#302 The Fight for Free Soil & Sovereignty w/ Karla Lems

Citizens, Land Rights, and Legislative Transparency: The Fight for Freedom

Join us for an insightful episode as we discuss the power of citizen advocacy in legislative processes. Our special guest, Karla Lems, shares her journey in fighting against eminent domain for CO2 pipelines in South Dakota. We also delve into the recent legislative activities in Louisiana, focusing on crucial bills affecting property rights, transparency in government, and public health. Discover how determined voices are making a difference and holding lawmakers accountable...and how you can be a part of it. Don't miss it!

 

SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY:

Hebrews 2:11, 14-18 TPT

 

 

ACTION & INFO FROM TODAY'S EPISODE:

• Learn more about the fight against eminent domain for the Green New Scam at: https://freesoilfoundation.com/
• Take action on the most critical bills now: https://www.lacag.org/action-center and send the link to friends & family.

 

SUPPORT US & GET CONNECTED:

• Want to support The State of Freedom?
• • Remember to Subscribe, Like, and keep Sharing the State of Freedom podcast – it helps! Follow us on Rumble and X.
  • Support the show with a financial gift if you are able:  https://www.freedomstate.us/support-the-show.
  • Shop our partners & help make TSOF sustainable!
  • • Order Slenderiiz today: https://partner.co/s/NmM3ZGU1NmQ2
    • Shop other natural & wellness products: https://partner.co/?custid=N7183285
    • Sign up for Legal Shield or ID Shield: https://tsofpodcast.legalshieldassociate.com
    • For more information on investing in precious metals at the best prices on the market, email [email protected]. Put Metal Stacks in the subject line.
    • Planning to purchase a Starlink device? Order through our referral link & we'll both get one month of service for free! https://www.starlink.com/residential?referral=RC-2291754-20667-66
    • Order General Flynn's movie - Flynn - Deliver the Truth. Whatever the Cost. Click here: https://www.flynnmovie.com/tsofpodcast or visit www.freedomstate.us.
  • If you'd like to advertise with the show, send an email to [email protected] and make the subject line TSOF Advertising.
• Want to help LACAG's efforts?
• • Sign up for the action center and stay updated:  https://www.lacag.org/action-center
  • Join LACAG and help bring Louisiana out of the swamp:   https://www.lacag.org/give 

 

KEY POINTS:

 
00:00 Introduction to South Dakota's Referred Law
00:57 Defeating Eminent Domain for CO2 Pipelines
01:38 Welcome to the State of Freedom
02:35 Scripture of the Day: Hebrews Chapter 2
06:11 Carla Lims' Fight Against CO2 Pipelines
07:27 Political Ramifications and Legislative Battles
09:48 Grassroots Movements and Public Support
17:36 Federal Overreach and State Rights
23:10 National Impact and Future Actions
41:18 Closing Remarks and Call to Action
43:39 Advertisement: Slender Eyes Drops
44:39 Carla's Vested Interest and Legislative Efforts
45:58 Tuesday's Legislative Updates: Geoengineering Bill
48:44 House Governmental Affairs: Foreign Donations Amendment
54:12 House Administration of Criminal Justice: Solitary Confinement Bill
55:23 House Bill 75: Property Rights and Carbon Capture
59:54 Ethics Complaints Bill: Due Process and Whistleblower Protection
01:02:12 House Bill 405: Election Law Changes
01:04:46 Senate Bill 80: Exit Poll Censorship
01:09:57 Senate Bill 117: Ultra-Processed Food Ban in Schools
01:11:12 Senate Bill 39: False Imprisonment and State Liability
01:14:21 Senate Bill 214: Commissioner of Insurance Appointment
01:17:20 Senate Bill 216: DOTD Contracting Efficiencies
01:18:59 Senate and Governmental Affairs Update
01:19:14 Concerns Over House Bill 216
01:20:10 Ethics Hearings Privacy Debate
01:22:47 Precious Metals Investment Opportunity
01:23:31 House Bill 577 and Voting Machine Controversy
01:24:04 Senate Governmental Affairs Testimony
01:33:13 House Bill 601 and Carbon Dioxide Rules
01:34:36 Gold and Silver as Legal Currency
01:37:00 Parental Rights in Medical Decisions
01:40:22 Criminal Case Transparency Bill
01:44:30 Advance Notice for Landowners on CCS Projects
01:52:19 Final Thoughts and Calls to Action 

 

 

CREDITS:

Music by MarkJuly from Pixabay

Sound effects by Pixabay

Ad music by Top-Flow, AudioCoffee & penguinmusic on Pixabay

 Produced By: We Live Legend

 

TRANSCRIPT:

Danielle Walker (00:01.048)

Good morning. Happy Thursday, everybody. Welcome to the state of freedom and a special shout out to any voice of the people USA radio listeners who are joining us this morning. We are so pleased to be joined by a special guest today. Karla Limbs is a state representative in South Dakota. She's a small business owner and a farmer, and she's running for lieutenant governor. She's led the charge in South Dakota.

 

in getting eminent domain for CCS killed in the state. It was a hard fought battle, but they prevailed. So we clearly have a lot to learn from her. We're so excited to hear what she has to say this morning. And of course, we will also be giving an overview of what all happened at the legislature this week, the good, the bad and the ugly per usual. Before we get into all of that craziness, let me read the scripture of the day.

 

It's Hebrews chapter 2 verse 11 and then 14 through 18. And this is what it says. Jesus the Holy One makes us holy and as sons and daughters, we now belong to his same father. So he's not ashamed or embarrassed to introduce us as his brothers and sisters for he has said, I'll skip that for he has said and I'll go down to 14. It says,

 

Since all his children have flesh and blood, so Jesus became human to fully identify with us. He did this so that he could experience death and annihilate the effects of the intimidating accuser who holds against us the power of death. By embracing death, Jesus sets free those who live their entire lives in bondage to the tormenting dread of death. For it is clear that he didn't do this for the angels, but

 

for all the sons and daughters of Abraham. This is why he had to be a man and take hold of our humanity in every way. He made us his brothers and sisters and became our merciful and faithful king-priest before God as the one who removed our sins to make us one with him. He suffered and endured every test and temptation so that he can help us every time we pass through the ordeals of life. And isn't it so good that

 

Karla Lems (02:11.276)

you

 

Danielle Walker (02:17.676)

We just get to rest in the finished work of our faithful King and High Priest Jesus. He made a way for us when there was no way to be in right relationship with the Father and when we believe that He is who He says He is and that He lived a perfect life on earth and became the only acceptable sacrifice for our sin, which He took on Himself and then raised Himself from the dead. Can we just say, I mean, can we just stop and appreciate that He raised Himself from the dead? That's like...

 

Chris Alexander (02:23.255)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (02:46.744)

That's pretty stunning. As Christians, we kind of roll through that statement and just think, yeah, he raised from the dead. No, he raised himself from the dead to bring, and he did it to bring the power of resurrection life to us. And I just want us to say that because he did that, we can confidently look at the days ahead and say, my God conquered death.

 

to restore me to my place of right relationship with him and inheritance. So whom or what shall I fear? And that's the attitude I want to have. That's the attitude I would, you I think a lot of our listeners have. Karla, that's the attitude you have, I believe for sure, because you've taken, you've stared down some pretty dark forces. So thank you for joining us and I just...

 

was really touched by that scripture this morning and really strengthened by it because we are in fierce times.

 

Karla Lems (03:44.309)

.

 

Chris Alexander (03:47.915)

We are in fierce times, Danielle, but the scripture was so timely this morning. think about it, and you're so right. We do tend to gloss over things that are just so extraordinary in the scripture. We gloss over it, and we don't really understand the deep import of it. I mean, Jesus became fully human so that we could have a true advocate before the Father.

 

Karla Lems (04:13.003)

Okay.

 

Chris Alexander (04:16.898)

someone who understands us, someone who relates to us, someone who suffered the way that we do. And so we do have a true advocate before the Father in Jesus. you know, speaking of advocates, you know, when you read about Carl Ellens, I mean, it's like what she has done and other leaders in South Dakota with regard to this carbon capture sequestration, the history of it is just extraordinary.

 

Karla, first of all, welcome to the state of freedom today. What a privilege to have you with us.

 

Karla Lems (04:52.051)

Well, thank you. I think I'm joining like-minded believers this morning, which is even greater than fighting together on these constitutional issues. Because we know that for such a time as this, God has a purpose and a plan. And what we do here is we do what is right, true, and just to the best of our ability. And then we leave the rest in God's hands, because He is going to do what He is going to do.

 

Chris Alexander (05:19.194)

That is so true, Karla. And what you just said, it reminds me of one of my favorite quotes to your John Adams or John Quincy Adams. He said, you know, we do our duty and the results are up to God. And in a certain sense, that takes a lot of pressure off of us because we're going to do what we're supposed to do and let God handle the results. And I know that's what you've done in South Dakota and continue to do.

 

Karla Lems (05:30.483)

Yes.

 

Chris Alexander (05:44.743)

It's so interesting about the history of carbon capture sequestration in South Dakota. Can you talk a little bit about the political aspect of it? Because my understanding is that there were a number of Republicans who were punished at the polls because they did not do the will of the citizens. And then a new crop of Republicans come in and y'all got it done at that point. So

 

Tell us about that because the reason why I'm asking is that we may be in a similar situation right here in Louisiana now, where we've had a number of Republicans who are responsible for defeating some very good protections for private property when it comes to CCS and other issues. And they may well be in trouble at the ballot box as well because of that, because of the outrage. So tell us a little bit about the history of South Dakota and how you got to the point where y'all actually got it accomplished.

 

Karla Lems (06:41.683)

Sure. So I will back up. We've been in this fight since about 2021. And that was before I was in the legislature. Some people think I got into the legislature for that fight and that's really not the case. I was very concerned about what was happening in around 2020. I had already been involved in the Republican party in our county, but I was not an elected official in that sense. So I received a letter in the mail from

 

Summit Carbon Solutions as well as Navigator Heartland Greenway, which was another CO2 pipeline that was coming through South Dakota or wanted to come through. And when I looked at that, it was about the time I had already decided to run. And I looked at that paper and that letter and I said, this is the Green New Deal. I recognized that literally I remembered the moment I was sitting at my desk reading that letter. I set it aside because I thought, well, I'm not interested in this because

 

I don't believe in the Green New Deal and I don't want to participate. Not that I was against pipelines, not that I was against ethanol. And that's the picture that was starting to be painted was if you're not for this project, then you're against pipelines, you're an environmentalist, which is absolutely not the truth. So we started to embark on that. I got elected into the legislature shortly after that.

 

Danielle Walker (07:43.032)

Yeah.

 

Karla Lems (08:06.802)

and started my first term and that was so fast forward to 2023, January, that's when I was sworn in for the first time. And I had a group of landowners at the time come to me and say, would you carry a bill? We see that you also have been affected. was gonna come, both pipelines were slated to come through our family's ground. And so I was somewhat invested that way, but it was the bigger picture of

 

This is overreach and in our state of South Dakota, we were finding out that they could use eminent domain for these pipelines because they were here, what they were claiming under our state law that they were a common carrier carrying a commodity. Well, we started to make the argument that they were not a common carrier and they were not carrying a commodity if you're going to bury it in the ground in North Dakota. And so of course you have to remember this is both pipelines were gonna be five states.

 

Navigator was heading to Illinois to sequester and Summit was heading to North Dakota. So I carried a bill my first year. I was very nervous. I thought so many people's futures and property are on the line and I'm going to do my best. Well, we did get that bill out of the House, which was basically saying no eminent domain for CO2 pipelines that were going to receive a credit with a 45Q tax credit.

 

So it passed the House, it died in the Senate committee, and that was already, we knew the intent, the outcome of that committee before we got there. It was already pre-decided, and I know that for a fact. And so fast forward to the next, well, then shortly after that, we had a man in our state, his name, a rancher up by Aberdeen, his name was Jared Bosley. And after, in 2023, was about, I think in maybe April.

 

The surveyors came onto his ground from Summit Carbon Solutions. They were armed and they, I mean, it was a complete overstep of what these things should look like in our state. And I was very alarmed. I don't live in that part of the state. I'm down in the Southeast corner. And so I got a call from another farmer rancher up in that same area. And he's like, Karla, you can't believe what's going on up here. And so I was like,

 

Karla Lems (10:29.239)

I need to set eyes on this and why isn't anybody doing anything? So we got a group of us, new legislators and some, some that had been there a while. And I said, are you guys ready to do a road trip and see this for yourselves? So we went up there and ended up turning into a little, property rights rally, if you will, at the courthouse in little Leola, South Dakota, McPherson County. And so we were able to go around and talk to some of the people that were being affected by this.

 

So fast forward to 2024, Representative Speaker John Hanson, who is now running for governor in our state, he brought another bill similar to the one that I had brought. Well, it didn't make it through. so it's kind of this recurring theme that the big companies are coming in against us. And literally, we're talking about BlackRock.

 

we're talking about continental resources. These are the companies involved in these pipelines, multi-billion dollar companies that really have way more power and money than we do. And so, but if we fast forward then to the year 2020, well, in 2024 then, after that session, we had our primary and we got to work. And so this was a

 

Danielle Walker (11:38.947)

Yeah.

 

Karla Lems (11:51.824)

host of people across the state working together. I'm telling you, it was a nonpartisan issue. We were able to network. had captains and every, well, first of all, we got a lot of people elected, like you said, and so we were able to flip. There were 14 incumbents that lost their seats. Now 11 of those were voted on the wrong side of these issues. Oh, and I have to add, it wasn't only John Hansen's bill that died, but there was a pipeline bill that was brought.

 

called Senate Bill 201. And they deemed that the landowner bill of rights. Well, I will tell you, on the floor of the house, I called it the pipeline bill of rights. So you know how they take something and they make it look so good, but when you start digging down, it's actually the opposite of what they call it. And so that bill had passed. So we have something in South Dakota called a referred law, that if we, as the people of South Dakota,

 

Danielle Walker (12:38.21)

Yes.

 

Karla Lems (12:48.592)

see that the legislature made a mistake, that they can come back. And if you get so many signatures, we had to get over 17,000 signatures in 90 days across the state. Well, what happened was we got about 38,000 signatures and we put that back on the November ballot and we were able to defeat that bill. so, and again, you know, some people say, you know, well, we have a representative Republic. We do.

 

Chris Alexander (13:03.808)

Wow.

 

Karla Lems (13:17.488)

and that process worked. But then the people were able to come back. It wasn't like we just have a willy-nilly vote. You had to get the signatures. You had to get the people's support again to get something like that back on the ballot. And so that happened in tandem with, well, the primary obviously was in June and we got those new legislators elected. And then in November, we were able to defeat SB 201. And then this year, 2025, I brought

 

House Bill 1052, which eliminated eminent domain for CO2 pipelines. And because of the pressure that was brought by the people, even those legislators that were on the wrong side of this the first time around, basically were put on notice that you better vote for this because the people are paying attention. And so we got the bill through, the governor signed the bill. Of course, we had a change in governor at the time. Kristi Noem went on to be...

 

Homeland security secretary. So Larry Rodin came into that spot as the lieutenant governor and took over. So the bill was signed and what we've seen lately is Iowa now has followed in our steps. It's not the exact same bill, but they've gotten a lot more protections, but now we're dealing with federal preemption and maybe you guys want to talk about that.

 

Chris Alexander (14:35.309)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (14:35.532)

Yeah, I do. I do. Because when we spoke earlier this week, you put me on notice that you're not just going to be fighting this at your own doorstep, but there's a heck of a fight that should be happening in Washington as well. Would you talk a little bit about what you're seeing on that front?

 

Karla Lems (14:52.704)

Yes, so it's really happening in real time right now. We are really watching what's happening actually on the on the call that I was on before with you guys. We're trying to figure out exactly what happened because they just passed that bill in the middle of the night in the house. And that is that concurrent resolution that has the big beautiful bill, right? So there were some provisions in there, though, to amend the Natural Gas Act. We

 

Danielle Walker (15:14.263)

Yeah.

 

Karla Lems (15:19.842)

We believe those those provisions were pulled out, but our concern was that they were going to be to be putting that back in. Now, what we have heard early on, and I should know this within the next, probably before we're off the call, is if that really actually did remain out and that was out of the bill when they when they passed it, we are hearing that it was and we're hoping that that is the case. But again, we have to continue to keep watching this.

 

because it will pass over to the Senate, they could try to put it back in. You know how these things happen. So, but that is really an overreach of the federal government. So they were amending the Natural Gas Act to basically say that we are going to preempt any state or local law when it comes to the routing, the placement of pipelines for carbon dioxide pipelines, for oil pipelines, and for hydrogen pipelines. So they would put them in the same category as natural gas.

 

Danielle Walker (15:52.462)

Sure. Yeah.

 

Karla Lems (16:17.528)

Plus they had a $10 million fast track permitting process included in there as well. So again, you're gonna pit the big, big companies against the people.

 

Chris Alexander (16:27.948)

Yeah, and it is a textbook example, Karla, of federal overreach. know, the Constitution reserves precisely this type of plenary authority to the states, particularly when carbon capture sequestration itself is becoming increasingly questioned with regard to its scientific validity. You know, we've consistently called it a scam. It is not a public good.

 

And the position that we've had here in Louisiana, our group and many others, is that you just don't have the right to tell a private property owner what he must do with his or her own property. That is a direct assault on a core foundational principle of our constitution, a private property. And yet we have Republicans here in this state who have

 

howled before precisely the type of entities that you're talking about right now to defeat bill after bill after bill that would provide local authority and real protection for private property owners here in the state of Louisiana. yes, yeah, a number of them who are being enriched by this scam. There's no question about it. So South Dakota serves as a tremendous source of inspiration for us.

 

Danielle Walker (17:38.444)

a number of them who have something to gain from it personally and directly. Yeah.

 

Karla Lems (17:42.221)

Uh-huh.

 

Chris Alexander (17:53.807)

Because believe me, every voter and every constituent is going to know specifically how these Republicans voted on these issues. And so it's just wonderful to see. Let me ask you this, Carl. I'm assuming that the 11 of the 14 who were defeated in the elections, was that centered on their position on carbon capture sequestration that I have a lot to do with it?

 

Karla Lems (18:20.853)

Absolutely. Yes, they were targeted specifically for that issue because again, private property rights, you know, what George Washington said, and many of the people still in South Dakota understand this, you cannot.

 

Freedom and property rights are inseparable. You cannot have one without the other. And so, you know, we have a lot of people, especially up in the northern part of the state, that they came, their ancestors came here from companies, sorry, from countries like Russia, the Ukraine, and they fled because their property was being confiscated by the government. So we still have roots that go back far enough that people see tyranny begin.

 

And they stand up against it here in South Dakota. And so I believe that courage begets courage. We have got to stand up and recognize these things for what they are. And like you said, this is a land grab. This is all about getting our property. And one thing that concerns me, we had a really good bill here in South Dakota that we passed and it was about foreign ownership of ag land. And we passed that bill, which I was very happy to be a part of, but

 

That did not include easements. And that is the way that they're getting around some of these things because they do not in law, it does not consider having an easement the ownership of that property. So it's a right to the property, right? So they are in these easements, they're able to, in the contract, it says they own it, or they own the easement, but they can mortgage it, they can lease it, they can assign it to someone else.

 

They also have the right to enter your property from any four corners to get to that easement. the ownership of, know, that's just one other aspect of this. Obviously there's the safety aspect. Obviously there's the, just the overreach of the eminent domain and everything. But the foreign ownership in these things is very alarming. And we believe early on, I mean, you can Google this and see that even

 

Karla Lems (20:26.75)

Our governor early on was concerned with the foreign ownership in the summit pipeline and that China was involved. So we really have to, you know, they set these things up over many years and they get laws that are set up. Now that we look back, we can see it. Our survey law, all of those things had to be right in place for this to go through. And it wasn't only here, it was in the other five or in the other four states as well.

 

Danielle Walker (20:55.982)

Hmm.

 

Karla Lems (20:56.317)

And so, you know, these plans and schemes have been going on for a long time. And of course we know the father of lies is very good at that. And so we have to be diligent and be on guard all of the time with all of these laws that are being passed. But right now, I really believe this is one of the biggest issues that our country is facing and that is this federal overreach. And we have got to stand up for states' rights.

 

Danielle Walker (21:23.67)

Yeah, we absolutely have to stand up for states rights. I believe what General Flynn's battle cry has been for the last four or five years, local action equals national impact. And we can't just say, well, Trump's in power now, so we can all just sit down and relax. We have battles on every front. you really take a step back and look around, there

 

Chris Alexander (21:23.909)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (21:50.368)

War is waging all around us on every single issue imaginable. I was wondering, Karla, since you have been so active and at the forefront of this, have you heard or have any indication from the Trump administration on when they may dry up the federal funding for this? Because I saw that they did something to cut off or suspend federal funding for windmills not too long ago, a couple of weeks back. So I'm hoping that we'll see.

 

similar action that will give us a little reprieve so we can do our fighting but not have to feel so quite under the gun on this issue.

 

Karla Lems (22:23.563)

Thank

 

Karla Lems (22:28.905)

Well, this is what I'll say about that. have been a supporter of President Trump, really appreciate so many of the things that he has done. I am quite alarmed by the recent trip to Saudi Arabia and the people that were on that trip. And we also see that, you know, NextEra, some of the ownership that is involved with NextEra, which is wind, they were on that trip to Saudi Arabia.

 

There's a podcast that's out there. can link it to you later. But somebody just went through all of those people that traveled over there. And we're just seeing some things in real time that are concerning to us that are really concerned about property rights. And so we've had some mixed messages, if you will, from the administration on that. so that is really where, and this 45Q tax credit

 

Chris Alexander (23:27.022)

you

 

Karla Lems (23:28.255)

That is the thing that is driving all of this. And so that really needs to be stripped out or this is not going to stop until that money is gone.

 

Chris Alexander (23:31.127)

Yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (23:37.447)

until that money is gone. And we a call to action on our, we have a call to action about the 45Q tax credits. You know, the big arguments that are made here in favor of the carbon capture sequestration call is that, hey, oil and gas is for it. The big oil and gas companies are for it. How could it be bad? You know, number one, and number two, this is going to create a lot of jobs.

 

This is going to create a lot of jobs for Louisiana citizens. How could you be opposed to this? And the response to that, of course, is that I don't care if oil and gas is trying to grab as much of our tax dollars and tax credits as they can as well. That doesn't mean we have to support something that's bad just because oil and gas supports it for the wrong reasons and is falsely trying to conflate carbon capture sequestration, dumping this stuff in the ground with oil and gas development. That's just a lie. Talk about the father.

 

Danielle Walker (24:27.224)

Yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (24:36.502)

of lies. And secondly, yet creates jobs, but it creates jobs that are being propped up and funded with our money and our tax credits. This is not an enterprise that would be profitable in the private enterprise if it had to stand on its own two feet. It wouldn't be.

 

Danielle Walker (24:53.548)

So let's let it stand on its own two feet, please.

 

Chris Alexander (24:56.622)

So let's let it stand on its own two feet. So, yeah.

 

Karla Lems (24:58.599)

Absolutely. Yeah, that's what we as conservative Republicans believe, right? In the free market. And this is a federal subsidy that you're exactly right is just propping this whole thing up. And if you pull that away, it will not stand. you know, those of us, again, we can have the best and the most shiny object in the room that's going to help us all out, right? But if we have to strip constitutional rights away,

 

to do something like that, then it's not worth it. Because that's exactly what we're all fighting for, right? Is our right to freedom. And we have a constitution that we always have to go back to and we always have to look through that lens first. Is this good? Is it constitutional? And then let's move forward from there. But if it doesn't check that box, then we'd better stop.

 

Danielle Walker (25:52.558)

Yep, don't pass go, don't collect $200.

 

Chris Alexander (25:55.929)

Yeah, and you know, that's a great point. you know, there are legitimate uses, as you know, Karla, for eminent domain. You know, it's in, I believe, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but it has been so contorted and so abused that people are, it's just been completely immolated, really, as far as its original purpose.

 

You know, and it's not even though they're expropriating private property for a good purpose. You can't even say that about this. They're expropriating private property at the altar of a scam. And even the people who support this at this point, Karla, they no longer talk about the fact that it protects the environment or that we need it for the environment, which was the original justification for allowing eminent domain in our state for carbon capture sequestration.

 

And at this point, they don't even talk about it anymore. Even they know it's a scam.

 

Karla Lems (26:56.55)

Yes, I was in a stockholders meeting actually with one of the ethanol companies and that question was asked by one of the farmers, how much is this going to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere? And they said, well really very little. But this is exactly what they said. This is a business opportunity.

 

Danielle Walker (27:18.734)

built on nothing, literally built on thin air.

 

Karla Lems (27:19.045)

Yeah, right. You know, this really goes back to, I think, the Kelo decision, which was in the Supreme Court, I believe it was 2005. And where they overrode, they used eminent domain against a private property owner for business purposes. And it was Pfizer, I believe, at the time.

 

Chris Alexander (27:21.368)

Yeah.

 

Karla Lems (27:43.601)

But I talked to somebody that was in Congress back then, and he said he had a private conversation with Justice Scalia. And Scalia said this was a bad decision and it will be overturned someday. And I think that this is something that we need to go back, we need to look at, and we need to get this right for the people of this country, because if we do not, our freedoms are at risk.

 

Danielle Walker (28:10.892)

Amen. And Chris, maybe that's something we can get the Pelican Institute to look at because I smell a challenge coming somewhere.

 

Chris Alexander (28:19.116)

I think so too. There's no question about it. And you're so right, Karla. And what a lot of people don't understand, and this is, this is, you know, really this point goes beyond simple private property. Any government deprivation of our freedom and liberty in any facet of life, it never comes about suddenly. It never comes about in a way that alarms people initially.

 

It's always, as Madison said, sort of a death by a thousand cuts. And unless the water is pouring directly into someone's own front door, they don't think that there's any issue. And that really goes to the issue of apathy. And what we have to continue to try to inform people and educate people about is that the moment you allow even the slightest deprivation of a core constitutional freedom in the slightest degree,

 

the precedent has set and from there it simply expands. From there it's simply a matter of degree. So I have a deep appreciation for your point that we have to confront these things as they occur.

 

Danielle Walker (29:33.73)

Yeah. And I might also add to that, Karla, you are so right about the enemy planning these things years and years in advance and having step by step plotted out how they're going to approach the whole entire, basically the supply chain of the issue. And I think as conservatives, as constitutionalists, we need to be in the same position. We need to finally get a place. At some point we will have

 

hopefully no longer be on the defensive and we can start making offensive wins. And I think you serve as a great reminder that we're behind the eight ball and our adversary is already far down the road from us.

 

Chris Alexander (30:18.102)

Yeah. And you know, another thing that Karla is a great example of, Danielle, is the fact that it's possible to suffer some defeats in in some battles and still win the war. And that is a great, great lesson and a great testament to perseverance and tenacity because that's exactly what happened in South Dakota. But, but Karla, one more question here that I wanted to ask you, you mentioned some other states.

 

Danielle Walker (30:27.416)

That's right.

 

Chris Alexander (30:43.01)

that are following South Dakota's example. Could you talk a little bit more about what some other states are doing consistent with what South Dakota has done?

 

Karla Lems (30:51.411)

Sure. Well, of course, our friends in Iowa, they have been fighting this as well. And so we have something called the Free Soil Foundation that we've kind of started joining together with some other states that's based out of Iowa. But I have been a part of that as well. And we know that we cannot always defeat these things, especially if we're going to start looking at some things coming down from the federal government.

 

We need to be joining together in things like these and podcasts and efforts that we can join together with others to bring our ideas, tell what's happening in real time on the ground, even comparing legislation of what's worked, what doesn't work. so anyway, so Iowa just recently passed a very similar law to ours, probably not quite as strong, but bringing some real protections for Iowans.

 

in that state and I believe it's still awaiting the governor's signature, Governor Reynolds down there, but hopefully she will be signing that. And also, you know, we've worked with people down in Nebraska. I've been down to speak in Nebraska before. Nebraska has obviously each of these states has their own laws and the ways that they do these things. And I will just mention too in South Dakota, you know, these things have to go through our Public Utilities Commission. Our Public Utilities Commission

 

has voted no three different times for permit, first of all for Navigator and then two times for Summit. And so they are elected in our state. That's another important point to make. So they are accountable to the people, whereas in Iowa, there's our appointed. And I will say that their IUC has caved on this. And again, but they're appointed by the governor. And so you have all of those ties. I just...

 

Danielle Walker (32:22.05)

Wow.

 

Karla Lems (32:42.276)

The more that we look at these things, the more I see how important it is to those, to many of these officials that they be responsible to the people directly. And it makes a difference. And also, you know, in Minnesota, we have some movement there. Obviously they're a blue state. And, but they have been working on these things as well. Again, have they have some different laws.

 

North Dakota as well. North Dakota is a really tough fight up there because oil and gas is so big. they've they've just a lot of people have just sold out to that and just you know, but there are still some people they did get them to move the CO2 pipeline, the line. Senator Magrim up there is a great fighter for on behalf of property rights. And so he's been doing a great job.

 

Illinois, we know had a moratorium on CO2 pipelines, but this federal overreach would even override that if it was in there. Yeah, so anything like that would just be overwritten. But we've heard from many states that are concerned about these, about not just the CO2 pipelines, but just the overreach with wind and solar and all of that. Oklahoma has reached out to us. And so there's movement in all of these states, but it takes time getting up to speed.

 

Danielle Walker (33:44.504)

Wow.

 

Karla Lems (34:05.378)

What is our state law? What's allowed? What's not? What needs to be changed? And, you know, we can try to help with those efforts and just to know what we did here, but just what exactly we did may not work in your state, but we can certainly try to help navigate that for you. So.

 

Chris Alexander (34:23.798)

Yeah. And who knows, you may end up being down here in Louisiana testifying before committee at some point. We'd sure love to meet you. We'd sure love to have you down here. We'll treat you right. Danielle, we have time for me to ask Karla one more question, specific question here? Do you have, Karla, because I'm very intrigued by what you said about the common carrier issue with regard to carbon capture sequestration in South Dakota.

 

Karla Lems (34:28.952)

Yes? Yes? Sure.

 

Danielle Walker (34:29.6)

Yeah.

 

Karla Lems (34:34.422)

Okay, sounds good.

 

Danielle Walker (34:41.388)

If Karla has time.

 

Chris Alexander (34:53.88)

Could you explain a little bit more about that issue as it relates to the legislation being successful in South Dakota, the common carrier issue?

 

Karla Lems (35:05.028)

Sure. Well, and so one thing that I kind of that I failed to tell you is this also made its way through the courts. And so this went all the way to our South Dakota Supreme Court because Summit was saying they were a common carrier carrying a commodity, which is how our law reads. If you're a common carrier carrying a commodity for hire, then you have the right of eminent domain in our state law. And so we all know that common carriers are things, you know, that are

 

carrying something that's going to be like a railroad or a natural gas pipeline or things like that. And something that serves, yes, and that is a public use, right. And we kept making the point that this was not a public use. It was not a commodity. This wasn't something that I was gonna use or that you were gonna use or your brother was gonna use or the town next door was gonna use.

 

Chris Alexander (35:44.504)

something that serves some public utility, some public usefulness.

 

Danielle Walker (35:58.936)

Yeah, there's no product.

 

Karla Lems (36:02.244)

So it wasn't a public use. It wasn't a commodity because it was going to be sequestered in the ground in North Dakota, buried in a rock formation. And so we made that case and it went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled on our side, on the people's side, that this was, this is how they said it, they have not proved that they are a common carrier carrying a commodity. So we were able to capitalize on that ruling. Then we had the

 

referred law after that that we defeated at the ballot box. And then we then we carried that forward into the legislation with House Bill 1052, which said you cannot use eminent domain. And so we were able to say not because they were a common carrier, that didn't have anything to do this time with my bill. But we as a legislature have the right to say who can use eminent domain in our state or not.

 

So that argument was gone that they were a common carrier. But beyond that, we just said, if you're a CO2 pipeline, you can't use eminent domain in the state of South Dakota. And so, you know, of course they were threatening to sue us and all of this. Well, that didn't happen. And so did I answer your question? I'm sorry. Okay.

 

Chris Alexander (37:20.226)

You did. So ultimately, the ultimate passage of your bill prohibiting eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines, that was not based on the common carrier argument? Okay.

 

Karla Lems (37:31.818)

No, no. So because we already felt like that, that had been determined with the Supreme Court ruling. But we were just saying, we're just going to say, you absolutely can't use eminent domain if you're a CO2 pipeline. There's too many other things that go on with it. There's safety issues. There's this or that. Now, that does not mean that we prohibited CO2 pipelines in our state. We just said, you can't use eminent domain. So if you're a private person,

 

and you want to sign up, we always said from the very beginning, you should be able to say yes or no, thank you to a project. And that is what our, you know, that's what the free market is about. And so, but if you're going to try to come into our state and to shove something down our throats that we do not want and force us to do it, because you're saying you're a common carrier or you're saying you're carrying a commodity, it doesn't matter in this case, what you say you are, if you're a CO2 pipeline.

 

Chris Alexander (38:07.126)

Yeah, that's the foot side.

 

Karla Lems (38:30.132)

You cannot use eminent domain here. And I will just say that specifically, one of the pipeline companies came in and they were a bully and they, went around, they, they tried to get a favor in all of these different counties. And I will say our, our previous GOP chairman was involved in it. these tentacles go deep into, not into the Republican it's both it's the Republican party and it's the Democrat party. And we always.

 

Danielle Walker (38:56.131)

Yeah.

 

Karla Lems (38:59.924)

We kind of deemed them two different things. We called Navigator the Democrat pipeline because it had ties more to the Democrats. And we had Summit Carbon Solutions that had a lot of ties to a lot of Republicans. But at the end of the day, they were corporatists. They were out for the money. They were out for the land. yes, there's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is the 45Q tax credit.

 

Chris Alexander (39:06.381)

Yeah.

 

Karla Lems (39:28.384)

But I think there's even other things that maybe even to this day we don't all know what's involved in that.

 

Chris Alexander (39:33.806)

Yeah. What would you suggest, Karla, to our listeners down here in Louisiana, they should do with respect to the federal action that's going on? And what specifically should they be, should they be, we should be telling our reps in D.C.?

 

Danielle Walker (39:34.017)

must be.

 

Karla Lems (39:43.702)

Well,

 

Karla Lems (39:49.28)

Yeah, so we have to really dig down and see what's still in this bill. But even regardless, if these pipeline preemptions have been stripped out, we still have to go over after that 45Q tax provision. And as it passes over to the Senate, they still have the opportunity to strip that out. We need to get rid of that. And so I think that, especially when it's in regard to CO2 pipelines.

 

And so I think that we still need to be engaged on this issue. You need to be contacting your senators. And I think that they are starting to get the message that the people are involved. They are watching these things. And so they had better be on notice that we are not going to just sit idly by anymore and let these constitutional rights really be stripped away from us. Because if this domino falls,

 

then you will continue to see more and more abuse of the United States citizen as time goes on. And like I said before, property is tied to freedom. And yes.

 

Chris Alexander (40:52.898)

Yeah, no question about it. That's a great way to say that Karla. And it's, I think that you're worth quoting here because I think every one of our, if I could stamp this on the forehead without being accused of battery to every rhino Republican in the legislature in Louisiana, I would, but this is a quote from you.

 

Danielle Walker (40:53.038)

That's right.

 

Chris Alexander (41:15.05)

This is a power that can be lorded over landowners to threaten or coerce them into something that they would not normally do if they had the freedom to say, no, thank you. Well, in South Dakota, guess what? Because of you and efforts of many like you, they have the freedom to say, no, thank you. And we're going to put Louisiana in that position at some point because of your inspiration and efforts. So God bless you and thank you for all your good work.

 

Karla Lems (41:41.984)

Well, thank you both so much. appreciate both of you and all the work that you are doing as well.

 

Danielle Walker (41:47.64)

Thank you Karla, good luck with your race.

 

Danielle Walker (41:55.598)

Nope, I couldn't hear her.

 

Danielle Walker (42:03.02)

Alright, looks like she's signing off. Let me, I can help her. One second.

 

Danielle Walker (42:13.838)

Okay, Chris. Well, it was great to talk to Karla. She put a lot into this. first of all, when I talked to her earlier this week, she told me that they were trying to go across her property with this. talk about have some skin in the game whenever it comes to...

 

Chris Alexander (42:33.164)

You better believe it. And that was occurring. So she really had a vested interest in it even before she ran for state rep. Right. And she was very alarmed by it. And I just think that's such a powerful example about what can happen when people get together and work hard. And so much of it has to do, as she said, with exposing and removing the dead fish in the legislature and getting new people in there and making sure that they do the right thing.

 

Danielle Walker (42:37.155)

Yeah.

 

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (42:55.875)

Yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (43:01.687)

And we can certainly accomplish that. Speaking, Daniella, doing the right thing or the wrong thing, boy, did some things happen this week.

 

Danielle Walker (43:10.902)

Yeah, well, you had your work cut out for you. I know you tried once again to clone yourself, but were probably unsuccessful in that endeavor.

 

Chris Alexander (43:12.846)

Yeah.

 

So my notes are all over the place. I've got all kinds of numbers running through my head here, but we'll sled on here.

 

Danielle Walker (43:27.84)

All right. Well, if you would, maybe I can just run us through and ask you for some updates, Chris. I know on Tuesday there was a lot going there was a fair bit going on. I think more happened again on Wednesday, but Tuesday in House Natural Resources and Environment, Senator Facy's bill to to put an end to the geoengineering, to put an end to weather modification unanimously passed the committee.

 

and we believe it should be headed to the House floor next week. I don't know if you were able to hear any of the debate around that. I'm happy to hear that it was unanimous.

 

Chris Alexander (44:04.28)

Well, was, it was unanimous. was rushing to get down there after our podcast. Obviously we have a call to action up on this and the committee got hundreds of emails from, our group, supporting the legislation. I was not there in time to testify on it, but I did do a green card. know that that the LA CAG supports the legislation and I don't think it got any opposition, in the, in the committee and fortunately it got out of there. So now it goes on to the house.

 

floor. And we are very optimistic about this getting these pollutants out of the air. I mean, what an incredible you know, the thing Danielle that Katie's like, look, I'm very, happy that this bill is moving forward. It's very important. There shouldn't be any opposition, but Katie's still upset that there's not criminal penalties attached to this. She said this is a crime. This is a fundamental violation of human autonomy.

 

Danielle Walker (44:56.15)

Yeah. Yeah. It's true. It's true. Absolutely.

 

Chris Alexander (45:01.631)

and informed consent. Why are there not criminal penalties associated with this?

 

Danielle Walker (45:06.154)

Absolutely. And I think, Chris, that's part of the reason there was no industry there, remarkably, to oppose the legislation, because they would be telling us who they are, which they have not yet done.

 

Chris Alexander (45:18.69)

Yeah. You know, it's interesting, Danielle, there was a guy there testifying who was there from, I think, out of state from California testifying against the legislation. Yes. Yeah. And so the fact that he came in from California to testify against this legislation sort of puts the lie to the notion that what's coming out of the back of these planes is simply contrails, just plain exhaust. Right?

 

Danielle Walker (45:26.798)

really? They don't like clean air over there in California.

 

Danielle Walker (45:47.458)

I'm surprised someone had the gall to show up, but I guess nobody from inside the state did. They had to rely on somebody from outside the state.

 

Chris Alexander (45:55.425)

No, he knew that he could seek egress quickly after the hearing back to California. But fortunately, people treated him well because we're in Louisiana and we're going to treat people graciously. But yeah, I just thought it was very telling that we had an out-of-state partisan here testifying against this bill.

 

Danielle Walker (46:11.298)

Yeah, well, I bet his playing back did have chemtrails, so.

 

Chris Alexander (46:15.503)

You think he might have dumped some out on his way out of the state.

 

Danielle Walker (46:17.686)

He probably did. probably did. All right. Let's move over, Chris, to what happened in housing governmental affairs on Tuesday. We had Senator Sebaugh's constitutional amendment that would prohibit foreign donations and elections. We expected it to be heard on Tuesday. It wasn't heard. I guess they didn't have time for it, so they bumped it to probably next week.

 

Chris Alexander (46:44.034)

Yeah, it should go next week, Senate Governmental Affairs, right, Danielle? Next week. And, you know, as we've talked about before, the bill really does clean up Representative McGhast's former legislation. And this bill just categorically prohibits foreign money in our elections on the state level, including ballot propositions or constitutional amendments. The only thing that it doesn't do

 

Danielle Walker (47:07.128)

Beautiful.

 

Chris Alexander (47:09.574)

If you have a bill that is whose purpose is to protect your elections from foreign interference and foreign corruption, why would you not have a provision in there to prohibit the purchase of computer voting systems until at least President Trump's executive order is fully, fully consummated, you know, where the report's done about how vulnerable these computers are. But that's not in there.

 

Danielle Walker (47:15.939)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (47:24.43)

Seems like.

 

Chris Alexander (47:36.522)

And I will have an opportunity, hopefully, when I testify in favor of this legislation. I don't know whether to do a green card or a white card, but the bottom line is we do support the legislation, this constitutional amendment, but we're going to strongly encourage that a provision be added to it to prohibit the acquisition of these computer voting machines.

 

Danielle Walker (47:55.458)

Yeah, yeah. And Chris, you know, one thing that we see a lot of around issues like this is we see like a busload of Chinese people getting dropped off at the Capitol to come and testify in opposition to it, or at least show up in the room and show, you know, and put in red cards or something. Is there any reason that we would want somebody to bring legislation that some way limits

 

foreign testimony in our Capitol, or at least like a resolution that says, yeah, you can come and testify. We want to hear all sides. But the preference and the deference goes to the citizens of the state. The deference will not go to foreign entities or foreign people.

 

Chris Alexander (48:44.674)

I think that that is fair. I don't think that's going to happen. Maybe not in this environment, but to the extent that people are there to testify for or against a bill, I think at least facially, they feel like they have an obligation to allow everyone to speak while they're there. But yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (48:50.702)

Maybe not in this environment.

 

Danielle Walker (49:06.413)

You know, facially it seems that way, but we got on our State of Freedom Facebook page this week a note from a woman who said that there were three female firefighters from Vernon Parish who showed up to House Municipal Affairs this week to testify and they were not allowed to testify. I just, you know how I feel about House Municipal Affairs Committee. is a bunion. It is, you know.

 

I can't, it's a blight on our state governance that that even exists.

 

Chris Alexander (49:40.075)

It is, Danielle, because this is a committee whose primary purpose is to tell local governments and local jurisdictions what they can and cannot do. I mean, I don't quite understand that. If you're a legislative body, what you do, if you have the constitutional authority to do it, should apply statewide, or you don't have the constitutional authority to do it. But for you,

 

Danielle Walker (49:52.227)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (50:03.661)

Yeah.

 

It's the detention teacher of local governance.

 

Chris Alexander (50:08.756)

Yes, exactly. So I agree with you 100 percent. And I know that you want to abolish entirely the House Committee on Local and Municipal Affairs. And I think I'm on board with you there because they're always dictating to these local jurisdictions what they can and can't do and having the local jurisdictions beg Baton Rouge for money.

 

Danielle Walker (50:16.886)

Yes.

 

Danielle Walker (50:31.65)

Yeah. And you know, when we had representative Guymon on, he chairs the House Natural Resources and he committed that they would go through the night if they needed to. So every single person that had, that came from somewhere across the state to testify on the bill, whether for, you know, on the bills, whether for or against would have the opportunity to be heard. So I find it very, very disgusting and alarming that the same would not be happening in House.

 

municipal affairs of all places when the people from the localities want to be heard on the topics.

 

Chris Alexander (51:06.666)

Yeah. And I think it's, it's, it's despicable. That is really a, that committee has, you know, on a number of bills that come to mind that we won't talk about now, that that committee has just done some things, you know, that are just inefficient, reflective of a, lack of understanding of procedure. And really it's just a circus in there, you know, and, but, but as a matter of principle, Danielle, we don't need that committee in this state.

 

Danielle Walker (51:16.675)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (51:35.96)

Period, period. Send the money and send the issues back to where they came from. And the people can, that would involve, yeah, devolution of power. That's right. All right. Speaking of power, House administration of criminal justice also met on Tuesday and representative Denise Marcel's House Bill 457, her solitary confinement bill was heard and it looked

 

Chris Alexander (51:41.504)

Exactly. But you know what that would involve, Danielle? That would involve the relinquishment of power.

 

Danielle Walker (52:04.974)

Chris, like she got our amendment in there, which is exciting. You can talk a little bit more about that. I believe, how did that bill do? I didn't put it in my notes.

 

Chris Alexander (52:14.698)

It did well, Pat, passed out of committee and it is, and with the amendment that we had suggested on allowing religious materials to an inmate who was in solitary confinement. It originally included only educational materials, but now specifically because of our request, it will include religious materials for someone who's in solitary confinement. you know, we believe in accountability. We believe in the rule of law. We also believe in being humane, and that's important.

 

Danielle Walker (52:43.458)

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And I just looked it up and it passed eight to nothing. So, and that amendment made it in there. So awesome news on that one. Happy to pass some good news along.

 

Chris Alexander (52:52.504)

So that goes now to, yeah, so that now goes to the house floor.

 

Danielle Walker (52:57.558)

Yeah. And there were a couple things that were scheduled for House final passage this past Tuesday, Chris. One of them was House Bill 75 by Representative Danny McCormick. And you can talk a little bit about what that bill would have done.

 

Chris Alexander (53:13.282)

Yeah, this bill, Danielle, would have simply ensured that property owners who do not voluntarily surrender their property for carbon capture sequestration pipelines. In other words, they hold out and ultimately they're forced into the unit of affected property owners that their compensation for having to surrender their property will not only not be penalized, they will not be penalized for that, but they will get

 

at least the average compensation that every other property owner will get for having to surrender use of their property. It was a very, very fair bill. It would have protected to the degree they're willing to do it now, private property rights. And yet that bill failed on the House floor.

 

Danielle Walker (54:04.578)

And you know what's disgusting, Chris, this is a punishment of people who are standing for their constitutional rights. So, so what they're saying is unless you go along, unless you go along with the scam, unless you let us shove this down your throat, you're not going to get anything. Don't expect to get anything from us. We'll just take your property and you get what you get. And I think Chris, the people who voted against this need to be called out.

 

Chris Alexander (54:23.011)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (54:34.764)

I don't know if you want to call him out or if you want me to call him out. Why don't you go for it?

 

Chris Alexander (54:36.174)

I'm happy to do it. Danielle, the final vote on this was this 54 to 46. Can you see what the...

 

Danielle Walker (54:44.014)

My account says 37 is 61, which is even more atrocious.

 

Chris Alexander (54:48.846)

Okay, 37 to 61. And here are the Republicans who voted against a bill that simply would have made sure that a private property owner who's forced into an expropriation situation gets at least the same average compensation for certain numerous property that anybody else would get simply for asserting his private property rights. DeVille, Bockela, Bamberg, Bayham.

 

Bouye, Buralt Davis Domingue, familiar name, Echols, Fontenot, Freiburg, Gadbury, Lacombe, McFarland, McMahon, McMaken, Reiser, Schlegel, Spell, Saint Blanc, Thomas, Turner, Villio, Wiley, Weibel, and Zirang. Those were the Republicans who opposed this legislation. And I was very inspired.

 

by Representative Chuck Owens' remarks on this bill on the House floor. He really spoke exactly what the way citizens across Louisiana feel about this issue. And it's just becoming increasingly important that we let voters know exactly how these Republicans have voted on these issues.

 

Danielle Walker (56:09.592)

Yeah. I'm just stunned, Chris. I'm stunned because it just shows this. To me, this is a lot like the way we've seen the gold and silver bill operate, where it doesn't even matter how reasonable of an argument you make. It doesn't even matter how much concessions you give, right? Because the concession here is, let's say that eminent domain continues and someone takes your property and you don't want them to.

 

What is your legal recourse in a state that loves lawsuits? You would think in a state that, you know, says that we're doing this for the public interest or we're doing this to create jobs. Well, who cares if you create jobs? Why can't you at least at a bare minimum give the people whose property was stolen from them an equitable value? It's unbelievable. It's absolutely unbelievable. And I hope that none of these people get reelected.

 

Chris Alexander (57:05.932)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (57:06.082)

Period, period. And you know what? I just want to point out one more time, the speaker did not have to vote on this. The speaker does not have to lodge a vote, but he has consistently voted against property rights this session, and I think that bears mention.

 

Chris Alexander (57:20.386)

Yeah. And his vote wouldn't have made a difference.

 

Danielle Walker (57:23.648)

No, that's exactly right. It's not like it was the tiebreaker. Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. All right. Well, next up is a pretty interesting one, Chris, that I think you'll probably enjoy talking about. House Bill 160, Representative Kelly Dickerson's ethics complaints bill where basically it's a due process bill, you said, and it's also got some whistleblower protection in there. It passed the House floor, 88 to seven, with the only

 

Republican voting against it being Jessica Domingue. 22 Democrats joined in support. So 22 Democrats crossed over and supported a transparency bill, but my representative, Jessica Domingue, voted against it.

 

Chris Alexander (58:05.816)

So every Republican who voted on HB 160 on the House floor voted in favor of it. A bill that simply says that at some point during an ethics investigation with the State Ethics Board, the accused has a right to know the identity of the person who is accusing him. Seems like a fundamental due process issue and an issue of basic fairness. So the bill would have provided that and it also provides

 

because of some conversations that we had with the author, Representative Dickerson, and other people talked to her about this, some very strong anti-retaliation language in the bill, which prevents someone who's accused from taking any retaliatory action against a complainant. And that's very, very important because sometimes very powerful people have meritorious complaints filed against them, and we don't want to chill or discourage people filing meritorious complaints. And so the bill would have done both of those two things. It's a well-written bill. It's a good bill.

 

as reflected by the vote, Danielle, and yet your representative, Jessica Domaine, the Republican, stood out and thought it was appropriate to vote against that legislation.

 

Danielle Walker (59:15.414)

Yeah. And if I recall correctly, Chris, and we may have mentioned this on the last show, but when I believe it was maybe Chuck Owen who brought this legislation last year, or I think it was Chuck Owen, she voted against it and it was killed in committee. Yeah. Hysterical.

 

Chris Alexander (59:31.884)

Yep, it sure was. It sure was. And so she voted against it last year. So, fortunately, so now it will go on to the Senate committee and hopefully on to final passage.

 

Danielle Walker (59:44.078)

Yeah, all right, but no thanks to Jessica Dome. All right, well, next up House Bill 405, a great bill being brought by Democrat Representative Matthew Willard, and it requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish information, changes in the election law and how that's gonna be rolled out by her office. It passed 96 to nothing.

 

Chris Alexander (59:46.943)

No thanks to Jessica.

 

Danielle Walker (01:00:08.376)

which is pretty stunning. to me, there must not be enough in there that's objectionable to Secretary Landry. I think that's how, that's my read on it.

 

Chris Alexander (01:00:15.884)

the bill. Yeah, I think you're right. The bill at this point requires her to post and provide public updates with about legislative changes, changes in law regarding elections or election procedures. And that is important. And it is important and it shouldn't be controversial. One thing that you and I have discussed when this goes before Senator Kleinpeter's Senate Governmental Affairs Committee is advocating

 

Danielle Walker (01:00:22.807)

to do her job.

 

Chris Alexander (01:00:45.922)

before that committee that there be a specific provision in the bill, the bill be amended to require the Secretary of State to be, to provide specific updates and all appropriate notices with regard to the procurement process in getting our new voting system. Because that is a big concern to people in Louisiana. Many people have felt left out of the process. She wants to buy a hundred million dollars worth of computer voting systems.

 

And people don't really know where she is in the procurement process. People don't know how to provide public input and that sort of thing. so hopefully we get the bill amended that will require her to be fully transparent in the procurement process for this new voting system that she wants.

 

Danielle Walker (01:01:31.106)

Yeah. Chris, as a matter of where we are in the process, is that, do you think that's already law and it's just not being followed?

 

Chris Alexander (01:01:40.841)

To be honest with you, I don't know. It could be, but I certainly don't think it could hurt to codify it within the parameters of this bill. Because, you know, I testified on another bill yesterday that will talk about Danielle, and I said, look, a lot of people feel very left out of this process. You know, well, I appreciate you saying that. So we're going to reach out to Senator McGeas and Senator Kleinpeter and see about getting an amendment on that bill specifically relating to

 

Danielle Walker (01:01:48.768)

Me either. Me either.

 

Danielle Walker (01:01:59.288)

Yeah, you did a good job on that one.

 

Chris Alexander (01:02:10.008)

transparency in the procurement process.

 

Danielle Walker (01:02:12.302)

Beautiful. don't forget about fair notice for hearings.

 

Chris Alexander (01:02:16.886)

And fair notice, fair notice and hearing and transparency. Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (01:02:20.598)

Yeah. Okay. Next up, these were a couple of bills that should have gone to the Senate for final passage this week. Some of them did, some of them didn't. SB 80, Senator Greg Miller's exit poll censorship bill. As of 2-

 

Chris Alexander (01:02:39.074)

That has been still pending for a final vote on the House floor, right? On the House floor. Yeah. And this is the bill that would unconstitutionally restrict law abiding citizens from conducting lawful exit polls. And we're the only state in the country, if this passes, that would distinguish between bona fide journalists and law abiding citizens.

 

Danielle Walker (01:02:47.246)

Yeah on the house floor, sorry

 

Chris Alexander (01:03:08.654)

when it comes to who has the right to conduct exit polls. I don't know why they keep delaying the vote in the House on this bill, Danielle, because it's been scheduled. But I know we have a call to action out on it. And, you know, I spoke with Beryl Amedee about it yesterday very briefly, and she believes that this bill should be killed. I know she certainly opposes it. And I sent a lot of communiques to different... when I thought it was going to be voted on yesterday.

 

Danielle Walker (01:03:16.642)

I hope it's because we're flooding the zone.

 

Chris Alexander (01:03:37.376)

I sent some communications to a number of reps urging them to vote against this bill, SB 80. It's a horrendous piece of legislation that's being pushed once again by our Secretary of State, Nancy Landry.

 

Danielle Walker (01:03:52.002)

And this is in basically the 11th hour posture, right? But there's nothing to say that it can't be defeated here. If you recall, I know you do, Mike Bayam's gallant speech against the cockroach bill, the bill that would have infringed on our right to talk on a handheld cell phone device in our car. His speech killed that so decisively, so powerfully last year that I'm hoping Chris...

 

Maybe we should be figuring out who would be the appropriate person to stand up and a great speech on why censorship is not welcome in the state of Louisiana.

 

Chris Alexander (01:04:37.902)

Absolutely. And believing we're going to be working on it. And, you know, because it really is a it really is a bill that it's not about what people are doing. It's not about the nature of the activity that the secretary of state's against Danielle. It's about the nature of the information that they're going to be deriving when they do these exit polls. And she doesn't want that. She doesn't want any opportunity to question the validity of

 

Danielle Walker (01:05:02.222)

Of course. Yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (01:05:07.788)

a computer or machine based voting system. And that's what this ultimately comes down to.

 

Danielle Walker (01:05:10.638)

And I don't think there's any reason the Democrats can't come over on this one.

 

Chris Alexander (01:05:16.666)

I don't either. that's something that we can talk to the Democrats about. know, speaking, Danielle, of Mike Baham and the cell phone bill, you know, that HB, I think it's 19, 519 by Representative Glorioso is still, you know, it passed the House, but it's still pending before the Senate Transportation Committee. So it hasn't, yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (01:05:26.839)

Yeah.

 

519.

 

Danielle Walker (01:05:36.62)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (01:05:42.626)

That's beautiful. Who's the committee chair for that?

 

Chris Alexander (01:05:46.796)

I don't know who the chairman is for the Senate Trans... Yeah, but...

 

Danielle Walker (01:05:48.234)

Let me look.

 

Chris Alexander (01:05:56.066)

But it's interesting that this.

 

Danielle Walker (01:05:58.614)

I hope it pins until it can pins no longer. Let's see. You know what? It's Patrick Connick.

 

Chris Alexander (01:06:01.794)

Yeah, yeah, I love it.

 

Chris Alexander (01:06:09.346)

Yeah. Well, Patrick Connick, that's not necessarily a good sign because Patrick Connick is the one who brought the cockroach bill, the cell phone bill last year. Yeah. Or maybe two years ago. Yeah. But he, but he brought.

 

Danielle Walker (01:06:19.01)

Did he?

 

Maybe two years ago, yeah. Yeah, last year it was McMath.

 

Chris Alexander (01:06:26.802)

no, I'm sorry. was confused. Connick and McMath, no. So it was McMath. So Connick, no, he's not involved. So look, Connick may, he may look at this and say, you know what, this is overreach. So the point is, and I can reach out to Senator Connick on this, but this, you know, this bill, Danielle, it passed in the House, sorry for this.

 

Danielle Walker (01:06:32.524)

Yeah. No.

 

Chris Alexander (01:06:53.454)

71 to 28 in the House, the cell phone bill on May 6th. May 6th. And it's still apparently not been scheduled for hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee. So maybe that's a good sign.

 

Danielle Walker (01:07:04.782)

Beautiful. Look, there's a lot more important things that Senate transportation needs to be doing, namely getting these contracts, let the contract legislation worked out and the total revamp of DOTD. Those are far more important for Senate transport to be listening to than this garbage.

 

Chris Alexander (01:07:23.246)

than this garbage where you're going to criminalize someone from talking on a handheld cell phone. So anyway, yeah, I think it's a good sign. I thought it was worth noting when you mentioned Mike Bayen.

 

Danielle Walker (01:07:27.234)

Yeah. Cool. Beautiful. Yeah. Thanks. All right. Next up Senate bill 117 that's represent, sorry, Senator Blake Miguez's ultra processed food ban. Getting it out of the schools. It hasn't been voted on yet. So I.

 

Chris Alexander (01:07:46.959)

It hasn't been voted yet on the House. Yeah, so it passed the Senate, hasn't been voted yet on the House floor. Do you anticipate any problem with this, getting this garbage and this dye out of our students' diets?

 

Danielle Walker (01:07:50.548)

on in the house floor, I guess.

 

Danielle Walker (01:08:03.668)

No, there's probably there's just two or three Democrats and Barbara Freiburg that don't want it.

 

Chris Alexander (01:08:09.218)

Yeah. Two or three Democrats in Freiburg. Yeah, that's going to be a good quote one day. But yeah, I think it's a very good bill and it's really a complimentary bill to McMath's SB 14, that his nutrition bill and it's very important.

 

Danielle Walker (01:08:16.312)

That's.

 

Danielle Walker (01:08:24.589)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (01:08:29.42)

Yeah, and Chris, I was even wondering if they were holding this back because McMath seems to be a bit more robust and it's making its way through without too much headwind. So I'm wondering if they'll just let that one scoot ahead of this one.

 

Chris Alexander (01:08:43.148)

They may well be doing that because the bills are very similar.

 

Danielle Walker (01:08:47.15)

Yeah. All right, Chris, Senate Bill 39 by Senator Jay Morris. This is his false imprisonment bill to say that the state won't be liable if they continue to hold prisoners past their out date. And you said that it passed. It passed on a party line vote with Jimmy Harris and Jay Luna joining the Republicans in voting the wrong way for it, by the way.

 

A yes is a wrong vote on this one and it will be sent over to the House to go to committee next week.

 

Chris Alexander (01:09:17.326)

Yeah, SB 39, you're to be going over to either House Judiciary, maybe House Governmental Affairs, but the bill, Danielle, is not nearly as ominous as it was at the beginning in its original form. It's just not needed anymore. It's a terrible bill. you know, it does have to do with liability by the state for overdetaining inmates.

 

whose time has been served, they should be getting out. Look, just get your systems in order. As I said before, the Department of Corrections in Louisiana has a $1.2 billion budget. Calculate the out dates properly and you won't get sued for it.

 

Danielle Walker (01:09:57.356)

Yeah, that's right. Chris, when these bills get sent over to the Senate, and we know they're Senate Jude, we call it, but Senate Judiciary A, B, and C, do you know, is there any reason other than scheduling that one committee would get a bill like this versus another? they topical or A, B, and C assigned topically or is it just?

 

the pleasure of the chair and the pleasure of the Senate president.

 

Chris Alexander (01:10:28.876)

I think it's the pleasure of the chair, the pleasure of the Senate president, and probably also the author of the bill may have some influence over which Judiciary Committee it goes before. But in the case of SB 39, Senate Bill 39, Jay Morris, that now is going over to the House side. And they only have one House Governmental Affairs Committee. And so that's probably where it's going to go unless it goes

 

Danielle Walker (01:10:49.346)

That's right. That's right.

 

Chris Alexander (01:10:56.952)

to the judiciary, which it might go on the House side. But the point is, this bill is terrible. Still terrible, not as terrible.

 

Danielle Walker (01:11:05.908)

That's the point after all our rambling is the bill is terrible, they should vote no.

 

Chris Alexander (01:11:09.994)

Right. They should vote no because it's not needed. But thank God it's not as bad as it was.

 

Danielle Walker (01:11:17.216)

Yeah, and we were supposed to have someone, Caroline, darn, can't recall her last name, Gabriel, from William Most's law firm speak on this with us on Tuesday. Due to an administrative error on my part, she wasn't able to join, but we may get someone from their firm to come and talk to us next week if this looks like it's still in play.

 

Chris Alexander (01:11:41.59)

Yeah, and get their thoughts on the new iteration of the bill. I don't think they're as alarmed as they were at the beginning. By the way, Danielle, I testified against this legislation before Senate Jude A.

 

Danielle Walker (01:11:52.888)

Great. That's right. That's right. Okay, Chris, Senate Bill 214. This one stinks to high heaven by Senator Royce DuPlessis. And this one would make the commissioner of insurance appointed by the governor.

 

Chris Alexander (01:12:09.996)

Yeah. Senator Royce DuPlessis, leftist among the left in the state Senate would, as you said, would make the commissioner of insurance in Louisiana appointed by the governor and chosen from a list of nominees submitted to him by various heads of legislative heads and agency heads. so Thomas Pressley stood strong against this on the Senate floor.

 

Danielle Walker (01:12:13.88)

carrying the governor's water.

 

Chris Alexander (01:12:39.658)

as well as Senator Adam Bass and Senator Kirk Talbot. But Senator Presley was particularly impressive because he just asked a very simple question on the floor to Du Plessis. He said, who gets more power from this bill? Who gets more power? And obviously, Du Plessis tried to weave around it and avoid answering it straightforward, but it's obvious that the governor gets more power from this bill. And we live in an elected democracy.

 

And there's no reason why the commissioner of insurance should be an appointed position in our state. He should be elected and accounted to people just like everybody else. So the bottom line is SB 214. Du Plessis was so badgered on it by those two or three senators that it was returned to the calendar and not voted on because I'm sure Du Plessis realized that he didn't have the votes for it. So I don't know what's going to happen with 214 if it's going to come back up or whether it is as good as dead at this point. It should be.

 

Danielle Walker (01:13:32.024)

That's so beautiful.

 

Danielle Walker (01:13:38.624)

It should be dead. you know, when Karla was talking with us earlier about their public service commission, their equivalent of the public service commission being elected instead of appointed and the power that held, I know I started smiling. I saw you were grinning as well because that's the exact point. These people need to be accountable to us, not to the governor, because it has been proven that the governor does not believe he is accountable to us.

 

Chris Alexander (01:14:05.102)

Exactly. And we don't have any reason really to believe, unfortunately, that any future governor will be. Hopefully they will be. Hopefully we will get a governor next time that does understand the Constitution, understands the importance of oversight. But this really doesn't apply just to Landry, this particular bill. I don't think any governor should be appointing any statewide elected official in our state. They should all be directly accountable to the people.

 

Danielle Walker (01:14:24.6)

Correct.

 

Danielle Walker (01:14:33.678)

100 % and Chris I think it's probably oh did I lose my I lost my brilliant thought there hmm let's see

 

Chris Alexander (01:14:44.268)

Just think 214. But that's exactly what came into my head, Danielle, when Karla was talking about the appointed position, utilities positions in the other states. I was thinking of 214.

 

Danielle Walker (01:14:50.744)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (01:14:54.186)

Mm-hmm. Yeah, exactly. Now, carrying on, Chris, unless my other thought recirculates, which it very well may at some point, Senate Bill 216 by Senator Valerie Hodges. This is her bill that would tighten up contracting with the OTD, create some incentives, some disincentives.

 

try and create some efficiencies. It passed the Senate floor unanimously. So there's something, there are a handful of things that everyone can agree on.

 

Chris Alexander (01:15:25.134)

And DOTD's inefficiency in completing state road projects and the waste of money and the unnecessary delays, that's something I think everybody can agree on. And this bill addresses those issues. So fortunately it passed, it will go on to the House committee now and it should get through.

 

Danielle Walker (01:15:46.358)

Yeah. Okay. And her other bill, Chris, her Senate Bill 226, the one that got gutted and they treated her so mercilessly terrible on the Senate floor and in the Judiciary A committee, it hasn't been called back up, right?

 

Chris Alexander (01:16:01.693)

hasn't been called back up yet. You know, that that bill was, as you know, gutted significantly, and it's not been called back up on the Senate floor since she tried to present it a few days ago. So I don't know what's going to happen to the bill in its current form, Danielle. I don't I don't really know what what it accomplishes at this point, but we'll see. And there's still a faint hope that some of the provisions in her original bill could be returned on the Senate floor. Certainly, it's something to hope for.

 

I'm not particularly optimistic about it this point.

 

Danielle Walker (01:16:34.146)

Yeah. Okay. Now over to what happened in Senate and governmental affairs this week, Chris, this one, I don't know if you've heard back from anyone. I know you were putting some questions out to a few folks because we were unclear on how or why this vote went down the way it did. House Bill 216 by Representative Steve Jackson seemed to be just simply a transparency bill about the recording of meetings on the Board of Ethics.

 

which we're supportive of. However, it passed, but some really great conservatives that we have a lot of respect for voted against it, which raised some flags for us as to why the bill got, why they voted against it, that something else must have got shoved in there that we missed.

 

Chris Alexander (01:17:22.35)

This was on the house floor, correct?

 

Danielle Walker (01:17:28.558)

It was, yeah, that was exactly on the House floor. It passed 87 to 13. And like I said, there were a lot of great conservatives voting against it, including

 

Chris Alexander (01:17:39.767)

And Beryl Amedee's position on it in this entry, because she did respond. Her position was, ethics hearings are not the same as legislative hearings where the public needs as much input as possible in the lawmaking process. She said, this was our main concern that by mandating live broadcasts and accessible archives of public meetings could be used to bring raw investigative material and accusations to light.

 

Danielle Walker (01:17:42.378)

Mm-hmm. Okay.

 

Chris Alexander (01:18:07.618)

before they've been investigated for the purpose

 

Danielle Walker (01:18:11.538)

so if there's a criminal matter then, and it goes to the ethics committee first, then it would kind of violate some of their privacy. Okay.

 

Chris Alexander (01:18:18.828)

Yeah, for the purpose of acquiring video of smears and accusations, not a good idea as written. In other words, I think her concern is that the investigative process itself, while the ethics board is having hearings and discussions to determine whether or not they need to bring charges against somebody, that those record that that should not be broadcast to the public.

 

Danielle Walker (01:18:45.358)

Because it would usurp their due process, I guess, in a way.

 

Chris Alexander (01:18:48.726)

Exactly, exactly, because they're just considering and baseless allegations and accusations and smears could be accessed by the public in that situation and used to defame people in situations where the ethics board may ultimately decide there's nothing here. We don't need to be bringing charges on this. And so why should the public be aware of that? And I do understand that. I think there's a privacy issue there. But I think that if the bill could be amended,

 

Danielle Walker (01:19:06.007)

Yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (01:19:18.574)

that says at a certain point, the meetings should be broadcast to the public. Maybe the decision, if they have a decision, why they made the decision, that meeting should be aired to the public, things like that. But I do agree here, Danielle, that a blanket transparency bill at every stage of an ethics case, investigation, even pre-charging.

 

Danielle Walker (01:19:43.563)

investigation.

 

Chris Alexander (01:19:48.064)

I understand the privacy concerns there.

 

Danielle Walker (01:19:51.426)

Yeah, because if mean, if some of those videos get out and into the court of public opinion before they get into the court of law, that causes a lot of problems for the defendant, right? mean.

 

Chris Alexander (01:19:59.661)

A lot of problems. Yeah, exactly. And you know, like Ray Donovan said, you know, when he went to a jury trial and, know, was acquitted on all counts after scurrilous accusations to be made against him, he said, well, thank you for acquitting. Now, where do I go to get my reputation back? So I think maybe that's what Representative Amadei's concern is here.

 

Danielle Walker (01:20:17.516)

Yeah, exactly.

 

Danielle Walker (01:20:22.092)

Yeah. Okay, Chris, House Bill 577 by Rep. Darryl Desatel. We hate this one. It's the one that would give Secretary Landry carte blanche to get whatever machine she wants at whatever cost it seems and directly procure instead of speaking or involving the public in any way, form or doing the competitive bidding. And you can add to that. But it was reported favorably from Senate and Governmental Affairs. So last stop.

 

His next stop, which is the Senate floor.

 

Chris Alexander (01:20:53.518)

And Senator Flora, yeah, this was very interesting. There was some very strong testimony in Senate Governmental Affairs yesterday, Danielle, against this bill, and it was a real privilege to testify against it. And even though the bill got out of committee, Nancy Landrieu, on the record, because of questions, direct questions from Senator Maguiz, made some very significant concessions. I mean, she stated on the record yesterday that

 

no component parts and no voting computers at all will be acquired from any foreign country, not just foreign adversary, but any foreign country. And she acknowledged that. She also agreed with Senator Miguel to have direct communications between the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, the chairman, and even Senator Miguel, her office and the Trump administration.

 

regarding this procurement process and President Trump's EOs. Because as you know, Danielle, Secretary Landry has been representing repeatedly over the last couple of weeks that the Trump administration is fully on board with her investing $100 million in a computer-based voting system, despite the existence of an executive order right now that's ordering a full audit and investigation into all electronic voting systems in the country.

 

Danielle Walker (01:22:04.397)

Right.

 

Chris Alexander (01:22:17.27)

We find that difficult to believe. She says she has a letter from the Trump administration that that's telling her, go ahead, do what you got to do. Proceed. You have our blessing. But we haven't seen that letter. We don't know what it says. And certainly we have a hard time believing that the Trump administration has unconditionally endorsed her taking an action that directly contradicts what Trump has repeatedly said about electronic voting, what Tulsi Gabbard has said.

 

Danielle Walker (01:22:31.448)

Yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (01:22:45.708)

what Elon Musk has said and what all the cyber experts know. So the bottom line is they're going to have to, they're going to set up calls where Senator McGeas and members of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee can be on the call with members of the Trump administration and the secretary of state to clarify these issues that I don't think she was happy about that.

 

Danielle Walker (01:23:05.672)

but I love it. absolutely love it. Thank you, Senator Miguel, for that. I really appreciate it because I don't... I just feel that her position is misrepresenting reality. That's what I think.

 

Chris Alexander (01:23:09.207)

Yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (01:23:19.086)

I think it is too. the final concession that she made, she admitted in her testimony yesterday that, Senator McGeis asked her directly, at what point during the process, procurement process under this bill, will the public be able to have input on this and be able to address the issues that concern them regarding this process? And she said, I really don't know the answer to that. You'll have to ask the Division of Administration, DOA.

 

So she didn't even know at what point the public will be able to you know, input in the process and how the public can participate in this procurement process. So at that point, Senator Miguez insisted to her and she agreed to it that there will be well advertised opportunities for the public to participate in this process, express our opinions regarding her decision and the status of the process.

 

So that's another concession that she made yesterday on the record. while the bill passed out and we'll go to the Senate, and also Danielle, there's a chance that this could still be killed on the Senate floor. So.

 

Danielle Walker (01:24:32.172)

Yeah. Did Senator Miguez and others vote against it in committee or did they vote for it?

 

Chris Alexander (01:24:37.696)

What happened was Senator McGeas made a motion to delay the vote on this because of all the testimony in there. He made a motion to delay the vote. That motion was defeated two to four. All the Democrats voted against it and Senator Greg Miller voted against it. He's on the committee. He's been carrying Nancy Landry's water the entire session. So he voted against it. So three Democrats.

 

Danielle Walker (01:24:42.478)

Mm.

 

Danielle Walker (01:24:57.548)

figure.

 

Danielle Walker (01:25:00.994)

Yeah, he sure has.

 

Chris Alexander (01:25:05.822)

and Miller, the Republican Miller, voted against delaying the vote on it. Senator McGeas and Senator Kline Facey both voted to delay it. So those are the two votes. And there were two Republicans who were not in the room, Senator Reese and Senator Womack. If they had been in there and voted on it, then it would have been a 4-4 tie. The motion still wouldn't have carried because you have to have a majority to carry it. But it's interesting that those two Republicans were not in the room. And I believe they were there.

 

for the roll call.

 

Danielle Walker (01:25:36.632)

But if they had been there and they had voted for it, then that would have forced the issue to Senator Klein-Peter, who chairs the committee, correct? So there was a chance.

 

Chris Alexander (01:25:43.407)

The absolute, great point. There was a chance if they had been in there, but certainly the fact that they were absent for that vote suggests that they are hearing from the citizens on this issue. And they, rather than vote against that motion, they would just, you know, rather, they think it's better just to be absent than to affirmatively vote no on something. And I think it may, but they're wrong. And I think it does have to do with all the communications that have gone.

 

Danielle Walker (01:26:06.136)

But they're wrong.

 

Chris Alexander (01:26:11.192)

to that committee over the last couple of weeks on that bill, hundreds of them from us, from our call to action and from others. And Senator McGeas specifically mentioned all the communications that he's received on this. So the calls to action really are working.

 

Danielle Walker (01:26:24.302)

Beautiful. They are. They absolutely are. And a big thank you to Senator Miguez and Senator Facy for standing for the people and standing for the voice of the people and the right for us to have a say in the process.

 

Chris Alexander (01:26:39.4)

And Senator Kleinpeter, because at the end, Senator Kleinpeter, the chairman said that I want everybody to know here and I hear the testimony here and I appreciate your being here and I want everybody to know that I am committed as chairman of this committee to full and complete transparency in this process. So they are hearing us.

 

Danielle Walker (01:26:59.288)

Well, great. Well, perhaps Senator Miguez will give a rousing speech on the Senate floor and kill it once and for all.

 

Chris Alexander (01:27:07.444)

absolutely could happen.

 

Danielle Walker (01:27:09.098)

Okay. Now, okay. So also we, let's see this. I'm trying to get my wits about me here. Senator Patrick McMath's SB 14 passed House Health and Welfare this week on Wednesday, 12 to nothing. And so it's headed now to the House floor.

 

Chris Alexander (01:27:30.422)

12-0, headed to the House floor. And I think, Danielle, not to preempt you here, I believe that because of McMath's bill, which is a really big bill, which received national attention, and as you said, it's a very broad-based nutrition bill for our students to get all the garbage out of the food that they consume, that took up a lot of time in the House Health and Welfare Committee, which is the reason why Senator Faisies

 

SB2, I believe that's his fluoride bill. And then SB19, his ivermectin over-the-counter bill, were delayed in House Health and Welfare. And he believes that both of those two important bills will be scheduled for one day next week in House Health and Welfare, probably Tuesday. But that ivermectin bill, Daniel, imagine the number of people who could have been saved during COVID if they had had ready access over-the-counter to ivermectin.

 

Danielle Walker (01:28:02.626)

His fluoride. Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (01:28:28.354)

Yeah, yeah. Well, and there wasn't the censorship and yeah, yeah, yeah. There was a lot there, but this certainly would have gone a long way because I know that there were plenty of people who wanted it and even if they could find a doctor who would write it for them, the big box pharmacies wouldn't fill it.

 

Chris Alexander (01:28:31.978)

Well, exactly. And the retaliation.

 

Chris Alexander (01:28:50.498)

Well, exactly. There's no question about it. So this legislation is really, really important. And I have to give a reiterate my shout out to Dr. Ralph Abrams, who is the surgeon general who has testified very effectively. I believe I know he testified next to Senator Faisy in favor of the Ivermectin bill. And I believe he also testified on the fluoride bill, but I know he testified on Ivermectin. So Dr. Abraham is strongly in support.

 

of getting ivermectin to citizens over the counter without any bureaucratic red tape.

 

Danielle Walker (01:29:23.202)

Yeah, and whether he testified in favor of Senator Facy's ban on fluoride or not, he did weigh in on Twitter. I saw that and he said, you know, the science is out basically, the science is there and we have a choice to make. What do we value more, IQ points or teeth? Yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (01:29:42.478)

Is that what he said?

 

Danielle Walker (01:29:46.294)

And I think he's right. think he's absolutely right. There are other ways to protect your teeth. So, and you can protect your teeth on your own time.

 

Chris Alexander (01:29:49.036)

Yeah, absolutely. What do t-shirts say? Destroy your gut, protect your teeth.

 

Danielle Walker (01:30:00.718)

Terrible. All right. Okay, Chris, there's a couple other bills we want to talk about. One is one that's been at the center of a lot of our conversation today, is, or at least, I guess, yeah, it has been House Bill 601 by Representative Brett Gaiman. And this would be dealing with eminent domain rules for carbon dioxide.

 

Chris Alexander (01:30:22.794)

Yeah, we believe that that bill will come back for a vote on the floor next week. There are some iterations that are being worked on with that, and we still have our call to action up on it. And, you know, we feel cautiously optimistic that there's going to be a good result on that one way the other on 601.

 

Danielle Walker (01:30:46.774)

Yeah, so I'm sure he's still drumming up support for it. So the more that you can reach out to your representative and pile up their inbox and let them know that you're watching their vote, the better off we're going to be on this one.

 

Chris Alexander (01:31:00.64)

and please go to lacag.org and do the call to action. Do all the calls to action while you're up there, but specifically on this bill, it's HB 601.

 

Danielle Walker (01:31:04.524)

Yeah. Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (01:31:11.182)

Yeah, I'll put that up there for people. LCAG.org forward slash action dash center, but just go to LCAG.org and you can see the action button. A lot of action. Speaking of action, early next week, we expect House Bill 386 by Representative Raymond Cruz. This is his gold and silver as.

 

Chris Alexander (01:31:21.484)

A lot of action.

 

Danielle Walker (01:31:35.648)

legal currency, not just legal tender, but legal currency bill. It did pass and I think we may have mentioned that on Tuesday, Chris, because I think it passed out of House and Governmental Affairs or Commerce, probably House Commerce on Monday. So I think we would have reported on that on Tuesday, but it's heading to the House floor. Yeah, seven to six.

 

Chris Alexander (01:31:54.063)

7 to 6, 7 to 6 vote and Dixon Macon to his credit switched his vote from the first time the bill went before the committee to a yes vote and Representative Domaine and Abear and a number of other Republicans still voted no on it. But this is going to the House floor for a vote and Representative Cruz has asked Lecag to do a floor note on this because he believes that

 

Danielle Walker (01:32:01.496)

Yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (01:32:23.608)

big bankers are going to be in there against this legislation doing floor notes opposed. So we're going to do a strong floor note in favor of HB 386. And I'll encourage what we need to adjust the call to action on that one, Danielle, to go to the house floor, but we have a call to action for HB 386. So go on there later today, please, and do that call to action at lacag.org in favor of HB 386.

 

to make gold and silver recognized as transactional currency in the state of Louisiana. Really important bill.

 

Danielle Walker (01:32:59.426)

Yeah, it's a citizens' rights bill. I mean, really, it's a free speech bill, if you think about it. How you pay is a matter of free speech in a way. And, Chris, I think the fact that the bankers are still lining up against this, the people on that committee, the representatives on that committee who refuse to change their vote despite Representative Cruz's concessions.

 

just goes to show that the arguments against this were completely disingenuous and really what it's about is not wanting the people to have the choice and the freedom to pay the way they want to pay.

 

Chris Alexander (01:33:32.78)

Yeah, and it's about economic liberty. This is about choice and economic liberty. It's the bottom line. So, know, Representative Cruz, like I said, specifically called me two or three days ago and asked us to do a floor note on this because he expects opposition on the House floor.

 

Danielle Walker (01:33:49.006)

Yeah. Well, I'm glad you'll be there. And then last up on my list, Chris, is House Bill 400 by Representative Emily Genevieve. I believe you said this one is set for floor debate on May 27th. This is her parental rights bill where parents get to regain control of their kids' medical decisions.

 

Chris Alexander (01:34:09.92)

Yes, and this shouldn't be controversial at this point, Danielle. It just should not be.

 

Danielle Walker (01:34:17.27)

And it hasn't been so far, thankfully, with the exception, you know, I guess they paused it for some work around a couple of issues, but those seem to have gotten worked out.

 

Chris Alexander (01:34:27.926)

Yeah, they seem to have gotten worked out. You know, there was an issue related to abusive situations and whether or not, you know, how you provide in a situation where a minor is being abused by his parents or his legal guardians, and yet he has to disclose to them that he's going to seek some help for their abuse. And so the bill had to provide for that exception and some other things. this bill should pass, Danielle, because parents and guardians have a right to know what is going on with their minors when they're

 

considering seeking medical care or medical treatment. It seems like a no-brainer. So I'm going to be keeping a very close eye on HB 400 to see if there are any Republicans who vote against this bill on the House floor. This is too important to play around with.

 

Danielle Walker (01:35:00.3)

Yeah. Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (01:35:13.996)

Yeah, it is. And Chris, we're really getting into crunch time now. We are headed into the last three weeks of session next week, and then we have two more weeks. So I believe that we should be expecting things, things that start looking like they're getting hung up in one house or in the House or in the Senate. We need to really be pushing hard on because if we want to see them move.

 

forward because this is the time that bills start dying. Good bills die in this period of time.

 

Chris Alexander (01:35:47.215)

Yeah, and there's one other bill, Danielle, that I wanted to mention to you that we haven't even talked about, but it's HB 585. And it is a bill that simply would require landowners to be given advance notice to anybody who has an interest in their property about

 

Danielle Walker (01:35:50.509)

Yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (01:36:11.342)

If somebody is planning on using their property for carbon capture sequestration, prior to engaging in those activities, they have to give the landowner and any person who has a vested interest in the property advance notice of what they are planning to do. That's what the bill would have done. HB 585. The bill passed in the House 68 to 24, but there were 17 Republicans.

 

Danielle Walker (01:36:36.159)

Okay.

 

Chris Alexander (01:36:38.734)

17 Republicans who voted against even that provision. And Jessica Domaine was one of them. HB 585. And I don't have it pulled up right now, but it's important. HB 585. So.

 

Danielle Walker (01:36:43.918)

That's disgusting, I'm sure.

 

Here, I can pull it up.

 

Let me pull it up real quick. And Chris, the other one I was hoping you would talk about is the one, the two bills you referenced on social media yesterday giving Representative Mandy Landry a shout out, which is a very rare occurrence. So would you mention what her bill would do that you were applauding yesterday?

 

Chris Alexander (01:37:13.486)

Yes, Representative Landry authored a bill so many times in the criminal process, Danielle, when a case is being prosecuted. Serious cases. Things happen in that case. Plea deals are discussed. Cases are continued. Discovery decisions are made about what can be introduced as evidence or whatnot. Just the whole procedural posture of a case.

 

And the victims and the victims' families in many of these serious felony cases are left in the dark about what is going on with their case. And it deeply affects them. And these families have often been traumatized by these criminal acts. And right now, they often do not know what is going on with those cases. And so, Representative Landry's bill requires electronic publication of

 

every development in criminal cases to the victims, to the victims' families, and even to the public because they'll be publicly accessible. And I think that's really important, particularly, obviously, if you're a victim or the victim's family in these cases, you have a right to know what's going on. You're the one who will be living with the effects of this criminality for the rest of your life. You have a right to know how it's being prosecuted and what the posture of the case is. And interestingly enough, Danielle,

 

uh, representative Ville, who is not often aligned with representative Landry added an amendment to the bill on the floor that would also require, uh, public notice. Anytime there's a prison escape, because you know what happened in New Orleans, there were nine or 10 pardon criminals who escaped prison in New Orleans. It took, it was 10 hours, 10 hours passed before

 

Danielle Walker (01:38:55.361)

Yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (01:39:05.234)

Anybody, the media, the public, anybody was notified that you have 10 hardened criminals running around on the streets that just broke out of prison. Did you know that?

 

Danielle Walker (01:39:15.106)

I only know it because I saw that on your post last night, but thank you. Thank you, Representative Villio. That's an important addition, apparently, that shouldn't be... I mean, we shouldn't need to tell them that they need to tell the public obvious. It should be... I mean, it's kind of like a reverse 911, right? The prisoners escaped, call everyone.

 

Chris Alexander (01:39:35.734)

I mean, I think it's maybe there's some, who knows, Democrat legislators who knows who just think that we should, the public should be notified by the escapees.

 

Danielle Walker (01:39:45.678)

Yeah, maybe so when they come banging on your door. but yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (01:39:47.661)

you know, when they come in, we're out of prison now, we want to come to your house next. So we just want to let you know that we're out. Maybe that's the deal. One other, so that's good. Congratulations to Representative Landry and Representative Villio for including that amendment on the bill. And one other one, HB 64 by Representative Mike Johnson. His bill that will clarify and codify

 

Danielle Walker (01:40:06.146)

Okay.

 

Chris Alexander (01:40:15.372)

the authority of the attorney general and the governor to negate or reject any agreements between any local government or any municipality with the federal government that centers on or implicates our sovereign rights as a state under the 10th Amendment. The attorney general and the governor have plenary authority to reject those agreements and the parties to those agreements

 

Danielle Walker (01:40:17.582)

That's right.

 

Chris Alexander (01:40:44.994)

have to advise the attorney general and the governor about the nature of those agreements so that a decision can be made. This is just a very good bill on sovereignty and it reasserts our absolute right to basically nullify any agreement that violates our 10th Amendment rights of state sovereignty. So Representative Mike Johnson's very good bill and Representative, mean, Attorney General Murrell was behind that legislation as well. It's a good bill.

 

So shout out to Attorney General Mural and Representative Mike Johnson.

 

Danielle Walker (01:41:21.154)

Yeah. And Chris, maybe just going back now to House Bill 585, I believe you said, by Representative McCormick, the bill that would provide advance notice to any landowner who's in the crosshairs of CCS. Let me, I can read to you those who voted against it, the Republicans. Let me say that it does start with the speaker yet again, voting when he did not need to.

 

Chris Alexander (01:41:36.312)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (01:41:49.954)

to weigh in on that. then, okay, I'm not necessarily gonna remember who the Democrats and Republicans are in this. So I may just say them all, but Barrault, I believe that's Stephanie, huh? I'm pretty sure. Beth Billings, Boyer, Davis, Domaine, Freeman, I believe she's a Democrat, Freiburg, Glorioso, Hilferty, Hughes, Ilg, Larvadane, Marcel,

 

Chris Alexander (01:42:01.196)

Yeah, she's a Republican.

 

Danielle Walker (01:42:19.894)

McMaken, Miller, Newell, Angeran, Schlegel, Spell, Saint Blanc, Thomas, Villio, and Zerang. So a lot from the Bayou are represented in that space of not wanting to give you, not wanting to give you advance notice that you, your private property is even in the crosshairs of one of these scam artist companies.

 

Chris Alexander (01:42:31.84)

Okay, exactly.

 

Chris Alexander (01:42:43.106)

Yeah. And a number of Democrats, Danielle, joined the Republicans in voting for this bill to provide basic notice to landowners when CCS projects are about to be on your property. Democrats who voted yes, as they should have. Adams, Boyd, Brass.

 

Let's see who else here. Chasson, Travis Johnson, Lafleur, Mandy Landry, Mandy Landry, Lions, Representative Lions, Owen Shuner's, Knox.

 

Danielle Walker (01:43:08.206)

Chasson.

 

Danielle Walker (01:43:24.225)

Nox.

 

Chris Alexander (01:43:29.452)

Willard, Young. So a number of Democrats voted in favor of this. And specifically, Danielle, since you named all the ones who voted against it, I just want to name the Republicans who voted against this on the floor. The Speaker, Barrault, Billings, Davis. Is Boyer a Republican? I don't know. Davis, Domaine, Freiburg, Glorioso, Hilferty, Ild, McMakin.

 

Danielle Walker (01:43:33.57)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (01:43:51.331)

I don't remember.

 

Chris Alexander (01:43:59.087)

Orgeron, Schlegel, Spell, St. Blas, Thomas, Villio, and Zerang. Republicans who voted against, 17 Republicans who voted against this bill to give this notice to landowners. It's important. I think frankly, it's despicable.

 

Danielle Walker (01:44:05.624)

Yeah.

 

Danielle Walker (01:44:16.438)

It is despicable, but the positive side is that the bill is advancing and it should be going over to the Senate, what Senate natural resources next, I would imagine.

 

Chris Alexander (01:44:26.572)

Yes, that's where it'll be going and hopefully it passes through over there. And thank God for all the Republicans who supported this.

 

Danielle Walker (01:44:36.181)

Yeah, absolutely. And the Democrats, much appreciation there. Yep.

 

Chris Alexander (01:44:39.07)

And the Democrats as well, exactly. When 10 Democrats who never vote with conservative Republicans come over and vote for a piece of legislation, I mean, what does that tell you about the Republicans who opposed it? It's almost like we've talked about before, Danielle, they don't want to give even the slightest concession to private property to the rights of landowners. Not even the slightest concessions can be made.

 

Danielle Walker (01:44:59.192)

Mm-mm. Nope.

 

Chris Alexander (01:45:08.918)

And that's why I think the ire of the citizens is up so much right now on this issue of CCS.

 

Danielle Walker (01:45:13.944)

Yeah, yeah, because it, because it begs the question, why, why won't you listen to us? Not even a tiny bit. Are you being paid? I mean, what is, what is it in? What is there in it for you that you refuse to listen to the people who put you in that position?

 

Chris Alexander (01:45:30.654)

Exactly, exactly.

 

Danielle Walker (01:45:33.834)

Anyway, time will tell, time will tell.

 

Chris Alexander (01:45:36.59)

Time will tell and Daniel, I'm trying to think. don't think there's anything else. Oh, let's see, House Bill 615. That's Representative Geymann's bill that would give local authority. Yeah, and I'm trying to remember what happened with that, HB 615. think it's...

 

Danielle Walker (01:45:51.128)

yeah, the solar one?

 

Danielle Walker (01:46:00.022)

I think you said, well, it failed in the house on the house floor. Remember? He was supposed to try and bring it back though.

 

Chris Alexander (01:46:06.124)

yeah, that's right. That's exactly right. And did we say how people voted on this? We did? Okay. All right. Just wanted to make sure that we said how people voted on this. It failed a final passage in a, yeah, this is the one that failed 53 to 46. Yeah. Yeah. So hopefully he's going to bring it back, but a lot of Republicans voted against this bill.

 

Danielle Walker (01:46:11.756)

Yeah, we did. I'm pretty sure.

 

Danielle Walker (01:46:24.354)

Yeah, and there were some absences and stuff. So he was hoping to bring it back.

 

Chris Alexander (01:46:32.44)

to provide authority for local governments to establish the parameters and the permitting process for these solar generation facilities. So once again, Republicans killed some basic legislation to give some autonomy to local governments on this Green New Deal garbage.

 

Danielle Walker (01:46:50.85)

Yeah, which should already be the de facto stance.

 

Chris Alexander (01:46:54.958)

Well, exactly, exactly. One day we're going to have to do a study, Danielle, that really compares line by line the campaign platforms of some of these Republicans when they're running for office versus their voting records after they get there. I think it would be an interesting study.

 

Danielle Walker (01:47:10.626)

Yeah, I think it'll be an interesting study. It's probably not a very complex one at that. All right, Chris. Well, I think that rounds us out for today. On Tuesday, we will be back at eight, letting you know what's coming for the week ahead. I expect the next three weeks to be fast and furious. Probably you do as well. Anything you're looking forward to next week that we haven't mentioned?

 

Chris Alexander (01:47:15.694)

Yeah, right. Exactly.

 

Chris Alexander (01:47:37.461)

I'm looking forward to all of it. I'm looking forward, one of the things I'm looking forward to is the floor note that we're gonna do on representative Cruz gold and silver bill. Because even though it doesn't give us everything that we wanted in the original version of the bill, it's still a step in the right direction. And I think it will be habituating the state and the legislature to taking another step next year on it. But it's important that this pass.

 

There's a reason why the bankers are opposed to this. And it's, again, the same reason we've always given because they feel like they deserve to have the monopoly on how we conduct our economic activities. And it's unfortunate.

 

Danielle Walker (01:48:19.79)

Chris, it would be easy enough for us to figure out who testified from the banking association on behalf against this, right? And then also look it up on the Secretary of State's website, how much money the banks donated to campaigns and what campaigns they donated to and see, you know.

 

if that's got anything to do with the intractable position of some of these representatives.

 

Chris Alexander (01:48:46.264)

Yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (01:48:52.77)

Louisiana Bankers Association. I know that that's the name of it and I know that they've testified against it. And so, yeah, it should be relatively easy to find, relatively easy to follow the money.

 

Danielle Walker (01:49:04.718)

It might be an interesting data point to put in your floor note.

 

Chris Alexander (01:49:08.354)

You know, absolutely. That's a great thought. And also before we go, Danielle, I want to encourage everyone beginning at about one o'clock today, 1230 or one today to go to lacag.org. We'll have the calls to action updated, the targeted recipients, and please do all those call to actions. There's about eight of them up there now, eight or nine. It takes about two minutes to do them. We encourage you to customize your own email if you want to.

 

and do those calls to action because I'm telling you it makes a big difference.

 

Danielle Walker (01:49:43.266)

Yeah, it absolutely does. And we are making sure, and I think the legislature is increasingly aware of the power of the voice of the people and La Cag is a venue through that. thank you for being our voice down there, Chris. We really appreciate that. I know that people...

 

Chris Alexander (01:49:57.165)

Yeah.

 

Chris Alexander (01:50:02.358)

And thank you for being on the State of Freedom because Danielle, we're moving, expanding, because people are sharing and people are listening to the State of Freedom because they understand that they're not going to get the unvarnished truth in any other venue than ours because we have no issue telling the truth and that's very, very important. So continue to share and subscribe to the State of Freedom. Go to lacag.org and when you're doing your calls to action, join lacag.org.

 

Danielle Walker (01:50:17.496)

That's right.

 

Chris Alexander (01:50:31.948)

because it takes resources to continue to level the playing field. There are so many special interests down there at the legislature who are buying these, these legislators, the deep pocketed lobbyists, and we are fighting only for ordinary regular Louisiana citizens. So go join us and support us at lacag.org and continue to share the state of freedom because Danielle, we are making a difference. You are right.

 

Danielle Walker (01:50:54.592)

We are. We are. Yeah. And they're not going to shut us down. They're not going to silence us. We're only going to get louder and louder. Mark my words, Chris.

 

Danielle Walker (01:51:10.582)

Alright, love you, have a great day.