Which GOP Candidate Will Offer Americans a Rose?

Americans find it most disconcerting to be find themselves cast aside by ambitious politicians in favor of people who aren’t even American – yet. Left and Right, politicians are courting the Mexican and Hispanic vote without even questioning who they are, what they believe politically, what they’ve been taught, how they tend to vote, or even whether or not they’re actually Americans.

Wasn’t World History, and in particularly, Mexican history part of the elite curriculums at the private schools Republicans attended? Have their consultants withheld information about Hispanics and Mexicans, in particular, knowing they don’t stand a chance of winning the “Hispanic” vote unless they dramatically change the Republican platform? Are our GOP candidates so very desperate that they would even embrace the Communist Manifesto if it would mean their election?

Hispanics are notably clannish. Voters, especially the poor ones, follow the family upbringing in their voting habits. Conservatives have done the same thing here in America, a practice our own Socialist educational establishment has done much to root out.

One only need to read the most elemental, Wikipedish accounts of Mexican history to realize where this Hispanic courtship is headed. Mexico is steeped in Socialist history, armed revolutions, and class warfare.

Ironically, our Donald Trump is very much like Francisco I. Madero, the author of the 1910 revolution against José de la Cruz Porfirio Díaz, the authoritarian president who ruled Mexico with an iron fist for 65 years, although he also brought great economic progress to the country, after deposing France’s imposed emperor, the Austrian Maximilian I.

Born into an extremely wealthy landowning family in northern Mexico, Madero was an unusual politician, who until he ran for president in the 1910 elections, had never held office. In his 1908 book entitled The Presidential Succession in 1910, Madero called on voters to prevent the sixth reelection of Porfirio Díaz, which Madero considered anti-democratic. His vision would lay the foundation for a democratic, 20th-century Mexico but without polarizing the social classes.

To that effect, he bankrolled the Anti-Reelectionist Party (later the Progressive Constitutional Party) and urged the Mexicans to rise up against Díaz, which ignited the Mexican Revolution in 1910. Madero’s candidacy against Díaz garnered widespread support in Mexico, since he was someone of independent financial means, ideological determination, and bravery to oppose Díaz when it was dangerous to do so.

Trump has embraced America’s vanishing Middle Class, and they’ve embraced him. In the latest Fox News Poll, The Donald leads at 26%. Jeb Bush trails him by 11 points at 15%. Behind these two are: Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz (glad Cruz is making some progress). Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal. Two percent mentioned an anonymous “Other” and 1 percent said “None of the above” and 7 percent said “Don’t know.”

When you take into account the numbers below the third-place runner (Walker), the eleven viable candidates total up to 41 percent. Where are those 41 percent of votes going to go as the race narrows down and supporters realize their candidate isn’t going to make the final round?

Will they turn to Trump, Bush or Walker? Or will some other candidate grow in popularity to replace Walker with those orphaned votes? Some of them, like Rand Paul, John Kasich, and Rick Perry will not pass the Conservative test. Paul is too libertarian, Kasich is too Moderate, and Perry was just too nasty in trying to take on The Donald.

Trump has scrupled not in baiting other GOP candidates for taking donations from the Koch Brothers, even though Trump is a billionaire in his own right. Trump has kept his political cards close the vest, as they all probably should until the debates. He hasn’t stated a position on reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. Will he say, ‘Why not? We reestablished relations with Vietnam which is driving China to distraction?’ Will he risk the ire of legal Cuban immigrants by supporting the Castro regime? Is a Trump Havana on the horizon?

Or will he say, “No deal on Cuba; I’d close the embassy there”?

Carson, Huckabee, Rubio, and Santorum are likeable horses, but they’re weak. Fiorina doesn’t have enough of a name. The only horse in the second tier stable would be Bobby Jindal. He’s actually a strong voice for Conservatism and may just scramble up onto the first tier after the debates.

So, if the race is then narrowed down to Trump, Bush, Walker, Cruz, Christie (don’t underestimate him; the guy is a great speaker saddled with governing a hopelessly blue, redistributive state for which N.J. has another “Christie” to thank), and Jindal, which of these will sing “Mexicanos de Anthem Nationale”?

Trump has said he would send the illegal aliens from Mexico back to where they came from, but will embrace them if they get in the legal line. Bush is absolutely pro-immigration. Walker is unlikely to advocate illegal citizenship. Christie must know better, since he has seen for himself what it has done for his state. Jindal, a child of immigrants who had to “stand in line” would not want to see America being taken advantage of.

Given this unpopular embrasure of illegal Mexicanos, and the crime they bring in their baggage, wouldn’t you think the top two candidates would remain silent on the subject of Mexicans and simply advocate for better, stronger immigration enforcement. Trump has, even if he claims Hispanics love him. Given the comparison with Mexico’s Madero, perhaps they do.

Still, the candidates need a lesson in Mexican politics and the lengths to which poor Mexicans – the ones most likely to immigrate here – cling to them, from generation to generation, not unlike our own generational welfare families.

The Mexicanos de Anthem Nationale speaks – sings – volumes as to their attitude:

Mexicanos, al grito de guerra El acero aprestad y el bridón; y retiemble en sus centros la tierra Al sonoro rugir del cañón.

Ciña oh patria! tus sienes de oliva De la Paz el arcángel divino, Que en el cielo tu eterno destino Por el dedo de Dios se escribió.

Más si osare un extraño enemigo Profanar con su planta tu suelo, Piensa, oh patria querida ,que el cielo Un soldado en cada hijo te dio.

Guerra, guerra sin tregua al que intente De la patria manchar los blasones!

Guerra, guerra! Los patrios pendones En las olas de sangre empapad.

Guerra, guerra! En el monte, en el valle Los cañones horrísonos truenen

Y los ecos sonoros resuenen Con las voces de Unión! Libertad!

Antes, patria, que inermes tus hijos Bajo el yugo su cuello dobleguen,

Tus campiñas con sangre se rieguen, Sobre sangre se estampe su pie.

Y tus templos, palacios y torres Se derrumben con hórrido estruendo, Y sus ruinas existan diciendo: De mil héroes la patria aquí fue. Coro Patria! patria! Tus hijos te juran Exhalar en tus aras su aliento, Si el clarín con su bélico acento Los convoca a lidiar con valor.

Para ti las guirnaldas de oliva!

Un recuerdo para ellos de gloria!

Un laurel para ti de victoria!

Un sepulcro para ellos de honor!

Mexicanos, al grito de guerra El acero aprestad y el bridón; y retiemble en sus centros la tierra Al sonoro rugir del cañón.

Mexicans, at the cry of war, prepare the steel and the steed, and may the earth shake at its core to the resounding roar of the cannon.

Gird, oh country, your brow with olive the divine archangel of peace, for your eternal destiny was written in the heavens by the hand of God.

But if a strange enemy should dare to profane your ground with his step, think, oh beloved country, that heaven has given you a soldier in every son.

War, without truce to any who dare to tarnish the country’s coat-of-arms!

War, war! Take the national pennants and soak them in waves of blood.

War, war! In the mountain and valley, thunder the cannons in horrid unison

And the resonant echoes with the voices of Union, Liberty!

Oh country, ‘ere your children defenseless bow to the yoke,

May your fields be watered with blood, may they trod upon blood.

May your temples, palaces & towers collapse with horrid clamor, and their ruins live on to say: This land belonged to a thousand heroes Chorus Oh, country, country, your children swear to breathe their last in your honor, if the trumpet with warlike accent should call them to fight with courage.

For you the olive branches!

A reminder for them of glory!

A laurel of victory for you!

For them a tomb with honor!

Mexicans, at the cry of war, prepare the steel and the steed, and may the earth shake at its core to the resounding roar of the cannon

The song, whose lyrics were written by Francisco Gonzalez Bocanegra, was declared the National Anthem on Feb. 9, 1854, after a national contest was launched to find an anthem for our country. It was first performed on Sept. 15, 1854, for the Fiestas Patrias, or Independence Fiesta.

A few notes about Mexico’s comparatively few holidays:

  1. Cinco de Mayo is not Mexico’s Independence Day.
  2. Cinco de Mayo is celebrated every May 5 to observe the Battle of Puebla in 1862.
  3. Independence Day is September 16, when Mexico declared its independence from France.
  4. The Battle of Puebla took place in the State of Puebla
  5. Nov. 16th is the celebration of the Mexican Revolution, at the downfall of Pres. Diaz.

The Battle of Puebla took place on May 5th, 1862, near the city of Puebla during the French intervention in Mexico. The battle ended in a victory for the Mexican Army over the occupying French forces. The French eventually overran the Mexicans in subsequent battles, but the Mexican victory at Puebla against a much better equipped and larger French army provided a significant morale boost to the Mexican army and also helped slow the French army’s advance towards Mexico City. There were a total of 10,540 soldiers in the war. 462 French soldiers died in combat. Only 83 Mexican soldiers died in the battle.

The Mexican victory is celebrated yearly on the fifth of May. Its celebration is regional in Mexico, primarily in the state of Pubela where the holiday is celebrated as El Día de la Batalla de Puebla (English: Battle of Puebla Day). There is some limited recognition of the holiday in other parts of the country although this holiday remains very popular in the United States, where it is celebrated yearly as Cinco de Mayo.

The 1858–60 Mexican civil war known as The Reform War had caused distress throughout Mexico’s economy. When taking office as the elected president in 1861, Benito Juarez was forced to suspend payments of interest on foreign debts for a period of two years. At the end of October 1861, diplomats from Spain, France, and Britain met in London to form the Tripartite Alliance, with the main purpose of launching an allied invasion of Mexico, taking control of Veracruz, its major port, and forcing the Mexican government to negotiate terms for repaying its debts and for reparations for alleged harm to foreign citizens in Mexico.

In December 1861, Spanish troops landed in Veracruz; British and French followed in early January. The allied forces occupied Veracruz and advanced to Orizaba. However, the Tripartite Alliance fell apart by early April 1862, when it became clear the French wanted to impose harsh demands on the Juarez government and provoke a war. The British and Spanish withdrew, leaving the French to march alone on Mexico City. Napoleon III (Napoleon’s nephew) wanted to set up a puppet Mexican regime.

Slowed by their loss at Puebla, the French forces retreated and regrouped, and the invasion continued after Napoleon III determinedly sent additional troops to Mexico. The French were eventually victorious, winning the Second Battle of Puebla on May 17, 1863 and pushing on to Mexico City . When the capital fell, Juárez’s government was forced into exile in the remote north.

With the backing of France, the Hapsburg Archduke Maximilian (younger brother of Austria’s Emperor Franz Josef I) became Emperor of Mexico in the short-lived Second Mexican Empire.

Cinco de May is not an official holiday in Mexico, however. May 1st is celebrated as Labor Day. Nov. 20 is Revolution Day, an official holiday. The Mexican revolution started in 1910 to get rid of President Porfirio Díaz. He originally tried to revolt against Benito Juarez in 1871, but did not come into power until 1876, when he was president for one month. He was also president from 1877 to 1880, and from 1884 until 1911. While economic growth and modernization occurred, this progress did not filter through to many Mexicans, including labor workers and people in the poorer parts of Mexico. Several key players, including Francisco Madero, organized the revolt against Díaz. Madero was then elected as president in 1911.

November 20 was the original public holiday date for Revolution Day until 2005. A change in Mexico’s labor law instituted that Revolution Day would be a public holiday across the country on the third Monday of November as of 2006 so that laborers could take the day off.

A bandit and Robin Hood outlaw named Pancho Villa played an important role in the Mexican revolution. He became a legendary hero not just for robbing the rich and sharing with the poor, but also for leading one of the most crucial military campaigns during the uprising.

José de la Cruz Porfirio Díaz Mori was a Mexican soldier and politician, who served seven terms as President of Mexico, totaling three and a half decades between 1876 and 1911. A veteran of the Reform War and the French intervention in Mexico, Díaz rose to the rank of General, leading republican troops against the French-imposed Emperor Maximilian. Seizing power in a coup in 1876, Díaz and his allies ruled Mexico for the next 35 years, a period known as the Profiriato.

Díaz is a controversial figure in Mexican history, with the status of villain among the revolutionaries who overthrew him, and something of a hero in the business community. The Porfiriato was marked by significant internal stability (known as the “paz porfiriana”), modernization, and economic growth. There was heavy investment in mining and railways from American and British businesses.

However, Díaz’s regime grew unpopular due to repression and political stagnation. Furthermore his economic policies helped a few wealthy landowning haciendados to acquire huge areas of land that left rural farming campesinos unable to make a living, thus resulting in few jobs and depressingly low wages for the growing working population of Mexico. This directly precipitated the Mexican Revolution, in which Díaz fell from power after he imprisoned his electoral rival, and declared himself the winner of an eighth term in office. Díaz fled to France, where he died in exile four years later.

Although the liberals had defeated the conservatives in the War of the Reform, the conservatives had been powerful enough still in the early 1860s to aid the imperial project of France that put Maximilian Habsburg as emperor of Mexico. With the fall of Maximilian, Mexican conservatives were cast as collaborators with foreign imperialists.

With the return of the liberals under Benito Juárez, and following his death Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, liberals held power but basic liberal goals of democracy, rule of law, and economic development were not reached. Díaz saw his task in his term as president to create internal order so that economic development could be possible. As a military hero and astute politician, Díaz’s eventual successful establishment of that peace (Pax Porfiriana) became one of his principal achievements, and it became the main justification for successive re-elections after 1884.

During his first term in office, Díaz developed a pragmatic and personalist approach to solve political conflicts. Although a political liberal who had stood with radical liberals in Oaxaca (rojos – “The Reds”), he was not a liberal ideologue, preferring pragmatic approaches to issues. He was explicit about his pragmatism. He maintained control through generous patronage to political allies. Although he was an authoritarian ruler, he maintained the structure of elections, so that there was the facade of liberal democracy.

His administration became famous for their suppression of civil society and public revolts. One of the catch phrases of his later terms in office was the choice between “pan o palo”, (“bread or the bludgeon”)—that is, “benevolence or repression.” To secure U.S. government recognition of the Díaz regime, which had come to power by coup despite the later niceties of an election after Lerdo went into exile, Mexico paid $300,000 to settle claims by the U.S. In 1878, the U.S. government recognized the Díaz regime and former U.S. president and Civil War hero Ulysses S. Grant visited Mexico.

Díaz initially served only one term—having staunchly stood against Lerdo’s re-election policy. Instead of running for a second term, he handpicked his successor, Manuel Gonzalez, one of his trustworthy companions. This side-step maneuver, however, did not mean that Díaz was stepping down from his powerful position. The four-year period that followed was marked by corruption and official incompetence, so that when Díaz stepped up in the election of 1884, he was welcomed by his people with open arms.

More importantly, very few people remembered his “No re-election” slogan that defined his previous campaign. During this period the Mexican underground political newspapers allegedly spread the new ironic slogan for the Porfirian times, based on the slogan “Sufragio Efectivo, No Reelección” and changed it to “Sufragio Efectivo No, Reelección.” In any case Díaz had the constitution amended, first to allow two terms in office, and then to remove all restrictions on re-election.

Having created a band of military brothers, Díaz went on to construct a broad coalition. He was a cunning politician and knew very well how to manipulate people to his advantage. A phrase used to describe the order of his rule was “Pan, o palo,” – “Bread or a beating,” (literally “Bread, or stick”), meaning that one could either accept what was given willingly (often a position of political power) or else face harsh consequences (often death).  Either way, rising opposition to Díaz’s administration was immediately quelled.

Over the next 26 years as president, Díaz created a systematic and methodical regime with a staunch military mindset. His first goal was to establish peace throughout Mexico. According to the late UCLA Spanish professor John A. Crow, Díaz “set out to establish a good strong paz porfiriana, or Porfirian peace, of such scope and firmness that it would redeem the country in the eyes of the world for its 65 years of revolution and anarchy.” His second goal was outlined in his motto – “little of politics and plenty of administration.”

In reality, Diaz started a Mexican revolution; however, his fight for profits, control, and progress kept his people in a constant state of uncertainty. Díaz managed to dissolve all local authorities and all aspects of federalism that once existed. Not long after he became president, the leaders of Mexico were answering directly to him. Those who held high positions of power, such as members of the legislature, were almost entirely his closest and most loyal friends. In his quest for even more political control, Díaz suppressed the media and controlled the court system.

In order to secure his power, Díaz engaged in various forms of co-optation and coercion. He played his people like a board game – catering to the private desires of different interest groups and playing off one interest against another. In order to satisfy any competing forces, such as the Mestizos and wealthier indigenous people, he gave them political positions of power that they could not refuse. He did the same thing with the elite Creole society by not interfering with their wealth and haciendas. Covering both pro and anti-clerical elements, Díaz was both the head of the Freemasons in Mexico and an important advisor to the Catholic bishops. Díaz proved to be a different kind of Liberal than those of the past. He neither assaulted the Church (like most liberals) nor protected the Church.

As for the Native American population, who were historically repressed, they were almost completely depoliticized; neither put on a pedestal as the core of Mexican society nor suppressed, and were largely left to advance via their own means. In giving different groups with potential power a taste of what they wanted, Díaz created the illusion of democracy and quelled almost all competing forces.

Díaz knew that it was crucial for him to suppress banditry; he expanded the guardias rurales (countryside police), although it guarded chiefly only transport routes to major cities. Díaz thus worked to enhance his control over the military and the police.

From 1892 onwards, Díaz’s perennial opponent was the eccentric Nicolas Zuniga y Miranda, who lost every election but always claimed fraud and considered himself to be the legitimately elected president of Mexico.

Crow states, “It was the Golden Age of Mexican economics, 3.2 dollars per peso. Mexico was compared economically to economic powers of the time such as France, Great Britain, and Germany. For some Mexicans, there was no money and the doors were thrown open to those who had.” Also, economic progress varied drastically from region to region. The north was defined by mining and ranching while the central valley became the home of large-scale farms for wheat and grain and large industrial centers.

One component of economic growth involved stimulating foreign investment in the Mexican mining sector. Through tax waivers and other incentives, investment and growth were effectively realized. The desolate region of Baja California Sur benefited from the establishment of an economic zone with the founding of the town of Santa Rosalia and the commercial development of the El Boleo copper mine. This came about when Díaz granted a French mining company a 70-year tax waiver in return for its substantial investment in the project. In a similar fashion, the city of Guanajuato realized substantial foreign investment in local silver mining ventures. The city subsequently experienced a period of prosperity, symbolized by the construction of numerous landmark buildings, most notably, the magnificent Juarez Theatre.

Because Díaz had created such an effective centralized government, he was able to concentrate decision-making and maintain control over the economic instability. This instability arose largely as a result of the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of peasants of their land. Communal indigenous landholdings were privatized, subdivided, and sold. The Porfiriato thus generated a stark contrast between rapid economic growth and sudden, severe impoverishment of the rural masses, a situation that was to explode in the Mexican revolution of 1910.

According to Crow, “A cautious but new breath entered the prostrate Mexican underground. Dark undercurrents rose to the top.” As groups began to settle on their presidential candidate, Díaz decided that he was not going to retire but rather allow Francisco Madero, an aristocratic but democratically leaning reformer, to run against him. Although Madero, a landowner, was very similar to Díaz in his ideology, he hoped for other elites in Mexico to rule alongside the president. Ultimately, however, Díaz did not approve of Madero and had him jailed during the election in 1910. Despite what he had formerly said about democracy and change, sameness seemed to be the only reality.

Francisco Ignacio Madero González challenged Diaz for the presidency in 1910 and was instrumental in sparking the Mexican Revolution. Madero was a Mexican statesman, writer, and revolutionary who was elected 33rd president of Mexico from 1911, serving until his assassination in 1913. He was an advocate for social justice and democracy.

Born into an extremely wealthy landowning family in northern Mexico, Madero was an unusual politician, who until he ran for president in the 1910 elections, had never held office. In his 1908 book entitled The Presidential Succession in 1910, Madero called on voters to prevent the sixth reelection of Porfirio Díaz, which Madero considered anti-democratic. His vision would lay the foundation for a democratic, 20th-century Mexico but without polarizing the social classes. To that effect, he bankrolled the Anti-Reelectionist Party (later the Progressive Constitutional Party) and urged the Mexicans to rise up against Díaz, which ignited the Mexican Revolution in 1910. Madero’s candidacy against Díaz garnered widespread support in Mexico, since he was someone of independent financial means, ideological determination, and bravery to oppose Díaz when it was dangerous to do so.

Arrested by the dictatorship shortly after being declared Presidential candidate by his party, the opposition leader escaped from prison and launched the Plan of San Luis Potosi from the United States, in this manner beginning the Mexican Revolution.

The Plan of San Luis de Potosí ushered in the Mexican revolution and the collapse of Diaz’s presidency. The document, or “plan,” called for the destruction of Díaz’s authoritarian presidency and the re-institution of democracy through violent direct action on the part of the Mexican populace. The plan was written and published in Texas by a group of exiles led by Francisco I. Madero, a political opponent to Díaz who had been jailed when his popularity threatened the arranged triumph of the old leader in the 1910 presidential election.

The Plan asked the Mexican people to rise in arms on Sunday, Nov. 20, 1910, at 6:00 p.m., but the first action occurred two days earlier, when Aquiles Serdan was found to be part of Madero’s revolution in the state of Puebla and was forced to an early fight in his home, helped by his family. Most of them died. After that, the Mexican Revolution broke out on November 20, 1910 against the political, commercial and social policies of the regime, taking “Sufragio Efectivo, No Reelección [Effective Suffrage – No Re-election!]” as a slogan which can still be found at the foot of many official and legal documents written in Mexico.

The document itself is considered an important historic symbol for the current Mexican Sate which owes its own existence, in great part, to the collapse of the old regime and the establishment of the PRI-dominated (Partido Revolucionario Institucional or Institutional Revolutionary Party) republic. The PRI is considered a centrist party,although it is a member of the Socialist International. he party was the result of Plutarco Elías Calles‘s efforts to stop the violent struggle for power between the victorious factions of the Mexican Revolution, and guarantee the peaceful transmission of power for members of the party.

Lázaro Cárdenas (president of the party and, in 1938, president of Mexico) renamed the party the Party of the Mexican Revolution (Spanish: Partido de la Revolución Mexicana, PRM) whose aim was to establish a democracy of workers and socialism. However, this was never achieved and his main intention was to create the broad-based political alliances necessary for the PRI’s long-term survival, splitting the party into mass organizations representing different interest groups and acting as the political consciousness of the country in a more realistic level (for example, the Confidential National, the farmer’s group). His strategy with the party supposedly mirrored the balanced ticket approach of 1930s Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, characteristic of Chicago by balancing ethnic interests. Settling disputes and power struggles within the party structure helped prevent congressional gridlock and possible armed rebellions, but this style of dispute resolution also created a ‘”rubber stamp” legislative apparatus.

Following the resignation of Díaz from the presidency on 25 May 1911 after the signing of the Treaty of Ciudad Juarez, Madero became the highest political leader of the country. Known as “Maderistas,” Madero’s followers referred to him as the “caudillo de la Revolución” (leader of the Revolution). He was elected president on Oct. 15, 1911 by almost 90 percent of the vote. Madero became one of Mexico’s youngest elected presidents having just turned 38. Despite considerable popularity amongst the people, Madero’s administration soon encountered opposition both from more radical revolutionaries and from remnants of the former regime. In February 1913, a military coup took place in the Mexican capital led by Gen. Victoriano Huerta, the military commander of the Mexico City. Madero was arrested and a short time later assassinated along with his Vice-President, Jose Maria Pino Suarez on Feb. 22, 1913, following the series of events known as the Ten Tragic Days (la Decena Tragica). The death of Madero and Pino Suárez led to a national and international outcry which eventually paved the way for the fall of the Huerta Dictatorship, the triumph of the Mexican Revolution and the establishment of the 1917 Constitution of Mexico under maderista President Venustiano Carranza.

Carranza was from a rich, northern landowning family; despite his position as head of the northern revolutionary movement, he was concerned that Mexico’’s land tenure not be fundamentally restructured by the Revolution. He was far more conservative than either Southern peasant leader Emiliano Zapata or Northern revolutionary general Pancho Villa. Once firmly in power in Mexico, Carranza sought to eliminate his political rivals. Carranza won recognition from the United States, but took strongly nationalist positions. During his administration, Mexico’s current constitution was drafted and adopted. Carranza did not implement its most radical elements, such as empowerment of labor, use of the state to expropriate foreign enterprises, land reform in Mexico, or suppression of the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico.

In the 1920 election, in which he could not succeed himself, he attempted to impose a virtually unknown, civilian politician, Ignacio Bonillas, as president of Mexico. Northern generals, who held real power, rose up against Carranza under the Plan of Agua Prieta, and Carranza was assassinated fleeing Mexico City.

The Plan of Agua Prieta, drafted and signed by supporters of Gen. Alvaro Obregon, repudiated Carranza’s government. Proclaimed by Obregón on April 23, 1920, in the northern border city of Agua Prieta, Sonora, the Plan’’s avowed pretext for rejecting the Carranza administration was a dispute between the federal government and the Sonora state government over control of the waters of the Rio Sonora. The underlying reasons included a string of personal interests and political conflicts, including the defeat of Obregón and his party in the 1920 presidential election by the civilian Bonillas, Carranza’s chosen successor.

In addition to withdrawing support from Carranza’s federal government, the plan also refused to recognize the results of local elections in the states of Guanajuato, San Luis Potosi, Nuevo Leon, Queretaro, and Tamaulipas, and the governor of the state of Nayarit. It offered to refrain from entering into combat with the authorities, provided that they refrained from attacking the Liberal Constitutionalist Army, headed by Adolfo de la Huerta, at the time governor of Sonoa.

The plan empowered De la Huerta to appoint interim governors in those states that aligned with or defeated by the Liberal Constitutionalist Army. It called on the state governments to appoint representatives to a junta (a military dictatorship), which would then select an interim President of the Republic. The interim president would, immediately upon assuming office, call for a new general election.

Support for the Plan was widespread across the country: more than three-quarters of the Army rejected Carranza and joined the rebellion. As De la Huerta’s Liberal Constitutionalist Army made rapid progress toward Mexico City, Carranza refused to negotiate or surrender and fled the capital by train in May 1920, headed for the port of Veracruz, where he intended to set up a temporary seat of government.

The railway conveyance was attacked repeatedly as it left the capital and, arriving at Aljibes, Puebla, was unable to continue because of sabotage to the tracks. In addition, Carranza then learned that the military commander of Veracruz, Gen. Guadalupe Sanchez had gone over to the rebels. Carranza and a small group of followers were forced to change plans: they would head north, perhaps to Carranza’s home state of Coahuila, where his support might be stronger. On horseback they began a crossing of the Sierra Norte, and, on May 29, reached the town of Tlaxcalantongo, Puebla. A rebel ambush in the early hours of May 21, 1920, reputedly led by Gen. Rodolfo Herrero, left President Carranza dead.

There you have the Wikipedia version of Mexican history. I’d love to get my hands on a Mexican high school history textbook, a non-Common Core, non-Pearson Publishing version preferably, to see who Mexican children are to taught to revere as historical heroes in their nation’s history.

Pancho Villa, the Mexican Robin Hood? No, actually, the first listed is Cuahuhtemo, the 18 year-old Aztec emperor who was tortured and executed for refusing to reveal to the Spanish the location of the Aztec treasure. Next comes Benito Juarez, who fought against French occupation. No problem there. He’s followed by Miguel Hidalgo, the priest who launched the war for independence from Spain and was executed.

But then we come to Zapata and Pancho Villa, both associated with Socialist and Communist leaders and insurgents. They’re followed by Lazar Cardenas, who hosted Leon Trotsky after his expuslion from the Soviet Union and nationalized foreign oil holdings and redistributed land.

Then, finally, there’s Santa Ana, whom you would think Mexicans would revere as a hero for leading the Mexican-American War, but is actually reviled for losing much of modern-day southwest America during what they refer to as “The Texas Rebellion” and the later Gadsden Purchase.

Mexico’s top villain is regarded to be Hernan Cortes, 1485-1547. Cortes was so hated that, after the independence from Spain, one of the first official acts was to call for the destruction of his bones. His remains were hidden. In 1981 the statue and the body were in danger of destruction by a nationalistic group. However, he was the founder of the Spanish culture in Mexico and was a capable leader who preferred diplomacy to force.

There you have the typical, illegal alien Mexican voter. Those who came here legally may well have despaired of improving their lives in Mexico, even with Ford building car factories there. But the illegals are the impoverished peasants. They see America changing under Obama and the Democrats.

Republicans recognize the danger. But with what flower are they going to court these “new” voters? The Dahlia pinnata (the name “Dahlia” coming from Swedish botanist Anders Dahl, who discovered the flower. Dahl is Swedish for dale or “mountain”. Pinnata is Latin for “winged” or “feathered.” In Victorian England, it would come to mean “elegant” or “refined”, therefore “winged elegance.”

The original Dahlia pinnata has since become extinct, much like the Aztec culture itself. But before it went extinct, the flower was hybridized with European flowers, much as the aboriginal cultures of southern North America, Central America and South America were hybridized with mainly Spanish blood. Spain’s national flower is the carnation.

A mixed bouquet, perhaps?

Meanwhile, no one is offering American voters so much as a single stemmed rose, except Trump Cruz, and Walker. We certainly won’t receive one from second front-runner Jeb Bush.

Published in: on August 4, 2015 at 4:58 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://belleofliberty.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/which-gop-candidate-will-offer-americans-a-rose/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: