Hour 2: Seafair confident in safety, Dems fear DSA, guest Sarah Mittleman

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. The yellow light. I'm walking here. I'm walking. Good afternoon and welcome to the Jason Ranch Show. We are here on Seattle Red 770am online at Seattle Red.com. We've got a ton to get to. We'll talk with Sarah Middleman, who's running as a Republican in Clark County for the state legislature. She's not always been a Republican. She'll explain why the Democrats have gone so far to the left that she could no longer identify with them. But first, people are worried about safety in Seattle. And that's coming up ahead of Seafair weekend. How is it all going to play out? The CEO is speaking. That's what's trending. What's trending? Safety first. Folks are still obviously concerned about the mass shooting at the bite of Seattle on Sunday night. It left three people dead. That includes one of the alleged shooters. But also, of course, two innocent bystanders. Beyond that, we've seen multiple people who were injured as well. And the city's response has not been great. It has not been great. It's been subpar at best, not giving us accurate information, not being quick to give us any information, withholding stuff because the dignitaries that they continue to pretend didn't actually happen even though we have it on video. We have a police chief who's absent, who still, even earlier today during the press conference at noon, refused to explain how often he's out of town. He just will not answer that question directly. But a lot of people are concerned, and we've got Seafair coming up in just a few days, and people are wondering whether or not it's going to be safe. Now, the CEO of Seafair, speaking with Como TV, he's out there. saying he understands why people are concerned, or she, excuse me. Her name is, what is it, Emily Cantrell. But she says, We've got this covered. Don't worry. To anyone who is feeling concerned about safety, all we can say is we are extremely confident in all of the measures that we have in place. Again, it's the best security measures possible. Now, I have no doubt that she's being truthful here. And I will say, however, when I hear responses like this, and she's in a tough spot, like I do not blame her at all. Would... Whoever was running and organizing bite of Seattle, if I asked them about security concerns last Tuesday, would that organizer give an answer that's different from what Emily Cantrell is giving for Seafar? That's the problem with all of this. And again, I don't blame...

something that happened with Bite of Seattle that made it more possible for two alleged gang members to get involved in a shooting match. I'm not going to put that on Bite of Seattle, nor I'm going to put that on Seafair. But as I said yesterday, they weren't checking bags. We played that audio clip from that Instagram guy who just happened a day before the shooting, post a video about how lax the security was. Can you create it so that the bite of Seattle? I get it's free, but can you not close off the Seattle Center and have two or three points of entry so you can have people go through security? We have people go through security way more than might visit at any given moment bite of Seattle. Like that's a trickle in of lots of people throughout the entirety of the weekend. You get a lot of people who are coming in all at once into T-Mobile Park or CenturyLink or excuse me, Lumen. Right? How is it that they're able to get security in order, but bite of Seattle can't? And I don't know what specifically Seafar is doing. As I recall, they don't do bag checks. They don't do pat-downs. And I'm not expecting a pat-down. I'm not even expecting a metal detector, but searching bags seems reasonable to me. Now, these two kids with the guns didn't have bags carrying the weapons, I don't think. I think it was on their persons. But when you have that level of security, you are still creating a disincentive for people to show up, armed, and that willingness to use. Now, they also say they found a third gun, a 9-millimeter recovered. They don't think it was used, according to Seattle Police Department. So we'll obviously continue to keep an eye on the developments here of the mass shooting and perhaps a third or second arrest that occurs. We're still waiting the charging decisions. But I would not be worried about Seafair. This was gang violence. and gang violence happens. Generally doesn't happen at the bite of Seattle. Generally doesn't happen at Seafair. Is it possible? Yes. So I guess head on a swivel to a degree. Just be aware of your surroundings. But I'm not particularly worried about safety at Seafar. And I say that, however, someone who's definitely not going to Seafar. I have zero interest in that. I find it boring. Let's find out what else is trending. What's trending? Let's get political. There appears to be some confusion amongst folks on the left about the... problems with embracing the Democratic Socialists of America. On the one hand, you've got people who are saying that this is a problem, that your tent is too big if you're allowing people in who have Nazi tattoos or who don't believe in the Democratic Party at all, and others saying it's no big deal. Now, one is correct, the other one is not. And I suppose we're only going to really know... after the election and the years to come, but something tells me there's a bigger threat of the DSA to the Democratic Party than some on the left would have you believe. You have the New York Times columnist Jamel Bowie, who was on the opinions podcast.

Now, Jamel or Jamil, not a bright person. This is a hardcore hack who, when not blaming Trump for everything, pretends the Democrats have no problems. But he can't figure out why anyone is even having a conversation about socialism and communism. In the 1950s, when the Soviet Union has detonated a hydrogen bomb, when the nuclear arms race is taking off. when again, Soviet communism is spreading as a geopolitical force and is a viable alternative, then warning about the red menace makes a bunch of sense, right? Like, actually, there are plenty of Americans who will hear about the red menace, but yeah, I'm worried about that. That's scary to me. In 2026, There's no Soviet Union. China is nominally communist. I mean, there's the CCP obviously is an authoritarian formation, but like in terms of its economy, that's capitalism, baby. And early state capitalism, right? So it's like, what are we warning about? It's not really a threat. It's not, okay, okay. You can go ahead and pretend that is the case all you want, but even Joe Scarborough from MS Now is sounding the alarms. The national co-chair of the DSA went on television and showed us exactly who she is and what her party believes. Abolish the U.S. Senate, the presidency as we know it, the Supreme Court as we know it? True. Abolish ICE? Absolutely. Open the borders? Defund the Pentagon? Empty the prisons? Have the government seized private companies? Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. All questions answered with complete conviction. And all those responses completely disqualifying for a party that likes to tell people they're really just about health care and tax reform. I had no problem with debate. Barack Obama might say that a party that stops debating the big issues with itself stops growing. But there's a difference between pushing your party to be better and asking it to abandon every single thing that makes it worth belonging to in 2026. They're embracing the crazy and they're doing that because they think it's going to give them power and perhaps it will. I still believe that they're going to win in the House. I don't think they're going to win in the Senate, but they will win a majority in the House according to history. I hope I'm wrong. I hope history for once does not repeat itself. But history tells us that the party in power is going to lose at least one of these institutions, the House or the Senate. One branch is going to go the other way. It can't be the White House. But the reality is when you embrace the crazy because you think it's going to deliver you some votes and then just assume that the crazy is going to cease being crazy once you have power, you're out of your mind. Hakeem Jeffries is not going to get the support. Chuck Schumer's not going to get the support of the crazies. Unless they're willing to give in, give something. We already saw what happened with Mike Johnson when he became House Speaker. All the wheeling and dealing that had to occur. And so unless the Democrats win in a landslide, we're not a single poll suggests that's going to happen. You're giving a whole lot of power to a small group of activists.

who are going to hold the party hostage, and it's going to be a clown show. And of course, the people who are reasonable within the party understand this. You have a handful of people who are pushing back. Some House members you've never heard of, or in this case, on CNBC, Senator John Fetterman. This is not a big tent kind of like, well, you know, like, you know, abolish prisons, abolish the border, abolish the presidency, abolish the Pentagon. I mean, these are crazy people, and now they are electing people across our country, you know, Colorado. even in my own state, definitely in New York City right now. And some of those people like Zohran Mamdani are doing dangerous thing. Could you imagine if I just announced that, that, you know, I'm going to arrest so, so and so in Pennsylvania. or you're not welcome here in my state. You know, he's a clown, and now he's putting the list of people that owns homes in New York. You know, don't put people on lists. They haven't done anything wrong. And they're behaving in truly bizarre ways. And that seems like what the DSA wants more and more. And now, why aren't more Democrats? Isn't it, it's incumbent on us, Republican and Democrat side, to police your own ranks? He's right. And again, who thought that John Fetterman would be the one who's showing the most reason and logic in that party? And by the way, he made reference there to this list from Zohran Mamdani. The mayor... ended up putting together a searchable database identifying the property owners who could be subject to their new tax on these second homes or third homes. And obviously when you put out a database that has all of this information, including names and addresses of the non-primary residences, well, guess what you end up doing? You're doxing them. You're making it easy to dox them. Now, a spokesperson for the Department of Finance says this is beyond their control. This is all about state property law. In a statement saying, as per state law, property rovers released for public inspection from the list, DOF will identify properties that may be subject to the new non-primary residence property surcharge. Fox Digital says a person familiar with the process who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the city has publicly released similar property tax rolls every year for many years in accordance with New York state law. A person said new taxes and surcharges follow the same process. The state passes legislation a public property role is published and the Department of Finance identifies the property subject to the levy using criteria established by the state.

However, critics argue the database goes well beyond traditional public records by compiling the names and addresses of affluent property owners into a single easily searchable location, potentially creating new privacy and security risks. And it's funny because putting it into a searchable database. City government, if you've ever dealt with any database from city agencies or county agencies, whether it's New York or Washington, you find out rather quickly that they make it as difficult as humanly possible to navigate. And yet somehow in this case, it's easy to navigate. And that's totally legitimate. It's not because they're creating a database that's intended to docks people or intimidate people. Sure. Let's find out what else is trending. What's trending? Your health. As I've said multiple times, a huge fear of mine is as I get older, I end up developing Alzheimer's dementia, and that is just terrifying to me. That is absolutely terrifying to me. And so when I see stories like this next one, I look at it and say, okay, good, because I'm kind of already doing this. There's an article from study finds that says results from a small, and it's small, a small clinical trial suggests it may be possible to reduce your risk of dementia by eating during fewer hours of the day. It was a pilot study. It involved the weight loss program for older women who are either overweight or obese. And it showed, quote, modest cognitive improvements in those who limited their daily eating window instead of just reducing their calorie intake. So in a way, they're talking about intermittent fasting. But a lot of the fasting that's done, and I can already hear people in their cars on the way home saying, oh, I don't want to fast. Because we've heard different things like you fast for 16 hours and the remaining hours you can eat. I've seen some that are like you're fasting for 23 hours and you're having one hour where you kind of eat what you want. But the reality is the majority of the fasting that's done in like the 16 hour window. is while you're sleeping. So if you're sleeping eight hours a day, or maybe nine or seven, whatever it is, that's the majority of the fasting that you're doing. And on top of that, I already know you're not supposed to eat within two to three, maybe even four hours of sleep because you want to make sure when you're going to bed, you've fully digested your food so your body is not working on digestion. Instead, it's working on recovery so that you can get really deep restorative sleep. But this professor at Rutgers who did the study, or at least was the principal in the study, said losing weight alone will ward off some of the aging-related cognitive decline. And these data suggests that there may be additional benefits if you stop eating four hours prior to going to sleep and reduce food intake to eight or nine hours per day compared to the usual eating window of 12 hours per day. They're going to be presenting the findings at some meeting of the annual society for nutrition. But the article says Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia have become more prevalent as population's age. And women and people who are overweight or obese tend to face a higher likelihood of developing these conditions. So women are a higher likelihood of dementia. Diet and that just means higher likelihood. It doesn't mean that you're going to get in and it doesn't mean that men don't.

Diet and other lifestyle factors have been linked to dementia risk, but few studies have examined whether modifying these factors can reduce that risk. Now, as I said, this is a small pilot program. They only had, what is it, 47 women. So it was under 50 women, all between the ages of 50 and 79, who were counseled to reduce their calorie intake by some 500 calories per day. 26 participants were asked to restrict their eating to a window of less than nine hours per day. The others, they did their normal 12 hours a day of opportunities, I guess, to eat. But they say in the time-restricted eating group, participants generally ate only between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. with an average daily eating window of 8.2 hours compared to 12.3 hours per day on average among those who were asked to maintain the standard eating window. After six months, participants had lost about 15 pounds on average. which was about the same in both groups. Compared with participants who maintained a 12-hour eating window, those who consumed food for only 8 to 9 hours per day had significant improvements on spatial planning and problem-solving tests. They also showed a trend toward fewer errors on memory and learning tests. So they say, according to this researcher, there was a modest effect of time-restricted eating to improve spatial planning and problem-solving on reducing errors related to memory and learning. These outcomes suggest a better ability to remember information during everyday tasks and reducing mistakes related to memory, attention, and problem solving. Reductions in the eating window predicted greater improvements. Now, they don't know why, and they're still looking into this, but none of this is necessarily shocking. This is the kind of news that I think is for a lot of people who live in the space of biohacking, which we've talked about many times on the show. This is not necessarily new. This is just affirming or reaffirming things we already believe. And in many cases, you know, and I'm in this world myself of not understanding the why, but understanding the what, sometimes understanding the why, but not even really truly understanding the what. I just know that there's a positive end result. that I'm working towards, whether it's weight loss or more energy, better sleep, whatever it is. I don't always know the why. I just know the what or the how. And this is one of those issues. I've always known about intermittent fast, or not always, but in the last like year and a half intermittent fasting, I've done a little bit of it. I don't particularly enjoy it. It starts off pretty difficult and then it gets easy, but I still don't necessarily like it. I feel that pressure of like, man, I can't eat. That makes me hungry. And this is from someone who doesn't even eat, I very rarely eat breakfast. If I do, it's going to be high protein, moderate fat, but generally I'm just drinking my coffee. Danger coffee is the only coffee I drink. I put in my supplements, specifically creatine, two scoops. And I'm good to go usually until about, I don't know, 10.30, 11 o'clock I start to get hungry. And sometimes I'll just eat my lunch then or I'll just hold off and eat at 1130. And I'm generally not going to eat after 7 o'clock, 7.30, something like that, generally speaking. Because remember, I'm in bed at 9. I go to sleep around 9.30.

So I'm definitely not doing the four-hour thing of not eating before bed, but I'm doing close to that. 1-800-465-8-770 for your text. Sarah Middleman is running out in Vancouver for a state house seat. She is a former Democrat who decided the party got too crazy and intolerant for her. The party left her. And she realized she's more of a Republican. So she'll explain why she's running and how she'll convince people to give her their vote. when we come back 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 Rancho. All right, let's break it down with Seattle radio host and author Jason Rance. 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 Hamlers. They really don't like Trump, isn't it? Long form. Sarah Middleman is a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner. who's also the former chair of the Clark County Democratic women. And yet, now she's a Republican candidate for state representative out in Washington's 49th legislative district. That is primarily Vancouver. Middleman says the aftermath of the October 7th Hamas terrorist attacks changed everything for her. She encountered anti-Semitism. She encountered hostility toward Israel. And she had a Democratic party that she didn't recognize anymore. And so someone who used to be a lifelong Democrat decided to switch parties and then launch a campaign focused on affordability, public safety, addiction, mental health, and government accountability. Sarah Middleman is joining me now. Welcome to the show. Hi, nice to be here. So you are finding yourself in a position where obviously your personal political party has shifted. And you weren't merely a Democratic voter. I mean, you chaired the Clark County Democratic women. You completed Democratic candidate training. What specifically happened after October 7th that made you conclude this is no longer feasible for you to stay in the party? I mean, after October 7th, after we watched these horrific attacks, I watched anti-Semitism get, excuse me, my own party, minimized, rationalized by people, and a lot of the organizations I had trusted, like you mentioned. At my hospital, for example, my peers were saying all kinds of terrible things. The union seems to be on board with these anti-Semitic statements, their ceasefire. Uh.

statements that they've made soon after October 7th were quite troublesome. And they're still doing it today. The party is still grasping at these candidates that are anti-semitic. Maybe not here in my own party. So like in my own local party, but like on an national level for sure, it's still happening. Well, you pointed out in an interview that you did that someone called you, I guess, a genocide or simply because you happened to be Jewish. Oh, yeah. Yeah, Jenna Cedar. Actually, that wasn't my party. And it's just because people are having disagreement. So instead of being able to just talk about your disagreement, we just immediately go to this place where we're going to shut down conversations by calling somebody a name. And it's not a great place to be. It's not anything that I've ever done in my personal life. I don't agree with name falling. So I just had to make a break for myself, for my... for my own alignment with my moral compass. I just couldn't handle it anymore. Was there one defining moment when you realized that this was not really just a disagreement over Israeli policy, which some folks on the left like to pretend that this is about, that this crossed over into anti-Semitism? Was there one point that it just was crystal clear to you? No, not one point. I see things all the time. that drive me nets that make me thankful that I left. For example, our vice chair at the local Democratic Party is also the head of the Indivisible branch here. And they have all kinds of terrible things on their website and nobody shuts it down. And I think as a leader of a Democratic Party, you should be able to speak up when you see these things happening. And they just don't. So not one particular thing that made me jump. It was just kind of a series of things that led me to leave. You're obviously running as a Republican, a former Democrat. The reason at least that I can tell that you made this switch was more about the anti-Semitism in the party, not necessarily a change in your ideological beliefs. So, you know, to someone who says, great, we'd love to have you as a voter, but I'm curious where you... defer from Democrats outside of their anti-Semitism. What do you say to them? Well, I, you know, I've always been an moderate voter. But I didn't just leave because of anti-Semitism. I was also questioning policies that were happening, legislation that was coming down that I didn't agree with. And instead of being able to have any kind of reasonable conversation with the Democratic Party, I was just automatically labeled or called names. Again, you know, maybe being told you're Republican, you have Republican talking to points. Instead of just being like, oh, these are interesting questions, like tell me more about this and trying to lead a conversation with curiosity. One of those things that happened was the income tax. I'm obviously not for that, but before it was even written, my own legislative district was already creating a resolution to support it. So it's those kinds of things that were driving me to question and then ultimately leave the party.

Anything in particular policy-wise that sort of conflicts with what you've experienced dealing with people who are homeless, dealing with people who are, you know, living with addiction or some sort of mental health crisis based on your experience, what is Washington getting wrong about homelessness and what policies have been pursued by your previous party that you think missed the mark? Well, I think housing first policy, it sounds great on paper. I think it has intentions, but I don't think it's very helpful to be homeless and substance misuse population, at least here in Clark County. I'm not pretty sure I can. other nonprofit agencies up in King County that would also agree with me. This has been a big problem. We need to reevaluate that, maybe see if we can be a recovery-oriented first community and maybe tie housing with treatment options instead of just allowing someone to stay. any significant evidence that suggests that works with recovery. So that would be one of the things I would like to focus on. Why do you think that housing first and harm reduction models keep getting pushed by Democrats, at least locally, Washington State, it's by Democrats. I imagine there were some people who may be on the right fell for this because, to your point, on paper, some of it makes sense. But in practice, there's just no data to back it up. We keep seeing millions and millions and millions of dollars going into these nonprofit groups and state agencies and local agencies that pursue it. Well, again, I mean, you've articulated it well, but I think it's just feel good policies. I think harm reduction has a place. It's about short-term stability, though, about keeping you alive one more night. And if our nonprofit groups who engage in harm reduction are not making that conversation every day with every client about the client's never going to get there. So we can do our best to keep someone alive every night, but without that recovery peace or that discussion, you're just never going to get there. Sarah Middleman joining me on the line. She's running in the 49th legislative district. This is Southwest Washington. It's primarily Vancouver, but it also includes portions of Camus and Ridgefield. She used to be a Democrat. She's running as a Republican. The split came not entirely because of, but in large part because of the anti-Semitism that was surging within her party, but also reviewing some of the policy prescriptions. the Democrats held and just some basic questions she asked in good faith and the response to them was a little bit too much. I imagine that Democrats will argue that your party switch is politically motivated or, again, they'll just claim it's built around a single issue around anti-Semitism. But again, I think that there are going to be voters who will in good faith have questions. So how do you convince the voters that this isn't?

about some sort of political agenda that this is just about helping everyday families who are impacted by these policies? Well, first of all, here in the 49th, you said before, this is a very blue district. If I really wanted an easy path, I could have stayed as a Democrat and run as a moderate Democrat, but I didn't because my values just weren't aligning with that party anymore. I think when I meet people at the door, I'm talking about those kitchen table issues. We're talking about what's affecting them most. And here it is the homelessness. It's affordability. It's this idea of a new state income tax. And I think when we focus on the issues, you can see that my issues aren't necessarily Republican or Democrats. They are the issues that are affecting every people no matter how you vote. So that is what I'm promoting. That's the, those are the families I'm trying to reach and earn their vote. Well, on your website, which is sarah forewaw.com, it's spelled S-A-H and then the number 4WA.com. I like how you sort of brand yourself with a nurse's discipline and a mother's common sense. What is it about the mom that to you says, I can take control of things in Olympia? About being a mom? Yep. Well, gosh, right now I'm the CEO and the CFO of the greatest family in the world, if you ask me. So, you know, here I am. I'm learning, I've earned my doctorate degree in the last few years while raising my family. I've had to manage everybody's schedule, making all the budget systems, making all the budget. recommendations for my family. All of the intricacies that go into raising two boys to managing a home. I mean, all of that gets brought to Olympia. I think the nursing component, what makes me a good candidate, is just understanding how larger systems work together and how to problem solve. Sometimes you do have to be able to step outside of the box. And we do this with families too, to reevaluate, not getting emotionally invested in all. to actually sit back and look at the data and the logic. What would happen if you ran... What would happen if you ran your family's budget the way Democrats have budgeted in Olympia? Well, oh, I would be borrowing from my savings for my car insurance to pay off my mortgage. It's probably what would happen. Yeah. It wouldn't go very well, right? I wouldn't have savings. I wouldn't be able to take my kids camping this summer. I wouldn't be able to pay for groceries because I wouldn't have the money and I'd be in debt. And nobody runs a household that way for sure, for sure. Well, we wish you the absolute best of luck in this race, folks. Make sure you do not wait until the last moment. Get your ballot turned in. Either mail it today or put it in a dropbox location. The website is Sarah, the number four wa.com. S-A-H-4-W-A-D-com. Sarah, middleman is running in the 49th legislative district for position number one. She's running as a Republican. Sarah, best of luck in this election. Thank you so much for stopping by ahead of the primary.

Thank you for having me. I really appreciate the time. Absolutely. Again, it's Sarah the number four wa.com. You're listening to the Jason Rancho. When we come back, we're going to dive into some quick hits right here on Seattle Red online at Seattle Red.com. 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 Rantz. 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. So let's talk about an issue that Democrats love to claim passion over, and yet their so-called passion never seems to extend beyond their hatred of Donald Trump. We've been told about how the left is disgusted by the weaponization of... the Department of Justice, the politicization, right? They tell us that all the time. And they claim, of course, over and over and over again, and I mean over and over and over again, that Donald Trump is responsible for all that gets done as far as weaponization and abuse of power. He's going after his political enemies. Jan 6. They tell us that all the time. And yet what they conveniently and intentionally leave out is the weaponization that happened under the Biden administration going specifically after pro-life protesters, like a Christian father named Paul Vaughn, who was hit with violation of the Face Act because he was an anti-abortion activist. And he ended up facing, I think it was like 10, 10 and a half years in prison because he protested an abortion clinic in Tennessee back in March of 2021. Now, the Face Act was used very aggressively by the Biden administration's Justice Department to prosecute pro-life activists. This was after overturning Roe v. Wade. that they really wanted to lean in, but he ended up getting hit a little bit earlier than that. This is a guy who some of you have probably seen some of the coverage of when he was arrested where it was either the FBI or it was obviously law enforcement, federal law enforcement officials going to his home. He has 11 kids. They were armed unnecessarily.

doing this big show of aggression to arrest him. And so after the prosecution, Vaughn sued the Justice Department. And now Fox News Digital is reporting exclusively that he just reached a seven-figure settlement with the government, seven figures, bringing some closure to his family. After something that's been going on for, what, five-ish years now? And he told Fox News Digital, obviously money doesn't equate justice, and there's not a true sense of justice in the settlement, but it is an acknowledgement of wrong, and it is something to help make up for the time lost. Now, they write over at Fox News Digital that Fawn said seven of his 11 children, ranging from 18 months to 18 years old, were home at the time of the arrest, and that three of the children were, quote, basically held a gunpoint, end quote, by an agent in the yard during the encounter. And again, some of you probably saw the video of this. He added that his five-year-old continues to have anxiety over what happened. God's been gracious to us and has helped us through this process, he said. But there's still a lot of unknowns of how does this impact a child's life going into their adult years? Now, he's been getting the help or the family's been getting the assistance of the Thomas Moore Society. But he also thanked all of the people out there who prayed for his family. He obviously thanked the president. for taking steps to address all of this. He was pardoned back in 2025, along with 23 other pro-life protesters who were convicted under the Face Act by the Biden administration. And yet, again, despite this being a, I think, a crystal-cut example, crystal clear example of... what it is the Biden administration did to weaponize the Department of Justice, Democrats don't seem all that move. They don't care because, you see, he's the wrong kind of activist. They don't like that he is pro-life. They don't like that he was protesting abortion. Thus, they're not going to, you know, take on his case. They're not going to support him. And it's just absolutely disgusting this obvious double standard. And it's the tell. When they claim that they are against something, but it's only based on the purported victims in their mind, purported victims' ideological positions, if that's all they care about, then they don't really care about the issue. They don't really care about the issue. And it is, again, it is so clear as day. what it is these people stand for, which is they will take any position so long as it's in favor of their left-wing agenda to attack Donald Trump, to attack conservatives, to attack anyone who doesn't think like they do. It is pathetic. Meanwhile, in completely unrelated news, arguably though, it is somewhat pathetic, a weird-looking new hotel. is apparently going to go up in Vegas at the south end of the strip. It's right by or it's supposed to be like across the street from Mandalay Bay, which for those of you who go to Vegas, and maybe I'm the only one who's really interested in Vegas stories. I apologize. I go to Vegas a lot. But this is very far south on the strip. The strip, it's the furthest south you can go before there's just no more hotels. It's very...

kind of reclusive, I guess. But they say they're officially approving, according to the Clark County Zoning Commission, they're approving unanimously plans for a heart-shaped resort hotel. And it's very ugly. It's just this massive heart LED screen at the front end of this hotel. It looks horrible. Like, it really looks gross. The development is proposed on about 12 acres of land. It's between Mandalay Bay and the Four Seasons. Fox News says planners trimmed the project scope to a height of 317 feet and 752 hotel rooms down from the original proposal of 406 feet and 874 rooms. Now, we don't have a name of this property yet. It hasn't been released, but it will include not just the heart-shaped hotel. but obviously a casino, retail space, a bunch of restaurants. So it'll be just another resort in Vegas. They say the concept is planned as a, quote, pedestrian entertainment corridor. Now, keep in mind, this would be semi-close to the new stadium that's going up where the old... I can't even remember the name of the hotel. It starts with a T. They tore that one down. They're going to build this new stadium. For baseball, it's going to be indoors. Tropicana, that's the name of it. Sorry, it just came to me. But obviously there's going to be more interest in people going to Vegas, presumably for the games. There's going to be an increase, we think, in demand for hotel rooms. Now, to be clear, as it stands right now, tourism in Vegas, specifically the strip is struggling. It's down. People who are going are spending a little bit more money. So the casinos at least are making up for it. But that's because everything is more expensive. And perhaps it's because the people who are choosing to go to Vegas maybe have a little bit more money to spend. Thus, you know, you're attracting a more, not necessarily a high roller style person, but closer to high roller than the person who shows up does penny slots for, you know, 20 bucks and then goes to see a show and eat at a buffet. But to be clear, there are a lot of empty hotel rooms in Vegas right now. So the idea that you're going to add a nearly, you know, thousand more resort. even with the stadium seems to me to be a little bit hard to believe that it's going to be a huge success. I want it to be a success. I want Vegas to be a success. And the reality is, you know, basic supply and demand is going to come into play. You have more hotel rooms that are empty and the demand isn't as high. The prices are going to generally come down, although Vegas is one of those places where you can't necessarily count on prices ever coming down no matter what. But I'm just looking at the hotel now. You can find it online images. It's just ugly. I just don't like it. Unlike the guitar-shaped hotel for the hard rock, which is by where the Mirage used to be, that looks cool. I didn't think it would look cool, but now that it's coming in, it's almost half done, it looks really sweet. I really like the way that looks. Certainly much better than a heart-shaped hotel. 1-800-4-6-5-8-770 for your texts. You're listening to the Jason Rancho.

And by the way, before we go, I'll be on CNN tomorrow night, Thursday night. I'll be guest co-hosting, guest hosting for Katie Pavlitch on Friday night. Don't worry, I will be broadcasting the show from New York this week. And then again, I'll make another stop on Saturday morning on CNN. So make sure you're tuned in. If you're not, don't worry. I post all the clips over at our social media channel. Just look up Jason Rant's show on Instagram, Facebook. X, YouTube, wherever it is, make sure you hit subscribe and follow and like and all that other stuff. 1,800, 465, 8774 for your text.