旅游  |  攻略  |  美食  |  自驾  |  团购
您的位置: 青海省旅游网 / 规划 / 新闻动态 / 青海要闻

福建省厦门妇保医院打溶脂针多少钱康泰解答思明区疤痕修复多少钱

来源:百姓指南    发布时间:2019年11月22日 00:56:03    编辑:admin         

This morning the President met with Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt. After the meeting, the President spoke about the investments and hard choices his budget makes. He noted at the outset that it "will bring discretionary spending for domestic programs as a share of the economy to its lowest level in nearly half a century" over the next decade. But he also made clear that while the budget does not attempt to solve every problem, it does not walk away from the crucial investments that will ensure our economy is on a strong footing for the future.mp4视频下载 He committed to ending the era of the "bubble economy," and creating a solid foundation based on "investments that will lead to real growth and real prosperity." He talked about health reform that will ease the burden on businesses, budgets, and families. He talked about the need for investments and reform in education because "countries who out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow." He talked about shifting to a clean energy economy that will ensure that as the global economy changes, America stays ahead of the curve and creates the jobs of tomorrow here. For those who claim that the President’s goals are too big to accomplish, he had a y response: "What I say is that the challenges we face are too large to ignore." In closing his remarks he also reached out to his critics, and encouraged them to come to the table with a constructive mindset: But the one thing I will say is this: With the magnitude of the challenges we face right now, what we need in Washington are not more political tactics -- we need more good ideas. We don't need more point-scoring -- we need more problem-solving. So if there are members of Congress who object to specific policies and proposals in this budget, then I ask them to be y and willing to propose constructive, alternative solutions. If certain aspects of this budget people don't think work, provide us some ideas in terms of what you do. "Just say no" is the right advice to give your teenagers about drugs. It is not an acceptable response to whatever economic policy is proposed by the other party. The American people sent us here to get things done. And in this moment of enormous challenge, they are watching and waiting for us to lead. Let's show them that we're equal to this task before us. Let's pass a budget that puts this nation on the road to lasting prosperity. I know Kent Conrad is committed to doing that; John Spratt is committed to doing that; I'm committed to doing that. We're going to need everybody working together to get this thing done.03/64768。

CqTZh[Tu87ACm59tsZ*5qQ.HS;But most of all, the Great Society is not a safe harbor, a resting place, a final objective, a finished work. It is a challenge constantly renewed,beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous products of our labor.ZoZUMR,wIJTXKvKL6So I want to talk to you today about three places where we begin to build the Great Society -- in our cities, in our countryside, and in our classrooms.XxZ%rq.LcL7;-a+3|SMany of you will live to see the day, perhaps 50 years from now, when there will be 400 million Americans -- four-fifths of them in urban areas. In the remainder of this century urban population will double, city land will double, and we will have to build homes and highways and facilities equal to all those built since this country was first settled. So in the next 40 years we must re-build the entire urban ed States.Q_#tJ9mmsz+ZC.-yBv*3c-f8KJ,.AeAJjqeZSsD%gJp|)yPVhGJMHqhKl(EwEXhsb(164605。

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENTIN NOMINATING JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT10:13 A.M. EDTTHE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Well, I'm excited, too. (Laughter.) Of the many responsibilities granted to a President by our Constitution, few are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme Court justice. The members of our highest court are granted life tenure, often serving long after the Presidents who appointed them. And they are charged with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20 [sic] centuries ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time.So I don't take this decision lightly. I've made it only after deep reflection and careful deliberation. While there are many qualities that I admire in judges across the spectrum of judicial philosophy, and that I seek in my own nominee, there are few that stand out that I just want to mention.First and foremost is a rigorous intellect -- a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions. Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make, law; to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice; a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.These two qualities are essential, I believe, for anyone who would sit on our nation's highest court. And yet, these qualities alone are insufficient. We need something more. For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court.The process of reviewing and selecting a successor to Justice Souter has been rigorous and comprehensive, not least because of the standard that Justice Souter himself has set with his formidable intellect and fair-mindedness and decency. I've sought the advice of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, including every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My team has reached out to constitutional scholars, advocacy organizations, and bar associations representing an array of interests and opinions. And I want to thank members of my staff and administration who've worked so hard and given so much of their time as part of this effort. After completing this exhaustive process, I have decided to nominate an inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice: Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the great state of New York. (Applause.)Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system, providing her with a depth of experience and a bth of perspective that will be invaluable as a Supreme Court justice. It's a measure of her qualities and her qualifications that Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court by a Republican President, George H.W. Bush, and promoted to the Federal Court of Appeals by a Democrat, Bill Clinton. Walking in the door she would bring more experience on the bench, and more varied experience on the bench, than anyone currently serving on the ed States Supreme Court had when they were appointed. Judge Sotomayor is a distinguished graduate of two of America's leading universities. She's been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. She spent six years as a trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and would replace Justice Souter as the only justice with experience as a trial judge, a perspective that would enrich the judgments of the Court.For the past 11 years she has been a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of New York, one of the most demanding circuits in the country. There she has handed down decisions on a range of constitutional and legal questions that are notable for their careful reasoning, earning the respect of colleagues on the bench, the admiration of many lawyers who argue cases in her court, and the adoration of her clerks who look to her as a mentor.During her tenure on the District Court, she presided over roughly 450 cases. One case in particular involved a matter of enormous concern to many Americans, including me: the baseball strike of 1994-1995. (Laughter.) In a decision that reportedly took her just 15 minutes to announce, a swiftness much appreciated by baseball fans everywhere -- (laughter) -- she issued an injunction that helped end the strike. Some say that Judge Sotomayor saved baseball. (Applause.)Judge Sotomayor came to the District Court from a law firm where she was a partner focused on complex commercial litigation, gaining insight into the workings of a global economy. Before that she was a prosecutor in the Manhattan DA's office, serving under the legendary Robert Morgenthau, an early mentor of Sonia's who still sings her praises today. There, Sonia learned what crime can do to a family and a community, and what it takes to fight it. It's a career that has given her not only a sweeping overview of the American judicial system, but a practical understanding of how the law works in the everyday lives of the American people.But as impressive and meaningful as Judge Sotomayor's sterling credentials in the law is her own extraordinary journey. Born in the South Bronx, she was raised in a housing project not far from Yankee Stadium, making her a lifelong Yankee's fan. I hope this will not disqualify her -- (laughter) -- in the eyes of the New Englanders in the Senate. (Laughter.) Sonia's parents came to New York from Puerto Rico during the second world war, her mother as part of the Women's Army Corps. And, in fact, her mother is here today and I'd like us all to acknowledge Sonia's mom. (Applause.) Sonia's mom has been a little choked up. (Laughter.) But she, Sonia's mother, began a family tradition of giving back to this country. Sonia's father was a factory worker with a 3rd-grade education who didn't speak English. But like Sonia's mother, he had a willingness to work hard, a strong sense of family, and a belief in the American Dream.When Sonia was nine, her father passed away. And her mother worked six days a week as a nurse to provide for Sonia and her brother -- who is also here today, is a doctor and a terrific success in his own right. But Sonia's mom bought the only set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood, sent her children to a Catholic school called Cardinal Spellman out of the belief that with a good education here in America all things are possible. With the support of family, friends, and teachers, Sonia earned scholarships to Princeton, where she graduated at the top of her class, and Yale Law School, where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal, stepping onto the path that led her here today. 05/71618。

Edward M. KennedyFaith, Truth and Tolerance in America[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.]Thank you very much Professor Kombay for that generous introduction. And let me say, that I never expected to hear such kind words from Dr. Falwell. So in return, I have an invitation of my own. On January 20th, 1985, I hope Dr. Falwell will say a prayer at the inauguration of the next Democratic President of the ed States. Now, Dr. Falwell, I’m not exactly sure how you feel about that. You might not appreciate the President, but the Democrats certainly would appreciate the prayer.Actually, a number of people in Washington were surprised that I was invited to speak here -- and even more surprised when I accepted the invitation. They seem to think that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a Kennedy to come to the campus of Liberty Baptist College. In honor of our meeting, I have asked Dr. Falwell, as your Chancellor, to permit all the students an extra hour next Saturday night before curfew. And in return, I have promised to watch the Old Time Gospel Hour next Sunday morning.I realize that my visit may be a little controversial. But as many of you have heard, Dr. Falwell recently sent me a membership in the Moral Majority -- and I didn't even apply for it. And I wonder if that means that I'm a member in good standing. [Falwell: Somewhat]Somewhat, he says. This 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. 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 neighbor’s 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?There are those who do, and their own words testify to their intolerance. For example, because the Moral Majority has worked with members of different denominations, one fundamentalist group has denounced Dr. Falwell for hastening the ecumenical church and for "yoking together with Roman Catholics, Mormons, and others." I am relieved that Dr. Falwell does not regard that as a sin, and on this issue, he himself has become the target of narrow prejudice. When people agree on public policy, they ought to be able to work together, even while they worship in diverse ways. For truly we are all yoked together as Americans, and the yoke is the happy one of individual freedom and mutual respect.But in saying that, we cannot and should not turn aside from a deeper and more pressing question -- which is whether and how religion should influence government. A generation ago, a presidential candidate had to prove his independence of undue religious influence in public life, and he had to do so partly at the insistence of evangelical Protestants. John Kennedy said at that time: “I believe in an America where there is no religious bloc voting of any kind.” Only twenty years later, another candidate was appealing to a[n] evangelical meeting as a religious bloc. Ronald Reagan said to 15 thousand evangelicals at the Roundtable in Dallas: “ I know that you can’t endorse me. I want you to know I endorse you and what you are doing.”To many Americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a dangerous breakdown in the separation of church and state. Yet this principle, as vital as it is, is not a simplistic and rigid command. Separation of church and state cannot mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political power. The challenge today is to recall the origin of the principle, to define its purpose, and refine its application to the politics of the present.The founders of our nation had long and bitter experience with the state, as both the agent and the adversary of particular religious views. In colonial Maryland, Catholics paid a double land tax, and in Pennsylvania they had to list their names on a public roll -- an ominous precursor of the first Nazi laws against the Jews. And Jews in turn faced discrimination in all of the thirteen original Colonies. Massachusetts exiled Roger Williams and his congregation for contending that civil government had no right to enforce the Ten Commandments. Virginia harassed Baptist teachers, and also established a religious test for public service, writing into the law that no “popish followers” could hold any office.But during the Revolution, Catholics, Jews, and Non-Conformists all rallied to the cause and fought valiantly for the American commonwealth -- for John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill.” Afterwards, when the Constitution was ratified and then amended, the framers gave freedom for all religion, and from any established religion, the very first place in the Bill of Rights.Indeed the framers themselves professed very different faiths: Washington was an Episcopalian, Jefferson a deist, and Adams a Calvinist. And although he had earlier opposed toleration, John Adams later contributed to the building of Catholic churches, and so did George Washington. Thomas Jefferson said his proudest achievement was not the presidency, or the writing the Declaration of Independence, but drafting the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. He stated the vision of the first Americans and the First Amendment very clearly: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk. Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible. As President Eisenhower warned in 1953, “Don’t join the book burners...the right to say ideas, the right to record them, and the right to have them accessible to others is unquestioned -- or this isn’t America.” And if that right is denied, at some future day the torch can be turned against any other book or any other belief. Let us never forget: Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s persecuted minority.The danger is as great now as when the founders of the nation first saw it. In 1789, their fear was of factional strife among dozens of denominations. Today there are hundreds -- and perhaps even thousands of faiths -- and millions of Americans who are outside any fold. Pluralism obviously does not and cannot mean that all of them are right; but it does mean that there are areas where government cannot and should not decide what it is wrong to believe, to think, to , and to do. As Professor Larry Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars has written, “Law in a non-theocratic state cannot measure religious truth, nor can the state impose it."The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives. The failure of Prohibition proves the futility of such an attempt when a majority or even a substantial minority happens to disagree. Some questions may be inherently individual ones, or people may be sharply divided about whether they are. In such cases, like Prohibition and abortion, the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state. But there are other questions which are inherently public in nature, which we must decide together as a nation, and where religion and religious values can and should speak to our common conscience. The issue of nuclear war is a compelling example. It is a moral issue; it will be decided by government, not by each individual; and to give any effect to the moral values of their creed, people of faith must speak directly about public policy. The Catholic bishops and the Reverend Billy Graham have every right to stand for the nuclear freeze, and Dr. Falwell has every right to stand against it.There must be standards for the exercise of such leadership, so that the obligations of belief will not be debased into an opportunity for mere political advantage. But to take a stand at all when a question is both properly public and truly moral is to stand in a long and honored tradition. Many of the great evangelists of the 1800s were in the forefront of the abolitionist movement. In our own time, the Reverend William Sloane Coffin challenged the morality of the war in Vietnam. Pope John XXIII renewed the Gospel’s call to social justice. And Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was the greatest prophet of this century, awakened our nation and its conscience to the evil of racial segregation. Their words have blessed our world. And who now wishes they had been silent? Who would bid Pope John Paul [II] to quiet his voice against the oppression in Eastern Europe, the violence in Central America, or the crying needs of the landless, the hungry, and those who are tortured in so many of the dark political prisons of our time?President Kennedy, who said that “no religious body should seek to impose its will,” also urged religious leaders to state their views and give their commitment when the public debate involved ethical issues. In drawing the line between imposed will and essential witness, we keep church and state separate, and at the same time we recognize that the City of God should speak to the civic duties of men and women.There are four tests which draw that line and define the difference.First, we must respect the integrity of religion itself.People of conscience should be careful how they deal in the word of their Lord. In our own history, religion has been falsely invoked to sanction prejudice -- even slavery -- to condemn labor unions and public spending for the poor. I believe that the prophecy, ”The poor you have always with you” is an indictment, not a commandment. And I respectfully suggest that God has taken no position on the Department of Education -- and that a balanced budget constitutional amendment is a matter of economic analysis, and not heavenly appeals.Religious values cannot be excluded from every public issue; but not every public issue involves religious values. And how ironic it is when those very values are denied in the name of religion. For example, we are sometimes told that it is wrong to feed the hungry, but that mission is an explicit mandate given to us in the 25th chapter of Matthew.Second, we must respect the independent judgments of conscience.Those who proclaim moral and religious values can offer counsel, but they should not casually treat a position on a public issue as a test of fealty to faith. Just as I disagree with the Catholic bishops on tuition tax credits -- which I oppose -- so other Catholics can and do disagree with the hierarchy, on the basis of honest conviction, on the question of the nuclear freeze.Thus, the controversy about the Moral Majority arises not only from its views, but from its name -- which, in the minds of many, seems to imply that only one set of public policies is moral and only one majority can possibly be right. Similarly, people are and should be perplexed when the religious lobbying group Christian Voice publishes a morality index of congressional voting records, which judges the morality of senators by their attitude toward Zimbabwe and Taiwan. Let me offer another illustration. Dr. Falwell has written -- and I e: “To stand against Israel is to stand against God.” Now there is no one in the Senate who has stood more firmly for Israel than I have. Yet, I do not doubt the faith of those on the other side. Their error is not one of religion, but of policy. And I hope to be able to persuade them that they are wrong in terms of both America’s interest and the justice of Israel’s cause.Respect for conscience is most in jeopardy, and the harmony of our diverse society is most at risk, when we re-establish, directly or indirectly, a religious test for public office. That relic of the colonial era, which is specifically prohibited in the Constitution, has reappeared in recent years. After the last election, the Reverend James Robison warned President Reagan no to surround himself, as president before him had, “with the counsel of the ungodly.” I utterly reject any such standard for any position anywhere in public service. Two centuries ago, the victims were Catholics and Jews. In the 1980s the victims could be atheists; in some other day or decade, they could be the members of the Thomas Road Baptist Church. Indeed, in 1976 I regarded it as unworthy and un-American when some people said or hinted that Jimmy Carter should not be president because he was a born again Christian. We must never judge the fitness of individuals to govern on the bas[is] of where they worship, whether they follow Christ or Moses, whether they are called “born again” or “ungodly.” Where it is right to apply moral values to public life, let all of us avoid the temptation to be self-righteous and absolutely certain of ourselves. And if that temptation ever comes, let us recall Winston Churchill’s humbling description of an intolerant and inflexible colleague: “There but for the grace of God goes God.”Third, in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate.In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts. Critics may oppose the nuclear freeze for what they regard as moral reasons. They have every right to argue that any negotiation with the Soviets is wrong, or that any accommodation with them sanctions their crimes, or that no agreement can be good enough and therefore all agreements only increase the chance of war. I do not believe that, but it surely does not violate the standard of fair public debate to say it. What does violate that standard, what the opponents of the nuclear freeze have no right to do, is to assume that they are infallible, and so any argument against the freeze will do, whether it is false or true.The nuclear freeze proposal is not unilateral, but bilateral -- with equal restraints on the ed States and the Soviet Union. The nuclear freeze does not require that we trust the Russians, but demands full and effective verification. The nuclear freeze does not concede a Soviet lead in nuclear weapons, but recognizes that human beings in each great power aly have in their fallible hands the overwhelming capacity to remake into a pile of radioactive rubble the earth which God has made. There is no morality in the mushroom cloud. The black rain of nuclear ashes will fall alike on the just and the unjust. And then it will be too late to wish that we had done the real work of this atomic age -- which is to seek a world that is neither red nor dead.I am perfectly prepared to debate the nuclear freeze on policy grounds, or moral ones. But we should not be forced to discuss phantom issues or false charges. They only deflect us form the urgent task of deciding how best to prevent a planet divided from becoming a planet destroyed.And it does not advance the debate to contend that the arms race is more divine punishment than human problem, or that in any event, the final days are near. As Pope John said two decades ago, at the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “We must beware of those who burn with zeal, but are not endowed with much sense... we must disagree with the prophets of doom, who are always forecasting disasters, as though the end of the earth was at hand.” The message which echoes across the years is very clear: The earth is still here; and if we wish to keep it, a prophecy of doom is no alternative to a policy of arms control.Fourth, and finally, we must respect the motives of those who exercise their right to disagree.We sorely test our ability to live together if we ily question each other’s integrity. It may be harder to restrain our feelings when moral principles are at stake, for they go to the deepest wellsprings of our being. But the more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side.Those who favor E.R.A [Equal Rights Amendment] are not “antifamily” or “blasphemers.” And their purpose is not “an attack on the Bible.” Rather, we believe this is the best way to fix in our national firmament the ideal that not only all men, but all people are created equal. Indeed, my mother, who strongly favors E.R.A., would be surprised to hear that she is anti-family. For my part, I think of the amendment’s opponents as wrong on the issue, but not as lacking in moral characterI could multiply the instances of name-calling, sometimes on both sides. Dr. Falwell is not a “warmonger.” And “liberal clergymen” are not, as the Moral Majority suggested in a recent letter, equivalent to “Soviet sympathizers.” The critics of official prayer in public schools are not “Pharisees”; many of them are both civil libertarians and believers, who think that families should pray more at home with their children, and attend church and synagogue more faithfully. And people are not sexist because they stand against abortion, and they are not murderers because they believe in free choice. Nor does it help anyone’s cause to shout such epithets, or to try and shout a speaker down -- which is what happened last April when Dr. Falwell was hissed and heckled at Harvard. So I am doubly grateful for your courtesy here this evening. That was not Harvard’s finest hour, but I am happy to say that the loudest applause from the Harvard audience came in defense of Dr. Falwell’s right to speak.In short, I hope for an America where neither "fundamentalist" nor "humanist" will be a dirty word, but a fair description of the different ways in which people of good will look at life and into their own souls.I hope for an America where no president, no public official, no individual will ever be deemed a greater or lesser American because of religious doubt -- or religious belief.I hope for an America where the power of faith will always burn brightly, but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever light the fires of fear, coercion, or angry division.I hope for an America where we can all contend freely and vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity.Twenty years ago this fall, in New York City, President Kennedy met for the last time with a Protestant assembly. The atmosphere had been transformed since his earlier address during the 1960 campaign to the Houston Ministerial Association. He had spoken there to allay suspicions about his Catholicism, and to answer those who claimed that on the day of his baptism, he was somehow disqualified from becoming President. His speech in Houston and then his election drove that prejudice from the center of our national life. Now, three years later, in November of 1963, he was appearing before the Protestant Council of New York City to reaffirm what he regarded as some fundamental truths. On that occasion, John Kennedy said: “The family of man is not limited to a single race or religion, to a single city, or country...the family of man is nearly 3 billion strong. Most of its members are not white and most of them are not Christian.” And as President Kennedy reflected on that reality, he restated an ideal for which he had lived his life -- that “the members of this family should be at peace with one another.”That ideal shines across all the generations of our history and all the ages of our faith, carrying with it the most ancient dream. For as the Apostle Paul wrote long ago in Romans: “If it be possible, as much as it lieth in you, live peaceable with all men.”I believe it is possible; the choice lies within us; as fellow citizens, let us live peaceable with each other; as fellow human beings, let us strive to live peaceably with men and women everywhere. Let that be our purpose and our prayer, yours and mine -- for ourselves, for our country, and for all the world. 200806/41006。

[Nextpage视频演讲]The President speaks about the importance of personal responsibility and giving back to the community as he delivers the commencement address at Kalamazoo Central High School in Kalamazoo, MI. The school was the winner of the 2010 Race to the Top High School Commencement ChallengeDownload Video: mp4 (254MB) | mp3 (25MB) [Nextpage演讲文本1]【Part 1】Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Please be seated. Hello, Giants. (Applause.) It is good -- it is good to be here, and congratulations Class of 2010. (Applause.) I am honored to be part of this special occasion.AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you!THE PRESIDENT: And I love you back. (Applause.) Let me acknowledge your extraordinary governor, Jennifer Granholm. (Applause.) Superintendent Rice, thank you for your inspiring words. (Applause.) Your mayor, Bobby Hopewell, who I understand is a proud Kalamazoo graduate himself. (Applause.) Thanks to Principal Washington for -- (applause) -- not just for the warm introduction, but for his enthusiasm and his energy and his leadership and his nice singing voice. (Laughter.) Thank you. To all the trustees, to the alumni, to the parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins -- everybody who’s been a part of this extraordinary place. (Applause.) And I want to recognize our student speakers. Cindy, who embodies the best of our traditions in this country -- arrived three or four years ago and graduates as the valedictorian -- this is what is continually replenishing the energy and the dynamism and the innovation of this country, and we could not be prouder of you. Thank you. (Applause.) And to Simon, I’m glad that, according to the Constitution, you can’t run till you’re 35. (Laughter and applause.) So I’ll be long gone by then. (Laughter.) But it gives me great confidence to know that we’ve got such incredible young leaders who are going to be remaking the world in so many different ways.Now, recently, an article from your local paper, the Kalamazoo Gazette -- (applause) -- was brought to my attention. And it ran just after this school had been chosen as one of the six finalists in our Race to the Top Commencement Challenge. And for those who aren’t aware of it, this is a contest to highlight schools that promote academic excellence, personal responsibility and that best prepare students for college and careers. And this article in the Gazette ed a young lady named Kelsey Wilson -- (applause.) Where is -- is Kelsey here? She right over there? (Applause.) Anyway --AUDIENCE MEMBERS: She’s here.THE PRESIDENT: She’s over there? Hey, Kelsey. How are you? (Laughter.)[Nextpage演讲文本2]【Part 2】So Kelsey was ed as saying, “We’re the kind of school that never gets credit for what we do. And our school is amazing.” This is what Kelsey said, “Our school is amazing.”Well, Kelsey, Class of 2010, members of the Kalamazoo community, I’m here tonight because after three rounds of competition, with more than a thousand schools, and more than 170,000 votes cast, I know -- and America knows -- what you’ve done at Kalamazoo Central. You are amazing! (Applause.) We know. We know. (Applause.) Our amazing Secretary of Education Arne Duncan knows. (Applause.) Folks in Washington know, folks across the country know, and hopefully after tonight, everybody knows. Now, together as a community, you’ve embraced the motto of this school district: “Every child, every opportunity, every time.” (Applause.) Every time. Every child, every opportunity, every time, because you believe, like I do, that every young person, every child -- regardless of what they look like, where they come from, how much money their parents have -- every child who walks through your schoolhouse doors deserves a quality education. No exceptions. (Applause.)And I’m here tonight because I think that America has a lot to learn from Kalamazoo Central about what makes for a successful school in this new century. (Applause.) You’ve got educators raising standards and then inspiring their students to meet them. You’ve got community members who are stepping up as tutors and mentors and coaches. You got parents who are taking an active interest in their child’s education -- attending those teacher conferences, yes, turning off the TV once in a while, making sure homework gets done. Arne Duncan is here tonight because these are the values, these are the changes that he’s encouraging in every school in this nation. It’s the key to our future.But the most important ingredient is you: students who raised your sights, who aimed high, who invested yourselves in your own success. It’s no accident that so many of you have received college admissions letters, Class of 2010. That didn’t happen by accident. It happened because you worked for it. As the superintendent said, you earned it.So, Kelsey, I agree with you. What you’ve done here at Kalamazoo Central is amazing. (Applause.) I am proud of you. Your parents are proud of you. Your teachers, your principal -- we’re all incredibly proud.[Nextpage演讲文本3]【Part 3】Now, graduates, all these folks around you, I have to say, though, with the cameras and the beaming smiles -- they’ve worked hard to give you everything you need to pursue your dreams and fulfill your God-given talent. Unfortunately, you can’t take them with you when you leave here. (Laughter.) No one is going to go follow you around making sure that you’re getting to class on time, making sure you’re doing your work. Nobody is going to be doing that for you. Going forward, that’s all on you -- responsibility for your success is squarely on your shoulders. And the question I have for you today is this: What is each -- what are each of you going to do to meet that responsibility? Now, right now you’re getting plenty of advice from everybody. Some of it’s helpful. (Laughter.) And so I hate to pile on with advice. But while I’m here -- (laughter) -- what the heck. (Laughter.) I figure I should offer a few thoughts based on my own experiences, but also based on my hopes for all of you, and for our country, in the years ahead.First, understand that your success in life won’t be determined just by what’s given to you, or what happens to you, but by what you do with all that’s given to you; what you do with all that happens to you; how hard you try; how far you push yourself; how high you’re willing to reach. True excellence only comes with perseverance. This wasn’t something I really understood when I was back your age. My father, some of you know, left my family when I was two years old. I was raised by a single mom and my grandparents. (Applause.) And sometimes I had a tendency to goof off. As my mother put it, I had a tendency sometimes to act a bit casual about my future. (Laughter.) Sometimes I was rebellious. Sometimes I partied a little too much. (Applause.) Oh, yes, yes, this is a cautionary tale. (Laughter.) Don’t be cheering when I say that. (Laughter.) Studied just enough to get by. I thought hard work, responsibility, that’s old-fashioned. That’s just people want to tell me what to do. But after a few years, after I was living solely on my own and I realized that living solely for my own entertainment wasn’t so entertaining anymore, that it wasn’t particularly satisfying anymore, that I didn’t seem to be making much of a ripple in the world, I started to change my tune. I realized that by refusing to apply myself, there was nothing I could point to that I was proud of that would last. [Nextpage演讲文本4]【Part 4】Now, you come of an age in a popular culture that actually reinforces this approach to life. You watch TV, and basically what it says is you can be rich and successful without much effort; you just have to become a celebrity. (Laughter.) If you can achieve some reality TV notoriety, that’s better than lasting achievement. We live in a culture that tells you there’s a quick fix for every problem and a justification for every selfish desire. And all of you were raised with cell phones and iPods, and texting and emails, and you’re able to call up a fact, or a song, or a friend with the click of a button. So you’re used to instant gratification.But meaningful achievement, lasting success -- it doesn’t happen in an instant. It’s not about luck, it’s not about a sudden stroke of genius. It’s not usually about talent. It’s usually about daily effort, the large choices and the small choices that you make that add up over time. It’s about the skills you build, and the knowledge you accumulate, and the energy you invest in every task, no matter how trivial or menial it may seem at the time. You’ve got an alum who plays for the Yankees, I hear. He’s supposed to be pretty good. (Applause.) Now, Derek Jeter wasn’t born playing shortstop for the Yankees. He got there through years of effort. And his high school baseball coach once remarked, “I’m surprised he still doesn’t have blisters and that I don’t have the blisters on my hands from hitting ground balls just for Derek.” He always wanted more: ‘How about one more turn in the batting cage? Or 25 more ground balls?’”Thomas Edison tested more than 6,000 different materials for just one tiny part of the light bulb that he invented. Think about that -- 6,000 tests. J.K. Rowling’s first Harry Potter book was rejected 12 times before it was finally published. Mozart was a musical prodigy, but he practiced for hours each day -- accumulating thousands of hours at the piano by the time he was just six years old. I understand that your boys’ basketball team did pretty good. (Applause.) First state champions for the first time in 59 years. That didn’t happen by accident. They put in work. They put in effort.So, today, you all have a rare and valuable chance to pursue your own passions, chase your own dreams without incurring a mountain of debt. What an incredible gift. So you’ve got no excuse for giving anything less than your best effort. (Applause.) No excuses. [Nextpage演讲文本5]【Part 5】That’s my second piece of advice, very simple: Don’t make excuses. Take responsibility not just for your successes; take responsibility where you fall short as well. Now, the truth is, no matter how hard you work, you’re not going to ace every class -- well, maybe Cindy will, but -- (laughter.) But you’re not going to ace every class. You’re not going to succeed the first time you try something. There are going to be times when you screw up. There will be times where you hurt people you love. There will be times where you make a mistake and you stray from the values that you hold most deeply. And when that happens, it’s the easiest thing in the world to start looking around for somebody else to blame. Your professor was too hard; your boss was a jerk; the coaches -- was playing favorites; your friend just didn’t understand. Your wife -- oh, no. (Laughter.) I’m just messing with Michelle right there. (Laughter.) That was all in fun. (Laughter.) No, but this is an easy habit to get into. You see it every day in Washington -- every day -- folks calling each other names, making all sorts of accusations on television. Everybody is always pointing a finger at somebody else. You notice that? Now, this community could have easily gone down that road. This community could have made excuses -- well, our kids have fewer advantages, our schools have fewer resources -- how can we compete? You could have spent years pointing fingers -- blaming parents, blaming teachers, blaming the principal, blaming the superintendent, blaming the President. (Laughter and applause.) But that’s -- Class of 2010, I want you to pay attention on this because that’s not what happened. Instead, this community was honest with itself about where you were falling short. You resolved to do better, push your kids harder, open their minds wider, expose them to all kinds of ideas and people and experiences. So, graduates, I hope you’ll continue those efforts. Don’t make excuses. And I hope that wherever you go, you won’t narrow the broad intellectual and social exposure you’ve had here at Kalamazoo Central -- instead, seek to expand it. Don’t just hang out with people who look like you, or go to the same church you do, or share your political views. Broaden your circle to include people with different backgrounds and life experiences. Because that’s how you’ll end up learning what it’s like to walk in somebody else’s shoes. (Applause.) That’s how you’ll come to understand the challenges other people face. And this is not just an academic exercise. It’s a way to broaden your ambit of concern and learn to see yourselves in each other. Which brings me to my final piece of advice for today, and that’s to give back, to be part of something bigger than yourselves. Hitch your wagon to something that is bigger than yourselves.I know that so many of you have aly served your community through efforts like your Stuff the Bus food drives and groups like Activists for Action. And I commend you for that. (Applause.)[Nextpage演讲文本6]【Part 6】But I also know that many of you are the first in your family to go to college. And right about now, you may be feeling all the weight of their hopes and expectations coming down on your shoulders. And once you start juggling those classes and activities and that campus job, and you get caught up in your own dreams and your own anxieties and dating -- (laughter) -- you may feel like you’ve got enough on your plate just dealing with your own life. It might be easier to turn the channel when the news disturbs you, to avert your eyes when you pass that homeless man on the street, to tell yourself that other people’s problems really aren’t your responsibility.But just think about what the consequence of that approach to life would have been if that’s how folks had acted here in this community. What if those Kalamazoo Promise donors had said to themselves, “Well, you know what, I can pay for my own kid’s education. Why should I have to pay for somebody else’s?” Think about the consequences for our country. What if our Founding Fathers had said, “You know, colonialism is kind of oppressive, but I’m doing okay, my family’s doing all right, why should I spend my summer in Philadelphia arguing about a Constitution?” What if those abolitionists, those civil right workers had said, “You know, slavery is wrong, segregation is wrong, but it’s kind of dangerous to get mixed up in that stuff. I don’t have time for all those meetings and marches. I think I’m going to take a pass. I hope it works out, but that’s not something I want to do.” I want you to think for a minute about the extraordinary men and women who’ve worn our country’s uniform and have given their last full measure of devotion to keep us safe and free. (Applause.) What if they said -- what if they said, “I really do love this country, but why should I sacrifice so much for people I’ve never even met?” Young men and women in uniform right now making those sacrifices. (Applause.) So you and I are here today because those people made a different choice. They chose to step up. They chose to serve. And I hope you will follow their example, because there is work to be done, and your country needs you. We’ve got an economy to rebuild. We’ve got children to educate. We’ve got diseases to cure. We’ve got threats to face. We’ve got an oil spill to clean up. (Applause.) We’ve got clean energy to discover. And it is going to be up to you to meet all of those challenges -- to build industries and make discoveries and inspire the next generation. It’s going to be up to you to heal the divide that continues to afflict our world. Now, I’m not saying you got to do it here all at once. But as Theodore Roosevelt once put it, I’m asking you to “Do what you can, with what you’ve got, where you are.” And I can guarantee that wherever your journey takes you, there are going to be children who need mentors and senior citizens who need assistance, folks down on their luck who could use a helping hand. And once you’ve reached out and formed those connections, you’ll find it’s a little harder to numb yourself to other people’s suffering. It’s a little harder to ignore the national debates about the issues that affect their lives and yours.In the end, service binds us to each other -- and to our communities and our country -- in a way that nothing else can. It’s how we become more fully American. That’s the reason those donors created the Kalamazoo Promise in the first place -- not for recognition or reward, but because of their connection to this community; because their belief in your potential; because their faith that you would use this gift not just to enrich your own lives, but the lives of others and the life of the nation. (Applause.) And I’m told that soon after the Promise was established, a first grader approached the superintendent at the time and declared to her: “I’m going to college.” First grader. “I’m going to college. I don’t know what it is, but I’m going.” (Laughter and applause.) We may never know those donors’ names, but we know how they helped bring this community together and how you’ve embraced their Promise not just as a gift to be appreciated, but a responsibility to be fulfilled. We know how they have helped inspire an entire generation of young people here in Kalamazoo to imagine a different future for themselves. And graduates, today, I’m asking you to pay them back by seeking to have the same kind of impact with your own lives; by pursuing excellence in everything you do; by serving this country that you love. (Applause.)I know that you can do it. After all, you are the Giants -- (applause) -- and with the education you’ve gotten here, there’s nothing you can’t do. Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. And God bless the ed States of America. (Applause.) And God bless the Class of 2010. (Applause.)END201006/105752。

In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. I was struck by a sign—the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt. I understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the western sectors of the city. The sign simply: "The Marshall Plan is helping here to strengthen the free world." A strong, free world in the West—that dream became real. Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. Italy, France, Belgium—virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth; the European Community was founded. In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty -- that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders—the German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled. Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany: busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the sping lawns of parkland. Where a city's culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums. Where there was want, today there's abundance — food, clothing, automobiles — the wonderful goods of the Kudamm. From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth. Now the Soviets may have had other plans. But my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn't count on: Berliner Herz, Berliner Humor, ja, und Berliner Schnauze. [Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes, and a Berliner Schnauze.] In the 1950s —In the 1950s Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind—too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.201111/159829。

President's Radio Address THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Americans from all walks of life are continuing to feel the effects of the financial crisis. In recent weeks, concerns about the availability of credit, the safety of financial assets, and the volatility of the stock market have made many families understandably anxious about their economic future. The Federal government has taken bold action to stabilize our economy. Earlier this month, my Administration worked with Congress to pass bipartisan legislation that is providing funds to help banks rebuild capital and resume lending. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has temporarily guaranteed most new debt issued by insured banks, which will make it easier for these banks to borrow needed money. And the Federal Reserve is launching a new program to provide support for commercial paper -- a key source of short-term financing for America's businesses and financial institutions. These steps are beginning to show results, but it will take time for their full impact to be felt. In coordination with the ed States, many other nations have taken similar steps to address turbulence in their domestic markets. This crisis is global in reach -- and addressing it will require further international cooperation. So this week, I consulted with leaders from throughout the world and announced that I would convene an international summit in Washington on November the 15th. This summit will be the first in a series of meetings aimed at addressing this crisis. The summit will bring together leaders of the G20 nations -- countries that represent both the developed and the developing world. And the summit will also include the heads of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Financial Stability Forum, as well as the Secretary General of the ed Nations. During this summit, we will discuss the causes of the problems in our financial systems, review the progress being made to address the current crisis, and begin developing principles of reform for regulatory bodies and institutions related to our financial sectors. While the specific solutions pursued by every country may not be the same, agreeing on a common set of principles will be an essential step towards preventing similar crises in the future. As we focus on responses to our short-term challenges, our nations must also recommit to the fundamentals of long-term economic growth -- free markets, free enterprise, and free trade. Open market policies have lifted standards of living and helped millions of people around the world escape the grip of poverty. These policies have shown themselves time and time again to be the surest path to creating jobs, increasing commerce, and fostering progress. And this moment of global economic uncertainty would be precisely the wrong time to reject such proven methods for creating prosperity and hope. Despite the ups and downs that our markets have experienced in recent months, the American people have reason for optimism in our Nation's economic future. Throughout our history, we have seen that when Americans are given the freedom to apply their talents and imagination, prosperity and success follow closely behind. For over two centuries, that principle has allowed our economy to overcome every obstacle it has faced. And we can all be confident that it will do so again. Thank you for listening. 200810/54027。

President Bush Meets with President Johnson Sirleaf of the Republic of LiberiaPRESIDENT BUSH: Madam President, I have come to respect you and admire you because of your courage, your vision, your commitment to universal values and principles. Laura and I had a fantastic experience traveling to Liberia, and we want to thank you for your warm hospitality. Yesterday, you made note of my -- the lack of my talent when it came to dancing. But nevertheless, I want you to know I danced with joy.And no question Liberia has gone through very difficult times. But no question there's a bright future for Liberia. Liberia needs the help of the ed States and other nations to help make sure children are educated, to make sure babies are not dying because of malaria, to make sure there's an infrastructure so that small businesses can flourish, to make sure the port is open for business. We have been helpful and we want to be helpful in the future. And I'm confident in saying to the American people that by helping this President and Liberia, we really help ourselves in many ways.And so I -- it's been a joy to know you. It's been a great experience working with you, and I congratulate you on your strong leadership. Welcome.PRESIDENT JOHNSON SIRLEAF: Thank you, Mr. President. I come on behalf of the Liberian people to thank you for the support we've received from you, the administration, from Congress, from the American people. It has enabled us to turn the corner from being what was called a "failed state" several years ago to today what we hope will becoming to be one of the emerging democracies.We've been able to put our economic and financial house in order; tackle our debt; begin to rebuild our infrastructure; put our children back into school; bring some water and electricity to a country that hasn't had it for over two decades. And so we're just so thankful for the encouragement, the support that we received from you.I want you to know that the challenges are many, but with the continued support of the American people and the continued support of the American administration and Congress, that we feel that Liberia can become a post-conflict success story.We want to say to you that your visit to our country is one that goes down in the record books -- (laughter) -- as being one of the most enjoyable -- not only for the dancing -- (laughter) -- but for all that you did to train our new soldiers and put our infrastructure in order; and the hope that you helped to give to the Liberian people that indeed the nightmare is over and they can have a future that's full of promise.So we're here to say to you we're very grateful. The Liberian people just want to thank you.PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you.PRESIDENT JOHNSON SIRLEAF: And thank Laura, especially, who was there with you. And we're just so pleased -- just tell --PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you.200810/53805。

Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, Im grateful for your generous invitation to state my views.While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 campaign; the sp of Communist influence, until it now festers only 90 miles from the coast of Florida -- the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power -- the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctors bills, the families forced to give up their farms -- an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space. These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues -- for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me -- but what kind of America I believe in.I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been -- and may someday be again -- a Jew, or a Quaker, or a arian, or a Baptist. It was Virginias harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jeffersons statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice, where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind, and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe, a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it -- its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon himsup1; as a condition to holding that office.I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendments guarantees of religious liberty; nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none, who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him to fulfill; and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.This is the kind of America I believe in -- and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a divided loyalty, that we did not believe in liberty, or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened -- I e -- ;the freedoms for which our forefathers died.;And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches -- when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes, and McCafferty, and Bailey, and Badillo, and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition -- to judge me on the basis of 14 years in the Congress, on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools -- which I attended myself. And instead of doing this, do not judge me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select ations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and rarely relevant to any situation here. And always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed Church-State separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.I do not consider these other ations binding upon my public acts. Why should you?But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the State being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution, at any time, by anyone, in any country. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would also cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as France and Ireland, and the independence of such statesmen as De Gaulle and Adenauer.But let me stress again that these are my views.For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President.I am the Democratic Partys candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith; nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that Id tried my best and was fairly judged.But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add, with the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can, ;solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the ed States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution -- so help me God. /201205/182068。