All Episodes
Previous Next
March 21, 2022 - Doug Collins Podcast
42:54
Warnings from Past Part 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Folks, all of you know that Legacy Precious Metals is a great sponsor of the Doug Collins Podcast, and I can't tell you right now a more important time to know Legacy Precious Metals.
There right now, your investment portfolio, if you look at the stock market right now, you look at the inflation that's going on, you look at the uncertainty out there, I'm going to tell you, the investments that you're making need to have gold and silver to be a part of it.
You need the precious metals.
Navigators are people who have been there, they know what to look out for, and they know how to come back and navigate you through the streams of your financial situation, whether it's for your retirement or whether it's just in your long-term investment strategies.
Legacy Precious Metals folks are people who listen.
They listen to you, they listen to your needs, and they help you navigate this uncertain financial times.
When you're seeing the fluctuations back and forth, people will actually need to find a place where they have a portfolio that is balanced.
Having gold and silver in that portfolio is something that you can have as part of yours.
Just go find them at LegacyPMInvestments.com This house, wherever the rules are disregarded, chaos and mob rule.
It has been said today, where is bravery?
I'll tell you where bravery is found and courage is found.
It's found in this minority who has lived through the last year of nothing but rules being broken, people being put down, questions not being answered, and this majority say, be damned with anything else.
We're going to impeach and do whatever we want to do.
Why?
Because we won an election.
I guarantee you, one day you'll be back in the minority and it ain't gonna be that fun.
Okay everybody, we're back for part two of this lessons from the past and what we're doing is taking two of our presidents and looking at their final speeches and when I looked at these two speeches they're really I think applicable in a lot of ways for today.
Last podcast we dealt with George Washington, the founder of our country.
You know, the one who sort of set the ideal, if you would, for the presidency.
It was his setting of two terms that kept two terms as the president for many, many years.
It was his ideal of giving up power and from a military perspective and starting the, you know, turning that role back over the civilians in our Congress and the constitutional conventions and making that all happen.
He laid out a lot of things and it was that humility, it was that looking ahead, it was the warnings that he had about, again, entanglements, foreign entanglements, but also domestic entanglements and the rise of what he was concerned of a partisanship and a partisan nature.
Even what he saw in politics in the early days of our country.
And he laid out a foundation saying that if, number one, as we said last time, that if he put America first, if we put our American ideals together, no matter where we came from or what we were doing, this would provide the foundation for our country going forward, and it would be the very foundation of not only our morality and spirituality, which Washington talked about, but also that moral underpinning of a country.
Now, it's interesting that that was the very first president.
He was concerned about where we were in the world.
He was concerned about our sort of collective American conscience, if you would.
And he was concerned about the workings of government as a force in the lives of everyday folks.
I mean, he was a business person.
He was a military leader.
He was a politician from the fact that he He served in these political roles and as president.
But at the end of the day, he was very concerned about how government interacted with the liberties and freedoms of the people in America.
Then I want us now to transition from that one, which I think gave, again, interesting correlation to where we are today, into the discussion that we're going to have today on part two of these lessons from the past.
And that is the final speech, if you would, or final presidential address by Dwight Eisenhower.
Eisenhower, of course, He was the 34th president of the United States.
He served from 1953 to 1961. Sort of the capstone of his career.
Most do know him as president, but most know him, again, as his being the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe at the end of World War II and leading the offensive of all of our allies against the Axis forces and Hitler in Nazi Germany.
These all play in together for this what became his final speech.
Now there's a lot written about Eisenhower and I would encourage you Just as I would Washington, if you want to know more about the men themselves, you want to know about how they grew up, how they came about, I would encourage you to read.
There are several books out there to go read about them because they're fascinating in where they came from and how they got there.
In fact, it's a really interesting correlation between It's sort of three presidents in a row, and this is an extra for you podcast listeners today, you know, for listening.
You know, if you look at the middle of the century in the United States during what came out of the FDR presidency, coming out of the Great Depression, moving into World War II, you had a person who was, in essence, groomed for politics.
He was groomed in many ways in his family from his A cousin to everybody to be a politician, to be a leader, a governor, a president.
That's what FDR, Franklin Roosevelt, was sort of groomed to be.
And then you have the one who became president as one of the biographies of him as an accidental president, Harry Truman.
He was one who was not groomed.
He came from very humble backgrounds.
He came from a very working class middle of the country background in Missouri to know to the presidency and took that Office very seriously because of where he came from and the desire to serve the country.
And then you transition to another Midwesterner in Eisenhower.
So in the middle of our timeframe there in which we went through the Great Depression, World War II, into what began the use of the atomic bomb, the use of the beginning of the Cold War, and then the space race toward the end of Eisenhower's term that was beginning, again, this buildup of nuclear power, this buildup of military power.
Through Eisenhower's administration and even the beginnings of what we see, we see the Battle of Korea and then we see the start of what would be known from our perspective later in Eisenhower's administration on into Kennedy's and then Johnson's is the Vietnam War.
Interesting that these are the ones that the country had chosen to lead us at this time.
So as we look at this, just to think about where Eisenhower really came from was very A large family.
Mostly he was Pennsylvania Dutch.
When they were raised in Abilene, Kansas.
He did go to West Point during World War I. He was denied a request to serve in Europe.
Instead he commanded a unit that trained tank battalions.
He continued.
He was one of the few.
Now this is something you didn't know.
Up until World War II, The professional military as we know it was very different than how we see it today in which you have a larger group making careers in our military starting and going through 20, 25, 30 years making military their main career in life.
Very few, comparatively, And our military did that from World War I through World War II. In fact, even before World War I, a lot of our army was raised at the time.
You had certain individuals, smaller group of cadre, if you would, who raised up and kept the military machinery, as it would say, going.
But as far as a mass infusion of troops, that was not something that was there for permanency in the time.
You had it in the National Guard.
You had it in other areas.
But as far as the military grouping as we know it today, like I served in today, is not what was prevalent before World War II. So you had an interesting group of officers who came through during that time and enlisted for that matter as well, who knew each other very well.
In fact, they had served under each other during different times.
They had worked in the aspects of getting their military career because they, again, being a very small A group of individuals at the time, they got to know each other.
So in between those services, it was not unusual.
In fact, what really interesting was that George Patton actually and Eisenhower were very good friends beforehand.
Patton was much more wealthy, was higher ranked.
But they knew each other well, other senior tank leaders, General Brett, others.
But also Eisenhower had this interesting combination too of serving under some of our greatest generals that we know.
He served under Fox Connor.
He served under John Pershing.
Douglas MacArthur and also George Marshall.
In fact, it was Marshall at the end that had the belief in Eisenhower that would carry him to the top of the command in World War II and the Allied Command in Europe.
And it was Marshall's faith in Eisenhower if you look at the promotions and you look at where he came from.
I wanted to take just a moment to delve into that because there's a lot of this discussion on was he just military and then he won a battle so he's going to make him president.
We saw this with Grant.
We've seen it with others who take a military background and translate that into presidency.
But for Eisenhower, it was a work in progress the entire time.
He literally was working through the system.
He would gain rank, he would lose rank, and then ended up, frankly, at the start of World War II, nobody probably would have picked Eisenhower out of a lineup, much less be the person to actually lead the country during As we look at this man, Dwight Eisenhower, I want you to not only take this as a jumping off one, I encourage you to go read some of the biographies that are out there.
Go read more about him and look at the background that he had that went into shaping what I believe was a pretty phenomenal and pretty dead-on assessment of what was going on not only in the 1961 when he delivered this address, but is happening a great deal now.
So, as we jump into this speech, let's get the picture of what's happening here.
Eisenhower was a Republican.
John Kennedy, Democrat, had just got elected.
There was tension between those camps.
There's some great historical documents about that.
And looking at how the two would not really get along.
Different opinions on a lot of things.
The Kennedy was the new.
Eisenhower was viewed as the old.
I mean, there's a lot of differences there.
So coming into this situation, Eisenhower, who was fraught with, if anything, experience.
Someone who had been through the masses, who had been through the battles, if you would.
Had set this up to where he thought and saw the country going in all of his time in administrative roles, his time leading, his time as president.
He could look over the horizon with a view of age and there were things that disturbed him.
And I think this was the setting point for him to make a final statement before what we historically now know as the age of Camelot, John Kennedy coming in, Jacqueline Kennedy, this whole set up.
And then the start of the 1960s.
Can you imagine here, just for a moment, if you're listening to this podcast, the 1961 of Dwight Eisenhower with the 1971 of Richard Nixon?
Now, that's something I want you just to think about.
that 10 years of the 60s was an amazingly turbulent time in our history.
And Dwight Eisenhower sort of framed it starting with this final farewell speech.
So as we dig into this speech, I want you to see that background, see the contrast between what was happening.
You have to always know what was going on.
One of the closest presidential races between Kennedy and Nixon.
Nixon who had served as vice president under Eisenhower.
One of the closest races we had had.
We've seen more of that in the future, but this was one that was very close and decided in Kennedy's favor.
And this was Eisenhower's last speech to the country.
And as president, and he wanted to lay out some things that he had seen, I think from the historical perspective as we've just talked about, someone who comes with a vast background of different experiences that are shaped by the very fact of what America had been through in the last few years.
And the first, you know, really the first interesting thing that jumps out at me was this discussion of the balance of power.
And as we talked about with Washington, Washington had a humility that overrun into his speeches.
You see this a little bit in Eisenhower as well.
And he talks about his role with Congress.
And he starts off there, and I'm going to say this is the nation's expectations.
And the first thing he said is, our people expect their president and Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great authority.
The wise resolution of which will be better shaped for the future of the nation.
In other words, he sets in the first part of the speech, he sets something that he had success with and he had failures with.
And that is actually an agenda with Congress moving together with the presidency for For the betterment of the country.
He believed, and he stated, he said that the Americans believe that the administrations that serve them, whether it be the executive branch or the congressional branch between the Senate and the House, they ought to, at the end of the day, be able to take their principled judgment, find principled solutions for the betterment of the country, and not just simply fighting about the different paths or different ideas that could get there.
I think this is foreseeing a lot of what we've seen since his speech.
We've seen this idea of bigger ideas getting smaller and smaller, if you would.
As someone who served in Congress, it's rare to get a big idea through.
It is harder to get a big idea through in which it could help people, could be shaped by both persuasions, whether it be liberal or conservative, they could be shaped into something that actually helped people.
This has become harder and harder to do.
He makes an interesting comment in this relations.
He talks about his relations to Congress.
He says, my own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when long ago a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point.
Have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period and finally to the mutually interdependent during the past eight years.
This brings me to something that I want to stop here for just a moment and read.
And he goes on, this interdependency is what I want to talk about, because it goes to what I believe Washington was understanding in his role earlier on.
We talked about his and how he viewed the government and this partisanship issue, this issue of making sure that the nation was first.
But he goes on, and before we get to this independence, Eisenhower takes it a step further and he says, in this final relationship, the Congress and administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship.
So I have assured that the business of the nation should go forward.
Notice what he said.
Isn't that an echo of almost 150 years prior?
160 years prior, when Washington was talking about this issue of partisanship, Eisenhower is saying, for the most part, we got a lot of this done.
He said, but he was still concerned as this was moving forward through it, because what he was seeing was a, I think, and he goes on to talk about this, is that his official relationship with Congress was tenuous at times, but in his tenuous at times, He would have to actually be a part of solutions that were much bigger than himself and he had to have Congress's perspective to get that done.
This is where I believe the biggest issue from a forewarning to us today has come into play.
Whether it be Washington early on or whether it be now Eisenhower, there is this discussion point of having the Congress, executive, and judicial all work together for one common purpose and one common good.
And that is that each show their proper role.
In his discussion of working with Congress, every executive wants to get everything that they want done.
That's just the nature of the executive.
The president is elected president.
We've exalted that role as president of the United States.
You know, the 46 of them, they go through time.
They all want That which they were, quote, elected on or they ran on to be the main dominant platform.
The realization is the founders understood we did not want a king or we did not want an executive that was the overpowering dominant part of our government.
That's why we have the Congress, we have the elected House, the elected Senate now.
First off, remember the Senate was appointed by the state legislatures.
But there was supposed to be a connection to, as we've talked about in the last episode, the we the people aspect of this.
That we are to have the governance power to mold and shape the government through our elected vote to do that.
The judicial branch was to interpret the Constitution.
Plain and simple.
That still is the judicial branch's job.
The problem that I'm seeing, and I'm going to share this with you here, the Congress today is broken and the executive is broken because they're not operating within the sphere of their own power anymore.
The executive When it feels like it's not getting what it wants from Congress, it's not either getting allocated funds or it's not getting the bills passed that it wants, it simply uses the power of executive order and it uses the power of the executive to just make things happen.
And when we understand this, this is a problem that bypasses the people aspect of we the people.
It bypasses the aspect of Congress being involved.
Now, before you blame the executives and you blame the executive power and you blame the presidents just wanting to do and fulfilling their partisan roles, you've got to also look at the fact that I believe that over the past, almost since the time of Eisenhower, Congress has been regularly giving away its legislative authority.
It's legislative authority in many areas, and it came through the partisan ideas or bigger ideas, mainly of expansion of government, liberal ideas of government, in which the Congress was allowing the executive to really Take control and guidance of what Congress was wanting by having out bills in which the bills would stay,
whether it be the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, whether it be Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the expansion, all of these issues, they were saying, Executive, you handle the details.
We're going to give you the broad strokes.
You handle the details.
Well, I think Eisenhower understood, and in his cooperation process here with Congress, understood that there needed to be a more cohesive role, if you would.
There needed to be a role in which the executive and the Congress worked together, meaning not everyone got their idea, but that everyone was a part of it, and that Congress, through its oversight and monetary role, in which it actually gave The money appropriated the money for the expansion of these different programs was the ones that did the oversight, did the appropriating in conjunction with the executive who had the power to say, I'll veto it or not veto it, but in the end, come together to work for the common good.
He's setting expectations here.
I think that was the concern.
He was looking out ahead.
He was seeing governments and presidencies and elections and seeing maybe into the future where personalities...
I mean, remember, he was also during the time of McCarthy.
And the communist purges and hunts that were going on in Washington and Hollywood and everywhere else.
He was seeing the rise of the personality, which when he talks about this, if you look deeper into his biography and you look deeper into his thinking and some of his private writings, I think concerned him that the roles were being misused by both sides.
And I think that still is appropriate today.
I believe today that Congress is not operating as Congress should and the executive is not operating as the executive should.
Why?
Because the two that are supposed to keep checks on each other have basically abandoned the checks and balance system.
Congress willingly seems to appropriate its power to the administration while the administration has willingly said, if this is the way it's going to be, I'll just work it through administrative action instead of going through Congress.
That's why big things are hard to get done.
Eisenhower actually accomplished some big things that are constitutional big things.
It is the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System.
From his experiences in war, he saw that our country needed an interstate highway system so that we could move goods and services across this country.
Without that vision and that foresight, we would not have the interstate highway system, the communication as far as from a travel perspective that we have today.
So there were things that did get done, but he understood that it had to work together.
Let's move on to the second thing that I see here, and I'm going to touch on this briefly simply because it's interesting to me that he and Washington both touched on that, and that is the moral and religious people.
He said, throughout American Adventure and free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace.
And then he goes on to say, to strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.
Any failure...
Traceable to our arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt at both home and abroad.
And he goes on to say that in the next paragraph of the speech he talks about that the powers that are attacking these ideas of freedom are, as he put it, atheistic in character.
He said, we face a hostile ideology, global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in response, and insidious in method.
We're seeing that still to this day with Socialists and Communists, the totalitarian dictatorships in the world, in which divorce from morality, religious principles, we see what Eisenhower's talking about.
Why?
Because he saw it up close and personal.
This, I think, is coming from his own personal experiences in World War II, seeing Korea and working to get us out of Korea.
He saw the pain of war.
He saw what These ideologies unhinged from moral and religious responsibility can do in a world.
And he wanted that to have a balance again.
He wanted that balance to be based on the principles that we have in a moral conviction to do what is right in the world.
Number three, though, is really interesting, and I want you to pay attention to what I'm going to say here.
Because I want you to listen.
The way he says it, I want you to understand and hear it, and then we'll talk about it.
It says,"...crisis there will continue to be.
In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties." We're good to
go.
But each proposal must be weighed in light of broader consideration.
The need to maintain balance and the among the national programs balance between private and public economy.
Balance between the cost and hope for advantage.
Balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortable desire.
Balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual.
Balance between the action of the moment and national welfare for the future.
Good judgment seeks balance and progress.
Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
Has there ever been a more potent comment coming almost 60 years ago now, over 60 years ago now, from Eisenhower's farewell address in which he addressed this role that you can't look for government all the time to provide the miraculous solutions.
Now put this in perspective of where he was.
He's coming out of a time of just an immense We're going to talk about that in a minute.
In his lifetime, he had come from seeing no one fly to now we had bombers that could literally fly around the world.
We have seen transportation systems encouraged.
We saw television come in.
We saw radio and other things develop and grow during his time.
He saw this all happening.
Cures in medicine and others that he would have on the battlefield.
And the interesting thing was he was seeing in America, he was seeing people become dependent on all of a sudden government providing this miraculous solution to the day's problems.
Also we talk about here, the nuclear device.
And it was used to end World War II. I think all of these packaged together really played into his But he also said there needed to be a balance.
And that last line, can you think of a better, interesting, more aligned judgment than over the past two and a half years here, all going on three years now with our COVID issue, in which we all look for the magical cure, the magical solution, everything will be fine.
And instead, we looked to government, we gave up power, we ceded authority to government, we accepted money from the government.
There's all these things and the balance has been thrown off.
And that balance now that we see thrown off in these days, the balance of the last two plus years of imbalance of government overreach, government authority, whether it be masks, whether it be isolation, whether it be closing down businesses, all of this is a problem when you look in light of what Eisenhower said.
Eisenhower said they had to be balanced.
And he had the balance between cost and the balance between the hope for advantage, the balance between national programs, the balance between private and public economies.
These all had to be taken into account.
So what he was saying was there's no miraculous solutions here.
He said there are solutions that can seem miraculous, but they have to be put in proper sediment.
When you deal with the government, the government will suck every life away from everything else if it is allowed to dominate in a certain discussion.
And this is where I think he was going.
I think this is what he was concerned about.
And that balance was moving away because he moves right into the next point.
And that is what this speech is most famously known for.
And that is the part of the military-industrial complex.
And coming from Eisenhower, a man, a general who led the troops, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, led us to victory over Hitler.
Someone who had spent his entire life, adult life, up until now, in the military...
And dealing with these elements of war, peace, and battles, came to this conclusion that he said that we needed to be very wary of this new industrial or military establishment.
He said in this quote, he said, Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
That is strength.
That is fighting from strength.
This is the Reagan doctrine.
It was the Trump doctrine.
It's been the doctrine of most every president, from Johnson to Kennedy, is to project a position of strength.
We've seen that deteriorated here in recent years.
We've seen that more isolation has been, which is why Eisenhower actually ran, by the way, over Adelaide Stevens and won.
They were moving away.
Taft, the Democrat, was actually wanting to move to an isolationist stance.
And again, in Eisenhower's true form, he said there had to be a balance.
He saw this coming.
But what he said later on, he said, This is what we talked about earlier, about how the military has changed to what we see as the more modern military of today from what he knew before World War II, where we were not ready for war.
We were not ready to engage Japan or Germany.
We had to ramp up that system very quickly.
And that is exactly what happened during World War II. In fact, we had industries, as he's put it here, that were, he said, American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well.
But now we can no longer risk emergency improvements Improvisation, we'll get it right here, of national defense, and we have compelled to create a permanent armament industry of vast proportion.
And he added this number.
This is an interesting number.
He said three and a half million people in 1961 worked within what he cut during the military industrial complex.
Three and a half million.
That number is far greater now.
I couldn't even find a number that would correspond to what he was using here.
But he was concerned about this.
Because the military industrial complex, as he saw it, was designed to keep us strong in power and projection, but had to keep feeding itself.
And we've seen this grow, that these military industrial complex companies are not just American companies anymore.
They supply literally the world with weapons of war.
And the influence wielded here, notice what he says.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.
The potential for a disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
What he's saying here is this.
He said, when you give a government contract to these private companies to develop arms, to develop these weapons of war, and to keep us strong, you've got to be very careful of the power that you are giving them.
Because of the jobs that they create, the money that is generated, and the issue of a strong, central military and government, then where does it go from here?
And I think this has become the real issue of the last 60 years in our country.
The military industrial complex, which started out mainly in Eisenhower's time, is growing from our nuclear arsenal to our planes, our ships, our guns, ammunition, and others, has developed into itself as technology increased, and that is into this idea of surveillance,
this idea into space, where we now have satellites, we have all kinds of things that blur the lines between where the military industrial establishment is, quote, empowering our military to be the strongest that it can be, And going into the fact of where now they're selling more and more equipment to sell more and more equipment, whether the equipment is good or not.
Look at the past, you know, 60 years, 50 years in our history of the systems, the weapon systems that have been started, then scrapped, started, then scrapped, and wasted of money.
And just in time, in my 20 years in the military, the Air Force has changed uniforms three times.
Three times we've changed uniforms!
And at the same time, you have the other branches doing the same at the cost of millions upon millions of dollars.
No coordination between the branches.
No coordination.
Because who do they look to?
They look to their outside contractors to provide this.
And there's a whole issue here we can talk about.
But this was in some simple terms how we look at it.
Another area, the military industrial complex, the Air Force and others influenced by those outside contractors have tried to get rid of the A-10.
What's lovingly known by the infantry is the Warthog from the Air Force's fleet for the last 15 to 20 years.
Every time it comes up in Congress there's move out of the budget to strip it out.
It is always put back in.
Why?
Because the Army and the Marines in particular love the Warthog.
They love the abilities it has on the battlefield and they do not see The planes that are being given as alternatives to be viable alternatives.
This is where you start seeing the meshing of the military industrial complex in with government.
You see, Eisenhower saw something in the economy that was growing.
His concerns about the military industrial complex were very valid and very real.
We're seeing it today.
Folks, if you don't believe that this influence that he talks about, where he talks about the councils of government and the influence of this industry is real, you've never been to Washington, D.C. You've never been in the Armed Services Committee and you've never watched the appropriation process.
It is real and they are very good at what they do.
And I'm not, I'm just putting it out there as fact.
These large companies in the military industrial complex, They intentionally have plants in almost every district in the country.
They have suppliers in every part of the country.
It is something that they know that if they were going to keep this going, they had to have basically an inroad into D.C. That's the way it worked.
Eisenhower was concerned about this, rightfully so.
I think it has become concerning, as we just talked about, about some of these things that you see coming up that we're spending money on.
And is it actually a viable weapon system, something that we need?
And again, not only are they selling it to us, but they then have contract options to sell it to others at different capabilities, not the capabilities that we have, but they're selling it all around.
But there's a next point that I wanted to really hit on because I think it was that also the part of the military industrial complex, not only the hardware part, but the spying and the surveillance state that we've become into.
And that takes us into a transition of the intellectual property that All of this, you know, goes around and the growing concern that we have about big tech and the media companies and others, really going at the heart of what Eisenhower saw as the heart of our economy and that was our intellectual property capabilities.
I think the fifth point that he would bring out is he said, you know, be careful of the government control or government overreach into the ideas of his citizenry.
He says this, he said, in this revolution, And he was talking about the military industrial complex.
Research has become central.
It has also become more formalized, complex, and costly.
A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, and at the direction of the federal government.
See, he's already seeing when government puts his hands in there, it's moving out private enterprise.
Our founders knew, and these presidents, Eisenhower knew as well, capitalism and free market ideas are what makes this country who it is.
And he says, today, the solitary inventor tinkering in his shop has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists and laboratories and testing fields.
In the same fashion, the free university, historically, the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research, partly because the huge cost involved.
A government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
Listen to what he said there.
A government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
For every old blackboard, there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
Again, I don't think he's actually saying that there's a problem with the intellectual property.
What he's saying is he said we have to value the individual inventor.
And if we ever get to that point of taking content away from the original inventor, whether that be in music, art, books, technology, computers, when you're removing the ideas and making those a government conformity to a grant, then you're losing the ideas.
It's often been said that, and we saw this back in the day of the polio vaccine, that if government had been in control of manufacturing the polio vaccine, we'd have the best iron lung in the world, but no polio vaccine.
This is the kind of thing we're working on.
And Eisenhower saw this as the world was developing, that we had to protect what I believe.
And I see this in his speech, but I see it in something that I've lived in Congress.
Intellectual property, that very idea, that thought, if we ever lose that to where it becomes conformity to the bigger idea of government, the bigger idea of the thought at the time, then we lose the free thinkers.
We lose it.
And he talks about the universities here.
What a prediction about how universities have become now the centers of thought police and conformity to government renewal of grants and contracts.
Again, it is amazing what we see here in Eisenhower's look at the future.
We can't deny this in this look in the future, that this is something I believe that hits at the very heart of who we are as Americans.
The next thing he did, again, it was another call on debt.
Amazingly enough, he said another factor maintaining balance involves the element of time.
And he says, as we peer into our society's future, we, you, and I, and our government must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience.
The precious resources of tomorrow, we cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss of their political and spiritual heritage.
I can't say it enough.
I mean, we've talked a lot about Eisenhower's speech.
That sort of sums it up.
We can't live for the moment.
Governments have the responsibility to look into the future and cannot use resources strictly today.
It's just a fact.
We see it in our personal lives.
Why would the government not be any different?
I want to stop here because he talks also that peace should be strived for.
Eisenhower, look at what he's talking about.
He sees what's happening today in 1961. He warns us against it.
Don't spend more than you got.
Don't let the government be influenced by outside organizations who very much depend.
Remember, the military industrial complex depends on government to exist, not the other way around.
But they've made it to where it looks like they have to exist so government can exist.
And that's a dangerous situation.
But he also talks about the fact of, you know, don't destroy the idea.
Don't destroy the free thinking in universities in our society with government telling them what they will and will not be a part of.
Simply by how?
Money.
And that's how they do it.
But he ends with something that I want to end this broadcast with today.
And it's Eisenhower's look back.
If you're learning anything from the past, He ends with what basically is, in my mind, a benediction.
And listen to what he says.
He said, And
with that, Dwight Eisenhower signed off in his presidency and signed off with his, I think, warning to the world.
You'll see, Eisenhower and Washington were very similar.
They both believed America was a grand idea.
That it was about the people coming together from all different backgrounds.
Out of many, come one.
Washington and Eisenhower knew that you couldn't spend yourself into oblivion and not have consequences to play.
That you couldn't allow outside influence.
For Washington, it was the foreign influence.
For Eisenhower, it was the influence of the military-industrial complex and those who depended on government for their very survival.
And Eisenhower also saying that don't let our intellectual, So these are all real issues for today.
So I hope you've enjoyed this look back in the past.
We're going to continue to do these kind of things here on the podcast so that you can take the history of the past from these great men and women of our past and apply them to how they foresaw what we're seeing today so that we can see a better vision for the future.
We'll see you next time.
Hey everybody, it's Doug Collins.
I can't wait to tell you about a new partner here on the Doug Collins Podcast, Healthy Cell.
HealthyCell.com.
You can go to their website.
They are reimagining the way that we take vitamins.
I mean, look, you don't still listen.
You know, for the most part, record players are for the vintage side.
You look at it for old time.
You don't listen for the crispest, clearest.
There's things out there that you get right now that have updated in the future.
And we're still taking vitamins like we did back in the 1930s.
This new technology, this new product from Healthy Cell is a micro gel that takes your vitamins, puts them in a gel form.
You can take it straight out of the pack.
You can mix it in water or your favorite food, but it gets into your system so much quicker.
165% better absorption through this micro gel technology.
And believe me, the more you get in the nutrients into your body, the better you're gonna be.
They have a full product line.
I take these Medigel packets.
They are amazing.
We have been on them now for a little over a month and I can tell the biggest difference.
I've taken vitamins most of my adult life and the way these work is just something that I don't think that you can find anywhere else.
Again, it's HealthyCell.com.
You can go forward slash Collins or use Collins in the promo code to get a 20% discount.
You don't want to miss this.
Please go check out their website.
HealthyCell.com Microgel for these vitamins that are the best thing out there right now to keep you healthy and listening to the Doug Collins Podcast.
Folks, I don't know about you, but I cannot stand a towel that simply moves water around me after my shower.
I like a towel that grabs you, takes the water, gets it off of you, and does what a towel is supposed to do, dry you off.
I've had so many towels I bought over time.
Some were expensive, some were cheap, but again, when they just sort of moved the water around, I could have just stayed in the shower and stayed wet.
I need a towel that gets me dry.
That's where our friends at MyPillow come in.
They have towels, and you're not going to believe the bargain that they have right now.
Mike and the folks at MyPillow have offered a six-piece towel set.
That's two bath towels, two hand towels, and two washcloths Regularly $109.99 for $39.99.
All you gotta do is have code word Collins.
You can go to MyPillow.com or you can call them at 1-800-986-3994.
If you want towels that actually do what they're supposed to do, dry you off.
That's what we do here on the Doug Collins Podcast.
We talk about real answers and real solutions for a complicated world.
Well, sometimes you may not think that getting water off of you is a complicated process, but undoubtedly it is for some tile companies.
It's not for the folks at MyPillow who actually have a tile.
The MyTileLage is a great investment for you, and right now you can get it on sale regularly $109.99 for only $39.99.
And that is with code word Collins.
Also, anything else that you want to go on there, you've still got the slippers, you've still got the MyPillars, you've still got everything that is on that wonderful website.
You want to go check it out.
Use code name Collins and get your discounts.
▲
Export Selection