed to ICE, it can't be used against people who are looking for abortions, both of which were not actually happening and weren't even threatened to be happening. The mayor said, we're going to put a pause on all of this. Despite it being funded, despite the legislation. clearing the way for what it can and can't be used with. She says, we're only going to use it if we get a credible threat. So until someone hands are a memo saying terrorists are here, the cameras end up staying dark through six World Cup matches, which is not a great move for most people. Bob Kettle, one of the council members, is saying, number one, this puts us at a severe public safety disadvantage. And number two, he told Como, you don't have the authority. to do something like this. This is illegal. You know, we're not doing what we need to do to be ready for these games. The 22 cameras are installed. They're ready to go. They just need to be turned on, and they need to be turned on for the World Cup. Here's the thing. You don't get credible threat warning. You know, the mayor of Atlanta did not get it in the Summer Olympics in 96. The mayor of Boston did not get it in the 2013. We have to take action now to get ourselves ready for the World Cup.

And I think he's right. We don't even know what a credible threat truly is, although Wilson did try to explain. What's a credible threat and who gets to make the call? We've been working with SPD on that definition. And, you know, I don't have it in my head, but it's pretty common sense. It's basically, you know, if we have an indication that there is a person or an organization that it has the intention to cause harm to, you know, significant harm to people or property during these events or, you know, surrounding these events. And we believe. that they could have the ability to carry this out, that would be considered a good point. Yeah. So Bob Kettle makes a good point, and I don't particularly like Bob Kettle, but he made a really good point there, right? I mean, there wasn't any credible threat, or at least one that was taken seriously in, say, Atlanta. And yet, had we had surveillance, we would have been able to clear Richard Jewell really quickly and be able to find who was responsible. Number two, she's also, of course, putting out information that basically says, once we have a credible threat, we'll announce to the world that we have a credible threat, which then makes the investigation much more difficult to complete and make an actual arrest, right? This is just ideologically silly for the mayor to do it. Now, at the same time, just to, I guess, add an extra layer, the embassy suites by Hilton at Pioneer Square. They just announced that they are going to strike unless something happens. Unite here local eight announced workers are going to hold a strike authorization vote on Friday. So that's, you know, June 5th, two days away. The contract that they had expired in May. And once authorized, they can walk. off the job at any time that includes in their own words during the World Cup. A front desk employee named Hayden spoke with King Five. Those prices have grown even more rapidly than they have in the past. So we're fighting from better wages. We all care about our coworkers. That also includes potentially like having more safeguards when it comes to ICE and their activities in our area. This is it. Again, he's pretending that ICE agents are using the embassy suites hotels. And by the way, if they are, they get to use it. The government has no say in that. Exactly the busy time of the year. This is when everyone's at the hotel. This is when it hurts the most for a strike. If we do, we're all in it together and we're all going to support each other throughout it no matter what. This is such a bad faith. scummy strategy that they're using. The only thing that I guess they have going for them at the city side and the World Cup side is that the number of hotel visitors is not even close to what was predicted for the World Cup. Now, that could change as we get closer and we get, you know, much cheaper tickets. But you've got a hotel two blocks away from the stadium that would be full of some international fans who want to go to the World Cup and they might get hit with a strike. That is such a shameful strategy from these employees. Just really disgusting. And it shows you just how self, not only just how selfish they are, but how undeserving they are of any kind of better contract. I would fire them if I could and then immediately rehire with people who are willing to do the jobs. Although I guess I'd wait until after the World Cup. Just a really scumbag move. Sorry. It just, it is.

And they're not even hiding it. And that's what makes it so particularly disgusting. Thank God, I don't actually go to embassy suites. But I do stay at a Hilton. I'm not at a Hilton today. I'm at a Marriott, Marriott Bonvoy. Because I have status because of all the travel I'm doing in New York. Now, what does that status get me? I think it might get me late checkout, which I never use because my flights are always early. So I can get back to Seattle earlier. 1-800-4-6-5-7-74. For your texts, you're listening to the Jason Rancho.