Latest News and Events

The Joy Set Before Him: An Easter Reflection – by Jeremy Story

The Joy Set Before Him: An Easter Reflection – by Jeremy Story

As the Easter morning sun rises and we proclaim again, “He is risen indeed!”—our hearts are drawn to the empty tomb. But the resurrection of Jesus is not just the triumphant conclusion of Holy Week. It is the fulfillment of a long-promised hope—and the clearest revelation of what true faith looks like in action.

Hebrews 12:2 tells us to run our race “looking only at Jesus, the originator and perfecter of the faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” This verse is rich with resurrection power. It calls us to fix our gaze on the One who both founded and finished our faith—Jesus, who chose the cross because of a joy He could see beyond the suffering.

But to grasp the weight of Hebrews 12, we must first understand the foundation laid in Hebrews 11. That chapter is a sweeping portrait of men and women who “died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and welcomed them from a distance” (Hebrews 11:13). These were people who clung to God’s Word in the gap—the painful, often confusing in-between space of time where God’s promise has been spoken, but not yet fulfilled.

This is what faith is: “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). It is also, believing, “believe that He exists, and that He proves to reward those who seek Him.” (Hebrews 11:6). It’s not wishful thinking or blind optimism—it’s an anchored trust in God’s character when our eyes see only contradiction. Faith is what we do while we wait. And Jesus Himself modeled this perfectly.

Think of Him in Gethsemane, overwhelmed to the point of death, praying for the Father’s will to be done. Think of Him enduring the cross—brutal, shameful, unjust—yet never losing sight of the joy set before Him. What was that joy? It was you. It was me. It was the redemption of a fallen world, the defeat of sin and death, and the restoration of humanity to the Father’s presence. He also could see the joy of reigning in Heaven forever without mourning, crying, sin, or pain. What we live now is only a fraction of life. God has much in store for those who submit to him in faith.

Jesus endured by faith. He entrusted Himself fully to the Father, not because He could see the resurrection in the natural, but because He knew the Father’s promise would stand. And Easter morning is the glorious confirmation that faith in God is never misplaced. The stone was rolled away. The grave was empty. Death lost its sting.

Scripture and history are filled with men and women who reflected this kind of faith in public life, often at great cost:

  • Daniel stood firm in Babylon, refusing to bow to the culture or hide his devotion to God—even when the lions’ den awaited. His faith was not private or hidden; it was unshakable, and God honored it in the face of political hostility. God used the opposition to become a platform for Daniel’s advancement.
  • Joseph, sold into slavery and falsely accused, kept trusting God’s unseen plan through every injustice. Though imprisoned and forgotten, he rose in time to lead with integrity and save nations from famine—all because he believed in God’s dream more than his circumstances.
  • Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a pastor in Nazi Germany, remained steadfast in proclaiming truth even as it cost him his freedom and eventually his life. He believed the resurrection meant personal salvation and the bold call to resist evil with the hope of eternal justice.
  • John Adams, one of America’s founders, wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He worked tirelessly, often alone and misunderstood, believing in a future republic where liberty under God would flourish—faithfully serving in the unseen space between promise and fulfillment.

These examples remind us that resurrection faith isn’t just for the sanctuary. It belongs in the courtroom, the prison cell, the lion’s den, the underground church, the halls of power, and the political arena. Easter calls us to live boldly in the public square—not because the outcome is always clear, but because we follow a risen King who has already won.

Hebrews 12:3 urges us to “consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.” Easter is not just about Jesus’ victory but also our endurance. Because of His resurrection, we can face our own crosses and moments of waiting with confidence. He is not only our Savior—He is our example. He is not only risen—He is reigning.

So this Easter, let us look only to Jesus. Let us throw off every weight and run with endurance. Let us trust Him in the waiting, believe Him in the silence, and rejoice with Him in the resurrection because the joy set before us is just as real—and just as certain—as it was for Him.

He is risen. He is faithful. And He is worth it.

April 2025 Calendar of Events

April 1 – Bastrop Chamber of Commerce Candidate Forum for City Council Places 1 & 5. Taking place at the Bastrop Convention Center, 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm. For more information, please visit bastropchamber.com

April 3 – Last day to register to vote for the May 3 Elections. Please visit bastropvotes.org for more information on registering. 

April 3 – BCGOP Club Movie Night. Featuring “What is a Woman” by Matt Walsh. Taking place at the GOP Club House, 6pm – Dinner, 6:30pm – Movie. Sign up here.

April 9 – Bastrop Chamber of Commerce Candidate Forum for Bastrop ISD School Board Trustee, Place 5 Candidates and City of Bastrop Mayor Candidates. Taking place at the Bastrop Convention Center, 5:30 pm to 8:00 pm. For more information, please visit bastropchamber.com

April 10 – Smithville Chamber of Commerce Candidate Forum for City Council Candidates. Taking place at the Smithville Recreation Center, 6:00pm to 8:00 pm. For more information, please visit smithvilletx.org

April 12 – LPRW travels to Trump Burger MAGA in Flatonia. Meet at the LPRW Club House at 10:45 before heading to Flatonia. Ice Cream Social at the Club House upon return. Sign up here 

April 13 – GOP Club “Kid’s Corner” 2pm – 3pm at the GOP Glub House. They will be reading a series from Brave Books. Open to all children ages 4 – 12. Pre-register here.

April 17 – LPRW Monthly Informational Meeting with guest speakers Tom Glass and Chris Dillon. Taking place at the LPRW Club House, Networking starts at 6pm, program begins at 6:30pm.

April 18– Good Friday

April 20– Easter Sunday

April 21 – BCC Monthly Informational Meeting with guest speaker Cindi Castilla. Taking place at The Community Garden (1067 W. Highway 71, Bastrop). Networking starts at 6pm, program begins 6:30pm. See here for more information. 

April 22 –  Early voting begins for the May 3 Elections and lasts until April 29. For more information on dates, times, and locations – plus much more elections information, please visit bastropvotes.org

April 28 –  BCRP Monthly Informational Meeting with guest speaker Brandon Waltens, Senior Editor for Texas Scorecard. Held at the BCRP Office (443 Highway 71, Bastrop). Doors open at 6pm. program begins at 6:30pm. See here for more information.

Government Intervention or Austerity: Which one prevents a prolonged Depression? by Dianna Greenwood

Government Intervention or Austerity: Which one prevents a prolonged Depression? by Dianna Greenwood

From the 20th to the 21st century, we have observed significant growth in government intervention in the economy, particularly during times when markets attempted to self-correct. There are two main schools of thought regarding the extent of government intervention in these situations. The Keynesian theory advocates for massive fiscal stimulus to prevent economic collapse. In contrast, Friedman and other small-government monetarists argue that increasing the money supply can prevent a recession from evolving into a depression. Both sides agree that allowing free markets to correct themselves without government intervention would lead to disaster. However, the two approaches to addressing economic downturns in the 20th century have often clashed, and ultimately, a combination of free-market principles and government austerity prevailed.

From 1920 to 1921, the United States entered a lesser-known depression. This downturn began due to government expansion during World War I, which resulted in a significant federal deficit. By the war’s conclusion, consumer price inflation exceeded 20%. Additionally, while unemployment was just 1.4% and productivity had surged due to the war effort, the return of 1.6 million soldiers—equating to a 4.1% growth in the civilian workforce—led to an increase in unemployment as the economy began to weaken. The influx of workers also diminished union power, resulting in lower wages and heightening the risk of an economic slump.

Between 1920 and 1921, production plummeted by 32.5% compared to the previous year, prices fell by 15%, and unemployment surged to 12%, surpassing levels seen at the onset of the Great Depression. Many businesses failed, and those that survived experienced drastic revenue drops, while the stock market—specifically the Dow Jones Industrial Average—declined by 47%, causing widespread anxiety among the public. During this period, the monetary base collapsed, marking the most substantial decline in U.S. history, even greater than during the initial stages of the Great Depression. Yet, the government chose not to intervene. Presidents Wilson and Harding reduced government size by 65%, cutting federal spending from $18.5 billion to $6.5 billion between 1919 and 1920. Then, in the fiscal year of 1922, they further cut the budget from an additional $2.2 billion to $3.3 billion. At the same time, the New York Fed raised interest rates to 7% for its discount rate, resulting in a federal budget surplus of $509 million in 1921 and a $736 million surplus in 1922, which helped pay down World War I debt. What followed was an unprecedented economic boom characterized by annual budget surpluses and prosperity for many, especially those who were prudent with their investments.

During this initial depression, Herbert Hoover served as Secretary of Commerce and advised both Presidents Wilson and Harding to increase government spending through deficit financing and to lower interest rates. However, they rejected Hoover’s counsel. Ironically, when Hoover became President at the onset of the Great Depression, he adopted the very strategies he had earlier proposed.

Between 1929 and 1930, the United States faced the Great Depression, a severe financial decline. The stock market crashed in October 1929, resulting in billions of dollars in losses, and the total money supply shrank by one-third by 1933. While Hoover reduced income taxes by 1%, he was inherently Keynesian and later raised taxes. During his term from 1930 to 1933, government spending increased by 42%, leading to unprecedented federal deficits during peacetime. He also initiated public works projects, such as the Hoover Dam, and established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which injected over $1 billion into failing banks. However, Hoover’s tax cut for 1929 was short-lived, as he raised taxes again by 1932. The top tax bracket for 1933 reached 63%, up from 25% in 1932, yet federal revenue only increased by 3.8% between 1932 and 1933, while the federal budget deficit stood at 4.5% of GDP.

Additionally, during this period, the New York Fed reduced interest rates to 1.5% to stimulate borrowing and help prevent the failure of struggling firms. This approach was a stark contrast to the earlier strategy of increasing the discount rate, which was intended to save solvent firms lacking liquid capital while forcing insolvent firms to close. Economist Lionel Robbins remarked,

“In the present depression we have changed all that. We eschew the sharp purge. We prefer the lingering disease. Everywhere, in the money market, in the commodity markets and in the broad field of company finance and public indebtedness, the efforts of Central Banks and governments have been directed to propping up bad business positions.” (Murphy)

However, all the government intervention in the economy during the 1930s did little to improve the economic situation. Instead, it contributed to one of the least prosperous decades in U.S. history. It was only the onset of World War II that pulled us out of that depression. Despite implementing price controls, rationing, and increased productivity to support the war effort, we still faced a mild recession after World War II due to decreased wartime spending and the transition back to a peacetime economy. Therefore, the effects of the Keynesian experiment, which promoted increased government intervention in the economy, are complex, especially considering the impact of World War II.

Regrettably, the circumstances of the Great Depression established an economic model that continues to influence policy today. Since then, we have experienced 13 recessions, and the effects of Keynesian economics have become more evident. The most recent example occurred during the 2007-2008 financial crisis, when the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the housing market triggered a global recession. Additionally, during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the government injected massive sums of money into the economy in an effort to prevent a depression or recession. However, this led to increased debt and higher taxes, leaving us with no clear solution for our escalating national debt.

Regrettably, we now have a bloated national government with an ever-expanding bureaucracy that is hampering the innovation of the American people and the economic change we need to return our country to its great status. So what can we do about this? We can continue to demand the contraction of government (austerity), which appears to be what the current President wants to do. It will be economically painful initially if the government decreases, but eventually, it will be better for the country to return to balanced trade, budgets, and economic prosperity. When more money is returned to the people, innovation, and prosperity are secured, and the failing businesses are forced to close rather than being propped up, leading to financially stable businesses being created or expanded to meet the demand. It does no one nor a country any good if we prop up failing businesses in favor of businesses or individuals that can and will succeed.

Murphy, Robert P. 2009. “The Depression You’ve Never Heard Of: 1920-1921 | Robert P. Murphy.” Fee.org. Foundation for Economic Education. November 18, 2009. https://fee.org/articles/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/.

Roundtree, Devin. 2014. “1920 Depression v. Great Depression | AIER.” Aier.org. August 11, 2014. https://aier.org/article/1920-depression-v-great-depression/.

‌staff, B. E. R. 2021. “In the Shadow of the Slump: The Depression of 1920-1921.” Berkeley Economic Review. March 18, 2021. https://econreview.studentorg.berkeley.edu/in-the-shadow-of-the-slump-the-depression-of-1920-1921/.

.

April Informational Meeting!

April Informational Meeting!

BCRP is excited to be hosting

BRANDON WALTENS

Senior Editor of  TEXAS SCORECARD 

at our April Monthly Informational Meeting!

Brandon will be sharing his insight on the latest news regarding the Texas Legislation. 

Please join us April 28!

BCRP Office

443 Highway 71, Bastrop

(Next to Harbor Freight)

Doors open at 6pm

Brandon serves as the Senior Editor for Texas Scorecard. After managing successful campaigns for top conservative legislators and serving as a Chief of Staff in the Texas Capitol, Brandon moved outside the dome in order to shine a spotlight on conservative victories and establishment corruption in Austin.

Washington’s Farewell Address & His Vision for the United States – by Dianna Greenwood

Washington’s Farewell Address & His Vision for the United States – by Dianna Greenwood

What does The Farwell Address tell us about Washington’s vision for the United States?

Quite possibly one of the most eloquent farewell addresses written, Washington’s final Address to the American people encompasses his triumphs, hopes, and vision for the country. This speech is full of sincere advice for the country’s direction. Yet, simultaneously, he is genuinely concerned with what people will think of his administration and assures them he took the actions he did with the best intentions for their future prosperity. It is a mini treatise on statesmanship.

First, Washington informs the reader that the speech is grounded in his true feelings rather than political cautiousness. It is because he has nothing ahead of him that prevents him from revealing his true feelings on individual and collective happiness, which are manifestly tied to unity in government. This is because he has “declined being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made” regarding the presidential election 1796. He further states that what unites us is our government and our love for liberty and freedom. To preserve that liberty and independence, we must “cherish a cordial, habitual and immoveable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity…” For if we do not, there are plenty of people “from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth….” He says we must be careful and aware of those who would subvert liberty and freedom for the country.

This is our common cause as Americans because while we are citizens by birth or choice, we must always exhibit “the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.” His intent in writing this is that we might have sectional differences, which should not override the fact that we are Americans, which is suitable for everyone. In other words, we must be wise, prudent, educate ourselves, and act prudently because self-government and freedom are hard to keep and easy to lose. Some of this is because humans will find the interests closest to them to be the most important rather than looking at the country as a whole. In the speech, he describes the differences between the North and the South and how, even though we have these differences, we must work together because it benefits everyone. It is a Hobbesian state of nature where everyone is at War with one another because we are pursuing our interests, and to pursue that personal interest, we must see the whole and how each part of the country benefits from the other.

This emphasizes individual interests and not group interests. Washington is telling us that we have consented to leave a state of nature where no government exists out of necessity because an individual can no longer protect their natural rights and need help from others. It is not collectiveness but a need to secure the individual’s rights, and others have consented to this idea to form a civil society. For our country, it was a universal consent, not a majority rule forced upon us by an individual, but we all decided this. We cannot be deprived of our interests. Still, it is natural that like-minded people come together in a faction and then move into political parties to secure their interests. While there were no actual political parties, de facto parties such as the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists debated how the Constitution was intended to govern the country.

Washington had a perfect sense of interest and factions because he didn’t piddle around in it but had a greater sphere of action and could see everything (per se) rather than a small fraction of the whole sphere. We can compare this to how a quarterback can see the full view of the football field before throwing the ball. This is what made him successful. But he doesn’t just focus on factions but warns us about the dangers of political parties when there is no opposing view to counteract it. He warns that without opposing views, a single party or faction can take over and impose tyranny on the people. While factions are needed to a certain extent, they can be dangerous because factions can and will encourage oppression. While it is natural to pursue an interest and form factions with others who have the same interest, we cannot let them get out of control and take over because it results in the end game of oppression. He, of course, has read Federalist 10 and understands the necessity of factions but warns the people against them.

He continues to preach many things in this Address that are universal and based on logic and reason, such as the spirit and innovation of the Constitution. He believes they had elevated the human condition and demanded that humans become serious beings and live up to their potential, encompassing what was right and wrong with the world. It was not the I am what I am like in the old days or back in Europe with the aristocracy, but I will be what I can achieve. You do this by not limiting yourself, talking to each other, and becoming educated. He was keen on the idea that education frees you from the banal, silly, and ridiculous circumstances that one can find oneself in, and you, as an individual, can elevate yourself to equality.

He spent a great deal of time speaking of parties/factions and the individual, but he also touched on something that many have ignored, especially since World War II, which is to be careful with foreign nations. In this section, there was a passage that caught my attention where Washington states:

In executing such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; in place of them, just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The Nation that indulges toward another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is, to some degree, a slave.

He isn’t talking about not having alliances but not having permanent alliances because it makes you less independent and more dependent on that Nation. Additionally, you cannot trust them because they are in the habit of changing regimes with a good chance of implementing one that may or may not honor your treaties. Washington would have been against Most Favored Nation status being given to a country because of the imbalance it can create. We see his wise warnings about China – we now have a tremendous trade imbalance. Still, his warnings ring true with other treaties such as NAFTA, where we again see a trade imbalance that makes us more dependent on other nations economically and less independent to a certain degree.

Washington then begins talking about economics and various other issues before ending the Address regarding neutrality and a review of his administration. He makes no apologies for neutrality and reasons that it has allowed us to “endeavor to gain time to our own country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption, to that degree of strengths and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its fortunes.” In other words, we are not yet at a point where we can become involved in other countries’ issues, and based on his previous statements regarding caution against favoring nations, it is best to work on ourselves.

Finally, Washington concludes the essay by noting that he did nothing with malice. It hopes that history will view him favorably in that his work was done for the people and those items that were mistakes based on incompetence would be discarded to the dustbin of history and that he will revere retirement but that the citizens of the United States will always be in his heart.

It is worth noting that this speech is not often taught in school and not in high school anymore, where U.S. History classes only begin post-Civil War rather than pre-Jamestown. What a huge loss for our students and our country to be deprived of learning this and other significant historical and political works of our country. Without this knowledge and education, how can we continue to be the beacon of the free world?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Civility and Politics – By Dianna Greenwood

Civility and Politics – By Dianna Greenwood

I have previously written on this subject twice before – once in 2018 for the Bastrop Advertiser and again in 2023 for the TSRA Sportsman utilizing the same piece with minor differences. I am once again using the same piece with minor changes.

Civility in politics seems like a lost art form in today’s society. We have political leaders speaking in derogatory terms, name-calling to suit their purposes, others using vitriolic language to encourage their supporters in the oppression of others, and then there are the supporters of these so-called political leaders who emulate this practice of incivility to the detriment of our political process. Now, when I say oppression of others, I mean in the form of speech and/or liberty, not the oppression of others who lack common sense or are trying to convince us that reality isn’t reality and their view of the world is correct. Everything we have known for a millennium is incorrect.

In 1800, the first contested presidential election, the country experienced what history has called the most vitriolic campaign. Unlike today, where candidates actually campaign, it was surrogates who campaigned for the candidates. Those surrogates were out for blood; every insult was on the table, and neither candidate was immune to it. The insults flew, and each candidate was complicit behind the scenes while acting as though they were publicly above the fray. From questioning whether Jefferson was an adulterous hermaphrodite atheist to alleging Adams was an anti-republican nutjob who wanted to become King, the insults were fast, furious, and downright vitriolic. It was so vitriolic that the close friendship between Jefferson and Adams was severed for over a decade. Frankly, it was worse than anything we have seen in politics today.

Fast forward to the election of 1828, and we see Andrew Jackson’s wife being attacked and accused of adulterous behavior because Jackson courted her before her divorce was final. It is said to have affected her so badly it contributed to her early death. Jackson would never get over it and made it his life’s mission to punish his political enemies for their attacks on his wife. And it continues through the years, right down through to our own time, where we see attacks on the president’s family, attacks on Senators and Congressmen, whether true or not, to the point where they have been physically hurt. How far do we have to sink before enough is enough? How many more Congressmen have to be shot, or political leaders run out of restaurants before we say enough is enough?

For years, elections have become more about celebrity or who can get the best jab in and less about policy. It has escalated in recent years to a point where those who have loved politics their whole lives have grown weary of the name-calling and false accusations. We saw it nationally during the presidential campaign with the useless name-calling that was cheered on by people on both sides. And on a local level, we saw this type of behavior in 2018 during the BCRP Chairman race and in 2020 during the county judge race. We are witnessing candidate surrogates do the same thing again locally in 2025. We are going to attack candidates now for the job they hold as they attempt to seek a non-partisan office where they do not get paid.

The attacks coming out against a local candidate because of the job they hold are absolutely ridiculous and right out of a Democrat playbook. If you don’t agree with someone’s choice of job or religious identity, that is fine, but give real reasons why they should not hold a position in the community. When you attack them for the job they have or their religious beliefs because they are different from yours, it makes you and the candidate you are supporting look petty and entitled. It wasn’t too long ago that Catholics were forbidden from holding elective office and practicing law. One of our Founding Fathers, Charles Caroll of Carrolton, was an educated lawyer. Still, prior to the American Revolution, he was prevented from serving in office or being a lawyer only because he was Catholic. In fact, as a Catholic, he wasn’t even considered a full citizen. It is worth noting that preachers were key participants in the American Revolution because they preached politics from the pulpit, encouraging people to get involved. A presbyterian preacher from New Jersey signed the Declaration of Independence, John Witherspoon.

All this incivility and nonsense has done is split the American people into them and us to the point where friendships are being severed over politics. It is not worth it and has no place in a civil society. We need to respect people’s opinions and reasons for running even if we don’t agree with them, and nothing obligates us to agree with them. Before you open your mouth and accuse someone of bringing their “religious” beliefs into an issue, actually listen to what they have to say. You may be surprised to learn their reasons are not religious at all but actually based on policy and substandard results.

As we talk, you will find that we have more in common than previously thought. Many, not all, of our differences are based on simple policy issues rather than vast differences. Yes, there are issues on which we will not come to a consensus su, such as abortion or gun control, but there are so many other fiscal, educational, and social issues we can fix through meaningful and respectful conversations. To be sure, there are folks on each side of the political spectrum who are unreasonable and refuse to engage in meaningful conversation to find common ground, but those voices don’t represent the vast majority of us. If you will attack politically, do it based on facts or actions, and refrain from attacking based on looks, family, jobs held, or economic standing.

As a young man, George Washington wrote down 110 Rules of Civility so that he would have a moral compass to follow as he grew into adulthood. Rule # 73 states, “Think before you speak; pronounce not imperfectly, nor bring out your words too hastily, but orderly and distinctly.”   If you follow this simple rule, your opinions will be valued and not dismissed as crazy rhetoric. Meaningful, reasoned, and well-argued opinions are the cornerstone of American politics and help us preserve our republican government for future generations.

Washington’s Distillery, by Dianna Greenwood

Washington’s Distillery, by Dianna Greenwood

In the late 1790s, prior to his death, George Washington was trying to reduce his land holdings and simplify his operations when his farm manager, a Scotsman named James Anderson, introduced him to distilling and the potential income that it could produce for the farm. The irony with this choice was that Washington had no previous experience in the process and utilized his farm manager’s experience to open a successful distillery.

Alcohol was widely consumed in Colonial America and, subsequently, the new nation because of the potential for diseases in freshwater. It was also widely used in social situations, medicinally, and trade or commerce, especially in remote areas of the new country. The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 is an example of how alcohol was used for trade and commerce because of the rugged landscape, which made shipment of grains difficult and expensive.

Washington was hesitant at first to pursue another business venture due to his age, but Anderson persuaded him that it would be profitable due to the abundant crops and gristmill that Washington owned. Washington planted rye as a cover crop to keep his soil healthy for future crop plantings. In addition, unlike other large plantations such as Monticello, Mt. Vernon had a steady water supply. Anderson had extensive experience in distilling from his previous employments in Scotland and other parts of Virginia.

After corresponding with a friend and listening to Anderson’s pitch, Washington entered the Whiskey business in 1797. During the first winter, two stills were used to produce whiskey, which totaled about 616 gallons. However, by 1798, Washington built a malthouse near the gristmill. It installed five copper stills, boilers, and tubs to increase production, and a system of wooden troughs was installed to transport water from the nearby creek into the distillery. The malt house was the largest distillery in the country, measuring 75 by 30 feet, and all five stills operated year-round. This was in contrast to the average distillery, which was 20×40 feet with only two stills maximum operating for a few months out of the year.

Washington’s distillery operation was highly successful during his time. It produced nearly 11,000 gallons of whiskey in 1799, most of which was common whiskey, which was packaged and sold immediately to local merchants. He did have smaller batches of whiskey that were either distilled multiple times or flavored. Most of his whiskey was made of distilled rye, but when that was not in abundance, sometimes wheat was used.

In those days, whiskey was not aged as it is now; instead, it was placed in uncharred barrels and sold to neighbors and merchants in Alexandria. This enabled Washington to make money immediately rather than wait for the whiskey to age several years and then reap a profit. His best customer was also a close friend, George Gilpin, but other merchants, farmers, and the people who worked at Mt. Vernon would purchase the whiskey. In those days, whiskey cost around 50 cents a gallon unless the higher-quality version was approximately $1.00 per gallon. In 1799, Washington made approximately $7600.00. In 1798, Washington paid $332 in taxes on his distillery production.

Washington’s distillery continued to produce whiskey products after his death in 1799. It passed to his nephew, Lawrence Lewis, who continued the business until a fire destroyed it in 1814. The buildings were abandoned, and the entire operation would have been forgotten had it not been for Washington himself. He wrote about his operations in letters to others and we do have his ledgers to inform us of the financial aspect of running a distillery. To learn more about this and other business ventures of General George Washington please visit www.mountvernon.org. While there you will find out an abundance of information about the people[i] who worked at the distillery and on Washington’s plantations as well as learn about the man himself. He is a fascinating individual who without a doubt earned the title of First Citizen.

[i] Both free and enslaved people worked at the distillery, and it shatters the myth that all slaves worked in either the house or the fields. Many learned valuable trades that were passed down to their descendants.

Issue #2 of the Legislative Review: Doug Kelsay and Curtis Courtney

Issue #2 of the Legislative Review: Doug Kelsay and Curtis Courtney

THE CLOCK'S A TICKIN!

By Doug Kelsay, - Precinct Chair for Precinct 2014 & Curtis Courtney - BCRP Chairman

In our last article we described, how on Saturday, December 7, 2025 Representative David Cook was selected as the Republican Caucus nominee and that the Caucus rules state that all Republicans should support the caucus nominee.

As the Texas House opened for business on Tuesday, January 14, 2025, selecting the Speaker was the first (and only) work to be addressed.

David Cook received 55 votes (Rep 52, Dem 3) and Dustin Burrows received 85 votes (49 Dem and 36 Rep) to win the Speaker of the House race. It was clear that not all of the 88 Republican representatives were following the Caucus agreement. It is also evident that almost all of the Democrat representatives favored Dustin Burrow. District 17 House Representative Stan Gerdes voted for Dustin Burrows for Speaker.

No other business was conducted the rest of that day as well as for the rest of the week.

Without previously having addressed any legislative priorities, the house convened on Thursday, January 23, 2025 to review house rules. HR4 (House Rules) was delivered at 4am to the representative’s offices which contained 213 pages.

Some of the key changes included in the Rules package were:

  • vice chairmanship of all committee to Democrats;
  • the (Republican) chairman must ensure that Democrat vice chairman can promptly schedule any matter he or she pleases;
  • the (Republican) chairman must ensure designated witnesses, selected by the Democrat vice chair, are invited to testify at hearings;
  • provide a budget for those vice-chairmen of some $4000 per month;
  • create 12 new Permanent Standing Subcommittees;
  • allow those Permanent Standing Subcommittees to be chaired by Democrats;
  • allows the Speaker to refer bills to those Permanent Standing Subcommittees;
  • allows bills to be killed by those Permanent Standing Subcommittees.

It is easy to see how these Rules would empower Democrats to thwart the Republican agenda.

When the house convened, that day, 21 amendments were offered but Representative Jared Patterson (R-106) “called the question” a procedural maneuver that means there would be no debate nor amendments considered and the original proposal would go straight to a vote. A motion to call the question must have 25 seconds. Representative Stan Gerdes was one of the 25 who voted to second the motion.

Tom Glass commented in a recent newsletter that “Because such a motion denies voices speaking for the voters and because it negates the very essence of representative democracy, it is called the “nuclear option”. One indicator of this as a raw power move was that 47 Republicans and 42 Democrats were given enough advance notice of the motion to be able to sign on to the motion which requires a minimum of 25 to be introduced. Yet the 34 Republican grassroots members who voted against the suppression were blindsided by the move. They had spent their morning scrambling to craft amendments to the package. I saw the grassroots members hustling to confer with each other that morning, but there was strangely very little visible action by the group made up of republicans and democrats”.

Texas Scorecard reported that the new rules maintain and expand “a power-sharing arrangement between Republicans and Democrats, granting Democrat vice-chairs significant authority and introducing pathways for Democrat control of new standing subcommittees. While Republicans would only be eligible to serve as chairs, all vice-chairs would be required to be Democrats.”

On Monday, January 27, 2025, Speaker Burrows announced that they would not vote Housekeeping Resolution (HR3-36 pages) that details the speaker’s responsibilities, powers of the House Administrative committee, employment policies, accounting, caucuses and work place conduct. Instead, Speaker Burrows said they would change the office budgets without a vote.

On Tuesday, January 28, 2025, Speaker Burrows blocked discussion on several pre-filed amendments. Among the amendments prevented from reaching the floor were proposals to:

  • Require that all House employees be US citizens,
  • Restrict restroom access in the House chamber based on biological sex,
  • Prohibit staff from enforcing the use of “preferred pronouns,”
  • Reduce office budgets if the House does not deliver at least $12 billion in property tax relief this session,
  • Ban alcohol in any House offices, including the Speaker’s office,
  • Mandate the display of the Ten Commandments in the House Chamber.

On Wednesday, January 29, 2025, the house met and adjourned to February 4, 2025. It should be noted that other than “No Democrat Committee chairs”, no substantive legislative priorities have yet been addressed – a full three weeks into a 140 day session!

We are very excited to report, however, that the Texas House was able to meet on Tuesday, February 4, 2025 to pass a Resolution congratulating singer ‘Beyonce’ on her Grammy Awards. It’s comforting to know that the important work that the people of Texas demand is being thoroughly addressed. Or maybe not. 

As of February 4, 2025, there are 119 days left in this session of the Texas Congress.

The clock’s a tickin’.

Verified by MonsterInsights