#300 CCS, Govt Transparency & Accountability

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:05):
Hey, good morning, everybody.
Welcome to the state of freedom.
I pray this finds you well.
we are here with more updates than you can shake a stick at.
today I want to announce that we, today's our 300th episode, Chris, 300.

(00:26):
Can you believe that?
I know Katie called it the tri-centennial.
Yeah, whenever I hear the word 300, I think of the movie about the Spartans when they heldoff the Persians at the pass with Hermopolis.
That's right where we are.
That's right where we are.
I think that's fitting.
Yeah, I looked up what 300 means in biblical symbolism and it says it's the faithfulremnant and those chosen by God.

(00:55):
So thank you for the faithful remnant who are listening to us, who are supporting us.
We appreciate you so much.
Today, we are going to give you an update on
the good, bad and the ugly, the dirty and the very nasty things that happened at theCapitol this week, along with some big wins.
So don't let despair overtake you.
We are winning on some fronts while fighting, continuing to fight battles on others.

(01:20):
Before we get into it, let me read the scripture of the day.
It's Joel chapter two, verses 11 through 14, the first half of 14.
And I got to get my big Bible for this one.
All right.
It says,
Okay

(02:02):
abounding in loving kindness and relenting of evil.
Who knows whether he will not turn and relent and leave a blessing behind him.
I was reading that this morning and you know, I really believe that we're entering somestormy days and it will be incredibly important to have done our parts to make sure that

(02:23):
our hearts are pure and that we're fully committed to the Lord.
The Lord's shown me many times in the last few years that
when the very stormy and shaky days come, the seriously shaky ones that ultimately thrustus into the fullness of the Great Awakening, I think we're at the beginning of the Great
Awakening by the way, ah it's going to be those who are rooted and anchored in the Lord inthat time during that shaking that will not be shaken.

(02:49):
And it's important that they're not shaken because they will be steadfast and reliablystrong and others will need to cling to us in that time.
So if there's something you need to get right with the Lord, if you are not sure of yourrelationship with the Lord, with Jesus, today is your day to repent and to seek him.
I feel an urgency on this message.
So don't put it off any longer if you've been putting off dealing with it.

(03:13):
Don't shove it down and ignore it any longer.
If you need help getting right with Jesus and you don't have anybody to ask about that,you can call me, email me.
If you have my number.
Call me if you don't have my number, just email me danielle at freedomstate.us.
Be happy to help you with that because this is a time to get things straight.

(03:34):
Yeah, and he's always willing to take us back.
You know, he's always willing to take us back.
There's nothing that we've done, failed to do that is beyond his forgiveness.
He's always standing with open arms to take us back.
you know, it's the Psalm of David, know, the Lord is close to the broken heart.

(03:55):
It saves those who are crushed in spirit.
It's really when we can be fully open to him, when we're humbled and broken.
And that's really what it takes to get rid of the ego, but he's always willing to take usback.
And we just have to remember that we serve a God of deep, deep compassion.
Absolutely and great in mercy.

(04:16):
and great in mercy.
All right.
Well, our legislature may need some mercy from us this morning, but I'm not sure how muchwe're going to show.
Yeah, Daniel, I got to tell you, I was all over the place down there this week.
I didn't even really have time to get my notes together on the votes.
You know, I know most of it, but it was just so hectic down there.

(04:38):
And I think that you mentioned a couple of times before that maybe these legislators, theyput these bills, these important bills often on the schedule in different committee rooms
at the same time.
So it's just difficult to be in all places at one time in order to testify.
But we were.
80 % of the meetings this week happened at between 9 and 9.30 on Wednesday.

(05:01):
Come on.
Wednesday morning, exactly.
And it just seems like it's the most critical bills that seem to have these conflicts.
So I don't know whether it's coincidental or by design or what, but nonetheless, well,maybe so, but ah we're keeping an eye on it very, very closely.

(05:22):
Yeah, and we've got just one more month of session, Chris.
So we're right here at the halfway point, looks like.
Crazy.
is going to be absolutely jam packed.
And of course there's always this uh conventional jockeying that legislators do during thesession to the ones who don't want certain bills to pass.

(05:45):
They just jam them up, don't call them, wait until the last minute to call them.
There's all kinds of tricks that go on down there where uh good bills can be defeated.
in ways that where these rhinos at least think they're not leaving any fingerprints on it.
believe me, we'll call them out and there are fingerprints.

(06:08):
Yeah, there are.
All right.
Why don't we start, Chris?
We've got a lot to cover on what happened this past week.
Let's start with Tuesday where things started to trickle in in terms of happenings.
In the Senate, Senate Judiciary A, which is becoming a very infamous committee in my eyes,on Tuesday morning, Jay Morris's bill, SB 39, was brought for debate and you testified.

(06:36):
Chris uh against this bill.
is the false imprisonment with no consequences bill.
Yeah, and it was a bill in original form, Danielle, it would have basically immunized thestate from liability for keeping inmates in jail well beyond their out dates after they've

(06:59):
paid their dues.
So instead of solving the problem with the Department of Corrections and getting theirsystems in order to properly calculate these out dates,
They thought that they would go in and just immunize the state from liability for theirown errors, for their own negligence.
And we were staunchly opposed to that.

(07:21):
And the bill at this point has been largely gutted of those immunity protections for thestate.
And I testified nonetheless against it, even though it's in a much better form now than itwas before.
because it still makes it marginally more difficult for an inmate to challenge the uh overincarceration.

(07:45):
And it's clear, it's black and white.
Calculate the out dates the right way.
You have a $1.2 billion budget.
So the long and the short of it is, as a result of our efforts and efforts of lot of otherpeople, the bill has now been amended to exclude a lot of these liability protections for
the state.
It's.

(08:06):
Which begs the question, what's the point of the bill any longer?
Exactly.
What's the point?
And I said this in my testimony, there's already a mechanism in place for inmates tochallenge uh over incarceration.
And the reason why this bill was brought, Danielle, is because uh there's a lot of verymeritorious lawsuits that have been brought against the state for clear liability for

(08:33):
keeping these in.
Yeah, so fix the problem with your systems.
It's not that hard.
You know, just calculate the updates correctly and make sure the inmates are releasedtimely.
This is a matter of constitutional liberty.
Everybody knows you do something wrong, you serve your time, and when it's over, they letyou out.
They can't keep you in jail for weeks and months after your sentence has been served.

(08:55):
So, fortunately, yeah.
No, it's just so correct your systems.
Don't try to immunize from liability the very people who created the problem.
Don't you think this is something that should be brought to the attention of LA Doge,Chris?
Because this, in terms of waste, fraud and abuse, I mean, this is definitely wasteful ifthe state has to take the time and resources of our tax dollars to defend itself against

(09:25):
lawsuits that are rightful because, I mean, how many fronts are they wasting our money onthis issue?
Exactly.
There's no question about it.
I guarantee you they're wasting our money.
How much do you think it costs the state, cumulatively, Danielle, to keep inmates inprison for years cumulatively after their sentence has been served?

(09:46):
But we're paying for that.
So this is a...
for the state to defend against the fact that they did that.
when they get sued.
So this is not just an issue of constitutional liberty in due process.
This is a fiscal issue that every conservative should be concerned about.
So fortunately, I don't even think the bill is necessary at this point, but it's certainlynot nearly as harmful as it was in the beginning.

(10:11):
No, and I'll just point out Chris and you and I discussed this before the show.
When bills like this get brought and they're just so patently wrong, they're so wrongheaded.
Instead of Senator Morris, for instance, taking the opportunity to say, you know what,maybe I got this wrong and just, you know, packing up his paper and pencil and saying,

(10:34):
I'll, you know, I'll just see this one because I get it.
uh No, instead, they still try to shove through a bill that just further complicates thelaw that really is not serving the interest of the people in any way, or form.
I guess at the end of the day, if it's more complicated law, it really only serves theinterest of the trial attorneys, maybe the interest of the state to have more bureaucratic

(10:59):
red tape for some other process to happen.
So I just don't appreciate legislation like this.
Just call it a loss and move on.
Yeah, and the bill got out of the Senate uh this week uh and now goes to the Senate floor,then it's got to go to the House.
So who knows what further iterations may take place between now and final passage if itgets to that point.

(11:22):
But we're going to continue to register our opposition to it.
Although, as I said before, the bill is substantially improved uh now.
Do you think Senator Morris is going to just uh leave it to die on the Senate calendar, ordo think he's going to bring it forward?
You know what?
I'm not sure what he's going to do at this point because the bill really doesn't do toomuch at this point.

(11:44):
uh It doesn't.
so maybe it obviously his original objective was to fully immunize the state and make itextremely difficult for an inmate to seek redress and get some relief.
That's now out of the bill.
It is marginally more difficult, but not nearly the way it was before.

(12:06):
So
He's not really getting what he originally wanted in the bill, so who knows?
Maybe he will let it die.
Yeah.
And this is the second of two bills, Chris, that would seek this legislative session tomake a completely illegal action by the state legal uh through some legal wrangling,

(12:29):
right?
between this and Landry's bill ah to say that anything she does that's illegal is notillegal because of this other bill, this is just
Just follow the freaking law,
They follow the freaking law.
And then of course, HB 206, Danielle, which is, you know, Mellerine's bill, which Itestified against yesterday as well.

(12:57):
And this would basically say that any, when it comes to election procedures, any consentagreements that are entered into by election officials with third parties, you know, that
are in conflict with the law, that violate the law.
all that's required is uh a House concurrent resolution, well, Senate concurrentresolution to ratify that.

(13:19):
And the question I had yesterday was, look, I understand the purpose of the bill, but canthe legislature ratify an illegal act through a concurrent resolution or doesn't it
require a bill?
Doesn't it require passage of a new law subject to governor's veto and judicial scrutiny?
So that is a real issue there.
uh

(13:41):
that one.
It did pass uh out of committee.
uh
we have legislators here who are willing to pass bills or resolutions to say on two frontsthat if you do something illegal, either in the criminal justice system for this Senator
Morris's bill, even though it's been quite amended, but the purpose, the original intentof the bill was to offer liability for illegal action by the state against inmates who

(14:11):
have served their time.
Same story with this election one.
Nancy Landry.
can go ahead and do whatever she wants, legal or illegal, and we're just gonna cover itover.
Is that fair?
Yeah.
of this legislation, session, Danielle, some of which we've talked about, really theultimate effect of it is to vastly increase her power and vastly minimize her

(14:35):
accountability.
And that's what's occurring.
uh And they're with very little challenge from the legislators who are responsible forscrutinizing these bills.
So that has to change.
for her.
A lot of people, and well, maybe not a lot of people, but several people have taken anunnatural stance in support of some of these bills.

(14:56):
Certainly, no question about it.
Yeah, all right.
Well, let's go on to House Health and Welfare.
What happened on Wednesday in there with Emily Shenevere's House Bill 400.
Chris, you said it made it out of committee.
It was unanimous, thank God, ah with an amendment that tightened up some language.
This was about uh parental rights for uh being involved in your child, your minor child'smedical future.

(15:24):
That's right.
And we put a green card in because we were in multiple other committee rooms.
We didn't have a chance to testify in favor of it, but it did pass out with the amendmentthat in situations where a minor exhibit signs of abuse or neglect from his guardians or

(15:44):
his parents, that he can receive medical treatment without the parental consent andknowledge.
There are situations where the parents or the guardians themselves may be the cause of theneed for medical treatment on the part of the minor.
And so in situations like that, requiring that the abusers themselves be made aware that aminor is receiving medical treatment clearly is inappropriate and wrong and would create a

(16:09):
much worse situation.
that's why the bill was originally deferred so that they could go back and work on thatlanguage.
And that is now in the bill.
uh And it passed out of committee unanimously on that basis.
And there are some other exceptions, Danielle, when a minor would not have to disclose tothe parents or the guardians, like if they're in the military and situations like that.

(16:31):
But it's a very good bill that creates appropriate exceptions.
But by and large, in the vast majority of cases, minors now in Louisiana, assuming thebill gets through and is passed and signed all the way through, will be required
to get their parents uh or guardians consent and knowledge to receive any kind of medicaltreatment.

(16:54):
And it seems so commonsensical.
It really does.
You know, that a minor shouldn't be able to go in and receive major medical treatmentwithout input from their parents.
Yeah.
Well, grateful that passed.
You know, nothing is a foregone conclusion with this legislature.
So we have to be vigilant on all fronts and you can't, you can't predict what's going tohappen because yesterday in a house natural resources and environment house bill six eight

(17:24):
by representative Kim Coats.
She brought the bill Chris that uh is called the Louisiana atmospheric protection act.
And it would ban geoengineering and weather modification.
with also with penalty for anyone who does continue to do it.
I know you testified uh in favor, Katie did as well, and it passed unanimously out ofcommittee, which is shocking to me.

(17:48):
absolutely shocking.
I think I set the record, Danielle, according to Chairman Guymon, for the shortesttestimony on this.
I think it was 30 seconds.
And I simply said, I don't like the idea of poison being dropped from planes that affectsand harms my family or affects and harms uh other Louisiana citizens.

(18:13):
We need to follow Florida.
We need to follow Tennessee.
and other states that are passing this legislation, this should be a no-brainer.
It's very important that it passes, and there are a lot of people very concerned about it.
And it was about 30 seconds, and think Chairman Guymon said, Mr.
Alexander, I think you did set the record on the shortest testimony, because he had justsaid, we're on a two-minute rule, so keep it short, keep it concise.

(18:37):
So I said, look, I only used one-third of my time, Brett, so I think I'm going to want toreserve this for next time I testify.
You're going to have to give me more time.
I bet he will if it's on one of his bills.
come on, bills.
So it was a very, this chemtrails stuff is so dangerous, so nefarious.
It's certainly occurring.
And there was a great letter by a doctor that was submitted into the record that justreally outlines how nefarious all this is.

(19:03):
And so fortunately it got out of committee and hopefully it will go through all the wayand get signed by the governor.
I pray that it does, Chris.
I'm so pleased to see that it passed without objection.
I mean, it's hard to object to this, but you would be surprised.
It is surprising to see the objections that some of our legislators have to some verystraightforward legislation.

(19:25):
we, like I said, we can't take anything for granted.
Very, very happy to see this move in the way it did.
And as we were discussing, it has to be because of extraordinary pressure from thecitizenry.
I know LACAG has had calls to action up on this for weeks now.
Other organizations around the state have been pushing on this and it makes thedifference.

(19:48):
It clearly makes the difference.
um
huge difference to counteract the pressure that these legislators are constantly receivingfrom the lobbyists and the big special interests.
Yeah.
The next one, Chris is in house education.
This was also yesterday, also at nine 30.
This was Senator Miguez's SB 117, which would prohibit the serving and selling of ultraprocessed foods and public schools.

(20:13):
It passed out of committee eight to one with some amendments and Chris, do you want toguess on who, who, who do you think opposed to getting ultra processed foods?
out of public school lunches.
Breakfast and lunches to get the garbage out of the food with a obesity epidemic amongyouth in Louisiana with chronic disease ailments in Louisiana.

(20:44):
Barbara Freyberg was the lone Republican to vote against this legislation and committee.
I haven't received an explanation for why, but I'm not sure that there is one in asituation like this.
We have an opportunity to feed our kids at breakfast and lunch, healthier options, get ridof all the carbonated garbage and all the dyes and all the food that are causing so many

(21:11):
problems.
And she voted against it.
And so it's interesting.
I'm perplexed by that.
Yeah, especially as an educator.
It's she, I believe she's a retired teacher, right?
Yeah.
Anyway, I just find that very fun and hysterical because we haven't really had such anopportunity to talk about Barbara Freiburg's votes this session.

(21:32):
So I'm glad she's given us the opportunity.
Yeah, and keep in mind also, Danielle, that uh Patrick McMath has a similar bill uh toSenator Miguez's bill, which does substantially the same thing, not exactly the same
thing, but there are two bills going forward.
So one of those bills certainly should pass and get signed.

(21:53):
have bills, Chris, that are so similar that pass, do they ever do reconciliation?
Like, does one of them just say, you know what, I'll offer the difference of my bill as anamendment to yours since it's further along in the process?
Sometimes they absolutely do that.
In fact, they may be doing that, Danielle, on uh FACES' chemtrails bill, combining it withCOATS' uh chemtrails bill, because they are similar, but not exactly the same.

(22:18):
The penalty provisions are different and some other things are different.
So they may end up combining those bills uh to make sure that the strongest version getspassed.
Beautiful, beautiful.
And it also helps to not further complicate the law, right?
Oh, of course, of course.
And I think the reason, Danielle, why they bring multiple instruments in situations likethis is just to make sure that something gets through.

(22:41):
Yeah, yeah.
All right.
Well, let's see.
house government relations yesterday, was Representative Dickerson's bill was brought.
House Bill 160, her ethics complaints bill, it passed out of committee with an amendment10 to 4.
Yeah, 10 to 4.

(23:01):
we had talked with Representative Dickerson about making sure this is her bill that wouldrequire an ethics complainant, someone who files a complaint against anybody alleging a
violation of the ethics board, would have to disclose their identity at some point in theprocess.

(23:22):
That is still in the bill.
The concern that we had, as we talked about before, was that
there needed to be some sort of a whistleblower uh provision in the bill that prohibitsretaliation against someone who brings a complaint if their identity is disclosed.
That is now in the bill and it passed out of committee with that amendment in place.

(23:45):
Now there were four Republicans who voted against this legislation and I don't know whyit's a good piece of legislation.
It protects both the accused so they'll know who's bringing this complaint against them.
No anonymous complaints.
And it also protects the complainant from retaliation uh from the accused.

(24:11):
Because sometimes there are powerful people who are the targets of these investigations.
that whistleblower protection is now in the bill.
It got out of committee.
But I don't understand why four Republicans would have voted against this.
Right, because the Democrats joined the Republicans who were in favor of it to get to thatnumber 10.
The four people who voted against it were uh Les Farnham, Foy Gadbury, Polly Thomas, andMark Wright.

(24:38):
And there were a couple of absences, Beau Beaullieu and Delisha Boyd.
So yes, the Republicans who didn't want to clean up things on the ethics and the ethicsprocesses.
Yeah.
and it's important that people know that those Republicans voted against this veryimportant legislation.
Yeah, but it's made it further than it did last year, which is a great thing.

(25:02):
We are on target.
Yeah.
All right.
I was just trying to take a look.
testify on this one, Danielle, again, because there were multiple other bills that I wasdown there testifying on, but we did do a green card registering our support for the
legislation.
And thank you, Representative Dickerson, for working with us and others to get thatwhistleblower protection provision into the bill.

(25:28):
Yeah.
Okay.
There was also in house governmental affairs yesterday, a bill that we have beensupportive of.
I believe Chris, same story.
You couldn't multiply yourself in order to testify in favor of house bill 405 byrepresentative Matthew Willard, which requires the secretary of state to prepare and

(25:51):
publish information around changes in election law.
It passed with an amendment 12 to O, which is surprising to me in a good way.
I did see when I was looking at the amendment, Chris, that it seems that it gives her a 90day window after the close of session.
So not when the bills have to be enacted, but after the close of session to make herwhatever information she needs to be sharing public.

(26:19):
Yeah, which is good because again, there's a perennial complaint among, particularly amongpeople who are concerned about the process that she's employing to procure new voting
systems and other election issues that she's not being transparent about when thesemeetings are occurring, uh how she's going about procuring the new system.

(26:43):
And it's just important that citizens have a right to know and see and
have real public input into this process.
this bill in part will ensure that those processes are transparent by the Secretary ofState.
didn't see in the bill, Chris, where this has anything to do with procurement.

(27:04):
So I think that's something we need to bring to the attention of Representative Willard,because to me, it seems that it's just related to the changes in election law that
happened at the legislature.
So there's not, it doesn't appear to be calling for any further transparency inprocurement processes, which could hopefully be added as an amendment.
Well, the changes, and it is very important, Danielle, that the changes in election laware made transparent by the Secretary of State because there are some very significant

(27:32):
ones that are going on down there, as you know.
But yes, I think that specifically as it relates to the procurement process, that is anamendment that should go in because that's the most important election issue we face right
now.
How are citizens going to be voting in the state of Louisiana?
And is that system going to be reliable and secure?

(27:53):
so citizens have a right to know every step of this process and have a right to publicinput every step of the way.
So yeah, that's an amendment that you probably should go in there specifically dealingwith the procurement process.
Yeah, and frankly, every single department should be uh that transparent, should berequired to be transparent about any processes related to major purchases that we're

(28:17):
funding.
Of course.
I mean, it's our money and it's our system and we're going to be living with the resultsof everything they do.
So transparency should be absolutely essential on the part of...
Yeah.
No.
going to say that it's in Governor Landry's purview to create an executive order thatmandates that and then the legislature could back him up.

(28:40):
He could lead by example on this.
Yeah, yeah, but there's a number of things that uh Governor Landry has not led by exampleon except through his silence, which is not been when his voice would have been very, very
needed and very helpful on a whole variety of issues and legislation.

(29:03):
So look, and I can tell you that, you know, I personally interpret Governor Landry'ssilence
on critically important items of legislation as uh either being lukewarm about it oractually opposing it and vice versa on bad legislation going forward.

(29:24):
When he doesn't weigh in on things, then that tells me that he is in all likelihoodsupportive of the legislation.
So he's got to become more vocal about things that directly affect us.
He's the governor, you know.
It's not enough for you just to make your position clear and known to the legislators, tothe ones who are bringing the bills.

(29:50):
You've got to state publicly for the benefit of citizens of Louisiana where you stand onthese important bills.
Because if you don't, then people are going to come to the conclusion that you're notstanding with them.
And increasing numbers of citizens are doing just that right now.
which is why, Danielle, and know we're diverting a little bit here, which is why GovernorLandry currently has a 48 % right now disapproval rating in the state of Louisiana and a

(30:20):
28 % approval rating.
28%.
And that poll came out yesterday or the day before.
So he has got to, it's not going well for him now.
And he has to rehabilitate his base.
Yeah, well yesterday I was talking to a friend who called him Jeff Jindal.
Yeah, uh or John Bell Landry?

(30:41):
Yeah.
uh
ah doesn't give anyone the warm and fuzzies, I don't think.
No, it really doesn't.
He's got to be a leader on these things.
That's what governors do.
They have to lead.
ah And I'm not, I don't believe that in many respects he's doing that.
Yeah.
Well, another issue he could have weighed in on, but has, I think, been silent on isSenate Bill 80 by uh Senator Greg Miller, which is really by Secretary Landry, Secretary

(31:12):
of State Nancy Landry.
I've been really disappointed with Senator Miller this session, especially these last twoweeks, Chris.
I feel like he's carried a lot of water for Secretary of State Landry.
on some bills that really go against the voice and the will of the people.
It's been extraordinary to watch the way that he approached this bill and also SenatorHodges' bill, which I know we'll get to in a little bit.

(31:38):
But this is the exit polling bill, the censorship bill that would say that only CNN andFox News are able to conduct exit polls while we, the people, are not able to ask any
questions outside of polling places.
related to the conduct of our election.
So under this legislation, Danielle, the government gets to decide ah who or what is aquote, bonafide news gathering organization for purposes of being able to conduct a lawful

(32:12):
exit poll at a polling precinct.
So citizens, ordinary law abiding citizens under this bill would not be able to conduct alawful non disruptive exit poll at a voting precinct without the explicit approval.
of the Secretary of State.
And this is nowhere in the Constitution.

(32:32):
Where does the Constitution make a distinction between ordinary Louisiana citizens andquote, bonafide legacy news organizations?
So if this bill passes on the House floor, it's already gone through the Senate, passedout of the uh House Governmental Affairs yesterday, despite strong opposition from me and

(32:53):
from some others.
And if it passes on the House floor, that's what's going to happen.
CNN will be able to do bonafide exit polls, but ordinary regular citizens will not be ableto do it.
I think our founding fathers are flipping in their grave over this because of thisabridgment of core rights of free speech and association.

(33:16):
Treat everybody the same.
There's no reason to treat anybody differently.
Well, I think if they really had their way, they would treat everybody the same and noexit polling could happen at all.
But having CNN and Fox News be the only agencies, the only uh allowed parties to askquestions in an exit poll means that they're just gonna rubber stamp the state.

(33:45):
If we didn't see that in 2020,
We didn't see it at all.
mean, come on.
And Chris, you've said this very clearly.
It's not that she is opposed to the exit poll itself.
She's opposed to what the exit poll is going to discover.
She doesn't like the speech that is coming out of that.
She doesn't want anyone questioning what's behind the curtain.

(34:08):
And that's what this is really about.
This is really about the veracity of our elections and it's about our First Amendmentright.
It is.
you know, law abiding citizens should be able to ask whatever questions they want when avoter is leaving, you know, after a voter has voted.
It's not something that is nefarious.

(34:31):
And the situation that prompted this bill was some 65 or 70 year old ladies up inShreveport who were simply asking voters when they left the voting precinct how they felt
about our voting system.
You trust it?
What do you think about secure hand-marked paper ballots?
They were extremely polite.

(34:51):
200 or so of the thousand voters who voted at that precinct responded, thanked them forbeing there, and thanked them for providing information.
There was nothing wrong with what these ladies were doing.
Yet, uh Secretary Landry goes in and paints them as some kind of disruptive activists, andtherefore, this legislation was necessary.

(35:15):
to make sure that voters can go vote in peace without being harassed.
It was a complete specious explanation.
And in my testimony, I explained that also, because I know these ladies in Shreveport.
I know what they were doing out there, and it was all uh lawfully done.
But no, she misrepresented that.

(35:35):
Greg Miller brings this bill uh to completely ban ordinary citizens from doing exit polls.
I think it's
obnoxious, absolutely obnoxious that Republicans would be voting for legislation likethis.
They're acting like this was some Antifa type crazy situation that would have requiredlike, you know, the full, um what are those guys that the SWAT team to come out and put

(36:05):
down or something when really it's, you know, it's people just like us who are doing this,people who are calm, collected and care about the future of the state, care about election
integrity.
I just find it super disgusting and I am really, really growing weary of themischaracterization of the people of this state by our elected officials because that's

(36:31):
what this is.
This is straight up lying about the people of the state.
and it's trying to shut citizens out of the process.
And as you mentioned, Danielle, it's not the nature of the activity that SecretaryLandrieu is supposed to do.
It's the nature of the subject matter and the questions that are being asked, because shedoes not want anybody delving into or trying to find out information about the security of

(36:59):
our election systems.
That's what this is all about.
She's trying to shield herself from any criticism or from any evidence that our currentelection system is not safe and is not secure.
And that's what she's trying to do.
So it's unfortunate.
This bill still has to go, by the way, to the House floor.
And, you know, we're going to be pushing hard on this to get this bill defeated on theHouse floor.

(37:24):
And we listed last night on our social media every Republican in that committee who votedfor this legislation.
Now, the Democrats
voted against it.
The Democrats were smart enough to see what was going on.
Yeah, unbelievable.
Chris, ah can the ladies who conducted the exit poll sue for defamation, sue the state fordefamation, or Nancy Landry individually for her mischaracterization or misrepresentation

(37:48):
of what they were doing and what they're about?
to the extent that she mischaracterized their activities and what actually occurred thereand portrayed them as activist disruptors, ah yeah, I think that potentially could be.
to get a bill passed, in order to get an unconstitutional law passed, she is lying aboutcitizens.

(38:11):
Yes, and I would like, I think it's important, Danielle, just for purposes of ourlisteners, if we can to go and you have the list of all the Republicans who voted for this
out of committee yesterday.
Yeah, Representative Beau Beaullieu, Beth Billings, Les Farnham, Foy Gadbury, DixonMcMakin, Rodney Shammerhorn, Polly Thomas, Mark Wright, and John Wyble.

(38:35):
And I'll just mention, Chris, some of those names are very familiar.
They supported, what was it that they voted against the ethics bill?
So the same people who voted against the ethics bill are voting in favor of silencing Wethe People.
That's so well said.
You know, I don't know if we have the clip of it or not, Danielle, but the synopsis of whythis is such a bad bill, I think I articulated it yesterday in my opposition to this bill,

(39:05):
to this SB 80.
And I think our listeners may appreciate it.
I don't know if you have it queued or not, but if you do, yeah, I texted it to you.
sorry.
Is it on your YouTube?
Cause I'll put it in the show notes, Chris.
And I'll try and, let me see.
up there.
Just put it in notes because it is uh sweeping legislation that preemptively prohibitsordinary citizens from conducting exit polls is nowhere in the Constitution and it's just

(39:37):
plain wrong.
And interestingly, Danielle, Victor Davis Hansen last night had a little piece where hejust talked about
the absolute collapse in credibility of the very mainstream media organizations that NancyLandry is saying exclusively will have the right to conduct these exit polls.

(39:58):
They've got no credibility left.
Nobody believes them.
Citizen journalists are emerging more and more each day to bring out the truth.
Yet those are the very people who will not be allowed to conduct exit polls.
It's just government overreach.
It's obnoxious to the Constitution.

(40:19):
And as I said, our founding fathers certainly woke up probably restlessly moving around intheir graves trying to figure out what in the world has happened to the Constitution,
especially on this issue.
And I will still remind our listeners that it is the Secretary of State's office in thestate of Louisiana that has been the tip of the spear in censorship against the people,

(40:44):
censoring our opinions about the elections, censoring our opinions about COVID.
And here we go again.
I don't, don't, this is not a trust my intentions kind of moment for me.
For me, this is, this is war.
Absolutely 100 % because we're talking about the precedent, Danielle.

(41:07):
It's so important for our listeners to understand that, as James Madison said, liberty isnot eroded by sudden and precipitous actions.
It's eroded through what he calls death by a thousand cuts, multiple small
encroachments against liberty and you wake up one day and you don't have any liberty left.

(41:31):
And that is why opposing things on principle that violate the Constitution is criticallyimportant.
It's not enough for legislators to sit up there and say, it'll never get beyond this.
It'll never go beyond this.
There will never be further encroachments.
There certainly will.
In fact, history tells us that it always occurs.

(41:53):
The government never asserts
power that it voluntarily relinquishes at any point.
The trajectory is always toward gaining more power over the citizens and more control overthe citizens because that's what government does.
The more power the government has, the more uh viability the government has and the more,quote unquote, job security, I guess, the government has.

(42:23):
And why should we trust the legislature to tell us what will and will not happen as aresult of a law whenever they're not even the ones who are charged with enforcing it?
They have no idea how this is going to play out in real time.
They have absolutely no idea.
I do want to say this to Danielle on SB 80.
I made it very, very clear yesterday.
I'm from Shreveport.

(42:44):
I know these 65, 70 year old ladies who were out there doing this very lawful exit poll inShreveport that was totally mischaracterized by the secretary of state.
And they are very, very fine ladies.
I mean, really, they really are and very active community members.
And so I think it's very unfortunate that they were portrayed

(43:05):
by the Secretary of State in the way that they were.
I think it's egregious.
It is.
Chris, so what happens if, let's say this bill makes it all the way through becomes law.
These ladies say, you know what, I'm going to still go and conduct my exit poll.
What's going to happen to them?
Are they going to, uh what would the process look like?

(43:28):
So they would go and still have to um put forward their, like fill out some forms orsomething with the secretary of state's office, which I think is insanely.
insanely unconstitutional to start with.
doesn't have a right to know, no secretary of state has a right to know about exit pollingperiod.
Why should they?
If everything's being conducted lawfully and without disruption, then they don't have anyright to even know.

(43:55):
so she gets to uh act like a teacher and say, well, you don't get...
Actually, you've been bad.
You had a bad conduct grade before, so you're not going to be a bona fide journalist.
Is that what she's going to do?
She can say yes or no, whether they can do it.
And if they ignore, what are they going to do?
They're going to arrest these ladies?
Absolutely.
There are very specific criteria that she's imposing bonafide news organizations.

(44:21):
And they have to show that they're connected or associated with a legacy newsorganization.
They have to show that they conduct uh exit polls on regular basis as part of theirbusiness.
So there's no question.
Yes, they would still have to apply.
But at this point, as a result of this bill, if they cannot show that criteria,

(44:43):
then they in all likelihood will be disqualified from doing the exit polls.
Ordinary Louisiana citizens will be uh stamped out of this process.
There's no question.
And can they be arrested?
I'm sure.
mean, if it's a law, if this bill becomes law and they are doing an exit poll, it's aviolation of law, they would be asked to leave.

(45:08):
And if they don't leave, absolutely, they could be arrested for it.
No question.
That's disgusting.
That's absolutely disgusting.
I feel like we need a wholesale uh review of every bill related to elections, the conductof the Office of Secretary of State in this state, because that is just an abomination to
me from top to bottom.

(45:29):
And I want our listeners, Danielle, to call again.
This SB 80 is still subject to vote on the House floor.
I want our listeners to call 225-342-6945.
225-342-6945 I believe is the number, but it's the number to the Louisiana House.
And they need to call.

(45:51):
It's either 6945 or 6935 and call them and tell them to vote no on SB 80.
because it is a blatantly unconstitutional bill.
And you have a call to action up on this on the LA CAG website as well.
Yeah.
to action up on it and we encourage you to go to lacag.org and do that call to action.

(46:13):
Chris, when's the next election in our state?
Is there one in May?
Are there some municipal elections or something in May?
is it, okay.
Because I would just say that if this bill passes in its current form, I would hope thatthere are some citizens who take the opportunity to go ahead and go through the process so

(46:35):
that we could sue the pants off of the Secretary of State's office for this, like this.
complete facial violation of the Constitution.
I think William Most would probably be inclined to take that case.
great.
All right, Chris, I'll leave this one alone, but it sure is a B in my bonnet for sure.

(46:58):
All right, House criminal justice met yesterday along with the scrum of other committees.
ah this one, the next one up we have here, actually both of the bills we were following inHouse criminal justice got voluntarily deferred.
I don't know if you were able to get any word back from either representative Carter orrepresentative Marcel on uh

(47:21):
why their bills were deferred, Chris.
um I did, let's see, I, got, let's see if I got anything back on it yet.
In the meantime, Representative Carter's bill was about bail modifications andRepresentative Marcel's was about solitary confinement and the ability to, or the

(47:43):
requirement that anyone being thrown in solitary confinement be able to have access toeducational materials and she did include some language that we requested around faith
materials as well.
She said she put that in there and she said it will be heard next Wednesday.
So it's been returned to the committee for next Wednesday and should be on the agenda fornext Wednesday.

(48:06):
And it's a very important bill, as we talked about before in solitary confinement, thatinmates have access to faith materials while they're in there.
And so hopefully the Republicans...
We'll see this, you know, how hard on criminals the Republicans have been, and there's atime and a place to be hard on criminals.

(48:28):
We believe in accountability, but hopefully the Republicans can bring themselves to voteto allow religious and faith materials for an inmate who was in solitary confinement.
That just seems humane and necessary.
Yeah, and I would imagine Chris, since both of these bills were deferred, it seems to methat it was just a schedule issue and they may have just gotten bumped to next week if

(48:52):
Representative Marcel's bill got bumped to next week.
Would you also mention Chris what Representative Carter's bill around bail would do?
Yeah, that would simply codify uh that a judge must consider the presumption of innocencewhen he's setting bail, setting bond, ah and not either the seriousness of the allegation

(49:13):
or anything else.
know, is the accused a flight risk ah or is he an immediate danger to anyone in thecommunity?
If he's not, then the judge must set the bond consistent with the presumption of innocenceand a bond that is reasonable and affordable.
uh for the accused.
You can't set a bond that's so high that uh an accused can't make bond.

(49:38):
He hasn't been convicted of anything.
And this codifies the presumption of innocence and the importance of setting a bond onthat basis.
So I think it's a good bill and an important bill.
And I would also imagine a uh fringe benefit of this would be oh not furthering ourovercrowding problem.
Well, sure, absolutely.

(49:58):
We are overcrowded.
why would you want to keep uh inmates who are not a flight risk accused, who have beenarrested, who are not a flight risk, who are not an immediate danger to the community in
jail longer than they need to be there?
Set a reasonable bond that they can make that ensures their appearance in court and letthem bond out of jail.

(50:19):
That's what the system is about.
You can't act as though an accused is guilty of something
when there's been no due process.
And you can't set a bond based upon that false premise.
That's what uh Carter's bill does.
Great.
Over onto transportation, Chris, Senate Bill 216 by Senator Valerie Hodges.

(50:43):
This is her bill that would discourage delays and incentivize early completion of roadconstruction projects.
Praise God for that.
It passed out of Senate transportation and it's set to go to the Senate floor for debatenext week.
Yeah, and it's a great bill, Danielle, that I know you really, like because it puts realincentive uh to complete these state road projects in a timely manner and real

(51:11):
disincentives not to.
The only thing that is not specifically contained in the legislation is provisions forwhat we call debarment.
But I think that you got information that that is already provided for and other
provisions of law.
So maybe that's not why it's not in there.
Yeah, that's what Senator Hodges team told me.

(51:31):
So I hope that um Secretary Donahue and his team start active use of their debarmentauthority so that we em aren't...
have they?
at some point will be completed.
What do you think?
I don't know.
People down here are on fire.
No one from DOTD contacted me after Tuesday's show, Chris.

(51:55):
So maybe they'll contact me.
It's called the Company Canal Bridge, people.
Someone from DOTD, please reach out and allay my concerns about the rumors that it is yetagain delayed to July for no stinking good reason.
Just get it done.
Just get it done.
Yeah.
Can you imagine?
my gosh.
Don't I'm not going to get started on that.

(52:16):
Okay.
Let's talk about what happened on in terms of floor debate this week, Chris house billthree four by representative Robbie Carter.
This was his bill that would uh require any, any expropriation, venue claims to happen inthe locality where the people's property is being taken.

(52:39):
Yeah, so the private company wants to expropriate a piece of property for carbon capture,sequestration, injection wells, which is unconstitutional.
so Representative Carter simply, his bill would have required that action to be brought inthe parish where the property that seeks to be expropriated is located.

(53:00):
And it uh passed, right?
Did it pass on the House floor?
Praise God.
quite a few Republicans who voted against it.
Yeah.
It passed 57 to 38 with a lot of Republican opposition to this bill, which is concerningto say the least.
That means that they care more about industry's right to do a um unproven, ridiculousracket-based uh fake science carbon capture than they care about your personal property

(53:34):
rights as provided for in the Constitution granted by God.
And I will list the names of those Republicans who voted against this bill.
they are Tony Bacala Larry Bagley, Dennis Bamberg, Beau Beaullieu Stephanie Berrault, BethBillings, Chad Boyer, Josh Carlson, DeWitt Carrier, Kim Carver, Raymond Crews Paula Davis,

(54:00):
Philip de Villier.
So the speaker of the house weighed in on this in opposition to this when he doesn't evenhave to vote.
I just want to point that out.
Jason DeWitt.
Daryl Deshotel, Jessica Domangue Foy Gadbury, Jay Galle, Brian Glorioso.
So many of these consider themselves to be MAGA Republicans, folks.
Taking away your private property rights is high on their agenda.

(54:23):
Troy Abert, Chance Henry, Big John Illg, Mike Johnson, Dixon McMakin, Joe Orgeron NeilReiser, Annie Spell, Polly Thomas, yet again, Debbie Villio,
Roger Wilder, Jeff Wiley, and Mark Wright.
There were several absent as well.

(54:44):
ah Jacob Broad, Julie Emerson, and Michael Mellerine Philip Tarver, and John Wyble And Iwould guess they were probably absent because of significant pressure from their
constituents.
So they chose not to take a vote on this.
I could be wrong on that, but I don't feel wrong.
Yeah, and it's important to note the ones who were absent because look, in a vote that isthat significant, you need to be there and you need to vote and you need to vote the right

(55:13):
way.
I noticed, Danielle, that all of the Republicans who voted for this are consistentlystaunch conservatives, the vast majority of them.
There were a few.
so I won't give them all extraordinary credit, I mean, this should have been a no-brainer.
This should have been an absolute no brainer to bring an expropriation action in theparish where the property you're trying to expropriate is located.

(55:41):
I have a, I put a word into representative Crews because he is a staunch conservative andhe voted against this legislation.
So I'm looking for an explanation from him for why, and it may have been a mistake.
Sometimes people make mistakes and vote the wrong way and then they want to, and thencorrect it.
So I don't know what the deal is with him, but he was
one of the only ones who voted against this that actually surprised me.

(56:05):
Um, yeah.
All right, Chris.
Continuing on the carbon capture theme with House Bill 601, this is Representative BrettGeymann's bill.
This would change the eminent domain rules for carbon dioxide sequestration.
And he has returned this to calendar.

(56:26):
It didn't actually get voted on yet or hasn't gone to floor debate.
You said that he may not even have the votes for it.
Well, at this point, it was supposed to be voted on this week on the House floor, and thisis Representative Geymann's bill that will outlaw imminent domain uh for carbon capture

(56:46):
sequestration pipelines.
Basically says that if a property owner does not want carbon capture sequestrationpipelines on their property against their will, then you can't do it.
It was a very good bill, got out of committee, and now it's on the House floor.
And we've heard on good authority that right now,
with a two thirds Republican majority in the House, they right now do not have the votesto pass this legislation, this basic legislation to protect private property rights from a

(57:18):
known scam.
And everybody knows now this is a scam.
Even the people who support carbon capture sequestration know it's a scam.
And yet in a legislature dominated by Republicans in the House, right now,
They don't have the votes to pass this legislation.
I think it's an absolute disgrace.

(57:41):
it is absolutely, yeah, this is the most important carbon capture sequestration bill thatremains right now, Danielle, in the session.
It must pass.
It needs to pass.
And I can tell you, we are going to be listing the names of anybody who either ah votesagainst this legislation or

(58:01):
ah takes actions that we will know about to keep it from even being called.
ah And so whoever impedes the process of this getting to the governor's desk, we're goingto name them, ah specifically the Republicans, because it's way too important.
Yeah.
Well, Chris, a couple points on that.
One, in the committee, Representative Gaiman reminded everyone that pipelines are a lotlike plumbing and you can go around places that say that they don't want it.

(58:31):
So it's not as if the whole project gets disrupted completely or destroyed completely,killed completely, I guess is the word I was looking for.
If someone doesn't want it on their property, you can go around it.
Yeah, it just makes it more inconvenient for the people who are trying to expropriate yourproperty.
But so what?

(58:53):
So what?
two other points I want to make.
Number one is I don't understand how some of these legislators can continue to voteagainst the will of the people when it is loud and it is strong and it is clear.
I don't know how they're going to be able to go to the grocery store.
I don't know how they're going to manage in their kids car line at school.
I don't know how they're going to manage at football games come this fall whenever theirconstituents are so clearly aware that they are voting against their interest.

(59:22):
at every turn it seems, but specifically when it comes to property rights and specificallyon SB 80 when it comes to our right to speak and stand where we want to when it comes to
elections.
The other thing I want to mention, Chris, on this is we haven't heard anything from thegovernor on this.
I would, I'm making an assumption here, but maybe I'll just theorize instead of making anassumption that perhaps the governor

(59:49):
has put out a call to the Republican legislature saying, know what, you're gonna need togo ahead and kill this bill because I don't have the ability to veto it right now
politically.
I can't get up there and veto this bill.
So y'all are gonna have to go ahead and kill it for me or else I'll take your projectmoney.
Yeah, because he doesn't want to be in a position of having to make a decision aboutwhether to pass a bill that is clearly supported by the overwhelming majority of Louisiana

(01:00:17):
citizens, but is opposed by many of his donors and many of the people who don't want it,industry.
And so that would put him in a very difficult situation that he wants to avoid.
So there's a very good possibility that he's put the word out, you need to kill this.
on the floor, either by not calling it or by defeating it in a vote.

(01:00:39):
uh And obviously, the legislators who also would suffer major fallback if they votedagainst Representative Geymann's eminent domain bill, they don't want to have to vote on
it either because they don't want their vote of record.
So they would, I'm sure, rather just not have it called, which is why it's been returnedto the calendar a couple of times.

(01:01:01):
uh
But Representative Gaiman is going to keep pushing.
And I told him this morning, Danielle, that even if it doesn't pass, having record voteswhere Republicans are forced to vote on the record is extremely valuable to us.
That's extremely valuable.
You will be doing a great service just by forcing it to a vote.

(01:01:25):
Yeah.
And I would also mention that I would really prefer our legislators to have the intestinalfortitude to stand up, maybe even go down to the podium on the House floor and say, look,
I am voting for this bill against my uh future political interests outside of myconstituents.
I'm voting for my constituents and understand that this is going to cost me.

(01:01:49):
Just be real about it.
I mean, we saw what happened with the
busting the budget cap two years ago where the people who took a stand obviously took ahit in terms of their ability to bring uh finances back to the district.
And that's just a reality of it.
But the people want this bill to pass.
People want their private property protected.
And I will also hold on.

(01:02:09):
had another thought.
Let me see if I can find it.
It's not quite enough coffee yet this morning, Chris.
All right.
It might come back to me, but yeah.
about that.
If there were two books, ah two items that I would recommend strongly that everylegislator read, it is the Constitution, the pocket Constitution, read it thoroughly,

(01:02:35):
understand what it says, and John F.
Kennedy's profiles encourage.
Because he profiles 13
tremendous uh political figures in our country's history who stood up and did the rightthing for the right reasons at major cost to themselves because it was the right thing.

(01:02:57):
And it's a book called Profiles in Courage.
And where would we be without them?
And where are the profiles in courage right now?
Where are they?
Yeah, well, they're few and far between it seems.
We do, we do.
And we champion and appreciate them.
Okay, I did remember my thought, which is this.

(01:03:18):
This bill and the reasons behind it not being able to move forward, namely, would imaginegubernatorial pressure, industry pressure, the holding hostage of uh potential funding to
bring to district uh pressure.
All of that could be resolved if the uh House Municipal Affairs, Senate Municipal Affairsuh authority was given back to the parishes, back to the localities and the funding that

(01:03:50):
goes with it.
The governor should not control the purse to the extent that he does.
We should not be sending nearly as much money to Baton Rouge to have it sent back to theparishes.
No one should have to go and kiss the ring to get your dang tax money back.
to put your bridge in.
So there's a lot wrong with this state and the way that our budget, our money is handled,the way that our localities have to go and beg and plead to get what we sent to Baton

(01:04:18):
Rouge back is obscene to me.
And I think if we had someone with some real guts, they could do something about it.
Sure, and it is both logistically inefficient, Danielle, and it also violates thefundamental principle of federalism.
The only time the state has any authority to get involved in local affairs is when thereare issues of fundamental constitutional import at stake, issues and policies that affect

(01:04:54):
all of us broadly.
Other than that, the local jurisdictions should have plenary authority to make decisionsthat affect their local populations.
And this is one of those issues.
You know, it's just, it's amazing.
So I think you're right.
A lot of this would be solved if the authority that really should reside in localjurisdictions is returned to them.

(01:05:21):
Do you have any idea at what point the parishes ceded their authority over the purse andceded their authority over their local affairs to the state government?
know, but I have a feeling it has something to do with Huey Long.
ah And I have feeling it has something to do with his ah usurpation of all the power hecould possibly get his hands on.

(01:05:47):
And I think this is a residue of Huey Long ah divesting local jurisdictions of authoritythat really is properly their authority.
Yeah.
And I think we've talked to, can't remember which representative about sales taxremittance needing to be um simplified from the parishes and run through, administratively

(01:06:08):
run through in Baton Rouge for efficiency sake.
I think at a very maximal and very cautious level, we could use the state uh treasurer'soffice as a clearing house for funding.
but it surely should not hold the money.
Yeah, what's the point of that?

(01:06:31):
It doesn't make any sense.
Local jurisdiction should not be held hostage to the state with regard to funding forprojects that are their business ah and affairs that concern them.
It's the same parallel principle, Danielle, that occurs in the relationship between stategovernments and the federal government.

(01:06:54):
Any authority
in our constitution that is not specifically delegated to the federal government isreserved to the states and to the people.
And that's the same way it should work with regard to the relationship between stategovernments and local governments.
uh It's the same principle and things would work much more efficiently.

(01:07:15):
uh But the reason why they don't want to do it is because they don't want to relinquishthe power.
They don't want to let go of the money.
They don't want to allow local jurisdictions to handle their own affairs, even though itwould be in the best interest of the citizens and the best interest of the state as a
whole.

(01:07:36):
With the way this legislature is going right now, Chris, and frankly, our executivebranch, I think a lot of people will be letting go of power whether they want to or not
come 2027.
You better believe it because we are going to be making sure that all of these votes, bothcommittee votes and floor votes, are publicized and so that voters can make an honest

(01:07:57):
decision about.
Because, the biggest fear, as I've told you this before, the biggest fear that legislatorshave is that their voters will discover the vast difference between what they tell their
voters they're doing
and what they are actually doing in the legislature.

(01:08:19):
That is the biggest nightmare they have.
They don't want their voters often to know what they're actually doing.
And that's why what we do is so important.
And that's why we're going to allow the voters to really know what's going on in thelegislature, and we have been, so they can make an informed decision about whether they
want to reelect this particular representative or senator.

(01:08:42):
That's right.
In real time, I'm very pleased to be the legislature and the executive branch's biggestnightmare when they're not acting in accordance to the constitution and um supporting the
will of the people.
I'm happy to be their nightmare.
happy to be their nightmare just by disclosing the facts.
That's it.

(01:09:03):
I'll also mention, Chris, uh think about where we are in the election cycle, right?
This is the time where people who vote the right way deserve the most credit because thepeople who are voting the wrong way know that they have the cover of the next two years to
start turning the ship around and start pretending that they're so conservative and theycare about the people so much.
This is like the sophomore year of uh voting.

(01:09:26):
So how you vote now is who you are.
That's how I feel about this session.
Absolutely.
And we always want to give credit to the Republicans who do the right thing for the rightreasons.
We gave credit to uh Jacob Rep...
and the Democrats.
And we gave credit to the Republicans, Jacob Landry, Timothy Kerner, and Jason DeWitt forflipping their votes on House Bill 601 in committee to get that out of committee to the

(01:09:57):
House floor.
That's uh Geymann's imminent domain bill.
And they deserve credit for that.
And hopefully, they're going to vote for it on the House floor as well, or we're going tosay, OK, so you voted to get this out of committee, but then you're going to vote against
it on the floor.
So we're going to push hard on these things and just make sure that voters know what theirrepresentatives are actually doing.

(01:10:22):
Yeah.
All right.
Well, another stomach turning one, Chris, is House Bill 615 also by Representative BrettGaiman.
It's a solar bill that would give localities the right to determine how and when and wheresolar facilities can be established in their state and, you know, the mechanisms for

(01:10:43):
maintenance and all those things.
And the permitting requirements uh and making sure that these solar generation facilitiesdo not affect adjoining property uh that is not involved in the project.
uh Also, it allows local jurisdictions to impose standards and parameters and regulatoryprocedures that are even more strict than the ones that are being imposed by the state.

(01:11:11):
Don't you think local governing authorities are going to be the most affected by thissolar generation energy development?
Should have that authority.
And that's what Representative Geymann's bill does.
But that bill was voted on and it was defeated, correct, on the House floor.
Yeah, it was defeated.
And Chris, you spoke with Representative Gaiman or at least exchanged text with him thismorning, I believe, and he's hoping to bring this back.

(01:11:39):
So there is a call to action on the LA CAG website for this bill in support of this bill.
Let me list out the Republicans who voted against it.
So if your representative is on this list, we're asking you to double down.
to hammer them, send them a message once a day.
That's how often you're allowed to send a message um through the LA CAAG Action Center.

(01:12:03):
It clocks you one a day.
once a day until it gets called back, these are the folks that need to hear from you.
uh Tony Bockela, Larry Bagley, Dennis Bamberg, Stephanie Berrault, Beth Billings, RhondaButler, right, Kim Carver.
Paula Davis, Daryl Deshotel, Michael Eccles, Barbara Freyberg, uh Foy Gadbury, BrianGlorioso, Troy Abert, Big John Illg, Trav, uh, sorry, that's a, okay.

(01:12:38):
Mike Johnson.
Um, lots of Democrats in here.
Sorry.
Jack McFarland, Dixon McMakin.
All right.
Joe Orgeron.
Annie Spell, Vincent St.
Blanc, Joe Stagney, haven't heard that name this session yet, Polly Turner, Chris Turner,Debbie Villio, Jeff Wiley, and that's it.

(01:13:08):
and here's some absences.
uh Philip Tarver and Michael Mellerine were absent for the vote.
So any of those folks can flip their vote and change the outcome of this.
um
So localities would have some self-determination when it comes to the upkeep andinstallation of, and as you said, permitting and contracting of solar facilities, which

(01:13:32):
are a blight to the eye, right?
And they reduce property value and they leach into the soil.
There's so many problems with these stupid things.
many problems, just drill, just drill for oil and gas.
But lobby, lobby uh was openly and forcefully opposed to this yesterday from what I hearfrom legislators.

(01:13:54):
They were on board against this yesterday.
that organization is consistent, consistently against the rights of the people of thisstate, consistently.
yes, and I haven't confirmed this yet, but I believe Katie mentioned to me that lobby wasalso on record yesterday, opposing representative coats, chemtrail bills to keep the

(01:14:21):
poison from being pushed out of these planes, geoengineering, keep the poisons from beingpushed out of the planes and dropped onto our people.
Barium, aluminum, sulfur dioxide, all these chemicals that cause so much harm.
Well lobby,
was on record apparently opposing that legislation.

(01:14:42):
What has lobby become?
This is supposed to be a business organization, you know, and I just don't understand whythey would be opposed to something that basic.
Anything that makes life more difficult for companies that are trying to use our taxdollars against us, against our will on things that, um yeah, to make money.

(01:15:07):
right.
All right.
Well, while we're on the topic of really disgusting votes and really disgusting behavior,I'll talk about Senate Bill 226.
That's Senator Valerie Hodges' bill that would protect us from foreign adversaries um inits original form.
uh Both physical infrastructure property and the critical infrastructure of our electionsystems, both software and hardware, were included in this bill.

(01:15:38):
It got gutted mercilessly in committee in a most, uh I would say, really distasteful way.
I thought the behavior of the senators who opposed it was pretty disgusting againstSenator Hodges.
I found they treated her
and in a very just rudely, just super rudely.

(01:15:59):
This, she brought it to the Senate floor yesterday, Chris, and I was so absolutelyastounded to see the same people get up and treat her badly in front of the entire Senate
yesterday.
Yeah.
And just recall, Danielle, that the original version of this bill ah simply codifiedexisting federal law with regard to federal elections and codified President Trump's

(01:16:25):
executive orders with regard to federal elections to protect our elections against foreignadversaries, foreign interference, not allowing foreign adversary countries to manufacture
any voting system that Nancy Landry wants.
or any of the component parts.
uh Also, uh the executive order requiring Department of Homeland Security to make surethat these systems are not subject to malicious hardware and hacking, which all the cyber

(01:16:56):
experts say they are.
And so that's what her bill original form would have done.
They gutted that out of the bill and they also gutted out of the bill the provisionallowing the state to expropriate
immovable property that's owned by a foreign adversary if that property is located within50 miles of a critical infrastructure facility, including a military base.

(01:17:22):
Those were the...
regardless of where it is?
If you are a foreign adversary, why should you own any property in this state?
Okay, I'll let you finish your thought before I go on my rant.
this would be property that's already owned, already owned by them.
to be in other words, you think that should be anywhere in the state.
The state should have the right to expropriate that property through civil process.

(01:17:44):
And I agree with you, but this didn't even say that this was just within 50 miles of acritical infrastructure facility.
They were both gutted out.
So it limps onto the Senate floor.
And even then.
ah Senator Hodges was hammered so much on the floor that she ended up returning the billto the calendar, what was left of it.

(01:18:06):
And we don't know what's going to happen at this point with that bill, with thatlegislation.
But it's extraordinary that this bill would not have just unanimous support amonglegislators in the state legislature.
I'm so steamed about this and I, you know, we don't talk about people's motives so much onthis show.

(01:18:27):
We, of course, we can't read minds and know what's inside of people's hearts, but I willsay yesterday, Senator Miller came back to that.
He came to the floor to ask some questions of Senator Hodges.
He's the same Senator that chairs the committee that it was a Jude A that this wasinitially heard in.
And he had a lot of objections to it in the committee.

(01:18:49):
His objections to it yesterday.
I'll just tell you my perspective, Chris, and this may be wrong.
But I think that their objections are so ridiculous, it feels transparent that they arejust wanting to kill this completely.
And they may be under order to do so.
Because one of his objections was, well, what if China um invades Taiwan and takes Taiwanback?

(01:19:14):
What about all of do all of the time?
Taiwanese people in Louisiana who own property within 50 miles of critical infrastructure.
Is Liz just going to go and take all their property away from them?
What's going to happen to them?
I'm like, first of all, how many Taiwanese do we have living that own property close tocritical infrastructure in this state?

(01:19:36):
And secondly, can we cross that bridge when we get to it?
Can we put in trigger language that says that if a country is invaded and we don't thinkthat that country is a foreign adversary, but somehow now we're at war?
Why do we have to do this?
That's so insanely ridiculous.
Right.
So what they're doing is they're using these far-fetched scenarios, hypotheticalscenarios, in order to defeat uh legislation that in principle is very, very good

(01:20:04):
legislation rather than cross that bridge when we get to it.
A lot of these things in legislation, they've got to...
the executive is responsible for determining how to enforce it.
That's what the executive does.
And the executive is allowed to make...
with regard to how legislation is implemented, is enforced.

(01:20:27):
these are, of course there would be.
to handle the situation should we see a world conflict erupt?
Exactly.
But you know, you don't defeat legislation that is broadly very, very good and very neededbecause of far-fetched exceptions and hypotheticals that are yet to occur and may never

(01:20:49):
occur.
But that's what they're trying to do because they don't want any part of this legislationto survive.
And it's very unfortunate.
think Senator Greg Miller, if there's any uh senator
uh, or elected official in the legislature now who has been more openly and brazenlycarrying the water of Nancy Landry.

(01:21:12):
It is Senator Greg Miller, the chairman of Senate Judiciary A.
There's no question about it.
Uh, and the things that he's putting forward with her, both unwise and probablyunconstitutional are directly because the secretary of state wants those items of
legislation to pass.
Yeah.
And we've got to make sure that we, people know the name Senator Gregory Miller, becauseif these bad things get through, he is substantially responsible for them.

(01:21:41):
Absolutely.
I'll also mention, Chris, that there's a couple of other things that happened on theSenate floor.
I can't recall if it was Senator Miller.
I saw Senator Luno down there and then I saw Senator Lambert down there, all withdifferent objections.
So I don't recall who brought the objection.
But one of the objections was that the definitions weren't in the bill.

(01:22:03):
Well, her bill is an expansion of some other existing legislation.
So her point was, I don't need to redefine it.
It's defined an existing statute.
and they were oh having, wringing hands over that and saying, how are we going to know howto interpret this bill?
It's just completely stupid.
these provisions are in another statute, which this is expanding, expanding upon andamending.

(01:22:27):
And maybe she needed to put, uh know, specifically reference the previous statute thatthat was passed and she didn't.
But that's that's something minor.
That's something that can be done through amendment on the Senate floor.
You don't kill legislation because there is some.
a statute specifically that was not mentioned there that maybe should have been, that youcan refer to.

(01:22:52):
None of these objections should have resulted in the demise entirely of this bill, whichis what may happen now that it's been returned to the calendar.
Hopefully it'll be called back up and we'll get something passed on this.
But again, the most important provisions of the bill were gutted in committee, Danielle,and the likelihood

(01:23:15):
of those being reinserted into the bill according to Senator Hodges are very slim, whichis another disgraceful reality of this.
It is.
And you can tell a lot by uh about the intent of an objection by the tone that it's raisedin, right?
So I felt very offended by the tone that those senators took with Senator Hodges.

(01:23:39):
I think she consistently brings strong, good legislation to protect this state and toforward the interests of the people of this state.
And I think that that was an absolute and utter disgrace.
So if our Secretary of State goes forward and spends $150 million on new electronic votingsystems, ah contrary to an explicit executive order ah by President Trump, and if there

(01:24:08):
is, God forbid, any kind of an attack on a critical infrastructure facility in Louisianabecause of property owned near those facilities ah by a foreign adversary, then
We are going to go straight back to this legislation and we're going to lay this straightat the feet of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jude A.

(01:24:30):
That's right.
Yeah.
All right, Chris.
um I guess we'll leave that one alone for now.
How about Senate Bill 8 by Senator Jay Morris?
This one was related to the, just to make it easier, it's a proposed constitutionalamendment, I believe, that would make it easier for hiring and firing um civil service in

(01:24:52):
the state.
it just allows the state to reclassify employees who are currently listed as classifiedcivil service employees to non-classified.
Because if you're classified, you're basically untouchable.
You can't suffer any, you can't be fired, you can't really be demoted, you can't really bedisciplined, you're a classified civil servant.

(01:25:14):
So your job security is job security that anybody working in the private sector woulddream of having.
ah But it makes it almost impossible to take any action against those employees.
And I think that's the goal of Senator Morris's legislation, to make it easier, to holdpeople accountable.
And people should be accountable.
Just because you work in state government and are being paid with our tax dollars does notmean that you should have no accountability for how you perform and the competence to

(01:25:44):
which you deliver services to the state of Louisiana.
Yeah, well said.
It did pass um the Senate on a party line vote 28 to 8.
So that's a win.
I know we've been on our high horse today about the ones that were not wins or that werebarely wins, but there are wins that are happening.

(01:26:06):
Chris, was, yeah, it's not over.
Yeah, we got a month.
We have a month.
Was there anything else on your list that that was the end of my list, but you may havesome other things you wanted to mention.
I don't know.
I think that's about it.
I think that about covers it.
And like I said, Danielle, these bills, the good ones that went through and the bad onesthat went through, it's not over.

(01:26:31):
It's not over until they get to the governor's desk and they're either signed or vetoed.
So there's a significant way to go in this process.
And I will remind our listeners that our organization and others have been successful inthe past.
of killing things in the 11th hour due to increased pressure on legislators.

(01:26:54):
We've done it uh several times.
And so we are by no means on the legislation we didn't like that got through, we are by nomeans throwing in the towel on that.
If anything, we are ramping it up even more.
Yeah, it's time to double down.
You better believe it.
Gosh, well, I'm sorry I was so salty today, but there was plenty to be energized about.

(01:27:22):
Yeah, there was.
There was.
I pray that we have a better week next week.
I would encourage everyone, be praying for the legislature.
We need their hearts to turn.
This is what we're seeing is absolutely crazy.
It's crazy.
These are not the people that we voted for.
The actions they're taking do not align with their campaign stances whatsoever.

(01:27:42):
These people who talk about family values, who talk about caring about the parish and thepeople, that's not what we're seeing.
It's just absolutely not what we're seeing.
it would be useful that they would get some reminders to that end.
Yeah, and if you want legislators to stop uh paying homage, kissing the ring, as you say,Danielle, of deep-pocketed uh lobbyists and special interest groups, and if you want

(01:28:09):
constituents to be able to know specifically what they're doing so that those voters canknow whether they want to reelect these people, you got to support LACAG You got to go
online, become a monthly donor, a monthly member, uh so that we have the resources we needto continue
to slowly but surely allow this pendulum to swing back toward the citizens.

(01:28:33):
ah That's what we need, that's what we have to have because we are fighting only for theConstitution and only for the citizens.
And we wanna be your voice in the legislature so you can sleep at night and you can knowthat your voice is being heard.
And also the state of freedom, this platform, Danielle, on the state of freedom.

(01:28:53):
is so very important for people to understand and get the truth about what is reallyoccurring.
I don't know of any other podcast or public platform that provides the information in thedetail that we provided with regard to what these Republican legislators are doing or not
doing.

(01:29:13):
So it's so important as we move forward that our voice continues to expand.
So please share and subscribe to State of Freedom.
You are our family.
We are your watchdog and we need your support every day.
Yep, and you can do that at lacag.org to support LACAG.
You can also support the state of freedom at freedomstate.us and you can shop, excuse me,you can shop our advertisers there as well.

(01:29:43):
and Danielle in veying we shall continue to go.
That's right.
We will continue to fight too.
We will continue to fight every day joyfully and cheerfully and happily knowing that weare walking with the Lord.
That's right.
All right, Chris, have a great day.

(01:30:04):
God bless.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#300 CCS, Govt Transparency & Accountability

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

#300 CCS, Govt Transparency & Accountability

Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club