It's very odd. I think about--what for better lack of a phrase--would be "Eisenhower" Republicans and how they believed in science, raced Sputnik, oversaw and endorsed advances in vaccines (Polio etc)---and find it puzzling how things fell away to this. Very weird.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Technically, neither party should be using religion for anything. Religion is supposed to be separate from the state. Our founders said this, our bill of rights backs it up, and that is the way it should have been.

Unfortunately, it seeps in. In God We Trust was never on money until a reverend asked that it be added to the two cent piece during the civil war. It didn't appear on paper money until the 1950's when President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declared "In God We Trust" must appear on American currency. It went on to be considered a side motto to E Pluribus Unum because of continued pressure.

Under God was not part of the pledge of allegiance until in 1954, at President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s urging, the Congress legislated that “under God” be added.

Both of these broke the guidelines set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They should have never happened but religious Judges keep allowing them under the pretext of Accommodationism, in that as long as they don't specifically recognize or benefit a 'single' religion they can be considered to be OK. They shouldn't be allowed. Churches should have to pay taxes on profits. Priests should be held by the same laws the rest of us are held by. But because of religious fanatics, we allow the blending of church and state. Many would say, to our detriment.

Eisenhower by today's standards is some enlightened being sent from above.

-scheherazade

You lost me there, dude. We haven't had a decent president since Carter, nor a competent one since Eisenhower.

It would be interesting to find out if the wealthy families who own corporate media are also invested heavily in arms manufacturers.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Eisenhower-warns-of-the-military-industrial-complex

Eisenhower warns of the military industrial complex has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.

Yep, you guys are so fucked.
And that downward spiral America is going along didn't come as a surprise. You should've listened to Eisenhower's warning.

@RedSky

while i agree with you that this was most certainly a scripted interview,and one of the reasons i did not tag it "news",let us be clear and concise that this is a practice that most politicians,or heads of state engage in for most press conferences/interviews.

but that is where our agreement ends.

to downplay americas role in the overthrow of mossadeqh as to little more than a nuisance,with little actual affect on iranian politics,is not entirely accurate.while those elements existed,it was eisenhowers TPAJAX project which was specifically directed to inflame the already tense relationship between the royalists and the PM mossadeqh.

chalmers johnson and john perkins wrote at length and great detail in regards to this situation.

i will concede that i agree to a point (but only to a point),that american foreign policy is about reciprocation,but i find your analysis to be far too simplistic.when there is an over abundance of evidence that american foreign policy is not some benevolent spreading-freedom and democracy for the masses but rather colonialization by way of exploitation,indebtness and ultimately military might.

see:smedley butler
see:IMF and WTO
see:john perkins-confessions of an economic hitman

america is in the business of empire.this is about business and profit and the military is used as the hammer to keep those countries in line.

quid pro quo.

i am no fan of putin.he is ruthless and his domestic policies have caused immense suffering with the under class,but i have to respect his abilities as a politician.the man knows how to work a room.

@Asmo

On your comment:

The CIA's role in the 1953 Iran ouster is generally exaggerated. Several things - (1) by 1953, the Islamic clergy supported Mossadeq's ouster, something they have been suppressing ever since in inflating their anti-US stance (2) by the time of his ouster he also lacked the support of either his parliament or the people, (3) prior to it that year, he deposed his disapproving parliament with a clearly fraudulent 99% of the vote in a national referendum, (4) strictly speaking Iran was still a monarchy and the shah deposed his PM legally under the constitution, something that Mossadeq refused to abide by.

Did the UK put economic pressure on Iran when it threatened to nationalize its oil and usurp its remnants of imperialism? Sure. Did the UK then convince Eisenhower to mount a political and propaganda campaign against Mossadeq? Sure. Was that instrumental in fomenting a popular uprising of the parliament, the clergy and large portions of the 20m general population against him? Probably not.

Also I listened to it. Really, it's a meandering, probably scripted (the parts where he feigns surprise at the questioning is particularly humorous) that tries to generalize US actions, some of which were obviously harmful and support his argument. Putting Stalin in a positive light relative to the willingness of the US to use the bomb is, amusing? I'm not sure what to call it.

That the US needs a common threat to unite against holds some grains of truth in the present day but is really part of a wider narrative by Putin to construct the US as imperalist and domineering when by all accounts since the end of the Cold War, excluding GWB's term, it has been pulling back. It hardly needed to invent Iran's covert nuclear ambitions in the early 2000s, NK's saber rattling or China's stakes on the South China Sea islands.

Modern US foreign policy largely relies on reciprocation. The US provides a military alliance and counterweight to China's military for small SE Asian nations at a hefty cost to itself, and presumably gets various trade concession and voting support in various international agencies. The key word being reciprocation, something that Russia could learn a fair bit from in its own foreign policy.

No, don't overthink it. It's not some deep complicated reaction to artificial gender\comedy\social issues you read about in blogs, it's just stale humor to me. I'm sure many find her deadpan delivery of facial cream-pie queef soiled panty jokes to be ground-breaking. If Eisenhower was in the White House I'm sure I would think so too but it's been done a billion times.

If you don't laugh at the "why did the chicken cross the road" joke does that make you an animal rights activist?

Eisenhower explained the rape of the country that was about to ensue... so it seems a little off target to blame bush, clinton or any modern leader. They all certainly SUCK and are part of it. Arguing between Bush or Obama like that clown above is a waste of time. Bush did suck WAYYYYY more of course...

Also check out the United States Information Agency, Operation Wetback, and The Eisenhower Ten.

@MilkmanDan-Pretty sure the most effective squelching of the rise of the Nation of Islam and the push for conversion from the slave-master's religion was achieved by the CIA, (insert covertly shadowed organizations within the labyrinth here) pumping high-grade opiates into the ghettos of all major United States cities-Fast-forward to 1980, and crack cocaine takes what's left of a effectual black population on a path to self-actualization down the road leading right back to the master's plantation.

That the black activism of the 60's scared the holy shit outta the control apparatus is best evidenced in the assassination of MLK, Malcolm X, (many, many others) and the string of cocksuckers disguised as presidents to follow Eisenhower, a legacy which continues to become more farcical with each movement of the second-hand on yer grandpa's pocket-watch.

You have to point out that Al Qaeda has very little support and would have WAY less if they weren't recruited by the Wars and actions of the United States. When 9/11 happened there was a ridiculous outpouring of support from the Muslim world even after we've terrorized them for decades.

Drones, Wars, Sanctions, and General Terrorism is what fuels Al Qaeda. There are legitimate grievances that we could address and it would basically destroy Al Qaedas support, but we don't because it's counter to what the people with the money want us to do.

Eisenhower asked the same question to his advisers in the 1950s, something like "Why is their a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East." His advisers came back with the facts, they don't like us because we support horrible dictators that keep a boot to their neck constantly. The continued that it's correct, we should be doing this in order to control them.

There's facts but you can't talk about them much, people get really upset and call you a traitor. Like in this very comment section. Whatever the US does it's correct regardless of intention or outcome, Patriotism is stupid.

Lol, only the first 20 seconds discusses 1800s politics. The rest of the video is about the new establishment of slavery created by a welfare state, created to control the people. Classic libtard ad hominem tactics to distract from the actual topic. Also, Eisenhower isn't exactly ancient history.