October 2022 – The Pull Of The Land

Prelude to the Cristiada II

October 28, 2022October 28, 2022 Richard Barnes

“The United States cherish very sinister designs toward Mexico and desire that a condition of complete anarchy should supervene.” — Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary (December, 1913)

“I am going to teach [Mexico] to elect good men.” — Woodrow Wilson (November, 1913)

Comparing President Woodrow Wilson’s pious pronouncements about Mexico with his related actions and directives stretches the intellect beyond the breaking point. And it helps one to understand the utter exasperation easily perceived in the dispatches and minutes of foreign diplomats (Belgium, England, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and more) who did their best to mediate between the intransigent American president and his Mexican counterpart, who early on offered to resign with minimal conditions but whose offers were rebuffed by the rigid American. An attitude that would be repeated — with catastrophic results — in Versailles only six years later.

As explained in the prior post, Victoriano Huerta assumed the presidency of Mexico on February 19, 1913, pursuant to a 126-0 vote of Mexico’s congress, in accordance with Mexico’s constitution. Less than a month later, on March 4, 1913, Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated as president of the United States.

Wilson despised Huerta — as amply substantiated by contemporary minutes and diaries, let alone actions and directives.

A brief quote by one of his allies, Robert Lansing, who would serve as Wilson’s secretary of state from 1915 to 1920, provides us a good summation of Wilson’s attitude and approach to Mexico and Huerta:

“With him it was a matter of conviction formed without weighing evidence and going through the process of rational deduction …. His judgments were always right in his own mind, because he knew they were right …. He knew it and that was the best reason in the world — no other was necessary.”

Mr. Lansing’s diplomatic words can be summed up in one: sanctimoniousness. And that translated into desastre for Mexico and her people.

As noted previously, after Francisco Madero’s rebellion against Porfirio Díaz and the latter’s resignation, Mexico descended rapidly into anarchy, a dreadful contrast from the previous 34 years of peace. Huerta, who had served three presidents, including Madero, eventually worked to depose him to prevent further chaos and bloodletting. Wilson refused to recognize Mexico under Huerta and this refusal was blatantly inconsistent with his actions elsewhere in Latin America.

For example, in February, 1914, when a military junta seized power in Peru, the London Times reported, “President Wilson, if he lives up to his declared policy against unconstitutional government, may be unable to recognize the new regime.” However, Wilson recognized it immediately with not even an inquiry as to the prospects for a future move towards democracy.

He also, with a whoop and a holler, recognized China despite its president having murdered a rival.

Impervious to his hypocrisy, he looked kindly upon Peru and China, both of whose leaders had acquired power without even the semblance of constitutionality, while assiduously seeking the overthrow of his southern neighbor. Just how the former differed from the situation in the latter was known only to the president, other than his cryptic reply to a cabinet official who had asked whether the Chinese regime was really democratic: “…. after years of study he had only one final conviction in government, and that was that the same sort of government was not suitable for all nations.” A statement which channelled Huerta and the Mexican government but which Wilson refused to apply to them.

Clearly the president employed a double standard while refusing to heed advice from those who had worked in or with Mexico for many years and who understood the country and its people.

Throughout 1913 and up to July 15, 1914, when Huerta resigned, President Wilson supported Venustiano Carranza and his loudly self-proclaimed “Constitutionalist” rebellion.

In the first place, his rebellion had nothing “constitutionalist” about it. His uprising arose as soon as he saw that Woodrow Wilson refused to recognize Huerta. He proclaimed his “Plan de Guadalupe” signed by his own collaborators and subordinates. This “Plan” proclaimed him “Primer Jefe” [First Chief].

Carranza, like all Jacobins before and since, understood the need to appropriate language. The Jacobins tossed the term “virtue” around more than you could shake a stick at. And they kept proclaiming it from the rooftops even as the blood of thousands of decapitations flowed like rivers throughout France. Their virtue could not be questioned. After all, they said they personified virtue, no?

Likewise, nowhere in Mexico’s constitution would anyone ever see the title “Primer Jefe” nor would anyone ever discern the creation of a government on the basis of a self-proclamation signed by the proclaimer’s underlings. But the “Constitutionalist” term hit the sweet spot and it was all President Wilson needed.

And even after it became clear to any barely objective observer that Carranza’s movement was utterly despotic and terroristic, and that nothing about it was “constitutional”, the United States, directed by President Wilson, continued to aid the “Carrancistas” with materiel and moral support. Like all dictators or would-be dictators, Carranza’s actions were realized by means of arbitrary “decrees” headlined by the phrase, “In virtue of the extraordinary faculties invested in me….” A phrase nowhere countenanced in Mexico’s constitution which he purported to be defending.

Carranza’s uprising and government of areas he subjected — with United States weapons — was scandalously corrupt, as opposed to “constitutional”. His criminal hordes (there is no other way to describe his men based on their actions; to call them “troops” would be an insult to honorable soldiers everywhere) demolished vast swathes of Mexico’s civilizational patrimony. Fields were laid waste and haciendas were sacked and burned; valuable mines and business establishments were destroyed and buried; women and girls and boys were assaulted, violated, tortured, and murdered.

Bridges, works of art, trains and railroads were destroyed; prisoners of war were tortured and murdered in cold blood; civilians were accused of collaboration with the enemy — the “enemy” being the constituted government of Mexico — and were executed after indescribable torture.

And, foreshadowing the horrors that awaited Mexico, nuns and virgins awaiting consecration to the church were violently gang raped, tortured, and cruelly murdered in butchery, debauchery, and sacrilege totally unknown to any level of Mexican society. The “Carrancista” hatred of the faith had never before been seen at such a level in Mexico. Jean Meyer in his work, La Cristiada, succinctly described the Carrancistas’ modus operandi: “….upon entering a village or populated area, they confiscated the keys of the church … they took the church goblets and emptied the consecrated communion bread to the horse stalls….”

One need not be a Roman Catholic to be horrified at the actions of these vicious gangs.

But he kept being identified — even to this day! — as a defender of the constitution. It is dangerous to cede control of language to the enemies of objective truth. Such need to be called out. Not doing so will end in bewailing our silence.

Regardless, Carranza’s actions were supported by the United States government under Woodrow Wilson. He encouraged his administration to ignore the arms blockade when it came to allowing shipments of military hardware and weaponry to the “constitutionalist” while strictly enforcing the blockade against the government. He also fought against Huerta diplomatically. Seeing the futility of obtaining arms from the United States, Huerta began to buy them from Europe, but Wilson ordered the blockage and later the occupation of Veracruz.

Carranza’s allies included Pancho Villa whose cruelties were often seen across the border by horrified Texans and New Mexicans whose protestations to the president fell on deaf ears.

Veracruz remained occupied till the end of 1913 when the American commanders handed the port over to General Cándido Aguilar, a Carrancista. Later, after Pancho Villa and Carranza had a falling out, Wilson blocked any supplies of armaments to Villa, while instructing his agencies to allow shipments to Carranza’s forces.

These and other actions by a United States president explain William F. Buckley, Sr.’s sworn testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee in 1919: “… the abnormal element of the present series of revolutions is the active participation in them by the American Government.”

Space obligates me to pass over much more, including Wilson’s daily nefarious interference with the mediation efforts by diplomats from Argentina, Brazil, and Chile to a peace settlement. It got to a point where the three delegations resigned, but were persuaded to return to the table. With hindsight, perhaps they should not have.

One such outrageous interference was to insist on the participation by Carranza, against all the rules of civilized mediation efforts which forbad one of the parties who continued to rape and pillage and murder while “mediation” took place. The South Americans refused to acquiesce to this outrage, to their eternal credit. However, Wilson’s “personal representative”, John Lind, kept Carranza informed daily and, congruent with Carranza’s instructions, made unreasonable demands on the mediators, who were unaware of the daily backchannel Wilson sustained with Carranza.

In sum, the American president willfully ignored the glaring contradictions between the Carrancistas’ pronouncements and their actions and worked assiduously and, regrettably, successfully to bequeath Mexico to the Carrancistas.

The first major action by Carranza was to dispense with the constitution he had been supposedly defending by calling for an assembly to “reform” it by means of proclaiming a new constitution. The assembly was loudly hailed to be one that would express the “popular sovereignty”. Another sleight of hand with the language. “Popular sovereignty” sounded good to post-French-Revolution ears; however, the reality was quite different. To take perhaps the most egregious, not to mention foreboding, example of actions contradicting words, the fourth article of Carranza’s decree calling for the convention stated that such as “had helped with arms or served by means of public employment in the governments hostile to the constitutionalist cause…” were prohibited from participating.

Therefore, the assembly excluded anyone associated with Huerta, Zapata, Villa, or being suspected of having been — a truly elastic condition — in addition anyone who was in the slightest suspected of professing the Christian faith.

Put another way, over 90% of the population was excluded from representation. That’s some “popular sovereignty”!

The constitutional assembly was sectarian to the utmost, composed entirely by Carrancistas named directly by Carranza or by his right hand henchman, Álvaro Obregón, but supposedly “elected” in rigged and manipulated elections. This became very clear when it was obvious that, to this day, we still do not have a bonafide number of delegates to the assembly. The number varied day by day.

The spirit that reigned was totally Jacobin, intransigent, and — at the risk of being repetitive — anti-Christian. One of the deputies, José Natividad Macías, synthesized this spirit very well:

“…there is a deep religious sentiment in this people and the customs of a people are not changed from night to day; in order to ensure this people ceases to be Christian, for a people to stop being Christian, for the sentiment that reigns today to disappear, education is necessary and not just an education of one day or two or three; it is not sufficient to have won the revolution; the Mexican people continue to be ignorant, superstitious, and completely attached to her ancient beliefs and her ancient customs, unless we educate them.”

Using another of the Left’s disarming words, education, the delegate’s expressions sound harmless to anyone reading them a century later. However, such words and sentiments led to the horrendous Cristiada.

And those were the beliefs that characterized an assembly purporting to “represent” the Mexican people. Yeah. Right.

Again, space does not permit an analysis of the constitution this rabble drafted. Suffice it to say, such was never submitted to a referendum and her anti-Christian spirit and text are totally contrary to the “sentiments of the nation”.

The constitution is openly authoritarian (it “bestows” rights, for instance) and “anti-Catholic”; however, I would caution my Protestant brethren to not dismiss the latter wording. In Mexico, as in revolutionary France, “anti-Catholic” must be read as “anti-Christian”, for that is what it is. For example, one of the revolutionary leaders, Tomás Garrido Canabal, named his son, Lenin, because he (Lenin) was an enemy of God. He had a farm with a bull named God, a cow named Mary, and a donkey named Christ. Must one be a Roman Catholic to be appalled by such blasphemy?

The Carrancista constitution went into effect in 1917. Mexico now faced an uncertainty and arbitrariness that persisted well into the latter 20th Century and beyond. But, most horribly, a mere decade later, she would face a Cristiada with untold cruelty and bloodletting occasioned by a radically atheistic president determined to “enforce” with the constitution.

As for Woodrow Wilson, he was re-elected with the slogan, “He kept us out of war!”, meaning war with Mexico.

The only truth in that slogan was that we had not formally or officially declared war on Mexico. However, we plunged that country into a chaos which led to the horrendous bloodletting of the Cristiada. And we ourselves, under Wilson, also went to a war whose aftermath continues with us to this very day.

Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), President from 1913 to 1921

Robert Lansing (1864-1928), Secretary of State from 1915 to 1920

One of thousands of decapitations during the French Revolution. They were so “virtuous” that no one dared say otherwise.

Left to right: Venustiano Carranza (1859-1920), Francisco “Pancho” Villa (1878-1923); Francisco Madero (1873-1913); Emiliano Zapata (1879-1919). Each was assassinated.

Prelude To The Cristiada I

October 22, 2022October 22, 2022 Richard Barnes

“To understand the Mexican situation it must be understood in the beginning that the present is more or less the normal condition of Mexico; the era of peace during the Díaz regime from 1876 to 1910 was an abnormal period in the [post-colonial] history of that country. All revolutions in Mexico work along conventional lines and the present series of revolutions are in no material sense different from those that beset the country from 1810 to 1876; the abnormal element of the present series of revolutions is the active participation in them by the American Government [emphasis mine].” — William F. Buckley, Sr., testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Relations, December 6, 1919 (7 years before the major outbreak of the Cristiada)

Mike Ashe will soon be posting on the unjustly memory-holed Mexican Cristiada or Cristeros War of the early 20th Century.

However, events do not simply “occur” by spontaneous generation or by a sudden explosion of sentiment or rebellion. There are leaders and, more importantly, philosophies that have taken root or to which key elements of society have submitted, which in turn can lead a culture or civilization to heights of achievement or depths of torment and depravity.

To better grasp the immensity and the nature of the calamity which befell Mexico and, by extension, the United States, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it is worthwhile — and necessary — to take a moment to review what went before.

1810 — We begin with a brief allusion to 1810, which is the date usually associated with the initiation of Mexico’s independence from Spain. Invariably, historians generalize with comments such as, “revolt against a large reserve of resentment” or “the pressure cooker finally exploded” and more such terminology. This is found in scholarly as well as popular, Wikipedia type essays.

However, the first thing one must notice about the date, 1810, is that it is barely two decades after the storming of the Bastille and the ensuing French Revolution, which Lenin, a century later, criticized because the Jacobins stopped the terror, something he (Lenin) was determined not to do. And his disciple, Stalin, agreed and fully proved his devotion to Lenin’s counsel. Even after tens of millions of deaths later, large swathes of American colleges and elites indulge their love affair with the French Revolution and its Communist progeny.

Clarence B. Carson wrote, “What particularly intrigued revolutionary socialists, Karl Marx among them, about the French Revolution was the drastic changes it made in the lives and ways of a people. It demonstrated, at least for them, in embryo form, the potentialities for changing man and men in society by revolution…. In sum to … totally reconstruct society.”

With that background, let us briefly consider what happened in 1810 when “Father Hidalgo” allegedly shouted his call for independence from Spain. “During the siege of Guanajuato, his followers captured the city granary in which nearly five hundred Spaniards and criollos [descendants of Spaniards] had taken refuge, many of them women and children. The massacre that followed shocked [all] throughout Mexico….” This event, and others like it, identify the atrocities in Mexico with those in France and with the rest of South America and the Caribbean, as witness Haiti and Venezuela.

In other words, Mexico and Hidalgo were no different than Venezuela and Bolivar and the denouement of each is unsurprisingly similar: massacres, rapes of women, girls, and boys, cold blooded murders of prisoners, invalids, hospital patients, and other defenseless men and women, blighted fields, mines and manufactures burned and buried, homes and offices delivered to pillage, and much more.

In my childhood and youth I invariably heard comments expressing alarm or marvel at the alleged Spanish propensity for cruelty and pillage as seen in the Spanish colonies’ 19th century revolutions. Well, in the first place, a propensity to evil is in all men; however, more importantly, what those comments alluded to were acts that were totally alien to the Spanish colonies. To see such acts in Europe, one would have to visit revolutionary France, not Spain. It is truly a wonder how France and its nefarious, hateful Jacobin ideology gets a free pass.

Just as it can be mystifying to contemplate today’s college professors and their benighted students’ dangerous infatuation with modern Jacobinism, including an overriding hatred of Christianity.

This explains Mr. Buckley’s comments on Mexican revolutions from 1810 to 1876 quoted above.

1876 – 1911 — This was the “Porfiriato” the rule of Porfirio Díaz. As alluded to in Mr. Buckley’s testimony (see quote above), this was a time of post-colonial peace and order not seen before or since.

The Cristero period, which officially began in 1926 under the Plutarco Calles administration, was actually sown in 1911 with the Francisco Madero administration. Madero was opposed to Christianity, or at least any ecclesiastical manifestation of it. He was deposed and allegedly murdered in 1913.

But we must briefly consider how Francisco Madero became president of Mexico.

Madero had launched a revolution from San Antonio, Texas, declaring himself president in November, 1910. Men such as Pancho Villa and Pascual Orozco rallied to him in northern Mexico, creating and fomenting turmoil and mayhem, which eventually culminated in the resignation of Porfirio Díaz in May, 1911, who sincerely wished to avoid further bloodshed.

Francisco Madero was elected president in October, 1911, hailed as the “apostle of democracy”. However, discontent with his administration set in almost immediately and rebel factions erupted throughout Mexico. For example, Zapata rebelled against Madero in November, 1911, barely a month after the elections.

Similar to like men in politics today, Madero was an aristocrat, having been schooled by private tutors in Paris and in the United States. He had little in common with the peon classes that he waxed lyrical about. He had promised everything to everyone and therefore pleased no one.

More worrisome, disorder and lawlessness were such that the Mexican ambassador to the United States resigned in December, 1912, saying, “I lied to the American government for ten months telling them that the Mexican revolution would be over in six weeks…. The truth is that the situation is desperate.”

General Victoriano Huerta was a soldier and natural leader. His drinking was legendary — think Ulysses S. Grant. One example of his fearlessness occurred in Cuernavaca. He was in a hotel when a group passed in the street shouting, “Death to Huerta!” The General “heard the cry, got up, and walked to the door — alone, ‘Here is Huerta,’ he said. ‘Who wants him?'”

General Huerta had been a loyal and dedicated soldier, having fought under three presidents: Porfirio Díaz, Francisco de la Barra (interim president between Díaz and Madero), and Francisco Madero. In over 40 years of service, he had applied for only two leaves.

After putting down multiple rebellions against Madero, General Huerta was once again called upon to defeat yet another insurrection in Mexico City, in February, 1913. It was during this event that he decided to work to depose President Madero. He saw that lawlessness persisted in Mexico and lives and properties of citizens as well as foreigners were continually in danger. The fighting in Mexico City was frightful but is beyond the scope of this post.

Suffice it to say that the government forces were defeated after much property damage and human carnage. Americans as well as diplomats from other nations flocked to the American embassy for shelter. The ambassador demanded that all combatants respect American rights. The patience of the ambassador, Henry Lane Wilson (no relation to Woodrow Wilson, who was to be inaugurated as president in March, 1913) was exhausted and he worked to seek a permanent solution that would protect American and foreign interests and people in Mexico, believing that would also protect the Mexican people.

“This situation is intolerable … I am going to bring order,” declared the ambassador, who then worked with British, Spanish, and German ministers, whose countries had the largest colonies in Mexico City. In addition, twenty-five Mexican senators urged President Madero to resign. Madero rebuffed all approaches.

Concurrently, General Huerta was completing his preparations for a coup which took place February 18, 1913. At 5:10 P. M., the cathedral bells sounded and a large crowd assembled. The people “wildly cheered” Huerta and a general air of celebration prevailed. American newspapers reported that President Taft and his cabinet showed “great relief”.

There were many delicate negotiations between the factions which are beyond the scope of this post. In sum, negotiations were concluded but General Huerta refused to declare himself president. He wished to follow constitutional norms. While Madero was prisoner, he was technically still the president, since he had not resigned.

Huerta, although “in de facto control, cooperated with Congress and the Foreign Minister to secure legal title to the presidency.” He requested Congress to convene and expressed a desire to “place himself in accord with the National Representation” to “find a legal solution” to the crisis.

On February 19 Francisco Madero signed his resignation, which was submitted to the Congress later that morning. The Congress, which had a Maderista majority, accepted the resignation by an overwhelming vote and at 11:15 A. M. the Congress confirmed Huerta as constitutional president by a vote of 126-0.

Thus Huerta assumed the presidency not at the time of the coup, but upon the resignation of Madero and the vote of the Congress, in accordance with Mexico’s constitution at the time.

Turmoil still persisted as several factions refused to recognize Huerta or even the Congress. Added to the tensions were rumors of Madero’s ambitions to foment yet another revolution akin to his actions against Porfirio Díaz in 1910.

On February 22, 1913, after 10 P. M. Francisco Madero and the former vice president, José María Pino Suárez, were shot as they were being transferred from the presidential palace to the penitentiary. There were several “versions” purporting to explain the assassinations, including that relatives of persons killed on orders of Madero’s government attacked the convoy transporting the prisoners. However, there is general agreement that, at the least, President Huerta should have taken more serious precautions to protect Madero. Of course, the most accepted version is that Huerta’s cabinet, including Huerta, ordered the shooting.

Whatever the truth, the fact of repercussions became clear upon the inauguration of President Woodrow Wilson, whose actions led directly to the Cristiada.

(To be continued)

Expected to be released in March, 2023. Pictured: William F. Buckley Sr. (1881-1958)

Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson (1857-1932)

Statism

October 6, 2022October 6, 2022 Richard Barnes

“A number of years ago I shared a taxi with Francis Schaeffer in St. Louis. During our cab ride I asked Dr. Schaeffer: ‘What is your greatest concern for the future of America?’ Without hesitation or interval given to ponder the question, Schaeffer replied simply, ‘Statism’.” — R. C. Sproul, circa 1990

Some years ago, the Wall Street Journal published an essay documenting the number of state-sponsored killings in the 20th century, not counting 20th Century wars. Conservative estimates range from 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 killed by Communist regimes, including forced famines, forced marches, and mass executions. Nazism accounts for another 6,000,000 to 10,000,000 mass murders.

For perspective, maximum military action deaths in World Wars I and II are estimated at 13,000,000 and 26,000,000, respectively. Killed in the Korean and Vietnam Wars totaled 3,000,000 and 1,500,000, respectively. These figures do not include famines and plagues ensuing from those wars since estimates vary very widely, but they were certainly in the millions.

However, from the above one easily sees that the major statist ideologies directly accounted for more deaths than direct military actions in the 20th Century.

Thus far in the 21st Century one would have to be willfully blind to not see that statists willingly pursue policies on the mere word of “experts” who have been proved wrong over and over. In Australia we even saw the state force people into “quarantine” camps; and The New York Times soft shoed the tyranny, “Australia Is Betting On Remote Quarantine”. Sounds non-threatening, doesn’t it?

Not to be outdone, The Washington Post reported, with color photos, on a woman who returned from Moscow to her home in Australia but had to quarantine 14 days in a camp: “In Australia’s northern quarantine camp, a disused construction workers’ hostel outside Darwin, the rooms are basic and the food is, well, institutional. But the fresh air, eucalyptus trees, blue skies, and wind on your skin are sources of joy.” [sic!!!].

Tons of fun!

What about the US? Well, there was actually talk and even action. And the fact checkers at USA Today worked hard to put us at ease: “Fact check: Quarantine ‘camps’ are real, but camp claim stretches the truth”.

Ah! I feel so much better now.

Dear friends, this executive overreach ought to concern us. If not for ourselves, then certainly for our children and grandchildren, we must take a page from our colonial and early republic history and truly push back. Hard. About a year ago as I walked to a post office, two men were talking about their anger at people who were not following a certain CDC guideline which had been mandated by mere executive order: “The police ought to arrest such and throw them in jail for six months.”

That’s a direct quote.

In the first place, such a mandate was not law. It was a mandate by an executive. In our system, laws are passed by the legislature, not by governors or presidents.

Were you at all bothered hearing pre-recorded messages in airports saying, “This is federal law”? It was never “federal law”. It was an executive order which was later overturned. It was not a law. Even private airlines were using that terminology. I wrote one of the airlines’ CEO and respectfully requested they get their facts straight and stop trying to instill fear into their customers by repeating lies.

In the second place, it turns out the guideline was all a bunch of hooey. And most of us knew it was nonsense from the very beginning.

Why did we acquiesce so easily?

I believe the reasons, as is the case for most issues in life, are principally religious, because all people are created in the image of God and are therefore religious, regardless of whether one is a believer or an atheist.

First, we — and by “we” I include the majority of professing Christians — have so severely downplayed the Bible, especially the foundational book of Genesis, that we no longer think of the prior claim that the Triune God has on us. We do not think of God when “political” crises are thrown at us. Sadly, very sadly, we first think of the State. Can you, for even an instant, imagine the first and second century Christians thinking of Nero or Domitian first when faced with a political test? I didn’t think so.

For example, based on news reports and personal observation, it appears that most churches in the United States closed their doors based, not on law, not on advice of your personal doctor, but on mandates by governors or “public health authorities”: political figures. Did Christians even consider that the Bible does not mandate quarantining healthy people, but only the sick? Very few did so (Quarantine, Addendum). And those few were in many cases attacked or mocked. Even by fellow Christians.

If you believe that God is the Creator of heaven and earth and that we are made in His image, you will defer to Him. If you believe that man is a product of chance and chaos and randomness working through muck and mire, then you will defer to whomever has the power to tyrannize you and your family.

Second, we do not know or study or even care about our history. A cursory reading of 17th and 18th Century correspondence, sermons, and essays are eye-popping with regards to our ancestors’ genuine distrust, if not fear, of centralized authority. They truly, and Calvinistically [there you have religion again!], believed that man is depraved and, left unguarded or without checks and balances, will usurp authority in order to chain free men and women. This is an inescapable fact of our early psyche, which we need to revive.

This will require us to teach our children and grandchildren, with particular emphases on the origin of man and the Calvinistic origin of our heritage. If taught sincerely and historically, the Triune God is utterly unavoidable. This teaching will require sacrifice of time and money. Clearly state schools are not teaching this. So if your children are there, and your circumstances are such that you cannot remove them, then you must work daily with them to ensure they know the Truth. If you can remove them, then you will either homeschool them or register them in a good Christian school. By “good” I mean a school that not merely “baptizes” the public school system, but actually teaches on the basis of presupposing the veracity of God’s Word.

Third, we continue to be beholden to the regular media — major newspaper chains, major news outlets, and big tech — as the supposed purveyors of reality. They are not. If we’ve learned nothing from the past two years, certainly we’ve learned that, no? Have you done a check on the “conspiracy theories” of the past two years that have now turned out to be true? Seeing Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s founder, admit that his quashing of a major news story in 2020 was “a mistake” is not comforting. It turned out to be true, like so many others his company its sisters have silenced.

A superficial review of the media in Communist regimes — Pravda, Granma, Voice of Korea, People’s Daily — demonstrates that the media simply parrots the party line. Do you seriously see our major media doing anything different? They long ago ceased to be a check on the power of the state or its usurpation of the liberties of its citizens. Only contentious polemicists will deny this.

We have myriads of alternate media today. Some good, some bad, some not worth the time. We must work to discern and choose rightly: “Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good.” We must not adjust or conform to the major media and its cheerleaders in dingbat late night or daytime TV shows.

Fourth, too many of us still vote for [establishment] party, as opposed to principled candidates who are true to their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. Yes, I realize that, often, a particular party’s platform is practically all we can go by as we may not know how true a particular candidate will be to his or her oath. Well then, if your party’s platform accords with your understanding of our history and heritage, then it is your duty to hold your representative and senators responsible for adherence to the platform to which they affirm loyalty.

In the 1980 presidential campaign season, an establishment candidate was asked about his party’s platform and he simply tossed the question aside, “No one pays attention to that after the election.” Precisely. We must pay attention and if our representative or senators are untrue then we must support a primary challenge to them.

I once heard that Yogi Berra said, “The trouble with Socialism is that it takes too many evenings.”

Yes, it does. Most of us are busy with our families and businesses or careers. We have church activities we don’t want to miss and by the time a decade has flown by, we look up to see our beloved country further down the road to ruin. And we see dangers rising to both our home and church. Our forefathers found the time to work to secure and then preserve our liberties. We need to look at our calendars and agendas and shuffle where it’s needed but we must fit in time, even if only once a week, to fight the good fight for our liberties. Not so much for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren; for the religious liberties we inherited; for the God we profess to love and the advancement of His kingdom.

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” “For where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”