Category: Commuity

    Extension of the Sphere, by Contributing Writer Dianna Greenwood

    Extension of the Sphere, by Contributing Writer Dianna Greenwood

    January 23, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in / /

    Why does the Constitution promote the extension of the sphere of influence and is this good for the country and for free people? It is a question worth asking in this day and age when so many of our young people are being influenced by Marxist and socialists who deem our form of government as reprehensible. A government that by its very definition is racist towards the less fortunate and minorities. I contend it is not because through its creation we have been able to avoid those sorts of governments which suppress freedom and cause more harm to the human condition.

     Extending the sphere of influence in government is the real innovation of the American Constitution because it encourages growth in land mass and population of the country. It suppresses the influence of factions to cause disunity and eventual failure of the government. Finally, it allows liberty to be preserved for the betterment of the union and humanity.

    An extended sphere is where a country is spread over a large area with a large number of people. Hamilton stated that it is “the consolidation of several smaller member states into a one great confederacy.[1]” While he noted Montesquieu’s idea for a small extended sphere is in proportion to its dimensions, Hamilton said that it doesn’t work in America because of the size of the states in terms of area. Were we to follow Montesquieu’s recommendations, we really would be no better off than we were under Great Britain’s rule because monarchies could form, or we would be split into several small commonwealths that form rivalries with each other. Therefore, the idea of extending the sphere is to amass land and more people to reduce those jealousies that manifest themselves into factions. If we don’t, then powerful factions can form which would be detrimental to the preservation of the union.

    Extending the sphere is a way to suppress factions from producing “instability, injustice, and confusion[2]” which can lead us down the road to disunion and tyranny. Factions in a small republic “whether amounting to a majority or a minority[3]” can be adverse not only to people’s rights but also to the community because they are motivated by their passion for a single interest regardless of whether or not it is good for the community. Since people have different interests and opinions, the strength of factions is reduced when the number of individuals in a country increases. As such when the sphere is extended, by population, it becomes less likely a strong faction will form. In addition, when the populations are spread out over a large area, the people will naturally form different interests, even if they perform the same type of job. For example, a farmer in New England raising cranberries is not going to have precisely the same concerns or interests that a farmer in Georgia raising cotton is likely to have. In this example both individuals have a general farming interests, but the interests are vastly different making it harder for a large cohesive faction to form and suppress the interest of non-farmers in the union.

    In addition to removing majority or minority factions which oppress the interest and/or rights of the community; extending the sphere forces the government to grow from a direct democracy to a representative government. If we are spread out over a larger area it makes it hard for everyone to directly participate in government. Not only does this prevent majority factions from forming but, as Madison notes in Federalist Paper 51, “by comprehending in a society so many separate disruptions of citizens, as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole improbably if not impractical,” prevents heredity or self-appointed rule. Therefore, the extended sphere lessens the opportunity for tyranny by breaking up majority factions into diverse factions spread over a large area.

    Good government is ensured with representatives rather than direct democracy, where the self-appointed ruler can rise out of mob rule. Liberty is preserved because a majority or minority faction is not suppressing the rights or interest of the community because the community is now composed of a large number of people over large areas. Finally, the union is preserved because liberty has been preserved through the prevention of large factions by the extension of the sphere through land acquisition and population growth.

    [1] Federalist Paper #9, Gideon Edition, pg. 30 Paragraph 1

    [2] Federalist Paper #10, Gideon Edition, pg. 42 Paragraph 1

    [3] Federalist Paper #10, Gideon Edition, Pg 43 Paragraph 1

    14th Amendment: Birthright Citizenship or Freedom from Slavery? – by Dianna Greenwood

    January 10, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in / /

    “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Birthright citizenship or anchor babies have been in the news for many years now, causing a multitude of controversy because we know that there are pregnant women crossing the border to have their children in the United States and therefore claim residency. This has been fueled by a lack of enforcement of our immigration laws and by the Democrat Party who are courting voters to turn our constitutional republic into a pure democracy.

    The use of the 14th amendment to establish birthright citizenship for the babies of illegal immigrants is a misuse of an amendment that was passed as part of the Reconstruction Amendments that directly affected Black Americans after the end of the Civil War. Historically speaking the Reconstruction Amendments consist of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The 13th amendment ended slavery in the US but was riddled with problems such as enabling criminal punishments of involuntary servitude and the establishment of black codes because of its ambiguous wording.[1] Thus the 14th amendment was introduced to counter the problems arising from the 13th amendment.

    In its entirety, the 14th amendment compromises five sections and more words than any other amendment. It was conceived by John Bingham of Ohio who believed that Reconstruction should place “limitations upon the States in favor of the personal liberty of all citizens of the Republic.”[2] His initial proposals in February of 1866 were considered to be too sweeping and would not be implemented. This would result in the first Civil Rights Act dubbed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Later, they returned to the idea of a constitutional amendment when President Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act. The Congressional record at the time showed the first section caused rigorous debate much like today and the other sections of the amendment are direct answers to confederacy issues such as repayment of debt, eliminating the 3/5th clause, leadership until the 5th section which deals with the assertion of congressional enforcement power.

    Our concern in this paper is Section One and whether or not it grants automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. First, we need to look at the original intention of the amendment writers. Their intention was to ensure that black citizens who were born in this country prior to its enactment were citizens now rather than slaves. The intent of the first sentence is to overturn the horrendous Dred Scott Decision of 1857 which stated that Black slaves were not eligible for citizenship even though they were born in the several states. The amendment continues on to say “and are subject to the jurisdiction there of” would also be citizens of the United States. Prior to the implementation of the Constitution citizens of one state were aliens in another state as each state (colony) at the time had a sovereign right to establish their own laws. Upon the ratification of the Constitution, this changed and “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Thereby making each citizen of a state also a citizen of the United States at large and naturalization in each state unnecessary.

    This intent of creating citizenship for former black slaves is further stated by Senator Howard in his speech introducing the 14th amendment to the 39th Congress. He specifically states “This abolishes all class legislation in the states and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. It prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental right as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man.”[3] He and others who were proponents of the amendment were specifically talking about the injustices that had been faced by the black man (peoples) since the end of the Civil War. Therefore, it ended the practice of denying citizenship, as laid out by the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, on ethnicity. As such it had nothing to do with immigration and conferring citizenship upon the offspring of those who illegally entered this country. But instead, it was intended to grant citizenship to Black Americans who had been born in this country prior to 1866.

    Now there will be people who argue against this and will use other sections of Senator Howard’s speech to prove they meant to apply it to everyone under every circumstance. Such as when he states, “It will, if adopted by the states, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction.”[4] Again we are injecting modern beliefs rather than looking at what they meant  and the circumstances at the time of the amendment’s introduction. But more specifically the writers of the amendment use the word “citizen” to describe who is protected under our laws and Constitution. So, the question becomes can a child born of illegal aliens be a citizen when the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the country? The 14th amendment doesn’t address that, and it was never intended to address that issue so it should not be used as justification for granting citizenship to children born in this country to illegal aliens who have broken our laws to live here. Let me make this clear least someone accuse this writer of racism due to the large influx of illegals and anchor babies who are Hispanic – this opinion is colorblind. The use of the 14th amendment to justify granting citizenship to the children of any illegal alien regardless of race, creed, color, religion, or ethnicity is wrong and counter to the intent of the 14th amendment.

    The debate over the 14th amendment is a prime example of why Civics and historically accurate history should be taught in schools across this nation.

    [1] Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 14 – “Citizenship, Equal Protection, Apportionment, and War Debts” | Ronald Reagan

    [2] The 14th Amendment: A “Mini-Constitution” | Teaching American History

    [3] Speech Introducing the Fourteenth Amendment | Teaching American History

    [4] Speech Introducing the Fourteenth Amendment | Teaching American History

    Electoral College: Is it Archaic or a protection of our Constitutional Republic? – by Dianna Greenwood

    January 4, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in / /

    Every four years we hear the same hyperbole regarding the Electoral College: it is archaic and should be abolished the president should be elected directly by the people like our Congressman and Senators because we need to listen to the will of the people. These arguments are superficial in their nature and never really get down to the real intentions of those who make this argument because their intentions are based in emotion rather than reason.  When we hear arguments such as these, you better believe that the individual making them has limited understanding of why the Electoral College was established and is easily led by leaders looking to gain their own power. We have the Electoral College for a simple reason, the majority is wrong at times, and we have definitely seen this over the last 50 years.

    So, what led the delegates in the Constitutional Convention to choose this method of electing a president? It happened over a period of time during the convention starting on June 9, 1787, when a motion to have the President elected by State Legislatures failed. Then on June 18th, Alexander Hamilton made his famous proposal of a President for Life because there had been a stalemate on the issue. He leaves shortly after this to return to New York. His proposal is defeated but it engages the delegates to have real and substantial discussions on this issue and from July – August of 1787, we see it heavily discussed, and it is during this time the Brearly Committee is formed. Finally on September 4, 1787, the Committee makes its recommendation of an Electoral College.

    To understand the four distinct timelines in the creation of the Electoral College we must first look to what led to the first motion being defeated on June 9, 1787. Edmond Randolph introduced the Virginia Plan on May 29th which called for the creation of a National Executive that would be elected by Congress. After initial consideration of this proposal which also included a one 7 year term with no ability to be re-elected, the delegates decided they wanted to discuss other issues which was how to elect a president. This is where the motion to have an executive elected by state legislatures came about and was defeated on June 9, 1787.

    From here until June 18th, the delegates were at a standstill on this subject until Alexander Hamilton stands up and proposes a President for life. Many in the convention are shocked and surprised by this but it is now known he is basing this proposal on Washington. There is some question as to whether he really believed in this or if it was a ploy to get the delegates working as the convention was unproductive at that moment. The speech or theatrics worked, and the delegates began to work together again. In fact, Hamilton will write Federalist 68 supporting the establishment of an Electoral College.

    Beginning in July of 1787, the delegates revisit the executive branch again and agree to several issues including that the executive is elected by the national legislature. By August they have defeated four modes of electing the president and settle on sending it to a committee. The Brearly committee of ten is formed to settle outstanding issues. James Madison and James Wilson, two prominent members of the delegation, are part of this committee. They proposed that the President have its own electoral base, but Roger Sherman believed that the state legislatures had to elect the president to keep him honest. Roger Sherman was from one of the small states so this would have been a critical issue to him. A deal is finally reach, whereby the amount of representation in the Senate and Congress that each state has will determine the final electoral vote because the President must represent the entire nation. The delegates decided this was the best way to preserve our partly federal/partly national concept of government they were implementing. It was decided that Congress can regulate the election, but the states can regulate how their electoral votes are cast. This method was presented to the full convention on September 4, 1787, and was accepted by the delegates.

    Now there are limitations to who can and cannot be an elector. For instance, a senator or representative cannot be an elector, nor can anyone be holding an office of trust. Alexander Hamilton would write:

    “They have not made the appointment of the president to depend on preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to the immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons or the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.  And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office.”

    The result of establishing the Electoral College is it is reflective of the sense of the whole nation rather than a few select states. If we had left it to the states, then only a certain number of states would always choose the president, and the urban areas would always prevail. This way the election is spread out more evenly across the country and no specific faction can control the outcome. It is not completely republican, but it is close enough.

    And finally, the best part about the electoral college is that it is a temporary body that disbands after the election every four years and is not made up of the same people every presidential election cycle. In fact, the system is so good that only two presidential elections have been decided in the House of Representatives. Once in 1800 and again in 1824. Additionally, we have only come close to changing this historic way of voting for the president once and that was in the 91st Congress where a resolution was presented that proposed direct election of the President. The House passed it while the Senate defeated it, and this is also another reason we have two houses to deliberate our legislation.

    The Founding Fathers were truly the most gifted generation Americans have ever seen as their foresight has saved us many a time from an oppressive government. Let us continue to uphold that tradition and make sure the next generations are steeped in American history from our beginning. It is the only way to ensure their magnificent work continues to protect the liberty that man deserves.

    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.

    The True History of Thanksgiving by contributing writer, Dianna Greenwood

    November 26, 2024 by Stephanie Phelps in / /

    The True History of Thanksgiving

    By Contributing Writer Dianna Greenwood

    For four hundred and three  years we have been taught the simple tale of the “First Thanksgiving” in which the Pilgrams gave thanks for a bountiful harvest and celebrated with the Wampanoags who were their friends. This is a heartwarming story but is not true in its entirety. There are winners and losers in history and the winners write the historical record to favor their version of events but that is not what was done by the original Pilgrims, instead other writers later did it. This is why an examination of the historical record utilizing original documents is so important. There is limited information on what is generally known as the First Thanksgiving so it is important to look at other events which may have taken place that would lead to two groups of people coming together to celebrate. But it also begs the question, was the Pilgrims celebration really the First Thanksgiving.

    There is only one historical account of this event written by Edward Winslow in one paragraph of a letter to a friend back in England:

    “Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that we might after a more special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some 90 men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.”

    This celebration would have been known as a Harvest Home and went on for three days not in November but sometime between September 21st and November 9th of 1621 (Plimoth Patuxet Museums n.d.). Part of the celebration would have included firing guns, and this would have attracted the attention of the Wampanoag people who may have thought a war had broken out.

    We have no actual information on why the Wampanoag joined the feast nor what actually happened in those three days, but we do know that for the Wampanoag it was most likely a diplomatic mission because their people had been decimated due to diseases that Europeans brought over, and this left them vulnerable to other rivals such as the Narragansetts. The Wampanoags would enter into treaties with the English that would last for approximately 50 years until King Phillips War in 1675 forever changed the balance of power between the European settlers and the Native Tribes. In fact, in the spring of 1621 the Wampanoag people and the colonists had entered into a treaty of mutual protection. Unfortunately, due to a language barrier, the treaty would favor the English colonists and ignore the Wampanoag’s governing system.

    However, what we do know, based on the Winslow account, is that the Wampanoag people with their Sachem (leader) Massasoit join with the Pilgrims in this feast and then go out and kill 5 deer bring them back and share the food with the Pilgrims during the feast. We also know that the modern day Thanksgiving dinner is quite different from what the Wampanoag people and the Pilgrims would have eaten. Through Winslow’s journal we know that Governor Bradford sent four men on “fowling” mission to obtain some type of birds to eat for the feast and because they were celebrating the first autumn harvest there would have been an abundance of vegetables on the table such as onions, beans, lettuce, spinach, and corn. Corn

    in those days was not cooked the same way as we do today but instead make into porridge that might have been sweetened with molasses. Fruit would have been in abundance as well because in that region there are blueberries, cranberries, plums and grapes. The cranberries would have been eaten like berries rather than how we do it today which didn’t begin until about 50 years after this feast.

    So, if the first Thanksgiving isn’t a Thanksgiving but instead a Harvest Home celebration then why do we consider it the First Thanksgiving? Well in the mid 1800’s, the story of this first celebration resurfaced, and it fascinated modern Americans of the time. Paintings and stereotypical images of the Pilgrims and Wampanoags began to appear during a time when Manifest Destiny was in place as the United States was expanding westward. Then Sarah Hale, the editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book, a popular magazine at the time, led the campaign to create a National Day of Thanksgiving which occurred in 1863 during the Civil War. Now there had been calls for National days of Thanksgiving and prayer before but nothing similar to what Mrs. Hale was doing. Through her persistence and work the myth of the First Thanksgiving was created resulting in a loss of historical accuracy for future generations.

    This loss of historical accuracy and cultural context isn’t the only loss, as time passed the holiday focused more on nostalgia and family and less on religion. The idea of a thanksgiving in those days was to thank God for the bountiful harvest that would sustain them through the winter months. It consisted of prayer and fasting. Many other colonists during this era also had Thanksgiving celebrations such as the settlers in Jamestown, the Englishmen who explored Canda in 1578 and the French Huguenots who settled near Jacksonville, Fl in 1564.

    The First Thanksgiving in Plimoth (sic) has many myths associated with it, but at its heart, it is a day of giving thanks for bountiful harvests and gratitude for the blessings that have been bestowed on us by our creator. That is ultimately the true meaning of Thanksgiving and while not all people share in that belief because of atrocities that occurred after that feast, it is a day to be grateful for all that has been accomplished, for the beauty around us and for the relationships we have established.

     

    BCRP Monthly Informational Meeting, November 25

    November 12, 2024 by Darrell Smith in /

    Join BCRP and our guest speaker Deputy Junior Tucker, Livestock Investigator.

    Junior has worked for the Bastrop County Sheriff’s Office for 14 years. He is responsible for the investigation of livestock theft, animal cruelty, and the Bastrop Estray Program

    Monday, November 25. 
    Doors open at 6pm
    Program starts at 6:30pm
    Bastrop County Republican Party Office
    443 Highway 71 West, Bastrop
    (next to Harbor Freight)

    Veterans Day Message, by contributing writer Dianna Greenwood

    November 11, 2024 by Stephanie Phelps in / / / / /

    On this date, 106 years ago at the 11 th hour of the 11 th day of the 11 th month, the Allies signed a ceasefire agreement with the Germans at Compiégne, France. This date, at the time, was regarded as the end of World War I or “the war to end all wars.” However, this was only a ceasefire and World War I would not officially end until June 29, 1919, when the Treaty of Versailles was signed just outside of Versailles, France at the Château de Versailles. One year after the ceasefire was signed, President Wilson proclaimed the first Armistice Day as Veteran’s Day was then known. Since then, we have commemorated this day every year. The sacrifices that countless veterans have made since World War I have not gone unnoticed, and we give tribute to all veterans whether deceased or alive because without them we would not have the freedoms we enjoy today. This is vastly different from Memorial Day which is a day set aside to honor those who gave the highest sacrifice, their lives to save our freedom.

    Our history is replete with men answering the call to duty from Jamestown up to today and it is woven into the fabric of America. It is what makes us the greatest nation on earth, and it is a spirit of not only individualism but of pragmatism, honor, and duty. It is really the fabric of America and something that most people in the world cannot understand until they actually experience it.

    In Jamestown, a group of British men initially come as part of the Virginia Company to make money and find the northwest passage among other things. They were to be run by those back in London and their sole responsibility was to work for the Virginia Company but soon the hardships of living in the New World would appear; from dealing with local Native tribes to starvation and near annihilation from disease and tribal attacks they endured hardship, death, starvation, and mismanagement until finally they realized the system they were living under in this new world was unworkable and needed to be changed.

    Through that hardship, the first representative assembly now known as the House of Burgess was formed. While this is not a military issue, it is here that the roots of liberty unknowingly begin to take place. Those roots of liberty would grow into the American Spirit which appears in 1775 resulting in thousands of men willing to sacrifice their lives for their fellow citizens so that all could live unencumbered by a monarchial government.

    And since then, our fellow citizens have answered the call of duty to serve and protect this nation and its values repeatedly. We honor all of those who came before us and gallantly served starting with the American Revolution, through the War of 1812, the Texas Revolution, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and until now with the Afghanistan and Iraq War. Never before in the history of the world have so many people been freed from the constraints of tyrants and allowed to enjoy the fruits of liberty should they choose to. It is veterans, who we can thank, that accepted the call to arms to preserve, protect and defend liberty and freedom.

    To all veterans we thank you, but especially our American Veterans both living and dead whom without you and your courage, we would not exist as a country. You are an inspiration to us all.

    November 5th 2024 Election Results

    November 6, 2024 by Darrell Smith in / / / / / / /

    The Results 

    These are the winning results of the November 5, 2024, election. The results are from Bastrop County Elections, and they reflect how registered voters of Bastrop County voted. 
    To see more results and more comprehensive election reports, please click here 

    Registered Voters in Bastrop County – 61,423
    Ballots Cast – 39,956 

    President/Vice President
    Donald J. Trump/JD Vance

    US Senator
    Ted Cruz

    US Representative, District 10
    Michael T. McCaul

    US Representative, District 27
    Michael Cloud

    Railroad Commissioner
    Christi Craddick

    Justice, Supreme Court, PL 2
    Jimmy Blacklock

    Justice, Supreme Court, PL 4
    John Devine

    Justice, Supreme Court, PL 6
    Jane Bland

    Presiding Judge, Ct. of Crimm. App.
    David J. Schenck

    Judge, Ct. of Crimm. App, PL 7
    Gina Parker

    Judge, Ct. of Crimm. App, PL 8
    Lee Finley

    State Representative, District 17
    Stan Gerdes

    Justice, 3rd Ct. of App, Dist. PL 2
    John Messinger

    Justice, 3rd Ct. of App, Dist. PL 3
    Chari Kelly

    Justice, 3rd Ct. of App, Dist. PL 5
    Karin Crump

    Justice, 3rd Ct. of App, Dist. PL 6
    Gisela D. Triana

    Dist. Judge, 21st Judicial Dist. 
    Carson Campbell

    Dist. Judge, 335th Judicial Dist. 
    John D. Winkelmann

    Dist. Judge, 423rd Judicial Dist. 
    Chris Duggan

    Dist. Judge, 465th Judicial Dist. 
    Elizabeth Beyer

    Sheriff
    Maurice Cook

    County Tax Assessor – Collector
    Ellen Owens

    County Commissioner Pct. 1 
    Butch Carmack

    County Commissioner Pct. 3
    Mark Meuth

    Justice of Peace, Unexpired Pct. 2
    Zachary Carter

    Constable Pct. 1
    Wayne Wood

    Constable Pct. 2
    James L. Scoggins

    Constable Pct. 3
    Tim Sparkman

    Constable Pct. 4
    Joey Dzienowski

    Unincorporated ESD No.3 
    62.27% – FOR

     

    Calendar of Events

    November 7 – Registration for the LPRW Christmas Party opens. Click here for more information.
    November 9 – 9 am to 5pm, Texas Constitutional Enforcement 89th Legislative Agenda Workshop at Paige Farmhouse Diner, Paige TX. Hosted by Tom Glass. Click here for more information and to RSVP.
    November 9 – 6:30 pm, Red, White, & Blue Veterans of Bastrop 20th Annual Veterans Appreciation Banquet.at the Bastrop Convention Center. Click here for more information and to purchase tickets. 
    November 11 – Veterans Day
    November 18 – 5:30 pm, Bastrop County Conservatives Monthly Meeting with Senator Mayes Middleton at Casa Chapala in Bastrop. Click here for more information. 
    November 21 – 6:00 pm, LPRW Monthly Meeting at the LPRW Club House. Click here for more information. 
    November 25 – 6:00 pm, BCRP Monthly Meeting. Speaker to be announced.
    November 28 – Thanksgiving Day
     
    Visit our website calendar for more information and other events.
    Verified by MonsterInsights