Louisiana Voice

Of all the elections for public office that are held in this state, the ones that consistently leave me the most disgusted and frustrated are the ones for judges—at any level.

Take, for instance, the one for the Louisiana Supreme Court’s 1^st District race next month between William “Billy” Burris and Blair Downing-Edwards, both Republicans.

And the last word of the preceding paragraph is part of the disturbing problem I have with judges’ elections.

Last week, I received a mailout attacking Burris. I don’t know Burris. In fact, I never heard of him until I received the mailer that screamed out, “Billy Burris protects powerful predators instead of kids. We can’t trust him to keep us safe.”

Well, that certainly grabs one’s attention, doesn’t it?

On one side of the mailout said, “A local school official and political insider was found guilty of second-degree child cruelty. Judge Billy Burris refused to hear the case and called the child abuser ‘“’a good man.’”

Flip it over, and the mailer repeats the charge, explaining that the “political insider was found guilty on 4 counts of child cruelty” for:

• “Putting his hand over the mouth and nose of a 4-year-old until the child went limp.
• Wrapping packing tape around the heads of three 13-year-old boys.

It cited as its source for the information The Times-Picayune of Nov. 22, 2022.

And while those disciplinary acts surely appear to have been over the top, they certainly did not rise to the level of the far more serious crimes of sexual abuse which the ad’s breathless headline implies at first glance to anyone who reads no further.

In short, it’s gutter politics that’s beneath the dignity of what a judge’s election should be and does nothing to further the case for either candidate, both of whom should be running on the strict basis of interpretation of law–and certainly not partisan politics–as it applies to future cases that might come before the State Supreme Court.

Which brings us to 22^nd JDC Judge Burris and his opponent, First Circuit Court of Appeal Blair Downing-Edwards and the qualifications they claim make them the choice for the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Burris touts himself as “a conservative, rule-of-law-oriented judge. As proof if his “conservative” creds, he points to the fact that he is a member of the Federalist Society and a “lifetime” member of the National Rifle Association” and has received endorsements from Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (MCPAC) and SouthPAC, “reflecting support from the state’s business and conservative communities,” according to his web page which sports a photo of him all serious and carrying a shotgun over his shoulder like some serious American hunter.

As for Downing-Edwards, her television ad promotes her as a “rock-solid Republican” even as a video image of President Ineptstein appears with him arriving at some event. It’s a not so thinly-veiled effort to link her campaign to his coattails. Likewise, her web page tells us in somewhat contradictory terms that she “has built her career on a conservative judicial philosophy” but with “respect for the rule of law, and an unwavering belief that judges must apply the law as written—not legislate from the bench.”

If that is so, then I must respectfully ask why in hell she saw the need to remind us that she is a “longtime Republican” and of her “conservative judicial philosophy” and that Louisiana “deserves justices who are independent, rooted in conservative principles…”?

It has long been my contention that candidates for judgeships should lay partisan politics and personal philosophies aside and restrict their qualifications to the singular premise of interpreting the law as it is written and not how one feels it should apply to their personal tenets.

Adhering to that one principle is the only way a judge can be fair and impartial. Any other consideration in handing down a ruling is nothing more than grandstanding in the tradition of Clarence Thomas.

One last thought: at the bottom of that mailout attacking Burris was the disclaimer: “Paid for by Defend and Protect Louisiana: not authorized by any candidate of candidate’s committee.”

But with only Burris and Downing-Edwards in the race, it may as well have had her name all over it.

Read Full Post »

We’re halfway through our Spring fundraiser and we’re short of our goal, so you’re being respectfully asked to help us if you’re in a financial position to do so.

If you like stories like the two below, help us keep them coming. Associated Press let us know about that lame quote by Ralph Reed as he defended President Inepstein’s posting of him as Jesus trying to revive a deceased (or at least a very ill) person.

But other than being a person “who sits on Trump’s faith advisory board and who once served as leader of the Christian Coalition,” as the AP explained to us, just who is Ralph Reed?

Well, we at LouisianaVoice knew and we duly reported that he was head of the Christian Coalition and was used by lobbyists Jack Abramson and Michael Scanlan and Repugnantcan political operative Grover Norquist to funnel about $7 million from the Mississippi Choctaw Tribe’s gambling interests into Reed’s Christian Coalition, ostensibly to fight the expansion of gambling by the Coushatta Tribe in Alabama next door–only they failed to tell the Christian Coalition that it was funneling money from one gambling interest to fight another because the Christian Coalition was opposed to gambling of any kind, anywhere. Reed also received $25,000 per month as a retainer for the operation, known as “Gimmee Five.” Norquist was used as a conduit for the money-laundering scheme for which Abramoff and Scanlan each went to prison while Norquist and Reed skated to bigger and better things.

LouisianaVoice also explained in the story immediately below this one how money greases the wheels of legislation, but not necessarily in a way that is best for the special interests but not necessarily good for the rest of us.

That’s why we exist. So, if you can chip in a few bucks, it would be greatly appreciated. Just go to: https://louisianavoice.com/ and scroll down to click on the yellow rectangular “KEEP US INDEPENDENT” button. From there, just follow the directions to make a ONE-TIME contribution. Those making contributions of $50 or more will received a signed copy of my latest book, The Dinosaur Club. It’s about a group of retired reporters in their 70s and 80s who accidentally stumble upon a child sex trafficking ring. They hitch up their Depends, drink their Metamucil and Ensure, adjust their hearing aids, grab their walkers and canes and set about attempting a takedown of this scourge on society.

Read Full Post »

Want to know who controls Congress? Your legislature? Perhaps even your local governmental agencies?

All you have to do is go here, type in dates, say from 01/01/2003 to 01/01/2026, and arbitrarily put in an amount of from $500 to $5000 and for “Contributor’s Name, you’ll have to repeat the process, depending on how many contributors you’re looking for. But for the same of argument, type in “oil” one time, then go back later and type in “petroleum,” and later, something like “refinery.”

If you want to expand your search, you may want to take a look at “nursing home,” “pharmaceutical,” “insurance,” “chemical,” or any special-interest group that comes to mind.

But for the time being, let’s limit our search to oil, petroleum and chemical interests and you might better understand why the Louisiana Legislature is incrementally removing the safeguards that were established to protect us from the systemic poisoning of our water and air.

It wasn’t enough that two years ago, Gov. Jeff Landry signed off on SENATE BILL 503 by Sen. Eddie Lambert (R-Gonzales), creating Act 181 which set up criminal penalties for citizens who monitor air quality in their neighborhoods with the use of an affordable monitor that had been approved by the EPA.

LouisianaVoice REPORTED LAST JUNE on the first anniversary of SB 503, which established unrealistic fines of $32,500 per day, up to $1 million for intentional violations, a pretty arbitrary term in and of itself. The new law prompted a LAWSUIT that claimed vulnerable communities (like the 100-mile stretch along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, for example) without warnings of poor air quality. And just today (April 16), a Senate committee, bending to opposition from the petro-chemical industry, failed to approve improved air monitoring at Louisiana industrial plants.

But apparently even all that wasn’t good enough to satisfy the petro-chemical industry. Now comes House Bill 804 which shields oil companies from climate lawsuits, according New Orleans news service THE LENS.

The bill was authored by Rep. Brett Geymann (R-Lake Charles).

Okay, he’s a Repugnantcan and he’s from Lake Charles, another area of the state dependent largely on the petro-chemical industry.

Geymann served in the Louisiana House from 2004 to 2016, after which he was term-limited. But in 2021, he returned after the resignation of Stephen Dwight. Interesting how some of these guys seem to make a career out of public “service.”

Going back to 2003, the year he first ran for the House, we find that the petro-chemical industry, affiliated companies, law firms, political action committees (PACs), lobbyists and individuals contributed a whopping $155,875 to his campaigns. And that includes only those contributions of $500 and up.

Granted, he may well have had beaucoup smaller contributions of $10, $25, $50 and even $100 from individuals not connected to those industries.

Lambert on the other hand, racked up $133,650 from the petro-chemical industry and affiliated organizations since 2009.

So, let’s be realistic. With dozens of oil and gas interests, lobbyists, etc. kicking in a minimum of $500 each and you, with your single $25 contribution, are seeking damages for your chronic respiratory condition aggravated by the repeated release of toxic chemicals, just who do you think is going to capture a legislator’s attention? That’s pretty much a no-brainer.

I’m not saying Louisiana legislators are for sale but it surely looks as though some, at least, might be for rent.

Of course, that applies just as accurately to judges, Public Service Commission members, Insurance Commissioner, Attorney General (check the contract awarded by that office to contributing attorneys, insurance companies and utility and transportation companies). And don’t thing for a nanosecond that pay-to-play doesn’t influence (read: dictate) congressional legislation.

Read Full Post »

It was almost funny—grotesque, but funny—to watch and hear all those delusional MAGHATS trying to rationalize and otherwise explain away that “Jesus Trump” AI-generated photo posted on Truth Social by Dementia Don.

We’ve all seen the picture by now, even though Diaper Boy took it down. It depicted President Inepstein as Jesus, apparently trying to coax an unidentified dead man (it eerily resembled one Jeffrey Epstein) back to life.

The Lord of Mar-A-Lardo attempted to explain it all away by saying, without much conviction, that he had been under the impression that the photo depicted him as a physician, not Jesus.

That’s pretty counterintuitive, even for a master prevaricator such as Agent Orange. Surely, he doesn’t believe anyone is naïve enough to buy into that B.S.

Well, maybe his most devoted followers will somehow twist themselves into knots in an effort to bend so obvious a preposterous explanation into some kind of logic.

And just for fun, this would seem to be a far more appropriate post for El Trumpo:

And while TACO Don’s version is hilarious on its face, it doesn’t approach the duplicity of one Ralph Reed, that sanctimonious “Christian” conservative who sits on Trump’s faith advisory board and who once served as leader of the Christian Coalition.

It was Ralph Reed who came charging in to defend Cadet Born Spurs over the Jesus picture by saying to ASSOCIATED PRESS, and I quote: “There is a deep reservoir of appreciation for the president and his faith-based policies that transcends and eclipses any disagreement over a social media post,”

I’m not entirely sure what “reservoir of appreciation” even means in this bit of word salad but it’s pretty evident that Ralph Reed is attempting in some tortured way to normalize El-Krazy Presidente’s thinking it was a good idea to try and pass himself off as the Great Physician—as opposed to some garden variety sawbones. It must have cramped his tongue horribly to form those words.

You see, Ralph Reed has a rather embarrassing history with one Jack Abramoff that flies in the face of everything the Christian Coalition and its Bible-waving members hold dear. In fact, Reed is the poster child for deception, duplicity and hypocrisy that would make ol’ Beelzebub his own self proud.

Thaaaat’s right. When Abramoff, Repugnantcan operative Grover Norquist, lobbyist Michael Scanlan—and by association, House majority leader Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas)—contrived to rip off Native Americans to the tune of $85 million, AT LEAST $4 MILLION was laundered through the Alabama Christian Coalition with other money routed through Norquist’s organization, Americans for Tax Reform. The money came directly from gaming interests in Mississippi from the Choctaw Nation ostensibly to oppose the expansion of gambling in Alabama which could conceivably hurt the Choctaw’s casino revenue source.

So, what we had was the anti-gambling Christian Coalition of Alabama unknowingly receiving money from Mississippi gambling interests to be used to fight the expansion of gambling in Alabama. And for his participation, Ralph Reed received A $20,000 PER MONTH RETAINER FOR HIS SERVICES.

Slick, huh?

Of course, the Choctaw and Coushatta tribes weren’t the only Native Americans these God-fearing Christians screwed over. They found victims among tribes in Michigan, Texas, California, Washington State and Louisiana, among others. Like junkies, once they smelled the addictive aroma of money, they were unable to stop.

In 2002, Abramoff came to consider Reed as competition and CUT HIM OFF from his secret source of income. Abramoff told Scanlon in an email, “He (Reed) is a bad version of us! No more money for him.”

Abramoff and Scanlon eventually went to prison for their scam while Norquist went on to push his anti-tax agenda (including LOUISIANA DURING THE JINDAL TRAGEDY). Reed, meanwhile went on to gain victories for the Repugnantcan Party with his Bible-thumping for conservative principles schtick.

Even, in Ralph Reed’s case, to wheedling himself into position where he could try and justify a social media photo posted by a deranged POTUS that characterized him as Jesus Christ.

Read Full Post »

2009

That’s when the minimum wage was last raised to $7.25 per hour.

As of January, 30 states have minimum wages that exceed $7.25.

That means 20 states still pay $7.25 per hour minimum wage after it was first set at that rate 17 years ago.

Louisiana is one of those 20 and apparently, will remain so for at least another year after the House Labor and Industrial Relations danced all around the real issues of inflation and defeated HB 353 by State Rep. Tammy Phelps (D-Shreveport).

The committee, as might be expected, voted along party lines as seven Repugnantcans voted not to report the bill favorably while five Democrats, the true representatives of working America, voted in favor of raising the minimum wage to $12 per hour in 2027 and $15 per hour by 2029.

Yes, that’s a 52 percent increase, but think about it. Spread over the past 17 years, that represents an average yearly increase in the low single-digits—something less than 2 percent per year.

And keep in mind just since March 1, gasoline has increased 21 percent on average while the cost of housing, groceries, clothing, health care, goods and services, travel and other living expenses, have risen as well.

And a person is supposed to survive on $7.25 an hour.

One of those who voted no on the bill, Rep. Brian Leonard Glorioso (R-Slidell) found it so easy to say we should raise pay but instead, let’s train workers to qualify for higher wages. Sounds good in theory but workers making $7.25 an hour for the most part have two, sometimes three jobs just trying to survive. That doesn’t leave much time in the day for training, now does it, Mr. Repugnantcan Glorioso?

Likewise, Rep. Roger William Wilder III (R-Denham Springs) was equally snobbish and out of touch when he pissed and moaned about how increasing minimum wage would create an undesired ripple effect. “If you’re a Walmart manager making $4.50 an hour more than a minimum wage worker and the minimum wage is raised to bring that employee to within $1.50 of your salary, are you going to continue to be motivated?”

Aw, gee, Mr. Wilder III, you got us there. Except you might want to consider raising that manager’s salary as well. Anyone taken a look at Walmart earnings lately? I believe they could afford a little largesse with their employees.

You see, that’s the damned problem with these Repugnantcans. They want above all else to keep salaries of working stiffs as low as possible while paying their CEOs like they were an LSU head football coach. Let’s be realistic here. I don’t recall the manager of a Walmart ever once helping me find an item in the store. Nor have I ever witnessed a manager stocking shelves. And that, after all, is the bottom line for Walmart: keeping shelves full of products for you and me to buy and those low-paid employees are making obscene money for the Walton family.

The Repugnantan opposition was so predictable that committee member Tehmi Jahi Chassion (D-Lafayette), a support of the bill, even called the outcome to the exact 7-5 vote in advance. It’s just that easy to see right through Repugnantcans and their agenda.

And lest anyone think I’m picking on Walmart, they’re not the only corporate entity perfectly willing to screw over their employees and if they can get a bunch of fat and happy Repugnantcan lawmakers to hold the minimum wage down, so much the better for those at the top of the food chain.

I’ve never yet seen a suit get down and dirty to produce consumer goods, though I have seen a lot of low-paid individuals struggling to put food on the table and clothes on their children’s backs doing so.

Here’s a thought: Let’s let Labor and House Industrial Relations Committee members Raymond Crews (R-Bossier City), Dodie Horton (R-Haughton), Glorioso, Dennis Bamburg (R-Bossier City), Michael Melerine (R-Shreveport), Phillip Eric Tarver (R-Lake Charles) and Wilder try to subsist for one month—just one month—on $7.25 per hour.

And I don’t mean do it the way that congressman did a couple of years back. He accepted the challenge to live for a month on minimum wage but before embarking on that challenge, he made sure his larder was fully stocked with food, utility bills were already taken care of, etc. In other words, he took care of all his living expenses in advance and only then did he begin his minimum wage dog and pony show.

Oh, and by the way, there was one other committee member who took a walk and didn’t vote. Rep. Michael Echols (R-Monroe) must’ve been out on the campaign trail running for Julia Letlow’s U.S. Representative seat.

Just for the fun of it, you want to see some of the other $7.25 states?

Well, there’s Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas, to name a few. Hell, even Arkansas has a minimum wage of $11 per hour.

For the complete list, go HERE. Notice anything most of them have in common? Yep, they are almost all decidedly blood-red Repugnantcan states—greedy, self-possessed, Scrooge-descendant Repugnantcans.

Don’t try to tell me Repugnantcans are of the Christian, family-values party.

They’re neither.

Read Full Post »