当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文


2019年02月19日 19:23:51    日报  参与评论()人

信丰县蓝光祛痘多少钱大余县无痛隆胸手术价格Yesterday, President Obama participated in a live YouTube interview, taking questions from people all over the country about everything from the Dream Act to renewable energy to situation in Egypt. This year, over 142,000 questions were submitted and 1,382,000 votes were cast. Check out the of your interview with the President. You can watch the whole thing or skip to your favorite questions using the links below.Download Video: mp4 (1434MB) | mp3 (36MB) 201101/124853赣州注射垫下巴多少钱 Dwight D. Eisenhower: Farewell Address [AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio. (2)]Good evening, my fellow Americans.First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.Three days from now, after half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. This evening, I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.Like every other -- Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling -- on my part -- of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or iness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insiduous [insidious] in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, y for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.Until the latest of our world conflicts, the ed States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all ed States cooperations -- corporations.Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many fast frustrations -- past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certaint agony of disarmament -- of the battlefield.Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.So, in this, my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust in that -- in that -- in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibility; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the sources -- scourges of poverty, disease, and ignorance will be made [to] disappear from the earth; and that in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.Thank you, and good night.200606/7538Ronald Reagan: ;A Time for Choosing; ( October 27,1964, Los Angeles)Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan:Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasnt been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, ;Weve never had it so good.;But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isnt something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collectors share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We havent balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. Weve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we dont own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And weve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. Were at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and its been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think its time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, ;We dont know how lucky we are.; And the Cuban stopped and said, ;How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.; And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, theres no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of mans relation to man.This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well Id like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. Theres only an up or down -- [up] mans old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the ;Great Society,; or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But theyve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will e have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, ;The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.; Another voice says, ;The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.; Or, ;Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.; Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as ;our moral teacher and our leader,; and he says he is ;hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.; He must ;be freed,; so that he ;can do for us; what he knows ;is best.; And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as ;meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.;Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as ;the masses.; This is a term we havent applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, ;the full power of centralized government; -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments dont control things. A government cant control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.Now, we have no better example of this than governments involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming -- thats regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years weve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we dont grow.Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because hell find out that weve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. Hell also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. Hell find that theyve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldnt keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.At the same time, theres been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. Theres now one for every 30 farms in the ed States, and still they cant tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know whats best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of b goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a ;more compatible use of the land.; The President tells us hes now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore weve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units theyve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, weve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.Theyve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you youre depressed, lie down and be depressed.We have so many people who cant see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So theyre going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and theyve had almost 30 years of it -- shouldnt we expect government to the score to us once in a while? Shouldnt they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now were told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than it was in the dark depths of the Depression. Were spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and youll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, wed be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.Now -- so now we declare ;war on poverty,; or ;You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.; Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion were spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesnt replace any, it just duplicates existing programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isnt duplicated. This is the youth feature. Were now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and were going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that were going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, dont get me wrong. Im not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman whod come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. Shes eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood whod aly done that very thing.Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, were denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say were always ;against; things -- were never ;for; anything.Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that theyre ignorant; its just that they know so much that isnt so.Now -- were for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end weve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.But were against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. Theyve called it ;insurance; to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term ;insurance; to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And theyre doing just that.A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until hes 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we cant put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when theyre due -- that the cupboard isnt bare?Barry Goldwater thinks we can.At the same time, cant we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldnt you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think were for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think were against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. Theyve come to the end of the road.In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollars worth, and not 45 cents worth?I think were for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think were against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the worlds population. I think were against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.I think were for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but were against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. Were helping 107. Weve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So.governments programs, once launched, never disappear.Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life well ever see on this earth.Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nations work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a mans property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, ;If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the ed States.; I think thats exactly what he will do.But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isnt the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.Now it doesnt require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery aly exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that were to choose just between two personalities.Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well Ive been privileged to know him ;when.; I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally Ive never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldnt work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, ;Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,; and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, hed load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, ;There arent many left who care what happens to her. Id like her to know I care.; This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, ;There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.; This is not a man who could carelessly send other peoples sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems Ive discussed academic, unless we realize were in a war that must be won.Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy ;accommodation.; And they say if well only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, hell forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, ;Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, were willing to make a deal with your slave masters.; Alexander Hamilton said, ;A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.; Now lets set the record straight. Theres no argument over the choice between peace and war, but theres only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.Admittedly, theres a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that were retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side hes heard voices pleading for ;peace at any price; or ;better Red than dead,; or as one commentator put it, hed rather ;live on his knees than die on his feet.; And therein lies the road to war, because those voices dont speak for the rest of us.You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didnt die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well its a simple answer after all.You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, ;There is a price we will not pay.; ;There is a point beyond which they must not advance.; And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwaters ;peace through strength.; Winston Churchill said, ;The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn were spirits -- not animals.; And he said, ;Theres something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.;You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.Well preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or well sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.Thank you very much. /201205/182116瑞金市激光祛痘哪家医院好

兴国县妇幼保健人民医院吸脂手术多少钱21世纪爱立信杯全国英语演讲比赛 第八名 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 200809/47690赣州光子嫩肤医院 This basic law of interdependence, so manifest in the commerce of peace, applies with thousand-fold intensity in the event of war.这种相互依存的基本法则,在和平时期的贸易中即已表现得甚为明显,而一旦运用于战争时期,它就会呈现出千百倍的重要性。So we are persuaded by necessity and by belief that the strength of all free peoples lies in unity; their danger, in discord.因此,需要和信念使我们坚信,对所有自由的民族来说,团结就是力量,分裂便会带来危险。To produce this unity, to meet the challenge of our time, destiny has laid upon our country the responsibility of the free worlds leadership.为了实现这种团结,为了应付时代向我们发出的挑战,命运已把领导自由世界的重任赋予我们美国。So it is proper that we assure our friends once again that, in the discharge of this responsibility,我们应该再次向我们的朋友们保,在承担这一领导责任时我们美国人懂得,we Americans know and we observe the difference between world leadership and imperialism; between firmness and truculence;世界领导与帝国主义之间存在着区别,意志坚定与蛮横无理并不是一回事,between a thoughtfully calculated goal and spasmodic reaction to the stimulus of emergencies.经过深思熟虑而确定的目标也不同于在紧急情况刺激下出现的痉挛性反应。我们决不会逾越这些差别。We wish our friends the world over to know this above all: we face the threat我们希望我们在世界各地的朋友尤其要懂得,我们的确面对着威胁,not with d and confusion—but with confidence and conviction.但我们并不畏惧,也不惊慌失措,而是信心十足和镇定自若。We feel this moral strength because we know that we are not helpless prisoners of history.我们之所以感受到这种道德的力量,是因为我们知道自己不是听任历史摆布的囚徒,We are free men. We shall remain free, never to be proven guilty of the one capital offense against freedom, a lack of stanch faith.而是自由的人。我们要永远保持自由,决不能缺乏坚定的信念,从而对自由犯下滔天大罪。In pleading our just cause before the bar of history and in pressing our labor for world peace, we shall be guided by certain fixed principles.我们在历史法庭为正义事业声辩时,在为维护世界和平而操劳时,必须遵循某些确定不变的原则。These principles are: one Abhorring war as a chosen way to balk the purposes of those who threaten us,这些原则是一、我们憎恶选择战争方式来挫败那些威胁我们的人们所抱的种种企图,we hold it to be the first task of statesmanship to develop the strength that will deter the forces of aggression and promote the conditions of peace.我们认为发展有助于遏制侵略势力和促进和平局面的力量,乃是国家领导人的首要任务。For, as it must be the supreme purpose of all free men, so it must be the dedication of their leaders, to save humanity from preying upon itself.因为使人类避免自相残杀,应当成为一切自由人士的最高目标,故其领导人也必须为此而献身。In the light of this principle, we stand y to engage with any and all others in joint effort to remove the causes of mutual fear and distrust among nations,根据这个原则,我们已经做好准备愿与其他各国共同努力,以消除国与国之间相互恐俱和互不信任的根源,so as to make possible drastic reduction of armaments.从而使大规模裁减军备成为可能。The sole requisites for undertaking such effort are that—in their purpose进行这种努力的必要条件是,they be aimed logically and honestly toward secure peace for all; and that—in their result在目标上要理所当然而又真心诚意地确保全人类的和平,they provide methods by which every participating nation will prove good faith in carrying out its pledge.在结果上则应该提供一些措施,借以保各个参与国都能信守自己的誓言。02/437499大余县假体丰胸多少钱

宁都县去痘坑多少钱This afternoon the President was in Ohio as the year-long battle to finally reform America's health insurance system draws towards a close – and he took the opportunity to remind everybody why he has fought so hard for so long against such powerful interests. He was introduced by Connie Anderson, the sister of Natoma Canfield – a woman whose awful but all-too-common struggles have served as a brutal symbol of what is wrong with our system for millions of others. Download Video: mp4 (698MB) | mp3 (32MB)201003/98840 The President just spoke at the Edison Electric Vehicle Technical Center in Pomona, California. The Center "provides a broad range of electric transportation services, focusing on solutions for automakers, battery manufacturers, government agencies, business and industrial fleet customers, residential customers and more" – a mission that dovetails perfectly with the President’s vision for green transportation and a green economy. The President explained that in addition to green jobs being a key element of the Recovery Act, it will be a focus of his economic blueprint throughout his presidency: And that is the forward-thinking purpose of the budget that I submitted to Congress. It's a budget that makes hard choices about where to save and where to spend; that makes overdue investments in education, health care and, yes, in energy -- investments that will catalyze innovation and industry, create green jobs, and launch clean renewable energy companies right here in California. Over the next three years, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy. We've also made the largest investment in basic research funding in American history -- an investment that will spur not only new discoveries in energy, but breakthroughs in science and technology. We will invest billion a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power, advanced biofuels, clean coal, and fuel-efficient cars and trucks that are built right here in the ed States of America. (Applause.) We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines that can create new energy in cities and towns across this country. And we will put Americans to work making homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bill, just like you've done in California for decades. And we will put 1 million plug-in hybrid vehicles on America's roads by 2015. (Applause.) He went on to announce the availability of .4 billion in funding Americans to work producing next generation Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles and the advanced battery components that will make these vehicles run. The initiative will create tens of thousands of jobs, and Americans who decide to purchase these Plug-in Hybrid vehicles can claim a tax credit of up to ,500. He went on to announce that: The Department of Energy is offering up to .5 billion in grants to U.S. based manufacturers to produce these highly efficient batteries and their components. The Department of Energy is offering up to 0 million in grants to U.S. based manufacturers to produce other components needed for electric vehicles, such as electric motors and other components. The Department of Energy is offering up to 0 million to demonstrate and evaluate Plug-In Hybrids and other electric infrastructure concepts -- like truck stop charging station, electric rail, and training for technicians to build and repair electric vehicles. 03/64975到赣州隆胸哪家医院好章贡区唇部激光脱毛价格



赣州俪人整形美容医院除皱价格 赣州市第一人民医院做祛疤手术多少钱医苑助手 [详细]
江西省中心医院抽脂多少钱 赣州蓝光去痘效果怎样 [详细]
赣州美白祛色素斑哪家医院好 康泰专家赣州整形美容医院电波拉皮除皱怎么样ask媒体 [详细]
排名卫生赣州整形美容医院吸脂手术多少钱 江西省赣州俪人整形医院激光去红血丝多少钱365频道赣州俪人整形美容医院做去疤手术好吗 [详细]