#309 2025 Legislative Wrap-Up Part 1

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:49):
Well, welcome everybody.
Thank you for joining us on the State of Freedom.
It's good to be back at the 10 a.m.
time slot.
I'm Danielle, your host with my brilliant co-host, Chris Alexander.
We're thrilled to be with you.
We're thrilled that session is over and the air has started to clear somewhat from all ofthe political pollutants in Baton Rouge.

(01:13):
We're here for the start of the readout of what happened and we'll be talking about whothe proponents
and killers were of good and bad legislation.
We're thinking it's going to be a four part recap because there was so much that happenedthat requires a faithful reporting and you deserve to know how your representatives and
senators voted.
So we will be bringing it to you.

(01:36):
The unvarnished truth per usual.
Before we get into the spicy news of today, let me read the scripture of the day.
It's Luke chapter four, verses 16.
through 19.
And it says,

(02:17):
you are set free.
I've come to share the message of the Jubilee for the time of God's great acceptance hasbegun." And we can see throughout the Gospels that Jesus did fulfill all of this scripture
that he read in the temple that day.
And as followers of Jesus, we are commissioned and we carry his anointing to do the same,to bring his hope for the poor.

(02:44):
to bring his healing to the brokenhearted, to bring his gift of understanding to those whocan't see the truth, and to preach his message of freedom to those who are prisoners to
their sin.
And just as Jesus did, we have access to, and he expects us to bring both the spiritualhealing and the physical healing.

(03:04):
And we do that by faith and by his guidance, and we may not have it all figured out, andwe may not exactly...
um
see the results in the way that we hope or expect, but we are commanded to do it.
And I can tell you one thing, we'll never see it happen if we don't step out in faith andtry.
ah So this is a time when we should be pressing in to see more of God's miracle workingpower in us and through us.

(03:31):
It never stopped being available, ah his healing power, his miracles never stopped beingavailable.
I think that just as a body of believers at some point after the early church,
We stop practicing and knowing how to access it, but I think we're in a time where he willteach us how to tap back into that power for ourselves, for our families, for our friends,

(03:53):
even for our neighbors and for strangers if we desire it and if we seek him for it.
Yeah.
You know, Danielle, as you were reading uh Isaiah, I was just reminded of the fact that,you know, God is love.

(04:14):
God is love.
And the primary mission of Jesus, as foretold in Isaiah, was to bring good news to thecaptives, to lift the brokenhearted.
and to give hope to the poor, the rejected, and the outcast.
That was Jesus' mission.

(04:34):
And if we are not moving in that spirit, and if that is not our motive in all that we do,then, you know, it is absolutely worthless.
You know, as St.
Paul said, you can have everything, you can do everything the right way.

(04:55):
As the Pharisees,
did, at least on the surface.
They did everything the right way from a mechanical religious point of view.
uh And Jesus counted all of that rubbish.
In fact, he was harder on the Pharisees than he was on anybody else.
I mean, he reserved his harshest criticisms for those who in the eyes of the world and inthe eyes of society were absolutely punctilious in their observance of religious ritual.

(05:27):
and religious law, and yet Jesus was deeply offended by that.
And not because they were following the law, but because they had developed a spirit ofpride and egotism and legalism, which is utterly incompatible with the humble love that
Jesus ah came to give us.

(05:49):
So I think the scripture today is such an important reminder.
And I have to remind myself of this all the time.
We always have to be moving in a spirit of love and of compassion, which is the reasonwhy, Danielle, I hate all of the pettiness that sometimes exists in grassroots advocacy

(06:14):
and grassroots politics, because it seems so often that people lose sight of theobjectives uh in order to make sure that
that they these little fiefdoms.
And anybody who invades their fiefdom, no matter what good they may be doing, arerejected, demeaned, undermined, and criticized.

(06:34):
And I really think that that is part of the reason why the Republican Party has notachieved some of the good results that we could have, because precisely because we've
forgotten that we are supposed to be moving in a spirit of love and benevolence andmagnanimity for each other.
and just remember what Jesus said and the reason why he came here.

(06:59):
ah Some of the religious institutions that have been built up, I think really sabotage andinjure and undermine the true message of Jesus much more so than they advance it.
And I think the heart of Christ has been, the real heart of Christ

(07:21):
has been concealed to the world who desperately needs it, precisely because of the barrierof false religion and pride and legalism.
Well said, Chris, absolutely.
And you know, it's been on my mind a lot lately that even on the cross, Jesus was moved incompassion.
He was moved in forgiveness.

(07:43):
He was up there suffering more than we can imagine and full of compassion, full offorgiveness and full of love.
And so even as we approach today and a lot of bills, a lot of good bills that got crushed.
by people.
um You and I have often said this, Chris, we haven't said it that much this sessionthough.

(08:08):
None of this is personal.
This is strictly how people voted.
This um is our observations, right?
This is, in a lot of ways, it's data.
It's just pure data and fact.
And so we wanna be moving and operating and speaking in truth.
And we certainly don't wanna do anything in a way that would feel or be a...

(08:30):
uh
viewed as a personal attack on anyone.
um But we will call them like we see them.
We will call them like we see them.
them like we see them, but our policy, your policy, LCAG's policy, state of freedom policyis that we simply do not engage in personal attacks against any candidate, against any uh

(08:54):
public official under any circumstances.
We can be harsh in our criticism, but that criticism is focused
on actions that they take that directly affect every citizen in the state of Louisiana.
And that is not only fair game, but it's critically important that citizens know how theirrepresentatives are voting.

(09:17):
But you will never hear us attack anybody personally about any of their personal foibles,personal failures, personal mistakes, because we know that we all have
planks in our own eyes and that we have to get the plank out of our own eyes so that wecan see clearly to get the splinter out of our brother's eyes.

(09:40):
And way too many people spend too much time trying to get the splinter out of theirbrother's eye and not enough time trying to get the plank out of their own eyes.
And so that's what I want to try to focus on in all humility moving forward.
But these records, we got to get them out there and I'm...
feel very privileged to be in a position to do so.

(10:02):
Yep.
I agree with you, Chris.
And we have Gail in the chat.
Welcome Gail.
Thanks for joining us this morning.
She says, I'm reminded in John chapter 17, Jesus emphasizes unity as he prayed for us.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Unity is certainly lacking ah when it comes to a lot of these votes.
ah And when it comes to a lot of the way that the quote unquote Republican party inLouisiana is operating.

(10:28):
So why don't we get into it, Chris?
You ready?
Let's rock.
Okay, well today we are in part one, as I said, of what we believe will be a four-partseries recap.
We thought we could squeeze it into two, maybe three, but no.
I think it's gonna have to be four.
um Four episodes.
uh
too much stuff, Danielle.

(10:51):
And we got an obligation to make sure that what we cover, we cover correctly andthoroughly.
yeah.
That's right.
And so we want to be here and give a faithful accounting.
We're going to start the top of the day today with carbon capture and property rights.
We're also going to hit on energy and the environment today.
So hold on to your hats, folks.

(11:11):
There's there's a lot of salt to go around, uh but we'll start out here first with HouseBill four by Representative Chuck Owen.
This was his bill, Chris, that would have simply meant local autonomy.
ah for deciding carbon capture projects.
And that bill was killed in the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee.

(11:34):
And I just want to maybe mention, let me come back to my other notes here.
I have so many notes ah that the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee is an18 person committee in the House side, the House committee with 16 Republicans and two
Democrats.
I want everybody to keep in mind that this is a

(11:54):
a committee of 16 Republicans and two Democrats.
So when you see how many of these really good, really important bills failed, we have onlyRepublicans to blame.
Really.
And we can start out by naming who voted against this.
um As I said, it was killed in the House Natural Resources and Environment.

(12:17):
It was in a six to 10 vote.
um Let's see, Jason DeWitt.
Jessica Domaine, Tim Kerner, Jeremy Lacombe, Jacob Landry, Joe Orgeron, Neil Riser, andZee Zeringue all voted against this bill.
Seven Republicans there, Danielle, voted against a bill to simply allow localjurisdictions and local government to be able to determine for themselves whether or not

(12:46):
their local populace wants carbon capture sequestration in their parishes.
Killed in House Natural Resources Committee, and Danielle, was the, HB 304 was the veryfirst, HB 4 was the very first bill that was
called in the 2025 session before the House Natural Resources Committee.

(13:07):
uh The people there were just overwhelmingly in favor of the legislation.
mean, the hearings went all day long and people from all over Louisiana were there, deeplyconcerned about allowing private companies to come on for economic benefit and uh in their

(13:30):
parishes.
and put all this garbage on their property.
Owen did such a fabulous job explaining the bill, presenting the bill, and you you and I,I remember, were incensed by the Republican votes on this bill in light of the
overwhelming sentiment by the citizens in favor of it.

(13:51):
But yes, those seven Republicans were the reason why that very important bill to givelocal autonomy was crushed.
in the House Natural Resources Committee, never to be revived because as a matter ofpolicy and procedure, committee procedure, you can't bring it back if it is defeated.

(14:13):
Only in a tie vote can a bill be brought back.
So that went down permanently, that very important bill because of Republicans.
And Chris, if there are some people absent who said, hey, I would have really liked tovote on that, it could be resurrected if it could have been a tie if they were present.
Is that right?
Yeah.

(14:33):
there weren't enough of them that would have made a difference uh in a revote because ofall the Republicans uh who voted against it.
And what's so upsetting to me about this bill failing is that it shows that theseRepublicans think that they know better than the people who sent them to Baton Rouge to
represent them.
That's what this vote tells me.

(14:54):
Yes.
And these are Republicans who run on an agenda of local autonomy, who run on an agenda ofbeating back an ever encroaching government, state and federal, returning sovereignty and
power to the people and to local jurisdictions.

(15:14):
That's what they run on, but that's not how they voted.
on this bill on HB4 or on a number of others.
And voters just absolutely have to remember this.
This was a hugely important bill, which is probably why it was the first one called.
And it wasn't even close in the vote.

(15:35):
No, it wasn't close.
And another one that was not close was House Bill 78 by Representative, is this the rightone that I wanted to talk about?
Yeah, House Bill 78, Representative DeWitt Carrier.
This is another local autonomy bill, but it was specific to Allen Parish.
Chris, you mentioned that there were two other similar bills.

(15:57):
They were all heard in House Municipal Parochial and Cultural Affairs.
My least favorite, uh
committee, the committee that I believe is absolutely unconstitutional, um but they wereall killed there.
Yeah, they were killed.
Three bills, uh Chuck Owen, uh Representative Owen, Representative Romero, andRepresentative Carrier.

(16:19):
They brought the bills what's called in globo because they all asked for the same thing.
Once HB 4 was gone, where there was not going to be a uniform uh allowance for all localparishes to make this decision, what they did was said, well, we're going to come back and
we're going to at least request it for our parishes.

(16:40):
And that's what
They did, all three of them were before the House Parochial Committee.
And they made, again, very eloquent arguments under federalism for local authority, letthe people make these decisions.
And largely because of the votes of three Republicans on the House Parochial and MunicipalAffairs Committee, all three of those bills went down.

(17:04):
And those Republicans who voted against them were Beth Billings,
DeWitt Carrier and Barbara Freyberg.
Those three Republicans were responsible for the killing of those bills.
He was responsible for the killing of his own bill.
No, no, I'm sorry, not Kerry or Carver.

(17:25):
I can't read my own writing.
Danielle, they don't call you the eagle eye and the brilliant, brilliant prognosticatorfor no reason.
You're exactly right.
I couldn't read my writing exactly.
It was Billings, Carver and Frieberg.
Billings, Carver and Frieberg Thank you for the explanation.
No legitimate reason for this whatsoever.

(17:48):
No.
And the next bill up, Chris, is another one oh that promotes local control.
House Bill 304 by Representative Robbie Carter.
This is related to civil claims for expropriation.
The venue would have to be local um to the project rather than, you know, wherever thecompany is located or something like that.

(18:13):
This bill made it all the way through, um believe it or not.
And there were 32 Republicans who voted no in the House.
I'll list them um because we want you to be listening for your representative to know ifthey're voting against your interest.
is why we're doing this.
This is to expose.

(18:33):
Yeah.
the names, I want our listeners to understand that all this bill would have done wouldhave required that any actions to seize property for CCS be brought in the parish where
the property is located.
This really doesn't cut to the heart or to the core of CCS.

(18:56):
This is just a venue provision to create as much convenience as possible
for a property owner whose property may be on the verge of being expropriated.
That's what this bill was about.
That's what this bill was about.
And these are the 32 Republicans in the House who voted against it.
They are Tony Boccalaw, Larry Bagley, Dennis Bamberg, Beau Boyer, Stephanie Barrell, BethBillings, Chad Boyer, Josh Carlson, DeWitt Carrier, Kim Carver, Raymond Crews, Paula

(19:30):
Davis, Philip de Villier, that's the speaker who did not have to lodge a vote on this,Jason DeWitt,
Daryl Desatel, Jessica Domingue, Foy Gadbury, Jay Gallay, Brian Glorioso, Troy Abert,Chance Henry, Big John Ilg, Mike Johnson, Dixon McMakin, Joe Angeraw, Neil Riser, Annie

(19:52):
Spell, Polly Thomas, Debbie Villio, Roger Wilder, Jeff Wiley, and Mark Wright.
There were also six Republicans who were absent for this vote.
were Jacob Broad, Julie Emerson, Michael Melloran, Philip Tarver, and John Weibel.
Chris, the one vote in this list that uh is a little surprising to me is Ray Crews.

(20:15):
And I wonder if he maybe corrected his vote later if it was an accident.
He probably, I'm sure Ray Crews did because Ray has been consistently outspoken and alwaysvoted the right way when it comes to these local issues.
And I know that he believes that local government governs best.

(20:35):
There's no question.
So it may be a mistake on his part.
I'm not sure exactly.
Maybe he wasn't exactly clear on what the bill was.
But it's just, I can't emphasize enough that these Republicans voted against a bill
so, so in other words, Danielle, they, they, couldn't even make the slightest concessionto property owners when it comes to this CCS racket, not even a bill that would give them

(21:03):
a concession on venue, making the venue more convenient for them.
That is abominable.
It's reprehensible to me.
Yeah, it is.
It is.
Next up, House Bill 380 by Representative Rodney Schammerhorn.
This was one of several attempts this legislative session to remove eminent domainauthority for CO2 sequestration.

(21:27):
This was killed in the House Natural Resources Committee.
Chris, was this maybe the strongest bill for eminent domain standalone?
the strongest bill with the exception of HB 396 by Representative McCormick, which wouldhave just declared CCS illegal outright across the board.

(21:49):
Probably the shortest bill of the entire session.
But this bill, second to that, was the most important because it would have repealedeminent domain for carbon capture sequestration in Louisiana, and it would have removed
current Louisiana law.
that says that carbon capture sequestration is quote, a public good as declared by thelegislature in 2020.

(22:14):
So this would have gutted CCS, eminent domain for CCS in its entirety and uh HB 380.
Yeah, of course it was killed by that Republican committee.
There were six Republican no votes for that and four absences.
Jessica Domaine, who I have started calling in my own mind, Jessica, eminent domain ah forthis very reason.

(22:37):
Jeremy Lacombe, Jacob Landry, Joe Orgeron Neil Riser and Zee Zeringue
For those of you who are down in the Terrebonne Lafourche area, those names are going tostart sounding very familiar because they voted against almost every single bill that's
related to giving the people power over ah carbon capture, which is just remarkable.

(23:02):
And keep in mind, Danielle, these votes in committee, it is final.
Unless it's a tie vote, if you lose in committee, it is over.
You go no further on it, which is why this was so deeply significant.
This bill was extremely consequential.

(23:23):
And yes, the same Republicans caused it to fail.
Yeah, and I'll list the absences as well.
They were Jacob Broad, DeWitt Carrier, Tim Kerner, and Lauren Ventrella.
Now, what I can say about the absences, they are pretty much the same for almost all ofthem, but we have to remember that most of the carbon capture bills got heard in a single

(23:46):
day.
So there was probably a good chunk of time when these bills were going through thatseveral people uh may have been presenting bills in other committees.
um They may not have been.
Yeah.
Okay.
ah Next up House Bill 396 by Representative Danny McCormick.

(24:06):
And that's the one you just referenced, Chris, the one that would have made carbon dioxidesequestration in Louisiana illegal.
ah That was killed in committee pretty swiftly in a three to eight vote with.
seven Republicans, the same seven Republicans, you're going to hear these names over andover again when it comes to killing good legislation related to carbon capture there,

(24:30):
Jacob Braud Jessica, eminent domain, Jeremy Lacombe, Jacob Landry, Joe Orgeron Neil Riser,and Z Zeringue.
Yes, the very same ones.
And quite frankly, Danielle, carbon capture sequestration should be illegal in Louisiana,not only because of the harm that it causes, but because of the fact that it produces

(24:54):
absolutely nothing of any value to anybody.
And it is subsidized and paid for with our money.
I thought it was a very good bill.
I never really thought...
uh
absent a miracle that that legislation would get through the committee.
But as always, I have great respect and admiration for Representative Danny McCormick forbringing legislation because of the value that we derive from forcing record votes on

(25:23):
important bills.
And that's why this was so important.
yeah, definitely.
uh I believe, Chris, that, let's see, I believe I saw recently, and I'm trying to find itonline, so if I do find it, I'll let you know.
uh But I believe that President Trump came out and proclaimed this past week that carbondioxide is necessary for human and plant life and is not a toxin.

(25:52):
ah So hopefully that's going to go a long way when it comes to the impact of laws, thetrickle down effect of laws for all of this.
Yes, leave it to President Trump to reveal the obvious to those who are either negligentlyor willfully blind.
Yeah.
All right.
ah Maybe also worth mentioning on this one, Chris.

(26:12):
Now this just to since we kind of took a little veer off, this was the bill that wouldhave declared carbon dioxide sequestration as illegal in Louisiana.
did fail.
Representative Brett Gaiman, who's the chair of the committee, did not vote for that,which I can understand.
One, he didn't have to lodge a vote because he's the chair of the committee and it wasn'ta close vote.

(26:36):
And secondly,
This would have put him in a tough position for some carrying some of his otherlegislation, particularly since he has worked so closely with industry to try and find
some middle ground here.
and it could have served as a real disadvantage to him going forward on his bills.

(26:56):
And again, Danielle, this wouldn't have made a difference.
And it's customary for chairman of committees not to cast a vote unless it's the decidingvote.
So this was not unusual at all.
No, there were five absences for this.
were uh Kim Coats, Tim Körner, Shane Mack and Lauren Ventrilla.

(27:18):
I would imagine that most of them were otherwise entangled with uh bringing legislation.
um again.
think you're right as attested to by the fact that when they were present and even lateron the floor, they generally voted the right way on carbon capture sequestration.
So I'm sure that they were out in probably handling other legislation and othercommittees.

(27:42):
Yeah.
All right.
Next is House Bill 522 by Representative Danny McCormick.
This was his bill that came after his attempt to ban it.
He attempted to put a moratorium on carbon dioxide sequestration, but that failed incommittee.
Yeah, failed in committee and Neil Riser, who of course voted against it, you know, hisbig objection was, but this is this is going to stop the projects.

(28:11):
This is going to stop the projects that are already ongoing.
I'm like, Representative Riser, that's the whole purpose of this.
We're trying to drop it.
And the reason why you wanted to do it for a year, Danny, is so that we could continue sowe could study the effects of carbon capture sequestration.
Yeah.
the positive effects, the negative effects, the potential harms.

(28:33):
And you know why that was so important?
Because none of that was done in 2020 in the legislature when carbon capture sequestrationwas declared a public good as a matter of public policy.
Zero debate, zero debate.
Most of the people who are sitting up on these committees, Danielle, they don't have aclue what carbon capture sequestration really is, and they really don't care.

(28:58):
the people who were opposing this legislation, what kind of an effect it has on thepeople, on the environment, on the safety and the welfare of the community.
That's not their concern.
Their concern is the money, unfortunately.
That's true.
Yeah, that's absolutely true.
Okay, next up was House Bill 537 by Representative Rodney Schammerhorn.

(29:21):
And this uh would have authorized liens for victims of potential CO2 related pipelinedisasters.
That failed.
Yeah.
And think about this, Danielle, I put this right on the same level with HB 304, which wetalked about that one yet on the show.

(29:41):
Yeah, I can't remember.
Robbie Carter's bill.
Yeah, we did.
We just did.
Yeah.
I put this bill on the same level as 304.
So you go in, you do your carbon capture sequestration, you have a pipeline rupture orsome other major disaster that injures people, that damages property.
in very significant ways, this bill would have just set up a statutory lien with funds init reserved for people who may be injured by a carbon capture sequestration problem that

(30:14):
occurs.
And the House Natural Resources Committee, these Republicans couldn't bring themselves tovote even for that bill.
Yeah, so let me, why don't I list them.
I'll name them again.
They're gonna sound very familiar to you all by now.
Jason DeWitt, Jessica Domangue Jeremy Lacombe, Jacob Landry, Joe Orgeron, Neil Riser, andZee Zeringue.

(30:42):
Unbelievable, yeah.
it truly is unbelievable.
And as far as I'm concerned, Danielle, we can't mention these names enough.
Obviously, we're going to be fair.
And we're going to mention uh some marginal redemption on the part of some of these on alater bill we'll talk about.
But the fact of the matter is, doesn't change the fact that they killed these items oflegislation that we're talking about right now.

(31:06):
Yep.
And Representative Rodney Schammerhorn brought another bill that was trying to deal withthe eminent domain issue from another angle.
That was his House Bill 553.
And that one got voted down as well, Chris.
Yeah, this was eminent domain strictly for carbon capture sequestration pipelines.
And yes, that was voted down as well by the same Republican.

(31:30):
The same exact Republicans, Jason DeWitt, Jessica Imminent Domain, Travis Johnson, JeremyLacombe, Jacob Landry, Joe Orgeron, Neil Riser, and Z Zeringue.
And Danielle, it's important to understand what we're talking about here.
This vote is not just a vote on carbon capture sequestration.

(31:55):
What they are saying in these votes with regard to the broader principle of core privateproperty rights versus uh industry that is being absolutely, uh let's see, uh so...
in our money and they see the money, they see the billions of dollars, they see how muchthey can make and how much they can enrich themselves.

(32:22):
And so they chose the money, the profit, the industry over core constitutional rights ofthe citizens.
And that is what is so fundamentally offensive about these votes to me.
We're not just talking about a vote on whether or not
You know, you're going to name a school after somebody or even whether or not you're goingto raise or lower taxes.

(32:45):
This issue goes to the fundamental heart, the lungs of our constitutional structure andsystem.
Our founding fathers viewed private property rights as the core foundation of our system.
And these Republicans moved and acted directly against an assertion of that principle.

(33:07):
That's why these votes matter so much.
That's right.
And it's not just that the state can operate and take away your private property forsomething that is quote unquote a public good.
Now they have made it so that private entities, Chevron, BP, whoever is running thesepipeline projects can take away your property for something that is not a public good,

(33:32):
something that we, people do not believe to be a public good.
At least the science is not settled on this if we want to put it in the mildest of termsof that being a public good.
So yeah, I think that pretty much.
So it's worth mentioning because the issue was so important, you're exactly right.

(33:56):
They're not even trying to pursue eminent domain for carbon capture sequestration based onany legitimate argument that it's a public good under the Constitution, which eminent
domain is allowed if something is genuinely a public good.
They're not even arguing that anymore.
This is purely for private economic gain.

(34:17):
purely for economic profit by private companies.
A gross abuse of eminent domain, for sure.
And yet, once again, they glossed over that and went forward and killed these bills.
Yeah.
And I don't know that any of these people are, you know, what I would view to be rabidenvironmentalists who really believe in the carbon capture debate.

(34:44):
You know, if they believe that carbon capture, know, carbon dioxide is killing us all, umwhich we know it's not.
um But I do believe that some of them do have financial stakes in this industry, havesomething to gain.
I do believe that some of them are in a position where industry has leaned very heavily onthem because industry is present in that particular district.

(35:11):
And I do believe that people who have an indirect, that they have an indirect interest init, right?
So some of their donors may also have a direct ah advantage should this bill, uh you know,should eminent domain continue for carbon capture.
Yeah.
So oil and gas, the oil and gas industry want the carbon capture sequestration becausethey see a big pile of money and they're more than willing to build something on other

(35:43):
people's property against their will in order to that we don't need and that is probablyharmful in order to make a bunch of money.
I was down there, Danielle, every day and I never heard one argument.
from the proponents of carbon capture sequestration that this is necessary for the publichealth, that this is a public good, that this is important and we need this for critical

(36:12):
infrastructure or because it will enhance the health.
Not one.
All they talked about was all the money and the jobs that are going to be created ah andthat sort of thing.
So nobody even argues anymore.
that carbon capture sequestration is a public good.
It's not every single reason that used to exist that they would proffer and put forward infavor of carbon capture sequestration has been exploded.

(36:39):
Those myths have been exploded and now it is all about the money.
And if you just go down there and listen to some of these hearings in there, that's whatit was about.
All about the money and all about the jobs is it's going to create.
ah Well, with, with our money.
So it's not really an organic economic boom.

(36:59):
It is something that is being funded with our money.
Yeah.
Let me build something with your money that you don't want and don't need.
And while we're at it, steal your property to do it.
That's, that's yeah.
What I would love to see maybe representative McCormick or representative Guyman bringnext year is a bill that would promote the um planting of trees, like a big tree planting

(37:27):
instead of.
carbon capture.
if we're all so concerned about all this carbon dioxide floating around out there forfree, um maybe we can do what was so talked about in the 90s.
We had a lot of tree planting campaigns in the 90s.
We haven't had a good tree planting campaign in a long time, Chris.

(37:47):
We have not, and I'll remind you before we go on here, Danielle, that, ah you know, let'sjust assume that carbon capture sequestration does achieve the results that they want, at
least the immediate results, which is to capture the carbon dioxide from the sky, bury itin the ground, and let's just say hypothetically that that results in a measurable

(38:08):
reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
moves as Joe Biden would say, moves us to net zero by 2050 or 2030, whatever.
Let's just assume that's the case.
As I've said before, 0.004 % of the atmosphere is made up of carbon dioxide.

(38:29):
If that gets down to 0.03, 0.02, it starts having a drastic effect on animal habitat, onour plants.
that start to die, it will, and maybe, Danielle, maybe the big globalists who really arepushing this, maybe that's their objective.

(38:52):
Maybe their ultimate objective is to depopulate the earth.
But if you remove all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere that we need and that plantsneed, that's exactly what you're gonna do.
You're gonna extinguish a lot of people from the earth.
Well, that's probably part of the plan.
I'm not saying it's part of the plan from our legislature, but it is part of the plan fromthe globalist I do.

(39:19):
Okay.
Next up, House Bill 585 by Representative Danny McCormick.
Chris, this was so disgusting.
All his bill was going to do was require advance notice to owners, to property owners,surface and mineral rights owners.
before carbon sequestration happens on their property.

(39:42):
You just gotta, come on.
we want to come show up at your property.
We want to tell you what we're going to do here.
And we don't even have to really give you any notice that we're coming.
This bill would have said...
bring the drill.
Just bring the backhoe.
Bring the drill, bring the equipment and let's get rolling.
This bill would have simply said, you got to give advanced notice, sufficient advancednotice to property owners of what your intentions are, what your plans are, what the

(40:11):
specific layout is, what portion of the property you intend to use to do this project.
Again, a bill that you would expect even Republicans who favor carbon capturesequestration to vote for, but no.
18, Danielle, if I'm not mistaken, 18 Republicans in the House voted no on this.

(40:35):
Yeah, I have them here.
They are Stephanie Barrault, Beth Billings, Chad Boyer, Paula Davis, Speaker de Villiers,who I just, you know, I like to remind everyone he did not have to cast a vote.
Jessica Domingue, Barbara Freiberg, Brian Glorioso, Stephanie Hilferty, Big John Ilg,Dixon McMaken, Joe Angeral, Laurie Schlegel, Annie Spell.

(41:02):
Vinnie St.
LeBlanc, Polly Thomas, Debbie Villio, and Zee Zerane.
And keep in mind, Dixon McMakin is my rep here and very, very disappointed in him.
Not just on this.
I know we're on this topic today, but on a number of other things he's done as well.
Yeah, I'm sure that'll continue to come up.

(41:26):
And um there's a couple more bills left on carbon capture, but we're getting toward theend.
The next one is House Bill 601.
If y'all followed us closely this session, um you'll know we talked about this bill a lotbecause it was languishing for a while.
This was Representative Brett Gaiman's kind of his masterpiece.

(41:48):
if you will, for the uh session.
It would have tackled a lot of the issues related to CO2 sequestration.
Chris, would you remind us what it would have done?
Absolutely.
And this is the bill that uh I will look back on this session and have just tremendousgratitude and gratification for all of the work that was done to revive HB 601.

(42:17):
Representative Guymon's bill simply would have repealed eminent domain for carbon capturesequestration pipelines across the board.
You can't use eminent domain for CCS pipelines, period.
That was his bill.
uh And like these other bills that we've talked about, the first time it went before theHouse Natural Resources Committee, it lost in a very significant vote.

(42:44):
I it was 11 to 5, 11 to 6, whatever it was, because of the votes of all the Republicansthat we've been mentioning.
When that happened, we raised
Holy hell at that point about this bill, we were raising holy hell, Danielle, about allthe other ones too.

(43:06):
But the reason why none of those bills could be called back before the committee, becauseit wasn't a tie vote.
They lost substantially.
by procedural rules, you couldn't bring those bills back.
We were raising hell about all of them.
And these rhinos sitting there getting pummeled.
by their constituents and by citizens across Louisiana said, we gotta do something, wegotta do something.

(43:31):
HB 601 was a 7-7 tie.
So we can bring that one back before the committee.
And sure enough, it went back before the committee after that 7-7 tie, which wastechnically a loss, went back and passed, I believe, a pass substantially.
with several of the Republicans who voted against it originally, switching their votesvery quickly, by the way, with no criticism of Representative Gaiman or the bill.

(44:03):
couldn't do it more.
They couldn't do it quickly enough.
The Rhino Republicans who came back and switched their votes to get HB 601 out of thecommittee on the second try.
Yeah, and they were Tim Kerner, DeWitt Carrier, Jeremy Lacombe, and Jacob Landry.
And then uh this bill went to the House floor and languished there and died there.

(44:26):
It languished there and died there, but I think that was in part because of RepresentativeGaiman's tactical maneuver.
He realized, and this is despicable in and of itself, realized that even though itprobably would be a close vote, he probably would not have the votes on the House floor to

(44:50):
pass it.
So while encouraging us
and other advocacy groups to continue to hammer uh their representatives on this vote,distract them, vote, vote on 601.
In the meantime, Representative Guymon was doing sort of a uh circular maneuver.

(45:12):
He went over to SB 244, Hensgen's bill, when it came over to the House, and he inserted anumber of the
provisions that were in 601 into SB 244 and very brilliantly got that bill through HouseNatural Resources Committee with amendments and got it back and got it up onto the House

(45:40):
floor where it was voted.
So he basically said, we don't have the votes to get 601.
It's not going to happen, but we're still pushing on it from our perspective.
So the representatives don't really know.
They just think, what are we going to do about this?
Meanwhile, Gaiman is going around on the backside doing an in run and sticking theseprovisions in another bill, gets us out of House Natural Resources Committee onto the

(46:02):
House floor.
And we just put pressure.
We had a microscope, Danielle, on the votes on the House floor on SB 244, which ultimatelypassed uh with a number of the provisions of 601.
if you want me to talk about those, we can, or if you want to...
talk about the votes and then we can talk about what SB 244 as amended.

(46:26):
Yeah, maybe I'll just mention Chris that the governor uh testified in committee on this inthe House side because he was supportive of a different aspect of this bill.
This is a massive bill, by the way.
It was not uh short in any order.
I think it was maybe close to a 200 page bill, if I'm not mistaken.
ah And so it really helps that the governor was supportive of some aspects of this billand championing it.

(46:54):
be ending it because uh some people who would not have ordinarily voted for it did votefor it.
ah So he had rallied the vote in there.
I will mention just briefly that Joe Orgeron and Zeezer Rang are the only two who votedagainst it in committee.
So that bears mention.

(47:15):
and Zirang have been utterly and absolutely consistent in their opposition to anyrestrictions on carbon capture sequestration development in Louisiana.
I believe that a big part of the reason why Governor Landry was down there on 244 wasbecause he has received and continues to receive a tremendous amount of criticism from the

(47:38):
grassroots for being completely mute.
this session on the issue of carbon capture sequestration.
He hasn't said a word.
And I've been very critical of him because I don't believe that's the way leaders operate.
When you have issues of this profound consequence, you can't afford to remain neutral inmatters of profound urgency like this.

(48:03):
So he was massively criticized for it.
And I think that he was trying to salvage
some degree of credibility as well by coming in and saying, I support SB 244.
uh And so there it is.
then it passes out and then goes onto the House floor.
Now, Danielle, when it got to the House floor as amended, uh and by the way, theamendments basically said it gutted the law as it existed in Louisiana saying that carbon

(48:32):
capture sequestration is a public good in Louisiana as a matter of public policy.
That is a huge deal.
and really cripples eminent domain for carbon capture sequestration.
And secondly, Gaiman put in there that in order to do CCS, you have to prove that you'rewhat's called a common carrier, which means you're transporting a public commodity for the

(48:54):
public good.
Well, I'm sorry, when you're capturing CCS in the air and burying it into the ground, thatis not a public commodity that the public can use and benefit from.
So they're going to have a really hard time.
And for both of the reasons that I just said, getting CCS off the ground in Louisiana,Brett Gaiman was absolutely brilliant here.

(49:15):
I do think it's worth noting the Republicans in the House who voted against SB 244 asamended.
Yep.
And I have them here.
Their names are going to sound very, very familiar by now.
Jacob Broad, Vincent Cox, Paula Davis, Jessica Domingue, Barbara Frieberg, Joe Orgeron,and Zee Zeringue.

(49:39):
And I will mention uh Jessica Domingue is my representative.
She voted for it in the committee, but when the, I guess when the governor wasn't there tosee her vote, perhaps, I'm not sure.
She did vote against it on the floor.
So, do you think that she had uh an uh evolving philosophical view on this?

(50:04):
Or do you think that was based purely on politics?
I would imagine it was purely on politics.
Well, based on the track record, would say it had to be politics.
Yet she couldn't bear to honor her deep and completely misguided convictions when she wassitting right in front of the governor.
But when he wasn't there on the House floor, she returned to her original viewpoint.
Perhaps, perhaps, that's what it means.

(50:26):
And then we were really nervous when it went over to the Senate for concurrence, Chris,because we weren't sure if they were going to try and take out Representative Gaiman's
amendments that he worked so hard to get in.
However, they did.
They voted unanimously to concur with the House bill.
And the only notable absence was uh Senator, who I'm now calling comrade Greg Miller.

(50:55):
Well, actually, was he absent or did he vote no?
I thought he was absent, but I can double check.
to take a minute to look at that because I thought you voted no and I may be wrong.
Let me see real quick here.

(51:16):
Yeah, the motion to concur was 34 to nothing.
He was absent, Chris.
He was the only Republican who was absent.
There were several Democrats who were absent.
Okay, so Miller didn't show up for it.
Okay, all right.
Miller wasn't there, uh but it passed unanimously other than him uh on the Senateconcurred.
And by the way, Daniel, we had hundreds and hundreds of emails and calls.

(51:41):
That was one of the most important bills that we were focused on obsessively over the lastfew days of the session, because we knew that if they gutted those amendments,
then literally there's no restrictions on carbon capture sequestration in Louisiana.
Hugely important.
was literally the difference between private property owners having significantprotections against CCS development and having none.

(52:07):
And that's why it was so important.
we, they knew that we were on it and that we were going to be absolutely documented everysingle thing they did on the Senate floor.
So they, so they left it alone.
They left it alone.
Very good.
That rounds us up.
Yeah.
no, but I want to tell you, forgot it just popped into my head.

(52:29):
SB 36, SB 36 by Hinsguns was also something that Representative Gaiman worked behind thescenes on very much.
And that passed, if I'm not mistaken.
uh And you can check while I'm talking about it.
But that bill requires what's called substantial consideration for

(52:53):
local governments in determining whether or not CCS permits will be issued.
So there will be a statutory requirement that local governments be given substantialconsideration on the opinions that they express about whether or not they want CCS.
So that's another very significant development.

(53:15):
Did that pass all the way through?
It did, it's been enrolled, but neither uh the governor hasn't signed either of the lasttwo we've talked about, so not SB 244 by Henskins or SB 36.
Those are the two most important CCS bills that remain.
If those two bills are signed by the governor and go into law, it makes, like I said, asubstantial difference with regard to property rights against CCS.

(53:42):
So I am extremely eager to see what Governor Landrie does with these bills.
Yeah, and it's probably worth noting as well, Chris, that House Bill 304 by RepresentativeRobbie Carter, the claims venue bill related to expropriation for carbon capture has been
signed by the governor and goes into effect on August 1st.
Excellent.
And we've already talked about the Republicans who voted against that.

(54:05):
Yeah.
All right.
Well, let's switch gears a little bit and move on to the energy debate.
There was a great bill brought by Representative Jacob Landry this session, House Bill692.
This bill promotes domestic oil production as well as gas and the strengthening andresilience of our energy grid.

(54:30):
And I believe Colonel Tommy Waller from the Center for Security Policy, who is probablyone of the foremost experts in the country on this topic, uh went to the legislature and
testified on behalf of this bill.
Yeah, I had the pleasure of seeing him again.
I had met Colonel Waller before.
He's a proud U.S.
Marine and very few people know more about grid security than Tommy Waller.

(54:55):
I don't know if there's anybody in the country who knows more about it.
So he testified in favor of it and the bill passed through, fortunately, and the bill,basically, it requires Louisiana to focus on domestic oil production so that we can be
independent of
foreign oil and it requires us to take steps to increase the vulnerabilities of our grid.

(55:20):
J.C.
Harmon is very high on this bill.
I have enormous respect for J.C.
Harmon.
And of course, if Tommy Waller is testifying in favor of something, I would go in thereblindfolded and support it.
That's the kind of respect that I have for him.
Yeah.
So ah we are, we, I'm eager to see what in the world happens to increase the resilience ofour grid, Chris.

(55:43):
um I guess that's a, that's going to be a job for probably the legislature can give someguidance and then the public service commission probably has some work to do as well as
the, the energy companies themselves.
Oh, no question about it.
But Jacob Landry, for this bill alone, you know, Danielle, we have a graphic series,Profiles and Courage, and Jacob Landry, despite his poor votes on the carbon capture

(56:09):
sequestration, which people have every right to know about, he did come back and redeemhimself on a couple of votes after that, as we've talked about on CCS.
But just because of this bill, ah which is so important, we did include him in our graphicseries.
And so we applaud Representative Landry for understanding the importance of this.

(56:29):
And yeah.
Okay, great.
um Let me see.
Okay, the next bill in the energy space is House Bill 615.
It was also brought by Representative Brett Gaiman, who carried a lot of good bills thissession.
As I know, you can kind of get the sense that he has been active in this space.

(56:50):
He was uh trying to give some regulatory guidelines for solar facilities in the state.
the least of which would not the least of which would include uh local determination onthe parameters of solar facilities in the parish or the municipality.
It made it out of the committee 12 to nothing, but it failed on the House floor.

(57:13):
And we can talk about that vote after Chris, but maybe you can give us a little more colorabout this solar bill.
Yeah, HB 615.
It wasn't saying that you can't do solar generation facilities.
It was simply stating that local jurisdictions have a right to establish the parametersand the regulatory structure of this development to ensure that people's private property

(57:37):
is not trespassed or infringed upon.
uh so, again, it was a local autonomy, local authority bill.
I know how you feel about all this solar generation development, Danielle, but evenassuming for a second that it is something that would be efficacious and that would

(57:57):
actually provide an appreciable source of energy.
Let's just assume that for a second.
The bill simply would said you can do it, but local authorities will establish theparameters, the permitting, and the regulatory structure of this development.
Once again, Republicans,
The historical principles of our party is local authority to the maximum degree possible.

(58:22):
This bill, and this is one that will stick in my craw until 50 years from now, maybe I'llforget it, that this failed on the House floor in a 53 to 46 vote because of Republicans.
Yeah, you know, these are not, this was not a vote for freedom, right?

(58:43):
Because you think about it, rhinos love regulating things.
They really do.
You know, but this, they love regulating until it comes to some industry that has a verystrong lobby that really pushes hard on them.
And then suddenly they're a lot less interested in providing parameters for how companiesshould operate.

(59:05):
And that's, to me, that's gross.
Within the context of this bill, Danielle, right here, it makes me want to come up with anew acronym for Rhino.
Regulation is never over.
um Yeah, well, except, okay.
Well, the 26 Republicans who voted against this are Tony Bacala, Larry Bagley, DennisBamberg, Stephanie Barral, Beth Billings, Rhonda Butler, Kim Carver, Paula Davis, Daryl

(59:37):
Desatel, Michael Eccles, Barbara Frieberg, Foy Gadbury, Brian Glorioso, Troy Abert, BigJohn Ilg, Mike Johnson,
Jack McFarland, Dixie McMakin, Joe Andron, Annie Spell, Vincent St.
Blanc, Joe Stagney, Polly Thomas, Chris Turner, Debbie Villio, and Jeff Wiley.

(01:00:00):
So there you have it folks.
Meloran was absent, right?
Yeah, Michael, that's okay.
Michael Meloran was absent for the bill.
Did you say that Jessica Domaine voted against or for this?
She's not in the against list, Chris.
Well, then we have to give marginal credit to uh eminent domain for voting in favor ofthis bill uh to give local authorities the power to regulate and permitting process for uh

(01:00:34):
solar generation facilities.
she deserve give credit where credit's due.
It's not due very often.
So on those rare occasions when it's due, we have to give it if in fact we're right.
did, I looked it up.
She did vote for it.
So, uh.
might be the last time for another year or two, but we will give credit when credit's due.

(01:00:55):
That's right.
Okay.
Now, Chris, we can move on to um some bills that affect the environment.
The first one is House Bill 608 by Representative Kim Coats.
The second one is Senate Bill 46 by uh Senator Mike Facey.
My Senator, both of these bills would have addressed the issue of geoengineering andweather modification.

(01:01:21):
Kim Coats um had a heck of a lot more.
difficult time than Senator Fesi's.
I believe, Chris, you would describe this as having significantly more teeth ah when itcame to penalties for failure to adhere to this law.

(01:01:42):
uh I think so, even though Senator Fesi's bill does have significant civil penaltiesassociated with it.
These would have been more onerous, the penalties in 608.
But the real reason why this bill, Coach's bill, fails so badly on the floor was becausethe lobby, Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, came out with a floor note

(01:02:08):
against it.
The problem is the floor note
that stated their objections were removed from the bill before it was voted on in finalform, and yet lobby still opposed it.
And so these cowering Republicans who still just absolutely cower under the weight andinfluence of lobby in the legislature couldn't bring themselves to vote for a good bill.

(01:02:34):
It's important to understand, Danielle, that in its final form, all HB 608 did...
was ban this geoengineering, these chemtrails, which are absolutely toxic when it is beingused to modify the weather, to control the climate, to block the sun and that sort of

(01:02:56):
thing.
Think about the total and complete lunacy of that.
And we have tons of Republicans in the legislature who could not bring themselves to votefor a bill, to ban
an activity being committed by people whose identity we don't even know, but clearly aredoing it all over the state of ban that when specifically when it's being used to

(01:03:26):
artificially try to change our weather and block the sunshine.
That to me is about as reprehensible as you get.
It is, and I will maybe just talk about LABI's disingenuous position on this as being verysimilar to the banker's disingenuous uh position on the gold and silver as a legal

(01:03:52):
currency or as a recognized currency in the state of Louisiana.
we, Chris, if we are opposing a bill or supporting a bill, we say why, we say why we'revery truthful.
about why we oppose the bill, very straightforward about it, very straightforward aboutwhy we support a bill.
But what I get from LABI and what I got from the Bankers Association this session is theywill tell you that they're opposed to it for a particular reason.

(01:04:19):
And then if you try and clean up the bill so that you can appease the lobby, ah they stillcontinue to oppose the bill, which shows us that they're
Their position was disingenuous to start with that there is some underlying uh oppositionto this that they're not willing to tell you what it is.
Yeah, and Danielle, did we not come to the realization in our own research that certaincompanies that are members of the board of directors of lobby actually manufacture these

(01:04:52):
toxins that are used in chemtrails and geoengineering?
I believe
certainly are chemical producers, whether it's the toxins that are in chemtrails, I don'tthink we're in a position to say, but we can say that there are significant chemical
manufacturers on the board of lobby.
Okay.
And all the bill would have said was, you can't do it.

(01:05:14):
You can't use it for this specific purpose because of the harm that comes to thecommunity.
And yet still lobby was like, well, but this is going to affect industry, business,manufacturers, that sort of thing.
I'm absolutely appalled that lobby would take this position and put business and profitsover the health and welfare.

(01:05:39):
of Louisiana citizens.
That's what disturbs me about this.
including themselves, right?
I mean, this is, they're maybe acting in their own self-interest when it comes tofinancial gain, but not when it comes to health.
Well, exactly right.
So even willing to potentially, not potentially, undermine their own health and the healthof their own children in order to continue to make money, continue to produce things for

(01:06:09):
this purpose, uh it's unbelievable.
So yeah, the bill went down overwhelmingly on the House floor.
Yeah, it failed 21 to 72.
And maybe we'll just mention for a change those who stood against the lobby, those whovoted in favor of the bill, who voted in favor of protecting ourselves uh from these

(01:06:31):
chemicals being released in our atmosphere, who voted against chemtrails.
And they are Beryl Omidy, Marcus Bryant, who's a Democrat, Rhonda Butler, Robbie Carter,another Democrat, Kim Coats, Landry.
Jason DeWitt, Kelly Dickerson, Kathy Edmonston, Peter Egan, Gabe Firmant, Jay Galle, BrettGuymon, Dodie Horton, Jacob Landry, Shane Mack, Danny McCormick, Chuck Owen, Neil Riser,

(01:06:59):
Rodney Schammerhorn, Philip Tarver, and Lauren Ventrella.
Yeah.
Even these people, a number of whom consistently oppose the good CCS legislation, eventhose Republicans understand how significant this is that we stop these toxic chemicals

(01:07:22):
from being dumped out of the back of planes, falling in our soil, on our kids, in ourfood, harming us.
Even they understood that.
Yeah.
You know, but a whole bunch of Republicans apparently didn't because of pressure frombusiness and industry.
I'm all, Danielle, by the way, you and I are all for business and industry.

(01:07:44):
I want everybody to have a good business and to be very successful.
That's what our country was built upon.
But there are certain fundamental values to which business and profit must take a backseat.
And this is one of them.
Yeah, and I was talking to a listener a week or two ago, Chris, and I won't name namesbecause I'm not sure that he wants me to name names, but he was talking about the fact

(01:08:11):
that at the end of session, Lobby, for anyone who votes a perfect record with Lobby, theygive out a bat to show that they batted 100 when it came to Lobby's priorities.
And he makes the point that
If anyone is voting a hundred percent with any lobby, lobby, the bankers, the oil and gasindustry, they're not voting with their citizens.

(01:08:38):
They're voting with industry.
And so I don't know that anybody should take great pride in getting a hundred percentscore from any lobbying institution, m any big corporate uh backed organization.
because that's not going to be the position that your citizens are taking, yourconstituents are taking.

(01:08:59):
Exactly.
And Danielle, you're so right.
100 % voting in line with a particular special interest group, to me, that translates intoreflexive blind homage.
That doesn't translate into any kind of real reflection, real deliberation, and realconsideration for what may be in the best interest.

(01:09:23):
You're telling me that everything that lobby ever supports and ever opposes
is in the best interest of the fundamental health, welfare, liberty, and freedom ofLouisiana citizens?
I don't think so.
That tells me that these Republicans are afraid of lobby, and it tells me for that reason,they don't want to do anything that opposes them.

(01:09:45):
And that's not what they were sent there to do.
That's right.
Well, either they're afraid of them or if they've outsourced their brain to them.
Well, maybe their brains are sitting in a small jar of Planner's peanuts in perhaps one ofthe houses of some of the board members of lobby under lock and key.

(01:10:12):
I'm not sure.
And I think after a certain period of time, once these Republicans vote long enough andconsistently enough with lobby,
then I think that they get their brain back, but only on a probationary basis.
Well, you know, Chris, what would be an interesting study for us and uh in the time afterthe session is to see how people, what the representative scores were for some of the

(01:10:42):
different special interests versus what their scores were with us and see what the Deltais.
I think that'll be an interesting one.
the Delta is.
And I guarantee you, I could name a few right now.
I'm not going to do it.
Whose uh grade when it comes to voting with Louisiana citizens would be much higher.
Chuck Owen, by the way, Danielle, he stood up on the House floor on one of these bills andabsolutely blistered lobby and talked about what they've become based upon what they used

(01:11:16):
to be.
We'll find that clip one day because I think it's important for citizens to begin tounderstand that lobby really is not the organization ah that it used to be.
Yeah.
Well, it represents the industry um kind of at a federal level in a way.
It's like a smaller version of the U.S.

(01:11:39):
Chamber of Commerce instead of the Louisiana business lobby.
You know, um I don't think it's necessarily operating any longer in the best interests ofLouisiana business even.
And by the way, Danielle, just uh backing up a couple of years, just while we're on lobby,uh lobby has involved itself going back several years on the vaccine issue, on the COVID

(01:12:03):
vaccine issue.
I've seen lobby representatives down there testifying on vaccine bills and whether or notan employer can mandate an experimental COVID vaccine on their employees.
Mandate it.
And there was a bill to prohibit that and end that and lobby opposed that legislation.

(01:12:25):
That clearly is not in the best interest of Louisiana citizens, you know, and
the, and not even Louisiana employers.
and not even Louisiana employers, many of whom did not want to mandate that.
Yeah.
All right, Chris, the last bill and we've talked, we've touched on it a little bit, butjust to get into the finer points of it, Senator Fesi's bill, um which did ultimately pass

(01:12:52):
and it was, it was his kind of companion bill in the Senate, if you will, torepresentative Kim Coats bill that banned, would ban.
geoengineering and weather modification.
course, like we just said, uh Representative Coats' bill did not pass because of lobby,but uh Senator Fesi's bill made it all the way through.

(01:13:13):
And we did a big push there at the end to make sure that Governor Landry would sign it.
And he has.
Well, God bless Governor Landry for signing the legislation.
I'm not sure that he really deserves, you know, an undue amount of adulation orrecognition because it is something that he absolutely should have done.

(01:13:37):
There's no question about it, but he did.
And that needs to be recognized.
But Danielle, 12 Republicans on the House floor voted against SB 46.
Yeah.
And, uh, and you know, in the Senate, the vote was on party lines, but our, our, ourfriend, Senator Comrade Greg Miller joined the Democrats and opposing the bill.

(01:14:03):
Um, the house committee, uh, we didn't mention, but it didn't have any problems gettingout of the house committee.
think it was unanimous or near unanimous.
And then as you said, on the house floor, it was 58 to 33.
There were 14 people absent.
So something was either going on or people did not want to be on the record for this.
But 12 Republicans voted against it.

(01:14:24):
These names are going to sound awfully familiar.
Beth Billings, DeWitt Carrier, Paula Davis, Daryl Destetel, Brian Fontenot, BarbaraFreiberg, Troy Abert, Stephanie Hilferty, Jeremy Lacombe, Dixon McMakin, Vinnie St.
Blanc, and Joe Stagney.
Chris, do you want me to mention the ones who were absent?

(01:14:45):
Yeah, but did you say Vincent Cox voted against it?
Mmm.
What did you vote for it?
I didn't say Vincent Cox, no I said Vincent St.
Blanc.
Okay, all right.
So Cox voted for it.
Okay, I just wanted to make sure on that.
Yeah.
No, he, well, he's absent.
He was absent for the vote.
he was absent.
So about Cox here, this is just parenthetical.

(01:15:08):
Cox has either voted against uh very, very important legislation, going back to the goldand silver bill in committee.
uh He has voted against, consistently either voted against good legislation for badlegislation or simply been absent.

(01:15:30):
So Vincent Cox has consistently come up on my radar screen as someone who is, to say theleast, not a reliable Republican.
And I think that's important for listeners to understand.
Yeah, it is important for listeners to understand.
maybe another notable mention here is that Joe Orgeron was absent for this.

(01:15:52):
Well, I believe Senator Facy is his senator.
I could be wrong on that, but I believe it's true.
And so I think he would have taken a little walk so that he didn't have to vote againstSenator Fesi's legislation.
Absolutely.
And as you mentioned a minute ago, Danielle, this is the one I was confused about a minuteago.

(01:16:12):
Senator Miller, Comrade Miller, uh voted, was the only senator to vote no on this on theSenate floor.
Is that right?
Miller voted no.
The same Republican, well, we'll get into it on another show because I don't want to gooff on a rant.
But we have a lot to say about Republican Greg Miller and our comprehensive session onproperty rights and infrastructure security and speech rights.

(01:16:43):
No, yeah, we have a lot to talk to him, talk about him ah with regard to the Secretary ofState's office, elections and yeah, a whole lot.
All right.
And free speech, that's right.
Well, that rounds us out for the day, Chris.
um That's the end of episode one recap of the session.

(01:17:10):
Um, we, think some names are starting to emerge of people who are not voting with thecitizens.
We'll see if those names, uh, continue the thread as we touch on other issues outside ofcarbon capture energy in the environment.
But I believe a number of those names are going to continue to sound familiar, continue tovote against the will of their constituents.

(01:17:32):
Absolutely.
Go back and listen over a cup of coffee or over a beer to this podcast uh and just makesure that you know how your Republicans are voting.
You know, one of our founding fathers, Danielle, said that that our constitutionalrepublic is designed to serve an informed electorate, an informed electorate.

(01:17:59):
It can't serve an electorate that is not informed about what their representatives andtheir legislators are doing on issues that directly affect them.
That is why being familiar with these names of these Republicans, particularly the oneswho opposed good legislation, helped kill good legislation, promoted bad legislation,

(01:18:21):
these names must be known almost like you know your own name.
so that we can make sure that we move them out and replace them with good constitutionalconservatives.
That's what we have to do.
We have to clean house on some of these.
And Danielle, maybe over the next two years or whatever before they run for reelection,maybe they can redeem themselves as a result of some of the things that we're doing now.

(01:18:47):
And we are forgiving and we will give people an opportunity to redeem themselves.
But as of right now,
There are more than a handful of Republicans who simply need to go.
It is time to go.
We know their names and we need our listeners to become more and more familiar with thosenames.
It is not fair.

(01:19:08):
It is not fair and it's unjust to have a handful of faithful constitutional conservativesin the legislature who fight the good fight every day and are
abandoned by people who are supposed to be their colleagues and their allies and peoplewho ran on the same principles that they ran on.

(01:19:29):
I call that traitorous and I don't believe that those Republicans belong in thelegislature anymore.
And we're gonna work hard to get rid of them.
Know these names people, know these names.
We're gonna work hard on that a lot sooner than two years because these people are gonnastart running as soon as about this time next year for their campaign, right?

(01:19:52):
Because the election's in 27, so I would imagine at least summer, fall of 26, they'regonna start revving up, getting those campaign funds in the door and start their
campaigning then.
And Chris, you say it right, we will for...
give, right?

(01:20:12):
mean, but I'm not going to forget.
I'm not going to forget because as I've said since the beginning of session, this is thesophomore year of this uh legislative, uh what is it called?
Class, I guess, this cohort.
And this is the year they have the opportunity to show us whether they're really with usor not, because this is the year that's the farthest away from an election.

(01:20:37):
Next year,
They know that they're going to be knocking on people's doors asking for money, asking forvotes very soon.
So I expect that they're going to behave better next year than they did this year.
To me, this is the year that counts and I'm not going to forget how these people voted.
Absolutely not.
I'm not going to forget how they voted either.

(01:20:58):
what we're going to try to do with LACAG Danielle, as we've done before, we're going tostart sending text blasts out to the constituents of these Rhino voters, making sure that
their voters know how they voted.
This costs money.
This takes resources to do this.
If you want us to make sure that we clean these Rhinos out of the legislature, you got tojoin LACAG.

(01:21:23):
You've got to join up on a monthly basis so that we have all the resources we need to makesure that voters know exactly what these Republicans have done in the legislature.
That's how we beat them.
So if you're frustrated, if you're angry and you want to do something that really movesthe needle and really helps, go join LACAG for the cost of a large pizza on a monthly

(01:21:47):
basis.
All across the state, citizens doing that will have everything we need.
to take care of this for you.
That's all you have to do.
So please do it.
Please understand how important it is.
ah And of course, Danielle, sharing the state of freedom is massively important.

(01:22:12):
The line of the day, I love that.
The state of freedom is not free to us.
So we need your support to continue to grow and continue to expand.
This is yet one of the ways that we communicate with people across the state.
And Danielle, there is no other platform like ours.
People know that.
Share, subscribe, donate, and support the state of freedom.

(01:22:37):
If there are two advocacy organizations in the state of Louisiana,
that you should faithfully support.
It's the state of freedom and LACAG simply because we are uncompromising in our loyalty toyou and to the Constitution.
And together we can win because losing is not an option, Danielle.
Losing is not an option.

(01:22:58):
No, it's not.
And please join us again on Thursday.
We will continue to be live at 10 o'clock.
We're on uh a number of platforms, but you can find us on Rumble, YouTube, X, andFacebook.
uh Facebook, can find us on the CAGS Facebook and the State of Freedom's Facebook page.
We will be talking on Thursday about free speech, elections, and the Secretary of State'spower.

(01:23:24):
We will be talking about government and the governor's consolidation of power.
We'll be talking about some issues related to the constitution, to ethics andtransparency.
So we will have another jam packed episode for you on Thursday.
Please join us live or if you can't make it live, you know we're on all of the platforms,including the audio only ones like Spotify and Apple Podcast.

(01:23:48):
And know, Danielle, before we sign off, I want every listener who can hear us right now toknow that we love you.
We love you, we believe in you, no matter what you're going through in your life, nomatter how overwhelming it may feel.
We love you, you are okay, and God loves you.

(01:24:10):
So be good to you.
Well said, Chris.
Well said.
Let me see if I can find the outro here.

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;}#309 2025 Legislative Wrap-Up Part 1

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

#309 2025 Legislative Wrap-Up Part 1

Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club