Franklin Pierce: 'Bleeding Kansas'

Okay, so Franklin Pierce installed heating in the White House and reduced the national debt.  Other than that, his inability to allay tensions between the north and the south regarding slavery make him one of the worse presidents ever.

Pierce gained notoriety as an officer in the Mexican war, and for his ability to gain support for Lewis Cass during the 1848 presidential election.

Still, when you consider potential democratic presidential nominees for 1952 were Cass, Stephen A. Douglass, and James Buchanan, Pierce was a clear underdog candidate; a clear dark horse.  Yet those leading three candidates managed to take enough votes from each other for Pierce to escape with the nomination.

He ran under the platform of ardent support for the Compromise of 1850.  This worked, because, at the time of the 1852 election, there was general calm regarding the differences between the north and the south, and the Compromise was cited as the reason.  He was also a strong supporter of slavery, and would not sign any bill that would work to the detriment of slave states.

Pierce, a democrat, narrowly defeated Whig General Winfield Scott. During his inauguration he declared an era of peace and calm.  Of course, at the present time, it was peaceful and calm in the U.S. Helping matters was that the economy was flourishing. This was significant considering the tensions that escalated prior to the signing of the Compromise of 1850.

However, early on in his presidency he hinted at the idea of expanding the borders of the United States, thereby hinting at the idea of adding slave states.  This agitated northern voters.  Adding to the tension was his support for the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.  This Act was written by Stephen A. Douglas to reverse the Missouri Compromise of 1820.  The Act allowed white males in those territories to determine by popular sovereignty whether their territory would be a free or a slave state.

Douglas thought the Act would be well received because it created land for the expansion of the Transcontinental Railroad and allowed people living in the territories to decide on their own whether their state would be a free or slave state.

However, this Act completely backfired.  Instead of garnering peace, it created angst, particularly among northern free states who felt betrayed.  You see, the Missouri Compromise made Kansas a free territory, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act reversed this.

To make matters worse, in an attempt to influence how the people of Kansas would vote, both free and slave states send potential voters to that territory.  This ultimately gave rise to shootings and bloodshed, or what became known as "Bleeding Kansas" -- a prelude to the Civil War.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was therefore considered a betrayal to the north.  Northern supporters of freeing the slaves were infuriated by Pierce.  This inspired many of them to organize and form the republican party, which had a platform to stop the spread of slavery.  It quickly became the dominant party in the north.

While his term began in a state of peace, it ended with tensions growing. While he championed for peace as a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, his fellow democrats refused to renominate him. They turned instead to James Buchanan.

Further Reading:

• healthcare.gov: Franklin Pierce
• History Channel: Franklin Pierce

Modern Liberalism Began With Death of Kennedy

Most people do not realize this, but up until John F. Kennedy, and with a few rare exceptions (Woodrow Wilson and FDR), the democratic party was more conservative than the republican party. And, above all, most members of both parties loved, honored, and respected the United States above all else. If there was an enemy that needed to be dealt with, both parties were united in defending the nation. That all ended the day Kennedy died.

It is true that there were a rising number of liberal voices during Kennedy's term in office. Among them were Al Gore Sr. and John Kenneth Galbraith. These are people who believed in the zero sum game, that if one person or nation becomes wealthy it comes at the expense of other people and other nations. So they supported redistribution of wealth policies to share the wealth.

The say rich people, and rich corporations, as greedy. They even saw the U.S. as greedy. The reason other nations are poor is because the U.S. is hoarding all the money. They saw all evil in the world as the result of America being a bully. They believed if we scale back our military, get rid of nuclear weapons, and get rid of guns, that we wouldn't be seen as such a bully and people of other nations would love us more and peace would ensue.

This comes contrary to the traditional view of love of country and peace through strength, something Kennedy championed for. In order to win the cold war, he wanted to make America stronger and prouder. This is why he increased military spending. He believed the stronger our military is the less likely we would be to use it. And this is also why he increased federal funding of NASA and championed for a trip to the moon. He wanted to showcase to the world, to the Russians, American Exceptionalism.

He did this at a time of growing liberalism within the United States. He knew there were liberal voices in his own cabinet. In fact, he had to ignore John Kenneth Galbraith and Al Gore Sr. in pushing forth his agenda. And he succeeded. And he was very popular for his efforts, and continues to be hailed as a hero to this day, as his popularity still lingers around 80 percent. He is still ranked as one of the best presidents of all time.

But those liberal voices gained credibility the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a socialist by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. The moment Kennedy was pronounced dead, the liberal Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn into office, ushering in the era of modern liberalism.This was the day the democratic party went from being a mainstream, traditional American party, to a progressive/liberal/socialist/fascist party of nutcases who blame American greed for all the evils in the world.

Look! I wrote before on this blog how the first liberal president was Teddy Roosevelt, and how the liberal movement began with Woodrow Wilson, only to be put on steroids by FDR, Johnson, and Obama. Yet, as Rush Limbaugh discussed on his program on October 19, 2015, the modern liberal movement began with the death of Kennedy.

Here is what Rush said:

 

There have been many times that people have called here and asked me, "When did this current liberalism start? Was it Woodrow Wilson?" they ask. "Was it earlier than that? Was it Civil Rights? When did this stuff all happen? When did it start? Was it the sixties? The Students for Democrat Society and the Vietnam War?" And remember my answer has always shocked people.... My answer is the incarnation of the modern left as you and I know it today is a direct result of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

And I remember the first time I mentioned this, people could not believe that I was thinking straight. "You mean to tell me, Rush, you think the modern era of liberalism began with the assassination of JFK?" Yes, it did. I'll give you a brief summary of why.

We know -- the evidence is conclusive -- that JFK was killed by a communist, Lee Harvey Oswald. He was not killed by the right wing. He was not killed by extremists in Dallas or in the South or anywhere else in this country. He was killed by a communist with ties to Cuba. Lee Harvey Oswald was an avowed socialist and communist.

He had traveled to the Soviet Union; he was disappointed. He was expecting utopia. He was flat-out disappointed with what he found, but it did not persuade him to change his thinking. He remained an ardent communist, and after his disappointment with the discoveries in Moscow, he became an acolyte of the Castro regime in Cuba. He had traveled to Mexico City in an attempt to get to Cuba. But the bottom line is... I don't know, Warren Commission.

I don't care about anybody else. But Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger. It was his gun. It was in the sixth floor window of what the Texas School Book Depository. He was nabbed. He was caught. There was no doubt Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy, and he was a communist. And what the left did, is they couldn't permit that. They couldn't allow that to be popularly accepted and understood. They could not take that chance whatsoever.

So in order to create the Camelot myth and to establish Kennedy as this mythical King Arthur-type character and his administration as Camelot, there was a calculated decision among opinion leaders of the day to blame America for it, to blame American cultural decay, American extremism -- John Birch right-wingerism and so forth. And that's the birth of the modern era of liberalism, blaming America. America got the blame for killing Kennedy, not an avowed communist, because they just couldn't abide that.

There's a great book out there. The guy is at the Manhattan Institute. His name is James Piereson. His book is entitled Shattered Consensus. And there's a chapter -- actually a couple chapters -- on the Kennedy assassination.

An ardent, full blooded, full-throated communist killed JFK, and the American left power structure of the time -- including Earl Warren at the Supreme Court, the New York Times, TIME Magazine, at the time the networks, three network news anchors -- just could not deal with it. They couldn't permit that to be the truth. There was an affection for the Soviet Union at the time. There was an affection for communism. But there was also an opportunity. They saw an opportunity to do what the left does best: Blame America.

I just want to read you these two excerpts from the book Shattered Consensus... "The widespread feeling that the national culture contributed to Kennedy's death encouraged an attitude of anti-Americanism that became a pronounced aspect of the radical and countercultural movements of the 1960s." Look, the simple fact of the matter is, for the longest time people would not accept that Oswald was the killer. It was too simple.

The KGB, by the way, was paying all these conspiracy... Not all. The KGB was paying a number of so-called conspiracy authors to write these alternative theories. The American left and Soviet Union, nobody wanted communists to blame for this. If a communist had killed "the most beloved president ever," what does that say about the left? It would have destroyed the modern-day Democrat Party. They couldn't allow that to happen. They made a concerted judgment. They made an effort to actually whitewash the assassination of Kennedy and blame people who had nothing to do with it in order to save their own skin.

And their own movement and then proceeded to cover all of that up by coming up with alternate conspiracy theories and an effort to blame right-wingers, gun-control freaks, John Birchers, and, you name it. And that is what gave birth to the modern left today, rooted in America is to blame for everything that's bad -- and the top of the list is, "America killed the most popular president ever." And by "America" they mean Republicans, conservatives, anybody that's not liberal...

So... "The widespread feeling that the national culture contributed to Kennedy's death encouraged an attitude of anti-Americanism that became a pronounced aspect of the radical and countercultural movements of the sixties. This was an outlook that never entirely disappeared from the worldview of the American left.

Now, by any logic the assassination of a popular president by a communist should have generated a revulsion against everything associated with left-wing doctrines. Yet something very close to the opposite happened in the wake of the JFK assassination, and for many of the reasons outlined. Within a few years, radical ideas and revolutionary leaders -- Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Castro among them -- enjoyed a greater vogue in the US than at any previous time in our history, converting college students by the thousands to an anti-American, anti-capitalist creed. Soon, those students were taking over campuses and joining protest movements in support of a host of radical and revolutionary causes.

"Socialism and revolution -- causes that Kennedy fought against -- were the watchwords of the new left that emerged within a few years of his death."

They could not sit by and have it known in a communist had killed JFK. So they had to create other assassins. They had to create alternative conspiracy theories. Whatever else anybody did or will come up with, it is fact that Oswald pulled the trigger and killed Kennedy. And if you don't believe it, it is a sign of how effective the plan has been to get you not to know what really happened. "In just a few years, from 1963 to 1968, the liberal movement -- under pressure from this new radicalism -- absorbed a skeptical disposition toward the American past and the major institutions of American society.

"It would not be an exaggeration to label this disposition, this new attitude of the New Left, as anti-American. Among those who maintained a foothold in the liberal camp, there was a tendency to accept the left-wing assessments of American society as vulgar, violent, and racist. The radicals and the liberals might differ on style and strategy, but they agreed that real change must come about not through programmatic reforms, but through cultural criticism that leads to a revolution in thought and conduct...

"Once having accepted the claim that JFK was a victim of the national culture, many found it easy to extend that metaphor into other areas of American life, from race and poverty to the treatment of women to the struggle against communism. These were no longer seen as challenges to be met and overcome but as indictments of the nation." JFK being assassinated by a communist was an unacceptable reality to the leftists of the day who had a love affair with the Soviet Union, who had a love affair with communism as utopia, as fairness, as all of these things that they claim that it is.

It's the birthplace of Che Guevara and Castro becoming heroes, and it was more than likely Castro who engineered, however he did it, the assassination of JFK, with a supporter, Lee Harvey Oswald...

What really has happened is this country was really severely, dangerously brainwashed after the Kennedy assassination, and it continued for decades. And what's happening now is an effort to cleanse that brainwashing and to unravel it, and the left has had a lot of success with it. Blaming America. Blaming the culture. Take any incident, any incident that happens in this country today, I don't care which. Name one. Name the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin thing, Ferguson, Baltimore, a school shooting. Name a thing that happens.

Whose fault is it? "Right wing culture! America! Bigotry! It's anti-gay, sexist, racism," what have you. It all... All of this got its energetic birth immediately after the Kennedy assassination, and they had such profound success with it following the Kennedy assassination that it simply became their identity. And in their minds it has stood the test. Well, JFK today would no more identify with the modern-day Democrat Party. He was for Reagan-like tax cuts and any number of other things.

Rush said that he often gets blamed by the left for "brainwashing" people in favor of conservatism and against liberalism and socialism. Yet, in fact, he said, "it's the American media and the Democrat Party and the left that brainwashed this whole country after the Kennedy assassination."

Further reading:

• Rush Limbaugh: How the JFK Assassination Ushered in Modern Liberalism
• What is American Exceptionalism

William Buchanan: The last pro-slavery president

Without the support of northern Whigs angered by his signing the fugitive slave act, Millard Fillmore lost the 1852 election to democrat James Buchanan.  He was the 15th president of the U.S., and the last president to succeed at avoiding a Civil War.  He was also the only president to remain a lifelong bachelor.

Shortly after his inauguration, a decision was to come about regarding Dred Scott, who was suing for his right to be a free man.  Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the Dred Scott Decisions, claiming that anyone of African ancestry could never become U.S. Citizens, and could never sue in a Federal Court.  This included both slaves and free African Americans. It also ruled that Congress did not have the right to prohibit slavery in territories.  So Dred Scott remained a slave.

As a pro slavery president, Buchanan supported this decision.  This did not sit well with abolitionists in his own party, and anti-slavery republican party.

To settle disputes in Kansas, he pushed for it to enter into the union as a slave state.  But this angered republicans even more, and created a riff in his own party. His effort in this regard failed, and Kansas remained a territory.

To make matters worse in the nation, in 1858 republicans won a majority of seats in the House.  Every single bill they tried to pass met a political death in the Senate or by presidential veto.  Washington D.C. was in a complete stalemate.

Now, for his inability to avoid escalating tensions between the north and the south that would ultimately lead to the Civil War, and for his failure to stand up against slavery, he is often sited as a failed president. However, that aside, he was a classical liberal who championed for low tariffs and low taxes in order to stimulate the economy.

His democratic party was divided on slavery, and this resulted in the party dividing into southern democrats and northern democrats, and each nominated its own candidate for president: John Breckinridge and Stephen A. Douglas respectively.  The Whig party was destroyed.  This set the stage for the republican party president, Abraham Lincoln, to sneak into the office of the president.

Further reading

• PBS: Dred Scott's fight for freedom
• whitehouse.gov: James Buchanan

Trump gaining momentum, and here's why

Donald Trump was supposed to be gone by now.  Back in August fellow republicans were saying that Trump was the protest candidate, and that once the summer was over they would gravitate back to a candidate who was qualified.  They said that's what happened in 2008 when John McCain ended up getting the nomination, even though he was in third place in the polls when the primaries started.

But that doesn't seem to be the case this time.  Now we are three months later, and polls are showing that Trump is now at 42% in the polls among likely republican voters.  Why is Trump doing so well?

It's that 42% of republicans, or up to 70% of republicans if you add the polling percentages of Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson, are fed up with the republican establishment.  They do not like the fact that democrats are succeeding at advancing their progressive agenda.  They are ticked off at the fact that every republican voted into office since 2008 was supposed to stop Obama from advancing his agenda, and once they were elected they decided they needed to compromise.  They did not stop the democratic agenda. In fact, they agree with him on amnesty.  When it comes to amnesty, Jeb Bush and John Kasich are democrats.  The voters are sick of this.

The voters don't like the nuclear deal.  Republicans did not stop it.  The voters don't like Obamacare. Republicans did not stop it; have not defund it.  The voters hate amnesty. Republicans are not trying to stop it.

Republican voters gave republicans majorities in 2010 and 2014, and what good did it do. Why is Obama still able to move his agenda forward?  Who is standing in the way of Democrats? Why aren't any republican policies being pushed forth? Why have no bills to defund planned parenthood or Obamacare been placed on Obama's desk? Why is our agenda not being moved forward?

Why all the bipartisanship? Why the compromising? Why don't democrats ever compromise and allow us to move our agenda forward? Why does compromise always have to mean democrats getting what they want and us getting nothing? Why does compromise always have to mean more government?

Why not impeach Obama for his constant violations of the Constitution? Why not impeach him for his illegal executive orders?

Why is it that democrats control one chamber of Congress and they succeed in stopping republican presidents move forward their agenda, but when republicans own both they can't stop democrats?

Why? Why? Why?

So here comes Trump who says he will.  Here comes Trump who says he will put an end to Obamacare, he will stop the Iran deal, and he will fix the illegal immigration problem (the invasion) by building a way, enforcing laws, and deporting them.  He says he will do it; he will get it done.

That is why Trump is doing so well in the polls.  That is why Trump is not fading.  That is why republicans will not gravitate to another republican in name only this time like McCain or Romney.  They will not gravitate toward Jeb Bush or John Kasich.  They probably won't even gravitate to Rubio, because his immigration policy is also democrat.

Republicans have sent many candidates to Washington to stop Obama, and once they get elected they are afraid.  They are afraid of being called racist.  They are afraid of being called mean spirited.  Trump is not afraid of being called mean spirited.  He says he will do it.  The voters seem to think he will.

Millard Fillmore: A supporter of slave states

Milford Fillmore presided over Congress during the debates over the compromise of 1850.  Despite his support for it, he kept silent until only a few days prior to the death of Zachary Taylor when he told the president he would vote in favor of the bill if he was called to break a tie.  But, as it stood, Taylor was opposed to the bill, and it was not going to become law so long as he was president.

However, be it as it was, after attending a celebration on a cold day at the unfinished Washington Monument on the 4th of July in 1850, Taylor was struck with stomach cramps and died within 24 hours.  Fillmore became president, the entire staff of Taylor resigned, and were replaced with pro-slavery Whigs, including Daniel Webster as secretary of state. 

While Henry Clay wrote the original compromise, he left Washington for health reasons, leaving the bill in the hands of Stephen A. Douglas.  

With the support of the president, a compromise that now contained five bills aimed at easing tensions between the north and the south regarding slavery made its way through Congress:

• Admit California as a free state
• Settle the Texas border
• Grant territorial status to New Mexico; allow it's legislature decide status of free or slave
• Strengthen the fugitive slave law so that federal officers at the disposal of slave holders seeking to find fugitive slaves
• Abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia

Each bill passed Congress, and on September 29, 1850, all the bills were signed by Milford Fillmore.  The main problem that Taylor had with the bill was the fugitive slave act, which was an ardent violation of justice. Northern Whigs never forgave him for signing this bill, and for this reason they did not support him when he ran for re-election in 1852.  

He would end of losing the election of 1852 to democrat William Buchanan.  He would end up being the last president to be a member of any party other than democrat or republican.  

Further reading:

• whitehouse.gov: Millard Fillmore  
• The Compromise of 1850

Zachary Taylor: Country first, slavery second

Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)

Zachary Taylor served as the 12th president of the United States. And even though he served for only 16 months in the office, he goes down in history as one of the best presidents of all time. This is because he did not abuse the office to advance an agenda, and did everything in his power to protect and defend the Constitution.

He was born in a log cab the son of a planter.  As he grew older his family prospered and moved to a larger home with 10,000 acres and 26 slaves.  He was educated, although he preferred the military over law or ministry. He had no college education.

He would spend most of the next 40 years in the military.  He lead troops in the War of 1812, the Black Hawk War, and the Seminole War.  He became a war hero in the Mexican War that broke out in 1846 after John Tyler approved the annexation of Texas, and after James K. Polk tried to buy New Mexico and California from Mexico.

Polk had accomplished the goal of expanding America from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Pacific, and from Canada all the way to Mexico.  He was a very popular president, and he probably would have easily won the presidency in 1848 had he decided to run. But he opted not to.

So this set the stage up nicely for Taylor.

Taylor's political clout grew as a result of his heroics in the Mexican War.  He considered himself a Whig, despite the fact his party was opposed to the Mexican War.  He announced his candidacy only a few short weeks prior to the Whig convention.

The Whigs initially spend all their energy condemning Polk's war policies.  They had to reverse course quickly as Polk surprised everyone by signing the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War and gave the U.S. vast new territory. The Whigs in the Senate supported the treaty.

A new strategy was to nominate the war hero Zachary Taylor.  This was mostly a desperation move, as it appeared the democrats were well positioned to easily win the presidency unless Taylor was the Whig nominee.  It was thought that his military record would appeal to northerners, and slave owning status would appeal to southerners.  Also making him ideal was the fact he was a commoner who was born in a log cabin.

The democrats nominated Lewis Cass, and the Free Soil Party nominated former President Martin Van Buren.

Many Whigs did not like Tayler because he was not fully dedicated to Whig ideal.  Still, he was their best chance at gaining the presidency.  He did not condemn the war with Mexico.  He did not criticize Polk.  He did, however, promise no new wars.  The rest of the Whigs had no choice but to follow his lead. Instead of criticizing Polk, they decided to champion for new states to become free states.

The election of 1844 was the first election to take place on the same day in every state, and the first time it was held on a Tuesday.  Taylor won the popular vote by 138,000 over Cass, although he was 79,000 short of a majority (he won 47% of the vote).  He did, however, succeed in winning 163 of 290 electoral votes, giving the Whigs their second chance at the presidency (their last victory was in 1840 with William Henry Harrison).

As with their last victory, this one would also be short lived.

Taylor was elected in a time where tensions regarding slavery were high.  This was heightened as the country was expanding westward.  The creation of the Free Soil party had southerners worried that abolitionists might gain control of Congress.  The expansion of the union south had northerners worried about the addition of more slave states that would throw off the balance.

This balance was important for controlling Congress. Northerners feared if there were too many slave states, southerners would force slavery on the entire union.  Southerners feared if there were too many free states, abolitionists would eliminate slavery.

Thankfully, even though he was a slave owner, Taylor believed holding the union together was more important than slavery. In order to keep the peace, he championed for California and New Mexico to enter the union as free states.  Southerners, however, did not like the idea of two potential free states entering the union.

On January 29, 1840, fellow Whig Henry Clay offered a compromise that he thought would allay tensions between the north and south.  The compromise would allow California to enter the union as a free state, abolish the slave trade in Washington D.C., and strengthen the fugitive slave law.  New Mexico and Utah were able to decide the issue of slavery on their own.

Some viewed the compromise as generally good, especially considering it would have given both sides what they wanted and kept the union together.  Others viewed it as generally poor because it prolonged the institution of slavery in the world's greatest nation, further tarnishing its reputation.  Furthermore, the believed (and rightly so) that strengthening of the fugitive slave law was an ardent violation of natural rights -- it was a mockery of justice.

Despite the compromise being composed by a fellow Whig, Taylor joined those who opposed it.  So long as Taylor was president, the compromise was never going to become law.

Another thing he supported was the independence of the Utah territory from the federal government to alleviate the Mormon population's concerns over religious freedom.

He also had one small foreign policy success, although it had some saying that it was a violation of the Monroe Doctrine, which stated that no European nation could establish colonies, or interfere with interests, in North or South America.  He signed the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with Britain, which said that any Central American canal linking the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans would be open to both American and British ships.

Then tragedy struck.  On July 4, 1850, Taylor attended a ceremony at the unfinished Washington Monument on a day that was chilly.  He suddenly fell ill with stomach cramps and died the following day.  He was 65. His vice president, Milford Fillmore, became president.

Fillmore was a fan of the compromise and immediately signed it into law.  It became known as the Compromise of 1850.

Suspicions continue to swirl that Taylor may have been the victim of murder by arsenic by his pro-slavery opponents.  One such theory suspected that his friend Jefferson Davis, who was at his bedside when he died and heard his last words, was responsible for his death.  Even after his body was exhumed in 1990 and tested for arsenic, the true cause of his death remains a mystery.

Further reading:

• History channel: Zachary Taylor Presidency
• University of Virginia: Zachary Taylor
• The Compromise of 1850
• The Assassination of Zachary Taylor

Illegal Immigration: Myths, Facts, Solutions

In one pithy post here, I would like to allay any and all myths regarding illegal immigration. I would also like to postulate simple solutions to this problem.

Some Statistics.  At the present time it is estimated that 12 million illegal aliens live in the United States.  It is also estimated that about 700,000 are coming into our country illegally, and staying here, each year.  Most of these illegal aliens are unskilled and uneducated. They are not doctors, lawyers, mathematicians, or scientists, or people who will make our country better.  This is why they must come here illegally.

Here are the myths, the truths, and the solutions. 

Myth #1:  Illegal Immigration is not an economics issue.  False.  Illegal immigrants affect the economy in a negative way.  Even the New York Times acknowledges this. Minimum wage laws do not apply to illegal immigrants. So, rather than blue berry farmers (for example) having to pay $8.50 for seasonal blue berry pickers, illegal immigrants are willing to take $5 an hour. So, in this way, illegal immigrants drive down wages. Plus, economics 101 says that if you flood the market with people willing to do a job, wages will go down.  If you have a million low skilled and uneducated men willing to pick blue berries, this bodes well for illegal immigrants searching for work, and it also bodes well for the blue berry pickers who now pay less wages. But it does not bode so well for the American man who need that job to support his family. So, as you can see, the influx of illegal immigrants also explains why we have a record 94 million working age men and women no longer looking for work, and why the unemployment rate is as high as 40%.

Some more statistics.  The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that, between 2008 and 2010, over a million U.S. jobs were filled by illegal immigrants. Illegal aliens pay no taxes, but they are able to receive a free education, free healthcare, free housing assistance, and food stamp benefits. This comes at an annual cost that exceeds tens of billions of dollars each year.

Myth #2.  Illegal immigrants do the work no Americans are willing to do.  False.  Actually, this  is the argument that the republican establishment -- i.e. Jeb Bush and John Kasich -- used to support their proposals for amnesty (official pardons) for illegal immigrants already living here. They see illegal immigration as a necessity in order to fill the jobs that no one else wants to do.  They see this as the "nice" or "kind-hearted" solution to the immigration issue.  They think if they are seen as "nice" and "kind-hearted" that people will be more likely to vote for them. They also falsely believe that, once they become citizens, they will vote republican.  But it's not that no one wants to do these jobs. In fact, who do you think did these jobs before the influx of illegal immigrants? It was Americans. Americans who need to support themselves and their families, and cannot find jobs elsewhere, would be more than happy to do the jobs illegal immigrants are doing.

Solution #1.  Enforce immigration laws already on the books. Penalize employers who hire illegal aliens. This will make it so they cannot find work, and will be forced to leave on their own.  As you will see in a moment, this is a method Dwight D. Eisenhower used.

Myth #3.  Deporting illegal aliens would be impossible. False.  It is not impossible.  In fact, Dwight D. Eisenhower deported 1.5 million illegal aliens.  This was a point that Trump recently reminded Bush and Kasich about. You can add to this that Harry S. Truman deported 3.4 million illegal aliens.  So it is not impossible to deport illegal aliens, and it has been done before. In fact, Eisenhower did this during a post war economic boom.  He didn't want to slow down the economy by allowing illegal aliens to take jobs away from Americans.  He also didn't want to see wages go down.

Myth #4.  Deporting illegal aliens would be inhumane.  When people were deported in the 1940s and 1950s, sometimes inhumane methods were used.  Sometimes aliens would be deported to the middle of a dessert.  In one incident 88 died.  But Trump said those were isolated incidents.  He said he would be sure to use good management to make sure the deportations were done humanely.  But most would not have to be deported, because if the employers who hired them were penalized, there would be no jobs for them and they'd go home on their own.  Saying it would be inhumane to deport illegal aliens, or that we would be breaking up families, is just an excuse by people who don't want to do it.  Mexico deports illegal aliens all the time, and you don't hear sob stories about that.  Rush Limbaugh said that if 12 million tax payers decided not to pay taxes, the IRS would find them and not worry about the impact of putting them in jail on their families. Look, democrats and establishment republicans are constantly talking about compassion for illegal immigrants and their families.  What they don't talk about is compassion American workers who get "screwed because of all the unskilled, and uneducated workers that will work for dirt cheap," said Limbaugh.

Myth #5.  Illegal Aliens won't leave on their own.  False.  During the Eisenhower administration, 2.1 million illegal aliens went home on their own.  He was able to do this simply by enforcing laws already on the books and penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants. When there is no work, illegal immigrants have no choice but to go home.

More Statistics.   Some are sick with infectious diseases and never would have been allowed legally. Likewise, many are criminals who never would been allowed in legally, so they sneak in and commit their crimes here. It costs states billions of dollars each year to incarcerate criminals who never should have been in the U.S. to begin with. They make up about 30% of prisoners in local, state, and federal prisons.

Myth #6.  We have always had an open borders policy. False.  Between 1924 and 1965 we had a closed border policy. This was why Eisenhower and Truman were forced to deal with an influx of illegal aliens.

Myth #7.  Deporting illegal aliens would be racist and mean spirited. False. It's not mean to deport people who broke the law. They are illegal.  They came here illegally.  They are ruining our economy.  They need to be punished. You know that Eisenhower had some illegal aliens taken home, and they came back.  So he took them back home, and they came back again.  So then he had them taken someplace way on the other side of Mexico, and they never came back.  This was a man who was referred to as a nice guy. Enforcing the law doesn't make you mean. Even the Bible teaches that those who break the law are sinners who should be punished. Punishing those who break the law is not being mean.

Solution #2.  Build a wall.  Building a wall would make it really tough for people to come in illegally.  There was a bill passed seven years ago by Congress allowing for a 700 mile wall to be built. During the Obama administration, less than 50 miles of this law has been built.

Myth #8.  Building a wall would be impossible.  False.  There is a wall in Israel and it works.  There is a wall in China and it works.

Solution #3.  Enforce the laws already on the books.

Myth #9.  There are no laws to deal with illegal immigrants.  False. There are enough laws on the books that, if they are enforced, would solve the immigration problem.  Penalize employers who hire illegal immigrants. Build a wall. Guard the wall. Send anyone who comes in illegally back home. These are all covered by laws already on the books.

Myth #10.  People who don't support amnesty hate immigrants.  False.  No one is opposed to people coming into this country legally.  In fact, this is a good thing.  And, very important here, just because I agree with Donald Trump that a wall needs to be built, and that the 12 million illegal immigrants should be sent home, does not mean I hate immigrants.  It does not mean I'm racist.  It does not mean I lack passion.  It does not mean losing my big heart. It does not mean I am against the idea of people coming into our country with the dream of making a better life for themselves. They can still come in. They can do it legally. I am anti illegal immigrant.  I am anti invasion of immigrants.  I am not anti immigrant.

Myth #11.  Illegal immigration is not a serious issue.  I think that Ted Cruz explained why this is a myth when he spoke at the presidential debate on Fox Business Network. He said: "I understand that when the mainstream media covers immigration, it doesn’t often see it as an economic issue. But I can tell you for millions of Americans at home, watching this, it is a very personal economic issue. And I will say the politics of it would be very, very different if a bunch of lawyers or bankers were crossing the Rio Grande. Or if a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press. Then we would see stories about the economic calamity that is befalling our nation. And I will say for those of us who believe people ought to come to this country legally and we should enforce the law, we’re tired of being told, it is anti-immigrant. It’s offensive."

Myth #12.  Illegal immigration is a civil rights issue.  False. Democrats, and those of the republican establishment, like Bush and Kasich, see immigration as a civil rights issue. They see them as people of color who just want to make a better life for themselves. So that is the reason they come here illegally.  They just want a chance.  And if we do not let them stay, if we don't grant them amnesty, then we are not being fair to them.  And, for the record, civil rights means that we enforce the laws equally among the people. You cannot grant amnesty to just people you like.  It's not a civil rights issue because the laws clearly state that anyone who comes in illegally, anyone at all, should be deported.  It's not a civil rights issue.  All illegal aliens have broken the law. All illegal aliens should be deported.  If you just let some stay because they are Mexicans, or some stay just because they are your friends, then it would be a civil rights issue.

Myth #13:  Illegal immigration is important to the economy.  False.  There is no economic value in allowing people to come in to our country illegally.  All the economic value from immigrants is achieved by the legal process.  The influx of illegal immigration has a negative impact on the economy, as I explained above.

And more statistics.  The cost of educating the children of illegal aliens was estimated to cost $12,000,000,000 in 2006. So here is another reason illegal immigrants are a burden on the economy.

And a scary fact.  Terrorist cells have been set up in Mexico, and they are making their way into the United States.  Illegal drugs are also crossing our borders and being sold to our kids. So while we are fighting terrorists around the globe, we are allowing terrorists to cross our borders without even blinking an eye.  While we are fighting a war on drugs here, we are doing nothing to prevent illegal aliens from carrying it into our country with them.

Myth #12:  Illegal immigration has no impact on social fabric of America.  False.  Illegal immigration does have a negative impact on American Culture. Many people who come in illegally do not love America the way we do.  They are coming here, and they are not learning our language, and they are not accepting of our culture. Rather than assimilate into our culture, they are holding onto theirs. And I'm not saying people have to give up their culture when they come here, I'm just saying they should be Americans first. Having people of other cultures in America is one of the many things that makes America great. But people who come here must be willing to accept our culture, not change it or water it down. Traditionally, immigrants yearned to assimilate into American culture.  People who came here loved this country so much they wanted to be a part of it.  Today, many immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, are not willing to assimilate, and instead want us to change to accept their culture. Rather than them learning our language, they want us to learn theirs. The influx of illegal immigration is watering our country down to the point that we have no culture. Rather than being a great big melting pot with one culture, we have become a salad bowl of many cultures. This is bad, because the American culture was about a dream than anyone who had an idea and a desire could improve their lot in life.  The American culture was deeply ingrained in Christianity, and it is from this that our founding documents was established.  It was on the Christian culture that traditional American values and liberties were formed. It was from the Christian culture that made America exceptional.  Many aliens are not willing to accept this.  When they come in legally, we can make sure that the people coming in are willing to assimilate so that we can keep the fabric of our country, of our culture, together. Finally, one of the reasons for the fall of Rome was because Romans were no longer willing, or able, to stop the influx of Germans into Rome. Each German clan had it's own culture, and they were not willing to adapt the Roman way of life.  The fabric of Roman culture gradually ripped apart so that Roman Citizens were ultimately seen as nothing special. This, many believe, was one of the reasons for the fall of Rome. So we need to make sure that those we let in share a love for America. Those who come here legally, and who plan on becoming citizens, are far more likely to place their loyalty to their adopted nation above their loyalty to their birth land. Those who come in with the intent of making money are more likely to hold on to the culture of their native land and shun the American way of life. They are only taking advantage of our great economy for their own personal benefit, and have nothing else to offer. They may even hate America and wish to destroy it from within.

Myth #13:  Most Americans support Amnesty.  False.  In fact, 70% of Americans believe illegal immigration hurts U.S. culture, and 63% believe they have a negative impact on our economy.  In fact, as of April 2015, 65% of likely U.S. voters oppose Obama's plan to grant amnesty to 5 million illegal aliens and allow them to apply for jobs legally.  This is similar to similar polls showing most Americans oppose an open border policy and amnesty. This should explain why Trump has gained so much momentum as a republican candidate, because he is so passionately opposed to illegal immigration and has championed for a wall, deportation, and enforcing immigration laws. These are things both Obama and George W. Bush failed to do. It is also something John Kasich and Jeb Bush have said they would not do. For the record, Marco Rubio is pretty much pro amnesty as well.  Trump and Cruz are your anti illegal immigration candidates. For the record, and again, they are not anti immigrant, they are anti illegal immigrant. Most people in this country want to see a resolution to the immigration crisis (the invasion), and that's why Trump is doing so well in the polls. The truth is that, I don't think democrats and establishment republicans have a clue what a majority of Americans think about illegal immigration. They want to force their view on the people, and the people want nothing to do with it. The truth is that Trump's immigration plan is right on par with what a majority of Americans want. Every republican elected since 2010 has been elected to stop it, and yet, once elected, most republicans just give in to democrats. Trump is in unique territory here, because he says he will solve the illegal immigration problem when he is elected. Some say his immigration plan is out of the mainstream, but the polls show that he is right on par with voters.

Myth #14: Whoever (republicans or democrats) passes immigration reform (a.k.a. amnesty) will get the votes of Mexican Americans.  False.  Establishment republicans actually think if they support amnesty Mexican Americans will see them as the good guys and vote for them.  They see it as similar to when republicans passed laws making blacks citizens.  The truth is that in the 2010 midterm election 60% of Mexican Americans voted democrat, and there's no evidence to suggest that supporting amnesty would change this.  The way to get more votes from any subgroup in America is to support programs that make America better for everyone in it, and both amnesty and illegal immigration make things worse as proven above.  The truth is that immigration reform, or amnesty, or whatever you want to call it, will result in millions more democrats. This might be proof that the money people are running the republican party and the democratic party.  They don't even try to create programs the people want anymore. They don't even try to be on the same page as the public.  They don't even try to satisfy public opinion. If they did, they would all be opposed to illegal immigration and try to stop it.

Myth #15.  We need immigration reform.  False.  What we need to do is enforce the laws already on the books.  In fact, we really shouldn't be referring to this as a problem with immigration, as immigration has a system.  You come in legally, you come here with a purpose, you follow the laws, and then you either leave or, after a time, if you are deemed a good person who has something to offer, you can apply for citizenship. When you have people coming in illegally by the thousands on a daily basis, it's not illegal immigration, it's an invasion. We have people invading our country and we are doing nothing about it accept trying to pass amnesty laws. We do not need more laws.  We do not need immigration reform because there is no problem with immigration.  To say we need immigration reform is to assume we have no immigration laws, and we do. All we need is to enforce the laws already written to stop the invasion.

Myth #16. Deporting illegals and building a fence would be too expensive.  What is immigration reform?  According to most politicians, it is amnesty, open borders, and cheap labor.  Trump proposes that we do the opposite. He proposes to build a fence, enforce laws on the books, deport illegal immigrants or encourage them to leave on their own, end NAFTA and go back to tariffs, and end practice of granting U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.  I only mention this to give an example here.  The latest estimates suggest that Trump's immigration plan would cost $166 billion. So people say we can't do it because it's too expensive.  Well, Obama increased the national debt since he was elected by $8 trillion.  He has spent $4.5 trillion on quantitative easing. How much has he spent on food stamps? The media didn't bat an eye when that money was spent.  But here we have someone willing to secure our borders to make our nation safer and to boost our economy, and all of a sudden coming up with money is not possible. That $166 billion is chump change, especially considering it will result in healthcare savings, education savings, food stamp savings, increased wages, and less unemployed or less unemployed and no longer seeking employment. Plus it will also result in fewer undocumented diseased and fewer criminals and terrorists crossing our borders and hiding in the shadows within our own country.

Final Fact.  Republicans used to own California.  It wasn't long ago that republican who became governor of California would be prime candidates for president.  Ronald Reagan was one of them.  This ended in 1986.  Today republicans don't have a single seat statewide. Only a Rhino like Arnold could become governor.  Democrats have control of everything in California, and there is a greater divide between the richest and the poorest than any other state. Rush Limbaugh explained this. He said: "You can tie the end of the Republican Party in California to 1986, and that was the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty immigration bill. Unfortunately, this was a bill Ronald Reagan signed.  It may have been his biggest mistake as president. We're talking back then 3.9 million illegal aliens granted amnesty. Since then it's been curtains for the Republican Party, which means constant victory for the Democrat Party. They have shaped that state, and it's a mess. And it's a harbinger of where we're going nationwide. The people of this country do not want that and they're scared to death of losing their country, and immigration is the top of the reasons why they think it can happen. And they see both parties in cahoots to make it happen, and they don't understand it. People that love America do not understand this. I mean, even when you tell 'em, "Well, big-money donors say this because they want X, Y, and Z," it still doesn't make any sense. How does that trump patriotism? How does all that matter more to these people, elected officials, than patriotism, love of country, America, shining city on a hill and all that, why does that not matter anymore? "

Bottom Line.  Amnesty for illegal aliens is unfair to those who came here legally.  It is not fair to the millions of Americans who are willing to do the work illegal aliens are being hired cheaply to do.  It's not fair to the American economy either, as wages are kept low and unemployment rates kept high. Deport illegal immigrants, prevent more from coming in, and all these problems are solved. Allow people who are willing to work, and who have a dream that might make America better, to come into our home legally.  We are a nation of laws.  We need to enforce the laws. People like Trump and Cruz are standing up for the rule of law.

Further Reading:

• National Review: Cruz: If Illegals Were Mostly Journalists, ‘We’d See Stories About the Economic Calamity’
• Rush Limbaugh: The Drive-Bys Thought the Debate Was Boring Because Issues Were Discussed and No Conservatives Were Destroyed
• Rush Limbaugh: The Establishment Lines Up Against Trump's Deportation Plan
• Articulating Ideas: Economy Worse Today Than Great Depression
• infowars.com: 18 Facts Prove Illegal Immigration Is Absolute Nightmare for U.S. Economy
• Reuters: Over 1 million immigrants land U.S. jobs
• Renew America: Illegal Aliens and Culture
• Washington Times: Most Americans fear illegal immigrants hurt U.S. culture
• Rasmussen: Most still oppose Obama Immigration Amnesty, say it's illegal
• Human Events: Mexican's Immigration Policy: Let's try it here at home
• Politico: Trumps immigration tab: $166 Billion