Eisenhower Library: 'President Eisenhower's- Civil Rights Legacy'

Source:Eisenhower Presidential Library- a panel discussion on President Dwight D. Eisenhower's (Republican, Texas) legacy on civil rights.

"When civil rights issues are mentioned, most people automatically think of the 1960s. "Eisenhower's Civil Rights Legacy," was held Saturday, Sept. 24, 2011, at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum. This program is a reminder that the Eisenhower Administration laid the ground work for much of the 1960s movement."

From the Eisenhower Library

If I had to guess I would say that civil rights was not on the top of Dwight Eisenhower's legacy when he became President of the United States in 1953. And not something where he was going to push civil rights through a Republican Congress that he had in his first two years. And the leader of a party in the Republican Party where civil rights laws probably had more support for than in the Democratic Party. That for the most part except for Lyndon Johnson and a few others (at the time of the Democratic Leader in the Senate) was against civil rights laws, period.

Perhaps the only interest that President Eisenhower had in civil rights had to do with enforcing the newly open military. That included all races and the different races serving together in the U.S. military. That President Truman put through through executive order because he had a Democratic Congress that wouldn't have supported it. 

Not saying that President Eisenhower was a against civil and equal rights even before he became President. but that he had other priorities that he believed were more important like the Korean War and the start of the Cold War with Russia.

Civil rights is something that more came to President Eisenhower desk's rather than he putting it on his desk instead. When the Topeka and Brown V. Board of Education rulings came to him and he had to decide whether he was going to enforce these decisions or not, 

Dwight Eisenhower was definitely not a racist, but a Southerner who did have respect for the Southern States states rights plank, but decided that the nation as a whole was more important. And that as President of the United States, it was his job to enforce all Federal laws even laws that his part of the country disagreed with which is how he backed the Arkansas education case (to use as an example) that allowed for African-Americans to go to school there and not be forced to go to run down schools where only African-Americans attended because they lived in poverty stricken neighborhoods.

Civil rights is a perfect example of Dwight Eisenhower's judicial and governmental conservatism. That laws have to be enforced and you can't pick and choose which laws are enforced whether you agree with them or not. Thats its the job of the Executive to enforce laws and if you don't like those laws. You can always work to repeal then instead of cherry pick which laws you like. And he reminds me a little of Chief Justice John Roberts in that respect.

PBS: U.S. Senator Tim Kaine- 'Introduces The Created Equal Project'

Source:PBS- U.S Senator Tim Kaine (Democrat, Virginia) 

"Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) introduces the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Created Equal Project. The initiative showcases powerful NEH-funded films, including The Abolitionists, Freedom Riders, and The Loving Story — films that provide a deeper understanding of African American history and the American story."

From PBS

I support public broadcasting as far as the programming they put on as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities and so-forth. Again, as far as the programming they deliver and the fact they support our current affairs and history programming, as well as our arts and education. Through non-profits and I realize these budgets are only around ten-billion-dollars, if that.

But in the time of high national debt and budget deficits, this is not something that taxpayers should be forced to spend money on when we have a sluggish economy that didn't grow at all in the last quarter of 2012. With high unemployment, as well as private debt, that instead we would be better off using that money for deficit reduction, or economic development like in the area of infrastructure investment, or energy, or tax cuts for business's that invest, expand and hire in America. Which is what we should be doing with these resources instead of forcing taxpayers to pay for to support our history, culture and current affairs programming, as well as the arts.

Rand Corporation: Tamara Dubowitz- 'Eliminating Food Deserts'

Source:The Rand Corporation- Scientist Tamara Dubowitz.

"Can building a grocery store in a "food desert" change food purchasing and reduce health disparities in the U.S.? Tamara Dubowitz introduces an innovative new RAND project that may provide answers.

From the Rand Corporation 

We have at least a couple problems as it relates to access to quality food in America. One, is affordability. We simply have too many Americans who don't make enough money to afford enough.

Two, we have have an obesity problem as well however you want to define that problem, where obesity and diabetes are the two fastest growing diseases in America and what makes that problem even worse, is that they are both preventable diseases and they are both adding to the Un-affordability of our healthcare system. Now 18% of GDP, twice as much as the rest of the developed world.

History Comes To Life: President Dwight D. Eisenhower- 1958 State of The Union Address

Source:History Comes To Life- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, address to Congress in 1958.

"Eisenhower State of the Union 1958"

From History Comes To Life

Dwight Eisenhower might be the Republican President I have the most respect for at least in the 20th Century. Abraham Lincoln is the Republican President and perhaps President most of all that I have the most respect for. But President Eisenhower is the Republican President I probably respect most in the TV age. Because he was the real thing and knew exactly who he was, what he wanted to do and what could be done. And perhaps had the best training of any President we've ever had in being the Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War II.

Because no other President had a better understanding of both foreign policy and national security. At least before becoming President of The United States than Dwight Eisenhower. And knew exactly what his number one job as President which of course is Commander-in-Chief. So when he gave his speech about the military industrial complex in 1961, the country almost had to take him seriously because he's someone who was a forty year veteran of the Army and had served in two world wars including leading Allied Forces in Europe during World War II.

Another thing that I respect a lot about Dwight Eisenhower even though I'm a Liberal was that President Eisenhower was a true Conservative. Fiscal Conservative across the board even when it came to defense, a true economic Conservative and understood exactly what the limited role of the Federal Government should be as it related to the economy. Which is how we got the National Highway System and a true social Conservative who understood the need for social as well as economic freedom. And was a pretty effective civil rights President in enforcing the Arkansas school segaration case. And is someone that todays not so conservative Republican Party could learn a lot from.

C-SPAN: U.S. Senate Historian Donald Ritchie- History of The State of The Union Address

Source: C-SPAN- Name this speech and the year that it was given.

"History of the State of the Union Address - Senate Historian Donald Ritchie." 

From C-SPAN 

"U.S. Senate Historian Donald Ritchie discusses the history of the State of the Union address." 

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Senate Historian Donald Ritchie.

From CSPAN

The whole point of the United States State of The Union address is for the President to layout the situation of the country across the board and all sorts of issues,And also for the President to layout where he wants to take the country for that year. And a lot of times it depends on how well the country is doing, how popular the President is, what's the situation with Congress, who controls the House and Senate and by what margins and how popular the Congressional Leadership is that will determine what if anything the President will be able to accomplish that year.

Ronald Reagan came in on a big wave in 1981 and even though Congressional Republicans only controlled the Senate, Republicans were up in 1981. Democrats were down and not very popular and were essentially forced to work with President Reagan and the Republican Senate to avoid losing more power now that they only controlled the House of Representatives. But six years later thanks to Iran Contra and Democrats winning back the Senate in 1986 in the Congressional midterms and adding seats to their House majority, President Reagan lost a lot of his power base.

So State of The Union address's can be very effective or not memorable at all and not important. Depending on the President and where the President stands politically, what he wants to accomplish, how realistic it is. And what's his party's standing in Congress and what position the opposition party is in to either work with the President and his party in Congress or try to derail what the President is trying to accomplish, because they feel no need to work with them or are too far apart.

PBS: NewsHour- Jeffrey Brown: 'Boy Scouts Delays Decision on Lifting Ban on Gay Members'

Source:PBS NewsHour- Richard Land: Southern Baptist Convention.

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

In January 2013, the Boy Scouts of America said it was considering lifting its ban on gay members, drawing strong reactions from both sides of the debate. The organization then delayed its decision until May. Jeffrey Brown gets views from Zach Wahls of Scouts for Equality and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention."

From PBS NewsHour 

Just to go on the record as a Liberal: I'm against homophobia and homosexuals being denied access to things that they otherwise would have access to if they were heterosexual. But that doesn't mean that private organizations that require memberships to be involved with them don't have the right to do that. 

And of course there's the argument that employers, stores, places to eat and so-forth aren't allowed to discriminate against people for these reasons. Denying people service because of their race and so-forth, but the U.S. courts have ruled differently. They've separated from private organizations and privately run business's that are open to the public. You don't need membership (to eat at a diner to use as an example) or shop at a store, but you do need membership to join private clubs like the Boy Scouts. (To use as an example) And you could argue that they should have that right, but the fact is they do which the courts have ruled. 

Government can't deny people access to education, because they don't like someone's race, ethnicity, color, gender, religion, sexuality, etc and neither can private organizations that are open to the public. But private clubs can, because they're not open to the public, I believe have the constitutional right to do that.

Independent Institute: 'Making Poor Nations Rich- Entrepreneurship and The Process of Economic Development'

Source:The Independent Institute- a book about economic development. 

"Why do some nations become rich while others remain poor? Traditional economic theory has done little to answer this question. Now, through case studies from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe, Making Poor Nations Rich argues for examining the critical role entrepreneurs, private property rights, and free trade and other economic freedoms play in economic development.

This volume begins by explaining how entrepreneurs create economic growth and why some institutional environments encourage more productive entrepreneurship than others. The book then addresses countries and regions that have failed to develop because of barriers to entrepreneurship. Finally, the authors turn to countries that have developed by reforms that protect private property and grant greater levels of economic freedom.

Making Poor Nations Rich demonstrates that pro-market reforms are essential to promoting the productive entrepreneurship that leads to economic growth, and where this institutional environment is lacking, sustained economic development will remain elusive."

From The Independent Institute

Let's say you have a country that has a decent amount of land or even a large country physically like Libya or Somali and even has a considerable amount of natural resources as at least in Libya's case, but you have a moderate size population or are even lightly populated like both Libya and Somalia and you are third- world country definitely in Somalia's case that couldn't even govern itself up until recently: so you have this country and you can do with at you please as a country and you have a population that wants to make this country work, but all you need is direction to make that happen. What should you do how should you build your country?

It starts with good governance, not Big Government or Small Government, but Good Government. A responsible executive, legislature hopefully both elected by the people themselves and a responsible independent judiciary. 

Let's say you've already figured out your national constitution and what the role of of government should be in your country, how the national government relates to the state, or provincial and local governments and what they should be doing. And you have a national constitution that doesn't make the national government, let's say Federal Government in Somalia's case a dictator or have most of the power, but with enough power to govern the country and deal with things like the currency and economy. 

Once you've developed your responsible, constitutional, and elected government and a constitution there to protect the people's constitutional rights and guide government as far as it an operate, what it can do, and how it should serve the people, with all the right checks and balances and divisions of power in place and it's there only to serve the people and protect their freedom, now you've formed a system where the people will be free to operate and make their best out of their own lives that they possibly can. 

You can talk about economic growth, free trade, property rights, all you want, but if you don't have a government that respects those things, none of those things are going to happen. And whatever the economy produces, the national government will end up pocketing most of those resources for themselves, at the expense of their people.