Episode 222 Show Notes- 60 Years Later, Eisenhower’s Warning About Big Government Haunts Us
↓ The P.A.S. Report Podcast is on every podcast platform! ↓
Episode Description
60-years ago, Eisenhower warned us about the big government apparatus and the blurring of the lines between government and all sectors within the United States. Eisenhower’s premonition has now come true, and we are witnessing its authoritarian effects. While most are aware of Eisenhower’s farewell address warning about the military-industrial complex, most overlook how Eisenhower warned about the increasing dangers of the technological revolution, scientific research, and academia, and the growing reliance within these industries on federal money.
Click play above to listen to the entire interview or listen on any podcast platform
Show Transcript- 60 Years Later, Eisenhower’s Warning About Big Government Haunts Us
*PA Strategies, LLC. earns a commission when you make a purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.
Intro
Welcome everyone to The P.A.S. Report Podcast.
I’m switching it up this week. I’m doing the monologue episode today as an extension to last week’s episode where I discussed how this administration wants to label ordinary parents domestic terrorists. In reality, these parents are ordinary Americans who are concerned with what their children are learning and being forced to do in school.
I was on Steve Malzberg’s program, Eat the Press, this weekend, and I have the link up in the show transcript, so check it out. (Eat The Press)
The Attorney General’s memo in regards to the school boards, as well as the National Strategy as a whole, is designed to intimidate people into silence. No one wants to be investigated by the most powerful law enforcement arm in the world. No one wants to be surveilled by our intelligence community.
Yet, the government has decided that ordinary Americans, who really want to be left alone, are the real threat to the system. It’s disgusting. Its why people need to be brave and have courage. Keep speaking out against the toxic poison that’s being pushed throughout our country.
Remember, no matter how difficult things may appear right now. No matter how dark things may seem, this country is worth standing up for. This country is worth defending, and I’m not ready to say all is lost.
Sadly, the warning signs have been there all along. If we would have listened to the warnings, perhaps we could have prevented this from happening.
Eisenhower was one of those who warned us about the big government apparatus. He warned against fiscal irresponsibility and how that leads to government extortion and corruption. He warned us about the dangers of blurring the lines between the government and the private sector. He warned about its authoritarian effects.
Before I jump in, make sure to visit The P.A.S. Report website, sign up for the newsletter, and follow the podcast so you’ll never miss an episode.
Students Don’t Know Our President’s
It’s funny, a few weeks ago in some of my American government classes, I asked the students if they can pick any President in our history, we’ve had 46 of them, and have them as President today, who would you pick? Who do you think was the greatest President?
Now I do this at some point every semester and there is a method to my madness. I make them write the name on a piece of paper, and then I go around and collect them. It’s a secret ballot.
Before I start going through them, I write down a few names on the board. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, Reagan.
They ask, “why are you writing those names on the board?” I explain how little we actually know about our President and that I’m predicting most students will pick one of those Presidents. Sure enough, I’m always right and as I go through them, most students will choose one of those names. Of course, there are always one or two students who will be outliers and will choose a President I didn’t list.
But my point is that my students revert to the most common names. Then I’ll poke and prod. I’ll ask students why they selected one of those particular Presidents. I’ll ask what that President did during their administration that merits their support. That’s how you get students to use their brains and actually think.
Most have no idea why they selected that President. Take George Washington. They say because he’s a great general. I ask, but what did he do as President? They got nothing. If we look at Lincoln, besides the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War, which were huge, I’m not diminishing that, what did he do? Again, they have nothing.
When you look at JFK, I explain how JFK was only in office for 2-years, so how does he go down as a great President? Most are completely unaware of things like the Cuban Missile Crisis or beginning the push for Civil Rights.
Click here to get your copy of War By Other Means: A General in the Trump White House
Eisenhower Gets Ignored
The whole point of this exercise is to get students to think and to recognize how little they know. I suspect the broader American public is not that much different than my students.
This brings me to Eisenhower. Out of the 10+ years, I’ve been doing this, I’ve only had a handful of students ever select President Eisenhower.
While Eisenhower is well-known in historical circles, many in the American public have ignored him and his accomplishments.
Here is the interesting part to me, it’s not what Eisenhower did as when he was President. It’s what he said in his farewell address when he was leaving office that I find fascinating. When you listen to the speech and read the transcript, you’ll see how remarkable of a speech it was. From talking about the administration of government to the people serving as the watchdogs, it was a warning to all Americans. (President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address)
His speech represents real leadership, something we definitely don’t have in this country right now. Take a listen to this clip where Eisenhower talks about his relationship with Congress.
Sound Clip Eisenhower Relationship with Congress
Now Congress has always been a heated place. It’s how it’s built. People from all sides of the political aisle have deeply held convictions, and they’re passionate about those convictions. However, while debates did get heated, while members of Congress have lost their temper, the difference between now and then is that back then they didn’t view each other as enemies. They didn’t label the other aside with nefarious motives.
Today, we have a Congress where the leadership looks at the minority as an enemy rather than an honest partner to do what’s in the country’s best interest. This is not me being partisan. This comes directly from the Speaker of the House herself.
Sound Clip Speaker Pelosi Domestic Enemies
That’s Speaker Pelosi from over a year ago calling the President, and Republicans in the House as domestic enemies, and that’s not the only time. Take a listen to this.
Sound Clip Speaker Pelosi The Enemies from Within
How are members of Congress supposed to work in good faith when the Speaker of the House is labeling nearly half the members of Congress as domestic enemies, and don’t forget, if you support those members, then they view you as a domestic terrorist.
And it’s not to say Republicans haven’t contributed to the toxic relationship in Congress, but if you look at the last ten years, Democrats have labeled Republicans and have subscribed some of the worst motives to the Republicans. Just listen to this clip from 2009.
Sound Clip Republicans Want You to Die Quickly
Is rhetoric like that responsible? I know everyone likes to blame President Trump for the rhetoric, but this has been the rhetoric of the Democrats for a while now. I can go back to 2012 where President Biden tells a black audience that Republicans want to put them back in chains.
They have open disdain for their counterparts, and so if you view the other side as a domestic enemy. If you view them as evil, how can you possibly work with them?
That’s a major part of the problem. The Speaker and the squad have no desire in negotiating and working with the minority party. They want to demonize and attack. They want Republicans to submit to whatever the Democrats propose, and if Republicans oppose it, they brand the Republicans as hating America.
What we’re witnessing in Congress is reckless abandonment. Under the guise of crisis, Democrats want to use it as an opportunity to seize power and push through a wish list of programs. Again, President Eisenhower warned about this. Take a listen.
Sound Clip Eisenhower Reckless Spending
Well, that doesn’t exist anymore. There is no balance anymore. We don’t look at what’s necessary versus what’s desirable. We ignore what’s really essential. We focus on the moment rather than think of the national welfare of the future.
Just think about the $3.5-trillion monstrosity social welfare bill that is now being pushed off as an infrastructure bill. There’s no debate. It’s all about wants rather than needs, and it has no regard for the long-term fiscal health of the country.
It was never discussed or debated. There’s no testimony about the potential negative impacts and unintended consequences? In fact, the bill hasn’t even been written or released, and the Democrats want to have a vote on something that doesn’t even exist.
Even if you’re a Democrat listening to this podcast, doesn’t that give you any concerns? I remember when Republicans and Democrats were debating the $888-billion stimulus bill, and many members, both Republicans, and Democrats, were concerned about the extraordinary amount of money being spent.
There is no discussion on whether we should pass a $3.5-trillion bill. The only real debate is internally between Democrats on how much money should be spent. And those Democrats who oppose this fiscal insanity are now facing the wrath of the far-left. This is crazy.
So, we are witnessing a complete lack of regard for good governance and fiscal responsibility. The worst part is when the house of cards comes crashing down, most of these lawmakers will be dead. And don’t take what I say out of context. I’m not wishing death on members of Congress.
The median age of a sitting member of the Senate is 64.3 and the average age of a House member is 57. They won’t be here when things come crashing down. They won’t be able to be held accountable. Instead, it will be our children and their children’s children that bear this responsibility.
Military-Industrial Complex
This leads me to the next part of Eisenhower’s speech where he warns of two major threats to the United States. The first threat is one you’re already familiar with. It’s a clip that I’ve played before where President Eisenhower warns about the military-industrial complex. Take a listen.
Sound Clip Eisenhower Military-Industrial Complex
Here you have Eisenhower warning about the rise of the military-industrial complex, and I don’t even think he realized how powerful it would become.
He rightly states the need for the military-industrial complex. When World War II began, it was clear we were behind the eight ball. We had challenges throughout the Pacific, as well as Africa, and you don’t want to have to ramp up once war begins. You want to be prepared prior to a war beginning.
It’s the same concept with emergency preparedness. You don’t wait for a disaster to start stocking up on food and supplies. You prepare yourself, and your family, prior to the disaster. Once the disaster comes, it’s too late.
However, remember, when businesses are in the business of making military armaments, in order to have a successful business model, you need to have continual conflict. Once stockpiles are full, the only way they can make money is for the stockpile to deplete.
Eisenhower knew that this is an industry that can heavily influence the government and would gain an enormous amount of power because of the money involved, and the number of employees these companies would need.
Eisenhower was keenly aware of the founding fathers warning when it came to the military. As always, there are constant examples in history where the military always represents a threat. It’s why our military is not supposed to be operating on U.S. soil in a law enforcement capacity.
In fact, George Washington warned about the military in his farewell address. He said, “those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” I would guarantee that Eisenhower was well aware of what Washington thought when he was writing his own farewell address.
Eisenhower warned about this new military-industrial complex and the grave implications. He warned about the influence it would have, and how the power would be misplaced. Well, when you look at all the top military contractors out there, take a look at their Board of Directors. How many former top military personnel, including Generals, sit on these Boards? How many former lawmakers sit on these Boards? How many former high-level bureaucrats sit on these Boards?
Why do you think they are on these Boards? Do you think it’s because of their expertise in designing and developing military hardware? Do you think it’s because these are some of the top engineers in the country? Or do you think it’s for the influence these people have within the halls of government?
Eisenhower said it was up to an alert and knowledgeable citizenry to keep the system honest and prevent the abuses of power. That ultimately the people are the true guardians of liberty, and it seems like we’ve failed where we have completely ignored how powerful the military-industrial complex has become.
P.A.S. Report Listeners Get 10% Off at Design It Yourself Gift Baskets! Use Code: PAS
*PA Strategies, LLC. earns a small commission when you make a purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.
The Second Threat Eisenhower Foresaw
While Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex gets all the attention, I think the second threat he points out is much more profound. It is perhaps the greatest threat we face today because it’s behind the increasing authoritarianism we’ve been witnessing.
In this next clip, Eisenhower warns about the tech sector, the scientific community, and academia. Take a listen, and then I’m going to break it down.
Sound Clip Eisenhower Warns About Tech, Science, and Academia
Talk about a premonition. He understood what was going on and where it leads to. He understood that money corrupts especially when it comes to the government. I’m going to take it out of the realm of science, technology, and academia for a second because I think this example sums it up perfectly.
When we look at our Republic, our form of government is federalism, where we have two levels of government, neither of which is created by the other, and both are supposed to operate independently of each other. The federal government has its responsibilities, and according to the 10th Amendment, the States can do anything not listed in the Constitution.
The federal government can’t impose its will on the States, or at least it’s not supposed to. However, the federal government has figured a backdoor way to get the states to do what it wants.
Take the drinking age. Nowhere in the Constitution does it talk about the drinking age. It is clearly a state power so why is it uniform around the country? Why is the drinking age 21? Simple, because the federal government went to the states and said we want the drinking age to be 21, and if you don’t change the drinking age to 21, we will cut federal funding to your state.
It’s extortion, plain and simple. There is no other way to describe it. However, it’s legal because the federal government is doing it. If anyone else tried to do something like that, they’d be thrown in prison.
And over the years, states have become addicted to federal money. When it comes to state budgets, on average 25% of their revenue comes from the federal government. States would be unable to sustain themselves if the federal government cut off the spigots.
Well, the same holds true for the tech sector, the scientific community, and academia as a whole.
Grant Funding
When we look at the scientific and academic communities, they rely heavily on grant funding from the federal government. As Eisenhower said, it’s not intellectual curiosity and free thought driving research initiatives, it’s a government-run agenda used to justify the public policy.
Research is extraordinarily expensive, and many are unwilling to put up private money because there is little guarantee of success. The government, however, gets to use your money, the taxpayer’s money, to fund just about any initiative. However, these initiatives must conform to what our overlords believe.
Nearly all of our research programs are based on a groupthink mentality. Take climate change. Now, honestly, I could care less where anyone falls on this issue. However, the money all flows one way. Any scientist that makes a proposal to research whether climate change may be environmental with little human impact will not get a dime from the government. Every single grant to study climate change must focus their studies on proving that human beings are the main contributors to climate change.
See, they already have the conclusion they want, and all studies must conform to the groupthink mentality otherwise they won’t get research monies.
And we see the obvious coordination with the tech sector. This week or last, Google and YouTube announced they will demonetize any content that raises questions about climate change. It’s the money and the powers that be that drive the agenda.
It’s not just with climate change. It’s on nearly every issue. COVID, social justice, any issue. If you subscribe to the ruling class narratives, you can be awarded government grants that validate the narrative. If you go against the narrative, you don’t get the funding. Only conformity will be tolerated.
Our entire society has been taken over by the ruling elite. Eisenhower explained that statesmanship was needed to prevent this from happening where our elected officials have to manage public affairs, temper expectations, do what’s in the best interest of the country, but above all, maintain the supreme goal of a free society.
And just like the military-industrial complex with the revolving door of politicians, military leaders, and high-level bureaucrats, you have the same thing in the tech sector, the scientific community, and academia.
Closing
We should have heeded the words of Eisenhower. It is clear that our government has completely lost sight of the ultimate goal of a free society and would rather us be prisoners to the State.
We have embarked on a stunning era where those opposed to government mandates, those opposed to government power, are deemed the fascists.
And those who are calling for greater government control, more government authority over our society and our lives, are considered antifascists. Bizarre times indeed.
I think this is one of the reasons you are beginning to see a quasi-alliance between those that can be described as old-school liberals and conservatives. Where we disagree on a number of issues, but the one thing that unites us is our distrust of government. Our understanding is that governments will constantly seek more power, and with that power, they will abuse it.
That it’s essential to always question the government and its actions. That we must always be skeptical of the government and its policies.
To me, the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism was a game-changer and revealed the true intent of those in power. This document is fully operational as witnessed with the Attorney General’s memos targeting parents and potentially labeling them as domestic terrorists.
No more. We cannot accept this increasing authoritarianism throughout our society. There are many who want to intimidate anyone that dissents from the “acceptable” narrative. They want to shame people into silence.
When that happens, we need to speak louder. We need to band together regardless of political ideology. While we have so many issues, we must understand that pushing back against tyranny is the most important issue. Everything else is secondary because if the country falls, all other issues will be rendered moot.
It’s time we get active and get involved out there.
P.A.S. Report Listeners Get 10% Off at Design It Yourself Gift Baskets! Use Code: PAS
*PA Strategies, LLC. earns a small commission when you make a purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.
Question
Alright, with all that being said, I’m introducing a new feature here at the podcast. At the end of the show, I’m going to read and discuss one question that a listener poses to me.
So, if you email me a question info@pasreport.com, or tag me a question on social media @PASreport, I will answer it on the podcast episode.
This question was sent to me on Twitter by Juli. The question is my thoughts about the pros/cons of secession and if it’s possible to have secession without violence.
This is a fairly easy question to answer because there really are no benefits of secession, and mostly all cons. I don’t even see it being possible without a ton of violence.
But let me explain my logic. When talking about secession, it means we’ve given up. That we’re not willing to stand up for what we believe in and win over people in the marketplace of ideas. Now I understand how some feel. They feel the bridge between the two sides is too far away and that there’s no way we can come together.
Understand that while we break ourselves down into blue and red states, it’s much more complicated than that. You can go to the bluest of the blue state or the reddest of the red, and on most blocks, you’ll find that your neighbors, some of them you’ve grown up with, had drinks with them, invited them over for barbecues, your children may have played together, are all over the political spectrum. Some of your neighbors may be Democrats, some Republicans, some Libertarians, some Independents. They come from all ideologies.
So how would we do this? It’s not like it’s a simple north-south or east-west divide. It is much more complicated than that. Are we going to have a mass relocation program? Are we going to go to civil war with our neighbors? I don’t see this as a realistic option.
But more importantly, I’m not going to deny that we are divided as a nation, however, has anyone asked are we really divided? I mean sure, if you listen to the mainstream outlets all day long, they’ll constantly foster division. They’ll foster resentment. They’ll make it as if the divisions are huge.
But let’s really looking at what’s happening out there. Are ordinary Americans attacking each other? Are we seeing fights break out across schools, shopping centers, grocery stores, or anywhere else? I mean if you really look at it, we coexist well together. If there really were these irreconcilable differences between Americans, wouldn’t we already be in a civil war?
It doesn’t mean that can’t happen, I just think the media is overexaggerating the division. And I also see it in my audience. It’s not like my audience consists solely of conservatives. I have a lot of open-minded people that listen to the podcast. I constantly have people who are apolitical reaching out to me and thanking me for this podcast. I have plenty of open-minded Democrats, who may not agree with me on all the issues, but they reach out to me and thank me for the analysis.
There are a lot of areas where they agree with the themes of the podcast, especially the government’s continued abuse of power, and even when they disagree with me on an issue, they are extremely respectful.
Own Your FREEDOM, Your HEALTH, Your WELLNESS
Peace of mind in a box - keep a Medical Emergency Kit in your medicine cabinet
Get 10% off your order Use code PAS at checkout
So, while there are some who want to divide, I actually think we’re not as divided as some may think. It’s also the reason I constantly say regardless of political ideology in this podcast because it’s a podcast for everyone.
I also think it’s economically impossible for us to split up as a country. We are so intertwined and the reason we are the strongest, wealthiest nation on the planet is because of the totality of our geographic landscape. If we were going to divide, how would that actually work? What would be considered the Republican areas and which ones would be Democrat, and then how are resources going to be shared? I mean there are plenty of natural resources like rivers that run through multiple states where they all have a reliance on those natural resources.
What I’m saying is that economically, a breakup wouldn’t really work. Given how integrated we are, and because of economic purposes, it makes it nearly impossible, especially seceding without any violence.
I hope I answered your question Juli. And if any of you have a question, send me an email info@pasreport.com or hit me up on social media @PASreport.
With that being said, please go to any podcast platforms that allow reviews, and give The P.A.S. Report Podcast a 5-star rating and take 30-seconds to write a quick review especially iTunes.
Also, remember to share this podcast with family, friends, and other influencers out there, as that continues to help us grow.
I want to thank you for joining me, I want you to stay safe, and I’ll be back next week.
The P.A.S. Report wants to hear from you. Send your feedback to podcast@pasreport.com. Please leave a 5-star rating and write a review on Apple Podcast.
Please share this episode with others & on social media.
*PA Strategies, LLC. earns a commission when you make a purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.
Follow Nicholas Giordano
You must be logged in to post a comment.