#307 11th Hour Victories & Untimely Deaths

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Good morning, everybody.
Welcome to the state of freedom.
am Danielle and I'm joined by my fearless co-host, Chris Alexander.
Chris, good morning.
know it's good.
It's been a busy, busy last three days or last two days, but and I know we've got someincredible turnarounds to talk about some unexpected victories and

(00:26):
Some bills that are probably looking like they're gonna die on the vine here.
So I wanna get into all of that and hear your insights.
But before we do, let me read the scripture of the day.
It's Isaiah chapter three, verses three to 15.
And it says, the Lord arises to contend and stands to judge the people.

(00:49):
The Lord enters into judgment with his elders and princes of his people.
It is you who have devoured the vineyard.
The plunder of the poor is in your houses.
What do you mean by crushing my people and grinding the face of the poor?
declares the Lord God of hosts.
And that scripture is a pretty strong word.

(01:14):
as I was thinking about it, I was just thinking the Lord's not going to allow wickedofficials who hurt his people to remain in power forever.
He's not.
He doesn't have
Patience for it, if you look all over the Bible, um there are a lot of uh wicked leadersthat uh come to an end.

(01:34):
And those who steal from the people, oppress the people with unrighteous and unburdensomelaws and don't do right by them, he will judge them.
And I believe we're nearing those days of judgment from the top to the bottom of thenation.
You can just feel it.
And Louisiana is not gonna be an exception to that.

(01:55):
um So those who are in positions of power and those who make choices on behalf of thepeople, really, I would strongly encourage them to examine themselves and their motives
and their actions and they make any needed apologies and course corrections before theLord does it for them because the Lord's very clear that he deals more harshly with rulers

(02:18):
and with teachers than he does.
with people who don't have any power and people who don't have the understanding and theknowledge.
He's also very clear that he'll be gracious to those who are humble, but he will humblethe arrogant.
And I believe we're fixing to see that, Chris.
Yeah, I do too.
I think all the signs are there, you know, and you're so right, Danielle, that, you know,with great responsibility, with great power comes great responsibility.

(02:46):
And that's why in the Old Testament, it says that, you know, on the powerful and on therulers, a rigorous scrutiny impends because God expects us to use our power in ways that
are
merciful and responsible and we hold ourselves accountable for how we use our power.

(03:07):
And Joshua of course says, choose this day where you shall stand.
And increasingly I'm seeing there's very little middle ground, Danielle, between good andevil.
And I think that's one of the signs ah that some great and awesome things are about tohappen is when the gray line between good and evil becomes increasingly blurred.

(03:29):
Yeah.
I've never been one to see the world or human beings all in black and white because we'reall complex, we're all nuanced.
And we of course can never fully know the motives of another person.
But the lines between good and evil seem to be becoming increasingly clear.
Yeah, and you know Joshua said, uh choose this day who you will serve.

(03:54):
And I think that's even more powerful than where you will stand, because are you going toserve the Lord and by virtue of serving the Lord serve his people?
Are you going to serve someone else?
Exactly.
Like yourself.
like yourself, exactly.
So ah with that, we can get into some self-serving behavior right out of the gate if youwant.

(04:19):
I'm ready.
Let's rock and roll.
all right, you got your coffee, you got the jet fuel on board.
got the jet fuel on board, I've never understood something as useless as decaf coffee.
But I would never interfere with another person's right to consume decaf coffee.

(04:40):
I just don't quite see the use in it.
Libertarian of you.
All right.
Well, SB 80, a very storied bill by Senator Greg Miller that he carried on behalf of theSecretary of State whose chief aim in life is both to not do the will of the people and to
silence the people, it seems, because this is her exit polling bill that restricts theright of people to

(05:07):
peacefully assemble and ask questions of other neighbors whenever they come out of theirpolling place.
Well, the governor could not sign it fast enough, Chris, and he signed that into laweither Wednesday or Thursday of last week.
Can you believe that?
very, very little hesitation, apparently, on the part of the governor.
We've already posted on our platforms that Governor Landry signed SB 80, the bill that, ofcourse, allows CNN freedom of speech at polling precincts, but not ordinary Louisiana law

(05:39):
abiding citizens.
It's an absolute disgrace.
And it's very important that the citizens of Louisiana know and understand not only thatthis bill was passed, but has now been signed by the governor.
Yeah.
a lot of communications directly to him urging him to veto that bill.

(05:59):
Yeah.
And we have mentioned before who um voted against this, which would be the right stancewould be to vote against this.
And we will make sure at the end of session that we have that on the scorecard because thepeople who on the LA CAG Action Center, there's a scorecard for the legislators and the

(06:20):
people who voted for this get a big strike against them and the people who voted againstit, you need to know who they are.
because we need to recruit more people like them to run.
Yes, and they knew what the bill, they can't plead ignorance.
They knew what the bill did and says.
We've posted it all over.
uh And Louisiana is the only state in the country that makes this distinction between bonafide news organizations and ordinary Louisiana citizens.

(06:47):
Everywhere else people are treated the same except in the state of Louisiana.
Very, very unfortunate.
And I agree with you 100 percent, Danielle.
It's very important that our listeners and Louisiana citizens know both who voted against
properly voted against SB 80 and the Republicans who voted for it.
Yeah.
And I'll also make the same encouragement I made on the last show, which is when the nextelection happens in your parish, whether it's uh for a local office or measure or whether

(07:21):
it's statewide office, I want everyone who cares about this issue to go apply at theSecretary of State's office for an exit poll application.
ah or license or whatever they call it um and see what happens.
Because if she starts denying people exit polling rights, uh we need to sue.

(07:47):
And I want people all over the state to do this.
Chris, I think I'm gonna apply.
I think it's very important for sure.
would like for the ladies ah who were uh the subject apparently of this legislationmisrepresented completely in committee by the secretary of state as to what they did.
I would like for those ladies to go and apply for a uh permit to do a exit poll inparticular.

(08:12):
Yeah, that would be fitting justice uh if they were denied and then.
they went and filed suit in one because this is flagrantly unconstitutional.
Yeah, and let's not wait on anybody else to do it.
I think the more people, the merrier.
I think we need to show a good show of force on this one to get this.

(08:34):
I'm so ready for somebody to bring lawsuits on this.
Yes, this is probably, Danielle, the most disturbing piece of legislation of the sessionand my least favorite, my most unfavorite.
Yeah, yeah, it's up there for me too.
It's way up there.
Okay, Senate Bill 244, Chris, this has a very fun story behind it.

(09:00):
This is by Senator Bob Hinskens.
We had not really been following it.
We'd been following it kind of behind the scenes, but hadn't talked about it very much, Idon't believe.
It passed the floor 74 to 21, but some pretty...
big transformational things got added to that bill that changed the scope of eminentdomain in our state.

(09:21):
Would you talk about that?
Yes, SB 244 by Bob Henskins was amended on the House side to do a couple of things.
The first thing that it does, it's extremely important.
Right now in Louisiana, Danielle, because of legislation from 2020, carbon capturesequestration has been declared in Louisiana as a matter of public policy, a public

(09:46):
benefit or a public good for purposes of eminent domain.
because constitutionally in order to exercise eminent domain, it has to be done for apublic good.
That has been the law in Louisiana, but because of amendments on the House side, that hasbeen cut out of the law.
uh assuming the Senate concurs in the House amendments and it goes to the governor, carboncapture sequestration will no longer be a public benefit in Louisiana.

(10:17):
as a matter of public policy.
That is massively important for purposes of private property rights and eminent domain.
The second thing the bill does is it provides that in order to exercise eminent domain, acompany has to show that they are uh what's called a common carrier.
And that means that they have to show that what they are doing, what they aretransporting, the work that they're engaged in is of public benefit.

(10:44):
is a public good or a public commodity that they're doing.
And I think they're going to have a very difficult time establishing that carbon capturesequestration ah and the companies who are pushing this are quote, common carriers.
I think it's going to be very difficult.
And that was one of the bases upon which South Dakota was able to get imminent domain forcarbon capture outlawed in their state.

(11:10):
So those are two extraordinarily important.
provisions in SB 244 that came about as a result of House amendments.
Now SB 244 is back over on the Senate side now and set for concurrent today.
So it is hugely important that the Senate fully concur in the House amendments on SB 244and get this to the governor for his signature.

(11:32):
And this will be uh very telling if this occurs and it goes to the governor's desk.
This will be the acid test to determine where does Governor Landry stand.
with respect to private property rights versus the carbon capture sequestration racket.
So it's hugely, hugely important, but SB 244 as it stands now provides very significantprotection for property owners in Louisiana, thanks to Brett Guymon against carbon capture

(11:59):
sequestration.
Yeah, awesome.
Well, Chris, a couple points on that.
Governor Landry, even before he was inaugurated last year, I remember him coming out instrong support of carbon capture.
So I am very hopeful that he uh does care about private property rights and will stand forthe rights of the people against private enterprise, which is just using our taxpayer

(12:27):
dollars to do something we don't want to do.
Yeah.
Yeah, go ahead.
For a racket propped up with our money, you're right.
exactly.
The question I have for you is the common carrier thing.
So the way that you described it, um or maybe the way I heard it was that the company hasto prove that it's a common carrier.
So say it's an oil and gas company.

(12:49):
So does their work in oil and gas give them their common carrier moniker and so they cando it for carbon capture or is it based on the
quote unquote commodity or whatever that they're um moving.
Well, it's two different exercises entirely.
That's a great question, Danielle, because some of the people pushing CCS are saying thatcarbon capture sequestration and burial is inextricably related to oil and gas, which is

(13:20):
absolutely not.
We've been doing oil and gas in production in Louisiana and nationally long before thiscarbon capture sequestration racket came about.
So those are two separate exercises, two separate endeavors.
Now, oil and gas pipelines are already uh common carriers, those companies, but thatdoesn't mean that carbon capture sequestration is.

(13:44):
Those are two distinct exercises.
the people, the companies, oil and gas, whoever is doing this carbon capture sequestrationis going to have to prove that they are a common carrier as that term is defined in state
and federal law for purposes of carbon capture sequestration.
I personally think it's a tall order.

(14:05):
South Dakota, they have oil and gas pipelines and the court ruled that carbon capturesequestration is not a public benefit.
It's not a commodity.
It's not a public good.
So I think it's a strong, strong provision in the law as amended.
Great, so these people are not gonna just get grandfathered in because they're commoncarriers of something else.

(14:29):
The product matters.
The product absolutely, the product is essential.
The product is determinative.
Okay, beautiful, beautiful.
Okay, well that's wonderful news.
uh Next up House Bill 64 by Representative Mike Johnson.
This, oh you have something else?
Yeah.
I just wanted to tell you on SB 244, this is just one indication because I'm not talkingright now about the merits of the bill, but it's always telling when you look at which

(14:59):
Republicans voted against the amendments to SB 244 on the House side.
And it's the same Republicans who consistently voted against the good CCS bills in theHouse Natural Resources Committee.
Very, very interesting.
Domaine, Orgeron, Zirang, Broad, ah Carrier, those Republicans.

(15:22):
And of course, Freyberg is always on board, but she's not on the House Natural ResourcesCommittee.
just, you can tell if you knew nothing else about SB 244, look and see the Republicans whovoted against the amendments on the House side.
And that tells you a lot about whether this is good or bad.
Yeah, and Chris, I was watching the testimony or the debate rather on the house floor forSB 244.

(15:48):
think it was yesterday or Sunday.
I think it was Sunday.
And I believe it was Representative Orgeron who got to the well.
I don't know if he put, he tried to put an amendment on it that failed.
Is that what happened?
He got up there and he said some of the most
bald-faced lies I have ever heard and he said that this is just trying he was trying toget Louisiana in line with other states well guess what when other states are doing stupid

(16:18):
stuff we don't need to follow them
Well, Yes, Danielle, you're exactly right.
He tried to put, offered an amendment to basically gut uh the amendments and it wasrejected, fortunately.
And I think we should remind people that he has voted and has authored legislation thatfinancially benefits himself and his family before.

(16:39):
And I would stand to, I think it would stand to reason that he may have something to gainin this as well.
Yeah, this back about just briefly back in 2021, the windmill bill that passed that thatdesignate designated 25,000 acres just to start of offshore water, Louisiana offshore
water for purposes of windmills in the Gulf.

(17:03):
And of course, Representative Orgeron owns a company, I think it's called Second Marine,that in all likelihood would be contracting to transport all the component parts of the
windmills.
out into the waters to construct these windmills.
And so it is a conflict of interest.
Not only did he vote for the legislation, he authored the legislation.

(17:25):
So that's a great reminder, Danielle.
Yeah, I don't have any patience for that kind of behavior.
All right.
uh
thing, by the way, Danielle, it's very important.
I'm sorry to keep interrupting you here, but it's important.
But do you realize that right now under Louisiana's ethics laws, believe it or not, and Ithink we're one of the few, if not the only ones in the country, do you realize that that

(17:47):
type of conflict of interest is not prohibited under Louisiana's current ethics rules?
They don't, not only do they not have to recuse themselves from the vote or author thevote,
They don't even have to disclose that they have a conflict of interest.
Are you telling me that's not a gaping hole in our ethics laws that has to be filled inthrough legislation?

(18:09):
I think it is.
Yeah, think if it's not a law, then it's an absolute encouragement of this kind ofbehavior.
Absolutely.
it's not the first time we've seen legislation where they've had conflicts of interest.
Maybe so.
in the future, Danielle, we're going to we need to do a show, uh one show 30, 45 minutesthat's dedicated to all the bills this session that would consolidate or further

(18:34):
concentrate the governor's power.
And then we need to do a session where we go through the legislation that is eitherauthored by or voted favorably by legislators where they have a direct
conflict of interest with the legislation.
I think that's important.
Yeah.
Yeah, okay.
uh Okay, House Bill 64 by Representative Mike Johnson.

(18:58):
This one uh is the one that gives the attorney general the right to intervene on behalf oflocalities if the federal government is encroaching.
Yeah, and this passed on the Senate side, believe it was Senator Seabaw who carried it onthe Senate side.
And it is uh very important.
We've posted on our social media that it passed.

(19:21):
And you're exactly right, Danielle.
All it does is codify the authority of the attorney general and the governor uh to rescindany consent agreements by any state or local official in Louisiana that impacts
Louisiana's sovereign constitutional rights under the 10th amendment.

(19:41):
And it's very important legislation.
Representative Mike Johnson did a great job on that.
Senator Seabod did a good job on that on the Senate side.
And hats off to Liz Murrell for promoting the legislation because she uh really, reallyimportant.
That's going now to the governor's desk, right?
it passed 27-11 in a party line vote in the Senate.

(20:05):
And it's remarkable to me that the Democrats would be against this, Chris.
I mean, it doesn't make any sense.
It's, you know what it is.
I think, I think that a lot of the, the schooling and the news has taught us that thelocality is the least important.
The state is the next.
guy on the totem pole.

(20:25):
And then the federal government is the most powerful and most important, which it's reallyturned completely on its head is the way that the founders ah intended for us to operate.
And so I think they're operating under the assumption that the federal government has theright to tell us how we should conduct our affairs in our state and in our parishes.

(20:48):
Exactly.
And two points on that, Danielle, because Royce Duplessis is on the floor getting into anargument with Senator Sebaugh about this, saying, well, I thought you were all about local
government.
I thought you were about federalism.
thought you were...
But the purpose of the bill, Senator Duplessis, is not to eviscerate every local agreementthat's entered into.
This bill has to do with agreements that are entered into by any local or municipalofficial and the federal government.

(21:16):
that impact our sovereign rights as a state under the 10th Amendment.
It is perfectly appropriate for the state through the attorney general and the governor tobe involved in that.
In fact, it's critically important.
And so Senator DePolesis, I think, was missing the point on HB 64 there.

(21:36):
Yeah, his reading our cries for constitutionality leave you scratching your headsometimes.
I'm like, maybe we should read it together, Royce.
Well, I think his calls for constitutional government are narrow and selective.
Yeah, I want to make sure we're reading the same document.
Okay, House Bill 400, Chris, by Representative Emily Chenevert.

(21:59):
This is her bill that would give parental rights back when it comes to children's medicalprocedures and treatments.
It failed in committee this weekend, I think on Sunday.
And that was Senate Health and Welfare.
And we can lay a lot of blame at Jay Luna's feet, I believe.
Yeah, no question about it.

(22:21):
uh HB 400, Danielle, uh right now in Louisiana law, believe it or not, uh any minor canseek and receive medical care counseling services without the knowledge or consent of
their parents.
That is the current law in Louisiana.
This bill is designed to address that and say that when somebody, think the age in thebill was 17 years old.

(22:45):
At that point, you can make your own decisions.
Before then,
parents or legal guardians have to be involved, they have to consent to medical service.
Seems like a no-brainer.
uh There were some concerns with the language in the bill.
And I did agree with a couple of the concerns that were expressed.
One was it looked like the bill was narrowing out the exceptions with regard to pregnancycare.

(23:10):
Because right now in Louisiana,
If a girl's in an emergency situation and she needs delivery or labor care, then she canget that without the consent of her parents, but not throughout the pregnancy.
She can't do whatever she wants throughout her pregnancy.
But this bill would broaden that out.
So that was good.
So they needed to amend that language.

(23:32):
And also the term in loco parentile, the circumstances in which someone who's juststanding in for a parent would have
the authority to grant that consent for medical treatment or care.
Those were, but that could have been amended in committee or even on the Senate floor.

(23:52):
The bill did not need to be killed on that basis.
I've seen committees almost rewrite bills in committee or on the floor, uh you know, andpass them because of the importance of the issue at stake and the principle at stake.
So Senator Patrick McMath,
uh, what was also instrumental in, in, in seeing this, this bill killed Jay Luno.

(24:17):
and it is really, really unfortunate because now we will go another year in Louisiana withminors being able to seek and receive medical or counseling care without knowledge or
consent of their parents.
I think it's an abomination that this bill was not amended in past in order to, correctthat, erroneous provision of law.

(24:41):
with a conservative supermajority legislature and a conservative governor.
Exactly.
It is, it's just unbelievable.
So I think it's very, very important that we make sure that our listeners and citizensknow what happened with HB 400.
Representative Chenevert was very amenable, was very open to amending the billappropriately.

(25:07):
So she wasn't resisting that at all.
So there's no excuse for not having done that.
They didn't have to kill it.
Yeah, there was not the will for it, which is even more disgusting.
What is the sinister motive behind this if they don't want parents to have the right tobring their kids, know when their kid goes to the doctor and have the right to say what

(25:27):
happens when they go to the doctor?
I don't know who was behind this.
I don't know what the forces are behind it.
But as far as I'm concerned, there is no legitimate reason why this bill is not on theSenate floor appropriately amended, being voted on, and headed to the governor's desk for
signature.

(25:47):
No reason.
there's no reason.
Okay, ah next up is another pretty interesting one, Chris.
House Bill 206 by Representative Michael Melloran.
We have been following this one closely and it did pass, but not before it got beaten downand completely turned around.
So would you tell us a little bit about how this bill started out and how it ended?

(26:09):
Yeah, we've been fighting so hard on this, so thrilled, so relieved, so thankful about HB206 as it was originally written, Danielle, as Paul heard and others said, and as we
agreed, I agreed.
This bill would allow the legislature through a concurrent resolution to ratify illegalelection agreements, including presumably any consent agreement that would be entered into

(26:37):
between the secretary of state and uh
Congressman Cleo Fields to allow him a new congressional district once his currentdistrict is struck down by the Supreme Court.
We believe that was the whole motive behind HB 206.
So we fought it and fought it and fought it.
And on the Senate floor two days ago, Senator Seabow amended HB 206 to specificallyprohibit this law from being used for any kind of reapportionment or redistricting.

(27:08):
So it cannot be used for the nefarious purpose that we were concerned about.
Second amendment is that it requires the legislature to convene in order to approve inadvance, in advance any consent agreements by election officials and with the methodology

(27:28):
that they would use if they were passing a bill.
So they can't do it remotely.
and they can't just do something illegal and have it papered over by the legislature.
Exactly.
Before any consent agreements are entered into the legislature has to sign off on it andit can't be used for the purposes that we just discussed, redistricting or

(27:50):
reapportionment.
This is a huge win on HB 206.
So thankful for all the calls to action.
There were hundreds of them and all the phone calls, hats off to Louisiana citizens, makesme love you even more.
Yeah, we have to get this one through concurrence.
Is that right, Chris?
Yeah, so keep.

(28:12):
it through concurrence back over on the House side, which, you know, we're going to bekeeping a very, very close eye on this, but the House needs to concur in HB 206 and the
governor has to sign it.
I'll be honest with you, Danielle, I don't care if this bill never gets to the governor'sdesk because I don't like the bill anyway, but if it gets to the governor's desk, it needs

(28:33):
to get there in the posture that it's in right now.
Yeah, so we need no amendments or it can die.
No amendments or it can die.
Either one is fine with me.
Okay, great.
Let me see.
Yeah, it's scheduled for concurrence today.
So we'll see how that goes.
oh Next up, House Bill 370.

(28:54):
I just have to say, I hope this one has Nancy ring in her hands.
I'm so disgusted with the way that the Secretary of State's office has been operating thisentire session, really the last two years.
So if she doesn't get something she wants, I'm very happy at this stage of the game.
very much so, very much so, yeah.
couldn't have...

(29:14):
it might seem petty, but really, that's how I feel.
Yeah, Nancy Landrieu does not look at the law as something to embrace, to reverence, andto honor.
She looks at the law as something to either change or circumvent in order to get what she,or manipulate it order to get what she wants.
And I think that's highly unfortunate.

(29:37):
Yeah.
Okay.
The next one is House Bill 371 by Representative Beryl Omaday.
She brought a bill that uh makes it, I guess, equivalent amount of harassment bylocalities for people who are uh in church and out of church.
Is that a fair way to say it?

(29:57):
very much.
Very simply put, Danielle, it just requires the permitting authorities, the fire marshal,who are permitting these buildings for safety and security to treat religious
organizations the exact same way they treat secular organizations and do not impose moreonerous standards for permitting on religious organizations or religious schools that they

(30:22):
do for secular organizations.
It's an important bill and Beryl Amadei is really great for bringing this.
Yep.
And it passed 33 to 5 with five Democrats joining the Republicans on behalf of religiousliberty.
They were Regina Barrow, Katrina Jackson, Andrews, Jay Luna, Ed Price, and Larry Selders.

(30:47):
Hats off to the Dems on this.
Yeah, at least half of them.
All right.
uh Next up, House Bill 457 by Representative Denise Marcel.
We've talked about this one quite a bit.
is about providing educational and religious materials to uh prisoners who are put insolitary confinement if they request them.

(31:14):
Yeah, very, very good, Bill.
Danielle, when you're in solitary confinement, obviously, you know, there are times whenyou should be, but you shouldn't be deprived of your religious materials.
There's always hope for redemption.
And I don't think anyone should ever be deprived of the scripture or of religiousmaterials, no matter where they are.

(31:36):
Yeah, I agree with that.
uh Some people disagreed with that point, Chris.
It passed the Senate 36 to 2 and Caleb Klein, Peter and Jay Morris voted against it, whichstrikes me as very bizarre.
Yeah, well, Jay Morris has done some good things, Danielle, but Jay Morris is also, youknow, the author of the bill.
I think it was SB...

(31:59):
No, SB 8, it's a civil service bill.
yeah, SB 39, which in original form would have basically immunized the state for violatingthe law and holding inmates beyond their out dates.
so, you know, I think Jay's a good senator for the most part.
I think he's done some good things, but...
But when it comes to um this issue, to criminal law and that sort of thing, it's like,think he sees everything from one perspective.

(32:29):
And so we're going to have some discussions with Jay about maybe broadening hisperspective a bit and understanding that not everything is completely black and white when
it comes to this issue.
Yeah.
Well, fortunately he did not prevail in this one and um it's headed, I believe, to thegovernor's desks shortly.

(32:49):
So that's a good one.
That's a good one.
Yeah.
Okay.
Next up, Senate bill 19 by Senator Mike Facy.
This is his bill that would allow for over the counter dispensing of ivermectin.
It was adopted in Senate concurrence.
And you wanted to also mention some other things that Senator Facy's been up to that hetried around this.

(33:13):
Yeah, it wasn't it wasn't around SB 19, which which is a very, good bill.
The governor needs to sign SB 19.
We have a call to action up on this.
Governor needs to sign SB 19 Ivermectin over the counter.
But another interesting point about Senator Faisy Danielis yesterday on the Senate floor,Senator Faisy, you you recall that SB 2, his bill banning fluoride in our public water

(33:40):
systems was killed in committee.
and House committee because of a number of Republicans who voted against it.
But he didn't give up on the Senate floor yesterday with Representative Turner's consent.
Senator Facy attempted to attach SB2 in substance to another bill on the Senate floor.

(34:01):
Representative Turner voted for the floor-ide bill in committee and agreed to let SenatorFacy do that.
So he tried to get it passed through an amendment on the Senate floor.
uh But Senator Luno objected and said that it was not germane to the underlying bill andthe president of the Senate Cameron Henry agreed with Senator Luno that it was not germane

(34:25):
so the bill was not able to be attached and I have to say that I do agree in alllikelihood because the underlying bill really didn't have anything to do particularly with
this issue.
It was a medical issue, but not like this.
So they were right, but I mentioned this only in order to congratulate and commend SenatorFacy for literally doing everything that he could do to get this fluoride bill across the

(34:50):
finish line.
It didn't happen, but I applaud him for doing it.
And I also thank Representative Turner for agreeing to allow Senator Facy uh to amend hisbill for this provision.
Representative Chris Turner.
Yeah, and maybe there'll be another bill that will be more germane, Chris.
So maybe, maybe, you know, we should keep an eye out.

(35:12):
I reached out to Senator Facey yesterday and congratulations on this effort.
oh Is there another bill that you could possibly, haven't heard back from him yet, but Ihave a feeling he's jockeying up until the final minute.
Good, yeah, I would love for us to stop being poisoned on purpose.
That would be awesome.
exactly.
Yes.
All right.

(35:32):
Next up, Senate Bill 231 by Senator Mike Reese.
This is not a bill that we followed very much this session, but it was extremely similarto one that we did talk about early on by Representative Brian Glorioso, uh which you have
a fancy term for it, Chris.
Would you tell me what it is?

(35:53):
But it says that it provides for recoverable medical expenses.
Yeah, it's basically collateral source.
it, yeah, and it simply would allow a jury uh to see when they're evaluating how much toaward in a case for medical damages.
It would allow the jury to see both the original billed amount of the medical expenses andalso the amount that maybe the plaintiff, the person suing a third party source, their

(36:21):
healthcare provider, their workers compensation carrier already paid uh
in that medical cost.
So if the original bill is $100,000 but $50,000 of it has been paid already, the jurywould be able to know both the original billed amount and the amount paid and make a
determination about how much of those medicals to award.

(36:42):
That's what the bill would do.
We've always thought that that was appropriate to give the jury that information and togive them the option of awarding whatever they choose based on all the information.
Yeah, and um well, had another, you at the beginning of the session, you said that thiswas one of the only bills that looked like it was in a position to do anything to lower

(37:06):
our insurance rates, so.
Yeah, and I believe that it is.
It's the only one that I agree with that would possibly reduce insurance rates.
There's another bill winding its way through that I don't even think we're following thatcould result in a reduction in insurance rates, and that's the bill by Representative

(37:29):
Egan, which says that if someone is in a wreck and they are 51 % at fault,
but the other driver is 49 % at fault, then the person who was 51 % at fault gets norecovery, not even a recovery that's reduced uh commensurate to their fault.

(37:51):
So no, don't believe that.
I think that both parties should be, uh I think the result should be consistent with thepercentage of fault of both sides.
You know, why should someone who's 49 % at fault in causing a wreck not have to pay areduced amount to the person who is 51 %?

(38:13):
Just reduce their recovery amount.
ah You know, so that's the way I look at that bill.
But either way, um as I've said before, Danielle, I don't think that there's anything withthe possible exception of the collateral source bill.
Any of the insurance bills are going to do much ah to give insurance rate relief toLouisiana citizens.

(38:35):
I think it's unfortunate because I think ah some of the bills are good as far as they go,but they don't go far enough.
Well, maybe if the governor would have been working with the commissioner of insuranceinstead of trying to railroad him, we'd be in a different position right now.
Yeah, yeah, it's really very difficult to get good legislation passed when the, with thedegree of conflict, open conflict that exists between the commissioner of insurance and

(39:00):
the governor.
Very unfortunate that they're not on the same page working together on this.
Yeah, I'm not sure that it's a two-way conflict.
I have only seen the conflict coming from one direction.
You know, I would have to agree with that, Danielle.
Commissioner Temple has just expressed his position on things and, you know, I thinkGovernor Landry is positioning Commissioner Temple to take the blame and all the

(39:23):
responsibility when his insurance package does not yield the fruit that he has promised.
Yeah.
What a disgrace.
That's not what I voted for, Chris.
Yeah, it's not what I voted for.
I voted for the Jeff Landry uh and what he said in his inaugural address.
We'll have to go back and revisit that.

(39:43):
Yeah, maybe he should reread it.
Okay, next up House Bill 692 by Representative Jacob Landry.
This is the grid resilience bill and that one seems to have landed in a really good place,Chris.
Yeah, I think that was originally HB 583, if I'm not mistaken, Danielle, but this requiresour state to rely on domestic oil production rather than on foreign oil production.

(40:09):
It's and it requires us to strengthen our grid.
so I think it's important to good bill.
You know, when J.C.
Harmon, J.C.
Harmon is really the guru when it comes to issues like this grid issues and he supportsthis bill 100 percent.
so.
If J.C.
Harmon's behind the bill, I'll be honest with you.

(40:29):
I don't even need to read the bill, even though I do.
Yeah, and we also sent it, Chris, at the beginning of session to the Center for SecurityPolicy, and they reviewed it and were viewed it in a favorable light.
Tommy Waller, absolutely, I forgot.
And he testified in favor of it as well.
Yes, he did, in the House side, front of House Natural Resources.

(40:50):
Okay.
uh Let me see.
I want to go through some bills now that have been enrolled and uh final legislativeaction has been taken on them.
So we are just expecting them to move over to the governor for signature.
The first one up is House Bill 405 by Matthew Willard.
This one is uh requiring the Secretary of State to be transparent and publish what she'sdoing.

(41:15):
uh
With regard to law changes on the Secretary of State website, it sounded like, Chris, fromour conversation yesterday, that no amendments that we were requesting got put on that
bill.
So it doesn't quite have the teeth or the weight that we were hoping it would, but it'sstill a good bill.
Still a good instrument as far as it goes, Danielle.

(41:37):
We wanted them to put an amendment on there to require the Secretary of State to routinelypost developments regarding the acquisition of this new voting system, the procurement
process.
But it's not on there, and it looks like it won't be on there, unfortunately.
We made the request.
But nonetheless, as you said, Danielle, the bill still requires the Secretary of State topost ah any and all legislative changes to

(42:04):
the election code on her website.
It's important because she's got so many bills that she's trying to push through that at aminimum, she needs to make sure that people have ability to read and understand what those
changes are to the election code.
Yeah, in my view, she's uh enacting the ones that she wants and not enacting the ones thatshe doesn't want.

(42:29):
So I think the people have a right to be able to see that front and center.
100 percent.
All right.
Next is House Bill 216 by Representative Steven Jackson.
He brought a bill to make sure that the ethics board meetings were broadcast and recorded.
Pretty simple transparency bill has been sent to the governor.

(42:51):
Yeah, it's into the governor, Danielle, honestly, I don't know whether or not this was aminute.
I know that some of the people who voted against this bill had concerns about when themeetings would be broadcast and recorded because there are times when, you know, that is a
fair point.
So I think that there are some amendments on the bill that uh that cleared that up andthat that.

(43:17):
in which where it's appropriate and where it's inappropriate.
Okay.
they're discussing important things in executive session and that sort of thing.
ah But as a general rule, I agree with the bill because I'm in favor, as you are, oftransparency.
Yeah, agreed.
House Bill 304 by Representative Robbie Carter.

(43:37):
And this is the venue bill related to expropriation of carbon capture.
Yeah, and it just requires any expropriation action for CCS to be brought in the parishwhere the property is located, Danielle.
ah There were some Republicans who voted against this, and we posted about HB 304previously on our social media, and we'll make sure that those names are disclosed again,

(44:04):
the Republicans who voted against this.
Yeah, I was just looking on my other screen to see if the governor had signed it yet, buthe is not.
uh Next is House Bill 519 by Representative Brian Glorioso, the ignominious cockroach.
I'm not calling Brian Glorioso a cockroach, but I am calling his bill a cockroach.

(44:25):
And that is uh the one that criminalizes handheld cell phone, talking on a handheld cellphone while driving.
Yeah, we have a call to action up on this urging the governor to veto it.
It's very unlikely that he's going to veto it because this was this bill is part of hisinsurance reduction package.

(44:45):
So that is that does not militate very much in favor of him vetoing this bill, but it's aterrible bill.
And I have specifically stated that as you have multiple times, it's been.
sold as an instrument that will help reduce insurance rates in Louisiana and make ourstreets safer and reduce traffic accidents.

(45:07):
It's not going to do either one of those two things.
What it's going to do is create a pretext for further government intrusion in our privacy,and it's going to result in a transfer of more of our money to the government.
Those will be the legacies of HB 519.
So watch and see, Danielle, when a year from now, two years from now, three years fromnow, there's a bill that comes through the legislature.

(45:29):
that bans cell phones in vehicles all together.
And the argument will be, we realize now that it's really not the holding of the cellphone that's the distraction.
It's the mental preoccupation.
And it's the same mental preoccupation whether you're holding a cell phone or whetheryou're talking hands-free.
So we have to ban even hands-free cell phones in cars now.

(45:53):
Watch and see and come back and revisit this podcast when that happens.
And then when they start trying to limit the number of passengers you can have in yourcar, or when they start prohibiting other activities within your car that are, quote,
distractions, so they can criminalize those so they can get more revenue from the citizensof Louisiana.

(46:14):
That's why this bill is so bad.
uh And Danielle, you mentioned on the last show that isn't it interesting, disturbinglyinteresting that we would beat this bill two, three, four years in a row.
under a Democrat administration, and now we have a Republican governor, and it getsthrough and in all likelihood will be signed.
Yeah.

(46:35):
Well, it's disgusting.
It's a tax on the people.
This bill is a tax because we're going to have to probably get more cops because I mean,they're already stretched thin as they are, right?
And you're going to get a ticket, definitely.
And ah then, you know, there's definitely going to be some, I don't know, Chris, some ofthese, you said these things are not going to go to court, right?

(47:01):
So there might not be that aspect of it.
only if a person chooses to challenge it.
And you know, and I will say this, this is under the language of the bill, not a primaryviolation, a secondary violation.
So it will work like this.
You're driving down the road and you're speeding and you're also talking on a handheldcell phone.
So they can pull you over for the speeding and because they got you for speeding, they canalso ticket you for talking on your handheld cell phone.

(47:28):
But they're not supposed to be able to
to stop you simply because they see you talking on a cell phone.
So that's why it's a secondary violation.
The problem is that not all police officers are scrupulous.
And police officers who want to generate that revenue, who want to stop people and ticketthem for talking on a phone, they come up with pretexts and say you were swerving or you

(47:54):
changed lanes suddenly.
You come up with some reason to have stopped them so they can ticket them for that.
And so it's unfortunate.
I know the law prohibits it, but not all law enforcement officers follow the law.
And that's what the problem is.
I just hate this bill so much and I can't stand that it's been pushed down our throats forthe last number of years by Republicans and then it's Republicans that did it.

(48:23):
But I have to give you, Danielle, the award for making the most brilliant position, themost brilliant insight about this bill that I've ever heard.
And that is simply from a purely practical law enforcement point of view.
Why would we be further diffusing the responsibilities and obligations of law enforcementwhen there's already a high attrition rate, when our crime in our state

(48:51):
is, if not per capita, the highest in the country, among the very highest in the country.
It's not like our cops don't have a lot of other things going on, a lot of other things todo.
Do they really need this added responsibility, time, energy, and resources to stop peoplefrom talking on a cell phone in their car?
So I think that's a brilliant point you make and yet another reason why I think this billis a very bad idea.

(49:16):
Yeah, it's a horrible idea.
Maybe we'll get somebody to repeal it.
Maybe we will, or least chip away at it.
Yeah, I think so.
Okay.
Next up is House Bill 577 by Representative Darryl Desatel.
This is Nancy's red carpet bill, as far as I'm concerned, provides for basically her fasttracking of procurement of the voting systems through a non-compete bid, right?

(49:40):
Yeah, that's right.
It takes it from a competitive, open bidding process where all vendors who want thecontract are allowed to bid on it under a fair competitive process.
And it converts that to what's called an invitation to negotiate, which uh dramaticallyincreases the power of the Secretary of State to negotiate with even only one potential

(50:04):
vendor if she wants and award a contract to that vendor.
So I think it's uh just very concerning any time we're talking about the investment ofthis amount of our money, but particularly when you're talking about what it's going for,
which is for our election system in the state of Louisiana to be narrowing transparencyand increasing the power of the secretary of state in that process.

(50:33):
Yeah.
Well.
But it's 577, we've opposed it, but it passed.
And where is it now, Danielle?
It's been sent to the governor.
was just looking.
He hasn't signed it yet, but I, you know, do you have a call to action for him to vetothis?
don't have a call to action up on 577.

(50:55):
We can get one up.
We've had informal calls to action on it because on all of our social media platforms,because it's a really bad bill.
The silver lining here, Danielle, on this bill is that in Senate Governmental AffairsCommittee, as a result of some heavy examination by Senator Blake Maggaz, Nancy Landry
made some very significant concessions on the record with regard to

(51:19):
the procurement process, which we have, we've isolated, we've clipped.
And it's just really important for the voters to know the concessions that she made andthat she's held to those concessions.
One of which, very significantly, is her commitment not to purchase any voting system fromany foreign country, any foreign manufacturer, or any component part of any voting system.

(51:45):
So that's really important.
How's she gonna wiggle out of that one, Chris?
Because I know she's got a plan to.
Good question, very good question, but she's on the record and it's going to be verydifficult for her to get out of that.
Well, wonderful.
would like.
Yes, thank you, Senator Miguez.

(52:06):
All right, next up, some good news.
Senate Bill 46 by Senator Mike Facy.
This is his bill to ban geoengineering and weather modification.
We knew that it had passed everything, but it's been, it had been sent to the governor.
I don't know how long ago.
I need to double check, but he has not yet signed it.

(52:27):
So this is one, another one where we're trying.
to ramp up the pressure.
Yeah, Governor Landry should not even hesitate to sign SB 46.
There should be absolutely no hesitation.
It's a very important bill.
This is the bill that he needs to sign immediately, not bills like SB 80 that crush freespeech rights.

(52:51):
Yeah, exactly.
Well said.
Well said.
So, by God's grace, we'll stop getting poisoned from above, even though our watercontinues to be poisoned.
Well said, Danielle, but you know what?
We're striking one blow at a time here.
That's right.
Taking what we can get.
Okay.
Senate bill 216 by Senator Valerie Hodges.

(53:13):
We followed this one very closely as well.
This is her.
um I guess some amendments to the way that um DOTD should approach uh bidding andcontracting, giving incentives to this.
The fact that this didn't exist already is mind blowing in one sense and then very, veryobvious in the other.

(53:34):
right, to give incentives to finish projects on time and, uh you know, under cost andthings like that and putting some disincentives for those companies who are not able or
willing to do so.
This one has been signed by the speaker.
I don't think it's been sent to the governor yet.
Yeah, this should be signed to SB 216.

(53:56):
Danielle, you said it so well.
It creates much greater efficiency in DOTD to finish these state road projects.
God knows we need it.
Greater accountability on the part of contractors, incentives, disincentives.
It's an important bill.
One of a number of very important bills that Senator Hodges brought forward this session.

(54:18):
Do you think the governor will hesitate to sign this bill?
He shouldn't know.
mean, he, you know, one thing the governor has done is put Joe Donahue in position who haswhat I believe is a real will to transform that department and make it more efficient,
more, more in service to the people, more in line with the way an agency should operatebecause it's been kind of an island to itself with zero accountability for years and even

(54:45):
decades in this state.
So no, I think that, I think the governor will sign this and one, one.
thought that came to mind, Chris, is all this DOTD transformation something that couldstand to lower auto insurance rates?
Because I mean, if auto insurance companies know that Senator Seabass tailgate fell offbecause of a pothole in North Louisiana, then maybe they would say, you know what, we've

(55:12):
got to raise insurance rates because potholes will literally swallow you whole in thestate of Louisiana.
I'm telling you right now, wouldn't be some...
let's just say we woke up tomorrow morning and all the roads in Louisiana were smooth.
You didn't have to worry about damaging your undercarriage by smoking a big hole in themiddle of the road.
uh Because when your vehicle is damaged because of incidents like that, guess what?

(55:37):
Insurance pays that.
And I'm sure that it happens pretty often.
So who knows?
Maybe insurance companies would look favorably upon the fact that they don't have tohave...
be exposed to that kind of uh liability.
Well how many accidents happen because you're trying to avoid a pothole?
You know, I think that's probably a pretty common occurrence.
Oh, I would imagine.

(55:57):
I think it'd be very difficult to get, you know, an accurate statistical analysis on it,but I'm sure that it happens frequently.
And certainly we know at a minimum, it's not going to do anything to hurt our insurancerates.
If anything, it will help.
That's true.
That's true.
But I hope it'll help.
oh Senate Bill 117 by Senator Blake Miguez.

(56:18):
This is his Make Louisiana Healthy Again bill.
uh Pretty similar to Senator Patrick McMaster, at least complimentary to it.
And it is regarding the selling of ultra-processed foods in public schools.
Well, it's prohibiting that.
Yeah, good bill, Danielle, good bill to make our and along the Maha, the Maha agenda,Robert FK Jr.

(56:41):
So I think it's important this bill, you know, it needs to be signed.
You know, like we said on other shows, Danielle, kids eat a couple of meals a day atschool, many of them Louisiana.
Let's just give them healthy food.
I think that that's something we can do.
And I think it will help them in every way to get this garbage out of their systems.

(57:03):
Yeah.
Okay.
And then lastly on the bills with final action from the legislature, HCR one byrepresentative Dixon, McMaken.
Chris, talk to us about this.
It's also related to our voting systems and it does not require the governor to sign it.
No, it doesn't require the governor to sign it.
is HCR 1.

(57:24):
Since it's resolution, it doesn't require a governance signature.
This was carried on the Senate floor by Senator Kleinpeter yesterday.
And this bill repeals a provision in the administrative code that requires what's calledmulti-factor authentication and I think extra password protection in our voting system.

(57:45):
ah And Senator Kleinpeter's position was that
The reason why this is necessary to repeal this is that it's quote, not an industrystandard right now.
And it will create more flexibility in allowing more vendors to come to the table uh andparticipate in the process.
That was his reason.

(58:05):
I don't know enough about this issue to be able to speak with great authority on it,Danielle, but when I read words like multi-factor authentication and extra password
protection,
as it relates to our voting system, particularly if we have an electronic voting system.
I'm pretty hesitant about removing those provisions from the law because on the face ofit, it looks like it adds security to our voting system.

(58:32):
so I don't, if I just looking at this, I would say this is not a good idea.
Anybody who wants to contract with the state of Louisiana oh should be able to.
have these components in anything that they're trying to sell to us.
So I'm gonna go do some research and see what other states do.

(58:53):
on the face of it, it's concerning.
But this actually passed on the Senate floor yesterday.
Well, Chris, you know that Facebook requires you to have multi-factor authentication foryour Facebook account.
Your bank requires you to have multi-factor authentication for your bank account.
Why in God's green earth would you remove that from our election systems?

(59:17):
I mean, yes, of course they're already hackable regardless, but are we just making iteasier for people to hack to get in?
That's what this does.
Well, yeah, I mean, looks like to me, Danielle, that even if your front door is locked,people can still break into your house.
But it looks like what this resolution does, it basically unlocks the door so they couldjust open it and come right in.

(59:39):
at least unlocks the deadbolt, you know, maybe just.
unlocks the deadbolt, exactly.
So I'm concerned about this.
And again, I'm going to go look and research and see the extent to which this component isin, let's say, any other state that uses any electronic voting system, whether or not this
security feature is included in those systems and whether or not it is or is not anindustry standard, as Senator Kleinpeter said yesterday.

(01:00:07):
What it sounds to me like is Secretary Landry has already chosen the vendor that she wantsto spend $150 million of our taxpayer money to buy election equipment that we don't want
and we don't need and we shouldn't use.
And they are using the law to tailor the requirements to fit the vendor that she has inmind.

(01:00:29):
That's what I'm seeing.
You know, the 30,000 foot view, looking at this very closely and the pattern oflegislation that she has advanced, Danielle, I think that conclusion is inescapable, which
sort of dovetails with what I said earlier, that it looks like she's using the law tocircumvent the law.

(01:00:51):
And when she can't circumvent the law, she goes forward and tries to change the law, allin pursuit of, as you said, her ultimate objective.
of investing a huge amount of our money in vulnerable computer voting machines.
So that's what's going on here.
And then the next bill Chris that I want us to talk about is one that Just really I don'twant to say it surprised me, but it did surprise me in a way Senate bill 89 by Senator

(01:01:23):
Joseph Bowie was this was his bill that was going to require any appointments to the Portof New Orleans board to be confirmed by the Senate and the governor vetoed it the governor
vetoed it
SB 89, Danielle, Senator Joseph Bowie, the Democrat.
This bill passes through the Senate 39 to nothing, literally no votes and nobody absent,which is very rare, as you know, looking at legislation.

(01:01:55):
Then it goes over to the House of Representatives and passes in a 99 to nothing vote.
No, no votes.
Okay.
And the bill simply would say, governor, you still get to appoint the
the board of commissioners to this powerful port of New Orleans, but from now on, it willrequire Senate approval and ratification.

(01:02:15):
That's the only thing the bill does.
And yesterday, I think Governor Landry vetoed this bill.
And you know what his justification was, Chris?
He said, it's unnecessary that the Senate ah ratify my, or approve who I select.
Checks and balances are unnecessary in Louisiana.

(01:02:38):
Legislative oversight is unnecessary in Louisiana.
Separation of powers doctrine is unnecessary in Louisiana because I can't make anymistakes.
And I can't do anything wrong and I don't need any oversight over what I do.
That is essentially what he's saying in his veto message to SB 89.

(01:02:59):
Chris, you and I talked about this last night, but I mean, this is one, you know, let'ssay the whole board turns over, how big can the board be?
Let's say it's between five and nine people.
That is a drop in the bucket of the appointments this man makes.
This was a token show that he had the opportunity to say, oh, give me some oversight.

(01:03:21):
This role does need some oversight.
You know, remember where in the scriptures it says, uh
A king succeeds with a multitude of counselors.
Remember that?
It's in Proverbs.
Yeah, I don't think that's something that's being heeded.
Proverbs even talks about to seek wise counsel.
And in a way, that's sort of what this is.

(01:03:43):
But Danielle, you're so right.
If Governor Landry, ah if he's reading the polls for the state right now, the vastmajority of grassroots conservatives in Louisiana are skeptical right now of his
leadership, to put it probably charitably, and are skeptical about the concentration ofpower that he seems to be steadily gaining.

(01:04:06):
What he could have done here, and this just as a matter of pure political calculus, issaid, I think it's important, as you just said, Danielle, I think it's important to have
legislative oversight over this process.
The Port of New Orleans is a very powerful board, and I welcome this legislation and lookforward to working with the Senate to confirm and approve good qualified appointees to

(01:04:29):
this board.
That would have gained him some significant political favor ah and would have
I think taken a step or two to rehabilitate his reputation among conservatives inLouisiana.
But he didn't do it.
He vetoed it and justified that veto uh with what was essentially implied to say, I don'tneed any oversight.

(01:04:51):
I can do it all on my own.
Don't worry.
I got you.
Yeah, well, he did point to all of the committees and associations that providenominations and all that stuff.
But I mean, we just saw Bill, they got introduced this session that was trying to make itso he doesn't even have to listen to them.

(01:05:12):
So this isn't, I think it's a very disingenuous reasoning that he was giving thelegislature for vetoing this.
Yeah, no question about it.
Four or five bills, Danielle, maybe more, all of which would increase his power over theappointment process.

(01:05:32):
And one constitutional amendment, which fortunately is dead now, which would actually haveexpanded the public service commission by two members and given him the plenary authority
to appoint the two additional members.
Fortunately, it's gone now, but nonetheless, there is a pattern here.
Yeah, well, speaking of a pattern of scraping for more power for the governorship, SenateBill 214 by Senator Royce Du Plessis.

(01:05:56):
This is his bill that would make the commissioner of insurance a governor appointeeinstead of elected by we the people.
Now, this is one that we think could just die on the vine because it was it's been subjectto call since late May ah and it still would need to go to the House even if it passed the
Senate.
So there's not saying that it's

(01:06:17):
It's not a foregone conclusion that it's dead, right?
Because they could waive a lot of rules or suspend a lot of rules and get it done if theyuh got the dog whistle to get it done.
Yeah, it's, yes, Danielle, and it's important to know this, that there's not a bill in thelegislature right now that if the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate

(01:06:43):
want to make sure that that gets voted on and gets to the governor's desk, even if it hasto go through concurrence, even if it has to go to conference committee, there's not a
bill that they couldn't get to his desk if they wanted to.
So you're right.
SB 214.
Royce Duplessis, which would make the commissioner of insurance appointed instead ofelected has been returned to the calendar multiple times.

(01:07:04):
We have a strong call to action against SB 214.
know hundreds of emails have gone out from our call to action on this.
This is just a bad bill.
there's no reason why the commissioner of insurance should be appointed by the governor inthe state of Louisiana.
It's an important position.
It's a statewide position and it's
He should be elected by the people and directly accountable to the people.

(01:07:26):
It's just that simple.
Yeah.
Next up is Senate Bill 226 by Senator Valerie Hodges.
This is her bill that got gutted so badly in committee that was attempting to prohibitforeign adversaries from purchasing property close to military installations within 50
miles and also uh any front.

(01:07:50):
would prohibit any purchase of election related equipment that was connected to a foreignadversary.
All the good stuff got gutted out, so I'm not sure if we're going to see this one moveforward, Chris.
Yeah, I don't think so.
you know, it's not really even on our immediate radar screen because of what happened toit in Senator Greg Miller's committee.

(01:08:13):
But Danielle, it's important for the listeners to know that right now, because of bothRepresentative Michael Echols and then Representative Valerie Hodges bills that were in, I
think in 2023, foreign adversaries are already prohibited from purchasing
immovable property in the state of Louisiana.

(01:08:34):
What SB 226 would have done would have allowed the attorney general and the governor toexpropriate property already owned by a foreign enemy country of the United States if that
property is located within 50 miles of a critical infrastructure facility, includingmilitary sites.

(01:08:55):
To me, I think it's extremely important, very important.
And the bill, her original bill had a civil process in mind.
It's not like the attorney general could just go in and take this property.
There has to be an expropriation process.
There has to be adequate remuneration for the person who's giving the property up.
But when you're talking about, just imagine this, Danielle, a bill that would allow us toexpropriate property from a foreign enemy, a sworn adversary of our country.

(01:09:28):
that owns property within 50 miles of a military base in the state of Louisiana and aRepublican Judiciary Committee would gut a bill that would allow that to happen.
I remain inflamed about that.
And I'm equally inflamed by the fact that the provisions in the bill that would havecodified President Trump's executive orders

(01:09:55):
with regard to election security and the examination of these computer-based votingsystems was also gutted out of it uh in a Republican committee.
So we are not letting this go away, I can promise you.
Yeah, well, if this governor and if this legislature was serious about doging the state,wouldn't they take the opportunity to have the AG expropriate all this property, auction

(01:10:22):
it off to the people and use the funds for something that they say we don't have money forlike the Gator Scholarship?
What a great point.
This would be so basically you're saying, Danielle, you can do the right thing andstrengthen our infrastructure security in the state of Louisiana by expropriating this
property and also generate revenue for the state, for our citizens.

(01:10:45):
I mean, it's a win-win.
us anything.
I mean, it'll cost legal fees, right?
But other than that, I mean, this property is a dead zone right now.
If foreign adversaries are not allowed to own it, but they do own it, then what happens toit?
It just sits there.
Well, let it go to work.
Exactly.

(01:11:05):
So many reasons why this bill was important.
Senator Hodges is a champion.
She really is.
And I just have enormous respect for her.
And I don't have great respect for Senator Greg Miller, not just because of this bill, butbecause of other things that he's done.
Yeah, because he has carried the water for Secretary Landry this entire session.

(01:11:28):
Before this session, he hadn't really done anything of note that made me like him ordislike him one way or the other.
And it's not like I like him or dislike him, but I'm very unimpressed by the fact that hehas decided that he is going to do what Nancy asks of him instead of what we, people, are
clearly standing up and saying very vocally that we don't want it.

(01:11:52):
exactly.
And Danielle, just one example.
In the last 24 hours or so, I think we've gotten 10 or 15,000 views just on one of oursocial media sites about SB 80, Governor Landry vetoing SB 80, which was authored by
Senator Greg Miller, which was signed by Governor Landry, a that was authored by GregMiller.

(01:12:14):
So the people clearly are opposed
to many of these things that we're seeing.
um And Jeff Landry didn't just stand by and let it happen, he signed it, right?
This is the anti-censorship AG that we had.
This is the guy who went toe to toe against tyrannical big government um alongside the AGfrom Missouri um because the people were being censored.

(01:12:46):
So I don't know if that was a political play on his part to do that or not, but
That is not the same person that we uh are seeing today.
Yeah.
enemy of censorship as attorney general has become a very close ally of censorship asgovernor.
Yeah.
All right, next up, House Bill 307 by Representative Chance Henry.

(01:13:11):
This is a great bill, Chris, and this, I think what we're seeing with Los Angeles burningdown because of uh radical Mexican Islamist extremists, which is not something I ever
thought I would say in one single breath.
uh These Antifa uh lunatics uh that are paid, obviously, they're super obviously paid.

(01:13:33):
m They can't get public assistance if they're going to do stuff like that.
You can't get public assistance if you are um in this country illegally and um we won'thave our funds go to support something like
Yes, uh great bill.
We've supported HB 307.
Danielle Lovedis, who posted about it yesterday.

(01:13:55):
The bill requires any agency in the state of Louisiana that's providing public benefits toreport any illegal immigrant who's applying for those benefits and to terminate the
benefits of any illegal immigrant who's currently receiving them and also requires them toreport those illegal immigrants directly to ICE.

(01:14:17):
ah It's a very good bill by Chance Henry.
And as you said, Danielle, very timely in light of what we're seeing out in Los Angelesright now.
Yeah.
And it passed the Senate 27 to 10 on a party line vote, which I don't understand why theDemocrats continue to vote with people who are here illegally.

(01:14:40):
I mean, I get the criminal justice reform.
tend to be fairly, you know, fairly often uh in agreement on the criminal justice, butthose are criminals that are American citizens.
Yeah.
They're not criminals who don't even belong in our country.
Yeah, I think Danielle, we've mentioned this before.

(01:15:02):
think sometimes Democrats tend to vote reflexively against legislation simply because themassive Republicans support it.
And I think it's unfortunate because I think every piece of legislation should stand onits own.
And I don't think that, do you think Democrats in the Senate or in the legislaturebelieve?
And maybe they do.

(01:15:22):
Maybe many of them do believe that it's okay.
for people who have broken into our country, violated our laws, are not supposed to behere to be receiving taxpayer money.
Maybe they think that's okay.
well, Chris, I do think they think that's okay.
And I don't think they always reflexively vote against the Republicans because so often wesee them join them.
But no, I completely disagree with you.

(01:15:45):
I do think that they think that they should be here.
mean, listen, if you just if you just listen to mainstream media, they're taught, youknow, doing all this hand wringing about, the Maryland dad who turned out to be a massive,
massive human trafficker.
I think over 300 trips or something.
It's just insane what that guy was doing.

(01:16:06):
And they still insist on calling him the Maryland dad that got stripped away from hisfamily.
He was a wife beater.
Come on, this guy was MS-13.
I think this is compassion gone too far at its best.
That's what I'll say about it.
Yeah, no doubt about it.

(01:16:27):
And Danielle, you know, that think about it, you're right.
There are a lot of times when Democrats do seem to vote thoughtfully on legislation and anumber of times when we've aligned with them on pieces of legislation and commended them
for doing the right thing.
So I guess the only conclusion here is that those 10 Democrats who opposed HB 307 uhapparently do not consider it to be a problem for illegal immigrants to be receiving uh

(01:16:55):
public benefits, our taxpayer money.
tell you one thing.
know Senator Jay Luna specifically doesn't because he got up and argued about um thedistance for the military.
uh He was the guy gutting Valerie's bill.
Yep.
That's awfully close, isn't it?
I mean, that's awfully far.

(01:17:16):
mean, that's awfully close.
50 mile, awfully far, whatever it was.
Can't you make it?
Yeah, that's too out of a radius, uh you know?
And so, yeah, he and Greg Miller on SB226 were concerned about the 50 mile radius.
Yeah.
So anyway, all right, we'll leave that one alone.

(01:17:37):
But House Bill 528 by Representative Ryan Boriak.
This one is transforming the uh org structure for DOTD.
That's so exciting, Chris.
um And this one, these are all bills that are pending concurrence.
Yeah, I think it's a very good bill.
believe uh Secretary of DOTD Donahue is for this bill and also for SB 216.

(01:18:04):
This bill just sort of restructures DOTD, streamlines the processes and strives to make itmore efficient and more accountable.
I've told you before, Danielle, uh I pray for stamina, resilience uh for Joe Donahuebecause he has a huge task in front of him.

(01:18:24):
He really does.
uh Next up is House Bill 554 by Representative Dixon McMakin.
And this um is related to uh non-citizens who are really unlawful, what does it say?
Lawful and unlawful aliens dealing with getting their driver's license.

(01:18:45):
Exactly.
And this is a good bill as far as it goes, Danielle.
The bill says that no person who's in the country illegally can receive any state ID orany driver's license.
And any lawful resident of Louisiana can receive a driver's license and a state ID with arestriction code on it, which uh says they can't use it to register to vote in Louisiana.

(01:19:12):
So I think it's a good thing.
But right now,
Do you realize, Danielle, that is the only provision, if this passes, that we will have inlaw that will verify or at least attempt to verify citizenship when someone attempts to
vote.
So, I think it's good as far as it goes, but what do you do about all of the people whoalready have IDs in the state of Louisiana, who are here illegally, who are not entitled

(01:19:41):
to vote in our elections?
What do you do about those?
That's why SB 436 from FACI from last year is so important that requires independent proofof citizenship when any person registered to vote.
And as we've talked about before, the Secretary of State is not enforcing that citizenshiplaw.

(01:20:02):
She runs around so busy trying to invest $150 million of our money in a computer votingsystem.
Why don't you start enforcing basic important laws?
that make sure people who try to register to vote in Louisiana are Louisiana citizens.
That would be a great place to start.
Yeah, I agree with you.
All right.

(01:20:23):
Excuse me.
All right.
Next up, House Bill 592 by Representative Beau Bowie.
And this is a bill that was pretty innocuous to start with.
ah But there were some bad amendments that tried to creep in and they got fought off bywe, the people of Louisiana.
mean, the people stood up and we're not going to have it.

(01:20:44):
Talk to us about it.
Very proud, of the people's effort on this bill, on HB 592 by Bowyer.
uh Originally on the Senate side, uh the Senate committee, through Senator CalebKleinpeter, offered an amendment to this otherwise largely innocuous election bill that
would have changed our current law on closed primary elections in Louisiana.

(01:21:10):
It would have said this, basically.
So let's just say Senator Cassidy.
Right now, if he goes into the Republican primary, we have a closed primary system.
He and the other top vote getter, assuming he's in the top two, would then go into asecond Republican primary, and the winner of that in a statewide vote would advance to the

(01:21:30):
general election against the Democrat.
The proposed amendment to 592 would have eliminated the second Republican primary andwould have said, let's say you have five or six Republicans running for Senate,
person who gets the top vote, the number one vote getter, even if it's 22%, 25 % among allthose Republicans goes directly into the general election with the Democrat.

(01:21:55):
Who do you think that amendment would benefit in the US Senate race?
Bill Cassidy.
Because even Bill Cassidy has the name recognition and has bought enough people off to get25 % of a statewide vote in a Senate race.
So this change would advance him to a runoff against a Democrat.
And in a runoff against a Democrat in this state, he has a chance to win and return to theSenate.

(01:22:20):
So we fought hard to keep this amendment off of HB 592.
It died in committee, but there was a lot of talk that Cameron Henry, who we have everyreason to believe the president of the Senate was behind and even probably drafted this
amendment, was going to try to amend it on the Senate floor before it passed.

(01:22:43):
But it passed yesterday without this amendment on there.
And there was a whole lot of people very concerned about this, Danielle, reaching out tosenators, not just us, but a lot of other people.
So 592 passed and the closed primary system in Louisiana remains intact.
And I think Senator Cassidy is probably not happy today.

(01:23:04):
that's great because he wanted to change the rules of the game to rig his own election andI don't appreciate that at all.
so big congratulations to us, to the people of this state um who will have a more uh fairapproach to the election.
I also want to take this opportunity to remind people that during last session when we hadthat uh redistricting

(01:23:32):
session, the special session, and they did some things about closed primaries aroundthere.
The reason our closed primary includes independence is because Senator John Kennedy camein over the top and pressured a lot of the legislature.
That was Julie Emerson.
Representative Julie Emerson carried the bill to close primaries in a comprehensive way,and it did not happen because of Senator John Kennedy.

(01:23:58):
So I want everyone to just remember that.
that the two times we have heard Senator Cassidy or Senator Kennedy are two senators atthe federal level, uh weigh in on political matters, weigh in on any policy matters in
this state, have to do with rigging their own elections for their benefit.

(01:24:18):
I just want to make that point.
I'm so glad you mentioned that, Danielle.
What a great reminder.
Exactly right.
Emerson's bill from a couple of years ago, closed primary bill, came out of the House.
And when it came out of the House, only Republicans could vote in Republican primaries.
Only Democrats could vote in Democrat primaries.

(01:24:39):
It was amended over on the Senate side to allow no party voters or independent voters tovote in Republican or Democrat primaries.
which really dilutes the purpose of the closed primary system.
Now, I'm glad we have something in place, believe me, it's certainly better than nothing,but Senator Kennedy and Governor Landry both insisted that independent voters and no party

(01:25:05):
voters be allowed to vote in Republican and Democrat primaries.
So you're exactly right, Danielle, and it's a great point you bring up.
I haven't heard anything from them besides those two things when it comes to our state.
Me either.
It's a great reminder.
it's worth underscoring.

(01:25:25):
Okay.
um Next step House Bill 695 by Representative Raymond Crews.
Praise God.
This is his bill to make gold and silver legal tender.
We are getting this inch by inch Chris.
We like we talked about last night.
We could have had the whole enchilada last year.
We could have had the whole enchilada this year, but no, they're just going to give us onetiny bite at a time.

(01:25:49):
ah It's a good bill, Danielle.
I'm happy for Representative Crews and we'll go back next year and try to get thedepository uh into it and also get the, you know, the treasurer to have involvement in it.
But nonetheless, it makes debit-backed currency uh and digital currency uh backed by goldand silver uh transactional in the state of Louisiana.

(01:26:15):
So it's a good bill as far as it goes.
And Representative Crews fought it all the way to the end.
took what he could get and Danielle, Representative Crews was featured.
have, Lecag now has a graphic profiles encourage series that we're doing.
And the latest feature on that profile encourage what has been Representative Crews.

(01:26:36):
He's a real fighter, a real conservative and uh just proud to honor him in that way in ourgraphic series.
Yeah, he uh is remarkable and he's done a lot on this issue in particular, but he has umcontinually been a steadfast ah representative who's voted with the interest of the people

(01:26:59):
at heart.
that's, yeah.
you on the House floor, he did a great job of exposing the absolute fraud of SB 80, thisexit poll bill.
Beth Billings carried that bill on the House side and was basically forced to admit shecouldn't answer the question when he asked her, why don't we just make the same rules for

(01:27:24):
everybody when it comes to exit polls?
Why are you automatically excluding an entire class of
people, she couldn't answer the question, which is all of the people.
Unless of course, unless of course you have the honor of being associated with and workingfor that great reputable news organization, MSNBC.

(01:27:46):
Well, then you get, then you get wherever you want.
then you get a full pass.
Okay, next up Senate Bill 8 by Senator Jay Morris.
This is his constitutional amendment to uh make it easier to reclassify uh civil servantsand fire them when necessary.

(01:28:09):
Yeah, we've talked about this bill, Danielle, and right now it is just extremely onerous.
It's a very, very hard process to be able to discipline, demote, transfer or fireclassified civil service employees.
So this constitutional amendment, oh if it passes on a statewide ballot, would allow thelegislature to pass a bill reclassifying certain classified employment positions, from

(01:28:35):
classified to non-classified.
to give them more flexibility in that process.
And I think on balance, it's a good bill.
I hope it goes on a statewide ballot where at least people have the right to determinewhether or not the legislature should have that authority.
Yeah, it passed 70 to 28 in a party line vote with some notable Republican no's.

(01:28:59):
uh They voted against it.
They were Barbara Freiberg, Jeremy Lacombe, Joe Stagney, and Zee Zerang.
They are regularly found on the wrong side of an issue.
So it's not too surprising to see them there.
No, not shocking.
Yeah.
All right.
Another one by Jay Morris, his Senate Bill 15.
This one.
This is the one that really connects into what's happening in California right now, Chris,that it criminalizes any attempt to interfere with or thwart federal immigration

(01:29:31):
enforcement efforts.
Very happy to see this one pass 71 to 30 in a party line vote with a couple of absencesthat I think
are worth mentioning by uh Dennis Bamberg, Barbara Freiberg, and Stephanie Hilferty didnot show up for that vote.
Yeah.
I want to give a shout out to representative Debbie Villio on the House floor who carriedSB 15.

(01:29:55):
one of the, you know, the bill criminalizes any public official that interferes in any waywith ICE immigration or deportation efforts, federal immigration policy or their efforts
to remove illegal immigrants from our country.
it would criminalize those public officials.
could do a year in prison, pay a bunch of money.

(01:30:17):
So it creates the crime of malfeasance in office if they do that.
And one of the things that representative Villio mentioned on the floor was there's noquestion that in Orleans parish, it may probably in other parishes as well, but
particularly in Orleans parish, Danielle, do you think that Jason Williams, the DA ofOrleans parish is faithfully reporting to ICE?

(01:30:40):
uh the status of illegal immigrants in the city of New Orleans that he comes across orthey gets arrested in New Orleans.
I don't think so.
I think that they are absolutely doing nothing about it.
If anything, New Orleans has become a quasi sanctuary city, even if not formally declaredas such.
So this is important to have potential criminal penalties hanging over the heads of publicofficials, prosecutors, law enforcement that

(01:31:09):
that interfere in any way.
And failing to properly report illegal immigrants to ICE is interference.
So it's not just, I'm just not gonna do this.
It's interference by omission.
And that's important to remember as well.
This is a good bill.
It's a great bill and I love that it kind of comes in over the top and does not just putthe onus on the DA, but it puts the onus on the individual law enforcement officers, the

(01:31:37):
chiefs of police as well.
I think that's brilliant.
The sheriffs, because there are a lot of good people who want to do this reporting whohave been stopped.
And now they can say, I'm not, I'm not going to put my neck on the line because you wantto save these illegals from, from being reported.
Exactly.
so Senator Moore's hats off on this one.
This needs to be signed by the Governor, Danielle, and I can't imagine why he wouldn'tsign this.

(01:32:03):
Yeah, I think this is the kind of bill that he will sign.
All right, Senate Bill 100 by Senator Blake Miguez, kind of thematically similar.
This is about the gathering of data um for any illegal, uh well, in connection with thelegal status of anyone receiving state services.

(01:32:24):
So m that would also provide another venue for reporting uh illegal immigrants.
between his and Chance Henry's, think those two are pretty interconnected.
think SB 100, HB 407, that's Henry's bill, right?
uh And then SB 15 by Jay Morris.

(01:32:44):
I think all three of those bills are mutually complimentary.
SB 100 is just a data taxpayer transparency reporting requirement where the dollar amountof money that is being spent by public agencies for illegal immigrants has to be reported
to the legislature.
There's not really an enforcement mechanism in it.

(01:33:05):
It's not, you know, penalty provisions in it, but it's data reporting.
So it's very important.
Yep.
Okay.
Next one is SB 36 by Senator Bob Hinskens.
This is related to carbon capture.
You have more details on this one, Chris.
very good bill, Danielle.
SB 36 by Hensgens requires what's called substantial consideration be given to localgovernment authorities on whether or not carbon capture sequestration development is

(01:33:38):
allowed in their jurisdictions or in their parishes.
Substantial consideration.
That's a very important bill, which basically means they've got to pay close attention
to the will of the local authorities.
It's not a prohibition as Chuck Owen wanted ah in his bill, but it goes a long way and itstatutorily requires them to wake up and pay attention to what the local governments want

(01:34:05):
on carbon capture sequestration.
Substantial consideration, good bill.
And this puts the onus on us yet again, Chris, because of course, local governments arejust like any other governments.
They don't always operate in the best interest of the people.
They often operate in the best interests of their wallets.
And so the people need to be very vigilant.

(01:34:26):
You got to keep an eye on your parish council meetings.
You got to keep an eye on any uh any rumors that carbon capture is trying to move intoyour neighborhood because it's there's not a provision that the voice of the people.
be listened to.
It's the voice of the local government.
We tried to get that provision in there.
We were rebuffed.
And they said that the local government's the same thing as the local people, which weknow, unfortunately, as of now, it is not.

(01:34:52):
So I would just encourage everyone to keep your eyes peeled on this stuff and stay active.
Very much so, Danielle.
And I just think it's a good bill because it's closer to the people.
Local governments are at least theoretically closer to the people.
They have the pulse of the people.
anything that we can move, ah any authority that can we move away from the state intolocal governments, to me, the better.

(01:35:20):
Yeah, absolutely.
Okay.
And uh just some notable no votes on that uh were Shane Mack and Kim Coats.
uh That seems a little out of character, so they may have misunderstood the point of thevote.
Yeah.
And, and, uh, well, can tell you now, Kathy Edmonston was registered initially as a novote on that.

(01:35:42):
And I reached out to her and said, represent Robinson, do you realize what, how you votedon this?
And she looked at it and said, Oh my God, I think I pressed the wrong button.
I'm going back to change my vote.
So if representative Edmonston comes up as a no vote on that, believe me, she's planningto change her vote to yes on, uh, SB 36.
So I think she'd appreciate me saying that and probably Mac.

(01:36:04):
already has.
Yeah, she already has.
um
good.
And maybe Mack as well, because I don't see, I mean, Representative Mack has been prettystrong against CCS development throughout the session.
So I'd be surprised if this was not a mistaken vote on his part as well.
Yeah, it may have been introduced in a not clear manner.

(01:36:26):
Okay, a couple bills that are still awaiting final final passage.
The first one is House Bill 160 by Representative Kelly Dickerson.
Chris, this is her ethics complaints bill and it's not looking too good for this one toget passed.
No, because the head of the ethics board, despite the fact that there are whistleblowerprotections in the bill, ah he still thinks that allowing the name of someone who files an

(01:37:00):
ethics plan against another person, their name to be disclosed to the person who's beingaccused would create a chilling effect and would strongly deter
people from filing meritorious ethics complaints against powerful public officials orleaders in Louisiana for fear of retaliation.

(01:37:21):
So no middle ground here on their part.
So the law apparently, unless something happens here and we're able to prevail upon uh theSenate to vote on this and pass it, we'll go another year in Louisiana with citizens, no
matter who they are.
being able to have ethics complaints filed against them and never being able to know theidentity of the person who's accusing them.

(01:37:46):
And I think it's absolutely unjust.
I understand both sides of this, Danielle.
I understand the fear of retaliation.
I also understand the fundamental right that people have to know who is accusing me of aserious ethics violation.
Why do they get to hide?

(01:38:08):
under an invisible cloak with no accountability, with complete anonymity, while I have tohire lawyers, put my family through stress, spend a bunch of money, go before the ethics
board, and nothing happens to these people even when they're filing frivolous complaintsagainst somebody.
This is something that has to change.

(01:38:30):
I'm very happy that I testified in committee against this bill.
I think we may have run the clip on it on one of our shows.
earlier, but we're not, it's not over till it's over.
And we're going to keep pushing on HB 160 because there has to be a balance heresomewhere.
Yeah, well I would love for the legislature to not act so weak.

(01:38:51):
I mean, who's the boss?
Is it the chair of the ethics board or is it the legislature?
Who determines how the ethics board operates?
It should be the legislature, not the ethics board.
Who's appointed?
That would be the ethics board.
Yeah, that would be the people.
Yeah.
So HB 160 is, we're going to keep pushing on this one until the end.

(01:39:14):
Representative Dickerson, by the way, the reason why she was so motivated to bring thisbill Danielle is that she herself was the subject of the scenario that I just described
and enormous stress on her and her family and come to find out it was totally baseless.
And if she had known who was accusing her,

(01:39:36):
she would have been able to clarify early on in an investigation to the ethics board.
You need to know this about this person.
This is the history of our relationship.
This is the motive, I believe, for why they're doing this.
Let me tell you this about their credibility.
Those are all important considerations when determining whether to go forward with aninvestigation, whether to...

(01:40:00):
to throw a complaint in the trash can or what to do.
But she was deprived of that opportunity because she was never allowed to know who wasaccusing her.
I think this is an absolute disgrace, a disgrace.
It's an absolute disgrace.
And it would save the state a lot of time and money if people were able to head that offat the pass, right?
I mean, it would save the state a lot of um paperwork.

(01:40:27):
Absolutely.
And time, effort and energy.
Yeah, unbelievable.
Okay, ah you know, all these little agencies want to run his fiefdoms.
And if he's an appointee, he needs to do what the legislature recommends, not recommendswhat the law says.
And so if the legislature would stand up and legislate on this, then he would follow thelaw.

(01:40:51):
He would have to follow the law or he could get removed from his office, right?
Absolutely.
We just need some backbone and some vigor.
That's right.
Okay.
House Bill 603 by Representative Dixon McMakin.
This is his bill that would allow for the governor to appoint whoever he wants tooccupational boards, committees and authorities without having to necessarily look at the

(01:41:17):
recommendations of those boards and committees.
uh I mean, we kind of have been six of one half dozen of the other on this one, Chris,because we know that a lot of these boards and
committees are corrupt in and of themselves, but we tend to lean against um theconsolidation of the power of the governor.

(01:41:39):
if this would disperse, further disperse his power, ah the way it is now uh currentlydisperses his power, but this consolidates it.
So it's up for Senate final passage, uh but it's been subject to call for a couple ofdays.
Yeah, I'm surprised this wasn't called yesterday on the Senate floor and voted on.

(01:42:00):
Maybe they're getting some pushback.
We have opposed the bill for the reasons that you just said, Danielle.
Not that there's no corruption in these trade associations, ah but, you know, I've alwayssaid that I think corruption diffused is better than, is less harmful than corruption
concentrated in one man.
And that's the reason why we've opposed 603.

(01:42:21):
uh And so I think, you know, the way that they should do this, Danielle,
If they want to write a law on this, they should impose additional requirements on thetrade associations and give them a clearly delineated criteria from which they have to

(01:42:42):
choose the nominees that they present to the governor.
That's where they address this.
But by eliminating the requirement that the governor choose from the lists submitted tohim, I don't think is the right solution here.
because again, it increases his power and diminishes his accountability as well.

(01:43:03):
So that's the way they should have addressed this.
Well, at a bare minimum, they should have, if they were taking away the requirement to useany of the nominations by those committees and boards associations, then they should have
given the governor the requirements of what those positions should be.
as the second alternative, but don't just turn it all over to him to choose whoever hewants with no uh criteria, with no parameters within which to operate.

(01:43:35):
I agree.
Yeah, okay.
Next up is House Bill 685 by Representative Emily Chenevert This has not gone to committeein the Senate yet, so it would need to go directly to the floor to make it happen if it is
going to happen.
This is her bill to get DEI hiring and out of all government agencies, at least stateagencies.

(01:43:59):
This is a super important bill.
I think it's incredibly important.
as it pertains to uh DOTD's restructuring any Doge work that we want done.
And uh it goes along quite well with Jay Morris's uh proposed constitutional amendment toreclassify civil servants and make it easier to fire them.

(01:44:22):
DEI is still the law of the land when Jay Morris's bill gets through because the citizenspush it through.
So if you're able to...
uh
make it easier to fire a civil servant who's not performing, but they meet some DEIcriteria that's still the law of the land and the state, you have done nothing.
Exactly, exactly.

(01:44:44):
And Danielle, this bill, HB 685, has been on second reading, I think, on the Senate floornow for quite some time now.
And so we're asking, why is this bill not being called for a vote?
Why are you not suspending the rules and calling HB 685 for a vote that cleans out thistoxic

(01:45:11):
diversity, equity, and inclusion, critical race theory, these radical Marxist conceptsthat are anti-American, that teach people to view everything through the prism of race and
gender and social inequity, instead of through the prism of the Constitution and thegolden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because we're all human

(01:45:35):
beings created in God's dignity.
Instead of using that,
Why are you sitting on a bill that would banish this cancer from our public institutionsand from our colleges in Louisiana?
This is a hugely important bill.
I want to know why this is not being called for a vote.
HB 685 by Representative Emily Chenevert.

(01:45:58):
It should be voted on, it should go to the governor, and it should be signed.
Yeah, and if the governor was serious about LA Doge, this would be moving.
Exactly.
There's no bill.
If they want HB 685 to get voted on, believe me, it will happen.
It could be signed and sent to the governor today.

(01:46:20):
If they spin the rules, it could be on the governor's desk today, HB 685.
And when it comes to the toxic cultural environment in our many of our public agencies andin our colleges, this bill is the most important bill of the session.
There's no question about it.
Chris, maybe we should turn our call to action from oh the individual senators all ontoPresident Cameron Henry and have it be for him to bring to call the bill.

(01:46:51):
Yeah, and if you're listening right now, yeah, we'll do that.
We will do that.
And if you're listening right now, and I'm going to, we're going to put it up on oursocial media as well.
Call 225-342-2040.
And with a specific message to President Cameron Henry to suspend the rules, call HB 685for a vote and vote it, vote in favor and send it to the governor.

(01:47:19):
HB 685.
Senator Cameron Henry, president of the Senate, call it for a vote, vote on it, send it tothe governor.
Yeah.
Okay.
Next up, another bill that probably needs uh some activation of Speaker Cameron orPresident Cameron Henry is HB 590 by Representative Annie Spell.

(01:47:40):
um This is her bill to get foreign funding for elections and election campaigns out of ourstate.
Chris, the only reason this hasn't been called is because of corruption.
That is the only reason.
Well, Danielle, you may be right.
You probably are right.
Because what HB 590 does, it basically puts a steel wall between foreign governments andillegal immigrants and money in our election system, either to campaigns or candidates or

(01:48:13):
to ballot propositions.
What Republican legislator would not be aggressively pushing legislation to prohibitforeign governments
and foreign enemies from donating money to campaigns or candidates or ballot propositionsin the state of Louisiana.
What Republican?
Why would they not all be on board insisting that HB 590 gets voted on and sent to thegovernor?

(01:48:39):
Why is this languishing on the Senate floor?
That's what I want to know.
you know, I was very tongue in cheek about this whenever it started moving ah because Iwas, or whenever it started stalling, because I was saying, you know, the legislature
passed that bill that allowed it to use its own campaign funds for Mardi Gras fees,country club fees, ah their mortgages.

(01:49:06):
So of course they wouldn't want to cut off a funding source.
But the more that I think about it and the longer this thing stalls out in the middle ofthe Gulf,
ah The more I'm saying, no, this is exactly why it's not moving, because somebody hassomething to gain.
Danielle, you make a, that's just a brilliant point.
The only conceivable reason why Republicans would be allowing this bill to die would bebecause they've got to be benefiting in some way from the law as it currently exists.

(01:49:36):
So that's the only reason.
Yeah, yeah.
I bet if they would have not passed that law to allow themselves to pay their own billswith their campaign funds, which honestly, Chris, this is so disgusting.
Can we just talk about it for a minute?
Like if they wanted to do something that was a little less disingenuous, they could havegiven themselves a pay raise, right?

(01:50:04):
ah because I know that our legislators don't get paid very much for the job that they do.
It's a part-time job in Baton Rouge, but it's a full-time job.
It's a full year-round job um with their constituents, right?
And I respect that generally.
I don't respect all of the legislators equally, but I do respect the work that they do.
So what I would say is it would have been less seedy.

(01:50:28):
It would have been less disgusting to...
say, hey, what if we gave ourselves a modest pay increase for the job that we're doinginstead of let us um run rampant, let us raise as much money as we possibly can so that we
can do whatever we want with it um with no accountability.

(01:50:50):
That's unbelievable.
It really is.
So on the one hand, you're saying they are broadening the ways in which they can use theircampaign funds for their mortgages, to pay their Mardi Gras bill fees or whatever.
At the same time, there looks like that they're ensuring that a uh bill that wouldrestrict the source of that very campaign money is dying in the Senate.

(01:51:16):
I think that's uh a great connection.
that you make there.
I want to give a hats off, Danielle, here to Senator Alan Seaball for uh supporting 590.
I know that he has a similar constitutional amendment, but I think that that one is kindof going away because she's trying to do this statutorily.

(01:51:38):
But Senator Seaball, think, is a strong supporter of HB 590.
But this is something that needs to be voted on, Danielle.
And I'm telling you right now, as you know,
We are going to be very, very transparent about what happens to this bill and who causedit to happen.
Yeah, and we should also be very, very transparent about what goes into those campaigncoffers following this session because I am absolutely disgusted.

(01:52:07):
Great point.
All right, next up House Bill 601, Hope Springs Eternal Chris.
This is by Representative Brett Gaiman.
We have been following this bill since the very beginning.
This is his carbon uh dioxide sequestration bill that would really, really, would it fullycurtail or put it into private uh expropriation of land?

(01:52:33):
Yeah, if HB 601 were to be voted on and passed, Danielle, and signed by the governor, itwould repeal eminent domain in its entirety in Louisiana.
So you wouldn't need, you know, the common carrier.
You wouldn't even need the public good declaration by the legislature a couple of yearsago.
It would just eliminate it and repeal it.
So that would be the ideal scenario.

(01:52:55):
But because we have rhinos in our legislature who probably won't go that far,
Yeah, a lot of them down here on the bayou, by the way.
it's amazing how the Bayou contingency, my God, it's like all the same.
They've all been opposed to reforming carbon capture.
But the bottom line is this.
So representative Guymon was smart enough to realize, OK, I'm not going to be able to getenough people on board probably to get 601 passed.

(01:53:21):
So I've got to go about this in a different way.
I applaud his creativity, his ability to color outside the lines, think outside the box.
because as we talked about SB 244 takes us a long way down the road.
It's not a touchdown as HB 601 would be, but it's good.
but I still think that we could continue to push HB 601 for a vote.

(01:53:46):
Yeah.
I mean, they would have to suspend the rules and things would have to happen pretty fast,but we've got three days left.
So, uh, I'm just checking Chris to see if the governor has vetoed anything else whilewe've been on air.
He has not.
So I think that rounds us out.
Um, yeah, cause we already talked about the port commission.
know, right?
Yeah.

(01:54:06):
the Port Commission.
so I want to tell everybody to be on the lookout at some point for us to do a completelegislative wrap up, which we'll do.
You and I have been known to do a couple of those every now and then, Danielle.
I think one of them took us two hours, almost three hours to do.
But we sustained one another all the way through the process.
So we're going to push hard to the end here, Danielle.

(01:54:29):
And I want to thank you once again for the opportunity to be with you today on the stateof freedom.
And I want to encourage all of our listeners to continue to subscribe, share and supportthe state of freedom.
We are your platform.
We are your voice.
We have two loyalties, the constitution and to you, and we love you all and appreciateyour support for everything.

(01:54:51):
Also support Lecag.
Follow us on our social media sites.
Donate to Lecag for the price of a large pizza on a monthly basis.
You can join and support the best.
conservative watchdog organization in state of Louisiana.
The toughest, the strongest, the most loyal to you.
So please do that and we will continue to fight.

(01:55:12):
That's right and join us back here on Thursday at 8 a.m.
um That is the last day of session so we should have some insight into what's gonna makeit through and what's not.
Although uh the full readout won't happen until next week.
Starting next week we'll be back at our normal time of 10 a.m.
And also just an encouragement, visit freedomstate.us, shop our.

(01:55:38):
sponsors and our partners, we would love for you to help us out that way and get somegreat products at the same time.
So thank you all so much.
We will see you on Thursday.
God bless you, Danielle.
Let's go fight.

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;}#307 11th Hour Victories & Untimely Deaths

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

#307 11th Hour Victories & Untimely Deaths

Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club