上海肛肠科医院飞排名指定医院

明星资讯腾讯娱乐2017年10月20日 23:54:36
0评论
William Jennings BryanImperialism Mr. Chairman and Members of the Notification Committee: I shall, at an early day, and in a more formal manner, accept the nomination which you tender, and shall at that time discuss the various questions covered by the Democratic platform. It may not be out of place, however, to submit a few observations at this time upon the general character of the contest before us and upon the question which is declared to be of paramount importance in this campaign.When I say that the contest of 1900 is a contest of 1900 is a contest between Democracy on the one hand and plutocracy on the other I do not mean to say that all our opponents have deliberately chosen to give to organized wealth a predominating influence in the affairs of the Government, but I do assert that on the important issues of the day the Republican party is dominated by those influences which constantly tend to substitute the worship of mammon for the protection of the rights of man.In 1859 Lincoln said that the Republican Party believed in the man and the dollar, but that in case of conflict it believed in the man before the dollar. This is the proper relation which should exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of God, comes first; money, the handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is the master, money the servant, but upon all important questions today Republican legislation tends to make money the master and man the servant.The maxim of Jefferson, “equal rights to all and special privileges to none,” and the doctrine of Lincoln that this should be a government “of the people, by the people and for the people,” are being disregarded and the instrumentalities of government are being used to advance the interests of those who are in a position to secure favors from the Government.The Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth; it has no desire to discourage industry, economy and thrift. On the contrary, it gives to every citizen the greatest possible stimulus to honest toil when it promises him protection in the enjoyment of the proceeds of his labor. Property rights are most secure when human rights are most respected. Democracy strives for civilization in which every member of society will share according to his merits.No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for the services No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for the services which he renders to society. If he secures more it is at the expense of some one else. It is no injustice to him to prevent his doing injustice to another. To him who would, either through class legislation or in the absence of necessary legislation, trespass upon the rights of another the Democratic party says "Thou shalt not."Against us are arrayed a comparatively small but politically and financially powerful number who really profit by Republican policies; but with them are associated a large number who, because of their attachment to their party name, are giving their support to doctrines antagonistic to the former teachings of their own party.Republicans who used to advocate bimetallism now try to convince themselves that the gold standard is good; Republicans who were formerly attached to the greenback are now seeking an excuse for giving national banks control of the nation's paper money; Republicans who used to boast that the Republican party was paying off the national debt are now looking for reasons to support a perpetual and increasing debt; Republicans who formerly abhorred a trust now beguile themselves with the delusion that there are good trusts, and bad trusts, while in their minds, the line between the two is becoming more and more obscure; Republicans who, in times past, congratulated the country upon the small expense of our standing army, are now making light of the objections which are urged against a large increase in the permanent military establishment; Republicans who gloried in our independence when the nation was less powerful now look with favor upon a foreign alliance; Republicans who three years ago condemned "forcible annexation" as immoral and even criminal are now sure that it is both immoral and criminal to oppose forcible annexation. That partisanship has aly blinded many to present dangers is certain; how large a portion of the Republican party can be drawn over to the new policies remains to be seen.For a time Republican leaders were inclined to deny to opponents the right to criticize the Philippine policy of the administration, but upon investigation they found that both Lincoln and Clay asserted and exercised the right to criticize a President during the progress of the Mexican war. Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive plan for dealing with the Philippine question, the Republican convention adopted a platform the larger part of which was devoted to boasting and self-congratulation. In attempting to press economic questions upon the country to the exclusion of those which involve the very structure of our government, the Republican leaders give new evidence of their abandonment of the earlier ideals of their party and of their complete subserviency to pecuniary considerations. But they shall not be permitted to evade the stupendous and far-reaching issue which they have deliberately brought into the arena of politics. When the president, supported by a practically unanimous vote of the House and Senate, entered upon a war with Spain for the purpose of aiding the struggling patriots of Cuba, the country, without regard to party, applauded. Although the Democrats realized that the administration would necessarily gain a political advantage from the conduct of a war which in the very nature of the case must soon end in a complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in the support which they gave to the president. When the war was over and the Republican leaders began to suggest the propriety of a colonial policy opposition at once manifested itself. When the President finally laid before the Senate a treaty which recognized the independence of Cuba, but provided for the cession of the Philippine Islands to the ed States, the menace of imperialism became so apparent that many preferred to reject the treaty and risk the ills that might follow rather than take the chance of correcting the errors of the treaty by the independent action of this country. I was among the number of those who believed it better to ratify the treaty and end the war, release the volunteers, remove the excuse for war expenditures and then give the Filipinos the independence which might be forced from Spain by a new treaty. In view of the criticism which my action aroused in some quarters, I take this occasion to restate the reasons given at that time. I thought it safer to trust the American people to give independence to the Filipinos than to trust the accomplishment of that purpose to diplomacy with an unfriendly nation. Lincoln embodied an argument in the question when he asked, "Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws?" I believe that we are now in a better position to wage a successful contest against imperialism than we would have been had the treaty been rejected. With the treaty ratified a clean-cut issue is presented between a government by consent and a government by force, and imperialists must bear the responsibility for all that happens until the question is settled. If the treaty had been rejected the opponents of imperialism would have been held responsible for any international complications which might have arisen before the ratification of another treaty. But whatever difference of opinion may have existed as to the best method of opposing a colonial policy, there never was any difference as to the great importance of the question and there is no difference now as to the course to be pursued. The title of Spain being extinguished we were at liberty to deal with the Filipinos according to American principles. The Bacon resolution, introduced a month before hostilities broke out at Manila, promised independence to the Filipinos on the same terms that it was promised to the Cubans. I supported this resolution and believe that its adoption prior to the breaking out of hostilities would have prevented bloodshed, and that its adoption at any subsequent time would have ended hostilities. If the treaty had been rejected considerable time would have necessarily elapsed before a new treaty could have been agreed upon and ratified and during that time the question would have been agitating the public mind. If the Bacon resolution had been adopted by the senate and carried out by the president, either at the time of the ratification of the treaty or at any time afterwards, it would have taken the question of imperialism out of politics and left the American people free to deal with their domestic problems. But the resolution was defeated by the vote of the Republican Vice-President, and from that time to this a republican congress has refused to take any action whatever in the matter. When hostilities broke out at Manila republican speakers and Republican editors at once sought to lay the blame upon those who had delayed the ratification of the treaty, and, during the progress of the war, the same republicans have accused the opponents of imperialism of giving encouragement to the Filipinos. This is a cowardly evasion of responsibility. If it is right for the ed States to hold the Philippine Islands permanently and imitate European empires in the government of colonies, the Republican party ought to state its position and defend it, but it must expect the subject races to protest against such a policy and to resist to the extent of their ability. The Filipinos do not need any encouragement from Americans now living. Our whole history has been an encouragement not only to the Filipinos, but to all who are denied a voice in their own government. If the republicans are prepared to censure all who have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hate foreign domination, let them condemn the speech of Patrick Henry. When he uttered that passionate appeal, "Give me liberty or give me death," he expressed a sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men. Let them censure Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have used words so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage. Let them censure Washington, who declared that the colonists must choose between liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute of limitations has run again the sins of Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln, whose Gettysburg speech will be ed in defense of popular government when the present advocates of force and conquest are forgotten. Some one has said that a truth once spoken, can never be recalled. It goes on and on, and no one can set a limit to its ever-widening influence. But if it were possible to obliterate every word written or spoken in defense of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, a war of conquest would still leave its legacy of perpetual hatred, for it was God himself who placed in every human heart the love of liberty. He never made a race of people so low in the scale of civilization or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master. Those who would have this Nation enter upon a career of empire must consider, not only the effect of imperialism on the Filipinos, but they must also calculate its effects upon our own nation. We cannot repudiate the principle of self-government in the Philippines without weakening that principle here. Lincoln said that the safety of this Nation was not in its fleets, its armies, or its forts, but in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere, and he warned his countrymen that they could not destroy this spirit without planting the seeds of despotism at their own doors. Even now we are beginning to see the paralyzing influence if imperialism. Heretofore this Nation has been prompt to express its sympathy with those who were fighting for civil liberty. While our sphere of activity has been limited to the Western Hemisphere, our sympathies have not been bounded by the seas. We have felt it due to ourselves and to the world, as well as to those who were struggling for the right to govern themselves, to proclaim the interest which our people have, from the date of their own independence, felt in every contest between human rights and arbitrary power. Three-quarters of a century ago, when our nation was small, the struggles of Greece aroused our people, and Webster and Clay gave eloquent expression to the universal desire for Grecian independence. In 1896 all parties manifested a lively interest in the success of the Cubans, but now when a war is in progress in South Africa, which must result in the extension of the monarchical idea, or in the triumph of a republic, the advocates of imperialism in this country dare not say a word in behalf of the Boers. Sympathy for the Boers does not arise from any unfriendliness towards England; the American people are not unfriendly toward the people of any nation. This sympathy is due to the fact that, as stated in our platform, we believe in the principles of self-government and reject, as did our forefathers, the claims of monarchy. If this nation surrenders its belief in the universal application of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, it will lose the prestige and influence which it has enjoyed among the nations as an exponent of popular government. Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek to confuse imperialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jefferson as a supporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke so freely and used language with such precision that no one can be ignorant of his views. On one occasion he declared: "If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest." And again he said: "Conquest is not in our principles; it is inconsistent with our government."The forcible annexation of territory to be governed by arbitrary power differs as much from the acquisition of territory to be built up into States as a monarchy differs from a democracy. The Democratic party does not oppose expansion when expansion enlarges the area of the Republic and incorporates land which can be settled by American citizens, or adds to our population people who are willing to become citizens and are capable of discharging their duties as such.The acquisition of the Louisiana territory, Florida, Texas and other tracts which have been secured from time to time enlarged the republic and the Constitution followed the flag into the new territory. It is now proposed to seize upon distant territory aly more densely populated than our own country and to force upon the people a government for which there is no warrant in our Constitution or our laws. Even the argument that this earth belongs to those who desire to cultivate it and who have the physical power to acquire it cannot be invoked to justify the appropriation of the Philippine Islands by the ed States. If the islands were uninhabited American citizens would not be willing to go there and till the soil. The white race will not live so near the equator. Other nations have tried to colonize in the same latitude. The Netherlands have controlled Java for three hundred years and yet today there are less than sixty thousand people of European birth scattered among the twenty-five million natives. After a century and a half of English domination in India, less than one-twentieth of one per cent of the people of India are of English birth, and it requires an army of seventy thousand British soldiers to take care of the tax collectors. Spain had asserted title to the Philippine Islands for three centuries and yet when our fleet entered Manila bay there were less than ten thousand Spaniards residing in the Philippines. A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippine Islands a few traders, a few taskmasters and a few office-holders and an army large enough to support the authority of a small fraction of the people while they rule the natives. If we have an imperial policy we must have a great standing army as its natural and necessary complement. The sprit which will justify the forcible annexation of the Philippine Islands will justify the seizure of other islands and the domination of other people, and with wars of conquest we can expect a certain, if not rapid, growth of our military establishment. That a large permanent increase in our regular army is intended by Republican leaders is not a matter of conjecture, but a matter of fact. In his message of December 5,1898, the president asked for authority to increase the standing army to 100,000. In 1896 the army contained about 25,000. Within two years the president asked for four times that many, and a Republican house of representatives complied with the request after the Spanish treaty had been signed, and when no country was at war with the ed States. If such an army is demanded when an imperial policy is contemplated, but not openly avowed, what -may be expected if the people encourage the Republican party by indorsing its policy at the polls? A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and, if accompanied by compulsory service, a constant source of irritation, but it is ever a menace to a Republican form of government. The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably change the ideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts of peace to the science of war. The Government which relies for its defense upon its citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body of professional soldiers. A small standing army and a well-equipped and well-disciplined state militia are sufficient at ordinary times, and in an emergency the nation should in the future as in the past place its dependence upon the volunteers who come from all occupations at their country's call and return to productive labor when their services are no longer required -- men who fight when the country needs fighters and work when the country needs workers. The Republican platform assumes that the Philippine Islands will be retained under American sovereignty, and we have a right to demand of the republican leaders a discussion of the future status of the Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a subject? Are we to bring into the body politic eight or ten million Asiatics so different from us in race and history that amalgamation is impossible? Are they to share with us in making the laws and shaping the destiny of this nation? No republican of prominence has been bold enough to advocate such a proposition. The McEnery resolution, adopted by the senate immediately after the ratification of the treaty, expressly negatives this idea. The Democratic platform describes the situation when it says that the Filipinos cannot be citizens without endangering our civilization. Who will dispute it? And what is the alternative? If the Filipino is not to be a citizen, shall we make him a subject? On that question the Democratic platform speaks with equal emphasis. It declares that the Filipino cannot be a subject without endangering our form of government. A republic can have no subjects. A subject is possible only in a government resting upon force; he is unknown in a government derived without consent and taxation without representation.The Republican platform says that "the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them (the Filipinos) by law." This is a strange doctrine for a government which owes its very existence to the men who offered their lives as a protest against government without consent and taxation without representation. In what respect does the position of the Republican party differ from the position taken by the English Government in 1776? Did not the English Government promise a good government to the colonists? What king ever promised a bad government to his people? Did not the English Government promise that the colonists should have the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and English duties? Did not the Spanish Government promise to give to the Cubans the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Spanish duties? The whole difference between a monarchy and a republic may be summed up in one sentence. In a monarchy the king gives to the people what he believes to be a good government; in a republic the people secure for themselves what they believe to be a good government. The Republican party has accepted the European idea and planted itself upon the ground taken by George III., and by every ruler who distrusts the capacity of the people for self-government or denies them a voice in their own affairs. The Republican platform promises that some measure of self-government is to be given the Filipinos by law; but even this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly sixteen months elapsed after the ratification of the treaty before the adjournment of congress last June and yet no law was passed dealing with the Philippine situation. The will of the president has been the only law in the Philippine islands wherever the American authority extends. Why does the Republican party hesitate to legislate upon the Philippine question? Because a law would disclose the radical departure from history and precedent contemplated by those who control the Republican party. The storm of protest which greeted the Puerto Rican bill was an indication of what may be expected when the American people are brought face to face with legislation upon this subject. If the Puerto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied the guarantees of our Constitution, what is to be the lot of the Filipinos, who resisted our authority? If secret influences could compel a disregard of our plain duty toward friendly people, living near our shores, what treatment will those same influences provide for unfriendly people 7,000 miles away? If, in this country where the people have a right to vote, republican leaders dare not take the side of the people against the great monopolies which have grown up within the last few years, how can they be trusted to protect the Filipinos from the corporations which are waiting to exploit the islands? Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the people of the ed States, and the twilight of semi-citizenship endured by the people of Puerto Rico, while the thick darkness of perpetual vassalage covers the Philippines? The Puerto Rico tariff law asserts the doctrine that the operation of the constitution is confined to the forty-five states. The Democratic party disputes this doctrine and denounces it as repugnant to both the letter and spirit of our organic law. There is no place in our system of government for the deposit of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That the leaders of a great party should claim for any president or congress the right to treat millions of people as mere "possessions" and deal with them unrestrained by the constitution or the bill of rights shows how far we have aly departed from the ancient landmarks and indicates what may be expected if this nation deliberately enters upon a career of empire. The territorial form of government is temporary and preparatory, and the chief security a citizen of a territory has is found in the fact that he enjoys the same constitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general laws as the citizen of a state. Take away this security and his rights will be violated and his interests sacrificed at the demand of those who have political influence. This is the evil of the colonial system, no matter by what nation it is applied. What is our title to the Philippine Islands? Do we hold them by treaty or by conquest? Did we buy them or did we take them? Did we purchase the people? If not, how did we secure title to them? Were they thrown in with the land? Will the Republicans say that inanimate earth has value but that when that earth is molded by the divine hand and stamped with the likeness of the Creator it becomes a fixture and passes with the soil? If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, it is impossible to secure title to people, either by force or by purchase. We could extinguish Spain's title by treaty, but if we hold title we must hold it by some method consistent with our ideas of government. When we made allies of the Filipinos and armed them to fight against Spain, we disputed Spain's title. If we buy Spain's title we are not innocent purchasers. There can be no doubt that we accepted and utilized the services of the Filipinos, and that when we did so we had full knowledge that they were fighting for their own independence, and I submit that history furnishes no example of turpitude baser than ours if we now substitute our yoke for the Spanish yoke.Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in support of an imperialistic policy. Some say that it is our duty to hold the Philippine Islands. But duty is not an argument; it is a conclusion. To ascertain what our duty is, in any emergency, we must apply well settled and generally accepted principles. It is our duty to avoid stealing, no matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great or little value. It is our duty to avoid killing a human being, no matter where the human being lives or to what race or class he belongs. Every one recognizes the obligation imposed upon individuals to observe both the human and the moral law, but as some deny the application of those laws to nations, it may not be out of place to e the opinions of others. Jefferson, than whom there is no higher political authority, said: "I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or collectively." Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and virtue are a part of the priceless legacy bequeathed to use from the revolutionary days, expressed the same idea in even stronger language when he said: "Justice is strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single; and the nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang." Many may dare to do in crowds what they would not dare to do as individuals, but the moral character of an act is not determined by the number of those who join it. Force can defend a right, but force has never yet created a right. If it was true, as declared in the resolutions of intervention, that the Cubans "are and of right ought to be free and independent" (language taken from the Declaration of Independence), it is equally true that the Filipinos "are and of right ought to be free and independent." The right of the Cubans to freedom was not based upon their proximity to the ed States, nor upon the language which they spoke, nor yet upon the race or races to which they belonged. Congress by a practically unanimous vote declared that the principles enunciated at Philadelphia in 1776 were still alive and applicable to the Cubans. Who will draw a line between the natural rights of the Cubans and the Filipinos? Who will say that the former has a right to liberty and that the latter has no rights which we are bound to respect? And, if the Filipinos "are and of right ought to be free and independent," what right have we to force our government upon them without their consent? Before our duty can be ascertained their rights must be determined, and when their rights are once determined it is as much our duty to respect those rights as it was the duty of Spain to respect the rights of the people of Cuba or the duty of England to respect the rights of the American colonists. Rights never conflict; duties never clash. Can it be our duty to usurp political rights which belong to others? Can it be our duty to kill those who, following the example of our forefathers, love liberty well enough to fight for it? A poet has described the terror which overcame a soldier who in the midst of the battle discovered that he had slain his brother. It is written "All ye are brethren." Let us hope for the coming day when human life -- which when once destroyed cannot be restored -- will be so sacred that it will never be taken except when necessary to punish a crime aly committed, or to prevent a crime about to be committed. It is said that we have assumed before the world obligations which make it necessary for us to permanently maintain a government in the Philippine Islands. I reply first, that the highest obligation of this nation is to be true to itself. No obligation to any particular nations, or to all the nations combined, can require the abandonment of our theory of government, and the substitution of doctrines against which our whole national life has been a protest. And, second, that our obligation to the Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, is greater than any obligation which we can owe to foreigners who have a temporary residence in the Philippines or desire to trade there. It is argued by some that the Filipinos are incapable of self-government and that, therefore, we owe it to the world to take control of them. Admiral Dewey, in an official report to the Navy Department, declared the Filipinos more capable of self-government than the Cubans and said that he based his opinion upon a knowledge of both races. But I will not rest the case upon the relative advancement of the Filipinos. Henry Clay, in defending the right of the people of South America to self-government said: "It is the doctrine of thrones that man is too ignorant to govern himself. Their partisans assert his incapacity in reference to all nations; if they cannot command universal assent to the proposition, it is then demanded to particular nations; and our pride and our presumption too often make converts of us. I contend that it is to arraign the disposition of Providence himself to suppose that he has created beings incapable of governing themselves, and to be trampled on by kings. Self-government is the natural government of man." Clay was right. There are degrees of proficiency in the art of self-government, but it is a reflection upon the Creator to say that he denied to any people the capacity for self-government. Once admit that some people are capable of self-government and that others are not and that the capable people have a right to seize upon and govern the incapable, and you make force -- brute force -- the only foundation of government and invite the reign of a despot. I am not willing to believe that an all-wise and an all-loving God created the Filipinos and then left them thousands of years helpless until the islands attracted the attention of European nations. Republicans ask, "Shall we haul down the flag that floats over our dead in the Philippines?" The same question might have been asked, when the American flag floated over Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but the tourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national cemetery owned by the ed States and cared for by an American citizen. Our flag still floats over our dead, but when the treaty with Mexico was signed American authority withdrew to the Rio Grande, and I venture the opinion that during the last fifty years the people of Mexico have made more progress under the stimulus of independence and self-government than they would have made under a carpet-bag government held in place by bayonets. The ed States and Mexico, friendly republics, are each stronger and happier than they would have been had the former been cursed and the latter crushed by an imperialistic policy disguised as "benevolent assimilation." “Can we not govern colonies?” we are asked. The question is not what we can do, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it must accept responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in the way, the people can amend the Constitution. I repeat, the nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it cannot avoid the natural and legitimate results of it own conduct. The young man upon reaching his majority can do what he pleases. He can disregard the teachings of his parents; he can trample upon all that he has been taught to consider sacred; he can disobey the laws of the State, the laws of society and the laws of God. He can stamp failure upon his life and make his very existence a curse to his fellow men, and he can bring his father and mother in sorrow to the grave; but he cannot annul the sentence, “The wages of sin is death.” And so with the nation. It is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn the traditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests; it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it can conquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property and kill their people; but it cannot repeal the moral law or escape the punishment decreed for the violation of human rights. "Would we t in the paths of tyranny, Nor reckon the tyrant's cost? Who taketh another's liberty His freedom is also lost. Would we win as the strong have ever won, Make y to pay the debt, For the God who reigned over Babylon Is the God who is reigning yet." Some argue that American rule in the Philippine Islands will result in the better education of the Filipinos. Be not deceived. If we expect to maintain a colonial policy, we shall not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The educated Filipinos are now in revolt against us, and the most ignorant ones have made the least resistance to our domination. If we are to govern them without their consent and give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must pay, we dare not educate them, lest they learn to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the ed States and mock us for our inconsistency. The principal arguments, however, advanced by those who enter upon a defense of imperialism are: First- That we must improve the present opportunity to become a world power and enter into international politics. Second- That our commercial interests in the Philippine Islands and in the Orient make it necessary for us to hold the islands permanently. Third- That the sp of the Christian religion will be facilitated by a colonial policy. Fourth- That there is no honorable retreat from the position which the nation has taken. The first argument is addrest to the nation’s pride and the second to the nation’s pocket-book. The third is intended for the church member and the fourth for the partisan. It is sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more than a century this nation has been a world power. For ten decades it has been the most potent influence in the world. Not only has it been a world power, but it has done more to shape the politics of the human race than all the other nations of the world combined. Because our Declaration of Independence was promulgated others have been promulgated. Because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty other have fought for it. Because our Constitution was adopted other constitutions have been adopted. The growth of the principle of self-government, planted on American soil, has been the overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. It has made this nation conspicuous among the nations and given it a place in history such as no other nation has ever enjoyed. Nothing has been able to check the onward march of this idea. I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside the omnipotent weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of physical warfare. I would not exchange the glory of this Republic for the glory of all empires that have risen and fallen since time began. The permanent chairman of the last Republican Nation Convention presented the pecuniary argument in all its baldness when he said: “We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in the Philippines solely on account of others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a sacred trust, we regard the welfare of American people first. We see our duty to ourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By every legitimate means within the province of government and constitution we mean to stimulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets.” This is the commercial argument. It is based upon the theory that war can be rightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and that it is profitable to purchase trade by force and violence. Franklin denied both of these propositions. When Lord Howe asserted that the acts of Parliament which brought on the Revolution were necessary to prevent American trade from passing into foreign channels, Franklin replied: "To me it seems that neither the obtaining nor retaining of any trade, howsoever valuable, is an object for which men may justly spill each other's blood; that the true and sure means of extending and securing commerce are the goodness and cheapness of commodities, and that the profits of no trade can ever be equal to the expense of compelling it and holding it by fleets and armies. I consider this war against us, therefore, as both unjust and unwise." I place the philosophy of Franklin against the sordid doctrine of those who would put a price upon the head of an American soldier and justify a war of conquest upon the ground that it will pay. The democratic party is in favor of the expansion of trade. It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful means; but it is not willing to make merchandise of human blood. But a war of conquest is as unwise as it is unrighteous. A harbor and coaling station in the Philippines would answer every trade and military necessity and such a concession could have been secured at any time without difficulty. It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them. We carry on trade today with every part of the world, and our commerce has expanded more rapidly than the commerce of any European empire. We do not own Japan or China, but we trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics of Central and South America, but we trade with them. It has not been necessary to have any political connection with Canada or the nations of Europe in order to trade with them. Trade cannot be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary. When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must be taken out of the profits and the profits are never large enough to cover the expense. Such a system would never be defended but for the fact that the expense is borne by all the people, while the profits are enjoyed by a few. Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it would be profitable to the ship owners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring dead soldiers back; it would be profitable to those who would seize upon the franchises, and it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would be fixed here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring man and to the vast majority of those engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditure without return and risk without reward. Farmers and laboring men have, as a rule, small incomes and under systems which place the tax upon consumption pay much more than their fair share of the expenses of government. Thus the very people who receive least benefit from imperialism will be injured most by the military burdens which accompany it. In addition to the evils which he and the farmer share in common, the laboring man will be the first to suffer if oriental subjects seek work in the ed States; the first to suffer if American capital leaves our shores to employ oriental labor in the Philippines to supply the trade of China and Japan; the first to suffer from the violence which the military spirit arouses and the first to suffer when the methods of imperialism are applied to our own government. It is not strange, therefore, that the labor organizations have been quick to note the approach of these dangers and prompt to protest against both militarism and imperialism. The pecuniary argument, the more effective with certain classes, is not likely to be used so often or presented with so much enthusiasm as the religious argument. If what has been termed the “gunpowder gospel” were urged against the Filipinos only it would be a sufficient answer to say that a majority of the Filipinos are now members of one branch of the Christian church; but the principle involved is one of much wider application and challenges serious consideration. The religious argument varies in positiveness from a passive belief that Providence delivered the Filipinos into our hands, for their good and our glory, to the exultation of the minister who said that we ought to “thrash the natives (Filipinos) until they understand who we are,” and that “every bullet sent, every cannon shot and every flag waved means righteousness.” We cannot approve of this doctrine in one place unless we are willing to apply it everywhere. If there is poison in the blood of the hand it will ultimately reach the heat. It is equally true that forcible Christianity, if planted under the American flag in the far-away Orient, will sooner or later be transplanted upon American soil. If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings of Christ, who will say that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite and proselyte with the sword? He who would declare the divine will must prove his authority either by Holy Writ or by evidence of a special dispensation. Imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible. The command, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” has no Gatling gun attachment. When Jesus visited a village of Samaria and the people refused to receive him, some of the disciples suggested that fire should be called down from Heaven to avenge the insult; but the Master rebuked them and said: “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” Suppose he had said: “We will thrash them until they understand who we are,” how different would have been the history of Christianity! Compare, if you will, the swaggering, bullying, brutal doctrine of imperialism with the golden rule and the commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Love not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not the exploitation of them, was His method of reaching the human heart. A missionary recently told me that the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because his assailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it. Let it be known that our missionaries are seeking souls instead of sovereignty; let be it known that instead of being the advance guard of conquering armies, they are going forth to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with the truth and their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, wearing the breastplate of righteousness and carrying the sword of the spirit; let it be known that they are citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens of other nations as carefully as it protects the rights of its own citizens, and the welcome given to our missionaries will be more cordial than the welcome extended to the missionaries of any other nation. The argument made by some that it was unfortunate for the nation that it had anything to do with the Philippine Islands, but that the naval victory at Manila made the permanent acquisition of those islands necessary, is also unsound. We won a naval victory at Santiago, but that did not compel us to hold Cuba. The shedding of American blood in the Philippine Islands does not make it imperative that we should retain possession forever; American blood was shed at San Juan and El Caney, and yet the President has promised the Cubans independence. The fact that the American flag floats over Manila does not compel us to exercise perpetual sovereignty over the islands; the American flag floats over Havana to-day, but the President has promised to haul it down when the flag of the Cuban Republic is y to rise in its place. Better a thousand times that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag representing the idea of self-government than that the flag of this Republic should become the flag of an empire. There is an easy, honest, honorable solution of the Philippine question. It is set forth in the Democratic platform and it is submitted with confidence to the American people. This plan I unreservedly indorse. If elected, I will convene Congress in extraordinary session as soon as inaugurated and recommend an immediate declaration of the nation’s purpose, first, to establish a stable form of government in the Philippine Islands, just as we are now establishing a stable form of government in Cuba; second, to give independence to the Filipinos as we have promised to give independence to the Cubans; third, to protect the Filipinos from outside interference while they work out their destiny, just as we have protected the republics of Central and South America, and are, by the Monroe doctrine, pledged to protect Cuba. A European protectorate often results in the plundering of the ward by the guardian. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantage of our strength, without making it he victim of our greed. For three-quarters of a century the Monroe doctrine has been a shield to neighboring republics and yet it has imposed no pecuniary burden upon us. After the Filipinos had aided us in the war against Spain, we could not leave them to be the victims of the ambitious designs of European nations, and since we do not desire to make them a part of us or to hold them as subjects, we propose the only alternative, namely, to give them independence and guard them against molestation from without. When our opponents are unable to defend their position by argument they fall back upon the assertion that is destiny, and insist that we must submit to it, no matter how much it violates our moral percepts and our principles of government. This is a complacent philosophy. It obliterates the distinction between right and wrong and makes individuals and nations the helpless victims of circumstance. Destiny is the subterfuge of the invertebrate, who, lacking the courage to oppose error, seeks some plausible excuse for supporting it. Washington said that the destiny of the republican form of government was deeply, if not finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the American people. How different Washington’s definition of destiny from the Republican definition! The Republicans say that this nation is in the hands of destiny; Washington believed that not only the destiny of our own nation but the destiny of the republican form of government throughout the world was intrusted to American hands. Immeasurable responsibility! The destiny of this Republic is in the hands of its own people, and upon the success of the experiment here rests the hope of humanity. No exterior force can disturb this Republic, and no foreign influence should be permitted to change its course. What the future has in store for this nation no one has authority to declare, but each individual has his own idea of the nation’s mission, and he owes it to his country as well as to himself to contribute as best he may to the fulfillment of that mission. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I can never fully discharge the debt of gratitude which I owe to my countrymen for the honors which they have so generously bestowed upon me; but, sirs, whether it be my lot to occupy the high office for which the convention has named me, or to spend the remainder of my days in private life, it shall be my constant ambition and my controlling purpose to aid in realizing the high ideals of those whose wisdom and courage and sacrifices brought the Republic into existence. I can conceive of a national destiny surpassing the glories of the present and the past -- a destiny which meets the responsibility of today and measures up to the possibilities of the future. Behold a republic, resting securely upon the foundation stones quarried by revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth -- a republic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evident propositions that all men are created equal; that they are endowed with inalienable rights; that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Behold a republic in which civil and religion liberty stimulate all to earnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for a neighbor's injury -- a republic in which every citizen is a sovereign, but in which no one cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic standing erect while empires all around are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments -- a republic whose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold a republic increasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in influence, solving the problems of civilization and hastening the coming of an universal brotherhood -- a republic which shakes thrones and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example and gives light and inspiration to those who sit in darkness. Behold a republic gradually but surely becoming the supreme moral factor in the world's progress and the accepted arbiter of the world's disputes -- a republic whose history, like the path of the just, "is as the shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." 200805/39822President Bush and President Uribe of the Republic of Colombia Participate in Joint Press AvailabilityPRESIDENT BUSH: Good morning, Mr. President. Welcome back to the White House. I appreciate your friendship and I admire your bold leadership. You have transformed your nation and you have made Colombia a powerful example of how democracy can work in our neighborhood, and I congratulate you.Colombia is one of our closest allies and we have worked together on many important issues and we will continue to do so. We worked to improve security and advance freedom. The ed States supports Colombia's efforts to modernize its security forces, to fight terrorists and drug kingpins, and to provide Colombians with alternatives to lives of terror and narco-trafficking.And your efforts are working. I think it's very important for the people of the ed States to hear these statistics: Since you took office, Mr. President, homicides have dropped by 40 percent, kidnappings have dropped by more than 80 percent, terrorist attacks have dropped by more than 70 percent. That is a very strong record. Because of your decisive actions the Marxist terrorist network known as the FARC has been put on the run. And our country admired greatly the rescue efforts made by your -- by your team, of 15 hostages, including three Americans. And thank you for meeting with them.In the last few years, thousands of members of FARC have deserted. They've realized the empty promise of the leaders of -- you know, won't be met. And you have offered these folks a better life and a better alternative.It's also -- it's in our interest to continue to support Colombia. What happens in Colombia can affect life here in the ed States. You've got a strong supporter here. And after I leave office, it's going to be very important for the next President and the next Congress to stand squarely by your side.We're working together to open up markets and increase prosperity. Next week, the President and I will be meeting with leaders throughout our hemisphere in New York to discuss the importance of free and fair trade. We're going to send a clear message -- that increasing trade is essential to the economic well-being of every nation in our region; that our neighborhood will prosper if we trade freely. You're our fourth largest trading partner. Trade between our two nations reached billion last year, and that's beneficial for the people of Colombia and it's beneficial for the people of the ed States.And I believe it's in our interest to continue to open new markets for both countries. Most of Colombia's products enter the ed States today duty-free. Most of ours face tariffs up to 35 percent or higher. In essence that's -- that makes our goods and services less competitive. We negotiated an agreement in November of 2006, nearly two years ago, which leveled the playing field; our negotiators worked hard to treat each other fairly. It's in our economic interest that we -- that we have free trade and fair trade. It's in our economic interest that we continue to open up markets in our neighborhood, particularly with a nation that is growing like yours.And yet, we can't get a vote out of Congress. I've been asking the Democrat leadership in Congress for a vote, and they've consistently blocked the vote. And members of Congress from both parties have got to understand the following facts. First of all, about half our growth last year, Mr. President, was because of exports. In other words, exports have affected our economy in a positive way. If that's the case, it seems like we ought to be encouraging exports, not discouraging them.Secondly, a lot of small businesses trade -- send goods and services to Colombia. It's important for the small business sector to be vital and strong. Thirdly, a lot of jobs depend upon exports. If we can create exports it makes it more likely somebody is going to have good work.And so this bill is in everybody's interest, and I urge the Congress to carefully consider not only the economic interest at stake, but the national security interest at stake of not approving this piece of legislation.Mr. President, you've been a good friend and it has been a real pleasure to have worked with you during these years. You have done what you said you were going to do. You've been an honest man, forthright and open. And you deserve the support of the ed States of America. You've had it during my administration; you will have it to end of my administration. And I ask that the Congress carefully consider the importance of this relationship as they think about different pieces of legislation to pass before the term ends.Bienvenidos.PRESIDENT URIBE: Muchas gracias. Inmensamente agradecido.Mr. President, I have no words to express my gratitude to you, to your team, for your permanent interest in our country, for your friendship for my country.We have made significant progress. And one very essential portion of this progress has been your help, the help of the ed States. We are working to have Colombia with more confidence -- confidence to invest in Colombia, to live in Colombia, to study in Colombia, to find jobs in Colombia. And we support confidence upon three pillars: security with democracy -- it means security with democratic values, with pluralism, with freedoms, with dissent. The second pillar is investment -- investment with social responsibility, security and investment, create a framework for prosperity. And in a part of prosperity, it is possible to create social cohesion, and social cohesion is the validator for security and for investment.Therefore, you see that our policy is based upon the universal democratic values we share with the ed States. Your support has been very important for Colombia to face the threat of terrorists and for Colombia to maintain and to grow deeper and deeper with respect to universal democratic values.The free trade agreement is one of the main aspects of our bilateral relationships. You have understood the importance of this agreement for both countries. It could be that our economy is a very small economy to be considering trade agreements. But for us, it is very important. And it is very important not only from the political standpoint but also from the economic standpoint.200809/49736

To a few of us here today, this is a solemn and most momentous occasion; and yet, in the history of our Nation, it is a commonplace occurrence.今天对于我们中间的一些人来说,是一个非常庄严隆重的时刻,对于这个国家的历史却是一件普通的事情。The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place as it has for almost two centuries and few of us stop to think how unique we really are.按照宪法要求,政府权利正在有序地移交,我们已经如此“例行公事”了两个世纪,很少有人觉得这有什么特别。In the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.但在世界上更多人看来,我们这个已经习以为常的四年一次的仪式却是一个奇迹。Mr. President, I want our fellow citizens to know how much you did to carry on this tradition.总统先生,我希望我们的同胞们都能知道你为了这个传承而付出的努力。By your gracious cooperation in the transition process, you have shown a watching world that we are a united people pledged to maintaining a political system which guarantees individual liberty to a greater degree than any other,通过移交程序中的通力合作,展示了这样一个事实:我们是一个团结一致的民族,这个民族决心捍卫一种比任何其他体制更能充分保个人民主自由的政治制度,and I thank you and your people for all your help in maintaining the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.我要感谢你和你的伙伴们的帮助,因为你们坚持了这样的传承,这种传承的连续性恰是我们共和国的柱。The business of our nation goes forward.我们国家的事业在继续前进。These ed States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions.合众国正面临巨大的经济困难。We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history.我们遭遇到我国历史上历时最长、最严重之一的通货膨胀,It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed income elderly alike.它扰乱着我们的经济决策,使储蓄的人反而受到惩罚,压迫着正在挣扎谋生的青年人和收入固定的中年人,It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people.威胁着要摧毁我国千百万人民的生计。Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, causing human misery and personal indignity.停滞的工业使工人失业、蒙受痛苦并失去了个人尊严。Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity.即使那些有工作的人,也因沉重的税负而得不到公正的劳动报酬,因为这种税收制度使我们无法在事业上取得成就,使我们无法保持充分的生产力。But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending.尽管我们的纳税负担相当沉重,但还是跟不上公共开的增长。For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our childrens future for the temporary convenience of the present.数十年来,我们的赤字额屡屡上升,我们为图目前暂时的方便,已把自己和子孙的前途都抵押出去。To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.这一趋势如果长此以往,必然引起社会、文化、政治和经济等方面的大动荡。You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time.作为个人,你们和我可以靠借贷过一种入不敷出的生活,然而只能维持一段有限的时期,Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?我们怎么可以认为,作为一个国家整体,我们就不应受到同样的约束呢?We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow.为了明天,我们今天就必须行动起来。And let there be no misunderstanding. we are going to begin to act, beginning today.大家都要明白无误地懂得 我们从今天起就要采取行动。03/63976

Following a long-scheduled bilateral meeting with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, President Obama spoke again on the tragedy that unfolded over the weekend in Arizona. Read the Transcript | Download Video: mp4 (135MB) | mp3 (13MB) 201101/123267

  

  On Friday, I traveled to Ft. Stewart in Georgia to meet with soldiers from the Third Infantry Division.These men and women have fought with bravery and honor in some of the most dangerous places on the planet. Some of them didnrsquo;t make it back. But those who did are now fighting a different kind of battle here at home. Theyrsquo;re looking for new jobs, new opportunities, and new ways to serve.For many, that means going back to school ndash; and America has a long tradition of making sure our veterans and our men and women in uniform can afford to do that. After World War II, we helped a generation of Americans ndash; including my grandfather ndash; go to school on the GI Bill. Now, thanks to the 9/11 GI Bill and the Tuition Assistance program, last year we supported more than half a million veterans and over 300,000 service members who are pursuing a higher education.Thatrsquo;s progress. But itrsquo;s not enough to just help our veterans and service members afford school ndash; we need to make sure they have all the tools they need to make an informed decision when it comes to picking the right program.The sad truth is that there are people out there who are less interested in helping our men and women in uniform get ahead and more interested in making a buck. They bombard potential students with emails and pressure them into making a quick decision. Some of them steer recruits towards high-interest loans and mislead them about credit transfers and job placement programs. One of the worst examples was a college recruiter who visited a Marine barracks and enrolled Marines with brain injuries so severe that some of them couldnrsquo;t recall what courses the recruiter had signed them up for.Thatrsquo;s appalling. Itrsquo;s disgraceful. And even though the vast majority of schools do the right thing, we need to guard against the bad actors who donrsquo;t.Thatrsquo;s why, on Friday, I signed an Executive Order making life a whole lot more secure for our service members, veterans and their families ndash; and a whole lot tougher for anyone who tries to prey on them.Wersquo;re making sure veterans and service members get a simple fact sheet called ;Know Before You Owe; that lays out all the information they need about financial aid and paying for college. Wersquo;re requiring schools to offer counseling to help students finish their degree even if they have to move or deploy. And wersquo;re stepping up our efforts to fight dishonest recruiters by strengthening rules about who can come on base and making it easier to file complaints.When our men and women in uniform succeed, our country succeeds. They have our back ndash; now itrsquo;s our turn to have theirs. And as long as Irsquo;m President, Irsquo;m going to make sure that anyone who serves this country gets every opportunity they deserve.201205/180318。

  President Bush Attends Council of the Americas  THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Bill, thank you for the kind introduction. Thanks for giving me a chance to come by and see that the Secretary of State's dining room is a lot better than the President's dining room. (Laughter.) I'm honored to be here. I'm pleased to be with the Council of Americas again. I appreciate what you do to promote personal and economic freedom throughout the region, throughout the Americas. I appreciate your strong concern about the need for liberty to be sp -- liberty in forms of government and liberty in forms of economies.   I am honored to be here with the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, better known in the neighborhood as Sentilde;orita Arroz. (Laughter.) I'm pleased to be with Carlos Gutierrez, the Secretary of Commerce; Susan Schwab, the U.S. Trade Representative. Thrilled to be here with Susan Segal, the President and CEO of the Council of Americas; a dear family friend, former member of the Cabinet in 41, Robert Mosbacher; Mack McLarty, as well -- people who care a lot about the region. Thank you for joining us here. I'm also pleased to be here with ministers, representatives, ambassadors from the governments of Canada, Colombia, Mexico and Peru -- honored you all are here.   The foundation of good foreign policy is good relations with your neighbors. A peaceful and secure neighborhood is in the interest of the ed States of America. And so I want to talk to you about the hemisphere we share, the challenges we face, and the aggressive work that the ed States is doing to help make the Americas a place of hope and liberty.   In recent decades, there have been positive developments in Latin America. Countries have moved away from an era of dictatorships, era of civil strife. Unfortunately, today some countries in the region are seeing a resurgence of radicalism and instability. And one nation in the region remains mired in the tyranny of a bygone era -- and that is Cuba.   Yesterday I had a fascinating opportunity to speak with a leading Cuban dissident, a former political prisoner, and a wife of a man who is held in a Cuban prison simply because he expressed his belief that all people should live in a free society. Video-conferencing is one of the great wonders of the 21st century, and to be able to sit in the White House and talk to these three brave souls in Havana was a inspiring moment for me. It reminded me about how much work the ed States has to do to help the people in Cuba realize the blessings of liberty. It also reminded me of a couple of things: One, that there's an eternal truth when it comes to freedom, that there is an Almighty, and a gift of that Almighty to every man, woman and child, whether they be American, Cubano, or anywhere else, is freedom; and that it's going to take the courage and determination of individuals such as the three I met with to help inspire the island to embrace freedom.   The Cuban government recently announced a change at the top. Some in the world marveled that perhaps change is on its way. That's not how I view it. Until there's a change of heart and a change of compassion, and a change of how the Cuban government treats its people, there's no change at all. The regime has made empty gestures at reform, but Cuba is still ruled by the same group that has oppressed the Cuban people for almost half a century. Cuba will not be a land of liberty so long as free expression is punished and free speech can take place only in hushed whispers and silent prayers. And Cuba will not become a place of prosperity just by easing restrictions on the sale of products that the average Cuban cannot afford.   If Cuba wants to join the community of civilized nations, then Cuba's rulers must begin a process of peaceful democratic change. And the first step must be to release all political prisoners. They must respect the human rights in word and in deed. And they must allow what the Cuban people have desired for generations -- to pick their own leaders in free and fair elections. This is the policy of the ed States, and it must not change until the people of Cuba are free. (Applause.)   We face other challenges in the hemisphere, as well. I'm deeply concerned about the challenge of illicit drug trade. First, I fully understand that when there is demand, there will be supply. And the ed States of America is implementing a strategy to reduce -- a comprehensive strategy to convince our people to stop using illegal drugs. I talk to my counterparts all the time in the region and I talk about how we can work together -- and I'll explain some strategies here in a minute -- but I also remind them that so long as the ed States uses illegal drugs, the drug dealers will find a way to get their products here.   We made some progress on reducing demand. Since 2001, the rate of drug use among the young has dropped by 24 percent. Young people's use of marijuana is down by 25 percent. The use of ecstasy has dropped by more than 50 percent. Methamphetamine use is down by 64 percent. Overall it's estimated that 860,000 fewer young people in America are using drugs today than when we began. But obviously we still have a lot of work to do. And so my commitment to our friends in the neighborhood is, the ed States will continue to implement its comprehensive strategy to do our part to reduce demand for illegal drugs.   Secondly, we're working to intercept illegal drugs before they reach our citizens. Every day the men and women of the DEA, the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol and other law enforcement organizations are working tirelessly to intercept drugs, to stop money laundering, and to bust the gangs that are sping this poison throughout our society. We've had some success. We've seized record amounts of cocaine coming into the ed States. Last year these efforts resulted in a significant disruption of the availability of cocaine in 38 major cities. We still have more work to do.   And a final leg of our strategy is this: We will work with our partners, Mexico and the countries of Central America, to take on the international drug trade. I am deeply concerned about how lethal and how brutal these drug lords are. I have watched with admiration how President Calderón has taken a firm hand in making sure his society is free of these drug lords. And the tougher Mexico gets, the more likely it is that these drug families and these kingpins will try to find safe haven in Central America.   And that is why I committed my administration to the Merida Initiative. It's a partnership, a cooperative partnership with Mexico and Central America that will help them deal with the scourge of these unbelievably wealthy and unbelievably violent drug kingpins. And I want to work with Congress to make sure that, one, they fully pass our request in the upcoming supplemental debate, and also remind members of Congress that the strategy that we have put forth is a strategy designed with the leadership of the Central American countries, as well as with Mexico. It's a strategy designed to be effective. And so when Congress passes our supplemental request, they also got to make sure that they implement the strategy we proposed in full.   Another challenge is promoting social justice in the region. Nearly one out of four people in Latin America lives on a day. Children never finish grade school. Mothers have trouble finding a doctor. In the age of growing prosperity and abundance, this is a problem that the ed States must take seriously. As the most prosperous country in the world, the ed States is reaching out to help our partners improve the lives of their citizens.   Social justice requires access to decent health care. And so we're helping meet health care needs in some of the most remote parts of Latin America, primarily by using the ed States military's medical personnel to treat local citizens.   I'll never forget going to Guatemala and seeing the clinics run by our troops. America is a compassionate country. We're plenty strong when we need to be. But our military has provided unbelievably good care for a lot of people who have never seen health care before. The missions last year provided treatment for 340,000 individuals in 15 countries. And this year, a new series of humanitarian assistant missions will treat an additional 320,000. And it's so important when people think of America and think of the neighborhood that they understand social justice is at the forefront of our agenda.   Social justice requires access to decent education, as well. And since 2004, the taxpayers of the ed States have provided more than 0 million for education programs throughout the region, with a special emphasis, a special focus on rural and marginalized populations.   Last year as well, the Secretary and I announced a new partnership for Latin America youth, to help train thousands of young people in the Americas with their English, and to provide opportunity to study here in the ed States. And the reason why is simple: We want people in our neighborhood to have the skills necessary to take advantage of the opportunities of the 21st century. It's in the interest of the ed States that we promote good health policies and good education policies.   Social justice also requires institutions that are fair, effective and free of corruption. It's hard to have a hopeful society when leadership steals the taxpayers' money. It's hard to have a hopeful place when the people aren't comfortable with the nature of government. And so we'll continue our bilateral aid, and I'm proud of the amounts of money we're spending in the region. But we've also changed the way that we're providing aid by insisting upon rules of governance, rule of law, the education -- the investment in education and health of its people, and governments to embrace marketplace economies.   And we do this what's called -- through what's called the Millennium Challenge Account. It is a new way to say that, yes, we're going to provide taxpayers' money, but we expect something in return from the governments that we help. I don't think it's too much to ask a government that receives U.S. aid to fight corruption. Matter of fact, I think it's a request that's long overdue. I don't think it's too much to ask a government that we help to invest in the health and education of their children. Nor do I think it's too much to ask for a government to accept marketplace economics.   The Millennium Challenge Account has invested 0 million in our region thus far to assist the countries of El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru. Let me talk about just some of the initiatives to give you a sense for the types of programs we're talking about.   In Honduras, the ed States is providing assistance to nearly 1,300 farmers so they can develop their farmland and provide for their families. In Nicaragua, we've helped small farmers and entrepreneurs increase their productivity in rural communities. In Paraguay, we're working to -- with local leaders to reduce the cost of starting new businesses.   See, the whole purpose is to encourage enterprise, infrastructure that will help people get goods to markets; to provide the capacity -- increase the capacity of these countries to be able to provide hope for their people. This is a really good program, and the Congress needs to fully fund it as they debate the appropriations bills this year.   The Millennium Challenge Account is one way to promote prosperity, but perhaps the most -- not "perhaps" -- the most effective way is through trade. Trade brings increased economic opportunities to both the people of Latin America and the people of the ed States.   Congress recognized this opportunities, and Congress took a look at whether or not we ought to have free trade agreements in our neighborhood, and they started doing so with Peru. And the bill, thankfully -- the trade bill with Peru passed by a large bipartisan majority. It's a good agreement. It's good for Peru. It also happens to be good for the ed States. And now my call on Congress is to take that same spirit by which they passed the Peruvian free trade agreement and do the same thing for Colombia and Panama.   About 17 months ago, the ed States signed a free trade agreement with Colombia. Ever since, my administration has worked closely with Congress to seek a bipartisan path for considering this agreement. I understand trade votes are hard. And that's why we continually reached out with -- to Congress. We've had more than 400 consultations, meetings and calls. We've led trips to Colombia for more than 50 members of Congress. We worked closely with congressional leaders from both parties. We responded to concerns over labor and environmental standards by including some of the most rigorous protections of any trade agreement in the history of the ed States. We have bent over backwards to work with members from both parties on the Hill.   And despite this, Congress has refused to act. One month ago I sent the bill -- I sent the bill to implement the agreement to the Congress. Yet the Speaker chose to block it instead of giving it an up or down vote that the Congress had committed to. Her action is unprecedented. It is extremely unfortunate. I hope the Speaker is going to change her mind. I hope you help her to change her mind. If she doesn't, the agreement is dead, and this will be bad for our workers, our businesses, and it will be bad for America's national security.   Approving the agreement would strengthen our economy. Today almost all of Colombia's exports enter the ed States duty-free. Yet American products exported to Colombia face tariffs of up to 35 percent for non-agricultural goods, and much higher for many agricultural products. Think about that. They export into the ed States duty-free, and we don't have the same advantage. I would call that a one-sided economic agreement.   Failure to pass the free trade agreement, therefore, is making it much harder to sell our products into Colombia. To try to put this in perspective for you, this weekend we reached an unfortunate milestone when the tariffs imposed on U.S exports to Colombia reached an estimated billion since the free trade agreement was signed. There's a -- that's one billion good reasons why the ed States Congress ought to pass this bill. Passing the agreement we could create the -- (applause).   Members of Congress need to think about this. Once implemented, the Colombia free trade agreement would immediately eliminate tariffs on more than 80 percent of American exports of industrial and consumer goods. Many American exports of agriculture and construction equipment, aircraft and auto parts, and medical and scientific equipment would immediately enter Colombia duty-free. So would farm exports like high-quality beef, and cotton, and wheat, and soybeans, and fruit. And eventually, the agreement would eliminate all tariffs on U.S. goods and services.   Opening markets is especially important during this time of economic uncertainty. Last year, exports accounted for more than 40 percent of America's total economic growth. Forty percent of the growth was as a result of goods and services being sold from the ed States into foreign markets. With our economy slowing, it seems like to me that we should be doing everything possible to open up new markets for U.S. goods and services. More than 9,000 American companies, including 8,000 small and mid-sized firms, export to Colombia. And approving this agreement, opening up markets for their goods and services, would help them increase sales, would help them grow their businesses, and would help them pay good-paying jobs.   If you're interested in work in America, if you're interested in economic vitality, you ought to be doing everything you can to make it easier for U.S. companies to be selling overseas.   And finally, approving this agreement is a urgent national security priority. Colombia is one of our strongest allies in the Western Hemisphere. I admire President Uribe a lot. He is courageous. He shares our values. He is a strong, capable partner in fighting drugs and crime and terror. The Colombia government reports, since 2002 kidnappings in Colombia have dropped 83 percent, terrorist attacks are down 76 percent, murders have dropped by 40 percent. He's got a strong record of doing what he said he was going to do.   And despite the progress, Colombia remains under intense pressure in the region. It faces a continuing assault from the terrorist group known as FARC, which seizes hostages and murder innocent civilians. Colombia faces a hostile and anti-American neighbor in Venezuela, where the regime has forged an alliance with Cuba, collaborated with FARC terrorists, and provided sanctuary to FARC units.   President Uribe has stood strong. He has done so with the assurance of American support. Congress's failure to pass the Colombia free trade agreement has called this support into question. President Uribe told members of Congress that approving this agreement is one of the most important ways that America can show our unwavering commitment to Colombia. Congressional leaders need to send a message that we support this brave and courageous leader, and that we will not turn our back on one of our most steadfast allies. (Applause.)   Yesterday I met with the President of Panama. I assured him our efforts to get the Panamanian trade bill passed will be just as vociferous and vigorous as our efforts to get the Colombia trade bill passed. Congress must understand they have a chance to sp prosperity in our neighborhood; they have a chance to support friends in our neighborhood. And there's no better way to express that friendship than to support the Colombia free trade agreement, the Panamanian free trade agreement, and while they're at it, to send a clear message around the world that the South Korean free trade agreement is good for the U.S. economy as well.   The ties between the people of the ed States and the people of Latin America are important to our country. They're important to our prosperity, and they're important to the national security interest of the country. We share a deep bond, a bond between friends and a bond between neighbors. And because of this bond, the ed States will, and must, remain committed to making sure that Latin America is a place of opportunity, a place of hope, a place of social justice, a place where basic necessities, like health care and education, are not too much for any child to dream about. Or a place where poverty gives way to prosperity, and a place, above all, where freedom is the birthright of every citizen.   I want to thank you for taking on the cause. I thank you for your vision; I thank you for your steadfast support of doing what's right in our neighborhood. And it's been my honor to come and share some thoughts with you. God bless. (Applause.) 200806/41534

  21世纪爱立信杯全国英语演讲比赛 第六名 美国经典英文演讲100篇总统演讲布莱尔首相演讲美国总统布什演讲快报 200809/47614President's Radio AddressTHE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Throughout the past week, Americans anxiously watched weather conditions in the Gulf Coast region. The people of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas were well prepared for Hurricane Gustav -- and the coordination between these States and the Federal government was strong.Now, we're focusing on the relief effort. Gustav caused damage to infrastructure, forced tens of thousands into shelters, and left more than a million people without power. The Federal government is working with State and local officials to repair this damage, to help residents get back home, and to return life in the region to normal as soon as possible. While these relief efforts have been in progress, we've also been preparing for the arrival of storms like Hanna, Ike, and others that may follow. My Administration will continue to provide assistance to those affected by violent weather throughout this hurricane season. And we will continue to work diligently to coordinate our emergency response efforts with State and local governments.While the Federal government continues this vital work, there are also important responsibilities awaiting members of Congress as they return to Washington. In just a few weeks, members will be back out on the campaign trail, emphasizing the differences between the two parties. But before they leave Washington, they should show that they can work together on bipartisan measures to help strengthen America's economy: measures like approving the Colombia and Korean free trade agreements, extending relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, and addressing one of the American people's biggest concerns -- the high price of gasoline.The fundamental reason for high gasoline prices is that the supply of oil is not keeping pace with demand. By increasing supply through the use of our domestic resources, we can begin reducing the pressure on prices. So in June, I called on Congress to open up more of America's domestic oil resources for exploration -- including offshore exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf. The American people overwhelmingly support this proposal. But throughout the summer, the leaders of the Democratic Congress refused to allow it to come to a vote.At the very least, Congress should take action on three common-sense energy solutions that enjoy bipartisan support.First, Congress should open the way for environmentally responsible offshore exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf. Experts believe that these areas could eventually produce nearly 10 years' worth of America's current annual oil production. This exploration is now banned by a provision included in the annual interior appropriations bill. Congress should remove this restriction immediately.Second, Congress should expand access to oil shale -- a domestic resource that could produce the equivalent of more than a century's worth of imports at current levels. Last year, however, Democratic leaders slipped a provision blocking oil shale leasing on Federal lands into an omnibus spending bill. They should lift that ban immediately.Third, Congress should extend renewable power tax credits to spur the development of alternative sources of energy like wind and solar. They should make these credits long term and expand them to cover all forms of low-emission power generation -- including nuclear power. In the long run, increasing production of low-carbon electricity can help us reduce our addiction to oil by allowing us to power a new generation of plug-in hybrid and hydrogen-powered vehicles.This Congress has earned a reputation as one of the least productive in history. Throughout this year, Democratic leaders have ignored the public's demand for relief from high energy prices. This is their final chance to take action before the November elections. If members of Congress do not support the American people at the gas pump, then they should not expect the American people to support them at the ballot box.Thank you for listening.200809/47724This week, I traveled to Afghanistan--to thank our troops serving far from home, and to sign an historic agreement that will help us complete our mission and end the war.As Commander-in-Chief, nothing is more humbling or inspiring than the chance to spend some time with our troops. At Bagram Air Base, I visited with some of our outstanding men and women in uniform. I thanked them for their extraordinary service. And I let them know that America honors their sacrifice.Because of their bravery and dedication, the tide of war has turned in Afghanistan. We have broken the Taliban’s momentum. We’ve built strong Afghan Security Forces. We have devastated al Qaeda’s leadership. And one year ago, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. The goal that I set – to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild – is within reach.Because of the progress we have made, I was able to sign an historic agreement between the ed States and Afghanistan that defines a new kind of relationship between our countries – a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states; a future in which the war ends, and a new chapter begins.The enormous sacrifices of our men and women in uniform are not over. But many of our troops are aly coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. As our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014, the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their countryAnd this is as it should be. Because after more than a decade of war, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.As a new greatest generation returns from overseas, we must ask ourselves, what kind of country will they come back to? Will it be a country where a shrinking number of Americans do really well while a growing number barely get by? Or will it be a country where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules – a country with opportunity worthy of the troops who protect us?America has answered this question before. My grandfather, a veteran of Patton’s Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth. They contributed to a story of success that every American had the chance to share in, the basic American promise that if you work hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.Keeping that promise alive is the defining issue of our time. But it means making responsible choices.I don’t think we should prioritize things like more tax cuts for millionaires while cutting the kinds of investments that built a strong middle class.That’s why I’ve called on Congress to take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the other half to rebuild America.Because we’ve got more jobs to create. More students to educate. More clean energy to generate. More entrepreneurs with the next great idea, just looking for their shot at success. We’ve got to invest in things like education and medical research. We’ve got to build newer, faster transportation and communication networks. And we’ve got to secure the care and benefits our veterans have earned, so that we serve them as well as they have served us.Every time I have the privilege of meeting with our troops, I’m struck by their courage, their commitment, their selflessness, and their teamwork. They have something to teach us. Recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression is a work in progress--but if we follow their example, then I have no doubt we will preserve the promise of this country, protect the freedoms we cherish, and leave for our children an America that’s built to last.God bless you, and have a great weekend.201205/181180

  亲,你们想拥有一口流利的英语口语吗?你们想像世界名人一样拥有敏锐的智慧、滔滔不绝的口才吗?在这里,大家不但可以聆听抑扬顿挫的英文,而且还可以学习到名人的过人之处,相信会受益匪浅的!听,他们来了......164601As the President beats back lobbyists seeking to weaken Wall Street Reform, he talks about an even broader threat that would vastly expand the influence of massive industries and their lobbyists in Washington. A recent Supreme Court decision opened the floodgates for corporations, including foreign corporations, to spend endless money on political ads that would give them even more power at the expense of American families – the President pledges to fight for reforms to stem that influence.Download Video: mp4 (141MB) | mp3 (5MB) 201005/102844

  Hello, everyone. I’m speaking to you today from a Chrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio, where I just met with workers, including Jill. Jill was born and raised here. Her mother and step-father retired from this plant. And she met her husband here, and now they have two children of their own. This plant has not only been central to the economy of this town. It’s been a part of the lifeblood of this community. The reason I came to Toledo was to congratulate Jill and her co-workers on the turnaround they helped bring about at Chrysler and throughout the auto industry. Today, each of the Big Three automakers – Chrysler, GM, and Ford – is turning a profit for the first time since 2004. Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency – and it repaid that money six years ahead of schedule. And this week, we reached a deal to sell our remaining stake. That means soon, Chrysler will be 100% in private hands. Most importantly, all three American automakers are now adding shifts and creating jobs at the strongest rate since the 1990s. Chrysler has added a second shift at the Jefferson North plant in Detroit that I visited last year. GM is adding a third shift at its Hamtramck plant for the first time ever. And GM plans to hire back all of the workers they had to lay off during the recession. That’s remarkable when you think about where we were just a couple of years ago. When I took office, we were facing the worst recession since the Great Depression – a recession that hit our auto industry particularly hard. In the year before I was President, this industry lost more than 400,000 jobs, and two great American companies, Chrysler and GM, stood on the brink of collapse. Now, we had a few options. We could have done what a lot of folks in Washington thought we should do – nothing. But that would have made a bad recession worse and put a million people out of work. I refused to let that happen. So, I said, if GM and Chrysler were willing to take the difficult steps of restructuring and making themselves more competitive, the American people would stand by them – and we did. But we decided to do more than rescue this industry from a crisis. We decided to help it retool for a new age, and that’s what we’re doing all across the country – we’re making sure America can out-build, out-innovate, and out-compete the rest of the world. That’s how we’ll build an economy where you can see your incomes and savings rise again, send your kids to college, and retire with dignity, security, and respect. That’s how we’ll make sure we keep that fundamental American promise – that if you work hard and act responsibly, you’ll be able to pass on a better life to your kids and grandkids. Now, we’ve got a ways to go. Even though our economy has created more than two million private sector jobs over the past 15 months and continues to grow, we’re facing some tough headwinds. Lately, it’s high gas prices, the earthquake in Japan, and unease about the European fiscal situation. That will happen from time to time. There will be bumps on the road to recovery. We know that. But we also know what’s happened here, at this Chrysler plant. We know that hardworking Americans like Jill helped turn this company and this industry around. That’s the American story. We’re a people who don’t give up – who do big things, who shape our own destiny. And I’m absolutely confident that if we hold on to that spirit, our best days are still ahead of us. Thanks for tuning in, and have a great weekend.201106/139441

  Remarks of President Barack ObamaWeekly AddressThe White HouseSeptember 19, Weekly Address: Progress in the Global Economy from White House on Vimeo.演讲文本:Leaders of the world’s largest economies will gather next week in Pittsburgh for the second time this year. The first meeting of the G-20 nations in April came at the height of the global financial crisis – a crisis that required unprecedented international cooperation to jumpstart the world’s economies and help break the downward spiral that enveloped all our nations.At next week’s summit, we’ll have, in effect, a five-month checkup to review the steps each nation has taken – separately and together – to break the back of this economic crisis. And the good news is that we’ve made real progress since last time we met – here at home and around the world.In February, we enacted a Recovery Act, providing relief to Americans who need it, preventing layoffs, and putting Americans back to work. We’ve worked to unlock frozen credit markets, spurring lending to Americans looking to buy homes or cars, take out student loans, or finance small businesses. And we’ve challenged other nations to join us not only to spur global demand, but to address the underlying problems that caused such a deep global recession in the first place.Because of the steps taken by our nation and all nations, we can now say that we have stopped our economic freefall. But we also know that stopping the bleeding isn’t nearly enough. Our work is far from over. We know we still have a lot to do here at home to build an economy that is producing good jobs for all those who are looking for work today. And we know we still have a lot to do, in conjunction with nations around the world, to strengthen the rules governing financial markets and ensure that we never again find ourselves in the precarious situation we found ourselves in just one year ago.As I told leaders of our financial community in New York City earlier this week, a return to normalcy can’t breed complacency. To protect our economy and people from another market meltdown, our government needs to fundamentally reform the rules governing financial firms and markets to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We cannot allow the thirst for reckless schemes that produce quick profits and fat executive bonuses to override the security of our entire financial system and leave taxpayers on the hook for cleaning up the mess. And as the world’s largest economy, we must lead, not just by word, but by example, understanding that in the 21st century, financial crises know no borders. All of us need to act more responsibly on behalf of a better economic future.That is why, at next week’s G20 summit, we’ll discuss some of the steps that are required to safeguard our global financial system and close gaps in regulation around the world – gaps that permitted the kinds of reckless risk-taking and irresponsibility that led to the crisis. And that’s why I’ve called on Congress to put in place a series of tough, common-sense rules of the road that will protect consumers from abuse, let markets function fairly and freely, and help prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.Central to these reforms is a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Part of what led to this crisis were not just decisions made on Wall Street, but also unsustainable mortgage loans made across the country. While many folks took on more than they knew they could afford, too often folks signed contracts they didn’t fully understand offered by lenders who didn’t always tell the truth. That’s why we need clear rules, clearly enforced. And that’s what this agency will do.Consumers shouldn’t have to worry about loan contracts written to confuse, hidden fees attached to their mortgages, and financial penalties – whether through a credit card or debit card – that appear without a clear warning on their statements. And responsible lenders, including community banks, trying to do the right thing shouldn’t have to worry about ruinous competition from unregulated and unscrupulous competitors.Not surprisingly, lobbyists for big Wall Street banks are hard at work trying to stop reforms that would hold them accountable and they want to keep things just the way they are. But we cannot let politics as usual triumph so business as usual can reign. We cannot let the narrow interests of a few come before the interests of all of us. We cannot forget how close we came to the brink, and perpetuate the broken system and breakdown of responsibility that made it possible.In the weeks and months ahead, we have an opportunity to build on the work we’ve aly done. An opportunity to rebuild our global economy stronger that before. An opportunity not only to protect the American people and America’s economy, but to promote sustained and balanced growth and prosperity for our nation and all nations. And that’s an opportunity I am determined to seize.So, thanks for listening and thanks for watching, and to our Jewish friends, who are celebrating Rosh Hashanah, have a happy and healthy New Year. Shanah Tovah. 09/84563。

  REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENTHONORING THE 2008 WNBA CHAMPIONS THE DETROIT SHOCKmp4 视频下载 THE PRESIDENT: Hey, guys. Hello, hello, hello. (Applause.) Please, everybody, be seated. Be seated. Well, welcome to the White House, everybody. And we are so pleased to have the Detroit Shock here. We want to congratulate them and all your fans for your third WNBA Championship in six years. Give them a big round of applause. (Applause.) We've got some special fans from Capitol Hill here who take great pride in Detroit -- Senator Carl Levin is in the house. (Applause.) Representative Sandy Levin is in the house. (Applause.) And Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick is in the house. (Applause.)I want to thank Donna Orender, the president of the WNBA, who's here today. Donna is right back -- there she is, right there. (Applause.) Congratulations on the success of this league and the inspiration it provides to young women everywhere.I also want to thank the owner of the Detroit Shock and the Detroit Pistons, Karen Davidson, for coming. Your husband -- go ahead, give her a round of applause. (Applause.) Your husband Bill had a great impact not just in the NBA and the WNBA, but also on countless individuals who benefit from his giving spirit.Now, I have to say, everybody knows I'm a Chicago Bulls fan. (Laughter.) And a few years ago, when the Bulls and the Pistons were thick in the middle of their rivalry, I never imagined that I'd be saying: Congratulations, Bill Laimbeer. (Laughter.) Or, congratulations, Rick Mahorn. (Laughter.) If I knew I was President then, to think that I'd be inviting them to the White House is hard to take. (Laughter.) But let's face it, these guys are winners. They always have been. They know how to win. And I want to congratulate the Finals MVP Katie Smith -- (applause) -- team captain Cheryl Ford -- (applause) -- and all the other women that make this such an outstanding team.I also want to salute this organization and this team for donating so much time and energy to lifting up the Detroit community. They've given free tickets to underprivileged youth, mentored abused women and children, donated backpacks filled with school supplies to foster kids, restored a rundown library into a safe, clean place for kids to play and to grow. And I want to thank them for participating in our ed We Serve summer of service. Earlier today, these players took time to host a WNBA Fit Clinic for young boys and girls at a local Boys and Girls Club, to teach fitness and nutrition and self-confidence -- and I understand they brought some of the young participants along with them to the White House. I suspect it must be these young people here today. (Applause.) Let me also say something as a father -- I was mentioning it to the team before we came out. It's hard to believe the WNBA has aly been around for 12 years. And that means that my daughters have never known a time when women couldn't play professional sports.They look at the TV and they see me watching SportsCenter and they see young women who look like them on the screen. And that lets them and all our young women, as well as young men know that we should take for granted that women are going to thrive and excel as athletes. And it makes my daughters look at themselves differently; to see that they can be champions, too. So, as a father, I want to say thank you. (Applause.) And thank you to all the WNBA athletes who work hard each day to set a positive example to which all our daughters can aspire.Congratulations again on your championship season. Good luck this year. And, Coach, congratulations. (Applause.)All right, thank you. 07/79278

  j*k1qWSBOMv0A|m65#EwUw2*^m4a.XBVg_[Falwell: Somewhat]MwtO;vO7,WSomewhat, he [email protected]]SqThis is, of course, a nonpolitical speech which is probably best under the circumstances. Since I am not a candidate for President, it would certainly be inappropriate to ask for your support in this election and probably inaccurate to thank you for it in the last one.uaS6;]XD](1-I have come here to discuss my beliefs about faith and country, tolerance and truth in America. I know we begin with certain disagreements; I strongly suspect that at the end of the evening some of our disagreements will remain. But I also hope that tonight and in the months and years ahead, we will always respect the right of others to differ,that we will never lose sight of our own fallibility, that we will view ourselves with a sense of perspective and a sense of humor. After all, in the New Testament, even the Disciples had to be taught to look first to the beam in their own eyes, and only then to the mote in their neighbors eyes.I am mindful of that counsel. I am an American and a Catholic; I love my country and treasure my faith. But I do not assume that my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society. I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly on it?.j~C.NkmQY4Kdh*lV;-Syw[o!LMxe5_],#WH5jxm3[|siHd.Wb~~4mhM201111/162834

  REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AFTER REGULATORY REFORM MEETING Diplomatic Reception RoomFebruary 25, 3:56 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. This afternoon, I met with members of my economic team and some key leaders in Congress to discuss the threats to our financial markets in this new century and how we must transform our regulatory system to meet them. In recent months, we've seen turmoil on Wall Street like we haven't seen in decades, as major financial institutions have faltered or have been sold off. And we have seen the fallout on Main Street, as the market crisis became a credit crisis, and families struggle to get loans to buy a home or a car, to start a small business or to pay for college. This financial crisis was not inevitable. It happened when Wall Street wrongly presumed markets would continuously rise, and traded in complex financial products without fully evaluating their risks. Here in Washington, our regulations lagged behind changes in our markets -- and too often, regulators failed to use the authority that they had to protect consumers, markets and the economy. We now know from painful experience that we can no longer sustain 21 -- 21st century markets with 20th century regulations, and that while free markets are the key to our progress, they do not give us free license to take whatever we can get, however we can get it. But let me be clear: The choice we face is not between some oppressive government-run economy or a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. Rather, strong financial markets require clear rules of the road, not to hinder financial institutions, but to protect consumers and investors, and ultimately to keep those financial institutions strong. Not to stifle, but to advance competition, growth and prosperity. And not just to manage crises, but to prevent crises from happening in the first place, by restoring accountability, transparency and trust in our financial markets. These must be the goals of a 21st century regulatory framework that we seek to create. Our meeting today was a critical first step in developing that framework. And I'm grateful for the legislative leaders who join me here with Secretary Geithner and Dr. Summers. We had a terrific conversation. I think this is an area where there is a growing consensus and where I think the capacity for people from different political parties and different perspectives to come together and solve problems. I've asked my economic team to develop recommendations for regulatory reform, and then to collaborate with these members of Congress and others from both sides of the aisle so they can start crafting legislation in the coming weeks and months. We will not always see eye to eye in our work. We may disagree -- and disagree strongly -- about particular provisions. But there are certain core principles that I believe must shape any proposal for reform -- and these are the principles that will guide our work. First, financial institutions that pose serious risks, systemic risks, to our market should be subject to serious oversight by the government. And here's why. When the Federal Reserve steps in as a lender of last resort, which it's had to do repeatedly since this financial crisis began, it's providing an insurance policy underwritten by the American taxpayer. And taxpayers should be assured that the Fed thoroughly understands the institutions that it is effectively insuring and actively monitoring them to make sure that they're not taking risks that will cost taxpayers in the long term. Second, our regulatory system -- and each of our major markets -- must be strong enough to withstand both system-wide stress and the failure of one or more large institutions. And that means modernizing and streamlining our regulatory structure, and monitoring both the scale and scope of risks that institutions can take. Third, to rebuild trust in our markets, we must redouble our efforts to promote openness, transparency and plain language throughout our financial system. Fourth, we need strong and uniform supervision of financial products marketed to investors and consumers. And we should base this oversight not on abstract models created by the institutions themselves, but on actual data on how actual people make financial decisions. Fifth, we must demand strict accountability, starting at the top. Executives who violate the public trust must be held responsible. Sixth, we must make sure our system of regulations covers appropriate institutions and markets, and is comprehensive and free of gaps, and prevents those being regulated from cherry-picking among competing regulators. Finally, we must recognize that the challenges we face are not just American challenges, they are global challenges. So as we work to set high regulatory standards here in the ed States, we have to challenge other countries around the world to do the same. That's how we will stop financial crises from spilling across borders and prevent global crises of the sort that we now face. In the end, the work of constructing a new regulatory framework will not be easy -- and reform will not happen overnight. But we must never forget that our market has always been the engine of America's success -- rewarding innovators and risk-takers, creating opportunities for generations of Americans and prosperity that is the envy of the world. And I have the utmost confidence that if these outstanding public servants standing beside me are working in concert, if we all do our jobs, if we once again guide the market's invisible hand with a higher principle, our markets will recover. Our economy will once again thrive, and America will once again lead the world in this new century as it did in the last. So, thank you very much, everybody. END 4:03 P.M. EST02/63184

  • 飞度免费问闵行区治疗外痔医院
  • 昆山市第一人民医院看直肠炎好不好
  • 浦东新区治疗脱肛多少钱飞管家咨询病种
  • 飞排名快速问答网上海肛肠医院肛肠科
  • 飞度新闻好医院上海学生便秘治疗医院要多少钱
  • 上海同仁医院治疗肛窦炎价格
  • 上海曙光医院治疗脱肛价格飞度排名快速问医生
  • 飞度管家免费问松江区治疗肛周脓肿多少钱
  • 上海肛门长肉球治疗医院要多少钱
  • 昆山市治疗腹泻医院飞度管家医院表
  • 上海医博肛肠医院看直肠炎好不好
  • 度排名服务平台上海市治疗支原体医院
  • 上海市长海医院看痔疮多少钱飞度排名搜医生上海治疗肛周脓肿哪家医院好排名哪里
  • 九院看外痔多少钱
  • 上海如何治疗肛裂
  • 上海上海治疗大便出血多少钱
  • 飞度快速问答网上海市第一人民医院看肛门异物好不好
  • 上海市第九人民医院肛门疼痛肛周脓肿脱肛肠炎便秘治疗好吗
  • 上海省肿瘤医院看外痔多少钱
  • 奉贤区治疗大便困难医院
  • 上海痔疮治疗专家
  • 飞管家推荐医院上海肛泰治疗直肠黏膜内脱垂价格
  • 飞度新闻免费咨询上海小儿结肠炎治疗医院要多少钱飞度技术健康家园
  • 长宁区同仁医院治疗直肠疾病价格飞排名云管家虹口区治疗便秘哪家医院好排名哪里
  • 飞度排名好医院在线上海上海治疗外痔哪家医院好排名哪里度排名免费问答
  • 崇明县治疗外痔医院
  • 松江区肛肠多少钱
  • 上海医博肛肠医院首页
  • 上海怎么会长痔疮
  • 上海肛肠病高发
  • 相关阅读
  • 上海肠炎结肠炎治疗医院要多少钱
  • 飞管家养生问答网上海市曙光医院看肠息肉好不好
  • 静安区治疗直肠炎多少钱
  • 飞度管家免费平台上海婴儿肛瘘治疗多少钱
  • 上海医博肛肠专科医院怎么样飞度咨询健康管家
  • 上海肛肠医院治疗肛门瘙痒价格
  • 飞管家咨询病种上海治疗肛窦炎多少钱
  • 上海内痔疮治疗治疗医院要多少钱
  • 长宁区治疗大便困难医院
  • 飞度咨询免费咨询奉贤区治疗尖锐湿疣多少钱飞度医院表
  • 责任编辑:飞度咨询医院排行榜

    相关搜索

      为您推荐