#305 A Bagneris Blitz & the Sprint to the Finish

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Good morning everybody.
Welcome to The State of Freedom.
We're so happy to be with you today.
ah We just want to remind you that we are live um on Tuesdays and Thursdays now this weekand next week, 8 a.m.
After that, we're going to go back to our normal time of 10, which is a lot more humane.
um But through session, we'll keep it at 8 a.m.

(00:24):
And you can find us on Rumble.
We're easier to find on Rumble now.
search, put in the search, The State of Freedom and we have a new channel up that you canfind um with a search there and then you can find us on YouTube and X, ah X we're freedom
state US, we're on Facebook, we're on Instagram, so almost everywhere.

(00:47):
So give us a like and a follow there.
If you wouldn't mind leaving us a review, that would be awesome too.
um But let's maybe we'll just get into it a little bit.
this week, um
You know, we're kind of sprinting to the finish here.
And so far what we have to report, it feels a lot like with friends like these who needsenemies.

(01:09):
But we have, we have a lot to cover as usual.
Some stuff on Secretary of States powers, making Louisiana healthy again, encroachments onyour property rights or, uh or just improvements on the encroachments to your property
rights.
And also
and some updates with regards to insurance.

(01:31):
So before we get into all of that exciting stuff, let me read the scripture of the day.
um I in particular need it.
Okay, it's Proverbs chapter two, verses two to five.
And it says, so train your heart to listen when I speak and open your spirit wide toexpand your discernment.

(01:53):
Then pass it on to your sons and daughters.
Yes, cry out for comprehension and intercede for insight.
For if you keep seeking it like a man would seek for sterling silver, searching in hiddenplaces for cherished treasure, then you will discover the fear of the Lord and the true
knowledge of God." And sometimes the war we're in, and Chris, you and I were talking aboutthis before.

(02:21):
before we went on air, sometimes it feels like the war that we're in now is even morefraught and intense than when we clearly knew that the enemies of the people were in
power.
And this is a time that's marked with deception and where those that we thought werefighting with us are fighting against us.

(02:43):
The war for our minds, our allegiances and our futures is fierce.
And everywhere you look, it seems like people are lying.
and it's easy to feel like we're living in a constant whirlwind of confusion,bewilderment, and anger.
But this is why it's so important to seek the Lord, to ask for his vision, hisperspective, and to learn to hear his voice, because he leads us into all truth.

(03:11):
And confusion, anxiety, and fear are not from him.
Our portion from the Lord is peace, wisdom, discernment, and understanding.
So if we want to win this war for ourselves, for our children, for our children'schildren, it's absolutely imperative that we pursue the Lord very purposefully and very

(03:31):
diligently.
It's the only way we're going to be able to fight from a place of truth and purity forreal justice.
We see so many people get compromised along the way, and I have to think that that's theoff-ramp they took.
They just didn't stay close to the Lord.
They didn't continue to seek the Lord.
Because if they did,
we would see them still on our side.
Yeah.

(03:52):
And Danielle, it's easy to get off track.
It's easy to veer off and take the easy path, particularly when things get difficult.
and challenges arise and you do get betrayed ah and you know by the very people who youthought would stand with you, some of whom you helped to get elected and they make votes

(04:18):
here and there that you just can't understand.
And there's only one of two things that you can conclude from that either one they didn'tunderstand the legislation or number two they did understand the legislation and they have
begun to cave in.
to the big special interest groups and the deep pocketed lobbyists who have their ownagenda and they have forgotten who elected them.

(04:44):
And, you know, one of the things that I try to keep in mind always is that regardless ofthe outcome, regardless of how Republicans vote, we can always provide the unvarnished
truth, the information to the voters, the information to the constituents aboutspecifically what the issues are.
and where the Republicans stood by name on the issues.

(05:07):
And then the voters can make their decision about whether or not uh these people need tobe reelected or not.
But before us, I don't think there was any group that meticulously tracked the votes,talked about the issues that matter, just to make sure that the public understands really

(05:27):
what's going on.
So that's what we're doing, and we're advocating for the right things.
And uh there's a saying that when you act on proper principles, sometimes the reward is inthe struggle rather than in the victory itself, because you know you're honoring God.
And God will bring about the vindication and the victory.

(05:49):
And that's an absolute guarantee.
And we see that over and over in the scripture, where great leaders suffer losses.
in battles and yet God always brings him through victorious and vindicated in the end.
And it's a time of testing.
There's no question it's a time of testing.

(06:11):
But many people veer off, walk away and take the easy path when they start to be tested.
And we're not going to do that.
We're going to stay faithful.
We're going to stay true.
We're going to continue forward and we're going to focus on the good things and the silverlining and also
focus on the things that we have to talk about that have disappointed us.

(06:33):
Yeah, yeah, well said, Chris.
Did you see, I saw in the news yesterday that Jeff Landry went to Moon Graffon's studio.
Did you see that?
And he dropped off two turkeys.
He said that it was because of all of Moon's turkey talk, which I interpreted as hiscriticism of Jeff.

(06:55):
So I just found that kind of weird.
You what are you making fun of him?
telling the truth about you?
Yeah, it might've been an illusion also to the fact that he went turkey hunting two weeksbefore the most important insurance reform legislative session started.
Goes turkey hunting in Texas with the two biggest trial lawyers in Louisiana.

(07:18):
Not a very good look.
I don't think that, yeah, Moon Griffon is not one to mince words.
And I think that Moon has probably been being very, very blunt about his opinion andassessments of this session.
ah and the way Governor Landry has approached this.
Well good.
Well good.
I wonder how many turkeys will get delivered to us, Chris.

(07:40):
Well, I wish instead of dropping two turkeys off, he had dropped two rhinos off and leftthem there.
All right, well, let's get into it.
ah Speaking of the governor, he has already signed at least one bill into law, probablymore, but this is one we were not following.
And it was brought by representative Jeff Wiley, House Bill 148.

(08:06):
And this bill, when you were telling me about this bill last night, Chris, I wasabsolutely gobsmacked.
I just didn't even know where to put myself.
Would you just talk to us a little bit about this and then we can kind of talk a littlebit about um how the votes fell to get us here?
Yeah, sure.
This has to do with the Commissioner of Insurance, Danielle.

(08:29):
In some states, the Commissioner of Insurance is not authorized to either reduce or raiserates.
uh It's totally driven by the market.
He's not authorized to, you know, issue a refund of premiums or order an insurance companyto do that or order, as I said, to raise insurance rates.

(08:50):
In some states.
Exactly, yes.
And in some states, the insurance company like Florida, the insurance company is allowedto raise and lower insurance rates and that sort of thing, adjust things like that.
But he has to do it based on objective actuarial data based upon market principles.

(09:12):
And he's held accountable for the extent to which he bases his decisions on thoseprinciples.
So there is a guidepost for him to make those decisions.
There is a bill in Louisiana
that just passed, that by the way was opposed by our insurance commissioner preciselybecause he believes in free market principles and that insurance rates should be driven by

(09:33):
the market, what the market will bear.
And so he opposed the legislation, but this legislation pushed by Governor Landryauthorizes the insurance commissioner in Louisiana to raise, to reject an insurance
request
increased rate from an insurance company or to order an insurance company to issue premiumrefunds to their policyholders or order policyholders to pay more in premiums.

(10:06):
And he can do all of this based upon his own whim, on his own political calculations, onwhat his in his own political personal best interests on no objective criteria.
All the bill says, as it's the insurance commissioner, in making these criticaldeterminations about insurance rates and premiums and that sort of thing, may consider

(10:31):
sound actuarial principles, may consider market conditions and the things that typicallydrive the economy, but he's under no obligation to do so.
So what this bill does essentially is best plenary and complete and total authority
in the insurance commissioner to control insurance rates in Louisiana and insurancepremiums with no accountability and no objective criteria by which he has to make these

(10:59):
decisions.
That's what this bill does.
And Chris, you were very clear when we were talking that this is something that gives thecommissioner of insurance unfettered ability to be able to target his political enemies,
people who did not support him or her in the ah race to become commissioner of insurance.

(11:22):
ah And really to run roughshod over the population and
It just sounds so communistic to me.
sounds like it's something that flies in the face of the free market absolutely and willgo very far to drive insurance companies out of this state.

(11:45):
It does the exact opposite of what we're looking to do.
And I question who Jeff Landry is loyal to.
I really question it now.
I mean, I've questioned it before, but this to me,
just shows that he does not care one iota about the insurance rates for the people.
He doesn't care that people are being driven out of their homes.

(12:07):
What he cares about is scoring political points with the people who paid him to get thisposition.
And I'm sorry if that offends people.
I'm sorry if that hurts people's feelings.
I'm sorry if that colors their view and they want to continue to think good things aboutJeff Landry.
But this is an absolute assault.

(12:38):
Yeah, Daniel, what do you think exactly?
What do you think?
How do you think insurance companies are going to respond to this?
Knowing that they're going to come and set up business in a state where the insurancecommissioner can go back
any number of years and look at the premiums that have been collected by an insurancecompany and order them to refund money to policyholders because they've charged too much

(13:06):
in insurance premiums retroactively.
Okay.
Do you think they're going to come to Louisiana and settle knowing they're under that kindof scrutiny and under that kind of unaccountable power?
that can affect their bottom line that drastically going back years and years.
Do you think that citizens are going to want to come to Louisiana or stay in Louisiana ifthey live here, if they know that an insurance commissioner can go back five, 10, 15 years

(13:35):
and say, you know what, I don't think the Louisiana citizens, you haven't been payingenough in premiums to insurance companies.
So I'm going to order collectively that this insurance companies collect more in premiumsfrom the citizens.
And he can make these decisions on his own with no accountability, no testing, and noverification whatsoever because this law does not require him, it does not hold him to any

(13:59):
objective actuarial standards to make these determinations.
This is a situation that just is a recipe for disaster, it's a recipe for political abuse.
And what happens, Danielle, if you have an insurance, let's just say in the next election,you have three or four people running for insurance commissioner.
And one of those candidates who doesn't believe in this policy loses.

(14:27):
And let's say he is an insurance executive.
Okay.
And he loses the race and he has advocated publicly against vesting this kind of authorityin the insurance commissioner and repealing this law.
And he loses.
And he is associated with insurers in Louisiana.
You don't think the guy who wins is going to have an eye to some kind of political paybackof that losing candidate who ran for insurance commissioner, maybe a prominent figure in

(14:52):
Louisiana, and nothing will stop him from being able to do that.
What about citizens who publicly oppose a candidate on these grounds and yet he wins?
You don't think that there's a possibility he could raise their premiums in politicalretaliation?
This is just unbelievable.
that this kind of centralized power would be vested in one man with no criteria and noaccountability.

(15:17):
This is just a horrible, horrible bill.
The only thing that would make this worse would be if Royce Duplessis' SB 214 somehow getsthrough the Senate and gets to Governor Landry's desk, allowing the commissioner of
insurance to be appointed by the governor.

(15:38):
That's the only silver lining to this is that we still have an elected insurancecommissioner instead of an appointed one.
Yeah, and let's talk about the position this puts Tim Temple in.
So here he is trying to recruit new insurance companies to come to the state, trying tosay, look, we're doing everything we can to make this friendly.

(15:58):
So now he's got to say, look, yeah, we do have this law, but I don't believe in it.
I've been set up for failure.
Please come anyway.
Are you kidding me?
Are you freaking kidding me?
I'm going to do a call every attorney that's listening to this show.
anyone who's listening to this show who knows an attorney or knows someone in theinsurance industry.

(16:21):
Please sue the government for this.
Please find a way to sue the government and get this law repealed because it is anabsolute slap in the face to every citizen of Louisiana, especially those with high
insurance rates.
Exactly.
And Danielle, I spoke to a couple of.
officials in the government.

(16:42):
I'm not going to name any names, but I'll tell you what's going on here.
There's no question about it.
Governor Landry supported this legislation, not because he thinks it's good, not becausehe thinks it's based on a good policy.
He did it.
So a year from now or a year and a half from now when he's running for a couple of yearsfrom now, when he's running for reelection and this law has been in place for a year and a

(17:05):
half or two years.
and his insurance package has achieved nothing that it was supposed to achieve, guess whathe can do?
He can just blame Commissioner Tim Temple.
Because guess what, Commissioner Temple?
You had the power to reject insurance rate increase requests.
You had the power to order refunds.
You even had the power to make policyholders pay more if it was unfair.

(17:29):
All the powers in your hands, you could have handled this and you didn't.
That's why Governor Landry is pushing this legislation.
because it's terrible.
if he spent half as much time trying to move the state forward in a meaningful way,instead of playing these dirty tricks and these shenanigans that are patently illegal,

(17:51):
patently against the citizens, you think about the congressional redistricting Chris, theshenanigans that got played there.
If he would have just played it straight, we would have another member of Congress that wecould count on.
potentially.
Well, we would probably have, well, I don't know if we'd have Albert Guillory because thelines would have been different.
But the point is you can almost guarantee that there would have been at least one moreRepublican in uh the Congress.

(18:19):
And you could guarantee that we would not be wasting taxpayer dollars to go and fightagainst ourselves, uh to pay the attorney general to go and fight against our interest
with the Supreme Court.
Exactly.

(18:39):
No question about it.
This is not in the best interest of the citizens.
And you know what?
Tim Temple, Danielle, by the way,
adamantly opposes this legislation, even though it does enhance his power.
gives him tremendous power.
The reason why he opposes this legislation is because he believes it is dangerous.

(19:01):
It is dangerous to put this kind of arbitrary power in the hands of one official in theexecutive department.
And I don't believe Tim Temple thinks that the commissioner of insurance should be in thebusiness of adjusting
insurance rates.
This is not, we don't live in a system ah that is founded in principles of governmentalregulation.

(19:26):
We live in a system that is based in free market principles and what the competitivemarket will bear, those should be the rates.
And these arbitrary adjustments of insurance rates ah should not exist.
He thinks it's dangerous, particularly in a situation when there's no calculus.
by which the insurance commissioner has to base his decisions.

(19:50):
But it's now passed, it's now signed by the governor, and again, this is all aboutanticipated political blame.
This is disgusting.
John in the chat says, it sounds like we'll have less choice and higher prices forinsurance.
Well, I think that's spot on.
I think with a bill like this, we'll be lucky if there are any insurance companies left atall.

(20:11):
Well, I guess we can assume that the insurance companies that are left will be the onesthat are friends with Jeff Landry.
I would assume so, but I can tell you, Danielle, not only will this bill make sure thatinsurance companies do not come here, I guarantee you insurance companies right now who
are in Louisiana are looking very, very closely at this bill that was just signed by thegovernor, because guess what?

(20:36):
They're subject to retroactive penalties, as we talked about earlier, if the insurancecommissioner concludes that they were charging too much.
Policyholders right now are probably concerned, what if this insurance commissionerconcludes that I haven't been paying enough in premiums and he gets to order us to pay
more premiums.
But anyway, you're right, this is not going to bring insurance companies to Louisiana andit's certainly not going to be comforting to policyholders either.

(21:01):
This is a bad deal for both.
It is, and it takes Tim Temple off of his mission because now he has to go on a PRcampaign.
At least if I was advising him, that's what I would say he needed to do.
You have to go on a PR campaign now and say, I disagree with this and I will not beenforcing.
I will not be exercising the authority that this law has given me.

(21:22):
And next session I commit to leading the charge to get this darn thing repealed.
That's what I would be saying if I was Tim Temple right now.
Chris, it bears mentioning who voted against this bill, because I think those are somenames that definitely deserve some recognition.
nine Senate Republicans,
Yeah, so Robert Allain, Adam Bass, Rick Edmonds, Mike Fesi, Blake Miguez, Robert Owen,Thomas Presley, Alan Sebaugh, and Bill Wheat voted against it.

(21:55):
And Valerie Hodges was absent for that vote.
And then in the House, there were 34 who voted against it.
And I'll just list them quickly.
Beryl Omaday, Dennis Bamberg, Stephanie Barreault, Chad Boyer.
Josh Carlson, Kim Carver, Emily Schenevere, Kim Coats, Ray Cruz, Paula Davis, JasonDeWitt, Kelly Dickerson, Kathy Edmonston, Peter Egan, Gabe Firmett, Barbara Freyberg, Jay

(22:26):
Galle, Brett Gaiman, Troy Abear, Chance Henry, Big John Ilg, Jacob Landry, Ed Larvidanejoined the Republicans, Danny McCormick,
Dixon McMaken, Michael Melloran, Joe Angeron, Chuck Owen, Rodney Shammerhorn, PhilipTarver, Roger Wilder, Mark Wright, John Weibel, and Zee Zerang.

(22:56):
My representative, Jessica Domingue, was absent for the vote, as was Beth Billings,Frances Thompson, Jeff Wiley.
Yeah.
So thank you to all of those Republican reps and senators who were smart enough to seethrough this and understand what bad public policy this is.
ah And we're going to be, Danielle, we've already posted on our Facebook page, LeCagFacebook page and our X page, the Republicans who voted for this.

(23:26):
And so, and we'll repost those.
So I'll make sure everybody knows who voted for it.
But to the extent, Danielle, that any of the other insurance legislation may have had somemarginal effect on insurance rates in Louisiana and improved our business climate.
This bill right here is the death knell to any hope that those bills would haveaccomplished anything because it's that important and it's just that devastating to

(23:56):
insurance companies in Louisiana and really to policyholders as
Now, Chris, does Governor Landry, through the Constitution, have any recourse to doubleback on this?
Can he say, oh crap, I've got a lot of flack, the people figured me out, I'm never gonnabe able to survive this politically if I don't do something?

(24:17):
Can he veto something he already signed?
Can he repeal something he already signed?
What's his recourse if he wants to backtrack?
The only thing that he can do once a law has been signed, it is the law.
The only thing that can happen then is he can push the legislature to quickly repeal it inthe next session or even in a special session.

(24:40):
He could do that.
uh
has a I'm getting myself together special session and that could be the topic and he canfix all the things that he broke during this one.
Yes, I'm not holding my breath about that, Danielle, because it seems like the naturaltendency of Governor Landry, instead of honestly reflecting on mistakes, which we all make
mistakes, we've all send and fallen short, but he tends to double down even more and seemore more deeply into the quicksand whenever he's criticized about things he's done.

(25:11):
I'm not sure that he has the ability of any kind of genuine self reflection.
And in order to be a good leader,
And in order to grow as a leader and to inspire uh your citizenry, you have to be able toreflect upon the good, the bad, and the ugly.
And that includes you and your decisions.

(25:32):
And I have not seen that he has the ability to do that.
Yeah, nor have I.
All right, well, we spent a lot of time on that, but I think it was worth it.
I think it was needed.
Let's talk this.
So the session or the legislature took uh some time on Sunday.

(25:52):
They went in on Sunday and ah there was the Bagner, they used the Bagnerus rule.
Would you remind our listeners Chris about what the Bagneras rule in this?
I think it's only in the Senate, right?
In the Senate is and how it's used just as a reminder.
sure.
The Bagnerish rule is a rule in the Senate.
ah And I believe the president of the Senate can call for the Bagnerish rule.

(26:17):
And the Bagnerish rule basically says that any time a bill is called, any senator canpress the object button anonymously and the bill is automatically removed from the vote,
can't be called.
So it has to go through the whole cycle again, which is usually the next day.
it can be called again.

(26:37):
And then if someone objects again under Bagnaris, then it can't be called.
So that has happened on uh a couple of bills in the Senate and that we can get into, butthat's basically what it is.
And the purpose is just to be able to get through the non-controversial bills as quicklyas possible.
That was kind of the premise of the Bagneras rule when it was instituted.

(27:01):
I believe maybe anyone can move, maybe make a motion to institute Bagneras.
I'm not sure if that's true or not.
that may be right.
And that is the stated purpose of it, Danielle.
The stated purpose of it is so that non-controversial bills can be disposed of.
But often the real purpose is that a senator is opposed to a piece of legislation and justdoesn't want it to get voted on.

(27:26):
And that is a legitimate procedural mechanism to block a vote on bad legislation.
Yeah, rules work both ways, right?
Okay, so on Sunday, there were a couple bills that got voted on the House and Senatefloor.
Senate Bill 46 by Senator Fesi, my senator, his bill to ban geoengineering and weathermodification hit the House floor and it passed 58 to 33 with

(27:59):
But 12 Republicans voted against it.
Maybe I can just mention quickly what who those Republicans were that voted against it.
were Beth Billings, Kerry DeWitt Carrier, Paula Davis, Darrell Dessotel, Brian Fontenot,Barbara Freiberg, Troy Abear, Stephanie Hilferty, Jeremy Lacombe.

(28:24):
Let's see here.
Bunch of Democrats, Dixon McMakin.
um Vinny St.
Blanc, Joe Stagney, and I think that's it.
And then there were a couple absent.
They were Larry Bagley, Jacob Broad, ah Vincent Cox, the speaker, Michael Echols, and JoeAngereau, and Philip Tarver.

(28:54):
Yeah, so these Republicans that you just named, Danielle, voted against legislation thatsimply bans the process of dumping toxic chemicals out of the back of planes in order to
manipulate and control the weather and try to block the sun.

(29:15):
Think about the utter insanity of this.
And these chemicals fall on us, on our children, in our soil, in our food, affect ourhealth.
And these Republicans could not bring themselves to support legislation banning thishorrendous practice.
You know, I didn't watch the debate on this one.

(29:40):
I watched the debate on Kim Coats' similar bill.
ah And I was so disgusted.
Chris, you went away for a second.
Okay.
um I was so disgusted by the tone of the uh legislators as they were questioning her.
I was disgusted.

(30:02):
by the premise of one of the legislators and we can, I'll save that for later.
I'll save it for when we talk about her bill, but all that to say, ah yes, even if theydon't necessarily believe this is happening, why would you vote against it?
Orgeron went up onto the well, Representative Orgeron, and said, I'm very neutral on thisbill.

(30:28):
And then he proceeded to talk about the problems that he had with it.
One of which, we have to make a distinction between uh garden variety geoengineering andcloud seeding.
Well, the response is, why do we need cloud seeding in order to try to control the weatheror block the sun?
Whatever they're doing,
to try to manipulate the weather is sinister and evil.

(30:53):
And it should be banned, especially when it involves, as I said, dumping these chemicalsout of planes.
We don't even know who these people are.
We know for a fact that this is occurring in Louisiana skies, yet nobody has registeredfor a permit to do it, none.
So we don't even know who the people are.
And I'm just absolutely disgusted by that.

(31:15):
I'm very pleased.
happy that uh Senator Fesi's bill passed, but I'm disgusted with the fact that 12Republicans would vote against it.
Yeah, well, and now it's headed to the governor and that's not a foregone conclusion thathe's going to sign it either.
So we do have a call to action um up on the LACAG website encouraging the governor to signthe bill today.

(31:42):
Senator Fesi said, and we've worked very hard on this, Senator Fesi uh said yesterday thatplease encourage the governor to sign SB 46 now.
Now.
And I don't think there's any reason to wait, Danielle.
If Governor Landry can sign HB 148 that basically turns our insurance commissioner into anunaccountable czar, then he can certainly sign a bill very quickly that protects Louisiana

(32:10):
citizens.
from dangerous toxic chemicals.
What do you say?
Yeah, I agree.
I just looked it up and the status of the bill is that it's been enrolled.
So I imagine that the next step is for it to get sent to the governor.
then, so all that to say there may be a day or two before it gets to his desk.

(32:31):
So please do the call to action, load up his inbox so that he knows that there is greatsupport for this and he can't afford to veto it.
it's LACAG dot org action center.
And it's so important that you reach out to the governor and tell him to sign SB 46.
Yeah.
All right.

(32:51):
Next up, SB 100 by Senator Blake Miguez.
This is a bill about um accounting and reporting to the legislature any monies that havebeen spent, I believe, Chris, uh by the state on illegal immigrants.
this calls for an itemized accounting and report to the legislature by any public agencyabout what public benefits are going to illegal immigrants, people who are here illegally.

(33:25):
It doesn't call for punitive damage sanctions.
It doesn't call for any specific action other than reporting an itemized statement andexplanation of
the money that's going from public agencies to illegal immigrants in Louisiana.
And it's very good.
It's basically a taxpayer transparency bill.

(33:48):
And Senator McGhaz brought it so that the citizens of Louisiana can know how their taxdollars are being spent.
Yeah, it was passed by a vote of 25 to 11 uh in the Senate on a party line vote.
So I guess it's headed over to the House now.
Yeah.
Even the rhinos could not bring themselves to vote against a bill just to let the publicknow how much of their tax money is going to people who shouldn't be in the country.

(34:18):
Yeah, and there is a complimentary bill, Chris, that we've talked about before.
can't remember who's bringing it that uh mandates, maybe so that, and it may be in thelist for now, but uh that mandates reporting of any applications for or inquiries for
public assistance by illegal immigrants.
Yeah.

(34:38):
Okay, next up SB 80.
We talked about this on Thursday, Chris, by Senator Greg Miller.
This is a bill that allows the Secretary of State
to censor the voice of the people to basically ban citizens from uh exit polling andfinding out what really happened at their polling site.

(35:02):
It passed in concurrence, um although there were some people who were opposed to it in theSenate.
They were Edmonds, Faisy, Hodges, and Miguez, and Senator Seabal was absent for that.
concurrence vote, but the five of them voted against it in the first place, if I recall.
Exactly.
On the original final vote, ah Senator Seabal was among the four or five Republicans whovoted against this bill.

(35:30):
And hats off to them.
Say who they are one more time, Danielle, so our listeners can know the good Republicanswho voted against this horrendous bill.
Then I'll tell you, tell them about the bill.
Okay, uh in the Senate, it was Rick Edmonds, Mike Fasey, Valerie Hodges, Blake Miguez, andAlan Seabal.
Yeah.
And again, we have the list of the Republicans who voted for and against up on our socialmedia, LeCag, Facebook, and X.

(35:57):
Danielle, this is probably the most among the top two or three most disturbing pieces oflegislation of the session.
This is the government coming in and telling CNN that you are free to come into Louisiana,eat our food, drive on our roads.

(36:18):
and go into a polling precinct and conduct whatever kind of exit poll you want and thenhop on a plane and get out of here again and use that information that you've derived in
our state for whatever purpose you want.
You're free to do that because you're CNN.
You're a bona fide news gathering organization.
So you're free to do it.
You have the constitutional right of free speech and association.

(36:41):
But ordinary Louisiana citizens who've been living here their whole lives
whose families have been here for generations, who've been paying taxes here their wholelives, who put their kids through school here, who followed the law here, who contributed
to the community here, they don't have the constitutional right to conduct a lawful exitpoll at a voting precinct.

(37:05):
Think about that.
So the government is picking and choosing who gets constitutional protection of corerights and who doesn't.
And you know who's behind this bill?
Nancy Landry, the Secretary of State.
And it's not because she's concerned about disruption at the polling precincts or thatthings are not going to go smoothly.
She's concerned about the fact that citizen exit polls are going to accumulate raw dataabout how people really voted at one or more precincts and compare that data to what these

(37:37):
computers are showing with regard to election results.
She's scared of that.
Deep down inside, I'm sure she knows these computer-based voting systems are vulnerable,can be hacked, votes can be switched.
That's what she's afraid of.
And for her to use and scapegoat 65 and 70-year-old women up in Sharif Port, the mostlaw-abiding people you'll ever know, who simply were conducting an exit poll.

(38:02):
and doing a paper ballot demonstration at a polling precinct and basically call themcriminals that she could have had them arrested.
But instead I'm coming to the legislature to do legislation to protect our voters fromharassment at the voting precincts at the voting booths.
What an absolute joke.
we have a, Governor Landry has a responsibility to the citizens of Louisiana to veto thisbill.

(38:30):
We have a call to action up on it demanding that he veto this.
There's also a phone number that's on the call to action.
He needs to veto this bill.
There's no question.
If governor Landry wants to right now, governor Landry with regard to his conservativebase in Louisiana, Danielle is about two thirds sunk in quicksand.

(38:52):
If he wants to go down ah the final third under the quicksand, he should sign this
legislation into law, because this will be the acid test of whether or not he really doesbelieve in the Constitution, whether or not he really does embrace the principles that he
ran on, which is to protect Louisiana citizens from this type of arbitrary governmentoverreach.

(39:19):
And this will basically make a liar out of him if he doesn't veto this bill.
If he does, then he's got a faint hope.
of reviving his credibility with his base.
Yeah.
And just a point on that, Chris, his two thirds sunk in quicksand is before the peopleunderstand what he's done to our insurance ah situation.

(39:41):
if that might that could do the job in and of itself.
Yeah, that that could do the job.
House Bill 148, the insurance commissioner czar unaccountable czar bill.
Yeah, you're right, Daniel.
There's a lot to choose from here.
But I mean, SB 80 was brought by a Republican who's been carrying Greg Miller, who's beencarrying Nancy's water, Nancy Landry's water the whole session and

(40:09):
you know, it received very little debate or pushback.
I will give Representative Cruz a lot of credit because on the House floor, he trulyexposed Beth Billings, who carried this garbage bill on the House side and really exposed
this bill for what it really is.
So Representative Cruz, at some point, I'm going to clip that exchange.

(40:33):
In fact, somebody may already have.
Representative Cruz and others uh exposed this.
uh
for what it really is on the floor.
Awesome.
Well, if, Governor Landry does in fact sign this, will, you know, continue my drumbeat ofah alert, putting out an all points bulletin to the constitutional attorneys who are in

(40:54):
our listenership, our viewership and, within arm's reach of our viewership, because thisneeds to be immediately challenged.
I would also say that if Governor Landry signs this, I would encourage those
sweet ladies up in Shreveport that were targeted so unfairly, so wrongly by SecretaryLandry to immediately apply for uh the right to exit poll.

(41:21):
And um so we have a foothold for a lawsuit.
Exactly.
You know what, Danielle, that is so important.
You're exactly right.
Because right now, would be, if he signs it, it would be just a general prohibition ah inorder to have what's called a judicially recognizable injury.

(41:42):
These ladies would have to apply and be denied.
And then they could allege an individualized deprivation of their constitutional rights.
That is such a great point you make, Danielle.
Yeah, and I guess I shouldn't single out the ladies in Shreveport, although I would lovefor them to do it.
As many citizens across the state should absolutely go and apply to be able to exit pollbecause we could hit this on a lot of fronts.

(42:09):
Yeah, this is not just a theoretical issue.
So if you're sitting here saying, why do I care?
I don't do exit polls.
The reason why you should care is that first of all, it involves a violation offundamental constitutional rights.
And if the government can do it in this case, guess what?
Sooner or later, the government czar is going to be knocking at your door.

(42:30):
So don't wait for that to happen.
And secondly, it has to do with making sure that our election system is secure.
and these citizen exit polls are important for that purpose.
Yeah.
And I would love for not only this law to get challenged through a suit against thesecretary of state's office, but I would like the very premise that people need to apply

(42:52):
to be able to conduct exit polls to be uh challenged in a suit, in the same suit as well,Chris, because that in and of itself is unconstitutional.
Yeah, you look at look at other states, Danielle, Texas and other places.
They don't make these arbitrary distinctions between bona fide news organizations like CNNand ordinary citizens.

(43:14):
Everybody has to abide by the same rules.
Everybody has to obey the law and everybody can conduct exit polls as long as they're donein a non disruptive way.
And that's the way it should be here.
Yeah, there are rules set out that are prescribed conduct rules for how to operate in anelection polling zone.
Other than that, no one should have to apply for a permit to conduct an exit poll.

(43:38):
No one should uh have to be uh validated by their uh journalistic credentials, accordingto the Secretary of State either.
exactly.
Exactly.
And you know what adds insult to injury on it, Danielle, is the fact that CNN and MSNBCare considered more credible in the state of Louisiana by our secretary of state than

(44:05):
ordinary law abiding Louisiana citizens.
That is an absolute insult, particularly in a day and age when the overwhelming majorityof Louisiana citizens, they would trust the devil himself before they trust anything that
CNN
or MSNBC do.
Well, I'm not too impressed with the two Landry's up at the top these days.

(44:31):
All right, Chris, let's talk about SB 8 by Senator J Morris.
This one was brought to House civil law yesterday.
It passed with some amendments 12 to 0 though.
And this uh is his bill that uh would be, or I guess it's a proposed constitutionalamendment.
So should it get all the way through?

(44:52):
it would hit the ballot sometime in the future, I don't know when, and the people wouldhave the right to say whether they want to make it easier to fire or reclassify employees,
public employees.
Yeah, and it basically would give the legislature the authority to move certain categoriesof classified civil servants now who are basically unfiorable, really, unless it's done by

(45:21):
the Louisiana Public Service Commission, which is, you know, corrupt and dysfunctional, uhas a number of officials have said.
But it would allow the legislature to do that.
move these classified civil servants to non-classified ah categories so that they could beheld more accountable for doing a good job.

(45:46):
Yeah, so it's positive move that this is um moving along and uh next stop will be thehouse floor and that will be the end of the road until uh it would come to us.
All right, a couple things hit the House floor yesterday.

(46:07):
And the first one is a pretty interesting one, Chris, and a little bit of a headscratcher, but I'm happy with the way it did ultimately turn out.
This is House Bill 76 by Democratic Representative Pat Moore.
It creates the crime of the felony crime of intentional infection of a sexuallytransmitted disease.

(46:27):
Seems like, Chris, that would be
a no-brainer.
seems like if a DA, as we were talking about last night, if a DA can prove that someoneintentionally infected someone with an incurable sexually transmitted disease, that that

(46:49):
would be something that everyone could agree is horrible.
But that's not the case.
Oh, are you on mute?
unbelievable, Danielle.
I watched the debate on the House floor.
We have a call to action on this and number of communications that have gone tolegislators.
And that's exactly what it does.
It's a Democrat, Representative Pat Moore, that in the bill creates the felony crime ofintentionally, of knowing that you have an incurable sexually transmitted disease and

(47:22):
infecting a partner.
with that incurable disease, ah with the specific intent to do so.
That's a fel—it should be a felony crime in Louisiana.
That's the bill.
It passed overwhelmingly on the House floor, but four Republicans, four Republicans votedagainst this.

(47:44):
I'm like, what in the world are you smoking in there?
Yeah, these it's, it's absolutely astounding what people can, uh, how people can argue infavor of something like this.
Um, it passed 68 to 18 overall with the majority, like you said, with the majority withrepresentative Moore.

(48:05):
Um, but let me call out the Republicans who voted against it, uh, because I feel like thisis a real character test, Chris.
I mean, it's hard to describe it any other way.
If you are, if you're okay with someone.
intentionally infecting someone with a sexually transmitted disease, you deserve to haveyour name called out and your character called into question and that's what I'm doing

(48:27):
right now.
So, DeWitt Carrier, Barbara Freyberg, Wayne McMahon, and Nicholas Muscarello all believe,oh, and Joe Stagney, all believe that you should be able to...
intentionally infect someone with a sexually transmitted disease and it not be a crime.

(48:52):
And some of the objections that were being raised were, well, how do you prove this?
And how do you know false accusations won't be made?
you know, so what's going on?
And I felt like saying, and I was saying to myself, guess what?
That's not your responsibility.
Your responsibility is to criminalize criminal behavior.

(49:15):
The responsibility of proving it and honoring the
presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt is up to the DAs and theexecutive branch of government.
Your responsibility is to make law.
Your responsibility is not to go and prosecute criminal cases.
There's no way, there's no matter of principle that any Republican legislator should beopposing legislation to criminalize this type of absolute demonic behavior.

(49:45):
And it is important that
Our listeners know the Republicans who voted against this.
Yeah.
And I'll just go ahead and say that we will be scoring people definitely including thisbill.
I mean, there will be a lot of a lot of other bills that that these reps and senators getscored on.

(50:06):
But this for crying out loud is among them.
100 percent and again I'm glad that we are supporting this bill that we have calls toaction up on this and this needs to get through and be signed.
Chris, I'll tell you what, I'm not giving anyone any extra points for voting for it, but Iam subtracting points for those who voted against it.

(50:28):
uh
no extra credit points, Republicans, for voting for this legislation.
But the ones who didn't certainly deserve a mention.
That's right.
Okay.
Next up House Bill 608 by Representative Kim Coats.
We touched on this briefly when we were talking about Senator Fesi's similar bill.
This is her Louisiana Atmospheric Protection Act would also ban geoengineering and weathermodification.

(50:54):
It failed on the House floor 20 to 69, Chris.
This was first of all, sometimes I think our legislators
are very uneducated about the realities of the world we live in.
Sometimes I think our legislators are just uneducated generally.

(51:16):
I mean, I heard some of the dumbest, most ridiculous questions asked of representativeCoats that I could even possibly imagine.
One representative, I'm not going to say who it is because I can't quite remember and Idon't want to call someone stupid and it'd be something else.

(51:46):
.
Yeah put off chemical uh Immersion, I don't know dispersion into the atmosphere and andshe was saying so you're not upset about the fact that plants emit chemicals into the
atmosphere
but you are upset about the fact that they're dumping toxic chemicals on us as people?

(52:09):
What about climate change?
That was a literal discussion, Chris, on the house floor.
I was like, I don't think if I ran into a wall, it would make me dumber than that comment.
That was representative Marcel uh and You know representative coats.
I believe the response should have been representative Marcel the plants that you'retalking about the oil refineries the things that produce things that make our economy

(52:39):
she was talking about green plants.
She's talking about trees, Chris.
I think maybe she was talking about plants.
That would make it slightly less stupid.
That would make it less stupid.
I literally thought she was talking about flowers and trees.
I may be misinterpreting it and we might have to seek some clarification on that, but Iinterpreted that as like chemical plants, oil refineries.

(53:09):
But the bottom line is it's only slightly less illegitimate to say that because guesswhat?
Representative Marcel, you were able to drive to the Capitol this morning instead of walkbecause of those plants that produce oil and refine oil.
you're able to brush your teeth, everything you touch is derived in some way or anotherfrom oil.

(53:31):
You're going to compare the public utility that is derived from these plants to dumpingtoxic chemicals on Louisiana citizens and our soil and our food on our children in order
to block the sun and control the weather.
You really are making that comparison.
Of course, in an ideal world, we wouldn't want any kind of pollution.

(53:53):
But to make that comparison is just obscene.
It's unbelievable.
Well, and guess what?
Those plants are regulated, right?
There are measurements, there are licenses.
um And look, saw something on, um Dustin Granger put something out yesterday and said thatthere was a company that or a plant that was dumping all kinds of toxic chemicals into, um

(54:21):
I don't know if it was a waterway or something.
Of course, that's horrible.
Of course, we are not promoting that in any way.
But we're saying there is a path, there are guardrails for these companies that allow usto hold them accountable.
And clearly, if they were dumping toxic chemicals into the water or the soil, that issomething that we have recourse for.

(54:47):
But if there's no paper trail, we don't even know who is dumping this stuff out of thesky, what their intentions are toward the people.
um what the long-term effects of these chemicals are, I think we deserve to have someguardrails for that.
Absolutely.
And it's just, it is just to me unbelievable that on a bill that would provide realprotection to citizens

(55:15):
from this activity that it would be defeated.
Do you know why, Danielle?
I believe it was defeated according to a couple of legislators who voted against it orvoted for it.
Because lobby, Louisiana Association of Businesses and Industry and one other uh powerfulcompany put in floor notes against it.
ah Basically saying that it would disrupt their business activities and all kinds ofthings, but guess what?

(55:43):
ChemCoats confirmed that the stuff to which they objected had all been amended out of thebill by the time it was voted on.
It was all gone.
The bill simply said at the end that geoengineering, aka chemtrails in Louisiana, which isthe process of dumping this garbage out of planes, it's prohibited in Louisiana when the

(56:04):
purpose is to control or manipulate the weather, to block the sun, to change the climate,that sort of thing.
That's what the bill specifically and only prohibited.
And it was defeated on the House floor, overwhelmingly, because of opposition from lobbythat is supposed to be a business organization that protects the best interests of

(56:26):
ordinary Louisiana citizens.
Well, it's at least meant to protect the interest of the business community.
It's not protecting the interest of ordinary Louisiana citizens.
And if you go onto Lobby's website, you can look and see there's quite a number ofchemical companies that sit on their board of directors.
And Air Products, believe, the company that is knee deep in the carbon capturesequestration racket and projects.

(56:52):
yeah, absolutely.
All right, next up, we'll take a turn for some positive news here.
Senate Bill 14.
did you mention the Republicans who voted for the Chemtrail bill, 608?
do, no, thank you for that.
Let me do that.
And I'm still giggling over the fact that I thought she was talking about literal plants.
You're probably, I'm sure you're right.
I'm sure it was not as stupid as I thought it was, but it's still kind of dumb.

(57:16):
All right.
All right.
That's right.
You really can't, you really can't.
Okay.
ah In favor of this bill were Beryl Amadei,
I'll list everybody who was in favor of the bill, Chris, because there's 20 of them.
Democrat Marcus Bryant, Rhonda Butler, Robbie Carter, also a Democrat, Kim Landry, JasonDeWitt, Kelly Dickerson, Kathy Edmondson, Peter Egan, Gabe Firmat, Jay Galley, Brett

(57:48):
Gaiman, Dodie Horton, Jacob Landry, Shane Mack, Danny McCormick, Chuck Owen, Neil Reiser,Rodney Schammerhorn.

(58:15):
Absolutely.
And I'm glad we do have Mike Fesi's SB 80.
You could argue.
that in terms of the language and some of the penalties and that sort of thing, it's notas strong a bill uh as HB 608, but it is something and it is, I think, significant.
Yeah, his one is his chemtrails one is SB 46, I believe, Chris.

(58:38):
46, right?
Okay, and the other thing I want to mention while we're talking about Senator Facey isthat you I know we discussed Chris before that his fluoride bill failed, but there is an
effort underway to get it revived and heard directly on the House floor.
And you have a call to action on the CAGS website for that.

(58:58):
Yeah, we're trying to get the House to convene and vote to hear that on the House floorbecause it's such an important issue, such an important bill.
um the fluoride in our water, in our public water systems, without our consent, harmingus, harming our children.

(59:22):
So that's a good bill by Senator Faisy, and I'd like to see it at the governor's desk.
Yeah, let's see if we can get it revived.
That's for sure.
Do you think there's enough, I guess, is there enough uh legislator support uh to even getit reheard?
I'd say it's 50-50.
Okay.

(59:42):
All right.
All right.
Well, next up, like I said, we'll try and bring some good news too.
And Senator McMath's SB 14, his Make Louisiana Healthy Again bill that would get a lot ofthe process garbage out of kids' school lunches, school meals, passed the House
unanimously.

(01:00:03):
And it's headed to the Senate for concurrence for probably just a couple minor amendmentsthat were made along the way.
But we expect this to get signed by
the governor soon.
we testified uh in favor of this legislation and supported it.
It's very, very important, Danielle, with the obesity epidemic and, you know, ah chronicobesity epidemic, I should say, and, you know, diseases in Louisiana, chronic illnesses

(01:00:29):
that young children have.
to give them healthy food to eat when they're eating two meals a day at their school andget the junk out of their diet and out of their system.
I think it's very important and I think will lead to not only greater physical health, Ithink it'll lead to mental health and also greater long-term productivity.

(01:00:49):
So much of what we do, how we feel is based on what we consume and we have to rememberthat.
I think it's a really good bill.
Yeah, absolutely.
um Okay, next up House Bill 304 by Representative Robbie Carter.
This is the bill that is uh about expropriation for carbon capture and it's just about whogets to set, where the venue gets set ah if there's any kind of dispute, right?

(01:01:20):
Yes, that's exactly right.
All it says, and it is important, all it says is that if any company that brings an actionto try to seize private property for any kind of carbon capture sequestration project,
that action has to be brought in the parish where the property is located.
It passed, it passed substantially, Danielle, but there were several Republicans who votedagainst HB 304.

(01:01:48):
Yeah, I'll.
like, you know, and I'll, I can find it, but I'm sitting here thinking, yeah, why, whywould a Republican vote against a bill simply to make it marginally less stressful,
marginally less distressing for a property owner when he's getting sued?

(01:02:10):
So someone can seize his property.
At least you have to bring the action.
in the parish where the property is located so he's not inconvenienced even more.
And there were Republicans who voted against this.
Yeah, I'll mention them, Chris.
They are uh Adam Bass, Rick Edmonds, Mike Fesi, Caleb Kleinpeter Brach Meyers ThomasPressley, Alan Seabaugh Larry Selders.

(01:02:34):
Is he Republican?
I think he's a Democrat.
um And Jeremy Stein and also Bob Hensgens was absent for the vote.
So none of those folks have your back when it comes to you going to court ah if somebody'strying to take your property for carbon capture.
Yeah, it's disappointing because a number of those names that you mentioned are typicallymuch more reliable than that.

(01:02:59):
It's amazing how when it comes to carbon capture sequestration in this state, uh so manyRepublicans simply are not willing to provide any deference whatsoever to the core right
of private properties or to the convenience of landowners.
It's extraordinary.

(01:03:19):
It is.
Chris, maybe we'll need to get Carla Lim's back.
know she and her running mate are in D.C.
this week.
They were hoping to meet with some senators to get the Q45 tax credit stripped out of thebig, beautiful bill.
I don't know um what happened with that.
I did see some blip on the TV the other night, yesterday, I think, but it may have beenthe day before, saying that Trump was taking out a lot of funding for

(01:03:49):
green new scam stuff.
So I'm very hopeful that the tap dries up on this nonsense because we're having a heck ofa time trying to shut the valve off from here.
Yeah, and it's amazing if the money dries up, Danielle, watch how quickly if our moneydries up, propping this up, watch how quickly it all goes away, which will just

(01:04:12):
demonstrate
for all to see what we already know, that this is not a self-sustaining, profitableenterprise in the private enterprise system at all.
It will collapse like a cheap soup the moment our money is not propping it up anymore.
And I hope that that is the case.
And you're right about President Trump.
And I hope that he has the insights and the wisdom to understand what this is really allabout.

(01:04:37):
Yeah, I think he does since he coined it the Green New Scam.
So I'm pretty sure he's clocked it.
All right, next up House Bill 309 by Representative Philip Tarver.
This isn't one that we talked about before, but we were watching the House debate, theHouse floor debate yesterday and I thought it uh bore mention.

(01:05:00):
Representative Tarver uh brought a bill that would strip out
any funding to NGOs from general appropriations and it would have its own set ofappropriate, its own process or its own category for appropriation.
when we're looking to see where the government is putting our tax dollars to support thesenon-governmental organizations, which you would think the name would lend itself enough

(01:05:30):
for people to not want us to be putting money into these organizations because they're
not core government functions.
Maybe we should rename them non-core government function into organizations, Chris,because the debate on this was so ridiculous.
It's like, yeah, okay, so maybe they could potentially help be helpful in communities, butthey should, they don't exist to serve the people as a government agency.

(01:05:58):
So the government should not be funding them.
Anyway, I think this is a great bill brought by Representative Tarver because it's
really, it's a transparency bill so we can see in a much more straightforward way what allorganizations are receiving tax dollars to operate.
Yeah.
And so basically, uh what he's doing is separating the appropriations process with regardto money that goes directly to public agencies and money that goes to NGOs, either

(01:06:31):
potentially directly or even through a public agency once they've received money.
But you're right, Danielle, it's very difficult to know
uh or to see the difference uh if it's all appropriated in one big bulk appropriationsbill.
And so I think it's important to make that distinction.

(01:06:52):
That way we'll really know how much of our money is going to public agencies and how muchof it is being funneled to these NGOs, some of which I can assure you are doing absolutely
nothing to serve humanity.
Nothing to serve Louisiana citizens, but an awful lot to serve themselves.

(01:07:12):
That's right.
Four Democrats joined the Republicans.
This passed on almost a party line vote.
So I want to mention those Democrats and give them credit for this.
are Chad Brown, Steve Jackson, Pat Moore, and Robbie Carter.
I'm very, very thankful for those four Democrats.
Yeah.
Next up, House Bill 519 by Representative Brian Glorio.

(01:07:34):
So this is the cockroach bill and it finally, they finally got that cockroach across thefinish line, which is disgusting to me, Chris.
I honestly feel like we may have more losses under this Republican administration with aRepublican super majority than we did when we had John Bell Edwards and even more rhinos.

(01:07:56):
self-proclaimed rhinos basically two years ago.
I'm so disgusted by this legislature I could barely stand myself and I know, look y'all,I'm so sorry that I'm so salty this morning.
I tend to try and be encouraging.
I want to be the sunny one.
I want to be the silver lining one.
But this just makes me so livid.

(01:08:17):
Absolutely.
agree 100%.
In fact, Danielle, there was a comment on our, one of our social media platforms lastnight.
Just to that effect.
He said, we fought this back, fought this back under Democrat administrations.
And yet it's passed and will likely be signed under a Republican governor and a Republicandominated legislature.

(01:08:43):
It's just, who would have thought that?
Who would have thought that we would have successfully kept this from getting throughunder John Bel Edwards, but not successful in keeping it from getting through under a
Republican governor.
It is just extraordinary.
And it is unbelievable.
It's unbelievable that people actually believe that this is going to accomplish itspurported objectives, which is to reduce insurance rates and reduce traffic accidents.

(01:09:10):
It's going to do neither one of those two things.
The only thing it's going to do, Danielle, is create an opportunity for furtherencroachments on liberty.
And it's going to cause the transfer of even more of our money to the government, which isexactly what it's really designed to do, raise money for the government.
That's what it's going to do.
It's not about public safety.

(01:09:31):
so it's just is extraordinary.
But I can't stand this bill.
I can't stand it, especially because they're not being honest about why they're bringingit.
So now in your vehicle.
No phone to your ear to talk on the phone or you run the risk of being pulled over, issueda ticket, criminalized for that activity.

(01:09:54):
Meanwhile, meanwhile, we have a legislature that can't bring themselves to ban an activityby people we don't know, but we know it's absolutely going on.
That's that's that's dropping these fatal chemicals on us out of airplanes in order tocontrol the weather and block the sun.

(01:10:14):
They can't stand up and ban that, but they can ban law abiding citizens from talking on aphone in their vehicle.
Think about that.
yeah, and they can ban law-abiding citizens from exercising their free speech at theirpolling place.
And they're giving uh Nancy Landry all the runway she needs to go ahead and buy thosemachines.

(01:10:37):
This is absolutely a disgrace and it's a huge betrayal of the people of this state.
It's unbelievable.
And it all comes down to special interests and lobbyists, powerful lobbyists, powerfulspecial interests against the vast bulk of ordinary Louisiana citizens.

(01:10:58):
It's all traceable to those two issues.
And unfortunately, too often this session, our Republican legislators have chosen to standagainst the citizens of Louisiana and to hop in bed.
with the big powerful corrupt special interest groups.
That's what's going on here.
Yeah.
And do the bidding of the governor.

(01:11:20):
Okay.
yeah, and by the way, Danielle, I've heard on very good authority that Governor Landry,because I said, why did you vote for this?
Why did you vote for the cell phone bill?
And a couple of them said the governor is pushing hard on this cell phone bill.
I wish the governor would push just as hard on making sure that people's constitutionalrights are protected and their free speech rights, and that we're not getting poisoned by

(01:11:44):
chemicals being dumped out of planes.
ah
and that we go and that we understand how vulnerable computer-based voting is, I wish hewould speak up on issues like that.
Yeah.
Well, you know what?
A lot of people voted for the perception we had of Governor Landry or Jeff Landry asattorney general because we believed he was fighting for the people.

(01:12:09):
We believed he was fighting for free speech.
We believed he was fighting against the mandates.
And I don't know what happened to that guy.
I don't know if that really was just a facade um to set him up for a run for governor.
Perhaps that's all it was.
but it's absolutely despicable.
He was one of the lead attorneys general in the case against the Biden administration thatexposed this collusion between the Biden administration and Big Tech to crush free speech

(01:12:42):
online.
He exposed that.
That was one of the reasons why
He was hailed as as you know, a great conservative and someone who would be a greatgovernor He exposed censorship on the federal level which means that if he doesn't veto SB
80 the bill banning citizens from doing exit polls I'm gonna come to the conclusion thatall of all that he did as Attorney General to expose the censorship of our speech was

(01:13:11):
political posturing to position himself to run for governor
and that it wasn't really a philosophical conviction that he has.
Yeah, yeah, I agree with that, Chris.
And you know, if you're on social media, you see every time illegal immigrants getarrested or something good happens, people go on there and they say, this is what I voted
for.
Meaning this is why I voted for Trump, because he's doing what he said he would do.

(01:13:36):
I voted for X, Y or Z of what his platform was.
He made a promise and he's following through.
And I think right now Louisiana citizens

(01:14:01):
Exactly.
And the people voted for the Jeff Landry who challenged John Bell Edwards ah
perpetual lockdown orders and tried to stand up as attorney general for the citizens ofLouisiana.
That's the Jeff Landry we voted for.
That's the Jeff Landry I voted for.
And I don't know whether he has a doppelganger.

(01:14:23):
He might, ah because I certainly see very little resemblance to Attorney General JeffLandry and Governor Jeff Landry.
All right.
Well, ah did I mention Chris?
I did not mention ah who voted against this.
Let me see.
ah
I think we need to mention them favorably.

(01:14:45):
Yeah, okay.
So the four Republicans who voted against it were Franklin Foyle.
This is in the Senate.
Senator Valerie Hodges, Blake Miguez, uh and Alan Seabow.
One Democrat voted against it and that was Sam Jenkins.
Sam Jenkins, and again, this is the bill.
They voted against this bill to ban handheld cell phone use, essentially criminalize it inyour car.

(01:15:08):
So hats off to those Republicans for doing the right thing.
Yeah.
Okay.
Next up, House Bill 577 by Representative Darryl Desatel.
This is his bill to give Nancy Landry the ability to choose whoever she wants to get thosevoting computers here.
And of course, the legislature just bowed down and did her bidding once again.

(01:15:33):
It passed the Senate 33 to 1.
Valerie Hodges.
Valerie Hodges was the lone Senator.
to stand up against this and Senator Miguez was absent for that vote, Chris.
and Senator Valerie Hodges has said this is just a bad, bad piece of legislation.
What this does, Danielle, right now in Louisiana, for all major investments of taxpayermoney, in this case, in computer voting system that Nancy Landry wants, it requires what's

(01:16:04):
called a competitive open bidding process, where all potential companies and vendors getto vie
for the contract on an equal level, equal playing field.
That's called request for proposal, a competitive bidding process.
They all submit, she submits a request for proposal to all interested vendors and thenthey sell their products.

(01:16:28):
Okay, they submit a bid.
Okay, that's what's going on now.
This bill changes that and gives Secretary Vlander the option to negotiate through what'scalled an invitation to negotiate.
whereby she can issue that invitation to negotiate to as few as one vendor if she wants toand negotiate and contract with that vendor and issue the contract to that vendor.

(01:16:53):
And I think the reason why she's pushing this so hard, Danielle, is because twice beforewhen Cal Ardwan was Secretary of State and Nancy Landry was First Assistant Secretary of
State, uh Cal Ardwan
tried to issue a contract to the voting system contract to Dominion Voting System.

(01:17:16):
And it was complained, there was a complaint filed by other competitive vendors and sayingit wasn't fair, this is not competitive.
He rigged this bid and guess what?
The Office of State Procurement agreed with them and said, that's exactly what happenedhere.
This bid, this request for proposal is written in such a way that only Dominion VotingSystems can satisfy it.

(01:17:40):
And so he would have awarded the contract to them on that basis.
So it was thrown out when he tried to do that, not once, but not twice.
And at least on one of those occasions, Nancy Landry was the first assistant secretary ofstate.
So is there a possibility that through this new mechanism of contract negotiation, maybeshe's trying to get around the possibility of being criticized or having a complaint

(01:18:06):
because the law will allow her to negotiate with
only one vendor of her choosing and make the unilateral decision to award the contract tothat vendor.
That may be what's going on here.
She may be already have her mind made up about who she wants to go with on this and she'ssimply going to try to streamline that process as much as possible without getting it hung

(01:18:31):
up by any complaints that would otherwise be filed by aggrieved vendors who don't get thiscontract.
That is probably what's going on here.
But why would you do this?
Why would you make the process less competitive and create the perception of some kind ofpolitical shenanigans or political corruption or political games in light of the history

(01:18:54):
of this process that I just went over, where the public is already skeptical about thefairness of the process?
Why would you vest more power in the Secretary of State, less competition in the process,and give her the authority to go with whatever vendor she wants?
That's why it's a bad bill.
But not a murmur of debate or protest on the Senate floor about this.

(01:19:17):
Fortunately, Senator Valerie Hodges voted against it, ah but it's still a very bad bill.
And Chris, the only thing that we can point to really is that Nancy Landry controls whogets elected.
I mean, that's I don't understand why the legislators pay such homage to her.

(01:19:40):
It's only one of two.
Well, that may maybe it's only one of two reasons, either the thing who cares.
She's a glorified clerk.
All she does is process election returns.
So we're not worried about her.
So she can do whatever she wants.
Either that's it or just the opposite, where they're thinking she does have great power.
She controls the levers of elections in Louisiana.

(01:20:00):
And we don't want to do or say anything to get on her bad side for sure.
ah So I don't know what the reason is, but for whatever reason, there is literally nolegislative oversight over her agenda.
None.
And Chris, if this wasn't the case, you would at least expect that the Democrats wouldvote against it just because it's something that a Republican secretary of state wants.

(01:20:27):
You would think so.
You would absolutely think so.
it doesn't make the bill any uh less horrendous.
you know what?
I'm thankful.
I'm thankful to Senator Valerie Hodges for recognizing it and saying, uh-uh, this is badand voting against it.
God bless Senator Valerie Hodges.
Chris, what happens when the legislature passes a law that is contrary to another law?

(01:20:52):
Like what happens when they create contradictory laws?
Like I'm sure there are some very strong directives around how procurement must takeplace.
Does this just overwrite what is existing?

(01:21:18):
Well, first of all, this bill does not change ah what the law is regarding what kind of asystem oh we will have to have generally.
This just uh creates an opportunity
for the Secretary of State to negotiate with only one of those vendors for whateverpolitical reason she may have when there may be others that offer essentially the same

(01:21:50):
things and maybe even offer it better.
So...
But I guess what I'm asking is when it comes to procurement broadly for the state, notspecifically, and this bill is passed and say this bill contradicts the general approach
we have for overall procurement, does this just overwrites our procurement approach forthis particular sector or can there be some kind of legal challenge on the basis that

(01:22:17):
these two laws are contradictory and how do we know which law to follow?
Well, you'll notice that the bill, that the laws will say not withstanding any other lawto the contrary.
ah Or it will say that it is expressly repealing another statute.
ah And so it generally says one of those two things.

(01:22:41):
And if it doesn't say one of those two things, the law that would prevail would be themost recently passed.
Okay.
recently passed legislation would by implication repeal anything that conflicts with it uhthat was in previous law.
Okay, thanks.

(01:23:01):
Okay, next up House Bill 590 by Representative Annie Spell.
This bill is her companion to Senator Sebaugh's bill to ban foreign funding for electionsand election campaigns.
ah It was meant to be heard yesterday, but ah it's still subject to call.
they?

(01:23:21):
ah Well, it's not, it's in the House, right?
Or is it in the Senate, Chris?
I'm sorry.
on the...
I believe it's in the Senate.
Okay, okay, so it may have hit the Bagneris rule then.
I believe it's in the Senate and I believe it was objected to.
so it wasn't called HB 590.
don't, uh I don't know why any Republican would object to a bill that simply, you know,statutorily prohibits foreign countries and foreigners and, and, and people who are

(01:23:55):
illegal in the United States or otherwise not U S citizens to be able to donate uh to ourelections to candidates.
don't know why, Chris?
You don't know why?
Because I'll tell you, it's amazing that uh closing this loophole would close off a lot ofopportunities to get their mortgages paid and to get their Mardi Gras crew dues paid for,

(01:24:21):
since didn't they pass some legislation that would allow them to use campaign funds forall kinds of personal things?
I believe it's close.
Yeah, that's Mark Wright's omnibus override of Louisiana campaign finance laws and ethicslaws.
Yeah, so.
we wouldn't want to shut off any opportunities to get that stuff paid for.

(01:24:43):
Of course not.
Of course not.
can't do that.
That would be cruel and unusual punishment to allow that, Danielle.
I mean, come on.
You know better than this.
But the point is, it's a good bill.
HB 590 is a very good bill and it should be banned.

(01:25:05):
But anyway, hasn't passed the Senate floor yet.
and we'll see what happens.
All right, I'm more more skeptical of these people with every passing minute.
Okay, Chris, let's see what else is on my list for today.
Today, okay.
Y'all, I am maybe not the sunshine girl I usually am today.

(01:25:28):
I'm just so irritated by most of what's happening, but uh House and Governmental Affairsis meeting today, 9.30, four minutes.
and uh Dixon McMakin is bringing House Bill 586, and he is calling for a constitutionalconvention.

(01:25:49):
I will say, Chris,
This is my observation.
Representative McMakin seems to sure be carrying a lot for the governor right now.
A lot of his bills look like they have the governor's fingerprints all over them.
I will say that I am strongly opposed to a constitutional convention in this environment.

(01:26:09):
Do I think that our constitution deserves an overhaul?
Absisting and lutely.
I think it's too big.
I think that it covers too many topics that are not germane.
ah for a constitution.
However, do I touch, do I trust these people to touch the constitution that we have?
No, not one tiny little bit.

(01:26:32):
That's my perspective, sorry.
And I tend to agree with you.
I think it is going to depend on how the delegates are chosen, who the delegates are.
Because the last thing we want is to have a situation where the government is using uh themechanism of a constitutional amendment to further ah consolidate his power in state

(01:26:57):
government when it's already disproportionately strong here.
So I would rather not have a constitutional convention and force him to put things on astatewide ballot individually.
on an issue by issue basis and let the voters individually determine that rather than goin and run the risk of some omnibus rewrite of the Constitution that further consolidates

(01:27:21):
his power.
That's not a risk that I want to take.
Yeah, but you know what, Chris?
I think it's a real risk that we're running because the only thing that stood between usand that Constitutional Convention last year was Senator Cleo Fields.
And he's not there anymore.
That's right.
A Democrat who we have absolutely nothing in common with, except have some appreciationfor him for blocking that committee hearing that would have allowed a constitutional

(01:27:53):
convention to occur.
So I'm thankful to Cleo Fields for that.
And that will probably be the first and last time I thank Cleo Fields for just aboutanything, as it related to government or...
political philosophy.
That's right, yeah.
Okay, next up today, Senate Judiciary C is meeting this afternoon, 1230, and uh one billbefore the committee is House Bill 64 by Representative Mike Johnson.

(01:28:23):
This is giving, we followed this pretty closely, Chris, right?
This is giving the AG the ability to step in when the federal government's overreaching ina locality.
Yeah, and I'm going to testify for this bill because it's a good bill.
We've been supporting this legislation and it just reasserts our state sovereignty throughthe attorney general and the government to nullify ah or to rescind any agreements between

(01:28:51):
any local municipality and the federal government that violates our 10th Amendment statesovereignty rights.
So it's a great bill.
I publicized this uh
uh, and, praised Mike Johnson publicly for bringing this bill, I think it's, and, theattorney general, because she supports it.
So I'm very thankful for this.

(01:29:11):
And this is an important piece of legislation.
and so I'm going to go down, and testify before, uh, governmental affairs.
is it, is it, uh, house governmental affairs on this?
Yeah.
no, sorry, Senate Jude, Senate Jude C.
That's right, I had it written down at UT, but I'm going to go testify in favor of thisbecause it's important.

(01:29:32):
All right.
Senate Judiciary A is meeting today as well.
They have, uh they're storied in my book.
um Okay.
So they're meeting today at one, they're hearing Representative Omiday's bill, House Bill371.
We haven't really talked much about this if we've talked about it at all, but this is herbill uh to protect the free exercise of religion in the state of Louisiana against

(01:29:57):
tyrannical discrimination.
Yeah, exactly.
And the bill, Danielle, was uh moved by a vote in the Senate yesterday, referred to theSenate Education Committee.
It's not going before the Judiciary Committee anymore.
It was referred to Senate Education.
Why Senate education?

(01:30:18):
The issue in the case has to do with whether or not a uh religious, a church uh or achurch related facility can be used as a school, as an educational religious education
center or school.
So that's why it does fall at least somewhat under the rubric of education, but they'removing it to the education committee in the Senate.

(01:30:46):
They don't meet today, I think they meet tomorrow.
And I don't think the bill has been scheduled yet, but hopefully it will be scheduled fortomorrow because I think it's very important and I plan to testify on this.
Okay, great.
And then in Senate Judiciary B today, there's a bill that we did mention earlier, HouseBill 307 by Representative Henry Chance.

(01:31:07):
This is the bill that would require our public officials, our uh staff, basically, anyonewho works for the government, uh that if someone is an illegal immigrant and they're
applying for public assistance,
they have to be reported to ICE.

(01:31:27):
Yeah, so between this bill and Blake Maghez's bill, it's all going to be covered.
Maghez's bill just requires an itemization specifically of how much money in publicbenefits is going to illegals.
uh This bill specifically requires that any public agency with which a illegal immigrantis applying for public benefits has to report that to ICE.

(01:31:54):
And I believe, Danielle, that it also requires uh reporting on illegal immigrants who maycurrently be receiving public benefits.
They have to be reported to ICE.
So both of these bills, in my opinion, Chance Henry's and Blake Mguez's are very importantand very needed.

(01:32:14):
Yeah, and it would go along quite well with J.
Morris's SB8 because we would want to be able to fire the people who are not doing this.
Yes.
And Jay Morris has yet another bill.
I think it might be, I can't think of the number on it right now, but it's a bill thatcreates the crime of malfeasance in office for any public official who fails to report the

(01:32:42):
status of an illegal immigrant and their legal status to ICE.
Chris, can I ask you, would that apply to Secretary of State Nancy Landry?
That's an interesting point.

(01:33:02):
Interesting point.
All right, we're just going to stew on that.
Okay, House Bill 457 by Representative Denise Marcel.
This is her bill to allow or require that anyone who is in solitary confinement haveaccess to educational and religious materials.
Also being heard today in Senate Judiciary B.

(01:33:25):
Yeah, and I'm very glad that this bill is going through the system.
ah As we've talked about before, Danielle, people in solitary confinement, should, youknow, it's punishment enough to be in solitary confinement and they should have access to
not only educational materials while they're there, but also religious materials.

(01:33:47):
We asked her to include that.
She did.
Hopefully this goes all the way through the process and gets signed.
Yeah, I hope it does.
ah Okay, what we're expecting on the House floor today, House Bill 601 by RepresentativeBrett Geymann This is probably the most important bill related to private property,
related to carbon capture of the session.

(01:34:09):
I mean, it's the only one left standing.
hugely, hugely important.
And it was because of a lot of pushback and a lot, a lot of pressure that we and otherswere able to get this bill back before the House Natural Resources Committee voted out of
committee and onto the House floor.
uh And it has to get voted on.

(01:34:30):
There's been a lot of pressure and I've been, you know, we've been, a lot of people havebeen telling Representative Geymann that regardless of how they vote on this, there's got
to be a record vote.
a record vote that's very valuable.
Republicans need to go on the record either for or against private property rights inLouisiana.
There needs to be a vote.
This is a hugely important item of legislation, Danielle, and uh we have our eyes on thisvery, very closely on the House floor today.

(01:35:00):
Yeah, and this will be a referendum on anyone who votes against it.
And I dare to say it's a referendum on anyone who had the temerity to be absent for thisvote.
mean, basically, the speaker should just lock the doors on this one.
I anticipate that the speaker votes for against the bill because he has voted againstevery single thing related to carbon capture when he didn't even need to make a vote.

(01:35:25):
um So I just find all of that.
remarkable and we will be taking very close note and a lot of legislators stand to beprimaried.
Come.
601.
You know what we could start saying, Danielle?
A lot of these legislators might get South Dakota'd.

(01:35:46):
Yeah, they will.
You're right.
They absolutely will.
Okay, next up Senate Bill 117 by Senator Blake Miguez.
This was meant to be heard yesterday as well.
It's back on the calendar for today.
This is his uh ban on ultra processed foods in schools.
I kind of wonder, Chris, if he's just holding on to this one since Senator McMath's billwas so similar to it and it has made it all the way through.

(01:36:11):
I don't know if there's a need for this bill, but anyway, we'll see.
mean,
I don't know if there's any remarkable difference between the two.
It's a good bill, largely complimentary to Senator McMaster's bill, which we supported andtestified in favor of.
And that may be what McGeas is doing.
Yeah.
All right.
Next up House Bill 206 by Representative Michael Melloran.

(01:36:35):
This Chris, I you can't even I mean, Democrats don't play the dirty tricks that theseRepublicans are playing.
They really don't.
They really don't.
So just would you talk about this bill?
I mean, this is the bill to make all illegal actions by the secretary of state or ourclerks of court, our registrar voters.

(01:36:56):
related any any actions related to elections that are illegal to make them retroactivelylegal.
exactly.
Any agreements that are entered into by election officials in Louisiana with third partieslike consent agreements regarding our election processes or procedures, ah if they're
illegal, illegal, this bill provides a mechanism for the legislature to ratify thoseillegal lawless agreements.

(01:37:25):
through a streamlined concurrent resolution process that they can even do remotely throughemail and doesn't require a bill to be passed curing the illegality and to go to the
governor's desk and be subject to court scrutiny.
None of that.
It's a streamlined process.
Okay, we know what you did was illegal here, but we're going to ratify it through aconcurrent resolution.

(01:37:48):
And I don't understand why they would be doing this.
If something's illegal, it's illegal.
declare it illegal, and if you want to pass a bill that cures that illegality and makes anew law, do it.
But this is not the right way to go about it.
But you know why, Chris, because there's no law that they can pass that would not be anillegal law to do what they are trying to do.

(01:38:11):
Is that right?
I mean, you can't supersede the federal government's definition of gerrymandering, whichis what they're trying to do.
Well, exactly.
they don't, the legislature does not want, Secretary Landry, Governor Landry, I suspect,they don't want to have to go back to the legislature and draw up uh a new district that

(01:38:32):
actually is constitutional or rely on the old district.
In both of those scenarios, Cleo Fields doesn't have a congressional seat anymore.
He's going to finish this term and he'd be done.
And they don't want to go through that process.
And so
This is, think, a back doorway, and Paul Heard has suggested it, that once the SupremeCourt terminates Cleo Field's current seat, because it's a racial gerrymander, the one the

(01:38:59):
legislature drew up most recently over our objection, once that's overturned by the USSupreme Court, this bill would allow uh Secretary Landry to enter into a consent agreement
ah with Cleo Field, drawing up a new district that is
equally unconstitutional and allowing and then submitting that to the federal court andsaying we have a new district forum and even if it's challenged Danielle in all likelihood

(01:39:29):
as Paul heard said by the time this got through the process and all the rest of it, CleoFields would already be serving his second term.
So that's what's probably going on here otherwise the bill makes no sense.
But HB 206 is really really a horrendous piece of legislation and it was kicked
But once again on the Senate floor yesterday, because of a lot of pushback on it from usand others.

(01:39:53):
So it's back on the calendar again today and we'll see what happens.
see what happens, Chris.
What's the legal remedy for that?
Basically, we'd have to see them utilize the law.
Someone would have to do something illegal, then the legislature would have to, basically,they'd have to use the law so somebody could sue them for injury.

(01:40:16):
Yeah, they would have to use the law, which would result in a cognizable injury tosomebody once they use the law through this concurrent resolution.
Very likely a candidate who was running against Cleo, a Republican, and then they couldbring an action on that basis.

(01:40:37):
Chris, isn't there a constitutional provision for nullification where if a law is patentlyunconstitutional, the people can just declare it so and not pay attention to it or it can
be thrown out?
joint concurrent resolution, Danielle, that we actually helped to draft two years ago in2023 that just declares the solemn right of the Louisiana legislature to nullify any act

(01:41:06):
of the federal government that violates the Constitution.
But this consent agreement that we're talking about here that would be ratified through aconcurrent resolution would be an agreement entered into between
our Secretary of State and or our governor, probably our Secretary of State and CleoFields or someone who have a similar interest to Cleo Fields.

(01:41:28):
ah
No, I'm saying isn't there uh in our federal constitution a provision for the citizens tonullify any law that is unconstitutional?
That's not in the federal constitution itself, but it is certainly in the federalistpapers that they rely, that our founding fathers relied heavily on when writing the

(01:41:53):
constitution.
ah well, in Marbury v.
Madison, I think is what you're referring to, the US Supreme Court said that any law thatis obnoxious to the constitution is null and void.
on its face.
So yes, to answer your question, uh but that's not written directly in the Constitution.

(01:42:17):
But an old and very, very honored Supreme Court case has said that.
Absolutely null and void any law that violates the Constitution.
And all of our founding fathers believed in the state's and in the citizen's right tounilaterally nullify any action of the federal government or any law that is contrary to

(01:42:39):
the Constitution.
So if it would apply to the federal government, you'd think it would apply to the stategovernment as well.
So if this consent agreement ah that would be anticipated here is unconstitutional orillegal, you would think that it could be nullified.
But how do you nullify it?

(01:43:00):
How does the same body that passed the law nullify it?
No, and it's my appreciation that there was the original intent of juries was not only touh decide the fate of a case, but it was also to decide the fate of a law because it
wasn't the initial intent of juries to be able to not only say, hey, this person is guiltyor innocent, but if the law itself was stupid or unconstitutional,

(01:43:30):
the jury could say, we just completely disagree with the premise of the law and thereforethrow out the entire case and the law.
Exactly.
Danielle, that's a great point.
One of the biggest tragedies of the way our modern jurisprudence has developed is that thehonored doctrine of jury nullification in the United States has been completely wiped out.

(01:43:57):
You're exactly right.
Our founding fathers insisted
that the jury is the master of both the facts and the law.
The jury is supreme over both the law and the facts.
And if a jury determines that a law itself is unfair or unjust or, or violative of theconstitution, then they have every right are even encouraged to reject the law, even if

(01:44:24):
under the facts, the defendant broke that law.
And that was something that both lawyers and judges insisted
that jurors know, okay?
But now, juries still have that right, but neither the lawyers nor the judges are allowed,but the judges won't let the lawyers tell the juries that they have that right.

(01:44:46):
because the judges think they are the law.
Exactly.
So that effectively puts the judge as supreme in the courtroom above the jury, which wasthe government above the people.
And that's what the founding fathers were trying to guard against.
But you're right, Danielle, it's truly sad uh that jury nullification has been eroded anddestroyed in our legal system the way it has.

(01:45:15):
All right, well, let's talk about SB 214.
This bill is another attempt at consolidation of executive power.
It would provide for the commissioner of insurance to no longer be elected by us, we thepeople, but instead appointed by the governor.

(01:45:36):
I think people are beginning to see why we're so concerned about governor appointments,Chris.
I think that it's starting to catch on why that's so concerning to us um by what we'reseeing this session if people didn't already have their own concerns about it, which I'm
sure they did because they've all lived through some terrible governors too.

(01:45:59):
But this one's been subject to call since May 20th.
So we don't have, I think we may be able to head this one off.
Let's hope so.
Let's hope so.
It's terrible.
ah The commissioner of insurance is a statewide position.
He should be accountable to the people.
I don't know who put Royce Duplessis up to this, but it is, it may be.

(01:46:23):
Although he says, although he says, well, it wouldn't be applicable until, until afterthis commissioner is gone and Landry are gone.
So Landry wouldn't be able to make the appointment, but still though.
It's still political, you know, it's still political reprisal.
It's still a slap in the face of the commissioner of insurance.

(01:46:43):
What would you do if you're a sitting commissioner of insurance?
You've been elected by the people, you're doing the best job you could do to serve thepeople, and you have a bill coming through to make your position appointed.
Do you think that's a positive commentary on the job that you're doing?
I don't think so.
if the commentary is coming from Senator Royce DuPlessis, I wouldn't be too concerned.

(01:47:04):
Well, very good point.
Very good point.
But hopefully this dies on the vine.
All right, Chris.
Tomorrow, let's talk about what's on tap.
We're reaching the end, folks.
So I know this has been a lot.
But in Senate Health and Welfare tomorrow morning, Representative Chuck Owen is bringinghis House Bill 690.

(01:47:27):
And this is directing the Surgeon General to create a set of rules for uh how we shouldproceed with emergency use authorizations.
That's an important one.
Very important.
Everything that Chuck Owens does is, Owen does is meritorious, always focused onprotecting the citizens against government overreach.

(01:47:52):
uh I mean, I would literally charge the gates of hell with a water pistol with Chuck Owen.
Yeah.
And in some days it feels like we are.
And some days it feels like we're shooting water pistols, but guess what?
We're not.
We are not.
Okay, next up tomorrow, Chris, is House Bill 528 by Representative Brian Boriak.

(01:48:13):
This is his bill that would transform the organizational structure of DOTD.
We haven't had, I haven't seen very much headwinds for this bill.
I think we expect it to probably do pretty well, but it will be heard in Senatetransportation tomorrow.
Yeah.
And I think it's a good bill as I said earlier, Danielle, if there's uh one thing that wecan all agree on, despite Joe Donahue's best efforts, he's dealing with a huge

(01:48:40):
bureaucracy.
There's one thing Republicans and Democrats alike can agree on.
It's that DOTD needs to be more efficient and timely in completing of projects and needsto be more organized in its structure.
So I don't see any problem with this bill.
Yeah, yeah, and I want to see more accountability.
I want to see people, it'd be easier to fire people who are in there for the wrong reasonsum or who are not doing a good job.

(01:49:06):
Period, period.
ah That's the end of my list, Chris.
Is there anything else that you've got eyes on that I might've missed?
No, I think we're in good shape.
We've talked about other things and we're going to do a comprehensive wrap up, uhobviously when the session's over and we'll do another one or two before that.
But I think Danielle, the great service that we're providing is not only assisting ingetting some good legislation through, beating back some bad legislation, but for the

(01:49:35):
first time, at least in my memory, in my life, uh Republican legislators are being
called out and exposed by name for the way that they vote on critically importantlegislation.
It's hugely important, both in committee and on the floor.
And so you're not going to get that anywhere besides The State of Freedom or anywherebesides LCAG.

(01:49:59):
So make sure that you continue to support LCAG and The State of Freedom so that we cancontinue to advance, continue to grow, continue to develop.
Because, you know, our voice
if it's broad enough and powerful enough, is really all you need.
That's all you need.
Yeah.
And Chris, you remind us very often of JFK's famous words that we get the government thatwe demand and we deserve.

(01:50:28):
And so I just have to say, I expect more from this government.
We voted for people in good faith that they would do what they said they would do.
We expect them to do what they said they would do.
We expect them to go there and represent the interest of the people.
And if they don't, and when they don't, they will hear about it.
They will absolutely 100 % hear about it.

(01:50:51):
We need to demand good government, which is what we're continuing to do.
And one of the ways that you demand good government is by uh punishing elected officialswho vote for things that are not good government or that give us bad government.
And that's why it's important.
So The State of Freedom and LACAG LACAG.org, freedom state dot U.S.

(01:51:15):
support us, share, subscribe.
ah And let's continue forward, Danielle.
We've been guaranteed the victory.
The victory is ours.
We just have to continue to move forward, continue to claim it.
We may lose some battles along the way, but the victory will be ours.
That's right, Chris.
And if you want to make sure that your voice is heard and that your legislator has no uhway to say that they didn't understand the way people wanted them to vote, go to lacag.org

(01:51:45):
and take action on all of the bills that matter to you.
Go to lacag.org Action Center today, now, and do it.
It takes a few minutes to do, and your freedom, your liberty, and your voice are worth it.
That's right.
All right, Chris, while I know you got to run to the legislature, thank you forrepresenting us there today and always.

(01:52:07):
And we will be talking to you on Thursday, 8 a.m.
for the latest on what's happened and what to expect in the final stretch.
God bless.
Talk to you soon.
God bless you.

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;}#305 A Bagneris Blitz & the Sprint to the Finish

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

#305 A Bagneris Blitz & the Sprint to the Finish

Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club