The Pull Of The Land

The Cristiada II — Mike Ashe

November 9, 2022November 9, 2022 Richard Barnes

[Prelude I, Prelude II, and The Cristiada I, give brief backgrounds and histories of the much-neglected, covered up, and ignored Cristiada which bloodied our neighbors to the south in the early 20th Century. Given that similar preliminary dynamics have been and are occurring in our own country, we are well advised to be aware not only of the history of the Cristiada but the aggressive atheism that propelled it. This series of posts on the Cristiada concludes with Mike Ashe’s post below. As the reader can see, Mike has a genuine desire and burden to remember those who would rather give their lives than betray the Lord Jesus Christ. Some things are more valuable than life itself — RMB]

The Cristiada II — Mike Ashe

Martyred Religious

The courage of these men is an inspiration to us all. All but a few were born into poverty; many became priests and served their God and their flock with unconditional love. When facing death all forgave their executioners and asked God to forgive them of their sins.

I am blessed to have lived with and among the people of Mexico and am proud that my children and grandchildren are of Mexican descent.

VIVA CRISTO REY

Cristóbal Magallanes Jara (1869-1927) age at death 58

In the Movie “For Greater Glory” Peter O’Toole “Father Christopher” was based on Cristobal Magallanes Jara. Born in Totatiche, Jalisco, ordained at age 30. In 1914 the government closed the seminary in Guadalajara. Magallanes opened a seminary in Totatiche, he wrote and preached against armed rebellion but was falsely accused of promoting violence. Arrested in 1927 while in route to celebrate mass at a farm. He gave away his few remaining possessions, gave them absolution, and without a trial was executed.

His last words to his executioners were “I am innocent, and ask God that my blood may serve to unite my Mexican brethren.”

Agustín Caloca Cortés (1898-1927) age at death 29

Agustin Caloca Cortes was born in a ranch in Zacatecas of simple peasants. He attended the seminary founded by father Christopher and graduated in 1919. In 1923 he was ordained as a priest and was subsequently assigned as parish priest assigned to the Seminary. In December 1926 he had to flee with eleven fifth year students to Cocoatzco. In May with federales approaching he ordered the seminarians to disperse among the towns people. After helping the seminarians escape, he was captured and reunited with father Christopher. A military officer offered him freedom, but he refused unless freedom was also granted to father Christopher.

His last words before execution by firing squad were: “We live for God and for him we die.”

Román Adame Rosales (1859-1927) age at death 71

Ordained a priest in 1890. When Calles forced church closures Roman took his ministry underground. In April 1927 while conducting Lenten services at Rancho Veldones, he was betrayed and arrested the next day, was tortured and jailed on Mexiticacan then marched miles to the town of Yahualica. In jail he received no food or water. Local lay people offered to buy freedom for their priest from Colonel Quinones. The colonel demanded a $6,000 mordida but instead of releasing the priest he executed him and pocketed the money.

Rodrigo Aguilar Aleman (1875–1927) age at death 52

Ordained a priest in 1903, named parish priest of Union de Tula, Jalisco, and subjected to persecution following the suspension of public services by the Calles Government. Due to the harassment he suffered after 1927 he was assigned to the parish in Ejutla, Jalisco, where he continued to serve the spiritual needs of the people.

In 1927 General Juan Izaguirre arrived in Ejutla with a large number of soldiers. Father Rodrigo was alerted along with seminaries of the General’s arrival. Everyone fled except for Rodrigo who stayed behind to burn the list of names of the seminary.

When discovered the soldiers asked him to identify himself, replied, “I am a Priest,” and was taken into custody. Early the next day the General ordered that father Rodrigo be hanged in the town square from a Mango tree. When the rope was tied to the branch father blessed the instrument of his martyrdom, pardoned his executioners, and made a gift of his rosary to one of them.

He was offered freedom if he would shout “Long live the Supreme Government”. So, a soldier asked him again “Long Live who” without hesitation father said “Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe”. They pulled him up and lowered him asking him again. He gave the same answer. The third time, now barely able to speak, he gave the same answer. This time he was left hanging and died.

Julio Alvarez Mendoza (1866–1927) age at death 61

Born in Guadalajara, Jalisco where he studied for the priesthood ordained in 1984. Assigned to the Mechoacanejo, Jalisco parish served with kindness and simplicity the rest of his life. He had the opportunity to leave his parishioners at the beginning of the clerical persecutions but chose to remain their priest. In March 1927 in route to serve mass at a farm he was captured. The following morning, he was taken to San Julian where he was shot after pardoning his executioners. His body was left on the trash heap near the church, where a monument was erected in his honor.

Luis Batis Sainz (1870–1926) age at death 56

Born in San Miguel Mezquital Zacatecas 1870. After his ordination in 1894, he was assigned to the San Juan de Guadalupe, Durango. He was also the spiritual director of a seminary. In 1925 he was named parish priest of Chalchihutes, Zacatecas. In his last public service that he presided he referred to the anticlerical law that would go into effect the next day saying “The author of this misfortune isn’t the Government of President [Calles], but rather the sins of everyone, and so Catholics to rise up in arms; that isn’t Christian behavior.”

The next day a detachment took father Luis and three laymen, Manuel Morales, David Roldan, and Salvador Lara, out of Chalchihutes. Someone shouted as they left “Father, don’t forget us” father replied, “If you are my children, I won’t forget you” and from the vehicle he said “I’m going to give you a blessing and, please do not follow me, nothing is going to happen.”

At the crossroads of Las Bocas and Canutillo roads after walking 500 yards the soldiers fell into a square formation. Standing before the firing squad father asked to speak “I beseech you, for the sake of Manuel Morales’ little children, that his life be spared, I offer my life for his, I will be a victim, I am willing to be one.” Morales replied, “I am dying for God, and God will care for my children.” Smiling, Father Luis gave him absolution and said “I’ll see you in heaven.” The rifle barrage cut all four men down.

Mateo Carrea Magallanes (1866–1927) age at death 61

Born in Tepechitlan, Zacatecas, he attended seminary in Zacatecas and was ordained at the age of 27. As a young priest he gave the first communion to Miguel Pro who was also martyred. Following the government repression of the Catholic church in 1910, he went into hiding. In 1926 he was assigned to Valparaiso. In 1927 while bringing communion to an invalid woman he was arrested and accused of being a part of the rebellion.

Father Mateo was asked by General Euliogo Ortiz to hear the confession of some imprisoned Cristeros members. He agreed to her the sacrament of confession but afterwards Ortiz demanded that father Mateo tell him what the prisoners had confessed. Father Mateo refused and Ortiz pointed a gun a father’s head and threatened him with immediate death. He continued to refuse and at dawn he was shot at the town’s cemetery.

Atlilano Cruz Alvarado (1901–1928) age at death 27

Born in Teocaltiche, Jalisco, as a boy he attended cattle. At the age of 17 he studied for the priesthood and was ordained in 1927 during the height of the anticlerical government crackdown. After being ordained, he was sent to a parish where a priest (Toibio Romo Gonzalez) had been shot to death by soldiers. In 1928 Father Atlilano joined his pastor at a nearby ranch to discuss the parish situation. Government troops raided and gunned down the pastor and father Atlilano waited on his knees for his own execution which came shortly thereafter.

Miguel De La Mora (1874–1927) age at death 49

Born in Tecalitlan, Jalisco, ordained in 1908. He sheltered in place like all of the priests during the Calles period. In civilian clothes and accompanied by his two elder brothers left to mountains where he was apprehended bound and sent to Colima. In Colima, General Flores immediately ordered the execution of the two brothers in a stable in the barracks on the dunk of horses. Father Miguel was gunned down as he was reciting the rosary.

Pedro Esqueda Ramirez (1887–1927) age at death 40

Born in San Juan de los Lagos, Jalisco, at age 15 he entered the seminary in Guadalajara, but in 1914 the Seminary was forcibly seized and closed by the Government. He returned to San Juan de los Lagos and served as deacon. The seminary was reopened and in 1916 he was ordained. His mission was the education of children in the faith. In 1926 during the crackdown on the clergy the town tried to convince him to flee San Juan, but he continued to work, living in several private homes.

In 1927 he was arrested. In a miserable and dark room, he suffered the fierceness of scourges and other cruelties that caused the fracture of both arms. The incessant torture lasted 4 days; battered and full of wounds he was ordered to climb a tree by himself. The tree was to be a pyre for him to be burned alive. He was mercilessly shot by a high officer.

Margarito Flores Garcia (1899–1927) age at death 28

Born in the silver mining town of Taxco, Guerrero, he worked in the fields during his youth to support his poverty-stricken family. He entered the seminary in Chilapa and was ordained in 1924. After being appointed professor at the seminary he was forced to take refuge in Mexico City. He was arrested and released in Mexico City and decided to return to Guerrero where he was appointed pastor for a parish in Atenango. Father Margarito was captured upon his arrival, humiliated and later shot to death.

Jose Isabel Flores Varela (1866–1927) age at death 61

Born in San Juan de La Paz, Zacatecas, he was most distinguished graduate of the seminary of Guadalajara. A long-time friend denounced him to the municipal authorities. He was captured en route to a ranch to celebrate Mass, imprisoned, and offered his freedom in exchange for allegiance to Plutarco Elias Calles. Upon his refusal he was beheaded.

David Galvan Bermudes (1882–1915) age at death 33

Born in Guadalajara, Jalisco, he entered the seminary at age 14. Because of his love for the poor and for workers, he organized a worker’s union. Defender of the sanctity of marriage, he helped a young woman pursued by a married soldier by pretending to be her spouse, thereby earning the virulent enmity of the soldier. He and another priest, Jose Maria Araiza, were arrested as they ministered to wounded soldiers. Lieutenant Colonel Enrique Vera, the married soldier whose enmity Galvan Bermudez had aroused earlier, had both of them shot.

Pedro de Jesus Maldonado Lucero (1892-1937) age at death 44

Born in Chihuahua, he was one of seven children. At age 17 he entered the seminary, which was shut down in 1914 due to the revolution. He continued his studies in El Paso, Texas. He was ordained in 1918 in El Paso and celebrated his first mass there. In 1924 he became the parish priest of Santa Isabel. He and other priests were targets of anti-Christian violence. The town’s name was changed from Santa Isabel to General Trias as part of the effort to erase references to Christianity from the state. He again fled to El Paso, returning to Boquillas del Rio not far from Santa Isabel. He continued to carry out his ministry until his death.

On Ash Wednesday 1937 (after the “official end” of the war) a group of drunken armed men discovered his location at a nearby ranch. He was brought barefoot to the town hall, where he was pistol whipped, fracturing his skull and dislodging his left eye from its socket. The next day Father died on the 19^th anniversary of his First Solemn Mass. The death certificate recorded death due to severe brain trauma and injuries throughout his body caused by beatings. In 1937 was anyone charged with his beatings? That should have been Plutarco Elias Calles who was exiled into the US in 1936 and should have been charged with war crimes against his own people.

Dedicated to helping the poor and disadvantaged he was raised and educated as a poor orphan. He also worked with the Tarahumara people in Chihuahua. Farmers would ask him to bless their fields.

Peter of Jesus Maldonado is a patron of the Archdioceses of Chihuahua and the Diocese of El Paso, Texas. His individual feast day is February 11^th the day of his death.

Jesus Mendez Montoya (1880–1928) age at death 48

Born in Tarimbaro Michoacan, he completed seminary studies in Michoacan and was ordained in 1906. At the time of his death, he was pastor of Valtierilla, Guerrero. Federal troops entered Valtierilla to suppress a small group of Cristeros in 1928. The soldiers found the house where Father Jesus was hiding. He was taken to the town Square and executed him by firing squad.

Justino Orona Madrigal (1877-1928) age at death 51

Born in Atoyac, Jalisco, he was the son of an extremely poor family. He entered Guadalajara’s Seminary and was ordained in 1904. When the persecution began, he decided to remain with his flock in Cuquio, hiding in a ranch in Las Cruces with his brothers, Jose Maria, and Toribio Ayala. In 1928 federal troops and the mayor of Cuquio entered the ranch. Father Justino opened the door and shouted, “Viva Cristo Rey!” and he was shot. His body was then deposited in the town square.

Sabas Reyes Salazar (1879-1927) age at death 48

Born in Cocula, Jalisco, into a poor family. He entered Guadalajara’s Seminary and was ordained in 1911. During the persecution he continued his priestly duties in Tototlan. When returning from a baptism during Easter Week, he was captured and treated with sadistically, being tied extremely tightly to a temple column and tortured for three days with no food or water and burning his hands with fire. On April 13, 1927, he was taken to the cemetery where they began riddling his body with bullets but still was heard faintly, “Viva Cristo Rey!”

Jose Maria Robles Hurtado (1888-1927) age at death 39

Born in Mascota, Jalisco, into a devout Roman Catholic family. He was ordained in 1913 at the age of 25. A few years later he founded the sisters of the Sacred Heart. He was called “Madman for the Sacred” for his preaching and personal example and great devotion to the Eucharist.

The Constitution of 1917 prohibited public devotional practices. Father Jose proposed the creation of a huge cross to be placed in the geographic center of Mexico. The cross would represent Mexico’s devotion to Christ as its king (The Sacred Heart). In open defiance 40,000 Roman Catholics made their way to the site for groundbreaking services.

At that point the government decided to crack down or intensify persecution of the Church including Father Jose for his actions. He was arrested and was found guilty and sentenced to be hanged from an oak tree. Upon arriving at the tree, he forgave his executioners. He took the noose into his own hands and said “Don’t dirty your hands” to the man who brought it, he kissed it and placed it around his own neck.

Toribio Romo Gonzalez (1900–1928) age at death 27

Born to peasant farmers in the countryside near Jalostotitlán, Jalisco, he was one of three siblings that became religious. He was ordained in 1923. During the persecution he hid with his religious brother and sister. He sent is brother away to safety and he and his sister remained in hiding where soldiers found him and shot him in his bed getting up from the bed a second shot mortally wounded him and he fall into the arms of his sister, who cried out, “Courage, Father Toribio! Merciful Christ receive him. Long live Christ the King!”

Jenaro Sánchez Delgadillo (1886-1927) age at death 40

Born in Agualele, Jalisco, he entered the seminary in Guadalajara and was ordained in 1911. His focus was on teaching religion to the children. In 1923 he was appointed vicar of the village of Tecolotilan. In 1927 he was out hunting with friends in the village when he was arrested by soldiers and hanged from a tree. He was later brought down from the tree and one of the soldiers stabbed him in the chest with a bayonet killing him.

Tranquilino Ubiarco Robles (1899-1928) age at death 29

Born in Zapotlan el Grande, Jalisco, he was ordained in 1923. Five years later, as he prepared for a nuptial mass, he was captured by soldiers and was hanged. His cadaver was guarded by his sister, Teodora, and later, a lady arranged to have him buried in her property.

David Uribe Velasco (1888–1927) age at death 39

Born in Buenavista de Cuellar, Guerrero, David was the seventh of eleven children. He enrolled in the seminary in Chilapa and was ordained in 1913.

In 1927 he was taken prisoner and incarcerated in Cuernavaca, Morelos, from whence he was later taken to San Jose Vidal, Morelos where he would be shot.

Driven to his place of execution, he knelt and begged God for forgiveness of his sins and for the salvation of Mexico and its church. Standing in front of his executioners he asked them to kneel down for his blessing. “With, all my heart I forgive you and I only ask that you pray to God for my soul. As for me, I will not forget when I am before him.”

He firmly raised his right hand and delivered the sign of the cross. He distributed his watch, his rosary, a crucifix and other objects among the men and was then shot to death.

Martyred Laymen

Anacieto Gonzalez Flores (1888–1927) age at death 38

Born in Tepatitlan, Jalisco, into a very humble family, his vocation was not in the priesthood, so he left the seminary and entered law school where he was an outstanding student. In 1922 he married Maria Conception Guerrero and they had two children. Anacieto was a prolific writer and engaged in non-violent protest against Plutarco Calles. When that failed, he supported armed resistance, not taking up arms but delivering speeches encouraging support for the Cristeros. His speeches were seasoned with remarks such as, “A return to Christ is inescapable if one expects to live in a civilized manner.” And, “Civilization is the result of the Truth applied to its ultimate consequences.” In 1927 he was captured, brutally tortured, and martyred by firing squad.

Manuel Moralez (1898–1926) age at death 28

Born in the village of Mesillas, Zacatecas, he entered the seminary in Durango but had to drop out to support his poor family. After leaving the seminary he became a baker, married, and had three children. After leading the National League for the Defense of Religious Liberty, he was arrested along with the priests Luis Batiz Sainz, David Roldan Lara, and Salvador Lara Puente. All were beaten and tortured and taken into the mountains to be executed. Father Luis pleaded with the soldiers to spare Manuel since he was the father of three children. Manuel answered that he was dying for God and that his children would be protected by God. All four were executed by firing squad.

David Roldan Lara (1902-1926) age at death 24

A year after his birth in Chalchihuities Zacatecas, his father died leaving his mother to raise him and an older brother. He entered the seminary in Durango but dropped out to support his struggling family. He was arrested and shot along with his cousin after witnessing the assassination of their pastor Batis and Manuel Moralez (see above).

Salvador Lara Puente (1905-1926) age at death 21

Salvador was a martyred youth who had abandoned his studies at the Durango seminary in order to assist his family financially. While working as a miner, he remained active in pastoral work with Mexican Youth for Catholic Action (president) and the National League Secretary. He was arrested and shot along with his cousin after witnessing the assassination of their pastor Batiz and Manuel Morales (see above).

Jose (Joselito) Sanchez del Rio (1913-1928) age at death 14

José de Jesús Sánchez del Río went to visit the tomb of a Cristeros martyr in 1927, and asked God to let him also die in defense of the faith.

Despite being just a boy, Joséito joined the Cristeros, a movement trying to defend religious liberty in the country. He carried out simple tasks, such as helping with the logistics for those who were fighting the battle for the faith

Captured and tortured by cutting off the skin from his feet he was led to a cemetery, where he was stabbed by the soldiers. With each strike, he shouted, “Long live Christ the King!” Then a military leader shot him twice in the head, put his lifeless body in a small grave and covered him with dirt in 1928.

“Blessed José Sánchez del Río should inspire us all, especially young people,” Cardinal José Saraiva Martins said during the homily of his beatification in 2005 in Guadalajara, “to be capable of giving witness to Christ in our daily lives.”

The Cristiada I–Mike Ashe

November 3, 2022November 3, 2022 Richard Barnes

[Prelude I and Prelude II documented the historical background of events leading up to the appalling years of the Cristiada in Mexico. The Cristiada did not appear spontaneously; its seeds were sown after the French Revolution, its first sprouts were seen in 1810, the trees took root in 1914 with the Carrancistas and their “constitution”, and the conflagration exploded in the 1920s.

The 20th Century saw several Cristiadas, for example, see The Black Book of Communism which documents the atheistic hatred and intolerance of Christianity and its resultant tens of millions of unspeakable tortures, desolations, and deaths. Mexico suffered this a century before Russia and Eastern Europe and China and sundry lands in between, in many of which the faithful died, as in Mexico, proclaiming “Christ the King!”

As you read the preludes and as you read Mike’s documentation below, surely you can see ourselves, as in a mirror, in places clearly, in places blurrily.

Our awakening must be spiritual; a living desire to recognize that man was created in the image of God and his choice remains the same as in the Garden: God or man. The First leads to liberty and life, the latter, to tyranny and death — RMB]

La Cristiada (Viva Cristo Rey!)

This is dedicated to Jesus Perez Mendez, my father in law, from the State of Zacatecas, and my mother in law Maria Luna de Perez from the state of Guanajuato. Both states were in the epicenter of the Cristiada during their early childhoods.

Prologue:

The forces of good and evil collided in Mexico during the 1920’s. Surprisingly this catastrophic event is not part of the country’s memory. Few modern day Mexicans are even aware how this all played out or why [and few Americans are aware as well — RMB]

They also are not aware of the consequences of the “liberal” dictatorships of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI).

These liberals exercised power in a cruel and arbitrary way for decades. Aiding this tyranny are the liberal media and their historian cohorts, all of whom have blood on their hands.

Public education in Mexico is run by the government with liberal propaganda taught from K-12 and beyond in the public Universities (that are supposedly autonomous). Even comic books are loaded with left wing heroes [the same is true of Venezuela today — RMB]

Many Mexicans migrated to the US during these decades to escape the oppressive liberalism of Mexico.

The War’s Beginnings

The Cristeros Rebellion was a war of ideologies between the Catholic Church (stable force) and the Mexican Government (unstable liberal force). Wide scale violence (guerrilla warfare) began in 1926 and lasted for three years. The large scale outbreaks were confined to the States of Jalisco, Michoacan, Guanajuato, and southern Zacatecas. Moderate to minor outbreaks were also felt thoughout the Republic. The de facto end of the conflict did not occur until the election of Avila Camacho in 1940 (center right politician) after the disastrous left-wing presidency of Lázaro Cárdenas.

Root Causes of the conflict

Liberalism took root in Mexico during the mid 19^th century among the ruling elites including Benito Juarez. In 1857 the Constitiution formally limited the power of the church and in 1859 reform laws separated the church and state. The revised constitution and reform laws proved to placate the liberals while at the same time being ignored by the government, this was particularly the case during the Porfiriato [the years of peace noted by William F Buckley, Sr. in his House testimony in 1919 — RMB].

The 20^th Century Revolutionaries

Madero — The first ruler after Diaz was Francisco Madero, who had committed to cleanse the corrupt federal and state governments. The Church gave Madero its cautious support, but held it up, when he refused to acknowledge the church’s unifying influence. The church then ended her support for Madero, which was followed shortly thereafter by Huerta’s seizing power and allegedly having Madero killed [see Prelude I for further discussion and detail — RMB]. Afterwards, the church’s further supported Huerta which enraged the liberal revolutionaries.

Zapata — Stance towards the church was ambiguous. He discribed himself as a conservative catholic, but at the same time would shoot a priest without hesitation. The US liberals lionized Zapata, even making a movie portraying him as a champion of the people, while ignoring that he was a killer and mostly ignorant/illiterate. In spite of all his shortcomings he was a champion for agrarian reform which turned out to be his legacy. The commander of the Southern Army, Zapata was a formidable figure in Mexican history.

Villa — Believed in God, but not religion and was a clerophobe. After his break with Carranza, unsurprisingly, he became a defender of the Church. Villa often times played the US by trying to draw them into Mexican internal conflicts. Villa folklore ignored the fact that he murdered countless asians including walking them off the roof of the highest building in Chihuahua. A cold blooded killer, the commander of the Northern army (the most feared army in Mexico during that time), and a governor who carried out significant land reform in the north.

Carranza — The leader most associated with persecution of the church. His presidential victory in 1917 was the death knell for an independent church. Francisco Mujica speaking to the Constitutional committee in Queretaro signaled the government’s new stance:

“I am a foe of the clergy, because I consider it the most disgraceful and perverse enemy of our people. What has the clergy given…our nation? The most absurd ideas, the greatest contempt for our democratic institutions, the most unrelenting hatred for the very principles of equity, equality, and fraternity taught by the first democrat, Jesus Christ…. What sort of morality, gentlemen, will the clergy teach our children? We have seen it —the greatest corruption.”

The Constitution of 1917 — Although guaranteeing freedom of religious beliefs, it severely restricted religious practices. Article 24 stated that every religious act must be performed inside the churches which were under the supervision of the government. Article 130 restricted every aspect of religion in Mexico. No longer could priests hear confession, perform marriages; the number and assignments of the clergy were now controlled by the Mexican government; the church was not allowed to own land without the government’s consent [in effect, the Mexican constitution expected religion to remain, in word and deed, in no public place, but only between the two ears of the faithful. Is that not what the left desires in America also? — RMB]

Church leaders did not accept the new Constitution, and began to mobilize support in the US and in Rome.

The Mexican anticlericalism was the work of a small radical minority. Most Mexicans were Catholics and had no desire of seeing religious rituals changed. The Catholic majority response was the only true revolutionary during that period.

Obregon –– Presidency was supposedly to be a period of conciliation which gave way to a strict revolutionary law. However, in 1925 many state legislatures began implementing Article 13 (stripping civilian human rights). Obregon hand-picked his successor, Plutarco Elías Calles.

Calles — The true enemy of the church gained power in 1926 and began attacking the church on two fronts. First the leader of Church opposition, Jose Mora y del Rio was placed on trial; second, Calles immediately implemented Article 130 and Article 3 which prohibited schools operated by the Church. Calles actions prompted the church to suspend all church services until the anticlerical laws had been amended. The church went on strike, which was called by the Archbishop Mora y del Río who was promptly exiled by Calles. They also called for economic boycotts which did not hold because of economic issues throughout Mexico at that time. The 1917 constitution was amended in 2015 with little substantive change.

Calles did not count on popular opposition that resulted from these actions and the war that ensued.

Outcome was predictable: the Church survived despite being called the counter revolutionary. Actually, now the strongest Catholic Church in the world today is in Mexico with their devotion to our lady of Guadalupe and to Christ the King. If you happen to enter a factory throughout Mexico you will see a statue of “The Lady” at the center of the work area.

Carranza was assassinated, Obregon was assassinated by a Cristero, and Calles was exiled to the US [which he passionately hated for the anti-Communist attitudes of her people — RMB] in 1936. The Cristero war took 90,000 lives: 60,000 government, 30,000 Cristeros guerrillas, plus countless civilians. A settlement was finally reached between the Vatican and the government which ended the conflict in 1929.

This war was started by the liberals under the direction of Plutarco Calles against his own people and is not included anywhere in the memories of a nation. It was basically covered up, so much so, that few Mexicans are even aware that this ever happened.

The Vatican conferred sainthood to twenty-three clerical and laymen martyrs at the beginning of the 21^st century. A brief accounting of their sacrifices will be listed in the next and final post on the Cristiada.

Plutarco Calles (center) and American Ambassador, Dwight Morrow (right), circa 1928. Morrow negotiated a cease fire to the Cristiada but not before tens of thousands had been killed.

Miguel Pro, Roman Catholic priest, executed in 1927. Although Mexican President Calles fully expected him to recant and had planned to use his recantation for propaganda purposes, Rev. Pro prayed, then stood before his executioners, spreading his arms as a sign of the cross and said his last words, “May God have mercy on you…. Lord, you know that I am innocent. With all my heart I forgive my enemies. Viva Cristo Rey!”

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.”