Month: December 2024

    Bastrop County Republican Party Resolution – December 30, 2024

    December 31, 2024 by Stephanie Phelps in

    WHEREAS, the Texas House Republican Caucus met on December 7, 2024, to nominate a candidate for Speaker in compliance with the Platform and House Rules; and

    WHEREAS, in the third vote, 26 Republican Representatives, which included Texas House District 17 Representative Stan Gerdes, walked out of the Texas House Republican Caucus vote in an attempt to deny quorum to the caucus so that a candidate could be elected with Democratic votes; and

    WHEREAS, the Texas House Republican Caucus voted on the third ballot to support Representative David Cook of Tarrant County as their official nominee; and

    WHEREAS, Bastrop County Republican Party Executive Committee and voters from across the county are disappointed with Texas House District 17 Representative Stan Gerdes for not following the Rules of the Texas House Republican Caucus; and

    WHEREAS, the Bastrop County Republican Party Executive Committee condemns any effort by Representative Stan Gerdes to ally with Democrats to elect a Speaker who was not supported by the majority vote of the Texas House Republican Caucus; and

    WHEREAS, after extensive meetings with Representative Dustin Burrows, the Texas House Democratic Caucus, led by radical Houston Representative Gene Wu, has “released” its members to vote for a Republican Speaker Candidate other than Representative David Cook in an effort to stop Republican agenda items such as school choice, ending taxpayer funded lobbying, and ending the practice of appointing Democratic chairs; now

    THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Bastrop County Republican Party Executive Committee calls on Representative Stan Gerdes to publicly commit to supporting the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee in accordance with the Caucus vote and with the Republican Party of Texas Platform; and

    THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that for the House Speaker vote scheduled for January 14, 2025, the Bastrop County Republican Party provides notice to State Representative Stan Gerdes, that a vote against the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee, Representative David Cook, in the floor vote for House Speaker shall constitute a censurable act, given he pledged to comply with all the Legislative Priorities including  “No Democrat Chairs”.  A vote against the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee shall be considered a censurable act.

    THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that for the House Speaker vote scheduled for January 14, 2025, the Bastrop County Republican Party provides notice to State Representative Stan Gerdes to not interfere with rules or use subversive tactics such as denying a quorum or participate in absenteeism that causes a quorum to come into question.  Actions that deny quorum for the House Speaker vote, shall be considered a censurable act;

    THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that for the House Speaker vote scheduled for January 14, 2025, the Bastrop County Republican Party provides notice to State Representative Stan Gerdes, that a vote for a House Speaker secret floor ballot vote, will be interpreted as an attempt to hide a vote with Democrats who want Democrat Chairs, and as such, be considered equivalent to a vote for a Speaker supported by Democrats, and shall be considered a censurable act. 

    THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, in the unforeseen event the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee, Representative David Cook, withdraws his candidacy for House Speaker, a vote by Representative Stan Gerdes during the House Speaker floor vote for any other candidate who has not pledged publicly, prior to the floor vote, to comply with the Legislative Priorities of “No Democrat Chairs” shall constitute a censurable act.

    THEN THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, during the full 2025 session, a vote against or in hindrance thereof of the current Republican Party of Texas “Legislative Priorities” or the current Republican Party of Texas “Principles” in the Republican Party of Texas Platform shall constitute a censurable act and shall be considered in the censure process according to RPT Rule 44.

    The Meaning of Christmas, by Pastor John Eason, Jr.

    December 22, 2024 by Stephanie Phelps in

    It goes without saying, even though I am saying it, most know the celebration of Christmas is far more than packaged gifts, cool cards, yard displays, and Santa and the gang. It is even more than angels, shepherds in the field, and wise men traveling from afar. I, for one, like Christmas’s cultural and religious traditions, such as lighted trees, Christmas movies, caroling, and candlelight services. Count me in on just about everything. But, deep down, I know that Christmas is about Life, Ultimate Life becoming flesh. Theologically spoken of as the Incarnation, Christ the Eternal Word becoming flesh. Emanuel – God with us.  

    With the birth of Christ, a historical shift took place, from God among us to God within us. Mary, mother of Christ, was the first to experience the great mystery of “Christ in you.” Mary was first to know the indwelling Christ. Christ dwells in the world through the hearts of people. Because Mary was the first she became an archetype for the rest of us. In other words, she is the model, the template, and the pattern that would reveal this same great truth leading to the same great experience: “Christ in you.” Christ was formed first within Mary’s womb and is now formed within our hearts. Christ in the heart is not any less than Christ in the womb.

    Let me point out a few characteristics of Mary that will help us have this same great experience that Mary had, the indwelling Christ. First, Mary was a person of faith. Luke said, “She believed the word spoken to her by the angel.” Mary’s faith must have been great to believe the impossible miracle of becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Second, Mary had a submissive heart. She responded to the angel’s word with, “Do it unto me according to your word.” Mary was willing to submit to the will and purposes of God even though it would come with a great cost. And third, Mary’s humility. Mary referred to herself as the Lord’s maidservant and later would thank God for regarding her lowly state. Mary’s womb was truly the most compatible place for Jesus to be nurtured and brought forth. Jesus would later personify those same traits that His mother had. We must obtain these same characteristics if Christ is to be formed within us. We must first believe and accept the divine purposes and surrender our lives to them in humility. 

    Let Christ richly dwell within your heart this Christmas.
    God Bless,
    John

    Federalist Paper #10: Are Factions A Grave Concern?

    December 15, 2024 by Stephanie Phelps in

    Factions have always been a concern in any form of government but especially in a republican form of government because we take our freedoms so seriously and do not want to be controlled by one interest group. Thankfully, the Constitution sets up a system of government which limits the power of factions. Factions in our country are further limited due to competing geographical interest within a faction. Ironically, James Madison’s initial concern with factions is extremely interesting because he would later use them extensively in his political career. His concerns are valid enough though, that they have stood the test of time and are legitimate concerns for constituents in the 21st century.

    The first concern: the peoples’ will would be thrown aside to accommodate the agenda of the faction. Although this fear results from historical accounts, it is more an outgrowth of the British occupancy of the colonies through the years. The British would disregard the colonists’ interests and govern according to their interest to further the British Empire. This leads into Madison’s second concern: the public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival parties. A prime example of this would be the government shutdown in 1995-1996. The two parties were looking out for their own interest that they felt were important to their constituents but in the process caused huge problems with running the government. Thirdly a “superior force of an interested and overbearing majority decides measures.” [i]Some liberals would suggest that the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress would fall into this category. Their view is that the new leaders pushed legislation through that furthered their own interest and began initiating severe cuts in social programs. The Democrats, although the minority, used this to their advantage to show that Republicans only care about one group the wealthy. Obamacare would be a more current example where conservatives and really every day Americans believed the Democrat party was overreaching in their legislative powers. This leads into Madison’s fourth concern of the rich versus the poor and how they naturally form factions, which are good for the government, because the conflicting principles form modern legislation.

    Although Madison presents valid arguments against factions, he realized that they are inevitable and cannot be eliminated. That to eliminate factions would trample on people’s liberty and “Liberty is to Faction, what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires.” [ii]Without liberty, the people would never be heard, and the Revolution would have been pointless; they were living in such a situation under the British and did not want to repeat the mistakes of that era. Without liberty, everyone would be required to have the same opinions, passions, and interests and this is not possible. It is not possible because men are fallible and have the right to express this fallibility to allow different opinions to emerge.

    Madison’s solutions for controlling the factions are simple and straightforward. First, the country needs to be a republic and not a pure democracy. Consequently, representatives need to be elected that represent a proportion of the population neither too large nor too small. This enables a blending of views to form a national consensus. By bringing together a limited number of people representing a vast area, interest specific factions are severely limited within the legislative process because of their competing geographical interest. This type of large republic with small representation creates a happy medium where all interest is heard yet representatives do not get attached to their constituents thereby reducing factions that would trample on people’s liberties.

    Secondly, the House of Representatives limits the use of factions because of the creation of single member districts (smds), the way district lines are drawn using a census, and limiting the number of representatives to 435. In the winner takes all situation of smds, there is no incentive for more than two parties. However, the drawbacks would be the formation of special interest groups that cover interests disregarded by the mainstream parties thus factions are formed to a degree, but their effects are limited because they are not legislating due to a lack of voter participation due to their party identification. Single Member District also helps to ensure that there are deviations from party line voting because the congressional member has to appeal to their district in order to be re-elected.

    Thirdly, the Constitution limits factions in several ways. One by implementing a census every ten years to proportion representation among the states. This results in congressional district lines being redrawn and the possibility of new representation in office as well as shifting representatives from one state to another depending on population growth or loss while maintaining that each state must have at least one representative so that its interest can be heard. Another restriction placed on the legislature by the Constitution is the number of years a Senator or Representative can serve at any given time. It was supposed to create a decent amount of turnover so that power did not get concentrated in the hands of a few people. For most of our history this was true, however since the early part of the 20th century, Congress has become more professionalized with a larger workload. Additionally, by making the Vice President the tie breaking vote in the Senate, the national interest may be better served. This is because the vice president like the President is elected by the nation and not a select group of individuals like the Representatives or Senators. Congress put additional limits on factions by limiting the number of representatives to 435 in 1929 when the Permanent Apportionment Act was passed. This creates larger constituencies thereby reducing the effects of special interest members.

    Although Federalist Paper No. 10 failed to eliminate parties, it did help to limit factions by putting forth the idea of Single Member District and pointing out the deficiencies of the factions.

    [i] Federalist Paper No. 10 pg. 43

    [ii] Federalist Papers No. 10 pg. 43

    Federalist #84 Specifically the Need for a Bill of Rights

    December 5, 2024 by Stephanie Phelps in

    The idea of a Bill of Rights was particularly important during the Ratification of the Constitution but there were some (Federalists) who held that it was not necessary because the Constitution itself was a limiting document therefore the national government was not in a position to take rights away. The Anti-Federalist argued for a Bill of Rights and made this a condition of ratification. They felt that even if the Constitution were a limiting document, it would not stop a right from being taken away.

    In Essay #84 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton argues that a Bill of Rights is not needed in the Constitution using a specific argument: “The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws and TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provisions in our constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty than any it contains.”  While the argument is true in some respects, it is also false in the extent that the Constitution is both limiting and unlimited depending on the conditions present at the time a right would come under question.

    Hamilton is correct that habeas corpus is protected unless there is a crisis, but it is the second and third part of this particular argument that fails to protect the rights of citizens.

    The second part of the argument, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, is questionable on whether this stops the usurpation of rights by the government. I contend it is not a mechanism to stop the usurpation of rights because an ex post facto law only prevents a person from being prosecuted for an act that was not a crime at the time said act occurred. It doesn’t prevent the government from suppressing rights in the future. It doesn’t present an absolute protection of individual rights. For example, without the second amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms, Congress could make a law prohibiting private ownership of a gun on the basis that people commit murders with guns and for the common defense of the union, we have to confiscate all privately owned guns. Ex post facto would say prosecution of those individuals who own guns prior to the effective date of the law is unlawful but it doesn’t prevent a right from being taken away. Since the Constitution has unlimited powers with regards to common defense, government officials could use that loophole to increase their powers over the people. Without some types of prohibitions, the government can look to increase their power by making it more difficult for the individual to protect themselves from government overreach because rights taken away will be done in the name of common defense.

    Continuing on to the third part of this particular passage, Hamilton makes his argument that the prohibition of titles of nobility protects the rights of the people. Hamilton knows that the people fear the implementation of an aristocracy because of the inherently oppressive nature of that system, and he assures the people that because the constitution prohibits this, no perceived rights will be taken away. However, Hamilton is a student of human behavior and has spoken in previous papers of ambitious or rapacious men who will do what they can to obtain power. The question now becomes, do they need that title of nobility to take away rights? The answer is a resounding no; all they would need is a perceived crisis to use the common defense loophole to gain more power over the individuals. As Hamilton has pointed out on several occasions, in past papers, human nature is such that passion for some objective will lead to the ambitious pursuit of that objective (no title of nobility necessary) to fulfill the ambition of attaining power. Hamilton knows this but it appears he chooses to ignore it and only focuses on the people’s fear of an aristocracy. Could this be because his own personal preference is towards a strong central government with a monarch like executive?

    Hamilton, who by nature is biased towards a strong central government, understands the importance of unlimited powers, and does not want that subverted by a bill of rights which could bring the government to a halt when dealing with different issues. But without some type of delineated rights, a distrust of government could form and manifest itself in such a way as to cause the creation of factions (who distrust government) to spring up and threaten the stability of the union. This could ultimately lead to disunion and anarchy which is antithetical to the intent of the founders – Hamilton included. Hamilton must know this and yet he refuses to acknowledge that such a thing could happen.

    Hamilton’s opposition to a bill of rights is perplexing, especially in light of his ultimate objective which is the preservation of the union and the assurance of prosperity. Ultimately his opposition to the Bill of Rights would be a moot point because his Federalist Papers co-writer, James Madison, would assume the issue in Congress and worked to get a Bill of Rights passed. In the years that followed, rights have been protected because of the passage of the Bill of Rights most recently with the Bruen decision regarding the right to bear arms.

    Dianna Greenwood began her service in the Marine Corps in September of 1995 and graduated from boot camp at Parris Island, South Carolina in December of 1995 and was then stationed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland until April 1997 when she was honorably discharge due to medical issues.

    After leaving the Marine Corps, Greenwood earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from the University of Arizona in 1999.  She then received her Master’s in American History and Government from Ashland University in Ashland Ohio in 2016.

    Dianna Greenwood has a long career in local and political activism both in Ohio and in Texas. In Ohio, she became the leader of New American Patriots, the local tea party in Ashland OH. She served in that position from 2009 to 2013 before deciding to focus on continuing her education. Prior to her involvement in the tea party, she had worked on the 2004 presidential campaign in Stark County along with helping on smaller local campaigns. In 2010, she was the primary campaign manager for Matt Miller who ran in the OH 16th Congressional District. Subsequently she has worked on a variety of campaigns here in TX with all but one of her candidates winning their elections.

    Upon moving to Texas in June of 2015, Dianna Greenwood volunteered at the Bastrop County Historical Society Museum prior to getting involved in local politics.  She has served locally in several current and former capacities such as Chairman of the Bastrop County Republican Party, Grassroots Director of the Bastrop County Young Republicans, Board Member of the Central Texas Republican Assembly, Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee for the Bastrop Chamber of Commerce, Chairman of the Red, White and Blue Banquet Committee, a member of the Bastrop Education Foundation Committee and a member of the Bastrop Historical Society Museum’s gift shop committee. 

    In addition to her many activities Greenwood worked as an adjunct professor at Concordia University for 2 years teaching American History and then worked for a local law firm before leaving to work as the Executive Director of the Texas State Rifle Association.

    She has a daughter, Katharine, and enjoys traveling to historic sites around the country with her.

    Verified by MonsterInsights