Elizabeth Warren – Enough is Enough Senate Floor Speech essay help 123

Emma Goldman Address to the Jury delivered 9 July 1917, New York Gentlemen of the Jury: As in the case of my co-defendant, Alexander Berkman, this is also the first time in my life I have ever addressed a jury. I once had occasion to speak to three judges. On the day after our arrest it was give out by the U. S. Marshal and the District Attorney’s office that the “big fish” of the No-Conscription activities had been caught, and that there would be no more trouble-makers and disturbers to interfere with the highly democratic effort of the Government to conscript its young manhood for the European slaughter. What a pity that the faithful servants of the Government, personified in the U. S. Marsha land the District Attorney, should have used such a weak and flimsy net for their big catch. The moment the anglers pulled their heavily laden net ashore, it broke, and all the labor was so much wasted energy. The methods employed by Marshal McCarthy and his hosts of heroic warriors were sensational enough to satisfy the famous circus men, Barnum & Baily. A dozen or more heroes dashing up two flights of stairs, prepared to stake their lives for their country, only to discover the two dangerous disturbers and trouble-makers Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman, in their separate offices, quietly at work at their desks, wielding not a sword, nor a gun or a bomb, but merely their pens! Verily, it required courage to catch such big fish. To be sure, tow officers equipped with a warrant would have sufficed to carry out the business of arresting the defendants Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman. Even the police know that neither of them is in the habit of running away or hiding under the bed. But the farce-comedy had to be properly staged if the Marshal and the District Attorney were to earn immortality. Hence the sensational arrest; hence, also, the raid upon the offices of THE BLAST, MOTHER EARTH and the No-Conscription League. In their zeal to save the country from the trouble-makers, the Marshal and his helpers did not even consider it necessary to produce a search warrant. After all, what matters a mere scrap of paper when one is called upon to raid the offices of Anarchists! Of what consequence is the sanctity of property, the right of privacy, to officials in their dealings with Anarchists! In our day of military training for battle, and Anarchist office is an appropriate camping ground. Would the gentlemen who came with Marshal McCarthy have dared to go into the offices of Morgan, of Rockefeller, or of any of those men without a search warrant? They never showed us the search warrant, although we asked them for it. Nevertheless, they turned our office into a battlefield, so that when they were through with it, it looked like invaded Belgium, with the only difference that the invaders were not Prussian barbarians but good American patriots bent on making New York safe for democracy. The stage having been appropriately set for the three-act comedy, and the first act successfully played by carrying off the villains in a madly dashing automobile — which broke every traffic regulation and barely escaped crushing every one in its way–the second act proved even more ludicrous. Fifty thousand dollars bail was demanded, and real estate refused when offered by a man whose property is rated at three hundred thousand dollars, and that after the District Attorney had considered and, in fact, promised to accept the property for one of the defendants, Alexander Berkman, thus breaking every right guaranteed even to the most heinous criminal. Finally the third act, played by the Government in this court during the last week. The pity of it is that the prosecution knows so little of dramatic construction, else it would have equipped itself with better dramatic material to sustain the continuity of the play. As it was, the third act fell flat, utterly, and presents the question, Why such a tempest in a teapot? Gentlemen of the jury, my comrade and co-defendant having carefully and thoroughly gone into the evidence presented by the prosecution, and having demonstrated its entire failure to prove the charge of conspiracy or any overt acts to carry out that conspiracy, I shall not impose upon your patience by going over the same ground, except to emphasize a few points. To charge people with having conspired to do something which they have been engaged in doing most of their lives, namely their campaign against war, militarism and conscription as contrary to the best interests of humanity, is an insult to human intelligence. And how was that charge proven? By the fact that MOTHER EARTH and THE BLAST were printed by the same printer and bound in the same bindery. By the further evidence that the same expressman had delivered to two publications! An by the still more illuminating fact that on June 2nd MOTHER EARTH and THE BLAST were given to a reporter at his request, if your please, and gratis. Gentlemen of the jury, you saw the reporter who testified to this overt act. Did any one of you receive the impression that the man was of conscriptable age, and if not in what possible way is the giving of MOTHER EARTH to a report for news purposes proof demonstrating the overt act? It was brought out by our witnesses that the MOTHER EARTH magazine has been published for twelve years; that it was never held up, and that it has always gone through the U. S. mail as second-class mail matter. It was further proven that the magazine appeared each month about the first or second, and that it was sold or given away at the office to whoever wanted a copy. Where, then, is the overt act? Just as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge of conspiracy, so has it also failed to prove the overt act by the flimsy testimony that MOTHER EARTH was given to a reporter. The same holds good regarding THE BLAST. Gentlemen of the jury, the District Attorney must have learned from the reporters the gist of the numerous interviews which they had with us. Why did he not examine them as to whether or not we had counseled young men not to register? That would have been a more direct way of getting at the facts. In the case of the reporter from the New York Times, there can be no doubt that the man would have been only too happy to accommodate the District Attorney with the required information. A man who disregards every principle of decency and ethics of his profession as a newspaper man, by turning material given him as news over to the District Attorney, would have been glad to oblige a friend. Why did Mr. Content neglect such a golden opportunity? Was it no because the reporter of the Times, like all the other reporters, must have told the District Attorney that the two defendants stated, on each and every occasion, they would not tell people not to register? Perhaps the Times reporter refused to go to the extent of perjuring himself. Patrolmen and detectives are not so timid in such matters. Hence Mr. Randolph and Mr. Cadell, to rescue the situation. Imagine employing tenth-rate stenographers to report the very important speeches of dangerous trouble-makers! What lack of forethought and efficiency on the part of the District Attorney! But even these two members of the police department failed to prove by their notes that we advised people not to register. But since they had to produce something incriminating against Anarchists, they conveniently resorted to the old standby, always credited to us, “We believe in violence and we will use violence.” Assuming, gentlemen of the jury, that his sentence was really used at the meeting of May 18th, it would still fail to prove the indictment which charges conspiracy and overt acts to carry out the conspiracy. And that is all we are charged with. Not violence, not Anarchism. I will go further and say, that had the indictment been for the advocacy of violence, you gentlemen of the jury, would still have to render a verdict of “Not Guilty,” since the mere belief in a thing or even the announcement that you would carry out that belief, can not possibly constitute a crime. However, I wish to say emphatically that no such expression as “We believe in violence and we will use violence” was uttered at the meeting of May 18th, or at any other meeting. I could not have employed such a phrase, as there was no occasion for it. If for no other reason, it is because I want my lectures and speeches to be coherent and logical. The sentence credited to me is neither. I have read to you my position toward political violence from a lengthy essay called “The Psychology of Political Violence.” But to make that a position clearer and simpler, I wish to say that I am a social student. It is my mission in life to ascertain the cause of our social evils and of our social difficulties. As a student of social wrongs it is my aim to diagnose a wrong. To simply condemn the man who has committed an act of political violence, in order to save my skin, would be as unpardonable as it would be on the part of the physician, who is called to diagnose a case, to condemn the patient because the patient has tuberculosis, caner, or some other disease. The honest, earnest, sincere physician does not only prescribe medicine, he tries to find out the cause of the disease. And if the patient is at all capable as to means, the doctor will say to him, “Get out of this putrid air, get out of the factory, get out of the place where your lungs are being infected.” He will not merely give him medicine. He will tell him the cause of the disease. And that is precisely my position in regard to acts of violence. That is what I have said on every platform. I have attempted to explain the cause and the reason for acts of political violence. It is organized violence on top which creates individual violence at the bottom. It is the accumulated indignation against organized wrong, organized crime, organized injustice which drives the political offender to his act. To condemn him means to be blind to the causes which make him. I can no more do it, nor have I the right to, than the physician who were to condemn the patient for his disease. You and I and all of us who remain indifferent to the crimes of poverty, of war, of human degradation, are equally responsible for the act committed by the political offender. May I therefore be permitted to say, in the words of a great teacher: “He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.” Does that mean advocating violence? You might as well accuse Jesus of advocating prostitution, because He took the part of the prostitute, Mary Magdalene. Gentlemen of the jury, the meeting of the 18th of May was called primarily for the purpose of voicing the position of the conscientious objector and to point out the evils of conscription. Now, who and what is the conscientious objector? Is he really a shirker, a slacker, or a coward? To call him that is to be guilty of dense ignorance of the forces which impel men and women to stand out against the whole world like a glittering lone star upon a dark horizon. The conscientious objector is impelled by what President Wilson in his speech of Feb. 3, 1917, called “the righteous passion for justice upon which all war, all structure of family, State and of mankind must rest as the ultimate base of our existence or our liberty.” The righteous passion for justice which can never express itself in human slaughter — that is the force which makes the conscientious objector. Poor indeed is the country which fails to recognize the importance of that new type of humanity as the “ultimate base of our existence and liberty.” It will find itself barren of that which makes for character and quality in its people. The meeting of May 18th was held before the Draft Bill had actually gone into effect. The President signed it late in the evening of the 18th. Whatever was said at the meeting, even if I had counseled young men not to register, that meeting cannot serve as proof of an overt act. Why, then, has the Prosecuting Attorney dwelt so much, at such length, and with such pains on that meeting, and so little on the other meetings held on the eve of registration and after? Is it not because the District Attorney knew that we had no stenographic notes of that meeting? He knew it because he was approached by Mr. Weinberger and other friends for a copy of the transcript, which request he refused. Evidently, the District Attorney felt safe to use the notes of a patrolman and a detective, knowing that they would swear to anything their superiors wanted. I never like to accuse anyone — I wouldn’t go so far as my co-defendant, Mr. Berkman, in saying that the District Attorney doctored the document; I don’t know whether he did or not. But I do know that Patrolman Randolph and Detective Cadell doctored the notes, for the simple reason that I didn’t say those things. But though we could not produce our own stenographic notes, we have been able to prove by men and women of unimpeachable character and high intelligence that the notes of Randolph are utterly false. We have also proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and Mr. Content did not dare question our proof, that at the Hunts’ Point Palace, held on the eve or registration, I expressly stated that I cannot and will not tell people not to register. We have further proven that this was my definite stand, which was explained in my statement sent from Springfield and read at the meeting of May 23rd. When we go through the entire testimony given on behalf of the prosecution, I insist that there is not one single point to sustain the indictment for conspiracy or to prove the overt acts we are supposed to have committed. But we were even compelled to bring a man eighty years of age to the witness stand in order to stop, if possible, and intention to drag in the question of German money. It is true, and I appreciate it, that Mr. Content said he had no knowledge of it. But, gentlemen of the jury, somebody from the District Attorney’s office or someone from the Marshal’s office must have given out the statement that a bank receipt for $2,400 was found in my office and must have told the newspapers the fake story of German money. As if we would ever touch German money, or Russian money, or American money coming from the ruling class, to advance our ideas ! But in order to forestall any suspicion, any insinuation, in order to stand clear before you, we were compelled to bring an old man here to inform you that he has been a radical all his life, that he is interested in our ideas, and that he is the man who contributed the money for radical purposes and for the work of Miss Goldman. Gentlemen of the jury, you will be told by the Court, I am sure, that when you render a verdict you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt; that you must not assume that we are guilty before we are proven guilty; and that it is your duty to assume that we are innocent. And yet, as a matter of fact, the burden of proof has been laid upon us. We had to bring witnesses. If we had had time we could have brought fifty more witnesses, each corroborating the others. Some of those people have no relation with us. Some are writers, poets, contributors to the most conventional magazines. Is it likely that they would swear to something in our favor if it were not the truth? Therefore I insist, as did my co-defendant Alexander Berkman, that the prosecution has made a very poor showing in proving the conspiracy or any overt act. Gentlemen of the jury, we have been in public life for twenty-seven years. We have been haled into court, in and out of season — we have never denied our position. Even the police know that Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman are not shirkers. You have had occasion during this trial to convince yourselves that we do not deny. We have gladly and proudly claimed responsibility, not only for what we ourselves have said and written, but even for things written by others and with which we did not agree. Is it plausible, then, that we would go through the ordeal, trouble and expense of a lengthy trial to escape responsibility in this instance? A thousand times no! But we refuse to be tried on a trumped-up charge, or to be convicted by perjured testimony, merely because we are Anarchists and hated by the class whom we have openly fought for many years. Gentlemen, during our examination of talesmen, when we asked whether you would be prejudiced against us if it were proven that we propagated ideas and opinions contrary to those held by the majority, you were instructed by the Court to say, “If they are within the law.” But what the Court did not tell you is, that no new faith — not even the most humane and peaceable — has ever been considered “within the law” by those who were in power. The history of human growth is at the same time the history of every new idea heralding the approach of a brighter dawn, and the brighter dawn has always been considered illegal, outside of the law. Gentlemen of the jury, most of you, I take it, are believers in the teachings of Jesus. Bear in mind that he was put to death by those who considered his views as being against the law. I also take it that you are proud of you Americanism. Remember that those who fought and bled for your liberties were in their time considered as being against the law, as dangerous disturbers and trouble-makers. They not only preached violence, but they carried out their ideas by throwing tea into the Boston harbor. They said that “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” They wrote a dangerous document called the Declaration of Independence. A document which continues to be dangerous to this day, and for the circulation of which a young man was sentenced to ninety days prison in a New Your Court, only the other day. They were the Anarchists of their time — they were never within the law. Your Government is allied with the French Republic. Need I call you attention to the historic fact that the great upheaval in France was brought about by extra-legal means? The Dantes, the Robespieres, the Marats, the Herberts, aye even the man who is responsible for the most stirring revolutionary music, the Marseillaise (which unfortunately has deteriorated into a war tune) even Camille Desmoulins, were never within the law. But for those great pioneers and rebels, France would have continued under the yoke of the idle Louis XVI., to whom the sport of shooting jack rabbits was more important than the destiny of the people of France. Ah, gentlemen, on the very day when we were being tried for conspiracy and overt acts, your city officials and representatives welcomed with music and festivities the Russian Commission. Are you aware of the fact that nearly all of the members of that Commission have only recently been released from exile? The ideas they propagated were never within the law. For nearly a hundred years, from 1825 to 1917, the Tree of Liberty in Russia was watered by the blood of her martyrs. No greater heroism, no nobler lives had ever been dedicated to humanity. Not one of them worked within the law. I could continue to enumerate almost endlessly the hosts of men and women in every land and in every period whose ideas and ideals redeemed the world because they were not within the law. Never can a new idea move within the law. It matters not whether that idea pertains to political and social changes or to any other domain of human thought and expression — to science, literature, music; in fact, everything that makes for freedom and joy and beauty must refuse to move within the law. How can it be otherwise? The law is stationary, fixed, mechanical, “a chariot wheel” which grinds all alike without regard to time, place and condition, without ever taking into account cause and effect, without ever going into the complexity of the human soul. Progress knows nothing of fixity. It cannot be pressed into a definite mould. It cannot bow to the dictum, “I have ruled,” “I am the regulating finger of God.” Progress is ever renewing, ever becoming, ever changing — never is it within the law. If that be crime, we are criminals even like Jesus, Socrates, Galileo, Bruno, John Brown and scores of others. We are in good company, among those whom Havelock Ellis, the greatest living psychologist, describes as the political criminals recognized by the whole civilized world, except America, as men and women who out of deep love for humanity, out of a passionate reverence for liberty and an all-absorbing devotion to an ideal are ready to pay for their faith even with their blood. We cannot do otherwise if we are to be true to ourselves — we know that the political criminal is the precursor of human progress — the political criminal of today must needs be the hero, the martyr and the saint of the new age. But, says the Prosecuting Attorney, the press and the unthinking rabble, in high and low station, “that is a dangerous doctrine and unpatriotic at this time.” No doubt it is. But are we to be held responsible for something which is as unchangeable and unalienable as the very stars hanging in the heavens unto time and all eternity? Gentlemen to the jury, we respect your patriotism. We would not, if we could, have you change its meaning for yourself. But may there not be different kinds of patriotism as there are different kinds of liberty? I for one cannot believe that love of one’s country must needs consist in blindness to its social faults, to deafness to its social discords, of inarticulation to its social wrongs. Neither can I believe that the mere accident of birth in a certain country or the mere scrap of a citizen’s paper constitutes the love of country. I know many people — I am one of them — who were not born here, nor have the applied for citizenship, and who yet love America with deeper passion and greater intensity that many natives whose patriotism manifests itself by pulling, kicking, and insulting those who do not rise when the national anthem is played. Our patriotism is that of the man who loves a woman with open eyes. He is enchanted by her beauty, yet he sees her faults. So we, too, who know America, love her beauty, her richness, her great possibilities; we love her mountains, her canyons, her forests, her Niagara, and her deserts — above all do we love the people that have produced her wealth, her artists who have created beauty, her great apostles who dream and work for liberty — but with the same passionate emotion we hate her superficiality, her cant, her corruption, her mad, unscrupulous worship at the alter of the Golden Calf. We say that if America has entered the war to make the world safe for democracy, she must first make democracy safe in America. How else is the world to take America seriously, when democracy at home is daily being outrages, free speech suppressed, peaceable assemblies broken up by overbearing and brutal gangsters in uniform; when free press is curtailed and every independent opinion gagged. Verily, poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it to the world? We further say that a democracy conceived in the military servitude of the masses, in their economic enslavement, and nurtured in their tears and blood, is not democracy at all. It is despotism — the cumulative result of a chain of abuses which, according to the dangerous document ,the Declaration of Independence, the people have the right to overthrow. The District Attorney has dragged in our Manifesto, and he has emphasized the passage, “Resist conscription.” Gentlemen of the jury, please remember that that is not the charge against us. But admitting that the Manifesto contains the expression, “Resist conscription,” may I ask you, is there only one kind of resistance? Is there only the resistance which means the gun, the bayonet, the bomb or flying machine? Is there not another kind of resistance? May not the people simply fold their hands and declare, “We will not fight when we do not believe in the necessity of war”? May not the people who believe in the repeal of the Conscription Law, because it is unconstitutional, express their opposition in word and by pen, in meetings and in other ways? What right has the District Attorney to interpret that particular passage to suit himself? Moreover, gentlemen of the jury, I insist that the indictment against us does not refer to conscription. We are charged with a conspiracy against registration. And in no way or manner has the prosecution proven that we are guilty of conspiracy or that we have committed an overt act. Gentlemen of the jury, you are not called upon to accept our views, to approve of them or to justify them. You are not even called upon to decide whether our views are within or against the law. You are called upon to decide whether the prosecution has proven that the defendants Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman have conspired to urge people not to register. And whether their speeches and writings represent overt acts. Whatever you verdict, gentlemen, it cannot possibly affect the rising tide of discontent in this country against war which, despite all boasts, is a war for conquest and military power. Neither can it affect the ever increasing opposition to conscription which is a military and industrial yoke placed upon the necks of the American people. Least of all will your verdict affect those to whom human life is sacred, and who will not become a party to the world slaughter. Your verdict can only add to the opinion of the world as to whether or not justice and liberty are a living force in this country or a mere shadow of the past. Your verdict may, of course, affect us temporarily, in a physical sense — it can have no effect whatever upon our spirit. For even if we were convicted and found guilty and the penalty were that we be placed against a wall and shot dead, I should nevertheless cry out with the great Luther: “Here I am and her I stand and I cannot do otherwise.” And gentlemen, in conclusion let me tell you that my co-defendant, Mr. Berkman, was right when he said the eyes of America are upon you. They are upon you not because of sympathy for us or agreement with Anarchism. They are upon you because it must decided sooner or later whether we are justified in telling people that we will give the democracy in Europe, when we have no democracy here? Shall free speech and free assemblage, shall criticism and opinion — which even the espionage bill did not include — be destroyed? Shall it be a shadow of the past, the great historic American past? Shall it be trampled underfoot by any detective, or policeman, anyone who decides upon it? Or shall free speech and free press and free assemblage continue to be the heritage of the American people? Gentlemen of the jury, whatever you verdict will be, as far as we are concerned, nothing will be changed. I have held ideas all my life. I have publicly held my ideas for twenty-seven years. Nothing on earth would ever make me change my ideas except one thing; and that is, if you will prove to me that our position is wrong, untenable, or lacking in historic fact. But never would I change my ideas because I am found guilty. I may remind you of two great Americans, undoubtedly not unknown to you, gentlemen of the jury; Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. When Thoreau was placed in prison for refusing to pay taxes, he was visited by Ralph Waldo Emerson and Emerson said: “David, what are you doing in jail?” and Thoreau replied: “ Ralph, what are you doing outside, when honest people are in jail for their ideals?” Gentlemen of the jury, I do not wish to influence you. I do not wish to appeal to you passions. I do not wish to influence you by the fact that I am a woman. I have no such desires and no such designs. I take it that you are sincere enough and honest enough and brave enough to render a verdict according to you convictions, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. Please forget that we are Anarchists. Forget that it is claimed that we propagated violence. Forget that something appeared in MOTHER EARTH when I was thousands of miles away, three years ago. Forget all that, and merely consider the evidence. Have we been engaged in a conspiracy? has that conspiracy been proven? have we committed overt acts? have those overt acts been proven? We for the defense say they have not been proven. And therefore your verdict must be not guilty. But whatever your decision, the struggle must go on. We are but the atoms in the incessant human struggle towards the light that shines in the darkness — the Ideal of economic, political and spiritual liberation of mankind! Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Text Source: Berkman, Alexander. “Anarchism on Trial: Speeches of Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman Before the United States District Court in the City of New York, July, 1917.” New York, Mother Earth Publishing Association (1917) Copyright Status: Text & Image = Public domain.

Emma Watson United Nations Address on Gender Equality delivered 20 September 2014 Your Excellencies, UN Secretary General, President of the General Assembly, Executive Director of UN Women, and Distinguished Guests: Today, we are launching a campaign called HeForShe. I am reaching out to you because we need your help. We want to end gender inequality, and to do this we need everyone involved. This is the first campaign of its kind at the UN. We want to try and galvanize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for change. And we don’t just want to talk about it. We want to try and make sure that it’s tangible. I was appointed as Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women six months ago. And the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop. For the record, feminism by definition is “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.”1 I started questioning gender-based assumptions a long time ago, when I was eight, I was confused at being called “bossy,” because I wanted to direct the plays that we would put on for our parents — but the boys were not3; when at 14 I started to be sexualized by certain elements of the media; when at 15 my girlfriends started dropping out of their beloved sports teams because they didn’t want to appear “muscle-y”; when at 18 my male friends were unable to express their feelings. I decided that I was a feminist — and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word. Women are choosing not to identify as feminist. Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, and anti-men — unattractive, even. Why has the word become such an uncomfortable one? I am from Britain and I think it is right that I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body. I think — I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and the decisions that will affect my life. I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men. But sadly, I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights. No country in the world can yet say that they have achieved gender equality. These rights I consider to be human rights, but I am one of the lucky ones. My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born a daughter. My school did not limit me because I was a girl. My mentors didn’t assume that I would go less far because I might give birth to a child one day. These influencers were the gender equality ambassadors that made me who I am today. They may not know it, but they are the inadvertent feminists who are changing the world today. We need more of those. And if you still hate the word, it is not the word that is important; it’s the idea and the ambition behind it — because not all women have received the same rights that I have. In fact, statistically very few have been. In 19972, Hilary Clinton made a famous speech in Beijing about women’s rights. Sadly many of the things that she wanted to change are still true today. But what stood out for me the most was that less than 30 percent of the audience were male. How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation? Men, I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue too, because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society despite my needing his presence as a child as much as my mother’s. I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help for fear it would make them less of a men — or less of a man. In fact, in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20 to 49 — eclipsing road accidents, cancer, and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality either. We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are, and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled. Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong. It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum instead of two sets of opposing ideals. If — If we stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by who we are, we can all be freer and this is what HeForShe is about. It’s about freedom. I want men to take up this mantle, so that their daughters, sisters, and mothers can be free from prejudice but also so that their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human too — reclaim those parts of themselves they abandoned and in doing so be a more true and complete version of themselves. You might be thinking who is this Harry Potter girl, and what is she doing speaking at the UN? And it’s a really good question. I’ve been asking myself the same thing. All I know is that I care about this problem and I want to make it better. And having seen what I’ve seen, and given the chance, I feel it is my responsibility to say something. Statesman Edmund Burke said: “All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for good men [and women]4 to do nothing.” In my nervousness for this speech and in my moments of doubt I’ve told myself firmly: If not me, who? If not now, when?5 If you have similar doubts when opportunities are presented to you I hope that those words will be helpful, because the reality is that if we do nothing it will take 75 years, or for me to be nearly a hundred, before women can expect to be paid the same as men, for the same work. 15.5 million girls will be married in the next 16 years as children. And at current rates it won’t be until 2086 before all rural African girls can have a secondary education. If you believe in equality, you might be one of those inadvertent feminists that I spoke of earlier — and for this I applaud you. We are struggling for a uniting word, but the good news is that we have a uniting movement. It is called HeForShe. I am inviting you to step forward, to be seen, and to ask yourself, “If not me, who? If not now, when?” Thank you very, very much. 1 Defined here by Meriam-Webster.com. 2 This dynamic, as pertaining to women and leadership, is addressed by the concept of “Double Bind” 3 Presumably in reference to Hillary Clinton’s Address to the 4th World Congress delivered 5 September 1995 4 Quotation not italicized for two reasons. First, the source of this quotation is disputed (see Wikipeda entry). Second, and consistent with the common use of gender exclusive pronouns of the era, the terms “and women” do not appear in the accounts noted in the entry above. It is likely that the speaker knowingly took literary/rhetorical license for the purpose of representing the very subject under consideration, i.e. gender equality. 5 Phrase and its proximate attributed to various sources, but most directly to Mikhail Gorgachev U.S. Copyright Status: Text = Uncertain.

Emmanuel Macron Address to Americans on Paris Climate Accord delivered 2 June 2017, Paris, France Now, let me say a few words to our American friends. Climate change is one of the major issue[s] of our time. It is already changing our daily lives but it is global. Everyone’s impacted. And if we do nothing, our children will know a world of migrations, of wars, of shortage[s] — a dangerous world. It is not the future we want for ourselves. It is not the future we want for our children. It is not the future we want for our world.1 Today, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, announced his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement. I do respect his decision, but I do think it is an actual mistake, both for the U.S. and for our planet. I just said President Trump in a few words a few minutes ago this assessment. Tonight, I wish to tell the United States, France believes in you. The world believes in you.2 I know that you are a great nation. I know your history, our common history. To all scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, responsible citizens who were disappointed by the decision of the President of the United States, I want to say that they will find in France a second homeland. I call on them: Come and work here with us, to work together on concrete solutions for our climate, our environment. I can assure you, France will not give up the fight. I reaffirm clearly that the Paris agreement remains irreversible and will be implemented, not just by France but by all the other nations. Over the coming hours, I will have the opportunity to speak with our main partners to define a common strategy and to launch new initiatives. I already know that I can count on them. I call on you to remain confident. We will succeed, because we are fully committed. Because wherever we live, whoever we are, we all share the same responsibility: Make Our Planet Great Again. Thank you. 1 anaphora 2 epistrophe U.S. Copyright Status: Text = Uncertain.

Emperor Akihito Pre-Recorded Speech to the Nation on Disaster Relief Efforts and Hope delivered 16 March 2011 The 9.0 earthquake that struck the Tohoku-Pacific region was an extraordinarily large earthquake. I have been deeply hurt by the miserable situation in the affected areas. The number of deaths from earthquakes and tsunamis has increased day by day, and we do not know yet how many victims we will eventually have. I pray for the survival of as many people as possible. I am also deeply concerned about the situation at the nuclear power plant, as no one can predict what will happen next. It is my deepest hope that, by the effort of all those people concerned, the current situation can be prevented from becoming any worse. Currently, a nationwide rescue operation is taking place. However, under the severely cold weather, many evacuees have been placed in an unavoidable situation where they are subject to extreme suffering, due to the lack of food, drinking water, fuel, and so on. I truly hope that by making the greatest effort possible to rescue the victims promptly we can improve their lives as much as possible. And, hopefully, these efforts we will be able to encourage the victims and offer them hope, as they try to recover. More than anything, I am deeply impressed by the courageousness of people who have survived the disaster, encouraging themselves as victims, and trying to live for tomorrow. We have people working for our nation and local self-governing bodies, such as self-defense forces, police, fire fighters, and the Japan Coast Guard, rescuers from other countries, and people who belong to various relief organizations in Japan. These people have been working day and night to move the rescue operation forward despite the fact that they are under the dangerous situation of aftershocks. I am deeply grateful for these relief efforts, and I would like to show my appreciation for their efforts. I have received telegrams of sympathy from heads of state around the world, one after another, whose words indicate that their nations’ hearts and deep emotions are with the victims of this disaster. I will convey this message to people in the affected areas. I have been informed that there are many people abroad discussing how calm the Japanese have remained — helping one another, and showing disciplined conduct, even though they are in deep grief. I hope from the bottom of my heart that we can continue working together, helping and being considerate of one another to overcome this unfortunate period. I believe it is important that we all share to the fullest extent, and in as many ways as possible, the burden of these forthcoming days of suffering. I pray for the victims to never give up their hopes, to take care of themselves, and to live through tomorrow onwards. Also, I sincerely pray for every single person in Japan to continue thinking of the affected areas, having one’s heart with the victims, and watching over the recovery process in various regions. Japanese Text Transcript ????????????????????????9.0???????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????1?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????1?1??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Video and Audio Source: http://www.kunaicho.go.jp Also in this database: Emperor Akihito Personal Health and Constitutional Duty Speech to the Nation Research Note: English translation by Dr. Naomi Kagawa Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement Copyright Status: Text (English), Audio, Video Image = Used with permission under the copyright terms found here.

Enda Kenny White House Saint Patrick’s Day Reception Address delivered 16 March 2017, Washington, D.C. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, ladies and gentlemen: It’s a great honor to be back again in the most famous house in the world to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, the most special of days for Irish men and Irish women and those of Irish descent the world over. Since I had the privilege of being elected as Taoiseach in 2011, I’ve had the pleasure of being here in the White House each March to mark the enduring connections between our country and the United States. Fionnuala and I would like sincerely to thank President Trump for so graciously continuing this great tradition of hospitality which means so much to Irish people everywhere. I’m proud, sir, to have the opportunity to contribute to maintaining and developing relations between Ireland and the United States, particularly at the beginning of a new era in our country’s relationship following your election, Mr. President. Let me congratulate you and wish you and your Administration the very best as you begin your term of office. This job, the job you hold, is exceptionally demanding and exceptionally difficult. The United States remains the most influential, as well as the most powerful, country in the world. You hold the hopes and the future of America, and indeed, the world in your hands. So let me thank you for giving so much of your time today to this visit. We had a — an excellent meeting, a first-class meeting this morning in the Oval Office — not there very often — where we discussed a variety of important issues of mutual concern. And I want to assure you, sir, of our commitment to working closely with you and your Administration as you face the many challenges up ahead. The — The ties that bind our two countries are deep and historic. And Ireland and the United States have a unique relationship that goes back to the earliest days of the original 14 colonies. Irish foreign military officers assisted George Washington to win that War of Independence. Indeed, they’ve fought in every war for America since then. And this very House was designed by James Hoban from Kilkenny, modeled in part on Leinster House in Dublin, where the Irish parliament has met on our own independence since 1922. It’s fitting that we gather here each year to celebrate St. Patrick and his legacy. He, too, of course, was an immigrant. And though he is, of course, the patron saint of Ireland, for many people around the globe, he’s also a symbol of, indeed, the patron of immigrants. Here in America, your great country, 35 million people claim Irish heritage, and the Irish have contributed to the economic, social, political, and cultural life of this great country over the last 200 years. Ireland came to America because, deprived of liberty, deprived of opportunity, of safety, of even food itself, the Irish believed. And four decades before Lady Liberty lifted her lamp, we were the “wretched refuse on the teeming shore.”1 We believed in the shelter of America, in the compassion of America, in the opportunity of America. We came, and we became Americans. We lived the words of John F. Kennedy long before uttered them: We asked not what America could do for us, but what we could do for America. And we still do. We want to give, and not to take. We know the Irish have built the bridges and the roads, protected the public as firefighters and police officers. We’ve cared for the sick at hospitals, entertained as poets, as singers and writers, as politicians, as judges and legislators. And as entrepreneurs, they provided hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans, including most recently, in exciting technology companies. Two-way trade in goods is approaching a hundred billion dollars a year at the moment. Irish firms employ 100,000 people across 50 states in the U.S. And we want to build on this for the future. Mr. President, as a small island on the edge of Europe, a natural bridge between the United States and Europe, and as a committed member of the European Union and a close friend of the United States, we will work hard with you, Mr. President, and with your Administration in pursuit of strong and open relations between the United States and the European Union, including the strong trade relationships for the mutual benefit of millions of people either side of the Atlantic. I believe that the strong people-to-people links that Ireland and the United States have developed over the generations will help us in this endeavor. And I wish you and the American people every success and happiness in the future. To Irish-Americans coast to coast, I say in these days especially, we hold you in our hearts. And tonight, I thank you again for your warm hospitality. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, may I wish you and your lovely families every good wish and blessing on this very special day. Indeed, I’m reminded in many ways of the dream of another American President — which Ireland will work with you with — when he spoke the words and said, “My dream is of a place and a time where America will once again be seen as the last, best hope of Earth.” Spoken by Abraham Lincoln.2 Mr. President, Ireland will help you build on that foundation to achieve the ultimate dream. Thank you, sir. And God bless you. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) 1 Quoted from the poem The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus 2 Quotation attribution widely circulated but unverified and disputed Original Text, Audio, Video Source: WhiteHouse.gov Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement U.S. Copyright Status: This text, audio, video = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com.

Eric Holder Speech at the DOJ African-American History Month Program delivered 18 February 2009 I want to thank everybody who put this great program together. The folks at the EEO staff I think have done a good job in getting these great, wonderful, young singers here with us today and the young woman who sang the Star Spangled Banner, I mean the National Anthem, I thought did a great job. I look at you all and see the future of this nation. And we are very proud of what you have done and expect great things from you. You come from a great institution and there is a responsibility for you to carry on in that great tradition. And we thank you, sir, for bringing them with us today. Every year, in February, we attempt to recognize and to appreciate black history. It is a worthwhile endeavor for the contributions of African Americans to this great nation are numerous and they are significant. Even as we fight a war against terrorism, deal with the reality of electing an African American for the first time as the President of the United States and deal with other significant issues of the day, the need to confront our racial past, and to understand our racial present, and to understand the history of African people in this country, that all endures. One cannot truly understand America without understanding the historical experience of black people in this nation. Simply put, to get to the heart of this country one must examine its racial soul. Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as a ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe we continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial. It is an issue that we have never been at ease with and given our nation’s history this is in some ways understandable. And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us. But we must do more — and we in this room bear a special responsibility. Through its work and through its example, the Department of Justice, this Department of Justice, as long as I am here, must — and will — lead the nation to the “new birth of freedom” so long ago promised by our greatest President. This is our duty. This is our solemn responsibility. We commemorated five years ago, the 50th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. And though the world that we now live in is fundamentally different than that which existed then, this nation has still not come to grips with its racial past nor has it been willing to contemplate, in a truly meaningful way, the diverse future it is fated to have. To our detriment, this is typical of the way in which this nation deals with issues of race. And so I would suggest that we use February of every year to not only commemorate black history but also to foster a period of dialogue between the races. This is admittedly an artificial device to generate discussion that should come more naturally, but our history is such that we must find ways to force ourselves to confront that which we have become expert at avoiding. As a nation we have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the work place. We work with one another, we lunch together and, when the event is at the work place during work hours such as this or shortly thereafter, we socialize with one another fairly well, irrespective of race. And yet even this interaction operates within certain limitations. We know, by “American instinct” and by learned behavior, that certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks, and at best embarrassment, and, at worst, the questioning of one’s character. And outside the workplace the situation is even more bleak in that there is almost no significant interaction between us. On Saturdays and Sundays America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed almost fifty years ago. This is truly sad. Given all that we as a nation went through during the civil rights struggle it is hard for me to accept that the result of those efforts was to create an America that is more prosperous, more positively race conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated. As a nation we should use Black History month as a means to deal with this continuing problem. By creating what will admittedly be, at first, an artificial opportunity to engage one another we can hasten the day when the dream of individual, character based, acceptance can actually be realized. To respect one another we must have a basic understanding of one another. And so we should use events such as this to not only learn more about the facts of black history but also to learn more about each other. This will be, at first, a process that is both awkward and painful but the rewards are, I believe potentially great. The alternative is to allow to continue the polite, restrained mixing that now passes as meaningful interaction but that in reality accomplishes very little. Imagine if you will situations where people — regardless of their skin color — could confront racial issues freely and without fear. The potential of this country, that is becoming increasingly more diverse, would be greatly enhanced. I fear however, that we are taking steps that, rather than advancing us as a nation are actually dividing us even further. We still speak too much about “them” and not “us”. There can be, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the whole notion of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own self-worth or narrow self interest. Our history has demonstrated that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with, and would like to not have to deal with, racial matters and that is why those of us, black or white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, people like that are too often embraced. We are then free to retreat to our race protected cocoons where much is comfortable and where progress is not really made. If we allow this attitude to persist in the face of the most significant demographic changes that this nation has ever faced — and remember, there will be no majority race in the United States in about fifty years — the coming diversity that could be such a powerful, positive force will, instead, become a reason for stagnation and polarization. We cannot allow this to happen and one way to prevent such an unwelcome outcome is to engage one another more routinely — and to do so starting right now. Now, as I indicated before, the artificial device that is Black History month is a perfect vehicle for the beginnings of such a dialogue. And so I urge all of you to use the opportunity of this month to talk with your friends and co-workers on the other side of the racial divide about racial matters. In this way we can hasten the day when we truly become one America. It is also clear that if we are to better understand one another the study of black history is essential because the history of black America and the history of this nation are inextricably tied to each other. It is for this reason that the study of black history is important to everyone — black or white. For example, the history of the United States in the nineteenth century revolves around a resolution of the question of how America was going to deal with its black inhabitants. The great debates of that era and the war that was ultimately fought are all centered around the issue of, initially, slavery and then the reconstruction of the vanquished region. A dominant domestic issue throughout the twentieth century was, again, America’s treatment of its black citizens. The civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s changed America in truly fundamental ways. Americans of all colors were forced to examine basic beliefs and long held views. Even so, most people, who are not conversant with that history, still do not really comprehend the way in which that movement changed America. In racial terms the country that existed before the civil rights movement is almost unrecognizable to us today. Separate public facilities, separate entrances, poll taxes, legal discrimination, forced labor, in essence an American apartheid, all were part of an America that the movement destroyed. To attend her state’s taxpayer supported college in 1963 my late sister in law had to be escorted to class by United States Marshals and pass her state’s governor, George Wallace. That frightening reality seems almost unthinkable to us now. The civil rights movement made America, if not perfect, certainly better. In addition, the other major social movements of the latter half of the twentieth century — feminism, the nation’s treatment of other minority groups, even the anti-war effort — were all tied in some way to the spirit that was set free by the quest for African American equality. Those other movements may have occurred in the absence of the civil rights struggle but the fight for black equality came first and helped to shape the way in which other groups of people came to think of themselves and to raise their desire for equal treatment. And further, many of the tactics that were used by these other groups were developed in the civil rights movement. And today the link between the black experience and this country is still very evident. While the problems that continue to afflict the black community may be more severe, they are an indication of where the rest of the nation may be if corrective measures are not taken. Our inner cities are still too conversant with crime but the level of fear generated by that crime, now found in once quiet, and now electronically padlocked suburbs is alarming and further demonstrates that our past, our present and our future are linked. It is not safe for this nation to assume that the unaddressed social problems in the poorest parts of our country can be isolated and will not ultimately affect the larger society. Black history is extremely important because it is American history. Given this, it is in some ways sad that there is the need for a black history month. Though we are still all enlarged by our study of and knowledge of the roles played by blacks in American history, and though there is a crying need for all of us to know and to acknowledge the contributions of black Americans, a black history month is still a testament to the problem that has afflicted African Americans throughout our stay in this country. Black history is given a separate, and unequal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular. As a former American history major I am struck by the fact that such a major part of our national story has been divorced from the whole. In law, culture, science, athletics, industry and other fields, knowledge of the roles played by blacks is critical to an understanding of the American experiment. For too long we have been too willing to segregate the study of black history. There is clearly a need at present for a device that focuses the attention of the country on the study of the history of its black citizens. But we must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before so that the study of black history, and a recognition of the contributions of black Americans, becomes commonplace. Until that time, black history must remain an important, vital concept. But we have to recognize that until black history is included in the standard curriculum in all of our schools and becomes a regular part of all of our lives, it will be viewed as a novelty, relatively unimportant and not as weighty as ‘true” American history. I, like many in my generation, have been fortunate in my life and have had a great number of wonderful opportunities. Some may consider me to be a part of black history. But we do a great disservice to the concept of black history and black history recognition if we fail to understand that any success that I have had, cannot be viewed in isolation. I stood, and stand, on the shoulders of many other black Americans. Now, admittedly, the identities of some of these people, through the passage of time, have become lost to us — the men, and the women, who labored long in fields, who were later legally and systemically discriminated against, who were lynched by the hundreds in the past century and others who have been too long denied the fruits of our great American culture. The names of too many of these people, these heroes and heroines, are lost to us. But the names of others of those people should strike a resonant chord in the historical ear of all in our nation: Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, Walter White, Langston Hughes, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Joe Louis, Jackie Robinson, Charles Drew, Paul Robeson, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Vivian Malone, Rosa Parks, Marion Anderson, Emmit Till. These are just some of the people who should be generally recognized and are just some of the people to whom all of us, black and white, owe such a debt of gratitude. It is on their broad shoulders that I stand as I hope that others in the future will stand on my more narrow ones. Black history is a subject worthy of study by all our nation’s people. Blacks have played a unique, productive role in the development of America. Perhaps the greatest strength of this nation is the diversity of its people and to truly understand this country one must have a knowledge of its constituent parts. But an unstudied, not discussed and ultimately misunderstood diversity can become a divisive force. An appreciation of the unique black past, acquired through the study of black history, will help to lead to understanding and true compassion in the present, where it is still so sorely needed, and to a future where all of our people are truly valued. Thank you. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Research Note: Transcription by Diane Wiegand Page Updated: 9/25/17 U.S. Copyright Status: Text = Public domain. Audio and Video = Uncertain. I’m still getting used to the notion of Attorney General Holder. I hear that and I expect to hear Attorney General Thornburgh, Reno, Barr, you know. I’ve been through a number of Attorneys General, all of whom I have had a great deal of respect for and I’m still getting used to the fact that my name follows that great title.

Eric Holder Announcing Decision to Try 9/11 Suspects in NY Civilian Court delivered 13 November 2009, Washington, D.C. Good morning. Just over eight years ago, on a morning that our nation will never forget, 19 hijackers, working with a network of Al Qaeda conspirators around the world, launched the deadliest terrorist attacks our country has ever seen. Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives in those attacks, and in the years since, our nation has had no higher priority than bringing those who planned and plotted the attacks to justice. One year before in October of 2000, a terrorist attack on the United States Cole killed 17 American sailors. Today we announce a step forward in bringing those we believe were responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the attack on the USS Cole to justice. Five detainees at Guantanamo have been charged before military commissions with participation in the 9/11 plot. They are: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammed Salih Mubarak Bin Attash, Ramzi Bin Al Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Al Hawsawi. Those proceedings have been stayed since February, as have the proceedings pending in military commissions against four other detainees accused of different crimes. A case in military commissions against the alleged mastermind of the Cole bombing, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was withdrawn in February. For the past several months, prosecutors at the Department of Justice have been working diligently with prosecutors from the Pentagon’s Office of Military Commissions to review the case of each detainee at Guantanamo who has been referred for prosecution. Over the past few weeks, I have personally reviewed these cases, and in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, have made determinations about the prosecution of ten detainees now held at Guantanamo, including those charged in the 9/11 plot and the alleged mastermind of the Cole bombing. Today, I am announcing that the Department of Justice will pursue prosecution in federal court of the five individuals accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. Further, I have decided to refer back to the Department of Defense five defendants to face military commission trials, including the detainee who was previously charged in the USS Cole bombing. The 9/11 cases that will be pursued in federal court have been jointly assigned to prosecutors from the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia and will be brought in Manhattan in the Southern District of New York. After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York — to New York — to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood. I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years. The alleged 9/11 conspirators will stand trial in our justice system before an impartial jury under long-established rules and procedures. I also want to assure the American people that we will prosecute these cases vigorously, and we will pursue the maximum punishment available. These were extraordinary crimes and so we will seek maximum penalties. Federal rules allow us to seek the death penalty for capital offenses, and while we will — we will review the evidence and circumstances following established protocols, I fully expect to direct prosecutors to seek the death penalty against each of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. In his speech at the National Archives in May, the President called for the reform of military commissions to ensure that they are a lawful, fair, and effective prosecutorial forum. The reforms Congress recently adopted to the Military Commissions Act ensure that military commission trials will be fair and that convictions obtained will be secure. I know that the Department of — of Defense is absolutely committed to ensuring that military commission trials will be consistent with our highest standards as a nation, and our civilian prosecutors will continue to work closely with military prosecutors to support them in that effort. In each case, my decision as to whether to proceed in federal courts or military commissions was based on a protocol that the Departments of Justice and Defense developed and that was announced publicly in July. Because many cases could be prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions, that protocol sets forth a number of factors — including the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated. All of these things must be considered. In consultation, again, with the Secretary of Defense, I looked at all of the relevant factors and made case by case decisions for each detainee. It is important that we be able to use every forum possible to hold terrorists accountable for their actions. Just as a sustained campaign against terrorism requires a combination of intelligence, law enforcement, and military operations, so must our legal efforts to bring terrorists to justice involve both federal courts and reformed military commissions. I want to thank the members of Congress, including Senators Lindsay Graham, Carl Levin, and John McCain who worked so hard to strengthen our national security by helping us pass legislation to reform the military commission system. We will continue to draw on the Pentagon’s support as we bring cases against the alleged 9/11 conspirators in federal court. The Justice Department has a long and a successful history of prosecuting terrorists for their crimes against our nation, particularly in New York. Although these cases can often be complex and challenging, federal prosecutors have successfully met these challenges and have convicted a number of terrorists who are now serving lengthy sentences in our prisons. And although the security issues presented by terrorism cases should never be minimized, our marshals, our court security officers, and our prison officials have extensive experience and training dealing with dangerous defendants, and I am quite confident that they can meet the security challenges posed by this case. These detainees will not be transferred to the United States for prosecution until all legal requirements are satisfied, including those in recent legislation requiring a 45 day notice and report to the Congress. I have already spoken this morning to Governor Paterson and to Mayor Bloomberg and am committed to working closely with them to ensure that all security and related concerns are properly addressed. I have every confidence that we can safely hold these trials in New York, as we have so many previous terrorist trials. For the many Americans who lost friends and relatives in the attacks of September 11, 2001 and on the USS Cole, nothing can bring back those loved ones. But they deserve the opportunity to see the alleged plotters of those attacks held accountable in open court, an opportunity that has too long been delayed. Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to close Guantanamo and to bring to justice those individuals who have conspired to attack our nation and our interests abroad. For over 200 years, our nation has relied on a faithful adherence to the rule of law to bring criminals to justice and provide accountability to victims. Once again, we will ask our legal system, in two venues, to rise to that challenge. I am confident that it will answer the call with fairness and with justice. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Text, Audio & Image (Screenshot) Source: USDOJ.gov U.S. Copyright Status: This text = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com. Audio & Image = Public domain.

Eric Holder Address at the Martin Luther King Commemoration delivered 17 January 2011, Martin Luther King Center, Atlanta Good morning. I am honored to bring greetings from President Obama. (I think I should sit down now.) I’m — I’m also honored to bring greetings from my fellow members of his Cabinet, and from my colleagues in the Department of Justice. I’m also grateful for the opportunity to join so many extraordinary leaders and friends in celebrating the life and work of Ebenezer’s former pastor — and our nation’s greatest “drum major for peace” — the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. But — But today, I…also want to note that we also celebrate the contributions of his wonderful wife — a woman — a woman who often noted that she married, not only a man but also a movement, and who was a force for change in her own right — Coretta Scott King. Throughout — Throughout his life and — most famously — on the eve of his death, as he delivered the legendary “Mountaintop” speech that would be his final sermon, Reverend King asked himself when — if given the choice of any era in history — he would choose to be alive. This question began with a journey through the ages. At each stop — whether Mount Olympus or ancient Rome, Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation or Roosevelt’s call to fear only fear itself — Dr. King asked himself what era he would choose to be part of. His own, he decided, explaining that happiness comes from embracing the blessings and burdens of fate and the opportunities that accompany living in times of unprecedented challenge. “I know,” he said, “that only when it is dark enough can you see the stars.” Today, once again, it is dark enough. Last week, a senseless rampage in Tucson, Arizona, reminded us that, more than 40 years after Dr. King’s own tragic death, our long struggle to end suffering and to eradicate violence goes on. But, today, once more, we can see the stars. We see them in the courage of a husband who died shielding his wife from a spray of bullets; in the kindness of strangers who raced to the aid of those in need; and in the strength of a young, energetic Congresswoman whose fight for her own life has inspired each of ours. As we continue to mourn those recently lost, and to pray for those now in need of healing and comfort, let us also recommit ourselves to carrying on Dr. King’s work and to honoring the values that were at the center of his life: tolerance; non-violence; compassion; love; and — above all — justice. I wish that Dr. King could be here with us to see the America that he helped to create. I wish that Dr. King could see the good will and great works that he still inspires. I wish that Dr. King could see that this place of worship continues to be a place of learning, of healing, and of hope; and that the nation he fought to improve soon will honor his memory by consecrating a memorial in Washington, D.C., on our national mall — within sight of monuments to our nation’s first President and its Great Emancipator. Today, we must look upon our country as Dr. King did. Half a century ago, he saw — not only great challenges, but also extraordinary opportunities. And he saw — clearly — that for every individual to be free, our entire society had to be transformed. Despite the odds against him, he was undeterred. Despite the obstacles before him, he kept his faith. And despite those who tried to stand in his way, in and out of governments, he proved that — here in America — large-scale, sweeping, righteous change is not impossible. It is not too audacious. It is not too ambitious. And it is not the province of God and prayer alone. Each of us has the power to improve the world around us. Each of us also has the responsibility, the duty, to do so. Each of us must act. Dr. King’s example provides proof that, in the work of promoting peace and ensuring justice, one person can make a difference. Individual actions count. And those who are willing to march toward progress, to stand up for a principle, or, simply, to take a seat — in a courthouse or a classroom, at a lunch counter or the front of a bus — can help to change the world. Of course, this is not easy work. And it may be inspired by frustration just as often as faith. But one of the most important lessons that Dr. King left to us is that it is fine to be frustrated, to be impatient, and to be dissatisfied — if it compels us to take action. Dr. King was dissatisfied when anyone — anywhere — faced discrimination and oppression. He was dissatisfied when people of color were denied access to public spaces, to educational opportunities, and to good jobs. He was dissatisfied when citizens who loved their country — including those who honorably served in uniform — were not allowed to vote or were forcibly discouraged from taking part in elections. And he was dissatisfied when — in pursuit of his dream of a just and inclusive America — he was told to “wait,” to “cool off,” or to “back down.” What if he had listened? What if he had given into doubt and cynicism? What if he had given up? What if he had been patient? Just think about where we would be. Our nation would not have accomplished the progress that has brought America closer to its founding principles — and made our country more true to our founding documents. For myself, I can’t imagine that I would be standing before you today — on this celebration of Dr. King’s 82nd birthday — as our nation’s 82nd Attorney General. When I consider the opportunities that I have had, and that my parents did not, I feel blessed beyond measure. And I feel proud of our nation. But — like Dr. King — I am also dissatisfied. I am dissatisfied that — here in Atlanta — there are neighborhoods where young people are more likely to go to prison than to college; and that, in America today, more than one million young people are active gang members. I am dissatisfied that more than 1.5 million American children have a parent behind bars; and that the majority of our nation’s kids — more than 60 percent of them — have been exposed to crime, abuse, and violence. I am dissatisfied that, even though crime rates have been on a steady decline for the last decade, gun-related deaths have increased each year since 2002. And I am dissatisfied that, over the last 12 months, the number of police officers killed by gun violence has surged by more than 40 percent. So, yes, like Dr. King — and like many of you — I am dissatisfied. But I am also hopeful. I believe that we, as a people, have the ability to focus on matters that are truly consequential — and to move beyond trivial issues that only serve to divide us. And I am certain that America’s continued progress will depend on our ability to come together — with open hearts and outstretched hands — and to keep faith in the ideals that guided Dr. King’s work and that have made our nation great. This capacity is within us. Dr. King recognized this. And our history has shown us that, in times of maximum peril, the American people find ways to come together. It is time. We must do so again. May God continue to bless our efforts. May God continue to bless the memory of one of his great servants. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. Thank you. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Text Source: http://www.justice.gov/ Audio Note 1: Several sustained audience ovations in the audio have been moderately truncated for continuity. All original content preserved. Audio Note 2: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement Copyright Status: Text = Public domain. Audio and Image (Screenshot) = Uncertain.

Eric Holder Announcing 9/11 Conspirator Trials at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base delivered 4 April 2011, Washington, D.C. In November of 2009, I announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other individuals would stand trial in federal court for their roles in the terrorist attacks on our country on September the 11th of 2001. As I said then, the decision between federal courts and military commissions was not an easy one to make. I began my review of this case with an open mind and with just one goal: to look at the facts, look at the law, and choose the venue where we could achieve swift and sure justice most effectively for the victims of those horrendous attacks and their family members. After consulting with prosecutors from both the Department of Justice and Department of Defense and after thoroughly studying the case, it became clear to me that the best venue for prosecution was in federal court. I stand by that decision today. As the indictment unsealed today reveals, we were prepared to bring a powerful case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four co-conspirators — one of the most well-researched and documented cases I have ever seen in my decades of experience as a prosecutor. We had carefully evaluated the evidence and concluded that we could prove the defendants’ guilt while adhering to the bedrock traditions and values of our laws. We had consulted extensively with the intelligence community and developed detailed plans for handling classified evidence. Had this case proceeded in Manhattan or in an alternative venue in the United States, as I seriously explored in the past year, I am confident that our justice system would have performed with the same distinction that has been its hallmark for over two hundred years. Unfortunately, since I made that decision, Members of Congress have intervened and imposed restrictions blocking the administration from bringing any Guantanamo detainees to trial in the United States, regardless of the venue. As the President has said, those unwise and unwarranted restrictions undermine our counterterrorism efforts and could harm our national security. Decisions about who, where and how to prosecute have always been — and must remain — the responsibility of the executive branch. Members of Congress simply do not have access to the evidence and other information necessary to make prosecution judgments. Yet they have taken one of the nation’s most tested counterterrorism tools off the table and tied our hands in a way that could have serious ramifications. We will continue to seek to repeal those restrictions. But we must face a simple truth: those restrictions are unlikely to be repealed in the immediate future. And we simply cannot allow a trial to be delayed any longer for the victims of the 9/11 attacks or for their family members who have waited for nearly a decade for justice. I have talked to these family members on many occasions over the last two years. Like many Americans, they differ on where the 9/11 conspirators should be prosecuted, but there is one thing on which they all agree: We must bring the conspirators to justice. So today I am referring the cases of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Bin Attash, Ramzi Bin Al Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Al Hawsawi to the Department of Defense to proceed in military commissions. Furthermore, I have directed prosecutors to move to dismiss the indictment that was handed down under seal in the Southern District of New York in December, 2009, and a judge has granted that motion. Prosecutors from both the Departments of Defense and Justice have been working together since the beginning of this matter, and I have full faith and confidence in the military commission system to appropriately handle this case as it proceeds. The Department of Justice will continue to offer all the support necessary as this critically important matter moves forward. The administration worked with Congress to substantially reform military commissions in 2009, and I believe they can deliver fair trials and just verdicts. For the victims of these heinous attacks and their families, that justice is long overdue, and it must not be delayed any longer. Since I made the decision to prosecute the alleged 9/11 conspirators, the effectiveness of our federal courts and the thousands of prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officers, and defense attorneys who work in them have been subjected to a number of unfair, and often unfounded, criticisms. Too many people — many of whom certainly know better — have expressed doubts about our time-honored and time-tested system of justice. That’s not only misguided, it’s wrong. The fact is, federal courts have proven to be an unparalleled instrument for bringing terrorists to justice. Our courts have convicted hundreds of terrorists since September 11, and our prisons safely and securely hold hundreds today, many of them serving long sentences. There is no other tool that has demonstrated the ability to both incapacitate terrorists and collect intelligence from them over such a diverse range of circumstances as our traditional justice system. Our national security demands that we continue to prosecute terrorists in federal court, and we will do so. Our heritage, our values, and our legacy to future generations also demand that we have full faith and confidence in a court system that has distinguished this nation throughout its history. Finally, I want to thank the prosecutors from the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia who have spent countless hours working to bring this case to trial. They are some of the most dedicated and patriotic Americans I have ever encountered, and our nation is safer because of the work they do every day. They have honored their country through their efforts on this case, and I thank them for it. I am proud of each and every one of them. Sadly, this case has been marked by needless controversy since the beginning. But despite all the argument and debate it has engendered, the prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators should never have been about settling ideological arguments or scoring political points. At the end of our indictment appear the names of 2,976 people who were killed in the attacks on that deadly September day nearly ten years ago. Innocent Americans and citizens of foreign countries alike who were murdered by ruthless terrorists intent on crippling our nation and attacking the values that we hold dear. This case has always been about delivering justice for those victims, and for their surviving loved ones. Nothing else. It is my sincere hope that, through the actions we take today, we will finally be able to deliver the justice they have so long deserved. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Text Source: http://www.justice.gov/ Audio, Image (Screenshot) Source: YouTube.com Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement Copyright Status: Text = Public domain. Audio, Image = Uncertain.

Eric Holder Opening Statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee delivered 8 November 2011, Washington, D.C. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and distinguished members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. Over the last three years, I have been privileged to address this Committee on numerous occasions — and to partner with many of you — in advancing the goals and the priorities that we share. I am extremely proud of the Department’s historic achievements over the last two years. Despite significant financial constraints, we have effectively confronted a range of national security threats and public safety challenges. I’m especially pleased to report that our efforts to combat global terrorism have never been stronger. Since I last appeared before this Committee in May — just three days after the decade-long manhunt for Osama bin Laden came to a successful end — the Department has achieved several additional milestones. For example, last month, we secured a conviction against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for his role in the attempted bombing of an airplane traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. We also worked closely with our domestic and international partners to thwart an attempted plot — allegedly involving elements of the Iranian government — to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States on American soil. We have also disrupted numerous alleged plots by homegrown violent extremists — including one targeting a military recruiting center in Washington State and another targeting U.S. soldiers in Texas. Meanwhile, in one of the most complex counter-intelligence operations in history, we brought down a ring involving 10 Russian spies. And just last week, a federal jury in Manhattan convicted Viktor Bout, one of the world’s most prolific arms dealers, for his efforts to sell millions of dollars-worth of weapons — including 800 surface-to air-missiles and 30,000 AK-47s — for use in killing Americans. On other fronts, the Department has made extraordinary progress in protecting civil rights, combating financial fraud, safeguarding our environment, and advancing our fight against violent crime. We have filed a record number of criminal civil rights cases. And, in the last fiscal year, our Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section opened more investigations, participated in more cases, and resolved more matters than in any other similar time period in the last dozen years. This section is also immersed in reviewing over 4,500 submissions for review under Section 5, including redistricting plans and other proposed state and local election-law changes that would impact the access some Americans would have to the ballot box. We’ve also worked to ensure that states do not institute an unconstitutional patchwork of immigration laws. In recent months, the Department has challenged immigration-related laws in several states that directly conflict with the enforcement of federal immigration policies. Not only would these laws divert critical law enforcement resources from the most serious public safety threats, they can lead to potentially discriminatory practices and undermine the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve. The Department also has focused its efforts on the fight against financial fraud over the last two years — by spearheading the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and successfully executing the largest financial and health-care fraud takedowns in history. In addition, we secured a conviction in the biggest bank fraud prosecution in a generation, taking down a nearly three billion dollar fraud scheme. And, through our aggressive enforcement of the False Claims Act, a law significantly strengthened in recent years by this Committee, we’ve secured record-setting recoveries that have exceeded eight billion dollar since January 2009. I am proud of these — and our many other — achievements. And, I am committed to building on this progress. Although I hope to spend much of our time together discussing the work that’s ongoing throughout the Department, I’d like to take a moment to address the public safety crisis of guns flowing across our border into Mexico — and the local law enforcement operation known as “Fast and Furious” that has brought renewed public attention to this shared national security threat. I want to be clear: any instance of so-called “gun walking” is unacceptable. Regrettably, this tactic was used as part of Fast and Furious, which was launched to combat gun trafficking and violence on our Southwest Border. This operation was flawed in concept, as well as in execution. And, unfortunately, we will feel its effects for years to come as guns that were lost during this operation continue to show up at crimes scenes both here and in Mexico. This should never have happened. And it must never happen again. To ensure that it will not, after learning about the allegations raised by ATF agents involved with Fast and Furious, I took action. I asked the Department’s Inspector General to investigate the matter, and I ordered that a directive be sent to the Department’s law enforcement agents and prosecutors stating that such tactics violate Department policy and will not be tolerated. More recently, the new leadership at ATF has implemented reforms to prevent such tactics from being used in the future, including stricter oversight procedures for all significant investigations. Today, I would like to correct some of the inaccurate — and irresponsible — accusations surrounding Fast and Furious. Some of the overheated rhetoric might lead you to believe that this local, Arizona-based operation was somehow the cause of the epidemic of gun violence in Mexico. In fact, Fast and Furious was a flawed response to, not the cause of, the flow of illegal guns from the United States into Mexico. As you all know, the trafficking of firearms across our Southwest Border has long been a serious problem — one that has contributed to approximately 40,000 deaths in the last five years. As Senator Feinstein highlighted just last week, of the nearly 94,000 guns that have been recovered and traced in Mexico in recent years, over 64,000 were sourced to the United States. The mistakes of Operation Fast and Furious, serious though they were, should not deter or distract us from our critical mission to disrupt the dangerous flow of firearms along our Southwest Border. I have supported a number of aggressive, innovative steps to do so and our work has yielded significant successes. We’ve built crime-fighting capacity on both sides of the border by developing new procedures for using evidence gathered in Mexico to prosecute gun traffickers in U.S. courts; by training thousands of Mexican prosecutors and investigators; by successfully fighting to enhance sentencing guidelines for convicted traffickers and straw purchasers; and by pursuing coordinated, multi-district investigations of gun-trafficking rings. This year alone, we have led successful investigations into the murders of U.S. citizens in Mexico, created new cartel-targeting prosecutorial units, and secured the extradition of 104 defendants wanted by U.S. law enforcement — including the former head of the Tijuana Cartel. This work has undoubtedly saved and improved lives in the United States as well as Mexico. I am personally committed to combating gun trafficking and reducing the alarming rate of violence along the Southwest Border by using effective — and appropriate — tools. Like each of you, I want to know why and how firearms that should have been under surveillance could wind up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. But beyond identifying where errors occurred and ensuring that they never occur again, we must be careful not to lose sight of the critical problem that this flawed investigation has highlighted: we are losing the battle to stop the flow of illegal guns to Mexico. That means we have a responsibility to act. And, we can start by listening to the agents who serve on the front lines of this battle. Not only did they bring the inappropriate and misguided tactics of Operation Fast and Furious to light, they also sounded the alarm to Congress that they need our help. ATF agents who testified before a House committee this summer explained that the agency’s ability to stem the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico suffers from a lack of effective enforcement tools. One critical first step should be for Congressional leaders to work with us to provide ATF with the resources and statutory tools it needs to be effective, Another would be for Congress to fully fund our request for teams of agents to fight gun trafficking. Unfortunately, earlier this year the House of Representatives actually voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in Southwest border gun shops. Providing law enforcement with the tools to detect and disrupt illegal gun trafficking is entirely consistent with the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and it is critical to addressing the public safety crisis on the Southwest border. As someone who has seen the consequences of gun violence firsthand — and who has promised far too many grieving families that I would do everything in my power not only to seek justice on behalf of their loved ones, but also to prevent other families from experiencing similar tragedies — I am determined to ensure that our shared concerns about Operation Fast and Furious lead to more than headline-grabbing Washington “gotcha” games and cynical political point scoring. We have serious problems to address — and sacred responsibilities to fulfill. We must not lose sight of what’s really at stake here: lives, futures, families, and communities. When it comes to protecting our fellow citizens — and stopping illegal gun trafficking across our Southwest Border — I hope we can engage in a responsible dialogue and work toward common solutions. And, I hope we can begin that discussion today. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Text Source: http://www.justice.gov Audio, Image (Screenshot) Source: http://www.senate.gov Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Image = Public domain.

Eric Holder Statement on Alleged Saudi Ambassador Assassination Plot delivered 11 October 2011 Good afternoon. Today, the Department of Justice is announcing charges against two people who allegedly attempted to carry out a deadly plot that was directed by factions of the Iranian government to assassinate a foreign ambassador here in the United States. Manssor Arbabsiar, a naturalized U.S. citizen who holds an Iranian passport and was arrested last month in New York, is accused of working with members of an arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to devise an international murder-for-hire scheme targeting the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States. According to the complaint filed today in the Southern District of New York, Arbabsiar is alleged to have orchestrated a 1.5 million dollar assassination plot with Gholam Shakuri, an Iranian-based member of the Quds Force, and other Iranian co-conspirators. Now the Quds Force is a unit of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is also suspected of sponsoring attacks against the Coalition Forces in Iraq and was designated by the Department of Treasury in 2007 for providing material support to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations. The complaint alleges that this conspiracy was conceived, was sponsored, and was directed from Iran and constitutes a flagrant violation of U.S. and international law, including a convention that explicitly protects diplomats from being harmed.1 In addition to holding these individual conspirators accountable for their alleged role in this plot, the United States is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions. Arbabsiar and Shakuri are charged with conspiracy to murder a foreign official, conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, and conspiracy to commit an act of international terrorism, among other charges. Arbabsiar has been in custody since September the 29th, 2011, while Shakuri, based in Iran, remains at large. According to the complaint, earlier this spring Arbabsiar met with a confidential informant from the Drug Enforcement Administration who was posing as an associate of a violent international drug trafficking cartel. The meeting, which took place in May, and in Mexico, was the first of a series that would result in an international conspiracy by elements of the Iranian government to pay the informant 1.5 million dollars to murder the Ambassador on United States’ soil, according to documents we filed today in court. According to the complaint, those discussions led Arbabsiar — with Shakuri’s approval — to facilitate the wiring of approximately 100,000 dollars into a bank account in the United States as a down payment for the attempted assassination. The complaint also states that in the days since the defendant’s arrest, he has confessed to his participation in the alleged plot as well as provided other valuable information about elements of the Iranian government’s role in it. The disruption of this alleged plot marks a significant achievement by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as well as the close cooperation of our partners in the Mexican government. I want to commend the outstanding work of the agencies that were involved in this investigation, including the FBI and Director Mueller, who is here with us today, as well as the Drug Enforcement Administration and Michelle Leonhart. Their agents and their analysts worked closely with prosecutors here at the Department’s National Security Division as well as in the Southern District of New York over these many months to monitor this alleged conspiracy, obtain valuable information, and bring one of the primary plotters to justice. Thank you for your remarkable work. 1 See, for example, Articles 40, 59, and 64 of the http://www.ediplomat.com/nd/treaties/consular_relations.htm. U.S Copyright Status: Text and Audio = Public domain.

Eric Holder Address at the LBJ Library on Voter Registration and Rights delivered 13 November 2011, Austin, TX Well, good evening. And thank you, Mark [Updegrove]. It is a pleasure to be with you — and to join so many friends, colleagues, and critical partners in welcoming some of our nation’s most dedicated and effective civil rights champions, as well as the many University of Texas law students who are here, and who will lead this work into the future. (So, for you UT folks, there we go, okay.) I’d also — Yeah, you can applaud; that’s okay. I’d also like to thank Mark and his staff, as well as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum’s board members and community of supporters for providing a forum for today’s conversation — and for all that you do, not only to honor the life and legacy of our 36th Commander-in-Chief, but also to build upon his historic efforts to ensure the strength, the integrity, and the future of our democracy.Nearly half a century has passed since a national tragedy catapulted Lyndon Johnson to the Presidency, and at the same time launched a new chapter in America’s story. Those of us who lived through those painful days will never forget LBJ’s first Presidential speech — to a nation in mourning, and in desperate need of strong and steady leadership. After quoting the 1961 inaugural address in which President Kennedy declared most famously, “Let us begin,” President Johnson outlined the unfinished business of the civil rights agenda. Then — with three simple words — he gave voice to the goals of his Presidency, and issued a challenge that has echoed through the ages: “Let us continue.” In fulfilling this directive, President Johnson — and the many leaders, activists, and ordinary citizens who shared his vision and determination — set our country on a course toward remarkable, once-unimaginable, progress. Together, they opened new doors of opportunity, helping to ensure equal access to schools and public spaces, to restaurants and workplaces, and — perhaps most important of all — to the ballot box. Our great nation was transformed. In 1965, when President Johnson signed the landmark Voting Rights Act into law, he proclaimed (and I quote), “the right to vote is the basic right, without which all others are meaningless” (unquote). Today, as Attorney General, I have the privilege — and the solemn duty — of enforcing this law, and the other civil rights reforms that President Johnson championed. Now this work is among the Justice Department’s most important priorities. And our efforts honor the generations of Americans who have taken extraordinary risks, and willingly confronted hatred, bias, and ignorance — as well as billy clubs and fire hoses, bullets and bombs — to ensure that their children, and all American citizens, would have the chance to participate in the work of their government. The right to vote is not only the cornerstone of our system of government — it is the lifeblood of our democracy. And no force has proved more powerful — or more integral to the success of the great American experiment — than efforts to expand the franchise. Now, despite this history, and despite our nation’s long tradition of extending voting rights — to non-property owners and women, to people of color and Native Americans, and to younger Americans — today, a growing number of our fellow citizens are worried about the same disparities, divisions, and problems that — nearly five decades ago — LBJ devoted his Presidency to addressing. In my travels across this country, I’ve heard a consistent drumbeat of concern from many Americans, who — often for the first time in their lives — now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up to one of our nation’s most noble, and essential, ideals. As Congressman John Lewis described it, in a speech on the House floor this summer, the voting rights that he worked throughout his life — and nearly gave his life — to ensure are (and I — -and I quote): …under attack… [by] a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, [and] minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic pro[cess]. (Unquote). Not only was he referring to the all-too-common deceptive practices that we’ve been fighting for years, he was echoing more recent concerns about some of the state-level voting law changes we’ve seen this legislative season. Since January, more than a dozen states have advanced new voting measures. Now, some of these new laws are currently under review by the Justice Department, based on our obligations under the Voting Rights Act. Texas and South Carolina, for example, have enacted laws establishing new photo identification requirements that we are reviewing. We’re also examining a number of changes that Florida has made to its electoral process, including changes to the procedures governing third-party voter registration organizations, as well as changes to early voting procedures, including the number of days in the early voting period. Now although I cannot go into detail about the ongoing review of these and other state-law changes, I can assure you that it will be thorough — and fair. We will examine the facts, and we will apply the law. If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and approve the change. And where a state can’t meet this burden, we will object as part of our obligation under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. As many of you know — and as I hope the law students here are learning — Section 5 was put in place decades ago because of a well-documented history of voter discrimination in all or parts of the 16 states to which it applies. Within these “covered jurisdictions,” any proposed change in voting procedures or practices — from moving a polling location to enacting a statewide redistricting plan — must be “precleared” — that is, approved — either by the Justice Department, or by a panel of federal judges. Without question, Sections 5’s preclearance process has been a powerful tool in combating discrimination for decades. In 2006, it was reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support — passing the House by a vote of 390 to 33, and the Senate by a vote of 98 to zero — before being signed into law by President Bush. Despite the long history of support for Section 5, this keystone of our voting rights laws is now being challenged five years after its reauthorization as unconstitutional in no fewer than five lawsuits. Each of these lawsuits claims that we’ve attained a new era of electoral equality, that America in 2011 has moved beyond the challenges of 1965, and that Section 5 is no longer necessary. I wish this were the case. The reality is that — in jurisdictions across the country — both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common. And we don’t have to look far to see recent proof. For example, in October, the Justice Department objected to a redistricting plan in East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, where the map-drawer began the process by meeting exclusively with white officeholders — and never consulted black officeholders. The result was a map that diminished the electoral opportunity of African Americans. After the Justice Department objected, the Parish enacted a new, non-discriminatory map. And, here in Texas, just two months ago, the Department argued in court filings that proposed redistricting plans for both the State House and the Texas Congressional delegation are impermissible, because the state has failed to show the absence of discrimination. The most recent Census data indicated that Texas has gained more than 4 million new residents — the vast majority of whom are Hispanic — and that this growth allows for four new Congressional seats. However, this State has proposed adding zero additional seats in which Hispanics would have the electoral opportunity envisioned by the Voting Rights Act. Federal courts are still considering this matter, and we intend to argue vigorously at trial that this is precisely the kind of discrimination that Section 5 was intended to block. To those who argue that Section 5 is no longer necessary — these and other examples are proof that we still need this critical tool to combat discrimination and safeguard the right to vote. As concerns about the protection of this right and the integrity of our election systems become an increasingly prominent part of our national dialogue — we must consider some important questions. It is time to ask: what kind of nation — and what kind of people — do we want to be? Are we willing to allow this era — our era — to be remembered as the age when our nation’s proud tradition of expanding the franchise ended? Are we willing to allow this time — our time — to be recorded in history as the age when the long-held belief that, in this country, every citizen has the chance — and the right — to help shape their government, became a relic of our past, instead of a guidepost for our future? For me — and for our nation’s Department of Justice — the answers are clear. We need election systems that are free from fraud, discrimination, and partisan influence — and that are more, not less, accessible to the citizens of this country. Under this Administration, our Civil Rights Division — and its Voting Section — have taken meaningful steps to ensure integrity, independence, and transparency in our enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. We have worked successfully and comprehensively to protect the voting rights of U.S. service members and veterans, and to enforce other laws that protect Americans living abroad, citizens with disabilities, and language minorities. As part of our aggressive enforcement of the “Motor Voter” law, this year alone, we filed two statewide lawsuits to enforce the requirement that voter registration opportunities be made available at a wider variety of government offices — beyond just the local department of motor vehicles. And we’re seeing promising results from this work. For example, after filing a lawsuit in Rhode Island, we reached an agreement with state agencies that resulted in more voters being registered in the first full month after our lawsuit than in the entire previous two-year reporting period. We’re also working to ensure that the protections for language minorities included in the Voting Rights Act are aggressively enforced. These protections now apply to more than 19 million voting-age citizens. These are our Spanish-speaking friends and neighbors, our Chinese-speaking friends and neighbors, and a large and growing part of all our communities. In just the past year, we’ve filed three lawsuits to protect their rights. And, today, we’re actively reviewing nationwide compliance. But the Justice Department can’t do it all. Ensuring that every veteran, every senior, every college student, and every eligible citizen has the right to vote must become our common cause. And, for all Americans, protecting this right, ensuring meaningful access, and combating discrimination must be viewed, not only as a legal issue — but as a moral imperative. Just as we recently saw in Maine — where voters last month overturned a legislative proposal to end same-day voter registration — the ability to shape our laws remains in the hands of the American people. Tonight, I’d like to highlight three areas where public support will be crucial in driving progress — and advancing much-needed reforms. The first involves deceptive election practices — and dishonest efforts to prevent certain voters from casting their ballots. Over the years, we’ve seen all sorts of attempts to gain partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls — from literacy tests and poll taxes, to misinformation campaigns telling people that Election Day has been moved, or that only one adult per household can cast a ballot. Before the 2004 elections, fliers were distributed in minority neighborhoods in Milwaukee, falsely claiming that “[I]f anybody in your family has ever been found guilty [of a crime], you can’t vote in the presidential election” — and you risk a 10-year prison sentence if you do. Two years later, 14,000 Latino voters in Orange County, California, received mailings, warning in Spanish that, “[If] you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in jail time.” Both of these blatant falsehoods likely deterred some eligible citizens from going to the polls. And, just last week, the campaign manager of a Maryland gubernatorial candidate was convicted on election fraud charges for approving anonymous “robocalls” that went out on Election Day last year to more than 100,000 voters in the state’s two largest majority-black jurisdictions. These calls encouraged voters to stay home — telling them to “relax” because their preferred candidate had already wrapped up a victory. In an effort to deter and punish such harmful practices, during his first year in the U.S. Senate, President Obama introduced legislation that would establish tough criminal penalties for those who engage in fraudulent voting practices — and would help to ensure that citizens have complete and accurate information about where and when to vote. Unfortunately, this proposal did not move forward. But I’m pleased to announce that — tomorrow — Senators Charles Schumer and Ben Cardin will re-introduce this legislation, in an even stronger form. I applaud their leadership — and I look forward to working with them as Congress considers this important legislation. The second area for reform is the need for neutrality in redistricting efforts. Districts should be drawn to promote fair and effective representation for all — not merely to undercut electoral competition and protect incumbents. If we allow only those who hold elected office to select their constituents — instead of enabling voters to choose their representatives — the strength and legitimacy of our democracy will suffer. One final area for reform that merits our strongest support is the growing effort — which is already underway in several states — to modernize voter registration. Today, the single biggest barrier to voting in this country is our antiquated registration system. According to the Census Bureau, of the 75 million adult citizens who failed to vote in the last presidential election, 60 million of them were not registered and, therefore, not eligible to cast a ballot. All eligible citizens can and should be automatically registered to vote. The ability to vote is a right — it is not a privilege. Under our current system, many voters must follow cumbersome and needlessly complex voter registration rules. And every election season, state and local officials have to manually process a crush of new applications — most of them handwritten — leaving the system riddled with errors, and, too often, creating chaos at the polls. Fortunately, modern technology provides a straightforward fix for these problems — if we have the political will to bring our election systems into the 21st century. It should be the government’s responsibility to automatically register citizens to vote, by compiling — from databases that already exist — a list of all eligible residents in each jurisdiction. Of course, these lists would be used solely to administer elections — and would protect essential privacy rights. We must also address the fact that although one in nine Americans move every year, their voter registration often does not move with them. Many would-be voters don’t realize this until they’ve missed the deadline for registering, which can fall a full month before Election Day. Election officials should work together to establish a program of permanent, portable registration — so that voters who move can vote at their new polling place on Election Day. Until that happens, we should implement fail-safe procedures to correct voter-roll errors and omissions, by allowing every voter to cast a regular, non-provisional ballot on Election Day. Several states have already taken this step, and it’s been shown to increase turnout by at least three to five percentage points. These modernization efforts would not only improve the integrity of our elections, they would also save precious taxpayer dollars. Despite these benefits, there will always be those who say that easing registration hurdles will only lead to voter fraud. Let me be clear: voter fraud is not acceptable — and will not be tolerated by this Justice Department. But as I learned early in my career — as a prosecutor in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, where I actually investigated and prosecuted voting-fraud cases — making voter registration easier is simply not likely, by itself, to make our elections more susceptible to fraud. Indeed, those on all sides of this debate have acknowledged that in-person voting fraud is uncommon. We must be honest about this. And we must recognize that o ur ability to ensure the strength and integrity of our election systems — and to advance the reforms necessary to achieve this — depends on whether the American people are informed, engaged, and willing to demand commonsense solutions that make voting more accessible. Politicians may not readily alter the very systems under which they were elected. Only we, the people, can bring about meaningful change. So speak out. Raise awareness about what’s at stake. Call on our political parties to resist the temptation to suppress certain votes in the hope of attaining electoral success and, instead, encourage and work with the parties to achieve this success by appealing to more voters. And urge policymakers at every level to reevaluate our election systems — and to reform them in ways that encourage, not limit, participation. Today, we cannot — and must not — take the right to vote for granted. Nor can we shirk the sacred responsibility that falls upon our shoulders. Throughout his Presidency, Lyndon Johnson frequently pointed out that, “America was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose — to right wrong, [and] to do justice.” Over the last two centuries, the fulfillment of this purpose has taken many forms — acts of protest and compassion, declarations of war and peace, and a range of efforts to make certain that, as another great President said, “government of…by…[and] for the people shall not perish from the Earth.” Today, there are competing visions about how our government should move forward. That’s what the democratic process is all about creating space for thoughtful debate, creating opportunity for citizens to voice their opinions, and ultimately letting the people chart their course. Our nation has worked, and even fought, to help people around the world establish such a process most recently during the wave of civil rights uprisings known as the Arab Spring. Here at home, honoring our democracy demands that we remove any and all barriers to voting a goal that all American citizens of all political backgrounds must share. Despite so many decades of struggle, sacrifice, and achievement we must remain ever vigilant in safeguarding our most basic and important right. Too many recent actions have the potential to reverse the progress that defines us and has made this nation exceptional, as well as an example for all the world. We must be true to the arc of America’s history, which compels us to be more inclusive with regard to the franchise. And we must never forget the purpose that more than two centuries ago — inspired our nation’s founding, and now must guide us forward. So, let us act — with optimism and without delay. Let us rise to the challenges — and overcome the divisions — of our time. Let us signal to the world that — in America today — the pursuit of a more perfect union lives on. And, in the spirit of Lyndon Baines Johnson, let us continue. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Also in this database: Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “Let Us Continue” Text Source: http://www.justice.gov/ Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement Copyright Status: Text = Public domain. Audio, Image = Uncertain.

Eric Holder Resignation Address delivered 25 September 2014 I come to this moment with very mixed emotions: proud of what the men and women of the Department of Justice have accomplished over the last six years, and at the same time, very sad that I will not be a formal part — a formal part — of the great things that this Department and this President will accomplish over the next two. I want to thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity that you gave me to serve and for giving me the greatest honor of my professional life. We have been great colleagues, but the bonds between us are much deeper than that. In good times and in bad, in things personal and in things professional, you have been there for me. I’m proud to call you my friend. I’m also grateful for the support you have given me and the Department as we have made real the visions that you and I have always shared. I often think of those early talks between us, about our belief that we might help to craft a more perfect union. Work remains to be done, but our list of accomplishments is real. Over the last six years, our Administration — your Administration — has made historic gains in realizing the principles of the founding documents and fought to protect the most sacred of American rights, the right to vote. We have begun to realize the promise of equality for our LGBT brothers and sisters and their families. We have begun to significantly reform our criminal justice system and reconnect those who bravely serve in law enforcement with the communities that they protect. We have kept faith with our belief in the power of the greatest judicial system the world has ever known to fairly and effectively adjudicate any cases that are brought before it, including those that involve the security of the nation that we both love so dearly. We have taken steps to protect the environment and make more fair the rules by which our commercial enterprises operate. And we have held accountable those who would harm the American people — either through violent means or the misuse of economic or political power. I have loved the Department of Justice ever since as a young boy I watched Robert Kennedy prove during the Civil Rights Movement how the Department can and must always be a force for that which is right. I hope that I have done honor to the faith that you have placed in me, Mr. President, and to the legacy of all those who have served before me. I would also like to thank the Vice President, who I have known for so many years, and in whom I have found great wisdom, unwavering support, and a shared vision of what America can and should be. I want to recognize my good friend Valerie Jarrett, whom I’ve been fortunate to work with from the beginning of what started as an improbable, idealistic effort by a young senator from Illinois, who we were both right to believe would achieve greatness. I’ve had the opportunity to serve in your distinguished Cabinet and worked with a White House Chief of Staff — a White House staff ably led by Denis McDonough that has done much to make real the promise of our democracy. And each of the men and women who I have come to know will be lifelong friends. Whatever my accomplishments, they could not have been achieved without the love, support and guidance of two people who are not here with me today. My parents, Eric and Miriam Holder, nurtured me and my accomplished brother, William, and made us believe in the value of individual effort and the greatness of this nation. My time in public service, which now comes to an end, would not have been possible without the sacrifices too often unfair made by the best three kids a father could ask for. Thank you, Maya. Thank you, Brooke. And thank you, Buddy. And finally, I want to thank the woman who sacrificed the most and allowed me to follow my dreams. She is the foundation of all that our family is, and the basis of all that I have become. My wife, Sharon, is the unsung hero. And she is my life partner. Thank you for all that you have done. I love you. In the months ahead, I will leave the Department of Justice, but I will never — I will never — leave the work. I will continue to serve and try to find ways to make our nation even more true to its founding ideals. I want to thank the dedicated public servants who form the backbone of the United States Department of Justice for their tireless work over the past six years, for the efforts they will continue, and for the progress that they made and that will outlast us all. And I want to thank you all for joining me on a journey that now moves in another direction, but that will always be guided by the pursuit of justice and aimed at the North Star. Thank you. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Audio, Image (Screenshot) Source: WhiteHouse.gov Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement U.S Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Video, Image = Public domain.

Erick Dittus Eulogy for Stetson Kennedy delivered 1 October 2011, location I am honored to be here, but I just wish I’d stopped by for another occasion. It’s strange being in this familiar place, knowing that Stetson Kennedy won’t come down the driveway pushing a wheel-barrow full of muck; or, pull up in that ratty convertible, bald-head gleaming, waving a tattered beret; or, more likely, he’d be in the cottage, holding court at the kitchen table with strange faces from God knows where. For 60-plus years, meeting strangers, who were about to become friends, was the norm at Beluthahatchee. Stetson was an adopter of people, a grand foster parent who left the light on for almost everyone. I’m glad to see so many of his other “slightly wrinkled” children here today. I’m sure you, as well as his many friends who’ve passed, including: Alan Lomax, Woody Guthrie, Joyce Ann Kennedy, Richard Wright, Jean Paul Sartre, Mitchell Atalla and Studs Terkel all cherished his friendship. Oh, but for anyone spending time with the wizard of Beluthahatchee, on his home turf, it could be a bit like holding a porcupine on your lap, while sitting through a grand, eloquent movie. On occasion you’d get pricked, when disagreements on politics, food or other serious matters arose. But being with Stets, as he tossed chopped fish to the ever present birds, shook his head at CNN or talked about the old days, and more often the new days, was a pure delight. When the news was bad, he’d say, “I’ve been telling people for years, when you see a positive trend, call me collect: and nobody’s called.” He acknowledged positive, historic moments. However, he was far from sure about whether the election of African Americans, President Barack Obama and Mayor Alvin Brown, was a trend or a mere respite in the eye of the storm. You know, when friends die, I rarely exhibit the appropriate made-for-the-movies reaction. I’ll say Kaddish and I’m sad, but rarely overwhelmed. Yet, with Stetson, when that call came, the pain was instantaneous and surreal. I could barely breathe, and after my wife consoled me, as wives will do, with the reality of his age and a life well-lived, I fell into my office chair and spent a few days, reading and re-reading dozens of Stetson Kennedy obits. Several, including Diane Roberts of the Guardian and Paul Ortiz in Facing South, got it right. And Peggy Bulger, bless her heart, fought the good fight in clarifying Stetson’s history in several publications. However, a couple Florida writers, under the guise of objective journalism, magnified and distorted life facts. With “no fear” of his responding, they feebly — and without subtlety — tried to settle old scores. In the midst of my stewing over these indiscretions, Sandra Parks Kennedy called and asked me to speak about my friendship with Stetson…and brought me to a more positive space. Thank you Sandra. Over 26 years Stetson and I had several hundred conversations and interviews; and I think I knew him well. Late nights, seated on the porch of this A-frame cedar cottage, perched above the gators and turtles, sipping glasses of fine, Publix wine, or bottles of his favored Stellas and Peroni. He spoke, eyes glancing past the cypress, at the lights across the black waters. A little like Fitzgerald’s Gatsby, but not much, because while Gatsby stared off at a sentimental green light, Stetson had few illusions about his role in this society. Jacksonville’s A. Philip Randolph said, “Justice is never given. It is exacted and the struggle must be continuous for freedom is never a final fact, but a continuing evolving process.” Stetson knew that in his business, there was no final destination. And unlike Randolph and James Weldon Johnson, after leaving for New York and later Europe, he returned to take a stand in an un-reconstructed Florida. William Stetson Kennedy was an authentic warts and all hero. In the world of race relations, he stood head and shoulders above all the white male leaders that preceded and followed him along the banks of the St. John’s River. He was imaginative, and yes, mischievous, but never quixotic, in battling Jim Crow. In 1950, when he took on then segregationist George Smathers, he knew he’d lose that election, however, in running he publicized an alternative view of politics and race. A walking talking, MRI, a gregarious, bi-pedal X-Ray machine, he looked deep below the PR-laden surface of the New South at the diseases of racism, greed, and environmental exploitation that plagued, and still plague, this land he called home. A folk-intellect of the first order, an environmentalist, an iconoclastic author and oral historian, but most of all Stetson Kennedy was a man of courage. Without hesitation, he took on the evils of his and our days. And he remains a treasure for Florida and all of America, but especially, on this day, for you and me. Stetson Kennedy, wherever you are for me it was a great relationship, with the normal hills and valleys and plenty of joy. You gave me folk-wisdom, as you reminded me of my responsibilities as a human being, a writer, a father; and I love you for it. We will greatly miss Stetson Kennedy: the Old Swamp Fox, the Wizard of Beluthahatchee, the Human Rights Colossus of St. John’s and Duval Counties. Yet, because of his life-long example and the wisdom he shared, we are better equipped to deal with both the sour, and the sweet, days ahead. Thank you, Stetson. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) See also: http://www.stetsonkennedy.com/tributes.html Text Source: Sent via email by Erick Dittus on 1/1/12 Image Source: Pending Copyright Status: Text and Photo = Used with permission.

Eugene A. Cernan Eulogy for Neil Armstrong delivered 13 September 2012, Washington National Cathedral, Washington, D.C. How does one adequately express his feelings about a special friend, when that friend is also a world icon, a national hero of unimaginable proportion, and a legend whose name will live in history long after all here today have been forgotten? A friend whose commitment and dedication to that in which he believed was absolute? A man who, when he became your friend, was a friend for a lifetime? I am not sure this is possible, but I will try. Neil Armstrong grew up on a farm in Middle America and as a young boy, like most kids, he had a paper route, he cut lawns, he shoveled snow, and his fascination for model airplanes gave birth to a dream, a dream of becoming an aeronautical engineer. Neil had his first taste of flight when he was but six years old, and from that day forward he never looked back. Although he always wanted to design and redesign airplanes to make them do what they weren’t supposed to do, once he had tasted flight, Neil’s eyes turned skyward, and it was there that he always longed to be. Little did Neil ever realize that his dream, his longing to soar with the eagles, would someday give him the opportunity to be the first human being to go where no human had gone before. Neil Armstrong was a sincerely humble man, of impeccable integrity, who reluctantly accepted his role as the first human being to walk on another world. And when he did he became a testament, a testament to all Americans of what can be achieved through vision and dedication. But in Neil’s mind it was never about Neil. It was about you — your mothers and fathers, your grandparents; about those of a generation ago who gave Neil the opportunity to call the Moon his home. But never, ever was it about Neil. Neil considered that he was just the tip of the arrow, always giving way to some 400,000 equally committed and dedicated Americans — Americans who were the strength behind the bow — and always giving credit to those who just didn’t know it couldn’t be done. And therein lies the strength and the character of Neil Armstrong. He knew who he was and he understood the immensity of what he had done, yet Neil was always willing to give of himself. When Neil, Jim Lovell and I had the opportunity to visit the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, on three separate occasions, meeting them in chow halls, control centers — yes, even armored carriers and helicopters — those enthusiastic young men and women, yet to be born when Neil walked on the Moon, were mesmerized by his presence. In a typical Neil fashion, he would always walk in, introduce himself — as if they didn’t know who he was — shake each and every hand, and he’d always give them, “Hey, how are you guys doing?” Asked one overwhelmed, inquisitive Marine, “Mr. Armstrong, why are you here?” Neil’s thoughtful and sincerely honest reply was, “Because you are here.” Neil was special to these young kids — and to a few old ones as well. Although deeply proud to be a naval aviator, as a civilian at the time he flew, Neil never received his astronaut wings — it was a tradition of those in the military. It was on the USS Eisenhower, back in 2010, on our way to Afghanistan, that Neil finally received — did receive the tribute that he deserved. His visibly — visibly — moved response said it all (and I quote): I’ve never been more proud than when I earned my Navy wings of gold.1 And I’ve got to believe that there’s a few Golden Eagles in the audience who will second those words. Trying to get into Neil’s inner self was always a challenge for almost anyone — maybe everyone. Asked one day by a stranger, “Mr. Armstrong, how did you feel when looking for a place to land on the Moon with only 15 seconds of fuel remaining?” In only the way Neil could — and I know some of you have seen him this way — he’d put a thumb on an index finger, he’d tilt his head and sort of put his hand down there and he’d say, “Well, when the gauge says empty, we all know there’s a gallon or two left in the tank.”2 Now there is a man who has always been in control of his own destiny. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is vintage Neil Armstrong. Fate looked down kindly on us when she chose Neil to be the first to venture to another world and to have the opportunity to look back from space at the beauty of our own. It could have been another, but it wasn’t. And it wasn’t for a reason: No one, no one, but no one3 could have accepted the responsibility of his remarkable accomplishment with more dignity and more grace than Neil Armstrong. He embodied all that is good and all that is great about America. Neil, wherever you are up there, almost a half century later you have now shown once again the pathway to the stars. It’s now for you a new beginning, but for us, I will promise you it is not the end. And as you soar through the heavens beyond where even eagles dare to go, you can now finally put out your hand and “touch the face of God.”4 Farewell, my friend. You have left us far too soon. But we want you to know we do cherish the time we have had and shared together. God bless you, Neil. 1 Quotation faithful in spirit; as to the letter Mr. Armstrong reportedly stated: “I take these wings with great pleasure and great pride…I have made certain achievements in my life and been recognized many times, but, there is no achievement I value more highly then when I received the wings of gold [for naval aviation]; to be given a second pair of gold wings is just as special.” [Source: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=51836] 2 Quotation veracity unconfirmed but widely circulated 3 Nice use of epizeuxis 4 Phrases in quotation marks found in the poem High Flight by John Gillespie Magee, Jr. Image #1 Source: NASA.gov Image #2 Source: Navy.mil Images #3 and #4 Source: Wikipedia.org U.S. Copyright Status: Text = Uncertain. Images #1, #2, #4 = Public domain. Image #3 = Ntk53s CC 3.0 Unported License.

Eugene Debs Statement to the Court delivered 14 [or 18] September 1918, Federal Court of Cleveland, Ohio Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free. I listened to all that was said in this court in support and justification of this prosecution, but my mind remains unchanged. I look upon the Espionage Law as a despotic enactment in flagrant conflict with democratic principles and with the spirit of free institutions…. Your Honor, I have stated in this court that I am opposed to the social system in which we live; that I believe in a fundamental change — but if possible by peaceable and orderly means…. Standing here this morning, I recall my boyhood. At fourteen I went to work in a railroad shop; at sixteen I was firing a freight engine on a railroad. I remember all the hardships and privations of that earlier day, and from that time until now my heart has been with the working class. I could have been in Congress long ago. I have preferred to go to prison…. I am thinking this morning of the men in the mills and the factories; of the men in the mines and on the railroads. I am thinking of the women who for a paltry wage are compelled to work out their barren lives; of the little children who in this system are robbed of their childhood and in their tender years are seized in the remorseless grasp of Mammon and forced into the industrial dungeons, there to feed the monster machines while they themselves are being starved and stunted, body and soul. I see them dwarfed and diseased and their little lives broken and blasted because in this high noon of Christian civilization money is still so much more important than the flesh and blood of childhood. In very truth gold is god today and rules with pitiless sway in the affairs of men. In this country — the most favored beneath the bending skies — we have vast areas of the richest and most fertile soil, material resources in inexhaustible abundance, the most marvelous productive machinery on earth, and millions of eager workers ready to apply their labor to that machinery to produce in abundance for every man, woman, and child — and if there are still vast numbers of our people who are the victims of poverty and whose lives are an unceasing struggle all the way from youth to old age, until at last death comes to their rescue and lulls these hapless victims to dreamless sleep, it is not the fault of the Almighty: it cannot be charged to nature, but it is due entirely to the outgrown social system in which we live that ought to be abolished not only in the interest of the toiling masses but in the higher interest of all humanity…. I believe, Your Honor, in common with all Socialists, that this nation ought to own and control its own industries. I believe, as all Socialists do, that all things that are jointly needed and used ought to be jointly owned — that industry, the basis of our social life, instead of being the private property of a few and operated for their enrichment, ought to be the common property of all, democratically administered in the interest of all…. I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence. This order of things cannot always endure. I have registered my protest against it. I recognize the feebleness of my effort, but, fortunately, I am not alone. There are multiplied thousands of others who, like myself, have come to realize that before we may truly enjoy the blessings of civilized life, we must reorganize society upon a mutual and cooperative basis; and to this end we have organized a great economic and political movement that spreads over the face of all the earth. There are today upwards of sixty millions of Socialists, loyal, devoted adherents to this cause, regardless of nationality, race, creed, color, or sex. They are all making common cause. They are spreading with tireless energy the propaganda of the new social order. They are waiting, watching, and working hopefully through all the hours of the day and the night. They are still in a minority. But they have learned how to be patient and to bide their time. They feel — they know, indeed — that the time is coming, in spite of all opposition, all persecution, when this emancipating gospel will spread among all the peoples, and when this minority will become the triumphant majority and, sweeping into power, inaugurate the greatest social and economic change in history. In that day we shall have the universal commonwealth — the harmonious cooperation of every nation with every other nation on earth…. Your Honor, I ask no mercy and I plead for no immunity. I realize that finally the right must prevail. I never so clearly comprehended as now the great struggle between the powers of greed and exploitation on the one hand and upon the other the rising hosts of industrial freedom and social justice. I can see the dawn of the better day for humanity. The people are awakening. In due time they will and must come to their own. When the mariner, sailing over tropic seas, looks for relief from his weary watch, he turns his eyes toward the southern cross, burning luridly above the tempest-vexed ocean. As the midnight approaches, the southern cross begins to bend, the whirling worlds change their places, and with starry fingerpoints the Almighty marks the passage of time upon the dial of the universe, and though no bell may beat the glad tidings, the lookout knows that the midnight is passing and that relief and rest are close at hand. Let the people everywhere take heart of hope, for the cross is bending, the midnight is passing, and joy cometh with the morning. I am now prepared to receive your sentence. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Page Updated: 9/25/17 U.S. Copyright Status: Text and Image = Public domain.

Everett Dirksen Nomination of Barry Goldwater at the Republican National Convention “The Peddler’s Grandson” delivered 15 July 1964, San Francisco, California I prefer not to proceed until the overtone has subsided. And I think you’ll accord everyone who will appear on this platform this privilege. Will you be quiet, please? Mr. Chairman, Delegates, Alternates, and my fellow countrymen: In a few days we shall return home. We shall have had the energizing fellowship of a spirited convention. We shall carry back with us a set of principles we have adopted declaring where we stand. We shall have selected the leaders to command our forces and we shall be prepared to march to victory. Let neither doubt nor defeatism impair our forces or our strength. Beyond the rough terrain of the intervening months before November, there lies the sweet, green valley of victory — and it can be ours. In that spirit, let me tell you simply and briefly about a man. He is the grandson of a peddler — a peddler who was a proud, honorable and spirited man, who left his ancestral country in Europe at an early age and came to this land over a century ago. He arrived nine years before the Civil War. Almost immediately he set cross country to make a home on the high frontier of the West. There he peddled his wares among mining camps, among lumbering camps, and the people of this western land. When he came, there were but 31 states in the Union. He was a merchant and became a frontier leader. And it is about his grandson that I would speak to you this afternoon — and that grandson’s name is Barry Goldwater. I want to speak of him as the whole man, moving forward toward whatever destiny may provide. There is today a strange cynicism that has fastened upon our thinking. It may be a kind of sadistic sport to hear a statement made and then to hear somebody go back into history and unleash an attack because the statement of the act was not consistent with something that happened 10, 12, or 15 years ago. That doesn’t bother me because my appraisal and your appraisal of an individual must not be fragmented — instead of thinking of the whole man, impelled by conviction to do and to say at a given time what he believes must be said or done. It is a common experience that quoting only a part of what a man has said has become truly a favorite indoor sport. By this standard — By this standard no man ever lived, no hero was ever born, who by some utterance, some vote, some opinion can’t lead destiny. I believe the time has come to think of the whole man in terms of a more tolerant spirit and to consider his actions, his works, his attributes measured against the problems and duties and the responsibilities which loom upon the horizon, both at home and abroad. Consider his moral courage — the courage of this settler’s grandson. When a poll was taken some years ago to select the five greatest Senators no longer serving or living to grace the unfilled ovals in the Senate Reception Room, who do you think was selected: Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, Robert Marion La Follette, and Robert Alonzo Taft! Their common attribute was courage in facing the challenges of their day. Each one took to heart what came from the vaults of the heavens when the Lord talked to Joshua and said that he took over that ancient host, “Have I not commanded thee? Be strong and of good courage; neither be thou dismayed, neither be thou afraid.” That was the Lord’s command, that to Joshua be courageous. Already in 12 short years in the Senate of the United States, Barry Goldwater has repeatedly cast votes that won him no applause, that did nothing for his political advancement, but it did show the blazing courage of the man — in refusing to take the easy course. In the days and years ahead, as we assess the fevers abroad and we appraise the problems at home, it will take courage of a high order to make the decisions and to withstand the beckoning of the multitude to go down an unsound path. The peddler’s grandson has the courage and it is a part of the whole man. Secondly, he has a conscience. How commonly we think of conscience as a still, small accusing voice when one is set suddenly upon a certain act or a course of conduct. But it is something more than that. It’s always there to monitor the morals and the conduct and the action of any man. It is like a fixed star in the firmament to light the way. What is deemed snap judgment is more often than not a judgment arrested by the acute conscience which operates faster than reason. And whether it be in the domain of peace or rearmament or the scrapping of weapons or internal security or domestic affairs, the peddler’s grandson has a conscience to chart his course — and when he committed the fruit of his conscience to paper four years ago, in that volume The Conscience of a Conservative, over two and a half million copies were printed and sold as a great, incredible testament to the interests of the American people. Courage and conscience are a part of the whole man. Now whether in commerce or industry, in finance or in public service, there is such a thing as competence. What is it but the right touch, the right vision, in the right way, at the right time. What man could be a jet pilot without it? But Barry Goldwater — and listen — Barry Goldwater has demonstrated it over and over again in every activity. As chief of state, of staff for the Arizona National Guard, he desegregated that Guard after World War II, long before civil rights became a burning issue in this country. He brought integration to his own business enterprises. For his own employees he provided a five day week and life insurance and all those benefits that go with it. All this was done without fanfare or the blathering of trumpets. And in an age, my friends, of self-congratulated do-gooders, he was a good doer! Yes, the grandson of that man who came here a 112 years ago from his ancestral home has demonstrated his courage, his conscience, and his competence. But he’s demonstrated more. In an age when gratitude is scant for services rendered, we overlook so often the matter of contribution to the well-being of the party. Yet the whole man can be judged only when you consider his fidelity to his party and his willingness to go forth and help to make it a vital political instrument. From the moment he came to the Senate 12 years ago until this good hour, I can name no man — and I make no exception — I can name no man in the Republican Party in this country who day after day and year after year has applied his talents, his zeal to the Republican cause as the grandson of that peddler. No weather was too foul, no journey too long, no sacrifice too great to take him forward on a mission for his party and its candidates. He has raised money and made speeches and has rallied organization support. And I ask you: Who will forget his great speech in a dark hour for his supporters in the 1960 Republican Convention when they were trying to force the nomination on him? And he stood before that convention and spoke to his reporters and asked them to support the Republican Party and its candidates and to stand united. And in the next 90 days, he made 126 speeches in 26 states for the Nixon-Lodge ticket. I haven’t forgotten it and neither have you. Courage, conscience, competence, contribution — those are a part of the whole man. In my office in Washington, is a set of silver spurs that I received for my devotion to the party. I doubt whether I deserve the generous inscription on that plaque. But I know it’s for him. He deserves a set of golden spurs for his immeasurable effort — the energy, and sacrifice. Contribution is part of the whole man. Now all of us were raised to love our country, to take pride in its glorious history, and to defend it with our lives if necessary. We call it “patriotism” — a word once revered by everybody. Today it’s the fashion to sneer at that word and to label positions of strength as extremism, to find other nations’ points of views better than our own. Perhaps too long the bugles of retreat have sounded! And I put my chips on a man who has that fidelity to his country. Consider our diplomatic representative in Zanzibar. He’s at the point of a bayonet, marched to the dock, and said get out. In Ghana, where we’re spending over 250 million dollars, they hauled down our flag from the embassy flagpole and desecrated it. A nation like Panama, that could not exist today were it not for the United States and a great Republican Teddy Roosevelt, can fuss and scold at us with impunity. And then along with it, there is that bearded Communist in Cuba who reviles and scolds and castigates the world’s greatest country — and confiscates our property. There is such a thing as the Scripture says about going the first mile — you get no credit for it. That’s the compelled mile. There is such a thing as going the second mile, but there’s also such a thing as a nation’s honor and a nation’s prestige! Twenty centuries ago when the captain of the Roman Guard had the Apostle Paul in thongs1 and was ready to discourage him — that great apostolate sales manager said, “I am a Roman citizen!” — and they took off the thongs. It meant something. But we’ve come a long ways, since that time. What oh what has become of that vital thrill, that pride of being an American? We heard so much about American prestige in the 1960 campaign. It was a phony issue — believe me. But that was four years ago. The time is here for America to retrieve her selfishness. I cling back to the firmness of the grandson of that peddler, Barry Goldwater! But it will be a… [Demonstration on convention floor.] Please. Music. [Gavel pounding.] (Commentator: Defying all tradition in these matters, Senator Dirksen has mentioned the name prematurely and set off the invest — the demonstration early. Now he’s trying to get it back so he can finish.) Let me finish. Let me finish this nominating speech and the Chairman is anxious that I complete it and I want to comply. So will you be quiet please? I add to all these things — to courage and confidence and contribution and all the rest — the devotion to the Constitution of the United States. That document not only created a balanced government in this country — it did more than that — it was a charter of freedom as well. Barry Goldwater’s father could come here 112 years ago and share in the benefits and the protection of that great document, which lends itself to the high and low, to the mighty, to the rich, to the poor, and to the humble. It’s been the central core of Republican gospel. One hundred years ago our party met in Maryland in Baltimore .They nominated Lincoln for the second time. What did they put in that platform? Let me read one sentence, the first pledge, “Resolved, That it is the highest duty of every American citizen to maintain against all their enemies the integrity of the union and the permanent authority of the Constitution of the United States.” Do you know — let me finish. You can’t sit in the Senate of the United States or the House of Representatives without holding up your hand and affirming or taking an oath that you’ll uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws of the country. But what is it — words on parchment? Yes, until human brain and human application gives it meaning and form. Just as is being done by people in judicial robes everywhere in this land almost every day. Is it not then proper for a United States Senator like Barry Goldwater, who has sworn to uphold and defend and to bear true faith to the Constitution, to share a view of his own on the controversial issues — the most controversial — that we’ve had for a long, long time. So it was with him — this grandson of an immigrant peddler. He took his stand on the constitutionality of two titles in the most controversial bill with which I never had anything to do. And in so doing, he exhibited a moral courage not excelled anywhere in any part of the body of which I have any knowledge. And along with it, he’s been a soldier and took the oath to his country. He has been a Senator and with equal fidelity, Barry Goldwater would discharge his presidential oath to enforce and execute — execute all the laws of the land and uphold the Constitution and that’s a part of the whole man. Now let me conclude with one thought. We come then to the last consideration — as we contemplate his courage, his conscience, his competence, his contribution to party service, the pride in his country, his constitutional devotion — and that consideration is the opportunity for an ideological choice for the Republican party and for the country. For twenty years — and you know it as well as I do — the conservative position has hovered — or they have hovered over us, the controversy over the conservative position, like a menacing specter. Simply expressed, it is men that like Bismarck, whose federated Germany withered away, like Britain’s almost nonexistent Liberal Party. We’ve give an inch here, a foot there, a mile there and finally embrace a socialist philosophy that has enervated and debilitated three quarters of the whole globe. Gradually — Gradually, the weakening effect and the divisive effect has become noticeable. Those strongly wedded to Republican philosophy have so often sat on their hands on election day or taken a walk. Others, perceiving no difference between our party and the other party, have taken the ADA version straight. Still others with high and fervent hopes have felt the — the gentle hands of time might bring about unity of purpose and action — and that with banners unfurled and trumpets sounding a common note, we could inscribe the great shining “V” of victory upon our Republican shield once more. But even as the Apostle Paul wrote centuries ago: “For if the trumpet sounds an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” The time has come for a certain sound. The time has come and the chance has come to make a choice. Ask yourselves why is it that this man who certainly has sounded the call to conservativism should be subjected to the abuse which has been heaped upon him. Is it because he favors a clear — a choice that the Democrat Party as now constituted doesn’t dare face? Is it because there is a fear that the American people in their traditional sense of fair play are beginning to grasp the truth that this man utters? Delegates to this convention: Believe me — the tide is turning. And let’s give that philosophy of the peddler’s grandson the chance. So with the platform as our chart in conquer, with a militant son of an immigrant peddler as our leader, let’s give a hundred and ninety million Americans the choice they’ve been waiting for. Let’s place before the people, the cause of a party which was born to preserve the union, and to give sane constitutional government, and to keep government from becoming the master instead of the servant of the people. Let’s rededicate ourselves and our nation. And I’m honored indeed and I’m proud to nominate my colleague from Arizona to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) 1 A thong is a narrow strip of leather used for binding or lashing; a whip of plated leather or cord (the freedictionary.com). Research Note: Transcription by Diane Wiegand Also in this database: Barry Goldwater’s RNC Nomination Acceptance Speech Audio Source: The Vincent Voice Sound Library Copyright Status: This text = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com. Audio & Image (portrait) = Public domain.

Fadi Chehade ICANN 51 Opening Ceremony Address Delivered 13 October 2014, Los Angeles, California Okay, let’s get to work. I would like first to welcome all of you to ICANN 51. I have not — some people asked me, “When do you take off your jacket and when you don’t?” So when I started with you, I used to always take off my jacket when I start and people said, “He is getting to work,” and I think I stopped taking my jacket during the year I was very busy talking to governments, but now we need to get back to work here at ICANN and get ICANN ready for the very important transition and journey we are about to take. And let me start first by letting you know we have about 2,500 people who have registered for ICANN51. This is the largest ballroom we’ve ever had at an opening of ICANN. There are 12,000 seats here in this room. We have people registered from a little over 100 countries here. This is an impressive showing of global presence. So I want to take a moment to welcome each of you, all of you from everywhere you’ve come, especially those who have come from the farthest places. And I want to especially welcome the people who are here for the first time. So if you’re here for the first time, could you stand up so we’d get a sense of who’s here for the first ICANN meeting? Welcome. Welcome. Welcome to your first ICANN meeting. I also want to welcome our fellows. Our Fellows Program is a cornerstone of building our community and growing it. So welcome to all the new ICANN fellows. I think we have 50 of them at this meeting, so welcome to all of you and I hope this meeting will encourage you to stay with us and to build your own place in ICANN as well as Internet history here with us at ICANN. So welcome to all of you. I also want to welcome all the dignitaries, the ministers that are here, you are very welcome at ICANN and we’re happy you can join us here today. All right. We started a new season a couple of years ago when I came to ICANN, and I think we’re at kind of this third stage of this season. We worked hard to get the ground ready and we saw together how, as a community, we can start preparing for this very important next stage. Now, during this time, many important things have happened. Today marks the annual general meeting of ICANN. So once every year we meet and we assess how our year has been. So I’m going to take a moment to review the fiscal year 2014 which, for those of you who are new, our fiscal year starts on July 1st and just ended on June 30th of this year. Now, during this fiscal year we had many historic milestones. Of course, the most important one that everyone is talking about is the decision of the US Government to transition the stewardship we’ve had of the IANA [Internet Assigned Numbers Authority] functions to our community. And you heard Secretary Pritzker today with great eloquence speak about the importance of this transition and the commitment the US Government has had to support ICANN and the commitment they will keep to ICANN and to the Internet governed the way we all want it to be governed in a multi-stakeholder way. And I want to recognize at this moment one of the people that we talk about, all of us in the hallways, and in emails, and in many discussions but rarely, frankly, publicly thanked for his incredible leadership and that’s Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling who’s here with us today. Larry, with his able team, including Fiona Alexander who’s here as you all know her, are really the quiet champions of this transition. They are the people who trust us and who have brought together a difficult but important coalition to support this transition. This is not easy to do. Many governments asked me, “Why would the US Government give up this?” “Why would any government give up power?” It’s not natural, but through the courage and leadership of Larry and his team and Secretary Pritzker’s support, and our President’s support here in the US, I think we are moving in the right direction. So we thank you for that very important milestone and now it’s incumbent upon us to take this huge responsibility we are being handed and to carry through and get this done. However, that wasn’t the only thing that happened in 2014. So let me cover a few things. As you recall, we have a strategic plan and a framework that includes four objectives that we identified in the Toronto meeting back in 2012 when I started, and these are the four. Let me show you what we’ve done in 2014 on each of these four. First affirmation of our purpose. And here, there are many numbers and facts. Let me focus on a couple. As you know, we have a very active group of community members that do the accountability recommendations. That team gave us a key recommendation to create better access to WHOIS information. And so in 2014, we introduced whois.icann.org. If you haven’t used it, please do. And whois.icann.org gives comprehensive information on how WHOIS works and the information behind it, and we‘re now — we’ve gone from 200 when we started in November to 5,000 visitors a week from 200 countries. So this is clearly a tool that was needed, and we filled an important void. Within that tool in April, we added consolidated WHOIS lookup. So you can go and put any website, any domain name in the world and find out the WHOIS information behind it. That again also has now gotten to 85,000 inquiries per month that are coming to this centralized consolidated lookup tool. We are glad we responded to the community’s requirement to improve our accountability and to add transparency to what ICANN does. Many of you here, 322 of you, saw your new gTLDs added to the root in 2014. Of course, that number is higher today because we are already in October, but that’s a very successful implementation of our core responsibilities. I would also want to note on the right there that we train — our staff goes around the world to train people on DNSSEC, the key security standard that we have and this — in 2014, we trained an additional 280 people around the world to do that. So again, good progress in that area to strengthen who we are, and I want to, here publicly, thank our friends from Brazil. I see them, so please stand up — Demi [Getschko]; Hartmut [Richard Glaser], and all the members of CGI who are here. Hartmut. The leadership they took to help us make NETmundial happen and I see there also Ambassador Benedicto [Fonseca Filho]. Thank you, Ambassador. And all of you there for helping us make history in Brazil. I think we will all remember that, and the partnership we have with you shall be for many years, I hope. Thank you very much. Let me go to operations excellence. Now, this is an area where, admittedly, I will tell you we have more work to do, but let me at least highlight a few things and tell you what we are going to do to do more. The thing I‘m most proud of is that middle number which I shouldn’t be proud of, you should be proud of because we now do a thorough audit of compliance of all of our registers and registrars. And this is the second year we do it, and remarkably, not surprisingly, 98% of registers and registrars are fully compliant with their contracts. This independent audit shows what many of us know — that this is a good industry. This is an industry that is operating in the best public interest. We should celebrate that. We should put that up and make sure people understand when a few bad actors sully the image of this industry, we should know that there are few and that our compliance department will be looking for these so that they do not make the rest of our industry look bad. Our industry is performing very well and the numbers are, this year, 98% in full compliance of our contractual commitments. Yes, thank you. Our IANA functions which are the core of our responsibility. And especially important this year as we look at the transition, how are we doing? We are meeting and exceeding every service level we have in IANA, as you can tell from this bottom row. And I’m very proud of that [unclear] of the great IANA team that is continuing to function calmly, confidently despite the changing world around them, and I can assure you that they’re superbly ready as the US Government steps away from its role to continue doing what they do with distinction as they’ve done in 2014. Thank you, thank you, IANA team. I think I’ll just point out also that we have now the L-root deployed in 158 locations around the world. This is the commitment of ICANN — to improve response times by leveraging the fact that we are responsible for one of the 13 root services by bringing it to the world and, this year alone, we’ve added — we went last year from 26 to a 38-location increase this year, so thank you for the L-root team at ICANN for that progress. This little icon on the bottom called planning framework is very important. I do believe we have work to do still on our operations excellence. Excellence is never achieved but right now, frankly, I do not think we’re quite there. We have work to do. So, I will leave a discussion on the planning framework to a couple of slides down but I will come back to it because I want to share with you how the ICANN leadership team is building a new framework so we make sure we serve your needs in the best possible way. The third of the four goals was internationalization. Now, we prefer to refer to it as globalization. What have we done there? The numbers on the right speak for themselves. The interest in what ICANN does has grown. That doesn’t mean that our KPI, our key performance indicator, is that these numbers keep growing. What is important is that globally we’re inclusive. We’re reaching out to all people who want to participate in ICANN’s mission, and making sure that our meetings and our activities reach them and bring them on board. I am particularly proud of the number of newcomers, and the number of fellows because that shows that the ICANN community is growing also in new ways. On the slide, I want to point to the percentage growth of our staff. The percentage growth outside the United States is far outstripping the growth within the US, and this is by design. Our new hubs in Istanbul and Singapore and my wife in the room so I should be careful. She and I moved to these hubs during this year. It was not always easy, but we lived in Singapore for a while then we came back to the US and then we went to Istanbul so that we can support ICANN’s growth in these locations and make sure that our employees see us living and performing our functions around the world. But this really shows we have reached an important inflection in where ICANN’s center of gravity is. Because, to a large degree, when I started, frankly, the center of gravity was here, was in the US. That’s changing. It’s a journey. It won’t happen overnight, but our hubs in these main geographic choices of Istanbul and Singapore are now well-established and the roots are there and the staff is growing and the functions are spread across our three hubs. Now, we still have some work to do. For example, look at the website. We have done, I think, the best we could to advance the website but, clearly, we heard back from the community that there is more work to do. I can assure you we’re on it. Just three days ago, we’ve completely changed the search engine because many of you felt the search was weak. We now use new technology. But I want to point out something that I feel is very important. We have nearly 5,000 of you who built their profiles on that site. That’s important because the profile allows us to then start giving you the information you need and connecting you to others so we can create the expert networks within our community. So for those of you who haven’t done so yet, please do build your profiles. This is to help us be together and work better as a team. I also think on the translation side, whilst the number of words we’ve translated has grown exponentially in 2014, reflecting the amount of work we do, I think our team is clear that translation is only part of localization. Localization is much more than just translating words, so we are preparing to enhance the services we offer you so we can localize the information and provide you better knowledge of what we’re doing. Lastly, the evolution of our multi-stakeholder model. That’s you, that’s our community that’s bringing us together. So, all of these accomplishments are yours and the stakeholders. Specifically, I want to talk again about the GNSO and the great work that the councilors of this important body in ICANN have done under the leadership of Jonathan. His well-deserved award today is to reflect the sea change in how the GNSO is together and is working with all the other parts of the ICANN community. That’s important. RSSAC has done something remarkable this year. They’ve gone from being a small community of root operators or root service operators to building this caucus where they invite other members of the technical community to join them, to participate with them in that caucus. In other words, removing sometimes the veil of what’s happening in the root community, they’ve opened up, invited others and are engaged in a very important dialogue. So, thank you to the new leadership in RSSAC. Liman, who is here I hope, has done a superb job with his other partners to open up the RSSAC for others. I want to point out the At-Large community that has gone from giving us — adding eight structures last year to adding 23 new At-Large structures in 2014. This is remarkable. I think our total now is 177 at-large structures around the world. What an impressive reach of the user community into ICANN. Not to mention their policy advice which continues to grow remarkably, they’re up to 53 policy advice statements this year. The GAC is now at 141 members as of the end of June. 141 countries represented on GAC. In fact, the number today is higher even because we’re already in October. We have 31 observers from international governmental organizations. So, quite an impressive growth across our community. The ccNSO up to 150 now. The SSAC going again from 5 to 7 documents. That may sound like a small number but, believe me, every SSAC document that arrives to us is worth its weight in gold. The amount of work and research and thoughtfulness they put to advise us is very much appreciated. So, great work by our community across the board. Thank you for a great year. Let’s look forward now. So, that strategic plan and the four objectives I showed you were very much started in 2012. Now, for the last 17 months, 17 months, when I shared this with my friends at places like IBM and I say we spent 17 months writing the new strategic plan, they don’t understand. I didn’t understand, but now I do. That unless we do this together from the bottom up, it is not our plan. It may be my plan. It may be the staff’s plan. It may be somebody’s idea. But the genius of ICANN, the magic of ICANN, is that we, in fact, spent together 17 months, 3 full comment periods to develop the next strategic plan of ICANN. I am very proud of this new achievement and we should all be. And the plan, frankly, is one of the few things we delivered to our Board of Directors and unanimously, and you can ask them, they’re here, very supportive, very pleased with the outcome. If you have not read this plan, please do read it. It is on our website. It is an extensive plan that lays out where ICANN is going in the future. And it has very, very solid information. At its core are five strategic objectives. Here they are. Now, we used to have four as I showed you before. We now have a fifth one. The four are changed, but somewhat similar. The fifth one there is a very important one and one, frankly, that I am sure you all are very proud of. We have added a specific objective to develop and implement a global public interest framework, of course, bounded by ICANN’s mission. ICANN does not want to grow into becoming a development agency. This is not what we do. But we have to root everything we do in the global public interest. So creating this framework is a huge step forward and one we are deeply committed to achieve as a community. Underneath these five strategic objectives in the plan that I just showed you, we have 16 goals, and now for the next five years, we will be using these in order to build our activities so that we are anchored where you want us to be. Now, let’s talk a little bit about how we are going to go from five strategic objectives and 16 goals to the work we do everyday. So, I want to share with you a very important operational view of how we do this. As you can tell here, we start with the vision and mission statement and the strategic plan, these are all in this document which, by the way, will be voted on by the board in the public session this Thursday, because that’s it. We’ve finished the 17 months and the board will vote on these and they become part of the record. From there, we will build a five-year operating plan and by we, I mean we will build a five-year operating plan. We will put the first version of this plan out for you to review and give us input on immediately after this ICANN meeting. So, it’s ready, it’s been put together, and you will find it on our website. After we do that and we get your inputs, we will move into the annual operating plan and budget process. And then from there, we go to achievement and progress reporting which is, again, the cycle. And we, all of us a community, are in the middle. Everyone of these things goes through all of us. Nothing, nothing goes only through staff. Nothing goes only through Board. It has to come through all of us. So, the five-year operating plan will be put out for everyone’s input. We need you. Please help us with this because this is the foundation for how we build the yearly plans after that. And then we’ll do the yearly plan every year and, as usual, we’ll work with you on it and then we’ll do the achievement and progress report. Let me dwell for a minute on the achievement and progress reporting. Remarkably, we do not have, as a community, common agreement on the scorecard of key performance indicators. We need that, so when people come up to me and say, “Fadi, operations are not quite there.” Well, how much farther do we need to go? Well, we don’t know because we don’t have an agreement on what are the frameworks. So, in this operating plan and the annual plan, we are going to be inserting, for the first time, a complete framework of key performance indicators and then we will measure these continuously, and we will share all that data with you continuously. So, when we have discussions, we are aligned on what we need to do to serve you in the best possible way. Now, these KPIs are critical, and I’m looking at many of you here in the room that I know can really guide me and guide our staff in making sure we have the right performance indicators for you. Now, we are going to be adding a new thing, a new meeting — and I’m sorry about that — to the list of many ICANN meetings. We will do like most corporations do. They hold shareholders call on a quarterly basis. Well, we’re going to start holding a stakeholders call on a quarterly basis. The first one is on November 20th and we will be announcing it shortly because it’s after the end of our first fiscal quarter. Each of these calls will carry full information on our performance, financial, and business, and strategic, and we will share these in the context of the new plans as well as the new KPIs. So, please join us for these. This will be open. Everyone is welcome, including the press and others that need to start understanding the openness and transparency with which ICANN operates. So the first call will be on November 20th and the notice on that will be going out shortly. A little more detail on what’s in these three components. It’s important you appreciate this because many of these things are new. ICANN has never had a five-year operating plan. This is the first time we do this, but the strategic plan, of course, includes our vision, mission, the five strategic objectives, and the 16 goals. And, of course, we have some strategic risks also outlined in that document. When we go to the five-year operating plan for each of the goals, we have the key performance indicators, the risks, the dependencies and, for the first time, the five-year phasing. In other words, what do we expect to do on this goal in a year? In two years? In three years? And so on and so forth, so you have a view of where we’re heading with each of these goals. Then we will list every portfolio of work we’re doing under each goal. And there are today about 50, 60 portfolios of work. We will fit them now under these five goals so you see what ICANN is doing in each of these areas. The other thing we will put on the five-year plan which we have never done before is a five-year financial model. This is the first time ICANN will publish what its view is of the revenues, the top line, as well as the expenses for the next five years. And this is important so we are completely aligned as a community as to what is our financial view for the next five years. And then finally, the operating plan will go further. It will base itself on the five-year operating plan. The annual plan will also include for each portfolio the KPIs, the dependencies, and all the activities under that and, of course, because it has a budget, it will have the numbers. So, you’ll be able to see how much we’re spending on each of these areas. Very important work and believe me, there are very few organizations that are functioning with this openness, and with this transparency, and with this commitment to operational excellence of an entire community working together. Finally, I want to share with you a very important new direction. As my boss, Steve Crocker, said in his opening, it just seemed in the last two to three years that ICANN was growing without limit. We would like to start taming that growth. We would like to make sure that ICANN stays within its remit, and to do so, we’re going to set up a baseline operational model. These baseline operations will grow very little every year based on normal year-to-year CPI and other indicators, so we will not be adding to the baseline operations. When a new initiative comes to the fore, we will, as a community, assess it, decide how much it will cost us, decide how it will impact our organization, our priorities, and if we choose to do it, we will spend money on it, and if at the end of that, it leaves some residual work in the baseline, we will up the baseline. But this must be done together. And I want to assure you that by the end of this year, the whole process to add new initiatives will be ready and published so that you can participate, as a community, in deciding how we move forward in adding new work to what we do today. Many of you have shared with me that in the last couple of years, it seemed that staff would be adding new initiatives that we haven’t all discussed in full agreement. This will not happen again because we will do it together in a structured way moving forward. And now, the fifth goal, remember the new fifth goal? A global public interest framework bounded by ICANN’s mission. I wanted to make a small announcement to you. Yesterday, a press release came out of ICANN that we have created a new position in my global leadership team. And this new position which is for a new and focused area called “contractual compliance and consumer safeguards,” will be headed by a new chief officer of contractual compliance. He is here, and many of you should meet him during the week. Allen Grogan, if you could stand up so people can see you. Allen has been our contract — welcome him — Allen Grogan has been with us for almost a year and a half, leading the contracting area for registries and has done, frankly, a remarkable job for ICANN. He has many years of experience in the space of Internet and technology law, and we welcome him to the global leadership team. So, what will happen here is important because we are choosing to focus what we’re doing on a global public interest. It’s very important to appreciate where this department is going. Allen will lead two functions. He will first lead the contractual compliance operations. Many of you know Maggie Maguy Serad and her team. They’ve done a solid job operationally. They will now report in to Allen, and if you recall four or five months ago, Akram had announced that the GDD department, the department of global domain names will be adding a function called registrant and consumer safeguards. That group will also move into Allen’s new area. Contract compliance and safeguard will also be considering new ways that ICANN can work cooperatively with others in the Internet community to help safeguard registrants and the global Internet community by improving and enhancing our contract enforcement activities. They will also explore other activities that we may undertake to help protect the health, the lives, the security, and the privacy of Internet users and registrants around the world. All of these activities must be consistent with ICANN’s unlimited mandate, vision, and core values. Now, I want to be very clear about this. We will engage with law enforcement and regulatory agencies, if and when appropriate, to help safeguard registrants in the community, but ICANN is not in the business of law enforcement. We are not a regulatory agency, and we will be careful not to cross that line or overstep our limited authority. So, welcome aboard Allen. I look forward to work with you so that we can enhance this important function and commit ourselves that compliance and consumer safeguards are rooted in the public interest to which we are missioned. Finally, I want to talk about what we’re all talking about – the US Government transition that is undertaking. This transition has to date four tracks. Two tracks, the main tracks are community-led tracks. The first one, as you know, is to work together on how we’re going to transition specific IANA functions at ICANN from the current regime where the US Government has applied some stewardship in the past. The second part is to strengthen ICANN’s governance and accountability. Now, this has been on everybody’s discussion list. We need to improve ICANN’s governance and accountability, and the answer to that is absolutely we must. And if we don’t strive to improve our governance and accountability at all times and especially this time, we will not gain and maintain the confidence of the world that ICANN leadership, ICANN Board, ICANN community is committed to the best possible governance and accountability mechanisms there are. So, whilst we had some discussion for the last few months how to organize this, I think all of us would agree that today, we are completely aligned. We know where we’re going, and we’ll move forward together to start building these accountability measures. Within the second track, we have also agreed to have two parallel efforts. One, to deal with accountability mechanisms that must be reinforced or added before the transition occurs or along with the transition, and this is something Assistant Secretary [Lawrence] Strickling made clear in his speech in Istanbul that he will be looking for community consensus — community consensus — on how we improve our accountability with regard specifically to the transition. And then in parallel, another group, because we’re also receiving these requests, needs to look at the broader ICANN accountability and governance improvements that we need to do that may not need to be necessarily taken care of before a transition occurs. So, by creating these two parallel efforts that are intricately tied but on different timelines, we satisfy the needs of the global community and our community to move forward and improve ICANN’s accountability. Now, these two blue tracks at the bottom, in case anybody is worried about these, this is simply what staff needs to do to implement what comes out from the green tracks. So, if the decision on how IANA functions will occur impacts our operations, we need to be prepared for that. So, we are going to be doing pilots. We are going to be doing work so that we are prepared and not surprised how to move forward. But all of this will be done in concert with the green tracks that are community-led. This is simply so that we do everything we can to be ready as the transition becomes a requirement on ICANN staff to change what we do. We are poised for a good harvest. Things are looking good right now. The community is aligned. The transition is moving forward well on ensuring that ICANN delivers services to all of you in the best possible way. And that’s where my time is. That is where my focus is. I want you to know that. I’ve heard you clearly that now more than ever is the time to strengthen ICANN to make sure that we remain strong, united, and confident as the world is watching how we will be post the US transition. Thank you. U.S Copyright Status: Text = Uncertain.

Fannie Lou Hamer Testimony Before the Credentials Committee, DNConvention delivered 22 August 1964 Mr. Chairman, and to the Credentials Committee, my name is Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer, and I live at 626 East Lafayette Street, Ruleville, Mississippi, Sunflower County, the home of Senator James O. Eastland, and Senator Stennis. It was the 31st of August in 1962 that eighteen of us traveled twenty-six miles to the county courthouse in Indianola to try to register to become first-class citizens. We was met in Indianola by policemen, Highway Patrolmen, and they only allowed two of us in to take the literacy test at the time. After we had taken this test and started back to Ruleville, we was held up by the City Police and the State Highway Patrolmen and carried back to Indianola where the bus driver was charged that day with driving a bus the wrong color. After we paid the fine among us, we continued on to Ruleville, and Reverend Jeff Sunny carried me four miles in the rural area where I had worked as a timekeeper and sharecropper for eighteen years. I was met there by my children, who told me the plantation owner was angry because I had gone down — tried to register. After they told me, my husband came, and said the plantation owner was raising Cain because I had tried to register. And before he quit talking the plantation owner came and said, “Fannie Lou, do you know — did Pap tell you what I said?” And I said, “Yes, sir.” He said, “Well I mean that.” Said, “If you don’t go down and withdraw your registration, you will have to leave.” Said, “Then if you go down and withdraw.” Said, “You still might have to go because we’re not ready for that in Mississippi.” And I addressed him and told him and said, “I didn’t try to register for you. I tried to register for myself.” I had to leave that same night. On the 10th of September 1962, sixteen bullets was fired into the home of Mr. and Mrs. Robert Tucker for me. That same night two girls were shot in Ruleville, Mississippi. Also, Mr. Joe McDonald’s house was shot in. And June the 9th, 1963, I had attended a voter registration workshop; was returning back to Mississippi. Ten of us was traveling by the Continental Trailway bus. When we got to Winona, Mississippi, which is Montgomery County, four of the people got off to use the washroom, and two of the people — to use the restaurant — two of the people wanted to use the washroom. The four people that had gone in to use the restaurant was ordered out. During this time I was on the bus. But when I looked through the window and saw they had rushed out I got off of the bus to see what had happened. And one of the ladies said, “It was a State Highway Patrolman and a Chief of Police ordered us out.” I got back on the bus and one of the persons had used the washroom got back on the bus, too. As soon as I was seated on the bus, I saw when they began to get the five people in a highway patrolman’s car. I stepped off of the bus to see what was happening and somebody screamed from the car that the five workers was in and said, “Get that one there.” And when I went to get in the car, when the man told me I was under arrest, he kicked me. I was carried to the county jail and put in the booking room. They left some of the people in the booking room and began to place us in cells. I was placed in a cell with a young woman called Miss Ivesta Simpson. After I was placed in the cell I began to hear sounds of licks and screams. I could hear the sounds of licks and horrible screams. And I could hear somebody say, “Can you say, ‘yes, sir,’ nigger? Can you say ‘yes, sir’?” And they would say other horrible names. She would say, “Yes, I can say ‘yes, sir.’” “So, well, say it.” She said, “I don’t know you well enough.” They beat her, I don’t know how long. And after a while she began to pray, and asked God to have mercy on those people. And it wasn’t too long before three white men came to my cell. One of these men was a State Highway Patrolman and he asked me where I was from. And I told him Ruleville. He said, “We are going to check this.” And they left my cell and it wasn’t too long before they came back. He said, “You are from Ruleville all right,” and he used a curse word. And he said, “We’re going to make you wish you was dead.” I was carried out of that cell into another cell where they had two Negro prisoners. The State Highway Patrolmen ordered the first Negro to take the blackjack. The first Negro prisoner ordered me, by orders from the State Highway Patrolman, for me to lay down on a bunk bed on my face. And I laid on my face, the first Negro began to beat me. And I was beat by the first Negro until he was exhausted. I was holding my hands behind me at that time on my left side, because I suffered from polio when I was six years old. After the first Negro had beat until he was exhausted, the State Highway Patrolman ordered the second Negro to take the blackjack. The second Negro began to beat and I began to work my feet, and the State Highway Patrolman ordered the first Negro who had beat to sit on my feet — to keep me from working my feet. I began to scream and one white man got up and began to beat me in my head and tell me to hush. One white man — my dress had worked up high — he walked over and pulled my dress — I pulled my dress down and he pulled my dress back up. I was in jail when Medgar Evers was murdered. All of this is on account of we want to register, to become first-class citizens. And if the Freedom Democratic Party is not seated now, I question America. Is this America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where we have to sleep with our telephones off of the hooks because our lives be threatened daily, because we want to live as decent human beings, in America? Thank you. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Image Source: Wikipedia.org Page Updated: 8/18/17 U.S. Copyright status: Text = Uncertain. Image = No known restrictions.

Fernando Egana Interview with Roy Carson on Venezuelan Economy and Politics delivered 13 September 2010 Egana: Well, it’s…a very special kind of democracy to say the least, because under Venezuelan law and — and particularly under Venezuelan Constitution, 20 percent of all fiscal revenues or 20 percent of the national budget has to be distributed proportionally among the different Governorships and the different Mayorships. We have 24 provincial states with 24 Governors and we have six of them representing opposition parties. So they have the right to receive that part of the, that piece that part of the budget under the Constitution and nonetheless the President is saying that because they represent political interests, different from his, he’s not going to authorize the distribution of — of proper resources. And of course that’s unconstitutional. That’s completely arbitrary, but that’s the way things are done nowadays in Venezuela. Carson: Well, okay the situation in Venezuela seems to have deteriorated over the last ten years or eleven years that President Chavez has been in power. You were a central figure in the government of President Caldera. I remember that well and you were head of OCI at that time. How…do you compare the two systems? Egana: Well they’re very different in — in many realms. First, politically speaking, Venezuela had a democracy with a lot, I — I would say like an unsatisfactory democracy. There were a lot of problems but — but basically a democracy in terms of separation of powers, in terms of respect of the rule of law, and in terms of pluralism. Now we don’t have a democracy any more. The system has been in a path of evolution towards an autocracy. We don’t have separation of powers in… real terms in Venezuela, though constitutionally we do. We don’t have subordination of the military to civil power but exactly the contrary. In — in many — many senses this is a military regime, the one that it’s in power in Venezuela right now. Civil liberties are under a situation of — of conditionality. I mean if — if the government seeks your property or seeks to violate whatever civil rights it wants to, it has, it doesn’t have any kind of — of balance or checks with the other powers in the state. Now, that’s in… basic terms, the difference politically speaking, but economically speaking there’s also a big difference because we had a…mixed economy during the last part of the 20th century with basic economic rights for the private sector, though with the — the important intervention from the government. But now it’s exactly the opposite. We have a — a highly collectivized economy. Now the government has very strong power in almost all sectors of economic development and the private sector is shrinking. And there’s a lot of mistrust and lack of confidence because property rights are not secured in Venezuela so there’s a lot of…insecurity in legal terms. And that’s… explain something terrible that has happened in this first decade of the 21st century, which is that the — that the Venezuelan economy has enjoyed one of the longest economic booms in all its history. It has received an amount that…is almost one, I don’t know how to say, mil veces, mil billones de dolares [a thousand times a thousand billion dollars] of dollars. Carson: Millions upon millions. Egana: Right of –of dollars, but –but now the economy is in a very deep recession. We have one of the highest inflation rates in the world. Foreign investment is practically — is practically nonexistent. Domestic production has fallen both in industrial activities and in… farming and we are now having something that we are, we didn’t have — we didn’t have never in our history which is a — a massive immigration of — of young people, particularly professionals, engineering, medical — medical personnel, which is of course something very, very bad for a precedent particularly for our future. So both in political and economic terms, Venezuela has deteriorated very sharply during these years and that in spite of the — the windfall of oil resources, of petrol dollars that we have received due to the international boom, international bonanza of oil prices. Carson: Well, I have to draw you up on one point here Fernando, and that is at the end of the Caldera administration inflation was already up in three figures and the price of oil was quite low at that time. I think it was around about ten dollars a barrel but shall we say Chavez claims that he inherited a mass of troubles from the Caldera and previous regimes. How do you — How do you see that? Egana: Well I think that we have…two — two different things to say, one particular and one general. One particular commentary with respect to inflation and a general commentary with respect to the economic situation. With respect to inflation, it’s right that, it’s true that in 1996 Venezuelan inflation rate was 100 percent. It was the highest inflation rate in — in Venezuelan history. The previous highest was under President Perez administration which amounted I think, remember 80 — 88 or 89 percent. Now the trend of the inflation started to go down sharply. In 1997 inflation was like 36, 37 percent and in 1998 inflation was ended in 28 percent. So the trend of inflation that the Chavez government received was a — a positive trend in the sense that it was going down and he in — in, and because of that I think of, among other factors, he reappointed the Minister of Finance that had the Caldera government which was a — a very well-known professional in Venezuela, Maritza Izaguirre. And that — that was — como lo digo [How do I say it?] …but I think that an important thing is, was — was the trend, the tendency that was a positive one. And the second commentary in regard with the general situation is this. Venezuela is, has been a — a oil-based economy since the 1930s and of course they, there is a very close relationship between the prices of oil in international markets and the general situation of the Venezuelan domestic economy. When the prices rise, the Venezuela economy tends to…grow and tends to better. On the contrary, when the prices go down then the Venezuelan economy in general goes in — in turmoil. Now since the late ’80s and throughout the ’90s the prices in the — the oil prices in the international markets were very, were… quite low. The general average of the Venezuelan oil prices during the 1990s was 14 dollars per barrel and in 1998 because as an outcome of the Asian financial crisis, prices went down up to, down to 8 and 9 dollars per barrel. Now it — it was a very difficult situation due primarily to this, to the… crisis in the oil, in international oil system. Now, since 1998-99 oil prices start to pickup. In 1999 for instance at the end of the first years of Chavez government, the average of the Venezuelan oil prices was 17 which was almost 70 percent up to what was at the beginning of the year. Now it — it started to — to increase, for instance in 19 in 2001 it was almost 25. Then it went to 30, to 40. We have a — a peak in our oil prices value in June of 200 — of 2008 when the, when it went up to 140 dollars and right — and right now the average price of the Venezuelan barrel is around 70 dollars which is a very good price in perspective in… comparative economics. But nonetheless, now the economic situation is not as it should be a booming one, but on the very contrary is say, it’s even worse than speculation, we have something worse, because that speculation is when you have no growth and high inflation and now we have recession and a… very high inflation rate. Carson: The situation with Venezuela’s industry has got into dire circumstances at the moment with most of the heavy industries closing down or already closed. How do you envisage that as survival if at all? Egana: Well, you know formally speaking the — the name of the economic model that has — has been implemented in Venezuela during these years is desarrollo endogeno [endogenous development] which means domestic development or development from within. That’s formally speaking because in practice it has happened exactly the opposite. We are — we are destroying our domestic development, our development from within because production both in industrial terms and in land or agricultural terms is falling down sharply and we have become even more dependent on oil production and on imports. In, two years ago Venezuelan imports mounted almost 45 billion dollars, which in Venezuelan terms is a huge, huge amount and right now we are importing almost 70 or 75 percent of the food we consume, which makes us very, which — which makes us incredibly dependent upon foreign imports in such a sensitive aspect as food alimentacion [feeding] in general. So I don’t see any — any intention, any trend, any, that might lead to a different situation. On the contrary, the socialistic or socialist rhetoric, it’s a — it’s a increasing in volume and in… its propaganda and there has been a lot of — of new expropriations which actually aren’t really expropriations because expropriations in our, in Venezuelan law is when there’s a transfer of property from private to the public sector but then it’s also a transfer of money from the public sector to the private that is no longer the owner of… the good. But here we have expropriations in terms of transfer of property but not in terms of transfer of money. So it’s — it’s more like a confiscation of property and — and all these announcements and — and all these measures towards confiscation of property produces a terrible effect among and in the private sectors both nationally and also internationally. Carson: I remember way back in the later stages of 1996, ’97, ’98 ,I was constantly trying to get you to make some comment on the situation with the gold mining industry and the gold mine Las Cristinas in particular. That situation seems to continue. Egana: Well that doesn’t surprise me because that has happened also in other aspects of…potential sectors for foreign investment like in the oil industry. Well, yes the — the problem is that when the government accumulates such amount of power. No, what — what I… think is that international contracts of that importance such as the oil contracts must be given within a previous framework both legal and administrative framework to guarantee transparency and to guarantee equal opportunity and that — that is not happening right now because the government has the power to give unilaterally almost without any kind of parliamentary control or to…show control any kind of contracts to any kind of company. That shouldn’t be the case. International contracts should be adjudicated with elicitation system that — that meets all international standards. But I am afraid that that’s not the case in Venezuela in the moment. Carson: With regard to the Las Cristinas gold mine, Crystallex International of Toronto say that they signed a contract with the CVG and the Venezuelan government way back in 2004 for the exploitation of the mine. They are now saying that they cannot proceed any further and in fact they have given up a third of the company or two-thirds of the company to the Chinese government in the hope that the Chinese government will be able to force Chavez to give the final permits for them to begin to mine gold at Las Cristinas. Egana: Well even though I — I as I told you, I don’t know the details of the, of this particular situation but — but it doesn’t surprise me that that kind of things are happening now because the government is not — is not functioning under the rule of law but under a different kind of rule which is the personal rule, the volatilism of the government and well that’s something that it’s… not good both for the Venezuelan image abroad but it’s also very bad in terms of our…need to become a…democracy that — that is respectful of the constitution and of the legal framework. Carson: In just under — well, this time two weeks from now — you’ll know the results of the election. How do you predict the election will tally out? Egana: Well let me tell you. If we had in Venezuela free and fair elections within international standards of what free and fair means, I think that the opposition parties or the opposition coalition might have a… very strong outcome and may — may, might have also the majority votes. However, because the electoral system in Venezuela it’s — it’s under control of — of the government, it’s not autonomous from the government but it’s subordinated to the government and the government means the political party, the incumbent political party which is PSUV. It’s very difficult to make a — a responsible prediction in this sense because the process to try to — to condition results is very, very strong. But what, but it — it can be said is that those massive majorities of the popular votes that Chavez enjoyed during the first years of his governments, it’s already gone. It’s part of the past. And now the, there is a very strong polarization of Venezuelan political intentions and political preferences and I think that the part of the sector of the country that — that doesn’t feel represented by Chavez government, Chavez policies, it’s — it’s growing strongly year after year. Carson: Well okay come the — the 27th of September if the elections do prove to be corrupt and not representative, what option is left? Egana: Well the — the problems with elections in Venezuela are not that the election as such that the — the act of election as such is… corrupt but that the system as such and — and the process as such is.. controlled. The system is controlled by — by the government and it’s controlled by the main political party the PSUV. And I, maybe you can run an analogy in between what that means in Venezuela right now as to what it meant in Mexico when the electoral system was in hands, was controlled by the PRI. It’s…something, it’s very much alike. That doesn’t mean of course that you don’t have, that you — that you have, that you shouldn’t participate, on the contrary you should participate and you…should take into account all the political opportunities and all the electoral opportunities that — that you can which is what’s happening in Venezuela right now. But you go to the elections and you — you have your candidates and you fight for the votes and… all that. You do everything you have to do to win the elections but that doesn’t mean that you are not aware of the kind of… imperfections that the system has and of — of the need to reform deeply that system, the system to make — to make it genuinely democratic. Well let me tell you something. In the last decade Chavez has denounced both nationally and internationally as I recall like 20 or 25 attempts of — of magnicidio [assassination]. And still we are waiting for the proofs, still we are waiting for the parliamentary commissions that were enacted to investigate those — those claims. We’re waiting for the final results or for their — their evidence and it’s – it’s very suspicious that every time there’s an election or every time there’s a political confrontation, the campaign starts with another announcement of the intentions from the oligarchy or the imperialism or…whatever, another intention of — of magnicidio [assassination]. Carson: Regrettable as it may be from a humanistic point of view, if President Chavez was removed one way or another, okay and became part of history, how do you see Venezuela proceeding from there? Egana: Well in — in first, I will like President Chavez be removed democratically by the votes of the people. And I think that the year 2012 can be, presents an opportunity for a democratic removal of… the Presidency. I know it’s difficult because this is not an independent, usual government. And it’s not even a democratic government. It’s – it’s different kind of…political governance but — but I think that the ideal way to — to transform the current political situation is through votes. And I think that if Chavez leaves power by democratic means in 2012, I think that there is a…enormous opportunity for political, economic, and social reconstruction of Venezuela. It’s — I’m sure it’s going to be also a very difficult task but I trust that the lessons of — of this long decade will be finally assimilated. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Research Note: Transcription by Diane Wiegand. Special thanks to Ximena Saenz Gonzales for her work on the Spanish/English portions of the transcript. Audio Source: VHeadline.com Copyright Status: Text and Audio = Used with permission.

Dr. Francis Collins The Genome Era: What It Means To You What the heck is a genome anyway? That’s a funny word and some people have gotten it mixed up with a gnome, but it’s not really the same thing. In fact, the genome is all of the DNA inside each cell of your body. And whatever living organism you happen to be, you have a genome. It’s made up of these wonderful base pairs arranged in a ladder, in a double helix. And those base pairs are either A pairing with T or G pairing with C. And it’s the order of those letters that determines the information that are carried by that DNA strand. The human genome has three billion of those base pairs. That’s our genome. That’s a lot of information. So for instance, if you were to take the DNA inside just one cell of your body and you were to stretch it out, end to end, how long would it be? Well, it would be about that long, about six feet in fact, all packed in there inside each cell of your body, but with the order of those letters being just right. Well, that’s pretty exciting but until recently it was pretty theoretical, because we didn’t have the tools to be able to actually read those letters. But the Human Genome Project came along and it made it possible to read out those three billion letters and in April of 2003, we did that. Now if you printed those out onto the pages of telephone books and you stacked them on top of each other, it would actually take 142 Manhattan phone books to represent all that information. And yet the Genome Project determined that in the space of about 13 years, two years less than expected and it’s all now available for anybody who’s interested in trying to sort out how it works. In fact, you could put in on a CD-ROM. On this very CD-ROM is the entire sequence of the human genome. You could stick it in your computer and start reading those A’s, C’s, G’s, and T’s. But of course that’s not the easiest way to work with it. The way that most scientists work with the information is by going to the internet and on your screen is the URL that every, is used hundreds of thousands of times a day by scientists who are studying the human genome, trying to figure out how it provides the instructions for life, and how misspellings in that genome can cause the risk of disease. So medical research has been profoundly influenced by this development. Well, what have we learned so far from reading this sequence? I can mention a few cool things that we have discovered, but only a few because of the time. First of all, we’ve been saying for the longest time that we had a hundred thousand genes. A gene being a packet of information that carries out a particular instruction. Well, guess what? Now that we have the information accurately in front of us, the number is actually a lot smaller. It’s probably about 24 thousand. And that makes our gene count not that much different than a lot of other simpler worms and flies and plants, that we used to think that we were very superior to. Well, we’ve still are pretty fancy organisms, but apparently are gene count is not the only reason. Another thing we’ve learned is that when you look at the part of the genome that seems to be most functionally important, we thought that would be pretty much the parts that code for protein, you know DNA makes RNA makes proteins. So that part would be the most important. But it turns out two-thirds of the most important part of the genome is not that at all. And falls in places that we didn’t recognize as being all that interesting. So we have a whole new area of research that’s come out of this discovery. Thirdly, we’ve looked at lots of people now and we can say that in fact the similarity between your genome and mine is very high. In fact, we are 99.9 percent the same. And that would be true regardless of where your ancestors came from or where mine did. The human species is one, big recently developed family. And so our genome sequences reflect that. And that’s pretty interesting and in that regard, we’re a lot more like each other than many other species on this planet. Well, you might ask okay, the Genome Project finished all of its goals in 2003, what’s next? Where do we go from here? Well, a lot of interesting things are under way because we have the information. Beginning with the study of how certain diseases come about and what we might do about them, because that was the point after all. So, consider the story of Sam. Sam is a seven-year-old boy with progeria, a very dramatic form of premature aging. Sam looked just like any other baby at birth but by the time he was four or five years old, he took on the appearance of a little old man. And this is progressing rapidly and we need to find an answer in order to do something for Sam and the other kids like him. Until very recently we had no idea what the problem was. But using the tools of the Human Genome Project and working with his parents, who started a foundation to support research on this, my own laboratory was able to find a single letter that is misspelled in the genome of kids with progeria. One place out of those three billion where there ought to be a C and instead there’s a T. That’s all it seems to take in that vulnerable spot. But the good news is that now it allows us to understand what this disease is all about and we’re already now on the pathway towards developing a treatment. I can’t tell you how soon it will be, but we’ve got a really good idea and we didn’t have that before. Well, is this only about rare diseases? What about more common conditions? Well, it’s about them too, because we understand that virtually all diseases have some hereditary contribution whether you’re talking about diabetes or Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, high blood pressure, heart attack. Those all tend to run in families although not in an easily understood way. The Genome Project and its latest new child called the Haplotype Map Project is enabling us to go and find those subtle sequence differences, those spelling changes that may place one person at risk for diabetes and another for heart disease. And in the example of diabetes, again in my own lab using these tools of the Genome Project, we’ve been able to identify subtle changes in a gene that has a very complicated name HNF4 alpha, that play a role in increasing the risk of diabetes by 30 percent. And people have a particular spelling of that gene and that spelling is very common. Many of you listening to this have that and are presently unaware that it puts you at some risk. Well, is that a good thing to know? Yes, absolutely because it tells us something about the disease and already it’s leading us in the direction of figuring out new ideas about treatment. And here’s a disease that’s terribly common and getting more common all the time. We know a lot of the reasons for that relate to diet and lack of exercise, but we know hereditary is in there too. And we’re on the pathway to figuring out how that all works. And that’s got to be a good thing. Now, okay, that’s fine, but that sounds like research that somebody’s doing in a laboratory somewhere. Will any of this actually affect your life? What will the impact be? Well, I’m going to predict boldly that this is going to have a strong effect on the lives of all of us in the next 10 or 20 years, particularly in terms of your health care. But in other ways as well. And so as we think about this on DNA Day, I refer you to a quote from Wayne Gretzky, the hockey star, who said when somebody asked him how he was so good at the sport that he played. He says, “I skate where the puck is going to be. Not where it is. But where it’s going to be.” Well, where’s the puck going to be for medical research and medical care and how is genomics going to play a role in that? Well, first let me say, that for us to achieve the kind of outcome that I think we’re all excited about, we’re going to need a lot of you to help. So there are careers waiting for you to jump in on, that will be very exciting in the next 10 or 20 years. Some of those careers, a lab researcher, who works hard to understand how the genome works and how sometimes it doesn’t using the tools of the bench researcher, studying things in test tubes, and working with cells growing in culture. We’ll need clinical researchers who interact with patients, trying to understand their disorders, and do something to treat those. We’ll need computational biologists. People who are equally at home with biology and with computer science because after all DNA is this wonderful digital code. It’s the kind of thing a computer loves to work with, but we need smart people to program those computers to get all that information and make sense out of it. We’ll need people to study the ethical, legal, and social issues that arise out of this because there are going to be plenty of them as well. In the delivery of medical care based on understanding the genome, we’ll need genetic counselors to explain this complicated information to people; and in fact all health care professionals, doctors, nurses, social workers are going to need to be familiar with genetics and genomics so that they can incorporate this into the mainstream of medicine. And we’ll need teachers to explain this information to people in school and people not in school. We’ll need legal experts, policy experts to be sure that this plays out in a fashion that benefits people. And frankly we’ll need all of you. Everyone in our society is going to need to be an informed citizen because there are many decisions that will need to be made and they will require some familiarity with the things we’re talking about here on DNA Day. Well, what are some of the concrete consequences that are already with us. One you may be familiar with is the use of DNA in criminal justice. DNA is a unique signature. Except for identical twins, each of us has a completely different DNA sequence than anybody else on the planet, which means you can use it in a way that’s actually more powerful than an old fashion fingerprint to identify whodunit in a particular case. Let me tell you about Kirk. Kirk is a former Marine who was accused of a brutal murder in 1985. He maintained his innocence and yet he was convicted and sentenced to death by a judge and jury. It turned out after he had been on death row for ten years, that DNA testing came along and made it possible to assess whether in fact he was the criminal and he was not. The DNA test shows it wasn’t him and he was set free. And in fact, a few years later the same DNA test was used to convict the actual criminal who had escaped detection and had been walking around for the previous 15 years and is now behind bars. DNA testing in just the last few years has led to the release of 157 people who had been convicted of violent crimes that they didn’t do. And now DNA testing has allowed that to become known. What else can we do with this information about DNA? Well, I mentioned the way in which it’s going to affect medicine. It’s going to affect medicine in a way that becomes personalized. So you’re all familiar with this iPod of course which is a way of storing a lot of information. Doctors will use perhaps instruments like this to store your genome and lots of others as well because these gadgets can store, oh 60 gigabytes or more of information, and that’s the kind of personalized information about the genome that’s going to very much be beneficial in medical care in the future. Personalized medicine means not asking everybody to do the same thing, but actually having a program of staying healthy that’s personalized just for you based on understanding your DNA. It’ll also be an opportunity to develop better treatments. Treatments that are based upon specific understanding of what’s wrong in the disease as opposed to just trying to guess what might work. The genome will allow that. It will also allow the ability to predict who’s going to respond positively to a particular drug and who really shouldn’t have that drug because it’s not going to work for them or maybe even make them worse. The field of pharmacogenomics is a very exciting part of where we’re going. And none of this is science fiction. These are all things that are happening today on a small scale and will be happening on a rather large scale in the course of the next 10 to 20 years. So you can expect that in the next 10 or 20 years, if you want to practice better prevention, keep yourself healthy, the genetics will be a significant part of that. And if you fall ill anyway, the treatments that are waiting for you will be based on an understanding of the genome and will be much more precise and much more based on rational understanding of disease than many of the things we currently have today. And that’s good. If you want to start down this pathway, then be sure you have the information already collected that might be important for this. I’d encourage you to go to the URL you see on your screen now and download this software tool that allows you to collect information about your own family, in terms of what medical conditions they have encountered, because that will continue to be an important part of understanding how individuals ought to practice better medicine for themselves. And this tool will allow you to collect that information, print out a pedigree, and then take it to your physician at sometime where you might want to then assess what you should be doing to stay healthy. Family history will continue to be an important part of that. Well, we also do need to be thoughtful. With all of these advances and all their promise for medicine, there’s also the potential for the information to be misused. And so the Human Genome Project from the beginning has had a component of the effort focused on the ethical, legal, and social issues that arise from these advances in science. Thomas Jefferson said our laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the advances of the human mind. Well indeed and that’s what we’re trying to do with this program. There are many challenges to face. I believe they’re all addressable but there’re going to take energy and thoughtfulness and the participation of a lot of people. We need to be sure for instance, the genetic information which has so much potential to help people doesn’t get used against them. We all have glitches in our DNA. I’m sorry if that’s bad news for you but it’s the case. We all have misspellings in dozens of genes and if that’s enough information to cause you to lose your health insurance, we’re all at risk. The best solution to that is a legislative one and we’re fairly close to seeing that happen in the U.S., which is a very good thing. There are several other issues to worry about as well. One that people bring up fairly often is whether in fact the study of variation, this sort of point one percent of the genome will be used in ways to practice discrimination or prejudice against people. Again, there are reflections in that point one percent of somebody’s DNA about where their ancestors came from, what part of the world. But the bottom line is we are all so much more alike than we are different and the more we study the genome, the more we know that. So I would argue as a scientist in this circumstance, that the study of the genome ought to be a great way to reduce prejudice not to increase it. And finally some people are worried about whether we would use this information to try to create perfect children at some future time. The movie “Gattaca” portrays a society where genetics is used in that fashion. [Excerpt from film played.] Frankly, most of this is just wrong scientifically ’cause DNA does not really determine characteristics like personal behavior or musical talent. It’s playing a role but the environment and learning experiences, the decisions that you make, are at least as important if not more so. So I think most of those scenarios don’t make a lot of sense. Just the same, we do need an informed group of citizens, all of us, to participate in those discussions and make sure that as science goes forward, that it’s done in a way that we all believe is benefitting people to the maximum possible way. And that is why on DNA Day, I think we all ought to reflect on the remarkable moment we have here in history. We’ve crossed the threshold. For all of human history, we didn’t know our own instruction book. Now, we know it. It’s up to all of us and that includes everyone of you to be sure that we use that information wisely. But this is a great opportunity. I hope that some of you will decide to join in on this genomic research adventure that we’re starting into and will help us understand by studying this instruction book, how life works and how we can apply that information to diagnose, prevent, and treat disease, because the opportunities to do that are greater than they have ever been. So, thank you for listening. Thank you for being part of DNA Day. May all your bases be paired. Thank you. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Also in this database: Jeremy Rifkin — The BioTech Century Research Note: Transcription by Diane Wiegand Audio Source: http://www.genome.gov Page Updated: 8/2/17 U.S. Copyright Status: This text and audio = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com. Hi. I’m Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health and welcome to DNA Day. I want to talk to you about the genome.

Dr. Francis Collins PGH 146-A 400 Keynote Address on Global Health Initiatives delivered 27 June 2011, Washington, D.C. Well, thank you, Steve, for those kind words and it’s a real pleasure to be able to speak to this distinguished and international group about some thoughts from the NIH director in the area of global health research. It’s always awkward to come and try to give a keynote address at a session that’s been going on for several hours when you’ve only just arrived. But I will do my best to try to give you some perspectives and hope you will forgive me if I am duplicating information that others have already highlighted effectively. And I hope I will not find myself in utter conflict with things that had already been resolved earlier in the afternoon and throw the whole area into disarray. I will try not to do that and I think there should be some time for some discussion afterwards, which I will very much look forward to. It is an enormous privilege and an enormous responsibility to stand at the helm of this largest supporter of biomedical research in — in the world. And as I contemplated what exactly might be special opportunities to emphasize when I came to this job a little less than two years ago, global health research was very much one of the top five themes that I wanted to see emphasized. I have to tell you for me having carried out some activities in that area and having also volunteered as a volunteer physician in developing countries, I was impressed and also a little daunted by the complexity of the landscape here in terms of the areas of research that many different organizations are contributing to. And I think it continues to be a bit of a challenge with so many individuals and organizations working in this space to be sure that we are making the most of the opportunity especially at a time where resources are not infinite and certainly they are not. That ladder is certainly something that wakes me up in the middle of the night because we have so many scientific opportunities right now. And yet at NIH, we are facing particularly tight constraints on our ability to be able to fund all of the bright minds that come to us with their bright ideas and that forces us to really think hard about priorities and also to make sure that whatever we’re doing is not duplicating other efforts. So it is because of the wonderful inputs that I’m able to get and particularly from the Fogarty International Center represented here by Roger Glass and Rob Eiss who have helped me with the ability to sort through those things. But I’m sure there are times where I don’t quite get it right and I’m sure in the discussion, you’ll uncover some of them. So NIH is, after all, a organization that has a mission that crosses from basics to clinical research in a very explicit way. The first part of our mission statement talks about science and pursuit of fundamental knowledge. But the second part talks about the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. And NIH has been deeply engaged in exploring that not only for our own country but across the world for a very long time. In that regard, I think when asked the question, as I was when I first mentioned that I thought global health research should be one of our priorities, well, why is that. After all, the taxpayers of the U.S. are paying for all of this. Why is global health research something that should be particularly paid attention to? Well, scientifically, I think it is fair to say, we have exceptional opportunities, you know, across the board in infectious diseases, the ability to identify new interventions on the basis of knowing more about the pathogens that we need to go after are really quite exciting. We have the genome sequences of many of those pathogens and in fact the vectors that may have carried them off to us as the host and we certainly know a lot more about the host than we used to. And that gives us new ideas about targets for small molecule screening or vaccine development. And we have other technologies like RNAI that give us the chance to really take apart the pathways involved in pathogen biology. And that should position us more than ever to be able to make progress in global health with all of that information to guide us. On top of that, now we have the chance to push beyond the big three of AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis because of many of these technologies to a long list of neglected tropical diseases and I will mention one or two along the way. And very importantly, we also have the opportunity and the responsibility to pay increasing attention to non-communicable diseases because that is, after all, the most rapidly growing area of morbidity and mortality and research is desperately needed there as well if we’re going to do something about that frightening sort of trajectory. And I think it’s also particularly apparent now that the young generation of medical researchers has a passion for global health. Many of them having acquired this along the way in their training and see this as a real calling. And to be able to tap into that energy and that adventurous spirit is a — a wonderful experience that I think we at NIH are trying to encourage in every way we can. And of course then there is this sort of obvious, but maybe it hasn’t been so obvious to everyone, connection that if NIH is investing in global health, it is actually self-serving for the U.S. as well. “Global is not the opposite of domestic.”1 This is one favorite quote of mine from Julio Frenk. So what we learn in carrying out research in global health benefits our own citizens as well. So I think I can make a case from the perspective of all these points that NIH investments in global health are entirely justified and are a high priority right now in terms of the way in which we utilize the resources that the government gives us. And of course the NIH has been carrying out this kind of work for a long time. This is a snapshot where all of the countries that currently have some level of funding from NIH are colored in in green. And you can see that’s an awful lot of the world that has at least some support. This doesn’t attempt to quantify it but simply to say that there is work going on there supported by this particular institution. A lot of what we are able to do is greatly facilitated by the Fogarty International Center and by the network of researchers that had been trained through this program for clinical research scholars and fellows. And here you can see just by the colored dots on the map where the individuals in this photograph as a recent gathering are currently positioned or — or have been. And that’s just a small fraction of the total number of individuals who have been trained throughout the Fogarty program over many years. I always find whenever I travel internationally to a place where global health research is going on, there is quite a wonderful cohort of Fogarty trained individuals working there and I think that has been one of our most important contributions to this field. So let’s talk about broadening the vision of global health research from the perspective of NIH and I’m going to talk about a few topics. Certainly we should talk about the big three, HIV-AIDS, TB and malaria. And I’ll particularly talk about HIV because it’s been a very exciting time actually in the last year or two in terms of investments in research that are beginning to pay off in interesting ways. Neglected tropical diseases, non-communicable diseases and some innovative approaches to global health research that are not disease-specific but which we believe have the capability of increasing research capacity in the developing world. A critical agenda if we’re going to see the future turn out the way we want it to. So let me start with some comments about the big three and particularly about HIV-AIDS. Obviously, over the course of many years, NIH has been invested in lots of these kinds of studies and that have required us to build through NIAID quite an impressive network of clinical trial capabilities in multiple parts of the world. And that network turns out to be extremely valuable for things that have happened more recently. You can see the consequences of how the ability to prevent maternal-to-child transmission is playing out in terms of infections averted based on this 2009 summary and that curve continues to go up. Other things that one can point to in terms of realization of benefits from research studies, in this case, dramatically more in efficacy, I think, than most people expected to see from circumcision. And that is certainly playing out now in many parts of Africa as I found when I travelled to Africa in March and saw the large number of clinics that have sprung up to offer circumcision to young males. And then this publication just from late last year about how in fact this notion of pre-exposure chemoprophylaxis can in fact turn out to be quite beneficial for individuals at high risk and in this instance showing a 44 percent reduction in HIV incidents in the treated group and actually much higher than that in those that were shown to have high adherence to the therapy. So at least in this particular setting; and this is very much an international study in Brazil, Ecuador, Peru and South Africa and Thailand as well as the U.S.; it is clear that this kind of approach can provide real benefits. And this study which made quite a splash just about a month ago, looking indeed at the circumstance where you have partners with one who is HIV-positive and the other is negative, obviously a situation where one can assess whether in fact treating the positive partner reduces transmission by reducing viral load, the effect here really quite dramatic. 96 percent reduction in HIV transmission certainly leading to the conclusion that if we had the resources and the system in place, the idea of trying to treat early after someone is HIV-positive could be of enormous benefit recognizing that the majority of new infections come from individuals who do not know that they are already positive and that that is a time where the viral load can be quite high. All of these again are research studies that have been conducted largely through partnerships but led at NIH by NIAID, Tony Fauci and his very capable team. And then this, I think, a particularly exciting and rewarding thing to be able to see announced the ability to provide women in high incidence areas with an option to protect themselves and this of course being the tenofovir gel used to prevent HIV transmission as carried out by the CAPRISA study. I had the privilege of visiting with the people who led this study, Quarraisha Karim and other colleagues in Vulindlela back in March and to see the way in which they had conducted this really elegant and rigorously designed study in an area which is certainly out in the rural part of South Africa and yet done so — so carefully with such participation by the community was really inspiring. Again, I think most of you are aware of the results here. But this double-blind randomized control trial showed that in fact you could reduce HIV incidence by 39 percent by the availability of this gel. And clearly when this is the place in South Africa, this — this age group where the incidence of becoming HIV-positive is frighteningly high. Having this particular opportunity provides really a major step forward. An ongoing study called VOICE, Vaginal and Oral Interventions to Control the Epidemic, is comparing safety and efficacy of tenofovir in gel versus oral tablet form with now 4,200 HIV infected — uninfected women utilizing these various strategies to see what work. That’s an ongoing study and others also in the microbicide pipeline. And then I want to say not only is it important in these kinds of real-world research studies to test out some new intervention of a pharmacological sort; they’re also real opportunities to utilize cell phone technology, m-health approaches to assess just how the actual implementation is going. This is just one example of utilizing a pill box that actually connects to the cell phone network so that when the box is opened a signal is sent and it’s possible for the clinic to see whether there is a problem or not with adherence. And so here is a chart of an individual who is supposed to be taking this morning and evening. And the chart lets you know when the pill box was opened and things look pretty good. But there was some sort of a holiday taken from therapy here, which is not a good thing and that would provide an opportunity for the clinic to perhaps get a hold of the patient and find out what happened. Did you run out of pills? Did you somehow get a little distracted by other things? In a circumstance like HIV-AIDS or like tuberculosis where long-term adherence is critical for ultimate success, this is going to be, I think, just one of many advances that can come out of the use of cell phones in creative ways and a great opportunity also for the kind of reverse innovation where what we may be able to learn in the developing countries can also be applied in high-income countries where cell phones are increasingly also available for medical care purposes. Neglected tropical diseases, certainly that long list of conditions that are not on the list of the big three but collectively affect hundreds of millions of individuals, also I think are at an interesting and appropriate time for attention in terms of research effort. I just learned this afternoon about an announcement that will be made tomorrow, not to spill any beans, but about African sleeping sickness, which is one example of progress being made in this way by a creative effort to partner up with those organizations that have skills to make this happen. The NIH effort in this area of neglected diseases is also ganged up with an effort in rare diseases and this is the program called TRND, Therapeutics for Rare and Neglected Diseases. It’s a Congressionally mandated effort, modest in scale at the present time to speed the development of new drugs and particularly to move compounds through the Valley of Death on to clinical trials. It’s an intramural/extramural collaboration. Projects enter at various stages of development, are taken far enough to be adoptable by a commercial partner and make a specific effort not to duplicate pharmaceutical projects. And TRND is encouraging, I think, some pretty interesting partnerships and novel approaches to intellectual property. TRND, which has only been underway now for about two years, will become part of the new National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NCATS, when that enterprise stands up we hope on October 1st, and will bring into NCATS this focus on neglected diseases which TRND has already established along with a lot of other resources that would find their way into NCATS including a lot of clinical trials capability, as well as a focus on looking at the pipeline of drug development as an engineer would and trying to identify areas of optimization that haven’t been fully explored. I don’t have slides to go into that detail. I talked about it at some length today in a different session on translational science. But an example would be the opportunity to rescue and repurpose compounds that have already been approved for one use and might find a new use if we knew enough to try them out in that way in the same way that AZT, having been developed for cancer and failed, turned out to be an — a successful drug, the first one for HIV-AIDS. Or the same way that thalidomide, having been developed for morning sickness and causing terrible tragedies, is now a very effective drug in the use of — against multiple myeloma. There are lots of other kinds of repurposing and rescuing ideas that could be pursued more systematically if there was a home for that. And a recent discussion we had at NIH in April with pharmaceutical companies and biotech and academics indicated a lot of enthusiasm for pursuing this in a systematic way and something that we will, no doubt, want to push forward. NIH may be able to play a matchmaker role in this regard. NIH may also be able to assist in this therapeutic development program in several other ways. One of which is by partnering more closely with our sister agency, the FDA, and assisting them in Peggy Hamburg’s strong vision about how to promote more regulatory science to undergird their decision making and we already are co-supporting a research program with the FDA on that topic. We also have a leadership council that Peggy and I co-chair which consists of the leaders of the FDA’s centers and our largest institutes working together to try to identify areas where we can help each other and have what is currently, as we all would acknowledge, a very long pipeline from initial idea to ultimate approval become shorter and also less expensive and less failure prone. Coming back to TRND, the first pilot projects that were put into this pipeline are listed here, five of them. The first four that you see there are in fact rare diseases and the last one I particularly want to highlight because this is very much a neglected tropical disease, schistosomiasis, which is estimated to affect right now 250 million people across the world. A disease caused by a parasite which penetrates the skin if you happen to wade in the water where this parasite is present. After having cycled through its other host, which is a snail, then this gets into your system and invades the liver or sometimes the kidneys and causes a chronic and very debilitating circumstance for which there has been no new therapy available in some 50 years. This is currently somewhat controlled by the current therapy that is 50 years old, praziquantel. But the cure rates are not 100 percent and there is evidence for the possibility of resistance that is increasingly a cause of concern. But we now know more about the schistosoma parasite in part because of the ability to look at its genome and identify the pathways that it depends upon in order to evade the host’s ability to resist it. And one of those is that the schistosoma parasite makes a peroxidase which is actually an important part of its ability to withstand the host attack. So if you could knock out that peroxidase with a drug and of course pick a drug that doesn’t hit the human peroxidase system, you might have something useful. So David Williams, a grantee at that time at Southern Illinois University, worked with the — the NIH Chemical Genomics Center, the NCGC, to design an assay and then to run a screen to see if compounds could be identified that would have activity. As a result of that, in fairly short order, it was possible to identify a whole class of drugs, [UNCERTAIN 19:26], and that appeared to have appropriate activity. Over here you can see the effectiveness, this in the mouse model of schistosomiasis. That is in fact the liver which is full of parasites in the control and here is the treatment. Yeah, and over on the y-axis, you can’t quite see it, is total number of worms. I’ve never published a paper where the y-axis was total number of worms. But this is the way you get results in this kind of disease and what a great result it is. You can see here XVIVO. This drug is very effective at killing the worms. So this has moved now into the pre-clinical stage of testing PK/PD and toxicology and hopefully will find its way into clinical trials in the not-too-distant future, again, as an alternative to the drug that’s been out there for a long time and is beginning to show some signs of trouble. That’s just one example. One could certainly point to others. I should say that TRND has gone through a recent solicitation for new projects and they will be announced in the relatively near future. There are some five new ones that are coming in, one of which relates very much to a disease in the developing world. And there is a new solicitation which is due in — in August. So if you’re interested and have a project that might be benefited by this kind of partnership with NIH, have a look at the website for T-R-N-D. I tried that on my Google and if you go T-R-N-D, you’ll go straight to this as your number one choice. Not only, of course, do we have the need to develop new therapeutics but also various tools that would be valuable for diagnostics and that are applicable in low resource settings are an important part of the research agenda. Here is just one example. Again, tapping into cell phones as the means of transmission — about the development of a lens-free microscope that allows you, and you can see the size here, to be able to look at microscopic images, transmit them through the cell phone in order to be able to make decisions about medical intervention without having to have onsite somebody who is a skilled cytologist or a microbiologist. Many other examples of that sort that are quite exciting to see getting developed. I do now want to say something about non-communicable diseases because the growing threat of these disorders is certainly posing a challenge. So much of our focus in global health research has been, and understandably so, on infectious diseases. But as we are beginning to make some progress there, we are seeing on the other hand that we’re losing ground for many of the diseases which have traditionally been considered more those of developed countries but which are finding their way into new settings. And some of them are pictured here; certainly trauma, certainly cigarette smoking and other dangers to societies across the world. If you look at the data and this comes out of this paper in Lancet a couple of years ago, and obviously it’s all projections from 2015 onward. But the estimates from these authors are that in the next 20 years or so we will see HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria drop back a bit. Other infectious diseases also drop back. Maternal, perinatal, and nutritional conditions, perhaps we’ll make headway on. Accidents and injuries are actually getting somewhat worse. And then look at this; cancer, cardiovascular, and non-communicable diseases, a very significant increase and basically erasing what otherwise could have been a trend for the better. So this demands our attention. It demanded our attention yesterday. If you read the press, and certainly if you were in D.C. and you read the Washington Post, you saw a report on the Lancet paper which was just published yesterday perhaps to coincide with the American Diabetes Association meeting showing that in fact the risk of diabetes across the world and not just in developed countries but in low-income countries as well is going up at a frightening rate. And here again, this is a non-communicable disease which is something that is very much factored in the environmental changes that are occurring that we are exporting from developed countries to less developed countries and which are going to cost us enormously in terms of medical care, in terms of lost productivity, and in terms of misery and suffering of the people who are involved. And it is certainly true that with diabetes, we’re learning a lot more about the risk factors. We’ve discovered more than 40 hereditary factors that play a role in type-II diabetes. But it’s certainly a disorder where a mainstay of prevention is going to be in the area of diet and exercise. And we already know from studies that have been done in fairly controlled situations that that can be enormously successful if you can identify individuals who already have impaired glucose tolerance and are tipping over in the direction of diabetes and get them in a situation where they have adequate coaching to maintain a reasonable diet and exercise program, you can provide something like 60 percent reduction in ultimate going on to diabetes. How will we figure out how to export that kind of intervention in — in low resource settings is something that we were desperately going to need to address. Otherwise, these curves are going to keep going up. So some of the things that are happening in the regard of this growing global burden of chronic disease, certainly NIH very interested in this and we are an — a participant in the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases which has mounted its first program with multiple different funding agencies working together. The first program being focused on hypertension, another example of a circumstance where we understand pretty well that hypertension is a risk for stroke and heart disease. We know some of the things that can be done to intervene. We need to figure out how to actually implement those in all parts of the world that have not yet had that fully carried out. And of course there’s going to be much focus on this area of non-communicable diseases coming up in September with the U.N. summit which I think we are all looking forward to as a real opportunity for countries across the world to make a commitment to do something significant to stem the tide of what is really a very disturbing set of trends. Cancer is of course one of those and especially cancer induced by tobacco. And if you don’t believe the concerns, look at the numbers here. By 2020, cancer could kill 10 million people per year with 16 million new cases per year and much of this being preventable but not unless we do something to change the trends. A very interesting one and one that I think most people had not heard as much about but now is really emerging as an exciting opportunity for intervention is the indoor air pollution created by cookstoves, which has an astounding level of morbidity and mortality. Estimated 1 in 0.9 million deaths per year, more than for malaria, caused by the inhalation of particulates from indoor cookstoves. And this is particularly hitting those vulnerable who are in that setting a lot of the time, which is women and children. The damage to the economy, the environment from the way in which this plays out, the risks that are attached to this to women who have to oftentimes trek long distances to collect firewood to support this indoor air pollution producing cooking is almost immeasurable. And yet, we have a chance to do something about this with a lot of the new technology that could be substituted that provides an opportunity for clean and cheap cooking in many of these settings. But this is a real challenge to figure out how to do this effectively recognizing that cultural practices that have been in place, in some instance for centuries, suggest that this is the way that families should be preparing food and to change that requires really rigorous research efforts to understand what it — what it takes to encourage adoption in communities that could be greatly benefited but wouldn’t necessarily see it that way without an effective program to do so. And we’re certainly interested in that possibility. The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves is this international public-private partnership between U.N. Foundation, government agencies, academic institutions, companies, non-profits. Secretary Hillary Clinton has been very engaged in speaking out about the importance of this and setting a very ambitious goal which is efficient, clean cookstoves in 100 million homes by 2020. That will really stress all of us to make that happen, but it does seem to be achievable. Another example where non-communicable diseases need our attention and where there are research results to suggest that this is a — an approachable problem with an appropriate set of thoughtful resources is the global burden of infant mortality. It is frightening to contemplate 3.6 million infants dying annually during the first 28 days of life, most of these in developing countries, many of these preventable. NICHD, the child health institute at NIH, has been training as a research program midwives in Zambia using just an essential newborn care course that teaches them about simple things like birth asphyxia and avoiding infections in the early neo-natal stages. And as a result, all cause — seven-day neonatal mortality in Zambia dropped almost in half as a result of having the availability of these midwives to do this kind of care and not care that requires lots of sophistication or expense to establish. Total cost of the program, $20,000; per life saved, $208. Not a bad deal. Obviously, a small program but one you could contemplate expanding to great benefit. And that’s published in the — Pediatrics if you want to see more of the details. Let me come to the fourth of the four topics which is now to step us back from specific kinds of diseases as targets and talk about the whole need for networks that can empower the capacity of developing countries to play a larger role in this kind of research because I think we would all agree going forward the idea that the research can be done by individuals in-country with the resources and the skills to do so is a vastly better one than having this kind of capability only exercised on behalf of those countries by others outside. So what to do? I want to tell you about two programs; one of which is not quite started and one of which is but which we are excited about as a way of building this kind of capacity. In both instances, I’ll be talking about Africa. The H3Africa program is again an effort to shift away from the practice in many research studies of removing samples from Africa and analyzing them elsewhere and to build the infrastructure to allow this research to occur on the continent. This is a partnership between NIH and the Wellcome Trust and with organizational support from the African Society of Human Genetics. The idea is to focus on both genetic and environmental risk factors for disease, both common disease that’s not non-communicable and also infectious diseases. And this is an effort to take the same kinds of approaches that are now being applied widely in higher income countries and see if they can be exported and implemented in a different setting recognizing that there’s a lot of challenges here. That will mean setting up information technology networks for the participating institutions; phenotyping centers, biorepositories, and so on. But the promise here being able to uncover the causes of illnesses in the cradle of all of human civilization should be a very interesting and opportune one indeed. And who knows what we might discover. I’m very taken by this interesting connection about how what we learn in one part of the world may shed light on another part in very unexpected ways. I don’t know if you saw this paper from about a year ago. There’s been this puzzle about why it is that African-Americans are much more likely to suffer from a particular kind of kidney disease, focal glomerulosclerosis, which often goes on to kidney failure and the need for dialysis. So why is the frequency so high? By carrying out a study across the genome, it turns out that variations in the APOL1 gene are responsible for that heightened risk. So why would African-Americans have that high risk version? Well, guess what. That same variation that places the risk of kidney disease in the developed world, it protects against sleeping sickness in Africa. And so that is probably why those variations have risen to a higher frequency in a population where sleeping sickness was a major challenge for that group to survive. So it’s evolution in action here but again showing you that genetic variation shouldn’t be thought of as, well, beneficial or not beneficial. It depends on the setting. The other project I want to tell you about which is now underway but just, that we also expect will provide real opportunities for building capacity in Africa is about both medical education because we all understand how much we need more healthcare providers in Africa. But it’s also intended as a means of supporting better capacity in research and hence NIH’s interest in joining onto a project which is funded by ourselves in a modest way and by PEPFAR in a much more significant way. So this is a joint effort between our institutions described in this paper in Science back in December. I had the pleasure of going to the organizational meeting of this program in March, which was held in Johannesburg, and learning more about the way in which these educators are going to work together to try to deal with what is clearly a major problem in terms of capacity. I suspect many of you have found the Worldmapper site that portrays in very dramatic ways in a visual fashion of what’s going on across the world depending on what parameter you’re looking at. And this is, for me, I think a particularly strong representation of the problem that we’re trying to solve with MEPI, the Medical Education Partnership Initiative, in terms of building capacity and the ability to provide more health. This is the land mass, the familiar picture of what the world’s countries look like. And imagine what would happen then if you took that picture and tried to portray some other feature. So for instance, HIV-AIDS. And if you were to put that on the map and basically distort the countries by the number of cases present in those places, what would it look like? That is the dramatic result that you see there. And you see the incredible burden faced by Africa and increasingly also by India as you can see with many other parts of the world shrinking a bit just because their incidence is relatively lower but certainly not to be ignored either. If you do that same approach and ask, okay, where are the physicians. Again, very troubling that you see areas where there are lots and lots of caregivers. And then here is Africa; this is South Africa the — this pink tip here and most of the rest of Africa clearly very underserved by the availability of healthcare providers, one of the things that MEPI hopes to address. And if you ask about scientific capabilities, you can simply look at publications. And again you see a very large representation from Europe and the U.S. and Japan and increasingly from China and India. But look at Africa, very much now not being able because of the lack of trained individuals and other resources to contribute. We want to change that. And MEPI aims in a rather bold way to try to provide the opportunity to do that kind of training. At that meeting in Johannesburg, it was inspiring to walk around the room and talk to the leaders from these institutions. Twelve countries, 30 institutions, most of them dedicated to the idea of medical education, many of them saying they’ve never been in the same room together before because while they had partnerships of a north-south sort, they had not really been invited to have the south-south partnership that MEPI represents. Here are the countries involved in the Medical Education Partnership Initiative at least initially. And all of them have significant institutions that are joining up in this effort with support from PEPFAR and NIH. And we’re really excited to see how this whole enterprise will come together. So in a few somewhat brief minutes but hopefully not too long so that we can still have some discussion, I’ve tried to tap into areas that NIH is supporting in these four particular topics. There’s no doubt much more that could be said about global health research. Again, I just want to emphasize how from our perspective, this is a major area of opportunity and interest and one that we hope to be contributing to. But we can only do so in a fashion that partners up with other international organizations and particularly with the private sector in order to bring things through all the way to a successful marketing and conclusion. And that is a very good reason to have this session here to today. And I want to thank the organizers, BIO Ventures for Global Health, in inviting me and bringing us all here together this afternoon. Thank you very much. 1 http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/frenkqa/ U.S Copyright Status: This text = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com. Image (Screenshot) = Uncertain.

François Hollande Address to the Nation on the Terrorist Attacks in Paris delivered 14 November 2015 My dear compatriots, At this moment, as I speak to you, terrorist attacks of an unprecedented level are underway in the Paris area. There are dozens dead. There are many injured. It is a horror. We have, on my decision, mobilized all forces possible so that we can neutralize the terrorist threat and secure all the areas that could be affected. I have also asked for military reinforcements in the Paris area to ensure that another attack can take place. I have also called a cabinet ministry meeting that will be held in a few minutes. Two decisions will be taken: a state of emergency will be declared, which means that some places will be closed, traffic may be banned, and there will also be searches which may be decided throughout Île-de-France [greater Paris]. The state of emergency will be proclaimed throughout the territory [of France]. The second decision I have made is the closure of borders. We must ensure that no one enters to commit any crimes and that those who have committed the crimes that we have unfortunately seen can also be arrested if they should leave the territory. This is a terrible ordeal which once again assails us. We know where it comes from, who these criminals are, who these terrorists are. In these difficult moments, we must — and I’m thinking of the many victims, their families, and the injured — show compassion and solidarity. But we must also show unity and calm. Faced with terror, France must be strong, she must be great, and the state authorities must be firm. We will be. We must also call on everyone to be responsible. What the terrorists want is to scare us and fill us with dread. There is indeed reason to be afraid. There is dread, but in the face of this dread, there is a nation that knows how to defend itself, that knows how to mobilize its forces and, once again, will defeat the terrorists. French citizens, we have not completed the operations. There are still some that are extremely difficult. It’s at this moment that the security forces are staging an assault, notably in a place in Paris. I ask you to keep all your trust in what we can do with the security forces to protect our nation from terrorist acts. Long live the Republic and long live France. Also in this database: President Barack Obama Statement on Paris Terrorist Attacks Also in tis database: Francois Holland’s Address on the Terrorist Attack in Nice, France Page Updated: 6/2/17 U.S. Copyright Status: Text = Uncertain.

François Hollande Address to the Nation on the Terrorist Attack in Nice delivered 15 July 2016 Horror — Horror has just descended once again on France. In Nice this evening, a truck struck against a crowd of people celebrating 14th of July fireworks with the intent to crush and massacre. We are in mourning at this moment 77 people, including many children, and some 20 people are in a critical condition. This attack has all the elements to be called a terrorist attack and, once again it was an extremely violent one, and it’s clear that we must do everything in our power to fight this scourge of terrorism. The driver was shot dead. At this point we don’t know whether he had any accomplices, but we’re making sure that his identification, which is going to be confirmed, can put us onto any possible leads. France was hit on its National Day, 14 July, the symbol of freedom, because human rights are denied by these fanatics, and because France is obviously their target. On behalf of a nation in tears, I express our solidarity with the victims and their families. All resources are being deployed to help the injured. The White Plan mobilizing all hospitals in the region has been triggered. After Paris in January 2015, then in November last year, along with Saint-Denis, now Nice, in turn, has been hit. The whole of France is under the threat of Islamist terrorism. So in these circumstances, we must show absolute vigilance and unfailing determination. Many measures have already been taken. Our legislative arsenal has been strengthened considerably. But because this is the summer season, we must further increase our level of protection. So I’ve decided, at the Prime Minister’s proposal and together with the ministers concerned — the Defence and Interior Ministers – firstly that we’ll maintain Operation Sentinelle at a high level, which enables us to mobilize 10,000 soldiers, in addition to gendarmes and police. I’ve also decided to call in operational reserves — i.e. all those who have at some point served under the flag or been in the gendarmerie — to come and help relieve the pressure on the police and gendarmes. We’ll be able to deploy them wherever we need them, particularly for border control. Finally, I have decided that the state of emergency, which was to end on 26 July, will be extended by three months. A bill will be submitted to Parliament by next week. Nothing will make us yield in our determination to combat terrorism, and we’re going to further intensify our strikes in Syria and Iraq. We’ll continue to hit those who attack us on our own soil, in their hideouts. I announced this yesterday morning. A meeting of the Defence Council will be held tomorrow [on 15 July]. It will examine all the measures which we’ve already taken and which I’ve just announced. It will therefore enable all the necessary personnel to be deployed on every site and in every town and city where we need protection and vigilance. Following this Defence Council meeting, I’ll go to Nice with the Prime Minister to support the city and its elected representatives in this ordeal and to mobilize all the necessary capabilities. France is deeply distressed by over this new tragedy. It’s horrified by what has just happened, this monstrosity of using a lorry to kill, to deliberately kill dozens of people who had simply come to celebrate 14 July. France is in tears, it’s deeply distressed, but it’s strong and will always be stronger — I assure you of that — than the fanatics who seek to attack it today. Original English Text Source: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/ Also in this data base: Francois Hollande Address to the Nation on the Terrorist Attacks in Paris Page Updated: 6/2/17 U.S. Copyright Status: Text = Uncertain.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation delivered 8 December 1941, Washington, D.C. Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives: Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.1 It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace. The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu. Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island. And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island. Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation. As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us. Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God. I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) 1 Narrowly considered, it is true that the “formal reply” contained no formal declaration of war, or, definitively expressed statements of actionable immanent hostility. However, within a wider geopolitical context, and from the apparent perspective of key actors within the Japanese government, the perceived threat posed by the U.S. to Japan’s regional interests and ambitions had been building for some time and to such an extent that the launching of Japan’s Pacific campaign had reached the status of fait accompli well before its ambassador’s had delivered their final reply. See, for example, this useful timeline and commentary from the Japan Center for Asian Historical Records. Also in this database: Franklin Delano Roosevelt – “The Arsenal of Democracy” Audio Source for FDR Speech: The Vincent Voice Sound Library Audio Source for Additional House Speeches: C-SPAN Additional Audio Speech Info: House of Representative Floor Speeches in Support of War Declaration by Joseph Martin (Rep. Massachusetts), Hamilton Fish (Rep. New York), Luther Johnson (Rep. Texas), Edith Rogers (Rep Massachusetts). Page Updated: 2/25/17 U.S. Copyright Status: This text = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com. Audio FDR Speech = Public Domain (Credit AmericanRhetoric.com). Audio House Floor speeches = Uncertain. Images of Roosevelt = Uncertain.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt Fireside Chat 28 – On the State of the Union (Economic Bill of Rights) delivered 11 January 1944 Ladies and gentlemen: Today I sent my annual message to the Congress, as required by the Constitution. It has been my custom to deliver these annual messages in person, and they have been broadcast to the nation. I intended to follow this same custom this year. But like a great many other people, I’ve had the flu and, although I am practically recovered, my doctor simply would not let me to leave the White House to go up to the Capitol. Only a few of the newspapers of the United States can print the message in full, and I am anxious that the American people be given an opportunity to hear what I have recommended to the Congress for this very fateful year in our history — and the reasons for these recommendations. Here is what I said: This nation in the past two years has become an active partner in the world’s greatest war against human slavery. We have joined with like-minded people in order to defend ourselves in a world that has been gravely threatened with gangster rule. But I do not think that any of us Americans can be content with mere survival. Sacrifices that we and our Allies are making impose upon all of us a sacred obligation to see to it that out of this war we and our children will gain something better than mere survival. We are united in determination that this war shall not be followed by another interim which leads to new disaster — that we shall not repeat the tragic errors of ostrich isolationism. When Mr. Hull went to Moscow in October, when I went to Cairo and Teheran in November, we knew that we were in agreement with our Allies in our common determination to fight and win this war. There were many vital questions concerning the future peace, and they were discussed in an atmosphere of complete candor and harmony. In the last war such discussions, such meetings, did not even begin until the shooting had stopped and the delegates began to assemble at the peace table. There had been no previous opportunities for man-to-man discussions which lead to meetings of minds. And the result was a peace which was not a peace. And right here I want to address a word or two to some suspicious souls who are fearful that Mr. Hull or I have made “commitments” for the future which might pledge this nation to secret treaties, or to enacting the role of a world Santa Claus. Of course we made commitments. For instance, we most certainly committed ourselves to very large and very specific military plans which require the use of all allied forces to bring about the defeat of our enemies at the earliest possible time. But there were no secret treaties or political or financial commitments. The one supreme objective for the future, which we discussed for each nation individually, and for all the United Nations, can be summed up in one word: security. And that means not only physical security, which provides safety from attacks by aggressors. It means also economic security, social security, moral security — in a family of nations. In the plain, down-to-earth talks that I had with the Generalissimo and Marshal Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill, it was abundantly clear that they are all most deeply interested in the resumption of peaceful progress by their own peoples — progress toward a better life. All our Allies have learned by bitter experience that real development will not be possible if they are to be diverted from their purpose by repeated wars — or even threats of war. The best interests of each nation, large and small, demand that all freedom-loving nations shall join together in a just and durable system of peace. In the present world situation, evidenced by the actions of Germany, and Italy and Japan, unquestioned military control over disturbers of the peace is as necessary among nations as it is among citizens in any community. And an equally basic essential to peace — permanent peace — is a decent standard of living for all individual men and women and children in all nations. Freedom from fear is eternally linked with freedom from want. There are of course people who burrow — burrow through the nation like unseeing moles, and attempt to spread the suspicion that if other nations are encouraged to raise their standards of living, our own American standard of living must of necessity be depressed. The fact is the very contrary. It has been shown time and again that if the standard of living of any country goes up, so does its purchasing power — and that such a rise encourages a better standard of living in neighboring countries with whom it trades. That is just plain common sense; and is the kind of plain, common sense that provided the basis for our discussions at Moscow, and Cairo and Teheran. Returning from my journeyings, I must confess to a sense of being “let down” when I found many evidences of faulty perspectives here in Washington. The faulty perspective consists in over-emphasizing lesser problems and thereby under-emphasizing the first and greatest problem. The overwhelming majority of our people have met the demands of this war with magnificent courage and a great deal of understanding. They have accepted inconveniences; they have accepted hardships; they have accepted tragic sacrifices. However, while the majority goes on about its great work without complaint, we all know that a noisy minority maintains an uproar, an uproar of demands for special favors for special groups. There are pests who swarm through the lobbies of the Congress and the cocktail bars of Washington, representing these special groups as opposed to the basic interests of the nation as a whole. They have come to look upon the war primarily as a chance to make profits for themselves at the expense of their neighbors — profits in money or profits in terms of political or social preferment. Such selfish agitation can be and is highly dangerous in wartime. It creates confusion. It damages morale. It hampers our national effort. It prolongs the war. In this war, we have been compelled to learn how interdependent upon each other are all groups and sections of the whole population of America. Increased food costs, for example, will bring new demands for wage increases from all war workers, which will in turn raise all prices of all things including those things which the farmers themselves have to buy. Increased wages or prices will each in turn produce the same results. They are all — They all have a particularly disastrous result on all fixed income groups. And I hope you will remember that all of us in this Government, including myself, represent the fixed income group just as much as we represent business owners, or workers, or farmers. This group of fixed income people include: teachers, and clergy, and policemen, and firemen, and widows, and minors who are on fixed incomes, wives and dependents of our soldiers and sailors, and old age pensioners. They and their families add up to more than a quarter of our hundred and thirty million people. They have few or no high pressure representatives at the Capitol. And in a period of gross inflation they would be the worst sufferers. Let us give them an occasional thought. If ever there was a time to subordinate individual or group selfishness for the national good, that time is now. Disunity at home, bickering, self-seeking partisanship, stoppages of work, inflation, business as usual, politics as usual, luxury as usual — and sometimes a failure to tell the whole truth — these are the influences which can undermine the morale of the brave men ready to die at the front for us here. Those who are doing most of the complaining, I do not think that they are deliberately striving to sabotage the national war effort. They are laboring under the delusion that the time is past when we must make prodigious sacrifices — that the war is already won and we can begin to slacken off. But the dangerous folly of that point of view can be measured by the distance that separates our troops from their ultimate objectives in Berlin and Tokyo — and by the sum of all the perils that lie along the way. Over confidence and complacency are among our deadliest of all enemies. That attitude on the part of anyone — Government or management or labor — can lengthen this war. It can kill American boys. Let us remember the lessons of 1918. In the summer of that year the tide turned in favor of the Allies. But this Government did not relax, nor did the American people. In fact, our national effort was stepped up. In August 1918, the draft age limits were broadened from 21 to 31 all the way to 18 to 45. The President called for “force to the utmost,” and his call was heeded. And in November, only three months later, Germany surrendered. That is the way to fight and win a war — all out and not with half-an-eye on the battlefronts abroad and the other eye-and-a-half on personal selfish, or political interests here at home. Therefore, in order to concentrate all of our energies, all of our resources on winning this war, and to maintain a fair and stable economy at home, I recommend that the Congress adopt: First, a realistic and simplified tax law — which will tax all unreasonable profits, both individual and corporate, and reduce the ultimate cost of the war to our sons and our daughters. The tax bill now under consideration by the Congress does not begin to meet this test. Secondly, a continuation of the law for the renegotiation of war contracts — which will prevent exorbitant profits and assure fair prices to the Government. For two long years I have pleaded with the Congress to take undue profits out of war. Third, a cost of food law — which will enable the Government to place a reasonable floor under the prices the farmer may expect for his production; and to place a ceiling on the prices a consumer will have to pay for the necessary food he buys. This should apply, as I have intimated, to necessities only; and this will require public funds to carry it out. It will cost in appropriations about one percent of the present annual cost of the war. Fourth, an early re-enactment of the stabilization statute of October, 1942. This expires this year, June 30th, 1944, and if it is not extended well in advance, the country might just as well expect price chaos by summertime. We cannot have stabilization by wishful thinking. We must take positive action to maintain the integrity of the American dollar. And fifth, a national service law — which, for the duration of the war, will prevent strikes, and, with certain appropriate exceptions, will make available for war production or for any other essential services every able-bodied adult in this whole nation. These five measures together form a just and equitable whole. I would not recommend a national service law unless the other laws were passed to keep down the cost of living, to share equitably the burdens of taxation, to hold the stabilization line, and to prevent undue profits. The Federal Government already has the basic power to draft capital and property of all kinds for war purposes on the basis of “Just Compensation.” And, as you know, I have for three years hesitated to recommend a national service act. Today, however, with all the experience we have behind us and with us, I am convinced of its necessity. Although I believe that we and our Allies can win the war without such a measure, I am certain that nothing less than total mobilization of all our resources of manpower and capital will guarantee an earlier victory, and reduce the toll of suffering and sorrow and blood. As some of my advisers wrote me the other day: “When the very life of the nation is in peril the responsibility for service is common to all men and women. In such a time there can be no discrimination between the men and women who are assigned by the Government to its defense at the battlefront and the men and women assigned to producing the vital materials that are essential to successful military operations. A prompt enactment of a National Service Law would be merely an expression of the universality of this American responsibility.” I believe the country will agree that those statements are the solemn truth. National service is the most democratic way to wage a war. Like selective service for the Armed Forces, it rests on the obligation of each citizen to serve his nation to — to his utmost where he is best qualified. It does not mean reduction in wages. It does not mean loss of retirement and seniority rights and benefits. It does not mean that any substantial numbers of war workers will be disturbed in their present jobs. Let this fact be wholly clear. But there are millions of American men and women who are not in this war at all. It is not because they do not want to be in it. But they want to know where they can best do their share. National service provides that direction. I know that all civilian war workers will be glad to be able to say many years hence to their grandchildren: “Yes, I, too, was in service in the great war. I was on duty in an airplane factory, and I helped to make hundreds of fighting planes. The Government told me that in doing that I was performing my most useful work in the service of my country.” It is argued that we’ve passed the stage in the war where national service is necessary. But our soldiers and sailors know that this is not true. We’re going forward on a long, rough road — and, in all journeys, the last miles are the hardest. And it is for that final effort — for the total defeat of our enemies — that we must mobilize our total resources. The national war program calls for the employment of more people in 1944 than in 1943. And it is my conviction that the American people will welcome this win-the-war measure which is based on the eternally just principle of fair for one, fair for all. It will give our people at home the assurance that they are standing four-square behind our soldiers and sailors. And it will give our enemies demoralizing assurance that we mean business — that we, one hundred and thirty million Americans, are on the march to Rome, and Berlin, and Tokyo. I hope that the Congress will recognize that, although this is a political year, national service is an issue which transcends politics. Great power must be used for great purposes. And as to the machinery for this measure, the Congress itself should determine its nature — as long as it is wholly non-partisan in its make-up. Several alleged reasons have prevented the enactment of legislation which would preserve for our soldiers and sailors and marines the fundamental prerogative of citizenship — in other words, the right to vote. No amount of legalistic argument can becloud this issue in the eyes of these ten million American citizens. Surely the signers of the Constitution did not intend a document which, even in wartime, would be construed to take away the franchise of any of those who are fighting to preserve the Constitution itself. Our soldiers and sailors and marines know that the overwhelming majority of them will be deprived of the opportunity to vote, if the voting machinery is left exclusively to the States under existing State laws — and that there is no likelihood of these laws being changed in time to enable them to vote at the next election. The Army and Navy have reported that it will be impossible effectively to administer forty-eight different soldier-voting laws. It is the duty of the Congress to remove this unjustifiable discrimination against the men and women in our Armed Forces — and to do it just as quickly as possible. It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy. More — More than the winning of the war, it is time to begin the plans and determine the strategy for winning a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever known before. This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. We have come to a clearer realization of the fact, however, that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry, people who are out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a Second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, or race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries, or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of farmers to raise and sell their products at a return which will give them and their families a decent living; The right of every business man, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, and sickness, and accident and unemployment; And finally, the right to a good education. All of these rights spell “security.” And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world. One of the great American industrialists of our day — a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis — recently emphasized the grave dangers of “rightist reaction” in this nation. Any clear-thinking business men share that concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop — if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called “normalcy” of the 1920’s — then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of fascism here at home. I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights — for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do, and the country knows it. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress in the form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicate with the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the event that no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the nation will be conscious of the fact. Our fighting men abroad — and their families at home — expect such a program and have the right to insist on it. It is to their demands that this Government should pay heed, rather than to the whining demands of selfish pressure groups who seek to feather their nests while young Americans are dying. I have often said that there are no two fronts for America in this war. There is only one front. There is one line of unity that extends from the hearts of people at home to the men of our attacking forces in our farthest outposts. When we speak of our total effort, we speak of the factory and the field and the mine as well as the battlefield. We speak of the soldier and the civilian, the citizen and his Government. Each and every one of us has a solemn obligation under God to serve this nation in its most critical hour, to keep this nation great, to make this nation greater in a better world. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Audio Source: http://millercenter.org/scripps/ Image Source: HistoryNet.com Copyright Status: This text = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com. Audio = public domain.

Franklin Graham Remarks at the Memorial Service for Jerry Falwell delivered 22 May 2007, Thomas Road Baptist Church, Lynchburg, VA Macel, Jerry Jr., Jeannie, Jonathan, family: People have asked me, “Franklin, did you agree with Jerry Falwell?” Every time he opened a Bible I agreed with Jerry Falwell. And you know what, he opened the Bible a lot, didn’t he? I thank God for him. He was a man who was committed to the Gospel. I guess that what’s connected to me to Jerry so much. He believed with all of his heart that Jesus was the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that there was no way that anyone could have approached a holy God except through Jesus Christ. He believed it. I thank God for Jerry Falwell. Now, he was a — he was controversial. Jerry’s goal wasn’t to be popular — we know that. You know, I think of Zacchaeus. Remember when he was — when Jesus was coming through Jericho and Zacchaeus wanted to see who Jesus was; but being a short man he couldn’t. Couldn’t see over the crowd. So he climbed — he went ahead and climbed a Sycamore fig tree. And Jesus stopped and he saw him. And he called his name and said, “Zacchaeus, come down quickly” ’cause I’m gonna come to your house. And remember all the people muttered. “He’s gone to be the[guest] of a sinner.”1 One thing that I learned about Jerry Falwell: Jerry knew how to welcome sinners. And, he would disagree with you. And he did it with a smile. And people sensed that Jerry loved them. Even though he disagreed with them, he loved them. Now, he was controversial. Now, the New York Times this week called him one of the “old lions” replaced by a “new breed” of evangelicals.2 (Well, I don’t know who could replace him, but that’s what they said.) I pray to God that these new leaders will be the champions of these same values that made him controversial. You see, he believed in the Gospel — that’s controversial. He believed in the inerrancy of Scripture — that’s controversial. He believed in the sanctity of life; was against abortion — that’s controversial. He believed in the family — and who would’ve ever thought that would be controversial. He believed in marriage was — was the union between a man and a woman. He believed that the moral decay weakened the fabric of America — that’s controversial. He believed that political leaders should be men and women of integrity and of character and biblical values. He believed in the local church. God bless him. People loved him, even men like Al Sharpton who said, I disagreed with Jerry on just about every thing, but Jerry was the real deal. He loved me. He cared for my family, Al Sharpton said.3 And so many people the same thing. God bless Jerry. Jerry was a friend. And because Jerry Falwell opened up his arms to me, I have a whole new family of friends around the world because of Jerry Falwell. Jerry Falwell has a personal stake in my own family. All four of my sons — All for of my children — my three sons and my daughter — went to Liberty. My three boys found their wives here at Liberty. And I knew I was going to owe Jerry forever for that. When asking around with my youngest — or my oldest son, Will, was looking for a college I started, you know we, Jane and I started looking at Christian schools and universities. And, of course, my father went to Wheaton and my mother and other family and a lot of friends, and so there was kind of pressure to go that direction. And I remember calling a friend of mind, down in Charlotte, a Pastor, I said, “You know I hear a lot about Liberty and it seems to be such a great school. What do you think?” He said, “I’m gonna tell you, Franklin.” He said, “There’s something in that school.” He said, “The students up there they got a fire in their belly.” He said, “They — They gotta a fire for the Gospel.” He said, “They come out of Liberty,” he said, “They come back into our church; they come back into our community, and they’re and they’re men and women of God, and they’re standing for biblical principles.” He said, “You send your son to Liberty.” Boy I tell you what, I thank God for that advice. They have a fire in their belly. Says in 2 Thessalonians [2:15-17]: So then, brothers [and sisters], stand firm and hold to the teachings we’ve passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and…God” of [sic] “our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, encourage your hearts and strengthen you [in] every good deed and word. [NIV] Jonathan and Jerry Jr., your father has left a great example, not only to you as a family, but to me and to all of us and everyone who stands in a pulpit to preach and proclaim the Gospel. Jerry Falwell has left an example and a legacy. And I pray that that fire that’s in the belly of these men and women, these champions for Christ, I pray that that fire will continue and that you men will just fan that flame. And let me tell you, God bless you and may God be with you. We’re gonna stand with you. Your father was my friend and I’m your friend. I promise you that. 1 As related in Luke 19:1-7 2 Luo, M. and Goodstein, L. (21 May 2007). Emphasis shifts for new breed of evangelicals. The New York Times. Retrieved 27 July 2017. 3 Exact wording unconfirmed. However, Rev. Sharpton is on record as stating: “I am deeply saddened by the passing of Reverend Jerry Falwell. Though he and I debated much and disagreed ften, we shared a very cordial and warm friendship. I visited him in Lynchburg, dined with him, and even talked with him during personal rises. Though we were as politically opposite as two people could be, I truly respected his commitment to his beliefs and our mutual belief in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” [Source: http://observer.com/2007/05/sharpton-and-falwell/]. And these lines attributed to a Chris Matthews “Hardball” episode: “Reverend Falwell and I didn’t agree on anything, but we got along personally.” “He personally was genuinely a nice guy, and I would find him to be one of the few people in the public light who was genuine.” [Source: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070516154258AAn60GK] Page Updated: 7/28/17 U.S. Copyright Status: Text and Audio = Restricted, seek permission. Image = Fair Use. Jerry Falwell was a giant of a man. He was a man of faith. He was a prophet of our generation. I’m gonna miss him.

Frederick Douglass What to the Slave is the 4th of July? delivered 4 July 1852 Mr. President, Friends and Fellow Citizens: He who could address this audience without a quailing sensation, has stronger nerves than I have. I do not remember ever to have appeared as a speaker before any assembly more shrinkingly, nor with greater distrust of my ability, than I do this day. A feeling has crept over me, quite unfavorable to the exercise of my limited powers of speech. The task before me is one which requires much previous thought and study for its proper performance. I know that apologies of this sort are generally considered flat and unmeaning. I trust, however, that mine will not be so considered. Should I seem at ease, my appearance would much misrepresent me. The little experience I have had in addressing public meetings, in country school houses, avails me nothing on the present occasion. The papers and placards say, that I am to deliver a 4th [of] July oration. This certainly sounds large, and out of the common way, for it is true that I have often had the privilege to speak in this beautiful Hall, and to address many who now honor me with their presence. But neither their familiar faces, nor the perfect gage I think I have of Corinthian Hall, seems to free me from embarrassment. The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, the distance between this platform and the slave plantation, from which I escaped, is considerable – and the difficulties to be overcome in getting from the latter to the former, are by no means slight. That I am here to-day is, to me, a matter of astonishment as well as of gratitude. You will not, therefore, be surprised, if in what I have to say. I evince no elaborate preparation, nor grace my speech with any high sounding exordium. With little experience and with less learning, I have been able to throw my thoughts hastily and imperfectly together; and trusting to your patient and generous indulgence, I will proceed to lay them before you. “May [the reformer] not hope that high lessons of wisdom, of justice and of truth, will yet give direction to her destiny? Were the nation older, the patriot’s heart might be sadder, and the reformer’s brow heavier. . . . There is consolation in the thought that America is young.” This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July. It is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom. This, to you, is what the Passover was to the emancipated people of God. It carries your minds back to the day, and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated with that act, and that day. This celebration also marks the beginning of another year of your national life; and reminds you that the Republic of America is now 76 years old. I am glad, fellow-citizens, that your nation is so young. Seventy-six years, though a good old age for a man, is but a mere speck in the life of a nation. Three score years and ten is the allotted time for individual men; but nations number their years by thousands. According to this fact, you are, even now, only in the beginning of your national career, still lingering in the period of childhood. I repeat, I am glad this is so. There is hope in the thought, and hope is much needed, under the dark clouds which lower above the horizon. The eye of the reformer is met with angry flashes, portending disastrous times; but his heart may well beat lighter at the thought that America is young, and that she is still in the impressible stage of her existence. May he not hope that high lessons of wisdom, of justice and of truth, will yet give direction to her destiny? Were the nation older, the patriot’s heart might be sadder, and the reformer’s brow heavier. Its future might be shrouded in gloom, and the hope of its prophets go out in sorrow. There is consolation in the thought that America is young. Great streams are not easily turned from channels, worn deep in the course of ages. They may sometimes rise in quiet and stately majesty, and inundate the land, refreshing and fertilizing the earth with their mysterious properties. They may also rise in wrath and fury, and bear away, on their angry waves, the accumulated wealth of years of toil and hardship. They, however, gradually flow back to the same old channel, and flow on as serenely as ever. But, while the river may not be turned aside, it may dry up, and leave nothing behind but the withered branch, and the unsightly rock, to howl in the abyss-sweeping wind, the sad tale of departed glory. As with rivers so with nations. Fellow-citizens, I shall not presume to dwell at length on the associations that cluster about this day. The simple story of it is that, 76 years ago, the people of this country were British subjects. The style and title of your “sovereign people” (in which you now glory) was not then born. You were under the British Crown. Your fathers esteemed the English Government as the home government; and England as the fatherland. This home government, you know, although a considerable distance from your home, did, in the exercise of its parental prerogatives, impose upon its colonial children, such restraints, burdens and limitations, as, in its mature judgment, it deemed wise, right and proper. But, your fathers, who had not adopted the fashionable idea of this day, of the infallibility of government, and the absolute character of its acts, presumed to differ from the home government in respect to the wisdom and the justice of some of those burdens and restraints. They went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. I scarcely need say, fellow-citizens, that my opinion of those measures fully accords with that of your fathers. Such a declaration of agreement on my part would not be worth much to anybody. It would, certainly, prove nothing, as to what part I might have taken, had I lived during the great controversy of 1776. To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies. It is fashionable to do so; but there was a time when to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men’s souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men. To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day. The cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers. But, to proceed. Feeling themselves harshly and unjustly treated by the home government, your fathers, like men of honesty, and men of spirit, earnestly sought redress. They petitioned and remonstrated; they did so in a decorous, respectful, and loyal manner. Their conduct was wholly unexceptionable. This, however, did not answer the purpose. They saw themselves treated with sovereign indifference, coldness and scorn. Yet they persevered. They were not the men to look back. As the sheet anchor takes a firmer hold, when the ship is tossed by the storm, so did the cause of your fathers grow stronger, as it breasted the chilling blasts of kingly displeasure. The greatest and best of British statesmen admitted its justice, and the loftiest eloquence of the British Senate came to its support. But, with that blindness which seems to be the unvarying characteristic of tyrants, since Pharaoh and his hosts were drowned in the Red Sea, the British Government persisted in the exactions complained of. The madness of this course, we believe, is admitted now, even by England; but we fear the lesson is wholly lost on our present rulers. Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men, and if they did not go mad, they became restive under this treatment. They felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their colonial capacity. With brave men there is always a remedy for oppression. Just here, the idea of a total separation of the colonies from the crown was born! It was a startling idea, much more so, than we, at this distance of time, regard it. The timid and the prudent (as has been intimated) of that day, were, of course, shocked and alarmed by it. Such people lived then, had lived before, and will, probably, ever have a place on this planet; and their course, in respect to any great change, (no matter how great the good to be attained, or the wrong to be redressed by it), may be calculated with as much precision as can be the course of the stars. They hate all changes, but silver, gold and copper change! Of this sort of change they are always strongly in favor. These people were called Tories in the days of your fathers; and the appellation, probably, conveyed the same idea that is meant by a more modern, though a somewhat less euphonious term, which we often find in our papers, applied to some of our old politicians. Their opposition to the then dangerous thought was earnest and powerful; but, amid all their terror and affrighted vociferations against it, the alarming and revolutionary idea moved on, and the country with it. On the 2d of July, 1776, the old Continental Congress, to the dismay of the lovers of ease, and the worshipers of property, clothed that dreadful idea with all the authority of national sanction. They did so in the form of a resolution; and as we seldom hit upon resolutions, drawn up in our day, whose transparency is at all equal to this, it may refresh your minds and help my story if I read it. “Resolved, That these united colonies are, and of right, ought to be free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, dissolved.” Citizens, your fathers made good that resolution. They succeeded; and to-day you reap the fruits of their success. The freedom gained is yours; and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary. The 4th of July is the first great fact in your nation’s history – the very ring-bolt in the chain of your yet undeveloped destiny. Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance. I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. From the round top of your ship of state, dark and threatening clouds may be seen. Heavy billows, like mountains in the distance, disclose to the leeward huge forms of flinty rocks! That bolt drawn, that chain broken, and all is lost. Cling to this day – cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm-tossed mariner to a spar at midnight. The coming into being of a nation, in any circumstances, is an interesting event. But, besides general considerations, there were peculiar circumstances which make the advent of this republic an event of special attractiveness. The whole scene, as I look back to it, was simple, dignified and sublime. The population of the country, at the time, stood at the insignificant number of three millions. The country was poor in the munitions of war. The population was weak and scattered, and the country a wilderness unsubdued. There were then no means of concert and combination, such as exist now. Neither steam nor lightning had then been reduced to order and discipline. From the Potomac to the Delaware was a journey of many days. Under these, and innumerable other disadvantages, your fathers declared for liberty and independence and triumphed. Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too – great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory. They loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests. They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was “settled” that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final;” not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times. How circumspect, exact and proportionate were all their movements! How unlike the politicians of an hour! Their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment, and stretched away in strength into the distant future. They seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defense. Mark them! Fully appreciating the hardship to be encountered, firmly believing in the right of their cause, honorably inviting the scrutiny of an on-looking world, reverently appealing to heaven to attest their sincerity, soundly comprehending the solemn responsibility they were about to assume, wisely measuring the terrible odds against them, your fathers, the fathers of this republic, did, most deliberately, under the inspiration of a glorious patriotism, and with a sublime faith in the great principles of justice and freedom, lay deep the corner-stone of the national superstructure, which has risen and still rises in grandeur around you. Of this fundamental work, this day is the anniversary. Our eyes are met with demonstrations of joyous enthusiasm. Banners and pennants wave exultingly on the breeze. The din of business, too, is hushed. Even Mammon seems to have quitted his grasp on this day. The ear-piercing fife and the stirring drum unite their accents with the ascending peal of a thousand church bells. Prayers are made, hymns are sung, and sermons are preached in honor of this day; while the quick martial tramp of a great and multitudinous nation, echoed back by all the hills, valleys and mountains of a vast continent, bespeak the occasion one of thrilling and universal interests nation’s jubilee. Friends and citizens, I need not enter further into the causes which led to this anniversary. Many of you understand them better than I do. You could instruct me in regard to them. That is a branch of knowledge in which you feel, perhaps, a much deeper interest than your speaker. The causes which led to the separation of the colonies from the British crown have never lacked for a tongue. They have all been taught in your common schools, narrated at your firesides, unfolded from your pulpits, and thundered from your legislative halls, and are as familiar to you as household words. They form the staple of your national poetry and eloquence. I remember, also, that, as a people, Americans are remarkably familiar with all facts which make in their own favor. This is esteemed by some as a national trait – perhaps a national weakness. It is a fact, that whatever makes for the wealth or for the reputation of Americans, and can be had cheap! will be found by Americans. I shall not be charged with slandering Americans, if I say I think the American side of any question may be safely left in American hands. I leave, therefore, the great deeds of your fathers to other gentlemen whose claim to have been regularly descended will be less likely to be disputed than mine! My business, if I have any here to-day, is with the present. The accepted time with God and his cause is the ever-living now. Trust no future, however pleasant, Let the dead past bury its dead; Act, act in the living present, Heart within, and God overhead. We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and to the future. To all inspiring motives, to noble deeds which can be gained from the past, we are welcome. But now is the time, the important time. Your fathers have lived, died, and have done their work, and have done much of it well. You live and must die, and you must do your work. You have no right to enjoy a child’s share in the labor of your fathers, unless your children are to be blest by your labors. You have no right to wear out and waste the hard-earned fame of your fathers to cover your indolence. Sydney Smith tells us that men seldom eulogize the wisdom and virtues of their fathers, but to excuse some folly or wickedness of their own. This truth is not a doubtful one. There are illustrations of it near and remote, ancient and modern. It was fashionable, hundreds of years ago, for the children of Jacob to boast, we have “Abraham to our father,” when they had long lost Abraham’s faith and spirit. That people contented themselves under the shadow of Abraham’s great name, while they repudiated the deeds which made his name great. Need I remind you that a similar thing is being done all over this country to-day? Need I tell you that the Jews are not the only people who built the tombs of the prophets, and garnished the sepulchres of the righteous? Washington could not die fill he had broken the chains of his slaves. Yet his monument is built up by the price of human blood, and the traders in the bodies and souls of men, shout – “We have Washington to our father.” Alas! that it should be so; yet so it is. The evil that men do, lives after them, The good is oft’ interred with their bones. What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us? Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation’s sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation’s jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been tom from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the “lame man leap as an hart.” But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, lowering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people! “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.” Fellow-citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, “may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!” To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then fellow-citizens, is AMERICAN SLAVERY. I shall see, this day, and its popular characteristics, from the slave’s point of view. Standing, there, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery-the great sin and shame of America! “I will not equivocate; I will not excuse;” I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be fight and just. But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more, and denounce less, would you persuade more, and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man, (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment. What is this but the acknowledgement that the slave is a moral, intellectual and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. When you can point to any such laws, in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, their will I argue with you that the slave is a man! For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are ploughing, planting and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver and gold; that, while we are reading, writing and cyphering, acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators and teachers; that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hill-side, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian’s God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men! Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? How should I look to-day, in the presence of Americans, dividing, and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom? speaking of it relatively, and positively, negatively, and affirmatively. To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and lo offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him. What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to bum their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employments for my time and strength, than such arguments would imply. What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman, cannot be divine! Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may; I cannot. The time for such argument is past. At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced. What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelly to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy – a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival. Take the American slave-trade, which, we are told by the papers, is especially prosperous just now. Ex-Senator Benton tells us that the price of men was never higher than now. He mentions the fact to show that slavery is in no danger. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic. In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth. It is called (in contradistinction to the foreign slave-trade) “the internal slave trade.” It is, probably, called so, too, in order to divert from it the horror with which the foreign slave-trade is contemplated. That trade has long since been denounced by this government, as piracy. It has been denounced with burning words, from the high places of the nation, as an execrable traffic. To arrest it, to put an end to it, this nation keeps a squadron, at immense cost, on the coast of Africa. Everywhere, in this country, it is safe to speak of this foreign slave-trade, as a most inhuman traffic, opposed alike to the laws of God and of man. The duty to extirpate and destroy it, is admitted even by our DOCTORS OF DIVINITY. In order to put an end to it, some of these last have consented that their colored brethren (nominally free) should leave this country, and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa! It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable. Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and American religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States. They perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock. You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives! There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the centre of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on. Follow this drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States. I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me the American slave-trade is a terrible reality. When a child, my soul was often pierced with a sense of its horrors. I lived on Philpot Street, Fell’s Point, Baltimore, and have watched from the wharves, the slave ships in the Basin, anchored from the shore, with their cargoes of human flesh, waiting for favorable winds to waft them down the Chesapeake. There was, at that time, a grand slave mart kept at the head of Pratt Street, by Austin Woldfolk. His agents were sent into every town and county in Maryland, announcing their arrival, through the papers, and on flaming “hand-bills,” headed CASH FOR NEGROES. These men were generally well dressed men, and very captivating in their manners. Ever ready to drink, to treat, and to gamble. The fate of many a slave has depended upon the turn of a single card; and many a child has been snatched from the arms of its mother by bargains arranged in a state of brutal drunkenness. The flesh-mongers gather up their victims by dozens, and drive them, chained, to the general depot at Baltimore. When a sufficient number have been collected here, a ship is chartered, for the purpose of conveying the forlorn crew to Mobile, or to New Orleans. From the slave prison to the ship, they are usually driven in the darkness of night; for since the antislavery agitation, a certain caution is observed. In the deep still darkness of midnight, I have been often aroused by the dead heavy footsteps, and the piteous cries of the chained gangs that passed our door. The anguish of my boyish heart was intense; and I was often consoled, when speaking to my mistress in the morning, to hear her say that the custom was very wicked; that she hated to hear the rattle of the chains, and the heart-rending cries. I was glad to find one who sympathized with me in my horror. Fellow-citizens, this murderous traffic is, to-day, in active operation in this boasted republic. In the solitude of my spirit, I see clouds of dust raised on the highways of the South; I see the bleeding footsteps; I hear the doleful wail of fettered humanity, on the way to the slave-markets, where the victims are to be sold like horses, sheep, and swine, knocked off to the highest bidder. There I see the tenderest ties ruthlessly broken, to gratify the lust, caprice and rapacity of the buyers and sellers of men. My soul sickens at the sight. Is this the land your Fathers loved, The freedom which they toiled to win? Is this the earth whereon they moved? Are these the graves they slumber in? But a still more inhuman, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be presented. By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason & Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the star-spangled banner and American Christianity. Where these go, may also go the merciless slave-hunter. Where these are, man is not sacred. He is a bird for the sportsman’s gun. By that most foul and fiendish of all human decrees, the liberty and person of every man are put in peril. Your broad republican domain is hunting ground for men. Not for thieves and robbers, enemies of society, merely, but for men guilty of no crime. Your lawmakers have commanded all good citizens to engage in this hellish sport. Your President, your Secretary of State, your lords, nobles, and ecciesiastics, enforce, as a duty you owe to your free and glorious country, and to your God, that you do this accursed thing. Not fewer than forty Americans have, within the past two years, been hunted down and, without a moment’s warning, hurried away in chains, and consigned to slavery and excruciating torture. Some of these have had wives and children, dependent on them for bread; but of this, no account was made. The right of the hunter to his prey stands superior to the right of marriage, and to all rights in this republic, the rights of God included! For black men there are neither law, justice, humanity, not religion. The Fugitive Slave Law makes MERCY TO THEM, A CRIME; and bribes the judge who tries them. An American JUDGE GETS TEN DOLLARS FOR EVERY VICTIM HE CONSIGNS to slavery, and five, when he fails to do so. The oath of any two villains is sufficient, under this hell-black enactment, to send the most pious and exemplary black man into the remorseless jaws of slavery! His own testimony is nothing. He can bring no witnesses for himself. The minister of American justice is bound by the law to hear but one side; and that side, is the side of the oppressor. Let this damning fact be perpetually told. Let it be thundered around the world, that, in tyrant-killing, king-hating, people-loving, democratic, Christian America, the seats of justice are filled with judges, who hold their offices under an open and palpable bribe, and are bound, in deciding in the case of a man’s liberty, hear only his accusers! In glaring violation of justice, in shameless disregard of the forms of administering law, in cunning arrangement to entrap the defenceless, and in diabolical intent, this Fugitive Slave Law stands alone in the annals of tyrannical legislation. I doubt if there be another nation on the globe, having the brass and the baseness to put such a law on the statute-book. If any man in this assembly thinks differently from me in this matter, and feels able to disprove my statements, I will gladly confront him at any suitable time and place he may select. I take this law to be one of the grossest infringements of Christian Liberty, and, if the churches and ministers of our country were not stupidly blind, or most wickedly indifferent, they, too, would so regard it. At the very moment that they are thanking God for the enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, and for the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, they are utterly silent in respect to a law which robs religion of its chief significance, and makes it utterly worthless to a world lying in wickedness. Did this law concern the “mint, anise and cummin” – abridge the fight to sing psalms, to partake of the sacrament, or to engage in any of the ceremonies of religion, it would be smitten by the thunder of a thousand pulpits. A general shout would go up from the church, demanding repeal, repeal, instant repeal! And it would go hard with that politician who presumed to solicit the votes of the people without inscribing this motto on his banner. Further, if this demand were not complied with, another Scotland would be added to the history of religious liberty, and the stern old Covenanters would be thrown into the shade. A John Knox would be seen at every church door, and heard from every pulpit, and Fillmore would have no more quarter than was shown by Knox, to the beautiful, but treacherous queen Mary of Scotland. The fact that the church of our country, (with fractional exceptions), does not esteem “the Fugitive Slave Law” as a declaration of war against religious liberty, implies that that church regards religion simply as a form of worship, an empty ceremony, and not a vital principle, requiring active benevolence, justice, love and good will towards man. It esteems sacrifice above mercy; psalm-singing above right doing; solemn meetings above practical righteousness. A worship that can be conducted by persons who refuse to give shelter to the houseless, to give bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, and who enjoin obedience to a law forbidding these acts of mercy, is a curse, not a blessing to mankind. The Bible addresses all such persons as “scribes, pharisees, hypocrites, who pay tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith.” But the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of die slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave-hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines. who stand as the very lights of the church, have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity. For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done! These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing, having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion. They strip the love of God of its beauty, and leave the throne of religion a huge, horrible, repulsive form. It is a religion for oppressors, tyrants, man-stealers, and thugs. It is not that “pure and undefiled religion” which is from above, and which is “first pure, then peaceable, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” But a religion which favors the rich against the poor; which exalts the proud above the humble; which divides mankind into two classes, tyrants and slaves; which says to the man in chains, stay there; and to the oppressor, oppress on; it is a religion which may be professed and enjoyed by all the robbers and enslavers of mankind; it makes God a respecter of persons, denies his fatherhood of the race, and tramples in the dust the great truth of the brotherhood of man. All this we affirm to be true of the popular church, and the popular worship of our land and nation – a religion, a church, and a worship which, on the authority of inspired wisdom, we pronounce to be an abomination in the sight of God. In the language of Isaiah, the American church might be well addressed, “Bring no more vain ablations; incense is an abomination unto me: the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth. They are a trouble to me; I am weary to bear them; and when ye spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes from you. Yea! when ye make many prayers, I will not hear. YOUR HANDS ARE FULL OF BLOOD; cease to do evil, learn to do well; seek judgment; relieve the oppressed; judge for the fatherless; plead for the widow.” The American church is guilty, when viewed in connection with what it is doing to uphold slavery; but it is superlatively guilty when viewed in connection with its ability to abolish slavery. The sin of which it is guilty is one of omission as well as of commission. Albert Barnes but uttered what the common sense of every man at all observant of the actual state of the case will receive as truth, when he declared that “There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it.” Let the religious press, the pulpit, the Sunday school, the conference meeting, the great ecclesiastical, missionary, Bible and tract associations of the land array their immense powers against slavery and slave-holding; and the whole system of crime and blood would be scattered to the winds; and that they do not do this involves them in the most awful responsibility of which the mind can conceive. In prosecuting the anti-slavery enterprise, we have been asked to spare the church, to spare the ministry; but how, we ask, could such a thing be done? We are met on the threshold of our efforts for the redemption of the slave, by the church and ministry of the country, in battle arrayed against us; and we are compelled to fight or flee. From what quarter, I beg to know, has proceeded a fire so deadly upon our ranks, during the last two years, as from the Northern pulpit? As the champions of oppressors, the chosen men of American theology have appeared-men, honored for their so-called piety, and their real learning. The LORDS of Buffalo, the SPRINGS of New York, the LATHROPS of Auburn, the COXES and SPENCERS of Brooklyn, the GANNETS and SHARPS of Boston, the DEWEYS of Washington, and other great religious lights of the land, have, in utter denial of the authority of Him, by whom they professed to he called to the ministry, deliberately taught us, against the example or the Hebrews and against the remonstrance of the Apostles, they teach “that we ought to obey man’s law before the law of God.” My spirit wearies of such blasphemy; and how such men can be supported, as the “standing types and representatives of Jesus Christ,” is a mystery which I leave others to penetrate. In speaking of the American church, however, let it be distinctly understood that I mean the great mass of the religious organizations of our land. There are exceptions, and I thank God that there are. Noble men may be found, scattered all over these Northern States, of whom Henry Ward Beecher of Brooklyn, Samuel J. May of Syracuse, and my esteemed friend* on the platform, are shining examples; and let me say further, that upon these men lies the duty to inspire our ranks with high religious faith and zeal, and to cheer us on in the great mission of the slave’s redemption from his chains. [*Rev. R. R. Raymond] One is struck with the difference between the attitude of the American church towards the anti-slavery movement, and that occupied by the churches in England towards a similar movement in that country. There, the church, true to its mission of ameliorating, elevating, and improving the condition of mankind, came forward promptly, bound up the wounds of the West Indian slave, and restored him to his liberty. There, the question of emancipation was a high[ly] religious question. It was demanded, in the name of humanity, and according to the law of the living God. The Sharps, the Clarksons, the Wilberforces, the Buxtons, and Burchells and the Knibbs, were alike famous for their piety, and for their philanthropy. The anti-slavery movement there was not an anti-church movement, for the reason that the church took its full share in prosecuting that movement: and the anti-slavery movement in this country will cease to be an anti-church movement, when the church of this country shall assume a favorable, instead or a hostile position towards that movement. Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the two great political parties), is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of your countrymen. You hurl your anathemas at the crowned headed tyrants of Russia and Austria, and pride yourselves on your Democratic institutions, while you yourselves consent to be the mere tools and bodyguards of the tyrants of Virginia and Carolina. You invite to your shores fugitives of oppression from abroad, honor them with banquets, greet them with ovations, cheer them, toast them, salute them, protect them, and pour out your money to them like water; but the fugitives from your own land you advertise, hunt, arrest, shoot and kill. You glory in your refinement and your universal education; yet you maintain a system as barbarous and dreadful as ever stained the character of a nation – a system begun in avarice, supported in pride, and perpetuated in cruelty. You shed tears over fallen Hungary, and make the sad story of her wrongs the theme of your poets, statesmen and orators, till your gallant sons are ready to fly to arms to vindicate her cause against her oppressors; but, in regard to the ten thousand wrongs of the American slave, you would enforce the strictest silence, and would hail him as an enemy of the nation who dares to make those wrongs the subject of public discourse! You are all on fire at the mention of liberty for France or for Ireland; but are as cold as an iceberg at the thought of liberty for the enslaved of America. You discourse eloquently on the dignity of labor; yet, you sustain a system which, in its very essence, casts a stigma upon labor. You can bare your bosom to the storm of British artillery to throw off a three-penny tax on tea; and yetwring the last hard-earned farthing from the grasp of the black laborers of your country. You profess to believe “that, of one blood, God made all nations of men to dwell on the face of all the earth,” and hath commanded all men, everywhere to love one another; yet you notoriously hate, (and glory in your hatred), all men whose skins are not colored like your own. You declare, before the world, and are understood by the world to declare, that you “hotel these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; and that, among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;” and yet, you hold securely, in a bondage which, according to your own Thomas Jefferson, “is worse than ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose,” a seventh part of the inhabitants of your country. Fellow-citizens! I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretence, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home. It saps the foundation of religion; it makes your name a hissing, and a by word to a mocking earth. It is the antagonistic force in your government, the only thing that seriously disturbs and endangers your Union. It fetters your progress; it is the enemy of improvement, the deadly foe of education; it fosters pride; it breeds insolence; it promotes vice; it shelters crime; it is a curse to the earth that supports it; and yet, you cling to it, as if it were the sheet anchor of all your hopes. Oh! be warned! be warned! a horrible reptile is coiled up in your nation’s bosom; the venomous creature is nursing at the tender breast of your youthful republic; for the love of God, tear away, and fling from you the hideous monster, and let the weight of twenty millions crush and destroy it forever! But it is answered in reply to all this, that precisely what I have now denounced is, in fact, guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States; that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that Constitution framed by the illustrious Fathers of this Republic. Then, I dare to affirm, notwithstanding all I have said before, your fathers stooped, basely stooped To palter with us in a double sense: And keep the word of promise to the ear, But break it to the heart. And instead of being the honest men I have before declared them to be, they were the veriest imposters that ever practiced on mankind. This is the inevitable conclusion, and from it there is no escape. But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least, so I believe. There is not time now to argue the constitutional question at length – nor have I the ability to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. The subject has been handled with masterly power by Lysander Spooner, Esq., by William Goodell, by Samuel E. Sewall, Esq., and last, though not least, by Gerritt Smith, Esq. These gentlemen have, as I think, fully and clearly vindicated the Constitution from any design to support slavery for an hour. “[L]et me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it.” Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it. What would be thought of an instrument, drawn up, legally drawn up, for the purpose of entitling the city of Rochester to a track of land, in which no mention of land was made? Now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, common-sense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a fight to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this fight, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman. Ex-Vice-President Dallas tells us that the constitution is an object to which no American mind can be too attentive, and no American heart too devoted. He further says, the constitution, in its words, is plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home-bred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow-citizens. Senator Berrien tell us that the Constitution is the fundamental law, that which controls all others. The charter of our liberties, which every citizen has a personal interest in understanding thoroughly. The testimony of Senator Breese, Lewis Cass, and many others that might be named, who are everywhere esteemed as sound lawyers, so regard the constitution. I take it, therefore, that it is not presumption in a private citizen to form an opinion of that instrument. Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery. I have detained my audience entirely too long already. At some future period I will gladly avail myself of an opportunity to give this subject a full and fair discussion. “Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country.” Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work The downfall of slavery. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened,” and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world, and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest comers of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are, distinctly heard on the other. The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, “Let there be Light,” has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen, in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. “Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto God.” In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it: God speed the year of jubilee The wide world o’er! When from their galling chains set free, Th’ oppress’d shall vilely bend the knee, And wear the yoke of tyranny Like brutes no more. That year will come, and freedom’s reign, To man his plundered fights again Restore. God speed the day when human blood Shall cease to flow! In every clime be understood, The claims of human brotherhood, And each return for evil, good, Not blow for blow; That day will come all feuds to end And change into a faithful friend Each foe. God speed the hour, the glorious hour, When none on earth Shall exercise a lordly power, Nor in a tyrant’s presence cower; But all to manhood’s stature tower, By equal birth! THAT HOUR WILL, COME, to each, to all, And from his prison-house, the thrall Go forth. Until that year, day, hour, arrive, With head, and heart, and hand I’ll strive, To break the rod, and rend the gyve, The spoiler of his prey deprive- So witness Heaven! And never from my chosen post, Whate’er the peril or the cost, be driven. Source: Frederick Douglass, the Orator (New York, 1893), 103-06. Copyright Status: Text and Image = Public domain.

Gabriel Latner Proposition: (This House Believes That) Israel is a Rogue State Affirmative Debate delivered 21 October 2010, The University of Cambridge This is a war of ideals, and the other speakers here tonight are rightfully, idealists. I’m not. I’m a realist. I’m here to win. I have a single goal this evening – to have at least a plurality of you walk out of the “Aye” door. I face a singular challenge – most, if not all, of you have already made up your minds. This issue is too polarizing for the vast majority of you not to already have a set opinion. I’d be willing to bet that half of you strongly support the motion, and half of you strongly oppose it. I want to win, and we’re destined for a tie. I’m tempted to do what my fellow speakers are going to do – simply rehash every bad thing the Israeli government has ever done in an attempt to satisfy those of you who agree with them. And perhaps they’ll even guilt one of you rare undecided into voting for the proposition, or more accurately, against Israel. It would be so easy to twist the meaning and significance of international “laws” to make Israel look like a criminal state. But that’s been done to death. It would be easier still to play to your sympathy, with personalized stories of Palestinian suffering. And they can give very eloquent speeches on those issues. But the truth is that treating people badly, whether they’re your citizens or an occupied nation, does not make a state “rogue.” If it did, Canada, the US, and Australia would all be rogue states based on how they treat their indigenous populations. Britain’s treatment of the Irish would easily qualify them to wear this sobriquet. These arguments, while emotionally satisfying, lack intellectual rigor. More importantly, I just don’t think we can win with those arguments. It won’t change the numbers. Half of you will agree with them, half of you won’t. So I’m going to try something different, something a little unorthodox. I’m going to try and convince the die-hard Zionists and Israel supporters here tonight to vote for the proposition. By the end of my speech, I will have presented five pro-Israel arguments that show Israel is if not a “rogue state” then at least “rogue-ish.” Let me be clear. I will not be arguing that Israel is “bad.” I will not be arguing that it doesn’t deserve to exist. I won’t be arguing that it behaves worse than every other country. I will only be arguing that Israel is “rogue.” THE WORD “rogue” has come to have exceptionally damning connotations. But the word itself is value-neutral. The OED defines rogue as “Aberrant, anomalous; misplaced, occurring (esp. in isolation) at an unexpected place or time,” while a dictionary from a far greater institution gives this definition: “behaving in ways that are not expected or not normal, often in a destructive way.” These definitions and others center on the idea of anomaly – the unexpected or uncommon. Using this definition, a rogue state is one that acts in an unexpected, uncommon or aberrant manner. A state that behaves exactly like Israel. The first argument is statistical. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state alone makes it anomalous enough to be dubbed a rogue state: There are 195 countries in the world. Some are Christian, some Muslim, some are secular. Israel is the only country in the world that is Jewish. Or, to speak mathmo for a moment, the chance of any randomly chosen state being Jewish is 0.0051%. In comparison the chance of a UK lottery ticket winning at least £10 is 0.017% – more than twice as likely. Israel’s Jewishness is a statistical aberration. The second argument concerns Israel’s humanitarianism – in particular, Israel’s response to a refugee crisis. Not the Palestinian refugee crisis – for I am sure that the other speakers will cover that – but the issue of Darfurian refugees. Everyone knows that what happened, and is still happening in Darfur, is genocide, whether or not the UN and the Arab League will call it such. There has been a mass exodus from Darfur as the oppressed seek safety. They have not had much luck. Many have gone north to Egypt – where they are treated despicably. The brave make a run through the desert in a bid to make it to Israel. Not only do they face the natural threats of the Sinai, they are also used for target practice by the Egyptian soldiers patrolling the border. Why would they take the risk? Because in Israel they are treated with compassion – they are treated as the refugees that they are – and perhaps Israel’s cultural memory of genocide is to blame. The Israeli government has even gone so far as to grant several hundred Darfurian refugees citizenship. This alone sets Israel apart from the rest of the world. But the real point of distinction is this: The IDF sends out soldiers and medics to patrol the Egyptian border. They are sent looking for refugees attempting to cross into Israel. Not to send them back into Egypt, but to save them from dehydration, heat exhaustion, and Egyptian bullets. Compare that to the US’s reaction to illegal immigration across their border with Mexico. The American government has arrested private individuals for giving water to border crossers who were dying of thirst – and here the Israeli government is sending out its soldiers to save illegal immigrants. To call that sort of behavior anomalous is an understatement. My third argument is that the Israeli government engages in an activity which the rest of the world shuns – it negotiates with terrorists. Forget the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a man who died with blood all over his hands. They’re in the process of negotiating with terrorists as we speak. Yasser Abed Rabbo is one of the lead PLO negotiators that has been sent to the peace talks with Israel. Abed Rabbo also used to be a leader of the PFLP – an organization of “freedom fighters” that engaged in such freedom-promoting activities as killing 22 Israeli high school students. And the Israeli government is sending delegates to sit at a table with this man and talk about peace. And the world applauds. You would never see the Spanish government in peace talks with the leaders of the ETA – the British government would never negotiate with Thomas Murphy. And if President Obama were to sit down and talk about peace with Osama Bin Laden, the world would view this as insanity. But Israel can do the exact same thing – and earn international praise in the process. That is the dictionary definition of rogue – behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal. Another part of dictionary definition is behavior or activity “occurring at an unexpected place or time.” When you compare Israel to its regional neighbors, it becomes clear just how roguish Israel is. And here is the fourth argument: Israel has a better human rights record than any of its neighbors. At no point in history has there ever been a liberal democratic state in the Middle East – except for Israel. Of all the countries in the Middle East, Israel is the only one where the LGBT community enjoys even a small measure of equality. In Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar and Syria, homosexual conduct is punishable by flogging, imprisonment, or both. But homosexuals there get off pretty lightly compared to their counterparts in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, who are put to death. Israeli homosexuals can adopt, openly serve in the army, enter civil unions and are protected by exceptionally strongly worded anti-discrimination legislation. Beats a death sentence. In fact, it beats America. Israel’s protection of its citizens’ civil liberties has earned international recognition. Freedom House is an NGO that releases an annual report on democracy and civil liberties in each of the 195 countries in the world. It ranks each country as “free,” “partly free” or “not free.” In the Middle East, Israel is the only country that has earned designation as a “free” country. Not surprising given the level of freedom afforded to citizens in say, Lebanon – a country designated “partly free,” where there are laws against reporters criticizing not only the Lebanese government, but the Syrian regime as well. Iran is a country given the rating of “not free,” putting it alongside China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Myanmar. In Iran, there is a special “press court” which prosecutes journalists for such heinous offenses as criticizing the ayatollah, reporting on stories damaging the “foundations of the Islamic republic,” using “suspicious (i.e., Western) sources,” or insulting Islam. Iran is the world leader in terms of jailed journalists, with 39 reporters (that we know of) in prison as of 2009. They also kicked out almost every Western journalist during the 2009 election. I guess we can’t really expect more from a theocracy. Which is what most countries in the Middle East are – theocracies and autocracies. But Israel is the sole, the only, the rogue, democracy. Out of all the countries in the Middle East, only in Israel do anti-government protests and reporting go unquashed and uncensored. I have one final argument — the last nail in the opposition’s coffin – and it’s sitting right across the aisle. Mr. Ran Gidor’s presence here is all the evidence any of us should need to confidently call Israel a rogue state. For those of you who have never heard of him, Mr. Gidor is a political counselor attached to Israel’s embassy in London. He’s the guy the Israeli government sent to represent them to the UN. He knows what he’s doing. And he’s here tonight. And it’s incredible. Consider, for a moment, what his presence here means. The Israeli government has signed off to allow one of their senior diplomatic representatives to participate in a debate on their very legitimacy. That’s remarkable. Do you think for a minute that any other country would do the same? If the Yale University Debating Society were to have a debate where the motion was “This house believes Britain is a racist, totalitarian state that has done irrevocable harm to the peoples of the world,” would Britain allow any of its officials to participate? No. Would China participate in a debate about the status of Taiwan? Never. And there is no chance in hell that an American government official would ever be permitted to argue in a debate concerning its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But Israel has sent Mr. Gidor to argue tonight against a 19-year-old law student who is entirely unqualified to speak on the issue at hand. Every government in the world should be laughing at Israel right now, because it forgot rule number one. You never add credence to crackpots by engaging with them. It’s the same reason you won’t see Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins debate David Icke. But Israel is doing precisely that. Once again, behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal. Behaving like a rogue state. That’s five arguments that have been directed at the supporters of Israel. But I have a minute or two left. And here’s an argument for all of you – Israel willfully and forcefully disregards international law. In 1981 Israel destroyed Osirak – Saddam Hussein’s nuclear bomb lab. Every government in the world knew that Hussein was building a bomb. And they did nothing. Except for Israel. Yes, in doing so they broke international law and custom. But they also saved us all from a nuclear Iraq. That rogue action should earn Israel a place of respect in the eyes of all freedom-loving peoples. But it hasn’t. But tonight, while you listen to us prattle on, I want you to remember something: While you’re here, Khomeini’s Iran is working towards the Bomb. And if you’re honest with yourself, you know that Israel is the only country that can, and will, do something about it. Israel will, out of necessity, act in a way that is the not the norm, and you’d better hope that they do it in a destructive manner. Any sane person would rather a rogue Israel than a nuclear Iran. See Also: Video debates at the University of Cambridge Copyright Status: Text and Photo = Uncertain.

King George VI First Radio Address — “With God’s Help, We Shall Prevail” delivered 3 September 1939, London In this grave hour, perhaps the most fateful in our history, I send to every household of my peoples, both at home and overseas, this message, spoken with the same depth of feeling for each one of you as if I were able to cross your threshold and speak to you myself. For the second time in the lives of most of us we are at war. Over and over again we have tried to find a peaceful way out of the differences between ourselves and those who are now our enemies. But it has been in vain. We have been forced into a conflict. For we are called, with our allies, to meet the challenge of a principle which, if it were to prevail, would be fatal to any civilized order in the world. It is the principle which permits a state, in the selfish pursuit of power, to disregard its treaties and its solemn pledges; which sanctions the use of force, or threat of force, against the sovereignty and independence of other states. Such a principle, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that “might is right”; and if this principle were established throughout the world, the freedom of our own country and of the whole of the British Commonwealth of Nations would be in danger. But far more than this — the peoples of the world would be kept in the bondage of fear, and all hopes of settled peace and of the security of justice and liberty among nations would be ended. This is the ultimate issue which confronts us. For the sake of all that we ourselves hold dear, and of the world order and peace, it is unthinkable that we should refuse to meet the challenge. It is to this high purpose that I now call my people at home and my peoples across the seas, who will make our cause their own. I ask them to stand calm and firm and united in this time of trial. The task will be hard. There may be dark days ahead, and war can no longer be confined to the battlefield. But we can only do the right as we see the right, and reverently commit our cause to God. If one and all we keep resolutely faithful to it, ready for whatever service or sacrifice it may demand, then, with God’s help, we shall prevail. May He bless and keep us all. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Page Updated: 10/13/17 U.S. Copyright Status: Text = Uncertain.

George M. Church Genetic Engineering and Society Center Symposium Address on the Future of Genomics and Synthetic Biology delivered 19 September 2014, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Thank you very much. I will be making some forward-looking statements since “future” is in the title of my talk. It doesn’t necessarily mean I’m advocating them or that I am optimistic. It means that in order to do engineering long-term planning, you need to think about — and cautionary tales are in order — like building a cathedral, you might have to plan a century in advance. This is my conflict of interest slide. I’m highly conflicted. But it’s also this: It’s a set of institutions, both non-profit and for profit, that help us bring our technology into reality, into daily life. These are some of the topics we’ll talk [about], mainly the top three, which is this idea of synthetic versus natural, prediction, and where we stand in terms of human genome engineering. We have a love affair with the idea of the “natural” even though we as a species are about as unnatural as you can imagine. I’ll mention four diseases. There is diabetes and heart disease to which we succumb due to natural compounds such as sucrose and cholesterol. And the sourc[es] of carcinogens are robust in nature. We get on the order of 1500 milligrams a day of plant toxins and pesticides that are listed as rodent carcinogens. That’s the cancer side. And the infectious disease side is there are many instances where infectious agents are spread through vegetables and meats. We have a huge difference of intention and obsession with risks. The risks of genetically modified foods are not well-documented. The risks of driving a car are very well-documented, 1.2 million deaths a year. My laboratory and my obsession is about safety and building/engineering safety. It’s not just a matter of saying we want the world to be safer; we have to create technology. And here are some of technologies that we use for automobiles. It doesn’t sound like we’ve done our job entirely if there are still 1.2 million deaths a year. But these are [the] sort of things that inspire us to do better in a variety of engineering fields, including genomics engineering which is what we are talking about here. We have standards in testing in biology. Increasingly, we have these redundant systems and isolation that we’re using: physical, genetic and metabolic. I have advocated that we do extensive education, licensing and surveillance since 2004; in particular, in the field of synthetic biology. Since the technology is getting exponentially less expensive, more able to engage the public through “do-it-yourself biology,” I felt then and feel now that we need to have better and better tools for tracking the dissemination of the information, the chemicals and the instruments. Here’s just a snapshot from the trenches in the laboratory. We’re trying to address what it is that people want when they say that they want genetically engineered organisms that do not spread in the wild. This is one of the many critiques of genetically modified organisms. And this is one attempt that we’ve recently published where we make them genetically isolated, metabolically isolated, even if they — whether or not they’re physically isolated from the environment, they cannot exchange genetic material successfully. So let’s talk about prediction. These were forward-looking statements where The New York Times — I had nothing against The New York Times, Amy — but back in 1903 they made the modest prediction that there would be 1 to 10 million years, a nice, broad range, for a flying machine. And even Wilbur Wright, who was much closer to the event than the New York Times perhaps, was off by about 48 years in his estimate. And so we make such mistakes — and even within my fields of computing and biology. We have these two trend lines, sometimes called Moore’s law. It’s not really a law; it’s a trend. It could deviate from the line at any point. The blue line which is various biological things, sequencing and synthesis, reading and writing DNA — it followed the electronics Moore’s law line at about 1.5 fold per year for many years and so it seemed like, “Wow, this must really be a law that’s totally general, biology and electronics.” But then we blew it and we went way off the reservation and it took not six decades to bring us down to an affordable genome, but more like six years. So we’re down around a thousand dollar cost. We don’t yet have a thousand dollars that you can go out and individually get genomes, but it’s at bulk rate that’s where we are right now, which I think is cost effective today, for a variety of things. Kevin Kelley documented how long it takes for new technologies in general, this includes crossbows and so forth, to be banned and then the ban to be released. It’s almost inevitable that technologies, really dangerous technologies like railroads and automobiles, would be controversial. But the time that it’s taking before they become uncontroversial is shrinking. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t have controversy in discussion. It’s just where are we going. It’s to describe where we’re going. Now these are three types of technologies that I was intimately involved in. Each one of them had some sort of controversy and some sort of response. So, controversy being the bold one, and then the response; and I’m making the very casual, not well-documented argument that in some cases these were not deterrents to progress. They were good conversations that, if anything, accelerated the field. So, the Recombinant DNA was sort of 1974, got a lot of attention — covers of Time magazine and things like that; and almost instantly, Genentech, Biogen, Amgen and a variety of other Biotechs got investors, because investors said, “Oh, it’s controversial, there must be something here. Let’s take a closer look.” A similar thing happened in 1991, where the NIH actually started the controversy by patenting a lot of cDNAs that Craig Venter’s group had done back when he had a small NIH lab.1 And the lawyers had just said, “This is what we do. We patent things that come out of the NIH labs.” And then people said, “Well, you can’t patent cDNAs. You haven’t added much value to it. They’re natural pieces of DNA.” We now see that cDNAs are patentable, but I would argue that there wasn’t much value added to these. And the controversy resulted in a great deal of attention and almost immediately that research moved out of NIH to Human Genome Sciences and Genome Therapeutics, a company that I was helping out getting early DNA sequencing going. Human embryonic stem cell[s]. There are lots of restrictions in the United States, especially. This resulted in — I can’t say for sure but I doubt that California would’ve coughed up quite that much money if there had not been that much controversy and frustration among the California biologists — and they sort of saw this as an opportunity to redo — to do another Silicon Valley, to make “Stem Cell Valley,” and then there are these various successes. Now augmentation is something [that] often comes up with genetics. And we all put aside all the augmentations we’ve made that make us unnatural as a species. We’re an extremely unnatural species. We have — ignore all the numbers; they’re a little bit out of alignment, but the point is we have senses that go over much broader range than they used to; our ability to access/retrieve information is vast because [of] our computers and our cell phones (access to them); we can go at vast speeds into space, into the depths of the ocean, and so forth. And you can see, many of these technologies take a fairly short time, not just through the interdiction process but just through the cost curve, to get broadly distributed — not always in the optimal way, obviously here is transportation and cell phones, but the point is they can have a huge impact and they can be commoditized worldwide, where you can have microfinancing, and where people get huge benefit from fairly modest access to electronics. So, are we genetically engineering human beings? And the answer is, “definitely.” We’ve been doing it for quite a while. And this is a summary of where we stand in terms of gene therapy trials; which is one of various ways that we are modifying human beings. These are, for the most part, adults. There are some of these [that] are children. And there are Phase 1, 2 and 3 clinical trials. There’s one that’s been approved in Europe called Glybera. It is, right now, the most expensive pharmaceutical ever, at 1.6 million dollars per dose. But as orphan drugs go, that’s actually about right because you only need one dose, and it shows a general acceptance of this kind of human genetic modification in Europe, which has a reputation for being skeptical about such things. And it has to do with the seriousness of the diseases that are being treated. So, the key here is not so much ethics as safety and efficacy; it’s the standard by which the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency go by, if it’s safe and very effective and is addressing the real problem. Now, the most extreme and interesting form of those 2,000 or so genetic therapies that are in clinical trials, to me, is this highly targeted gene therapy. Most of those on that previous slide are adding a gene, compensating for [a] missing gene, a complete loss of function. And so you can add it pretty much anywhere. You can integrate it randomly, which has certain risks associated, or you can “not integrate” it, but it’s adding. But you can also subtract or you can specifically modify. You can use endonucleases that are programmable. That is to say, you can target them to find a needle in a hay stack, that one base pair out of six billion in your genome that you want to change. And in this case, this the earliest of these that’s making it through clinical trials. Sangamo is in sort of Phase 1, Phase 2 clinical trials. And you delete or damage both copies of CCR5 gene and you end up in — with the T-cells from the person. You can take them out of the person, manipulate them, and put them back in. That means there’ll be no graft rejection, no need for immunosuppressants. And they have now, the ones that have taken up this zinc finger nuclease, this specific targeted in the nuclease, those cells — those T-cells — that have been doubly knocked out of the CCR5 gene are now resistant to the AIDS virus. And this could be done in patients that already have full blown AIDS. And so again, this is a very promising for very severe diseases. We have a project to study personalized medicine in its broadest sense, ranging from carrier status, new-born screening — all aspects of modern human genetics that works quite well to new personalized medicines that include microbiomics2 and complicated multi-factors. To get this multi-factor data set, this large data set about individual people, not about cohorts but really N-of-one, lots of N-of-one studies, we have this open-access data that requires consent that shows that people really know what they’re getting into in terms of the possibility — the probability that their data will be publicly available. We have stem cells for many of these individuals and a variety of tests that can be done. The sort of stem cells that come out of this are a little piece of the BRAIN Initiative — that you heard just a moment ago — where you can take these stem cells, reprogram them into neurons, and then they can have this kind of neurophysiology and it could be done in very short developmental time frames. So we’re getting to the point — another kind of “brave new world” issue — where we can not only manipulate human genomes but we can manipulate human brains. We can either program them in situ with these innovative neurotechnologies, or we can build brains outside of the body and get this kind of spiking behavior on neural nets. This BRAIN Initiative was partially instigated by this group of six people that I was part of in 2012. And it’s really remarkable how quickly it went from that semi obscure, forward-looking piece in Neuron (the journal) to an announcement by Barack Obama that we had a BRAIN Initiative. I mentioned nucleases that you can target — you can program to find a needle in a hay stack of the human genome or other genomes. There are a variety of ways of making these nucleases, very specifically, but they can be targeted not just in the human genome, but into wild genomes. We know that we’re releasing genetically modified organisms into the wild for crops, for plants. There are a few animals that are being released in the wild; for example Oxitec is releasing Aedes aegypti mosquitoes which have been engineered to be essentially like males that have been sterilized by radiation, but in this case they been sterilized by genetics. That seems like a fairly safe thing since the males don’t suck blood and they are sterile. It’s a special case but you can see that the communities are warming up to the idea of releasing plants and animals into the environment. This would be the most extreme form of that and as a consequence Kevin Esvelt, Andie Smidler, Flaminia Catteruccia and I published three papers very recently laying out this new form of gene drives. The basic idea goes back to Austin Burt in 2003 at least. But this is a CRISPR-based gene drive that’s so much easier, probably, to do and might be something worthy of a cautionary tale — something worthy of being very thoughtful about, because it is so enticing and because it is so easy to do that even individuals might be able to do it. So now is the time to talk about it before we go much further. Now since we’ve published these papers, we’ve already now done it — experiments on gene drives (this not published) in yeast — we’ve done it in yeast because they have such a rapid generation time. This method is directed at sexual transmission where you can correct spread at a desired package through a wild population or, in this case, a laboratory population exponentially so all the offspring have it. And the experiment in yeast, it’s been close to a hundred percent. This is kind of the simple version of how it spreads [or it’s spread]. This is decidedly not like the Gregor Mendel peas that we saw a few slides ago, in Paul’s [Lombardo] talk. This is something where, essentially, you introduce one or a few mosquitoes into the population that have the gene drive and it spreads exponentially to all of their offspring and all of their offspring’s subsequent matings until it is throughout the population; and it can spread packages such as resistance of the mosquito to malaria. So you’re not actually hurting the mosquito but you’re making them so they no longer can be vectors for malaria; or you could make it so that you only get transmission of the Y chromosome, in which case you eventually result in decrease in the mosquito population. This is a little more technical of what’s happening behind the scenes, but you basically have the blue cassette in the upper left that is on one chromosome in one specific position. So this is selfish DNA. It’s not DNA that is wildly replicating all over every chromosome — hence, producing a huge burden on the mosquito or whatever species you’re dealing with, whether invasive or vector species. But it’s in one place, in one chromosome that you’ve decided is the best place. And then, when in the embryo, if it finds that same place in the chromosome from the other parent is different — doesn’t have the cassette — then we’ll move the cassette over into that by making a cut — makes a double strand break — and the cassette moves into it; and now you either have both copies, (all the copies) of that particular chromosome looking the same, or perhaps you’ve mutated. Either way, all the offspring that survive have the cassette that you want. And forget the details of this, but the important thing is there are very sophisticated things you could do with this new technology — this CRISPR technology — that allows you to be very specific — target sub-species — so you have not only the species’ mating behavior and geographical barriers but you have this genomic barrier that you can engineer so that you can make sure that the cutting is efficient and specific and even sub-species specific. You can do immunization either against gene drives or against natural components like viruses; and you can even make reversal drives. I will make the argument that we are poorly adapted to our current environment. I mean, we did not evolve to sit all day and be exposed to giant amounts of really tasty food. And there are various opportunities that we have which I would — certainly [they’re] not eugenics and they’re not even augmentation in that we’re dealing with diseases of civilization. They are augmentations in a certain sense in that we’re putting things into our medicines or our gene therapies that deal with things we wouldn’t have had to deal with in the past, but we respond to these in an emergency attitude because they are life?threatening. This changes again when we go into new environments and our civilization keeps pushing itself into new places such as space. In space, we have problems with osteoporosis due to the lack of gravity. We have extreme radiation problems. Now some of these have corresponding problems on earth. There are problems with the inner ear. There are problems with special stresses that occur there and so forth. When we deal with these situations we worry about multigenics. That is to say, how can we possibly understand something as complicated as height when there are now 700 genes that affect it and they have very tiny affect sizes? What’s important — and you find it from projects like the Personal Genome Project, where you can correlate traits with genomes — is looking at the extremes. We talked about the bell curve. This is a different kind of bell curve where you look way out at the shortest and the tallest people as an example of many different traits, both medical and non-medical. And you see, out at those extremes, you get things that are called epistatic genes — variants that are so powerful that they dominate, epistatically, all of those small effects, including some small environmental effects, some small genetic effects, and these suggest cures as well, or treatments that will influence these very complex genetic and environmental traits. So if you give growth hormone to a young person, maybe even at an age where growth should be stopping, growth will continue and their stature will approach whatever stature goal they’ve had. So this is an example of something where you can have what looks like a very complex genetics with fairly simple consequences — not that anything about medicine is simple. You will often have cases where you have one person on the planet at any given moment, where you’ve learned that you don’t have huge statistics here. You have a cohort size of one. Nevertheless, you can prove causality by making animal models in some cases; some cases making human in vitro organ models. And these you can consider rare protective alleles.3 These are things like, in this case, myostatin. You get a double “null,” meaning missing both copies. And more or less at birth this child had a high musculature, as you can see reflected in the animal models. And there are many of these. None of these are unmitigated — protective variants that have no down side — but they have interesting possibilities. Some of these I mentioned in the context of imagining that they could be useful to deal with diseases of civilization or new environments such as space. So, for example, there are LRP variants. This is a heterozygote, which have extra strong bones — or I mentioned growth hormone. You might want to have smaller people in space; you have insensitivity to pain; you have — odor might be a problem in space; you can have multi-virus resistance, low coronary disease, and so forth. These are floating around our population. Many of them, minus over minuses, are double nulls. These are genes that are conserved among all animals but they’re missing in [some] human beings and they’re not only alive, in many cases they are thriving. A possibly extreme example of this are people who live past 110 years. This slide is not an advocacy of smoking and drinking to excess, but the point is it’s probably not solely that they have a great environment. They may actually have some exceptional genes and so we’re studying their genomes and trying to test hypotheses about them. Wrapping up here, as we go into space we need to study biospheres — how our environment interacts with our genetics — in more detail. I’ve already mentioned cosmic radiation. There are organisms that are very distantly related to us, such are radiation resistant, and you might say how irrelevant can that possibly be? How many mutations will that take? Well it turns out you can change with as few as four mutations an organism to be a hundred thousand times more radiation resistant. Whether this applies to humans is still unknown. And I’m just going to end this very playful and speculative slide. This is a typical operating room. We will have to make a decision, as we go into new environments outside of earth, whether we want to drag along with us all our pathogens. We can or we can’t — it’s up to us — but I consider that part of genome engineering is how we interact with the huge part of our genome which is our microbiome. And I’ve mentioned that there are people that have insensitivity to pain. You can engineer this such that it could be turned on and off, and so rather than going into general anesthesia with its risks, or opiate-type analgesics, you could have something like this. So I thank you, and time for questions, I hope. 1 The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), a direct descendant of the Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke (NINCDS) at the National Institutes of Health. More on Dr. Venter and his work here. Brief synopsis of the initial NIH gene sequencing technique patent filings here and, a more detailed background review and technical analysis here. 2 See also, The Human Microbiome Project 3 Class of of gene modifiers that can suppress disease in otherwise susceptible individuals (Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12787792). Speaker Note: Professor George M. Church is the Robert Winthrop Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Health Sciences and Technology at Harvard and MIT, and has been a founding member of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard (Wikipedia.org). Transcription Note: The foregoing as delivered transcript has been edited for content accuracy and continuity of style. Originally delivered substantive content preserved. I am grateful to Professor Church for providing editorial contributions to the above transcription. Principal transcription work by South Transcription Unlimited, Inc. | www.southtranscription.com | [email protected] | (+63) 920.921.8709. Supplementary transcription work and editorial oversight by Michael E. Eidenmuller. U.S. Copyright Status: Text & Images = Restricted.

George Clooney United Nations Security Council Address on Darfur delivered 14 September 2006, New York City Well, first I want to thank Ambassador Bolton and all of you for inviting us here today and taking the time to talk with us. I’ll make you two promises: The first is that I’ll be brief; and the second is that I won’t try to educate you on the issues of Darfur and the regions around it. There’s nothing I can say that you don’t already know. You know the numbers. You know the urgency. And you know how bad this is likely to get. I’m here to represent the voices of the people who cannot speak for themselves. And from our side, we’re not so naive either. We know how difficult a task this is. We understand how many issues are in front of you this moment, each needing great care and attention. But you are the U.N. and this is a task that you have been given. You have to decide what’s most urgent. You have responsibility to protect. In the time that we’re here today, more women and children will die violently in the Darfur region than in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Israel, or Lebanon. The United States has called it “genocide.” For you it’s called “ethnic cleansing.” But make no mistake: It is the first genocide of the 21st century. And if it continues unchecked it will not be the last. Now, my job is the come here today and to beg you on behalf of the millions of people who will die — and make no mistake; they will die — for you to take real and effective measures to put an end to this. Of course it’s complex, but when you see entire villages raped and killed, wells poisoned and then filled with the bodies of its villagers, then all complexities disappear and it comes down to simply right and wrong. It’s not getting better. It’s getting much, much worse. And it is only the international community that can help us. Now, I know there are members of you here that, for what I’m sure are sensible reasons, have failed to use leverage at times to keep the — to get the peacekeepers on the ground. Well, we now have a date. The date is September 30th. The 1st of October will leave these people with nothing. Whatever the reason, it’s not good enough. On October 1st, it won’t just be the Janjaweed murdering and raping with impunity or Minnawi’s SLA slaughtering the Fur tribes. With no protection, all the aide workers will leave immediately, and the two and a half million refugees who depend on that aid will die. Jan Egeland estimates 100,000 a month. So, after September 30th, you won’t need the U.N. You will simply need men with shovels and bleached white linen and headstones. In many ways, it’s unfair, but it is, nevertheless, true that this genocide will be on your watch. How you deal with it will be your legacy, your Rwanda, your Cambodia, your Auschwitz. We were brought up to believe that the U.N. was formed to ensure that the Holocaust could never happen again. We believe in you so strongly. We need you so badly. We’ve come so far. We’re — We’re — We’re one “yes” away from ending this. And, if not the U.N., then who? Time is of the — of the essence. I’m going to give this over to Professor Wiesel. And I’m going to thank you again for your time. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) See Also: Project Save Darfur Copyright Status: Text and Audio = Restricted, seek permission.

George Herbert Walker Bush Presidential Inaugural Address delivered 20 January 1989 Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. President, Vice President Quayle, Senator Mitchell, Speaker Wright, Senator Dole, Congressman Michel, and fellow citizens, neighbors, and friends: There is a man here who has earned a lasting place in our hearts and in our history. President Reagan, on behalf of our Nation, I thank you for the wonderful things that you have done for America. I have just repeated word for word the oath taken by George Washington 200 years ago, and the Bible on which I placed my hand is the Bible on which he placed his. It is right that the memory of Washington be with us today, not only because this is our Bicentennial Inauguration, but because Washington remains the Father of our Country. And he would, I think, be gladdened by this day; for today is the concrete expression of a stunning fact: our continuity these 200 years since our government began. We meet on democracy’s front porch, a good place to talk as neighbors and as friends. For this is a day when our nation is made whole, when our differences, for a moment, are suspended. And my first act as President is a prayer. I ask you to bow your heads: Heavenly Father, we bow our heads and thank You for Your love. Accept our thanks for the peace that yields this day and the shared faith that makes its continuance likely. Make us strong to do Your work, willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our hearts these words: “Use power to help people.” For we are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people. Help us to remember it, Lord. Amen. I come before you and assume the Presidency at a moment rich with promise. We live in a peaceful, prosperous time, but we can make it better. For a new breeze is blowing, and a world refreshed by freedom seems reborn; for in man’s heart, if not in fact, the day of the dictator is over. The totalitarian era is passing, its old ideas blown away like leaves from an ancient, lifeless tree. A new breeze is blowing, and a nation refreshed by freedom stands ready to push on. There is new ground to be broken, and new action to be taken. There are times when the future seems thick as a fog; you sit and wait, hoping the mists will lift and reveal the right path. But this is a time when the future seems a door you can walk right through into a room called tomorrow. Great nations of the world are moving toward democracy through the door to freedom. Men and women of the world move toward free markets through the door to prosperity. The people of the world agitate for free expression and free thought through the door to the moral and intellectual satisfactions that only liberty allows. We know what works: Freedom works. We know what’s right: Freedom is right. We know how to secure a more just and prosperous life for man on Earth: through free markets, free speech, free elections, and the exercise of free will unhampered by the state. For the first time in this century, for the first time in perhaps all history, man does not have to invent a system by which to live. We don’t have to talk late into the night about which form of government is better. We don’t have to wrest justice from the kings. We only have to summon it from within ourselves. We must act on what we know. I take as my guide the hope of a saint: In crucial things, unity; in important things, diversity; in all things, generosity. America today is a proud, free nation, decent and civil, a place we cannot help but love. We know in our hearts, not loudly and proudly, but as a simple fact, that this country has meaning beyond what we see, and that our strength is a force for good. But have we changed as a nation even in our time? Are we enthralled with material things, less appreciative of the nobility of work and sacrifice? My friends, we are not the sum of our possessions. They are not the measure of our lives. In our hearts we know what matters. We cannot hope only to leave our children a bigger car, a bigger bank account. We must hope to give them a sense of what it means to be a loyal friend, a loving parent, a citizen who leaves his home, his neighborhood and town better than he found it. What do we want the men and women who work with us to say when we are no longer there? That we were more driven to succeed than anyone around us? Or that we stopped to ask if a sick child had gotten better, and stayed a moment there to trade a word of friendship? No President, no government, can teach us to remember what is best in what we are. But if the man you have chosen to lead this government can help make a difference; if he can celebrate the quieter, deeper successes that are made not of gold and silk, but of better hearts and finer souls; if he can do these things, then he must. America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle. We as a people have such a purpose today. It is to make kinder the face of the Nation and gentler the face of the world. My friends, we have work to do. There are the homeless, lost and roaming. There are the children who have nothing, no love, no normalcy. There are those who cannot free themselves of enslavement to whatever addiction — drugs, welfare, the demoralization that rules the slums. There is crime to be conquered, the rough crime of the streets. There are young women to be helped who are about to become mothers of children they can’t care for and might not love. They need our care, our guidance, and our education, though we bless them for choosing life. The old solution, the old way, was to think that public money alone could end these problems. But we have learned that is not so. And in any case, our funds are low. We have a deficit to bring down. We have more will than wallet; but will is what we need. We will make the hard choices, looking at what we have and perhaps allocating it differently, making our decisions based on honest need and prudent safety. And then we will do the wisest thing of all: We will turn to the only resource we have that in times of need always grows — the goodness and the courage of the American people. I am speaking of a new engagement in the lives of others, a new activism, hands-on and involved, that gets the job done. We must bring in the generations, harnessing the unused talent of the elderly and the unfocused energy of the young. For not only leadership is passed from generation to generation, but so is stewardship. And the generation born after the Second World War has come of age. I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good. We will work hand in hand, encouraging, sometimes leading, sometimes being led, rewarding. We will work on this in the White House, in the Cabinet agencies. I will go to the people and the programs that are the brighter points of light, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved. The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in. We need a new engagement, too, between the Executive and the Congress. The challenges before us will be thrashed out with the House and the Senate. We must bring the Federal budget into balance. And we must ensure that America stands before the world united, strong, at peace, and fiscally sound. But, of course, things may be difficult. We need compromise; we have had dissension. We need harmony; we have had a chorus of discordant voices. For Congress, too, has changed in our time. There has grown a certain divisiveness. We have seen the hard looks and heard the statements in which not each other’s ideas are challenged, but each other’s motives. And our great parties have too often been far apart and untrusting of each other. It has been this way since Vietnam. That war cleaves us still. But, friends, that war began in earnest a quarter of a century ago; and surely the statute of limitations has been reached. This is a fact: The final lesson of Vietnam is that no great nation can long afford to be sundered by a memory. A new breeze is blowing, and the old bipartisanship must be made new again. To my friends — and yes, I do mean friends — in the loyal opposition — and yes, I mean loyal: I put out my hand. I am putting out my hand to you, Mr. Speaker. I am putting out my hand to you Mr. Majority Leader. For this is the thing: This is the age of the offered hand. We can’t turn back clocks, and I don’t want to. But when our fathers were young, Mr. Speaker, our differences ended at the water’s edge. And we don’t wish to turn back time, but when our mothers were young, Mr. Majority Leader, the Congress and the Executive were capable of working together to produce a budget on which this nation could live. Let us negotiate soon and hard. But in the end, let us produce. The American people await action. They didn’t send us here to bicker. They ask us to rise above the merely partisan. “In crucial things, unity”–and this, my friends, is crucial. To the world, too, we offer new engagement and a renewed vow: We will stay strong to protect the peace. The “offered hand” is a reluctant fist; but once made, strong, and can be used with great effect. There are today Americans who are held against their will in foreign lands, and Americans who are unaccounted for. Assistance can be shown here, and will be long remembered. Good will begets good will. Good faith can be a spiral that endlessly moves on. Great nations like great men must keep their word. When America says something, America means it, whether a treaty or an agreement or a vow made on marble steps. We will always try to speak clearly, for candor is a compliment, but subtlety, too, is good and has its place. While keeping our alliances and friendships around the world strong, ever strong, we will continue the new closeness with the Soviet Union, consistent both with our security and with progress. One might say that our new relationship in part reflects the triumph of hope and strength over experience. But hope is good, and so are strength and vigilance. Here today are tens of thousands of our citizens who feel the understandable satisfaction of those who have taken part in democracy and seen their hopes fulfilled. But my thoughts have been turning the past few days to those who would be watching at home to an older fellow who will throw a salute by himself when the flag goes by, and the women who will tell her sons the words of the battle hymns. I don’t mean this to be sentimental. I mean that on days like this, we remember that we are all part of a continuum, inescapably connected by the ties that bind. Our children are watching in schools throughout our great land. And to them I say, thank you for watching democracy’s big day. For democracy belongs to us all, and freedom is like a beautiful kite that can go higher and higher with the breeze. And to all I say: No matter what your circumstances or where you are, you are part of this day, you are part of the life of our great nation. A President is neither prince nor pope, and I don’t seek a window on men’s souls. In fact, I yearn for a greater tolerance, an easy-goingness about each other’s attitudes and way of life. There are few clear areas in which we as a society must rise up united and express our intolerance. The most obvious now is drugs. And when that first cocaine was smuggled in on a ship, it may as well have been a deadly bacteria, so much has it hurt the body, the soul of our country. And there is much to be done and to be said, but take my word for it: This scourge will stop. And so, there is much to do; and tomorrow the work begins. I do not mistrust the future; I do not fear what is ahead. For our problems are large, but our heart is larger. Our challenges are great, but our will is greater. And if our flaws are endless, God’s love is truly boundless. Some see leadership as high drama, and the sound of trumpets calling, and sometimes it is that. But I see history as a book with many pages, and each day we fill a page with acts of hopefulness and meaning. The new breeze blows, a page turns, the story unfolds. And so today a chapter begins, a small and stately story of unity, diversity, and generosity — shared, and written, together. Thank you. God bless you and God bless the United States of America. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Audio, Video, Image Source: George Bush Presidential Library and Museum Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement Copyright Status: This text and audio = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com. Image = Public domain.

Glenn Beck Keynote Address at the Restoring Honor to America Rally delivered 28 August 2010, Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. Well I heard the — the media estimates on the crowd size. The first one was there’s tens of thousands of people here. I think the latest I heard were two. I heard over three hundred thousand and I heard over five hundred thousand. And if that’s coming from the media, God only knows how many. This day is a day that we can search the hearts of America again and it has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with God, everything turning our faith back to the values and the principles that made us great. We have a choice today. We have a choice. We can either look at our scars, look at the scars of the nation. Let’s be honest. If you look at history, America has been both terribly good and terribly bad. It has been both, but we concentrate on the bad instead of learning from the bad, and repairing the bad and then looking to the good that is still out in front of us within our reach. We have a choice today to either let those scars crush us or redeem us. We are gathered here today in a hallowed spot. Here Abraham Lincoln, a giant of an American, casting a shadow on all of us. We look to a giant for answers. Behind you, in front of me the Washington Monument, alone, tall, straight. If you look at the Washington Monument you might notice its scars, but nobody talks about that. Nobody says look to it now. Nobody says yeah I don’t know, but a quarter of the way up it changes color. Did you know that it did? Look at it. Look at its scars. How did the scar get there? They stopped building it in the Civil War and when the war was over they began again. No one sees the scars of the Washington Memorial, the Washington Monument. We see what it stands for. No one also talks about what’s on top, facing east, just two words Laus Deo — “Praise be to God.” When I was 18 years old, I used to sit in between the second and third column there. I’d come about five o’clock in the morning and I would sit there and I would watch the sun rise over the Capitol. I just did it again with my now, in-college children. I did it this week. This is an amazing place. I told them not a lot had changed except now at the end a salute to the greatest Americans, the greatest American generation, the World War II Memorial at the end of the Reflecting Pool. Men, women who did what they had to do, not because they wanted to but because they were faced with no choice. You cannot coexist with evil. They did the right thing. They stood against all odds. The Vietnam Memorial, here, saluting all the grand veterans that we didn’t welcome home when they came. We finally welcome them home now. And through these trees, through these trees a haunting memorial of the Korean veterans. We are — we are standing, we are standing amongst giants and in between the Reflecting Pool. Why? Is it so we can say wow, look how dirty it is? No, it’s not just to reflect the monument. It is intended for us to reflect, to reflect on what that man meant and those men meant and those, and those, and that man meant and the man who stood down on those stairs and gave his life for everyone’s right to have a dream, Martin Luther King. That’s what the reflection is all about. We are to reflect on what these great men did. Why did they give their lives? And all of them did. George Washington, he was a general. He fought and fought and fought and fought. And when it was falling apart and they needed the Constitution, they came riding to his front door. And they knocked on his door and he answered it. And they said General, we will not survive. It’s falling apart. We need you at the Constitutional Convention. His response was, “Have I not yet done enough for my country?” He closed the door. He reflected, mounted his horse and gave yet another part of his life, because it was the right thing to do. So, what did these great people give their lives for? They gave it for the American experiment. And that’s what this is, an experiment. It’s not just a country. It’s an idea that man can rule himself. That’s the American experiment. We have a choice to make today. Do we, Americans that live today, surrounded by giants who gave it all, do we today say the experiment cannot work? Man must be ruled by someone? [Crowd shouts “no”] It does not end here. It shall not end now. It shall not end in my generation, in your generation. It is up to us. I came here last Saturday. I wanted to spend some time with my children. I wanted to show them, these great monuments. I went into the Lincoln Memorial and I stood there and I read the Gettysburg Address on one wall and the Second Inaugural Address on the other. I went up and touched the words and lifted my children up so they could touch the words as well. The words are alive. Our documents, our most famous speeches are American scripture and they are alive today just as any other scripture is. It speaks to us from the past. If I, if I may, if I may share with you the Gettysburg Address and ask you if it doesn’t apply to today: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now — Now we are engaged in a great [civil] war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field…. In the hotel that I’m staying at, I found out, is the hotel where Dr. Martin Luther King finished his speech. But it’s also a place where someone else wrote something, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, written here in a hotel just down the street because you could see over the buildings at that time. They weren’t so high and you could see. And they watched the battle. That’s where The Battle Hymn of the Republic, here was written. This is a great battlefield, filled with warriors on each side. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who gave their lives that this nation might live…. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men (and women), living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never be forgotten what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work that they have thus so far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us here to be dedicated now to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause which they gave their last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall have not died in vain. That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from this earth. America is at a crossroad. And we must decide are those words that Abraham Lincoln spoke, and they have no relevance or meaning on us today. America is at a crossroad and today we must decide. Who are we? What is it we believe? We must advance or perish. I choose advance. After the Gettysburg Address, go in and read. I invite you today to go in and read The Second Inaugural. Abraham Lincoln found God in the scars of Gettysburg. He was baptized and gave the Second Inaugural. He looked to God and set men free. America — America awakens again. It’s the same story throughout history, all of mankind’s history. Man finds himself in slavery and then someone appears to wake America up. It was George Whitefield in the 1740s, an imperfect man, a man who actually at the same time was preaching individual rights, brought more slavery to this land. But it was his words that inspired an American generation. They were children at the time and they grew in to be John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson. It happens the same way. It has since the burning bush, Moses, freedom, and then they forget. They wander until they remember that God is the answer. He always has been and then they begin to trust. Do you know what kind of trust there must have been if you were in bondage in ancient Egypt, and you were crying out to the Almighty, send us, send us someone to free us? And a man shows up with a stick. Don’t you think they said, “You got to be kidding me?” The all powerful, the Almighty and he sends a man slow of speech with a stick. But look what that stick and that man did. Have trust in the Lord and recognize that Moses and Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, they were men. They were just like you. They just picked up their stick. I think I can relate to Martin Luther King out of all of these giants. I can relate to Martin Luther King probably the most because we haven’t carved him in marble yet. He’s still a man and that’s the message. That man makes a difference. What is it that these men have that you don’t? What is it Abraham Lincoln, the American Indian, Frederick Douglass, the moonshot, the pioneers, what is it they have that you don’t have? The answer is nothing. They are exactly like you. They just did the hard thing. They just decided not to see themselves in any other way other than, oh crap I gotta cross the mountains. Ask yourself, would you have crossed the mountains? I think I would have been stuck at the first river. And if I would have made it all the way to the Rockies my family would have been right there in Denver, Colorado because I would have gotten there and went, “Oh you’ve got to be kidding me.” They went on. They relied on God and God’s grace. America is great because America is good. But that’s not the entire story. She’s not just good because she’s good. America is only what we choose her to be. We as individuals must be good so America can be great. America is at crossroad and there is a clear and simple choice. Do we choose to just look at the scars? Do we choose to look back? Or do we do what every great generation has done in America in times of trouble, look ahead? Dream about what we’re going to become not worried about what we are. Look forward, look West, look to the heavens, look to God and make your choice. One of, one of my, one of the phrases that comes to mind a lot is, that which you gaze upon you shall become. What is it we’re gazing upon? What is it we look at? Why have we missed gazing upon the Reflecting Pool? What are you gazing on every day? Because that is what you will become. Are we so jaded as a nation? Are we so pessimistic that we no longer believe in the individual and the power of the individual? Do we no longer believe in dreams and the power of one person making a difference? I testify to you here and now, one man can change the world. And I share with you an equal testimony, that man or woman is you. You make the difference. Do not stand and look to someone else. Look to yourself. Pick up your stick and stand. Too many Americans are looking to someone else. We must be the people that look inside ourself first and then are a life raft to those around us that need help, and not give them fish but teach them how to fish. We are a nation — We are a nation, quite honestly, that is about in as good a shape as I am. And that ain’t very good. I was running around here this week on these steps trying to line up everything. I’d get up to the top and I like, okay I’ve got to sit down for a second. Because we’ve had a soft life. The poorest among us are still some of the richest in the world. The poorest among us have blessings beyond the wildest imagination of anyone that Mother Theresa visited. And yet we don’t recognize it. Instead we’ve grown tired. We’ve grown weak. We’re dividing ourselves. There is growing hatred in the country. We must be better than what we’ve allowed ourselves to become. We must get the poison of hatred out of us. No matter what anyone may say or do. No matter what anyone smears or lies or throws our way or to any American’s way, we must look to God and look to love. We must defend those that we disagree with, but are honest and have integrity. There are people that were on this stage, and I’m not going, I don’t have permission to say who they were. But there were people on this stage that not only took great personal risk but also one in particular, organized for our President, led a prayer breakfast, is a Dem — is a Democrat. You would think the media will tell you that there was only a bunch of Tea Parties. No, no. That person stood on this stage because of honor and integrity. There’s a lot we can disagree on but our values and our principles can unite us. We must discover them again. Americans have always looked to explore. We went West and then we went up. We’re going down into the oceans. The time to explore is changing. For us to explore we must not just explore outer space but we must as Americans explore inner space. We must look inside of ourselves and look at what we truly believe. The Lord will always send a people wake up calls. And he has been sending us wake up call, after wake up call, after wake up call. And it has been through the Republicans and the Democrats. It’s all of us, all of us. He has been sending us wake up calls and you can send two kinds of wake up calls, one through fear like 911. 911 woke us up and we stood shoulder to shoulder for a very short period of time. Politics didn’t matter. Color didn’t matter. It didn’t matter if you were poor or you were rich. We were Americans together. Beyond that we were God’s human creation standing together. But fear only wakes you up for a very short time. I know that many in this country think that I’m a fear monger. It is not a — It is not a label that I think applies. I do talk about frightening things, but I don’t think the man who saw the ice berg as the Titanic was about to hit it and said, “It’s an ice berg,” was a fear monger. He was warning the people on the ship. Waking people up through fear only will awaken them for a very short period of time. As we all found out with 911. Do you not think the apostles while waiting in the Garden of Gethsemane were afraid? Jesus asked them just watch with me for an hour. He prayed and he came back and they were asleep. The enemies were lighting torches and gathering their swords and they said sorry, we’ll do better next time. And they didn’t. One, two, three — three times can you not watch with me for one hour? The response is the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Well, what do we do? They weren’t awake. They weren’t awake until after the resurrection and then they knew and they never went to sleep again. It wasn’t the fear of death. It was the resurrection that kept them awake. We must as a people strengthen our spirit. I ask you, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Americans. We are all Americans. We all must realize how nice we have it here, despite all of our problems. We must recognize the great things that we have done, while noticing as well so we can learn from the lessons all of the bad things that we have done. Know them so we never repeat the same mistake. But we must make a choice today. I gave a 40 day challenge on the air, 40 days ago today. I asked you to do three things, faith, hope, and charity. In your own life I ask you pray on your knees. Not just pray but pray on your knees. Recognize your place to the Creator. Recognize that he is our king and he is the one that guides and directs our life and protects us. I asked not only if you would pray on your knees but pray on your knees with the door open for your children to see. Not only pray with them but let them see their father or their mother humbled by God in prayer. That which they gaze upon, they will become. The second thing I asked you to do for hope. Tell the truth. Tell the truth and it only matters when you tell the truth and you know it’s going to hurt you. You know that it’s not going to help your side. Tell the truth. America is crying out for the truth. Tell the truth in your own life and then expect it from others. And the third, I asked you 40 days ago to do. For charity, connect with your family, your spouse and your children. Give them extra time. Give them extra attention. Charity begins at home first. My challenge to you today is to make a choice. Does America go forward and the American experience expands or does the experiment fail with us? Make the choice. And then if you answer as I do, look to the top of the Washington Memorial — the Washington Monument, praise be to God. My favorite line in the Declaration of Independence is “With firm reliance on divine providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” Let that phrase be our guide. As they put on the top of the Monument, as Thomas Jefferson said if you really want to share the truth embed it, embed it into architecture. The truth is on the walls here. The truth is on the top of the Monument. But it’s also in our founding documents. What is the answer? Do you think they were just using the wrong size font when they said, “We, the people?” Do you think somebody was like hey you got to size that down a bit, it’ll not fit on the page? That was code. They knew we would forget. And at the end of the Declaration of Independence it is our guide out, with firm reliance on divine providence. Step one with firm reliance on divine providence. How? How can you possibly have firm reliance if you don’t know what you believe? If you’re just doing it because your family has done it. If you’re just doing it because it’s what we do. If you haven’t as Thomas Jefferson said questioned with boldness even the very existence of God, for if there be a God, he must surely rather honest questioning over blindfolded fear. Blindfolded fear does not lead to an awakening. Questioning with boldness does. Find out what you really, truly believe. It’s the only way you can have firm reliance on it. When the storms come up and your ship is being tossed, you’ve got to rely on something. Do you want it to be an invisible, magic sky God that you think is there? Or do you want to have firm reliance, we will be fine? I choose to know so I can — so I can depend with firm reliance on God’s protection. To realize your space, if you understand who God is, you will also understand you are one of his children. That has great benefits and unbelievable responsibility. If you find out who God truly is, I warn you. I warn you. If you know who He is, it will be the biggest blessing in your life, but it will also be the biggest curse in your life. Because on some things you will then no longer have a choice because you know what is true, you know who you serve, and you must stand there because you have no other choice. Know who He is and know who you are. The next part of the phrase is, “We mutually pledge to each other our lives.” I’ve always read that as something the Vietnam vets did. The Korean vets did, for the vets that we honor today. It’s not just that. Washington, I told you, gave up his life as he wanted it. He wanted to be a farmer, not a president. He wanted to be a surveyor, not a general. He gave up the life he wanted. If we do this right, we will each come to a point in our life. If we are going to change our country with lasting ramifications, we will each come to a point in our life where we are at the last string or thread and say, “Have I not yet done enough for my country?” And then we will stand up again and get on our horse, because the answer is no. God is not done with you yet and he is not done with man’s freedom yet. “With firm reliance on divine providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes.” What does that mean? It means that there comes a time when one generation must sacrifice for the next. One generation must make the choice to do the right thing, because it is the right thing. So our children can have a chance at a sliver of what we have grown up in, scars and all. This experiment is the only time man has lived a life like this. It’s not a coincidence, the world changed as the Age of Enlightenment happened and Americans set man free. It’s not a coincidence. If we want it for our children and our grandchildren, we must pledge our lives and our fortunes. But we already know that instinctively. If anyone has ever had a child who is seriously ill, you know you have stood in that hospital. And you have fallen to your knees and you have said, “Lord, give it to me, give it to me. Let them live. Let them have a shot. I’ll take it on.” That’s who we must be today. We must take it on so our children can have a chance. We must be willing to trade places with our children. Our children will be slaves to a debt, slaves. We must trade places with them. We must also give to the things that we believe in. I ask you today, I know I did this most of my life. I put 20 dollars in the basket at church and I’d think I was doing pretty good. I kind of almost pop it out so everyone could see yeah, 20 bucks. When the man with the stick and the burning bush spoke about the 20 dollars in the basket, it was ten percent. I remember — I remember, I first started thinking about actually tithing, I’m like holy cow, really? And that somehow or another is going to make me happy? Let me tell you something. It is my joy and my honor to tithe ten percent. Please, our nation can only do great works through our churches if they have the means to do it. Charity comes from us. It comes from our churches. It comes from our synagogues. It comes from our houses of worship. Tithe with firm reliance on divine providence. If you have firm reliance, you gladly give ten percent because you know you’ll be fine. And the last part, our sacred honor. It means that you tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. It means there are no lies in your life. That is a hard one. But I come to you and tell you as a man whose whole life was a lie. A man who was on the floor in the fetal position because I couldn’t do it anymore, because I had wrecked my whole life. I had dishonored myself in every way. I come to tell you now, that the truth shall set you free. The truth shall set you free. Warning, the truth will make you miserable first. But then it will set you free. Each of us need to do these things if we are to restore our nation. We need to do these things. And when we do, we will know who we are, that each of us makes a difference. That life is short but there is much work to be done. So pick up your stick because the one that leads your life demands it of us. If we do these things we will heal our nation. We will not only heal our nation but we will do what the greatest American generation did the last century. They will be the shelter for the world because the storm that is coming is not just an American storm, it’s a human storm. It’s a global storm. And who is it that always runs in at the end to save them? It is always the American. But we are not prepared to be those people yet. We must go to God boot camp and straighten our own lives up so we can — we can help the people out in the rest of the world and guide them down the stairs and out of the building into safety. If we can say this to each other and with firm reliance on divine providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor, we will then know that God is not on our side, rather we have put our life in shape so we know we will be on God’s side. But America, there are so many things that we gaze upon, that is easy to pull us off track. We cannot do these things alone. We must do them with a good spouse by our side, good friends by our side, our family being strong, and we must insist that our churches stand for things that we know are true because they are universal and endless in nature. Stand. Take a stand. Our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, we must stand for the things that we know are true. Two hundred and forty years ago, there was what was called the black robe regiment. England hated the preachers. When they came, the British, they had a real hard time with the preachers. In fact if you were a preacher… Must be a big crowd because they’ve violated the air space to get a shot of it. England hated the preachers, in fact if you were a preacher you were most likely to be killed during the American Revolution. Why? Because it was first the preacher that said all men are created equal, that rights come from God, no government, no king. Well we have fallen asleep as a nature — as a nation and our churches have fallen asleep. This isn’t about one church or one faith over another, it is about the eternal principles of God. For two hundred and forty years, they have been absent from the American landscape. The black robe regiment is back again today. These two hundred and forty men and women of all faiths are standing here today. America it is time to start the heart of this nation again. And put it where it belongs. Our heart with God. Go to your churches, your synagogues, your mosques, anyone that is not preaching hate and division. Anyone that is not teaching to kill another man. But you go to those that are teaching the lasting principles. These two hundred and forty men and women from all faiths represent thousands of clergy that we couldn’t fit into this area that are amongst you now. Thousands that have come here to the mall to stand with America and God. And those thousands that are here represent one hundred and eighty million people. There are thousands that have…. But we must not have fear and we must not get lost in politics. I know the media will make that into and in the most crazy thing he said. We are all people that find ourselves in incredible times. We all find ourselves saying you have made a mistake, I have made a mistake. But I come to you as someone that will declare their principles and their values. We can disagree on politics. We can disagree on so much. These men and women here don’t agree on fundamentals. They don’t agree on everything that every church teaches. What they do agree on is God is the answer. If today — If today is just one day — If you make your way home, this wake up call will fade. If it was just about today. And the critics will be right. That it was meaningless. That you have wasted your time. But if in fact you choose today to change your life and root them in faith, hope, and charity, we will change the world. If we declare that we stand for something. If we do not, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the world will little note nor long remember what we said here. It’s what we do from here that matters. Take the forty day challenge and change your life. Let your children see it. Our sacred scriptures of our country, of our faith, we must — we must seal them in clay pots. We must make sure that they are protected just as the Dead Sea scrolls were. Protect them. But we have our clay pots. They’re our children. Teach them these things. I asked you to bring your son or daughter. Stand here. I know — I know that if you do your job, if you pledge to yourself that you will restore honor in your own life, we will leave freedom better than how we found it. So our children can find the giant inside of them. Somewhere in this crowd, I know it, I have been looking for the next George Washington. I can’t find him. I know he is in this crowd. He may be eight years old but this is the moment. This is the moment that he dedicates his life. That he sees giants around him. And 25 years from now, he will come not to this stair, but to those stairs and he can proclaim, “I have a new dream.” That must be our goal to raise the next great monument. America is at a crossroad. And this is the point of choice. You must choose whether we wallow in our scars. Countries make mistakes. We have made more than our fair share but it is what you do with those mistakes. We choose to wallow in them or we learn from the past and ask for redemption. For tomorrow, yesterday is gone. Tomorrow may never come. But we have today to make a difference. It matters not how low… It matters not — it matters not where we are right now. It matters not where we have been. It’s what we’re doing today that makes the difference. John Newton was a slave ship captain in the 1700s. He was a — a despicable man. He was a man that was a slave ship captain, need I say more and he didn’t see it in front of him. He had eyes but he could not see the horror that he was engaged in, until he was in a storm, and that’s usually when people figure it out. He was in a storm on the seas and he fell to his knees and he said, “Lord help us. Help us. Help us. Help us.” And he did. But he followed through. He was changed in that storm. He went from a captain of a slave ship to a guy who wrote probably the best song for the bagpipes. He wrote “Amazing Grace”. For once he was blind but now he can see. If you are blind yesterday, you were blind ten minutes ago, you’re blind ten minutes in the future. See. See what the Lord is putting in front of you now. And we bring out the bagpipes. [Bagpipes play “Amazing Grace”. Crowd sings. Singers from stage join in.] Trust. Trust divine providence. A year ago I stood with my staff in my office and I told them we need to have an event at the Lincoln Memorial. I’m not quite sure what it is yet and we stood three weeks ago because of security and because we knew the event was getting bigger and bigger and bigger and so did the wonderful National Park Service. Our costs went up dramatically and I had a goal that I wanted to give SOWF and we, there’s no way to reach that goal. And I had just come from a fundraiser and I had given my last measure. We were out of everything we could do. We were out of time. And we were short six hundred thousand dollars to meet our goal. We were at three point one million dollars. And I, for the first time started to challenge him a little bit. And I was on the plane and I’ll never forget sitting next to my wife, I looked up at the top of that airplane and I said Lord, we don’t have anything else left. We don’t have anything else left. It’s up to you now. In two days without saying a word to anyone, six hundred thousand dollars came in. I am proud to announce thanks to you, as of right now and the money is still coming in, we have raised five and a half million dollars. In that same meeting, they said to me, Glenn what happens if nobody comes? My response was, we’ll stand where the Lord wants us to stand and he’ll provide the people if its what’s supposed to happen. We are a nation that has terrible, terrible scars. But we must look past them. We must look at the person inside, the country inside. All the potential. To close tonight with a prayer, I want to introduce you to Dave Roever. He’s a Vietnam veteran. He was on a mission and he pulled a phosphorous grenade. It went off in his hand. A phosphorous grenade is five thousand degrees, half the temperature of the sun. His face was horribly scarred. He told me that he actually put his head in his pillow and he screamed, because he didn’t want anybody to hear him in the hospital scream and he removed his face from the pillow and then he didn’t care who heard him scream because his face was left in the pillow. He’s a man that tried to kill himself because he thought my wife will not want me. No one will. What is left of this scarred man? I am happy to say he’s turned his life over to God and his wife stood by his side and as he said, kissed him in the one good part of his face and looked him into his one good eye and together they have made their way. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Audio Source: C-SPAN.org Audio Note: Audio enhanced with noise filters and various effects Research Note: Transcription by Diane Wiegand Page Updated: 8/23/17 Copyright Status: Text = Uncertain. Audio = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com. Image (Screenshot) = Fair Use.

Golda Meir White House Reception Address delivered 25 September 1969, Washington, D.C. Mr. President: Needless to say, I’m deeply moved by the reception and by the words that you have spoken. Every official guest from abroad to the White House must surely sense the significance of the occasion. May I say this is particularly so for a representative of a people small in numbers and in resources. May I say that in receiving me here in friendship and equality, you are affirming that the attitude of the United States to other peoples is not determined by physical factors. The history of Israel, reborn, in the years preceding statehood and the more than two decades since its achievement, cannot be told without reference to the unwavering support and friendship shown by successive American governments and by the American people. Press release signed by President Truman recognizing provisional Government of Israel Within hours after the proclamation of our statehood, the United States Government recognized Israel, and Jewish remnants from the Nazi death camps, who had been largely liberated by American forces in Europe, came to our shores. Mr. President, the ties between our two countries are rooted in the biblical heritage and in the common dedication to human dignity, freedom, and to democracy. We have done everything in our power to translate these ideals into the fabric of our national life. It is this sense of affinity that has encouraged us to ask for America’s understanding and support in difficult times. The story of modern Israel is essentially the story of the return to the ancestral homeland of exiles from persecution, insecurity, and fear — in quest of freedom, human dignity, independence, and peace. Today, no Jew need remain homeless because of oppression and insecurity. I’m gratified to be able to say this here in this great land which has been a haven for the oppressed, including many of my own people. I shall be able to tell you, Mr. President, of Israel’s progress in many fields. Tragically, peace is still denied us. But that same faith that sustained us down the ages instills within us the confidence that the hour of peace will come. I look forward to the day when an Israeli Prime Minister will be able to come here bearing to the President and the people of the United States the tidings that the Middle East has entered a new epoch of amity and regional cooperation. Mr. President, the prayers and hopes of my people are with you in the heavy responsibility you carry, not only for your great country but for the freedom-loving mankind at large. We follow with deep sympathy your efforts for regional and world peace, the phenomenal scientific advance of America under your leadership, the results of which are open to all nations; and your interest in economic and social advancement for all peoples. I am privileged, Mr. President, to convey to you the best wishes from the President, the Government, and the people of Israel, together with their deep appreciation for your invitation to me, and for your interest in our welfare and progress. From Jerusalem, the city of prophecy and universal inspiration, I bring you the traditional Hebrew greeting: Shalom. Page Updated: 9/28/17 U.S. Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Image of Flag = Public domain.

Gordon Brown Speech to a Joint Session of Congress delivered 4 March 2009, Washington, D.C.Madam Speaker, Mr. Vice President, distinguished members of Congress. I come to this great capital of this great nation, an America renewed under a new President, to say that America’s faith in the future has been, is and always will be an inspiration to me and to the whole world. Two centuries ago your creation of America was the boldest possible affirmation of faith in the future, it is a future that you not just believe in but a future you have built with your own hands. And on 20 January you, the American people, wrote the latest chapter in the American story with a transition of dignity in which both sides of the aisle could take great pride and on that day billions of people surely looked to Washington DC as ‘a shining city upon the hill’, lighting up the whole of the world. And let me thank President Obama for his leadership, for his friendship and for giving the whole world renewed hope in itself. And I know you will allow me to single out for special mention today one of your most distinguished Senators, known in every continent and a great friend. Northern Ireland today is at peace, more Americans have healthcare, children around the world are going to school and for all those things we owe a great debt to the life and courage of Senator Edward Kennedy. I want to announce — awarded by Her Majesty The Queen, on behalf of the British people — an honorary Knighthood for Sir Edward Kennedy. Madam Speaker, Mr. Vice-President, I come in friendship to renew, for new times our special relationship that is founded on our shared history, our shared values and, I believe, our shared futures. I grew up in the 1960s as America, led by President Kennedy, looked to the heavens and saw not the endless void of the unknown, but a new frontier to dare to discover and to explore. People said it couldn’t be done, but America did it. And 20 years later in the 1980s, America, led by President Reagan, refused to accept the fate of millions trapped behind the Iron Curtain and insisted instead that the peoples of Eastern Europe be allowed to join the ranks of nations which live safe, strong and free. People said it would never happen in our lifetime, but it did, and the Berlin Wall was torn down brick by brick. So early in my life I came to understand that America is not just the indispensable nation, you are the irrepressible nation. Throughout your history, America has led insurrections in the human imagination. You have have summoned revolutionary times through your belief that there is no such thing as an impossible endeavor. And it is never possible to come here without having your faith in the future renewed. Now I want to thank you on behalf of the British people, because throughout a whole century the American people stood liberty’s ground, not just in one world war, but in two. And I want you to know that we will never forget the sacrifice and the service of the American soldiers who gave their lives for people whose names they never knew, and whose faces they never saw, yet people who have lived in freedom, thanks to the bravery and valour of the Americans who gave that last full measure of devotion. Cemetery after cemetery across Europe honors the memory of American soldiers, resting row upon row, often alongside comrades in arms from Britain. And there is no battlefield of liberty on which there is not a piece of land that is marked out as American, and there is no day of remembrance within Britain that is not also a commemoration of American courage and sacrifice far from home. In the hardest days of the last century, faith in the future kept America alive, and I tell you that America kept faith in the future alive for all the world. And let me pay tribute to the soldiers, yours and ours, who today fight side by side in the plains of Afghanistan, the streets of Iraq, just as their forefathers fought side by side in the sands of Tunisia, the beaches of Normandy and then on the bridges over the Rhine. Almost every family in Britain has a tie that binds them to America. So I want you to know that whenever a young American soldier, or Marine, or sailor, or airman is killed in conflict anywhere in the world, we, the people of Britain grieve with you. We know that your loss is our loss, your families’ sorrow is our families’ sorrow, and your nation’s determination is our nation’s determination that they shall not have died in vain. And after that terrible September morning when your homeland was attacked, the Coldstream Guards at Buckingham Palace played the Star Spangled Banner. Our own British tribute as we wept for our friends in the land of the free and the home of the brave. And let me therefore promise you our continued support to ensure that there is no hiding place for terrorists, no safe haven for terrorism. You should be proud that in the years after 2001 that whilst terrorists may destroy buildings and even tragically lives, they have not, and will not ever destroy the American spirit. So let it be said of the friendship between our two countries that it is in times of trial — true, that in the face of fear — faithful, and amidst the storms of change — constant. And let it be said of our friendship also, formed and forged over two tumultuous centuries, a friendship tested in war, strengthened in peace — that it has not just endured but has renewed each generation to better serve our shared values and fulfill the hopes and dreams of the day, not an alliance of convenience, it is a partnership of purpose. Alliances can wither or be destroyed, but partnerships of purpose are indestructible. Friendships can be shaken, but our friendship is unshakable. Treaties can be broken, but our partnership is unbreakable and I know that there is no power on earth that can ever drive us apart. We will work tirelessly with you as partners for peace in the Middle East: for a two state solution — proposed by President Clinton and driven forward by President Bush — that provides for nothing less than a secure Israel, safe within its borders, existing side by side with a viable Palestinian state. And we will work tirelessly with you to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation and reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons, and our shared message to Iran, it is simple — we are ready for you to rejoin the international community, but first you must cease your threats and suspend your nuclear program. Past Prime Ministers have travelled to this capital building in times of war to talk of war. I come now to talk of new and different battles we must also fight together, to speak of a global economy in crisis and a planet imperiled. These are new priorities for our new times. And let us be honest — tonight too many parents, after they have put their children to bed, will speak of their worries about losing their jobs, or their need to sell their house. Too many will share stories of friends or neighbors already packing up their homes, too many will talk of a local store or business that has already gone to the wall. For me this global recession is not to be measured just in statistics, or in graphs, or on a balance sheet. Instead I see one individual with one set of dreams and fears, and then another, and then another, each with their own stars to reach for, each part of a family, each at the heart of a community now in need of help and hope. And when banks have failed and markets have faltered, we — the representatives of the people — have to be the people’s last line of defense. And that is why for me there is no financial orthodoxy so entrenched, there is no conventional thinking so ingrained, there is no special interest so strong that it should ever stand in the way of the change that hard working families now need. We have learned through this world downturn that markets should be free, but markets should never be values-free. We have learned that the risks people take should never be separated from the responsibilities that they must meet. And if perhaps some once thought that it was beyond our power to shape global markets to meet the needs of the people, we now know that that is our duty. We cannot and must not stand aside. In our families and workplaces, and in our places of worship, we celebrate men and women of integrity who work hard, treat people fairly, take responsibility, look out for others. And if these are the principles we live by in our families and neighborhoods, they should also be the principles that guide and govern our economic life. And the world has learned that what makes for the good society also now makes for the good economy too. My father was a Minister of the Church and I have learned again what I was taught by him: that wealth should help more than the wealthy, that good fortune should serve more than the fortunate, and that riches must enrich not just some of our communities, but all of our communities. And these enduring values are in my view the values we need for these new times. We tend to think of the sweep of history of stretching across many months and years before culminating in decisive moments that we call history. But sometimes the reality is that the defining moments of history come suddenly, and without warning, and the task of leadership then is to define them, to shape them and to move forward into the new world they demand. An economic hurricane has swept the world, creating a crisis of credit and a crisis of confidence. History has brought us now to a point where change is essential. And we are summoned not just to manage our times but to transform them. And our task is to rebuild prosperity and security in a wholly different economic world where competition is no longer just local but it is global, and where banks are no longer national but they are international. And we need to understand therefore what went wrong in this crisis, that the very financial instruments that were designed to diversify risk across the banking system — instead spread contagion right across the globe. And today’s financial institutions, they are so interwoven that a bad bank anywhere is a threat to good banks everywhere. But should we succumb to a race to the bottom and to a protectionism that history tells us that, in the end, protects no one? No. We should have the confidence, America and Britain most of all, that we can seize the global opportunities ahead and make the future work for us. And why? Because whilst today people are anxious and feel insecure, over the next two decades literally billions of people in other continents will move from being simply producers of their goods, to being consumers of our goods. And in this way the world economy will double in size — twice as many opportunities for business, twice as much prosperity, the biggest expansion of middle class incomes and jobs the world has seen. So we win our future not by retreating from the world, but by engaging with it. And America and Britain will succeed and lead if we tap into the talents of our people, unleash the genius of our scientists, set free the drive of our entrepreneurs. We will win the race to the top if we can develop the new high value added products and services, and the new green goods that the rising number of hard working families across our globe will want to buy. So in these unprecedented times we must educate our way out of the downturn, we must invest and invent our way out of the downturn, we must retool and reskill our way out of the downturn. And this is not blind optimism or synthetic confidence to console people; it is the practical affirmation for our times of our faith in a better future. Every time we rebuild a school we demonstrate our faith in the future. Every time we send more people to university, every time we invest more in our new digital infrastructure, every time we increase support for our scientists we demonstrate our faith in the future. And so I say to this Congress, and this country, something that runs deep in your character and is woven in your history, we conquer our fear of the future through our faith in the future. And it is this faith in the future that means we must commit to protecting the planet, for generations that will come long after us. The Greek proverb, what does it say? Why does anybody plant the seeds of a tree whose shade they will never see? The answer is because they look to the future. And I believe you, as a nation that had the vision to put a man on the moon, are also the nation with a vision to protect and preserve our planet earth. And you know it is only by investing in environmental technology that we can end the dictatorship of oil and it is only by tackling climate change that we can create the millions of new green jobs that we need and can have. But the lesson of this crisis is that we cannot just wait for tomorrow, we cannot just think of tomorrow today, we cannot merely plan for tomorrow today. Our task must be to build tomorrow today. And America knows from its history that its reach goes far beyond its geography. For a century you have carried upon your shoulders the greatest of responsibility: to work with and for the rest of the world. And let me tell you that now more than ever the rest of the world wants to work with America. If these times have shown us anything, it is that the major challenges we face are global. No matter where it starts, an economic crisis does not stop at the water’s edge, it ripples across the world. Climate change does not honor passport controls Terrorism has no respect for borders. Modern communication instantly spans every continent, the new frontier is that there is no frontier, and the new shared truth is that global problems now need global solutions. And let me say to you directly, you now have the most pro-American European leadership in living memory. It is a leadership that wants to cooperate more closely together in order to cooperate more closely with you. There is no old Europe, no new Europe, there is only your friend Europe. So once again I say we should seize this moment, because never before have I seen a world willing to come together so much, never before has that been more needed, and never before have the benefits of cooperation been so far reaching. So when people here and in other countries ask what more we can do to bring an end to this downturn, let me say this: we can achieve more by working together. And just think of what we can do if we combine not just in a partnership for security, but in a new partnership for prosperity. On jobs, you the American people through your stimulus proposals could create or save at least three million jobs. We in Britain are acting with similar determination, but how much nearer an end to this downturn would we all be if the whole of the world resolved to do the same. And you are also restructuring your banks. So are we. But how much safer would everybody’s savings be if the whole world finally came together to outlaw shadow banking systems and outlaw offshore tax havens? So just think how each of our actions, if combined, could mean a whole, much greater than the sum of its parts – all and not just some banks stabilized – on fiscal stimulus: the impact multiplied because everybody is doing it – rising demand in all our countries creating jobs in each of our countries – and trade once again the engine of prosperity, the wealth of nations restored. No one should forget it was American visionaries who over half a century ago, coming out of the deepest of depressions and the worst of wars, produced the boldest of plans for global economic cooperation. They recognized that prosperity was indivisible. They concluded that to be sustained it had to be shared. And I believe that ours too is a time for renewal, for a plan for tackling recession and building for the future, every continent playing their part in a global new deal, a plan for prosperity that can benefit us all. And first, so that the whole of our worldwide banking system serves our prosperity rather than risks it, let us agree at our G20 summit in London in April rules and standards for accountability, transparency, and reward that will mean an end to the excesses and will apply to every bank, everywhere, and all the time. Second, America and a few others cannot be expected to bear all the burden of the fiscal and interest rate stimulus. We must share it globally. So let us work together for the worldwide reduction of interest rates and a scale of stimulus that is equal to the depth of the recession around the world and to the dimensions of recovery, and most of all equal to the millions of jobs we must safeguard and create. And third, let us together renew our international economic cooperation, help emerging markets rebuild their banks, let us sign a world trade agreement to expand commerce, let us work together also for a low carbon recovery. And I am confident that this President, this Congress and the peoples of the world can come together in Copenhagen in December and reach an historic agreement to combat climate change. And let us never forget in times of turmoil our duty to the least of these, the poorest of the world. In the Rwanda Museum of Genocide there is a memorial to the countless children who were among those murdered in the massacres in Rwanda. And there is one portrait of a child — David. The words beneath him are brief yet they weigh on me heavily. It says: Name — David; aged 10; favorite sport — football; enjoyed making people laugh; dream — to become a doctor; cause of death — tortured to death, last words — the United Nations will come for us. But we never did. That child believed the best of us. That he was wrong is to our eternal discredit. We tend to think of a day of judgment as a moment to come, but our faith tells us, as the writer said, that judgment is more than that, it is a summary court in perpetual session. And when I visit those bare, run down, yet teeming class rooms across Africa, they are full of children, like our children, desperate to learn. But because we have been unable as a world to keep our promises to help, more and more children, I tell you, are being lured to expensively funded madrassas teaching innocent children to hate us. So for our security, and our children’s security, and these children’s future, you know the greatest gift of our generation, the greatest gift we could give to the world, the gift of America and Britain could be that every child in every country should have the chance that 70 million children today do not have — the chance to go to school, to spell their names, to count their age and perhaps learn of a great generation who are striving to make their freedom real. So let us remember that there is a common bond that across different beliefs, cultures and nationalities unites us as human beings. It is at the core of my convictions, it is the essence of America’s spirit, it is the heart of all our faiths, and it must be at the centre of our response to this crisis too. Our values tell us that we cannot be wholly comfortable while others go without comfort, but our communities can never be fully at ease if millions feel ill at ease, that our society cannot be truly strong when millions are left so weak. And this much we know, when the strong help the weak, it makes us all stronger. And this too is true. All of us know that in a recession the wealthiest, the most powerful and the most privileged can find a way through. So we don’t value the wealthy less when we say that our first duty is to help the not so wealthy, we don’t value the powerful less when we say our first responsibility is to help the powerless, and we do not value those who are secure less when we say our first priority must be to help the insecure. These recent events have forced us all to think anew. And while I have learnt many things over these last few months, I keep returning to something I first learned in my father’s church as a child. In these most modern of crises I am drawn to the most ancient of truths; wherever there is hardship, wherever there is suffering, we cannot, we will not, we will never pass by on the other side. But you know working together there is no challenge to which we are not equal, there is no obstacle we cannot overcome, and there is no aspiration so high it cannot be achieved. In the depths of the depression when Franklin Roosevelt did battle with fear itself, it was not simply by the power of his words, his personality and his example that he triumphed. Yes, all these things mattered, but what mattered more was this enduring truth; that you, the American people, at your core, were, as you remain, every bit as optimistic as your Roosevelts, your Reagans and your Obamas. And this is the faith in the future that has always been the story and promise of America. So at this defining moment in history, let us renew our special relationship for our generation and our times, let us work together to restore prosperity and protect this planet and with faith in the future let us together build tomorrow today. Thank you. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Text Note: Spellings of some words modified to reflect standard American English usage. Copyright Status: Text = Restricted, seek permission. Audio = Uncertain.

Halle Berry 2002 Oscar Acceptance Address for Best Leading Actress delivered 6 October 1963Oh, my god. Oh, my god. I’m sorry. This moment is so much bigger than me. This moment is for Dorothy Dandridge, Lena Horne, Diahann Carroll. It’s for the women that stand beside me, Jada Pinkett, Angela Bassett, Vivica Fox. And it’s for every nameless, faceless woman of color that now has a chance because this door tonight has been opened. Thank you. I’m so honored. I’m so honored. And I thank the Academy for choosing me to be the vessel for which His blessing might flow. Thank you. I want to thank my manager, Vincent Cirrincione. He’s been with me for twelve long years and you fought every fight and you’ve loved me when I’ve been up, but more importantly you’ve loved me when I’ve been down. You have been a manager, a friend, and the only father I’ve ever known. Really. And I love you very much. I want to thank my mom who’s given me the strength to fight every single day, to be who I want to be and given me the courage to dream, that this dream might be happening and possible for me. I love you, Mom, so much. Thank you. My husband, who is just a joy of my life, and India, thank you for giving me peace because only with the peace that you’ve brought me have I been allowed to go to places that I never even knew I could go. Thank you. I love you and India with all my heart. I want to thank Lions Gate. Thank you. Mike Paseornek, Tom Ortenberg for making sure everybody knew about this little tiny movie. Thank you for believing in me. Our director Marc Forster, you’re a genius. You’re a genius. This moviemaking experience was magical for me because of you. You believed in me; you trusted me and you gently guided me to very scary places. I thank you. I want to thank Ivana Chubic. I could have never figured out who the heck this lady was without you. I love you. Thank you. I want to thank Lee Daniels, our producer. Thank you for giving me this chance, for believing that I could do it. And now tonight I have this. Thank you. I want to thank my agents — CAA, Josh Lieberman especially. I have to thank my agents — Kevin Huvane, thank you. Thank you for never kicking me out and sending me somewhere else. Thank you. I, I, I, who else? I have so many people that I know I need to thank. My lawyers — Neil Meyer, thank you. Okay, wait a minute. I got to take…seventy-four years here!! Ok. I got to take this time! I got to thank my lawyer, Neil Meyer, for making this deal. Doug Stone. I need to thank lastly and not leastly, I have to thank Spike Lee for putting me in my very first film and believing in me. Oprah Winfrey for being the best role model any girl can have. Joel Silver, thank you. And thank you to Warren Beatty. Thank you so much for being my mentors and believing in me. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Also in this database: Denzel Washington Oscar Award for Leading Actor Acceptance Address Also in this database: Reese Witherspoon’s Oscar Award Acceptance Address for Best Leading Actress U.S. Copyright Status: Text = Uncertain.

Henry Aaron Congratulatory Address to Barry Bonds delivered 7 August 2007 I would like to offer my congratulations to Barry Bonds on becoming baseball’s career home run leader. It is a great accomplishment which requires skill, longevity, and determination. Throughout the past century, the home run has held a special place in baseball, and I have been privileged to hold this record for 33 of those years. I move over now and offer my best wishes to Barry and his family on this historical achievement. My hope today, as it was on that April evening in 1974, is that the achievement of this record will inspire others to chase their own dream. See Also: Barry Bonds Address to Fans After Home Run #756 Copyright Status: Text = Uncertain. Audio = Restricted, seek permission.

Harry Belafonte Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award Acceptance Address delivered 8 November 2014, Hollywood, California I would like to start off by saying thank you to Susan Sarandon not just for the anointing and the words she has just spoken but because she has been so much in the lives of those who need the human heart and the human spirit to be in the midst of their struggle to better themselves. And I’d like to thank Chris Rock for bringing humor into the moment. And I’d like to also thank all of you who are here this evening: my very good friends and very close friends who have turned out to be in support; and all the rest of you whom I don’t know intimately but have felt your presence in my life because I’ve seen your art, I’ve seen your work, I’ve seen your poetry, and I’ve been inspired by much. So thank you fall all this. And I will now get on with my remarks for this evening. America’s come a long way since Hollywood in 1915 gave the world the film Birth of a Nation. By all measure this cinematic work was considered the greatest film ever made. By all measure, this cinematic work was considered the greatest film ever made. The power of moving pictures to impact on human behavior was never more powerfully evidenced than when, after the release of this film, American citizens went on a murderous rampage. Races were set one against the other. Fire and violence erupted. Baseball bats and billy clubs bashed heads. Blood flowed in streets of our cities; and lives were lost. The film also gained the distinction of being the first film ever screened at the White House. The then-presiding President Woodrow Wilson openly praised the film, and with the power of this presidential anointing, validated the film’s brutality and its grossly distorted view of history.1 This, too, further inflamed the nation’s racial divide. 1935, at the age of eight, sitting in a Harlem theater, I watched in awe and wonder the incredible feats of the white superhero, Tarzan of the Apes. Tarzan was a sight to see. This porcelain Adonis, this white liberator, who could speak no language, swinging from tree to tree, saving Africa from the tragedy of destruction by a black indigenous population of inept, ignorant, void-of-any-skills population governed by ancient superstitions, with no heart for Christian charity. Through this film, the virus of racial inferiority, of never wanting to be identified with anything African, swept into the psyche of its youthful observers. And for the years that followed, Hollywood brought abundant opportunity for black children in their Harlem theaters to cheer Tarzan and boo Africans. Native American[s], our Indian brothers and sisters, fared no better. And at the moment, Arabs ain’t lookin’ so good. But these encounters set other things in motion. It was an early stimulus to the beginning of my rebellion, rebellion against injustice and human distortion, and hate. How fortunate for me that the performing arts became the catalyst that fueled my desire for social change. In its pursuit, I came upon fellow artists like the great actor and my hero, singer-humanist Paul Robeson, painter Charles White, dancer Katherine Dunham, [the] historian’s superior academic mind Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois, social strategist and educator Eleanor Roosevelt, writers Langston Hughes and Maya Angelou and James Baldwin. They all inspired me. They excited me, deeply influenced me, and they were also my moral compass. It was Robeson who said, as you heard in the film earlier, “Artists are the gatekeepers of truth. They are civilization’s radical voice.” This Robeson environment sounded like a desired place to be, and given the opportunity to dwell there has never disappointed me. For my life of activism and commitment to social change, the opposition has been fiercely punitive. Some who’ve controlled institutions of culture and commentary have at times used their power to not only distort truth but to punish the truth-seekers. With interventions like McCarthyism and the blacklist, Hollywood, too, has sadly played its part in these tragic scenarios. And on occasion, I have been one of its targets. However, from the cultural environment that gave us all these — all this social drama and all those movies — Birth of a Nation, Tarzan of the Apes, Song of the South, to name but a few — today’s cultural harvest yields a sweeter fruit: Defiant Ones, Schindler’s List, Brokeback Mountain, 12 Years a Slave, and many more; and all of this happening at the dawning of technological creations that would give artists boundless regions of possibilities to give us deeper insights into human existence. How fortunate for me that I have lived long enough for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to have chosen to bestow this honor upon me. Tonight is no casual encounter for me. Along with the trophy of honor, there’s another layer that gives this journey this kind of wonderful Hollywood ending. To be rewarded by my peers for my work for human rights and civil rights and for peace — well, let me put this way: It powerfully mutes the enemy’s thunder. Approaching 88 years of age, how truly poetic that as I joyfully glow with my fellow honorees, we should have in our midst as one of our celebrators a man who did so much in his own life to redirect the ship of racial hatred and American culture. His efforts made the journey a bit easier. Ladies and gentlemen, I refer to my friend — my elderly friend2 — Sidney Poitier. [Mr. Belafonte addresses Mr. Poitier directly: Come on, daddy, one more step. I thank the Academy and its Board of Governors for this honor, for this recognition. I really wish I could be around for the rest of this century to see what Hollywood does with the rest of the century. Maybe, just maybe, it could be civilization’s game changer. After all, Paul Robeson said, “Artists are the radical voice of civilization.” Each and every one of you in this room, with your gifts and your power and your skills, could perhaps change the way in which our global humanity mistrusts itself. Perhaps we, as artists and as visionaries for what’s better in the human heart and the human soul, could you influence citizens everywhere in the world to see the better side of who and what we are as a speci[es]. I thank each and every one of you for this honor. And to my fellow honorees, I could have had no better company than to have shared this evening with each of you. Thank you very much. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) 1An account of the event is chronicled here with President Woodrow Wilson reportedly saying, “It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” (PBS.org) 2 Mr. Poitier was born 20 February 1927. Mr. Belafonte was born eight days later on 1 March 1927. U.S Copyright Status: Text = Uncertain.

Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales Remarks at the Service of Thanksgiving for Princess Diana delivered 31 August 2007, Guards Chapel, London William and I can separate life into two parts. There were those years when we were blessed with the physical presence beside us of both our mother and father. And then there are the 10 years since our mother’s death. When she was alive we completely took for granted her unrivalled love of life, laughter, fun and folly. She was our guardian, friend, and protector. She never once allowed her unfaltering love for us to go unspoken or undemonstrated. She will always be remembered for her amazing public work. But behind the media glare, to us, just two loving children, she was quite simply the best mother in the world. We would say that wouldn’t we. But we miss her. She kissed us last thing at night. Her beaming smile greeted us from school. She laughed hysterically and uncontrollably when sharing something silly she might have said or done that day. She encouraged us when we were nervous or unsure. She — like our father — was determined to provide us with a stable and secure childhood. To lose a parent so suddenly at such a young age — as others have experienced — is indescribably shocking and sad. It was an event which changed our lives forever, as it must have done for everyone who lost someone that night. But what is far more important to us now, and into the future, is that we remember our mother as she would have wished to be remembered — as she was: fun-loving, generous, down-to-earth, and entirely genuine. We both think of her every day. We speak about her and laugh together at all the memories. But put simply, she made us, and so many other people, happy. May this be the way that she is remembered. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Also in this database: 9th Earl Spencer’s Eulogy for Princess Diana Copyright Status: Text, Audio, and Image (Screenshot) = Uncertain.

Henrique Meirelles Rio 2016 Final Pitch to the International Olympic Committee delivered 2 October 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark Mr. President, distinguished Members of the IOC, I am Henrique Meirelles, the governor of the Central Bank of Brazil. It’s a great honor to be able to be with you again. In Lausanne, I was privileged to be able to detail the strength of the Brazilian economy, even in the face of the global crisis that has hit some nations so very hard. Today, I am delighted to confirm that the Brazilian economy is even stronger — and ready for the games. Since my presentation in June, Brazil has demonstrated continued positive results. We have seen growth of almost 8 percent in the second quarter. We have recorded our lowest-ever unemployment rate for the month of July, and the highest-ever number of new jobs created in the month of August — a total of 242,000. This ongoing economic strength underpins our long-term aims, our investments, and also our fund for national development. This 240 billion dollar fund is already being spent in the supporting of capital programs of Rio 2016. It underpins Rio’s non-OCOG budget1 which as been agreed [upon] in complete partnership with all three levels of government — a budget that is complete, transparent, and totally guaranteed. Major companies are also keen to invest in support [of] the Olympic movement, as seen by the recent Olympic television deal signed by our broadcasters — making Brazil the third largest market for the IOC, a market that’s growing, taking our GDP close to 2 trillion dollars. Ours is the 10th largest economy in the world, and the World Bank predicts that it — it will be 5th by 2016. We are already the 5th largest advertising market, growing at 13 percent per year. And, thanks to the recent discovery of the world’s largest new oil field, we now have one of the planet’s biggest oil reserves. As a nation, we know that we can deliver. We have provided guarantees that can give you certainty. Our economic strength can give you confidence to bring the games to Rio in 2016. 1The non-OCOG (Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games) budget accounts for investments by the public and private sectors to build new sports venues and infrastructure works, including airport expansion, transport improvements and other work to be undertaken by the three levels of government. The non-OCOG budget will provide the main long-term legacies of the Olympic Games. (Source: http://www.rio2016.org.br) See also: http://www.olympic.org/en/content/Olympic-Games/Candidate-Cities/Elections-for-the-2016-Games/ Page Updated: 9/12/17 U.S. Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Images (Screen shots) = Uncertain.

Henry Kissinger Speech to the 45th Munich Security Conference delivered 6 February 2009 Mr. Foreign Minister, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: Let me begin with one German sentence to follow Wolfgang Ishinger: [statement in German] In the presence of so many distinguished members of the Administration — of the new American Administration — I hope you all understand that I’m speaking here as an observer. I think I understand the approaches of the new Administration. Senator McCain has been my friend all my life. President Obama is my President. And like Senator McCain, I will do my utmost to bring about a bipartisan foreign policy, so that we can approach the topics we’re discussing here as a unified country, and with a long sense of purpose. And I have tried to keep this in mind also in preparing my remarks. Now the basic dilemma of the nuclear age has been with us since Hiroshima: how to bring the destructiveness of modern weapons into some moral or political relationship with the objectives that are being pursued. Any use of nuclear weapons is certain to involve a level of casualties and devastation out of proportion to foreseeable foreign policy objectives. Efforts to develop a more nuanced application have never been persuasive — from the doctrine of “limited nuclear war” in the 1950s to the “mutual assured destruction” theory of later periods. In office, I recoiled before the options produced by the prevalent nuclear strategies, especially since these prospects were generated by weapons for which their could not be any operational experience, so that calculations and limitations were largely theoretical. But I was also persuaded — and remain persuaded — that if the U.S. government adopts such considerations as its policy, it would be turning over the world’s security to the most ruthless and perhaps genocidal. In the two-power world of the Cold War, the adversaries managed to avoid this dilemma. The nuclear arsenals on both sides grew in numbers and sophistication. But except for the Cuban missile crisis, where a Soviet combat division seemed to have been initially authorized to use its nuclear weapons to defend itself, neither side approached the actual use of nuclear weapons, either against each other or in wars against non-nuclear third countries. In fact, they put in place, step-by-step, a series of safeguards to prevent accidents, misjudgments, and unauthorized launches. But the end of the Cold War produced a paradoxical result: The threat of nuclear war between the nuclear superpowers has essentially disappeared. But the spread of technology — especially peaceful nuclear energy — has multiplied the feasibility of acquiring nuclear weapons by separating plutonium or from enriching uranium produced by peaceful nuclear reactors. The sharpening of ideological dividing lines and the persistence of unresolved regional conflicts have magnified the incentives to acquire nuclear weapons, especially by rogue states or non-state actors. The calculations of mutual insecurity that produced restraint during the Cold War do not apply with anything like the same degree to the new entrants in the nuclear field and even less so to the non-state actors. This is why proliferation of nuclear weapons has become an overarching strategic problem. Any further spread of nuclear weapons multiplies the possibilities of nuclear confrontation and magnifies the danger of diversion. Thus, if proliferation of weapons of mass destruction continues into Iran and remains in North Korea in the face of all ongoing negotiations, the incentives for other countries to follow the same path will become overwhelming. Considerations as these have induced former Senator Sam Nunn, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, former Secretary of State George Shultz, and I — two Democrats and two Republicans — to publish recommendations for systematically reducing and eventually eliminating reliance on nuclear weapons. We have a record of strong commitment to national defense and security. We continue to affirm the importance of adequate deterrent forces, and we do not want our recommendations to diminish essentials for the defense of free peoples while a process of adaptation to new realities is going on. At the same time, we reaffirm the objective of a world without nuclear weapons that has been proclaimed by every American President since President Eisenhower. Such a world will prove increasingly remote unless the nuclear weapons programs in Iran and the existing one in North Korea are overcome. In the case of Iran, negotiations are going on. In the case of North Korea, a six-party forum has demanded the elimination of nuclear weapons. And North Korea has agreed to abandon its program but is so procrastinating in its implementation that it threatens to create a legitimacy for the stockpile it has already achieved. I have long advocated negotiations with Iran on a broad front. Too many treat this as a kind of psychological exercise. In fact, it will be tested by concrete answers to four specific questions: [1] How close is Iran to a nuclear weapons capability? [2] At what pace is it moving? [3] What balance of rewards and penalties will move Iran to abandon it? [4] What do we do if, despite our best effort, diplomacy fails? That is a task for all of us in the Western Alliance. And as somebody who was in office when we had close relations with Iran, let me say that this was not on the basis of personal preference for specific domestic institutions in Iran but on the basis of a conviction that a strong Iran, pursuing its national interests in the region, is also in the American interests, and that this option should be open to whatever government is prepared to negotiate with us. Arresting and then reversing the proliferation of nuclear weapons places a special responsibility on the established nuclear powers. They share no more urgent common interests than preventing the emergence of more nuclear-armed states. The persistence of unresolved regional conflicts makes nuclear weapons a powerful lure in many parts of the world to intimidate neighbors and serve as a deterrent to countries who might otherwise intervene. Established nuclear powers should strive to make a nuclear capability less tempting by devoting their diplomatic efforts to diffuse unresolved conflicts that today make a nuclear arsenal so attractive. A new nuclear agenda requires coordinated efforts on several levels: in the declaratory policy of the United States; in the U.S.-Russian relationship; in joint efforts with allies as well as other non-nuclear states relying on American deterrence; in securing nuclear weapons and materials on a global basis; and, finally, reducing the role of nuclear weapons in the doctrines and operational planning of nuclear weapons states. The new American Administration has already signaled that a global nuclear agenda will be a high priority in preparation for the Review Conference on Nuclear — on the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty scheduled for the spring of 2010.1 A number of measures can be taken unilaterally or bilaterally with Russia to reduce the preemptive risk of certain alert measures and the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons. A word about Russian relations: For over 30 years after the formation of the Western Alliance, the Russian threat was the motivating and unifying force in Western nuclear policy. Now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, it is important to warn against the danger of basing policy on self-fulfilling prophecies. Russia and the United States between them control around 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. They have it in their power to reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons in their bilateral relationship. They have already done so on a limited basis for 15 years on such issues as the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. The immediate need is, as the foreign minister has pointed out, is to start negotiations to extend the START I agreement, the sole document for the verification and monitoring of established ceilings on strategic weapons, which expires at the end of this year. That should be the occasion to explore significant reductions from the 1,700 to 2,000 permitted under the Moscow Treaty of 2002. A general review of the strategic relationship should also examine the way to enhance security at nuclear facilities in Russia and the United States. A key issue has been missile defense — especially with respect to defenses deployed against threats from proliferating countries. The dialogue on this subject should be resumed at the point at which it was left by President George [W.] Bush and then-President Vladimir Putin in April 2008. The Russian proposal for a joint missile defense towards the Middle — Middle East, including radar sites in southern Russia, has always seemed to me a creative political and strategic approach which should be examined — of course especially for all of us in this room. The effort to develop a new nuclear agenda must involve our allies from its inception. U.S. and NATO policy are — must be integrally linked. Key European allies are negotiating with Iran. America deploys tactical nuclear weapons in several NATO countries, and NATO declaratory policy mirrors that of the United States. There is therefore a basis and a necessity for strengthening these review processes and adapting them to the emerging realities. Parallel discussions are needed with Japan, South Korea, and Australia. And they are also imperative with China, India, and Pakistan. It must be understood that the incentive for nuclear weapons on the subcontinent are more regional than those of the established nuclear powers and their threshold for using them considerably lower. (Before Wolfgang feels that I have lost all discipline, let me warn him…I’m aware of the [time-keeping] light and we’re near the end of my remarks.) The complexity of these issues explains why my colleagues and I have chosen an incremental, step-by-step approach. We are not able — certainly I’m not able — to describe the characteristics of the final goal: how one would determine the size of stockpiles; how to eliminate them totally and to verify the results. By affirming the desirability of the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, we have concentrated on the steps that are achievable and verifiable. My colleague, Sam Nunn, has described the effort as akin to climbing a mountain shrouded in clouds: We cannot describe the top to be certain that there may not be unforeseen, perhaps even insurmountable, obstacles. But we are prepared to undertake the journey in the belief that the summit will never come into view unless we begin the ascent and deal with the proliferation issues immediately before us, including the Iranian and North Korean programs. A closing word: A subject at first largely dominated by military experts has increasingly attracted the concern of advocates of disarmament. The dialogue between them has not always been as fruitful as it should be. Strategists are suspicious of negotiated attempts to limit the scope of weapons. Disarmament experts occasionally seek to preempt the outcome of the debate by legislating restrictions that achieve their preferred result without reciprocity. The two groups must be brought together in our dialogue. So long as other countries build and improve their nuclear arsenals, deterrence of their use needs to be part of Western strategy. The program sketched here — it’s not a program for unilateral disarmament. Both President Obama and Senator McCain, while endorsing a world free of nuclear weapons, also made it clear, in President Obama’s words, that the United States cannot implement it alone. The danger posed by nuclear weapons is unprecedented and it brings us back to the basic challenge of the nuclear period: Our age has stolen the fire from the gods; can we confine it to peaceful purposes before it consumes us? Thank you very much. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) 1 U.N. documents pertaining to the NPT Review Conference held in May of 2010 Also in this database: General David Petraeus Speech to the 45th Munich Security Conference Audio and Image (Harald Dettenborn ) Source: http://www.securityconference.de/ Copyright Status: Text = Public domain. Audio = Uncertain. Image = German Creative Common License 3.0

Henry Kissinger Address at the Groundbreaking Ceremony of the U.S. Diplomacy Center delivered 3 September 2014, George Marshall Conference Center, Washington, D.C. The organizers are anguishing at this moment to see how long it will take me to place my first verb. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a great privilege to be here with four other Secretaries of State. We have shared common experiences of the indispensable role of the United States in working for peace and progress in the world; the privilege of working with the Foreign Service, the most distinguished group of public servants that I know; and we also know that we will never do anything more challenging in our life than to serve these objectives. I would say all of us except one1 have that — but let me talk about diplomacy as a relationship. In foreign policy, we read about dramatic encounters between Secretaries of State and diplomats. But the essence of diplomacy is to build permanent relationships. It is essential to create confidence so that when the difficult issues come up and the close decisions have to be made, the — there is a basis on which the minds can meet. It is essential for diplomacy to deal with people before you need them, so that they have faith in what you are saying when you do need them. It is imperative to outline the concept of what you — our country — is trying to do, so as to prevent foreign policy from becoming a series of tactical issues. For all of these reasons, the Diplomacy Center is a great — great and imaginative idea. It’s a privilege to be here for this occasion. It’s an honor to have been able to serve in this institution, to share the concerns of so many dedicated people, and to realize that every great achievement was a vision before it became a reality. And it is a great privilege to see how this vision has turned into a reality. Thank you very much. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) 1 Facetious comment in reference to Hillary Clinton’s (more challenging) presidential ambitions. Audio Source: http://www.dvidshub.net/ Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement U.S Copyright Status: Text and Audio = Public domain.

Henry A. Wallace The Century of the Common Man delivered 8 May 1942, Grand Ballroom, Commodore Hotel, New York, NY Madam Chairman, and you who have spoken so eloquently tonight, and you who represent 33 different nations on this particular occasion; and I wish especially to recognize those who are representing the 14 nations from Latin America: I want to say to all — all who in a formal or an informal way represent most if not all of the free people — free peoples of the world who are met here tonight, that we are meeting in the interests of the millions of all the nations who have freedom in their souls. To my mind, this meeting has just one purpose: to let those millions in the other countries know that here in the United States are 130 million men, women, and children who are in this war to the finish. Our American people are utterly resolved to go on until they can strike the relentless blows that will assure a complete victory, and with it a new day for the lovers of freedom everywhere on this earth. This is a fight between a slave world and a free world. Just as in the United States in 1862, we could not remain “half slave” and “half free,”1 so in 1942 the world must make its decision for a complete victory, one way or the other. As we begin the final stages of this fight to the death between the free world and the slave world, it is worthwhile to refresh our minds about the march of freedom for the common man. The idea of freedom — the freedom that we in the United States know and love so well — is derived from the Bible, with its extraordinary emphasis on the dignity of the individual. Democracy is the only true political expression of Christianity. The prophets of the Old Testament were the first to preach social justice. But that which was sensed by the prophets many centuries before Christ was not given complete and powerful political expression until our nation, here in the United States, was formed as a Federal Union a century and a half ago. Even then, the march of the common people had just begun. Most of them did not yet know how to read and write. There were no public schools. Men and women can not be really free until they have plenty to eat, and time and ability to read and think and talk things over. Down the years, the people of the United States have moved steadily forward in the practice of democracy. Through universal education, they can now read and write and form opinions of their own. They have learned, and are still learning, the art of production — how to make a living. They have learned, and are still learning, the art of self-government. If we were to measure freedom by standards of nutrition, education, and self-government, we might rank the United States and certain nations of Western Europe very high. But this would not be fair to other nations where education has become widespread only in the last 20 years. In many nations, a generation ago, 9 out of 10 of the people could not read or write. Russia, for example, was changed from an illiterate to a literate nation within one generation and, in the process, Russia’s appreciation of freedom was tremendously increased. In China, the growth in education in reading — and the ability of the people to read and write during the past 30 years has been matched by an increased interest in real liberty. Everywhere, reading and writing are accompanied by industrial progress, and industrial progress, sooner or later, inevitably brings a strong labor — labor movement. From a long-time and fundamental point of view, there are no backward peoples which are lacking in mechanical sense. Russians, Chinese, and the Indians both of India and the Americas, all learn to read and write and operate machines just as well as your children or my children. Everywhere the common people are on the march. By the millions they are learning to read and write, learning to think together, learning to use tools. They’re learning to think and work together in labor movements, some of which may be extreme or a little impractical at first, but which eventually will settle down to serve effectively the interests of the common man. When the freedom-loving people march; when the farmers have an opportunity to buy land at reasonable prices and sell the produce of their land through their own organizations; when workers have the opportunity to form unions and bargain through them collectively; and when the children of all the people have an opportunity to attend schools which teach them that truth of the real world — when these opportunities are open to everyone, then the world moves straight ahead. But in countries where the ability to read and write has been recently acquired — mind you, 62% of the world today do not yet know how to read and write. But in those countries where the ability has been recently acquired or where the people have had no long experience in governing themselves on the basis of their own thinking, it is easy for demagogues to arise and prostitute the mind of the common man to their own base ends. Such a demagogue may get financial help from some person of wealth who is unaware of what the end result will be. With this backing, the demagogue may dominate the minds of the people, and, from whatever degree of freedom they have, lead them back into a most degraded slavery. Herr Thyssen, the wealthy German steel man, little realized what he was doing when he gave Hitler enough money to enable him to play on the minds of the German people. The demagogue is the curse of the modern world, and of all the demagogues, the worst are those financed by well-meaning wealthy men who sincerely believe that their wealth is likely to be safer if they can hire men with political “it” to change the — the sign posts and lure the people back into slavery. Unfortunately for the wealthy men who finance movements of this sort, as well as for the people themselves, the successful demagogue is a powerful genie who, when once let out of his bottle, refuses to obey anyone’s command. As long as his spell holds, he defies God Himself, and Satan is turned loose on the world. Through the — Through the leaders of the Nazi revolution, Satan is now trying to lead the common man of the whole world back into slavery and darkness. For the stark truth is that the violence preached by the Nazis is the devil’s own religion of darkness. So also is the doctrine that one race or one class is by heredity superior and that all other races or classes are supposed to be slaves. The belief in one Satan-inspired Fuhrer, with his Quislings, his Lavals, his Mussolinis — his “gauleiters” in every nation in the world — is the last and ultimate darkness. Is there any hell hotter than that of being a Quisling, unless it is that of being a Laval or a Mussolini? In a twisted sense, there is something almost great in the figure of the Supreme Devil operating through a human form, in a Hitler who has the daring to spit straight into the eye of God and man. But the Nazi system has a heroic position for only one leader. By definition only one person is allowed to retain full sovereignty over his own soul. All the rest are stooges. They are stooges who have been mentally and politically degraded, and who feel that they can get square with the world only by mentally and politically degrading other people. These stooges are really psychopathic cases. Satan has turned loose upon us the insane. The search of the freedom — The march of freedom of the past 150 years has been a long-drawn-out people’s revolution. In this Great Revolution of the people, there were the American Revolution of 1775, the French Revolution of 1792, the Latin-American revolutions of the Bolivarian era, the German Revolution of 1848, and the Russian Revolution of 191[7]. Each spoke for the common man in terms of blood on the battlefield. Some went to excess. But the significant thing is that the people groped their way to the light. More of them learned to think and work together. The people’s revolution aims at peace and not at violence, but if the rights of the common man are attacked, it unleashes the ferocity of the she-bear who has lost a cub. When the Nazi psychologists tell their master Hitler that we in the United States may be able to produce hundreds of thousands of planes, but that we have no will to fight, they are only fooling themselves and him. The truth is that when the rights of the American people are transgressed, as these rights have been transgressed, the American people will fight with a relentless fury which will drive the ancient Teutonic gods back cowering into their caves. The Götterdämmerung has come for Odin and his crew.2 The people are on the march toward an even fuller freedom than the most fortunate peoples of the world have hitherto enjoyed. No Nazi counter-revolution will stop it. The common man will smoke the Hitler stooges out into the open in the United States, in Latin America, in India. He will — He will destroy their influence. No Lavals, no Mussolinis will be tolerated in a Free World. The people, in their millennial and revolutionary march toward manifesting here on earth the dignity that is in every human soul, hold as their credo the Four Freedoms enunciated by President Roosevelt in his message to Congress on January 6th, 1941. These four freedoms are the very core of the revolution for which the United Nations have taken their stand. We who live in the United States may think there is nothing very revolutionary about freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom from fear — freedom from the secret police. But when we begin to think about the significance of freedom from want for the average man, then we know that the revolution of the past 150 years has not been completed, either here in the United States or any place else in the world. We know that this revolution can not stop until freedom from want has actually been attained. And now, as we move forward toward realizing the Four Freedoms of this people’s revolution, I would like to speak about four duties. [psuedo reenactment of speech from the “Price of Victory” documentary] It is my belief that every freedom, every right, every privilege has its price, its corresponding duty without which it can not be enjoyed. The four duties of the people’s revolution, as I see them, as of this day, are these: 1. The duty to produce to the limit. 2. The duty to transport as rapidly as possible to the line of battle. 3. The duty to fight with all that is in us. And, 4. The duty to build a peace — just, charitable, and enduring. The fourth duty is that which inspires the other three. We failed in our job after World War Number One. We did not know how to — how to go about it, to build an enduring world-wide peace. We did not have the nerve to follow through and prevent Germany from rearming. We did not — We did not insist that she “learn war no more.” We did not build a peace treaty on the fundamental doctrine of the people’s revolution. We did not strive whole-heartedly to create a world where there could be freedom from want for all the peoples. But by our very errors we learned much, and after this war we shall be in position to utilize our knowledge in building a world which is economically, politically, and, I hope, spiritually sound. Modern science, which is a by-product and essential part of the people’s revolution, has made it technologically possible to see that all the people of the world get enough to eat. Half in fun, half seriously, I said the other day to Madame Litvinov: “The object of this war is to make it sure that everyone can have a quart of milk to drink every day.” And she said: “Yes, even half a pint.” The peace must mean a better standard of living for the common man, not merely in the United States and England, but also in India, Russia, China, and Latin America — not merely in the United Nations, but also in Germany, Italy, and Japan. Some have spoken of the “American Century.” I say that the century on which we are entering — the century which will come into being after this war — can be and must be the century of the common man. Perhaps it will be America’s opportunity to — to support the Freedom[s] and Duties by which the common man must live. Everywhere, the common man must learn to build his own industries with his own hands in practical fashion. Everywhere, the common man must learn to increase his productivity so that he and his children can eventually pay to the world community all that they have received. No nation will have the God-given right to exploit other nations. Older nations will have the privilege to help younger nations get started on the path to industrialization, but there must be neither military nor economic imperialism. The methods of the 19th century will not work in the people’s century, which is now about to begin. India, China, and Latin America have a tremendous stake in the people’s century. As their masses learn to read and write, and as they become productive mechanics, their standard of living will double and treble. Modern science, when devoted whole-heartedly to the general welfare, has in it potentialities of which we do not yet dream. And modern science must be released from German slavery. International cartels that serve American greed and German will to power must go. Cartels in the peace to come must be subjected to international control for the common man, as well as being under adequate control by the respective home governments. In this way, we can prevent the Germans from again building a war machine while we sleep. With international monopoly pools under control, it will be possible for inventions to serve all the people instead of only the few. Yes, and when the time of peace comes, the citizen will again have a duty; the consumer will have a duty — the supreme duty of sacrificing the lesser interest for the greater interest of the general welfare. Those who write the peace must think of the whole world. There can be no privileged peoples. We ourselves in the United States are no more a master race than the Nazis. And we can not perpetuate economic warfare without planting the seeds of military warfare. We must use our power at the peace table to build an economic peace that is charitable and enduring. If we really believe that we are fighting for a people’s peace, all the rest becomes easy. Production? Yes. It will be easy to get production without either strikes or sabotage, production with the whole-hearted cooperation between willing arms and keen brains; enthusiasm, zip, energy geared to the tempo of keeping everlastingly at it day after day. Hitler knows as well as those of us who sit in on the War Production Board meetings that we here in the United States are winning the battle of production. He knows that both labor and business in the United States are doing a most remarkable job and that his only hope is to crash through to a complete victory some time during the next six months. Then there is the task of transportation to the line of battle by truck, and railroad car, and ship. We shall joyously deny ourselves so that our transportation system is improved by at least 30 percent. And there will have to be some denying, and you’re going to hear plenty about it. I need say little about the duty to fight. Some people declare, and Hitler believes, that the American people have grown soft in the last generation. Hitler agents continually preach in South America that we are cowards, unable to use, like the “brave” German soldiers, the weapons of modern war. It is true that American youth hates war with a holy hatred. But because of that fact and because Hitler and the German people stand as the very symbol of war, we shall fight with a tireless enthusiasm until war, and the possibility of war, have been removed from this planet. We shall cleanse the plague spot of Europe, which is Hitler’s Germany, not the real Germany, and with it the hellhole of Asia, which is Japan. The American people have always had guts and always will have. You know the story of Bomber Pilot Dixon, and Radioman Gene Aldrich, and Ordnanceman Tony Pastula — the story which Americans will be telling their children for generations to come as an illustration man’s ability to master any fate. These men lived for 34 days on the open sea in a rubber life raft, 8 feet by 4 feet, with no food but that which they took from the sea and the air with one pocket knife and a pistol. And yet they lived it through and came at last to the beach of an island they did not know. In spite of their suffering, they stood like men, with no weapon left to protect themselves, no shoes on their feet or clothes on their backs, and walked in military file because, they said, “If there were Japs, we didn’t want to be crawling.” The American fighting men, and all the fighting men of the United Nations, will need to summon all their courage during the next few months. I am convinced that the summer and fall of 1942 will be a time of supreme crisis for all of us. Hitler, like the prize fighter who realizes that he is on the verge of being knocked out, is gathering all his remaining forces for one last, desperate blow. There is abject fear in the heart of the madman and a growing discontent among his people as he prepares for his last all-out offensive. We may be sure that Hitler and Japan will cooperate to do the unexpected — perhaps an attack by Japan against Alaska and our northwest coast at the time when German transport planes will be shuttled across from Dakar to furnish leadership and stiffening to a German uprising in Latin America. In any event, the psychological and sabotage offensive in the United States and Latin America will be timed to coincide with, or anticipate by a few weeks, the height of the military offensive. We must be especially prepared to stifle the fifth columnists in the United States who will try to sabotage not merely our war material plants but, even more important — infinitely more important — our minds. We must be prepared for the worst kind of fifth-column work in Latin America, much of it operating through the agency of governments with which the United States at present is at peace. When I say this, I recognize that the peoples — the peoples both of Latin America and of the nations supporting the agencies through which the fifth columnists work, are overwhelmingly on the side of the democracies. We must expect the offensive against us on the military, propaganda and sabotage fronts, both in the United States and Latin America, to reach its apex some time during the next few months. The convulsive efforts of the dying madman will be so great that some of us may be deceived into thinking that the situation is bad at the very time when it is really getting better. But in the case of most of us, the events of the next few months, disturbing though they may be, will only increase our will to bring about complete victory in this war of liberation. Prepared in spirit, we cannot be surprised. Psychological terrorism will fall flat. As we nerve ourselves for the supreme effort in this hemisphere we must not forget the sublime heroism of the oppressed in Europe and Asia, whether it be in the mountains of Yugoslavia, the factories of Czechoslovakia and France, the farms of Poland, Denmark, Holland, and Belgium, among the seamen of Norway, or in the occupied areas of China and the Dutch East Indies. Everywhere the soul of man is letting the tyrant know that slavery of the body does not end resistance. There can be no half measures. North, South, East, West, and Middle West — the will of the American people is for complete victory. No compromise with Satan is possible. We shall not rest until the victims under the Nazi and Japanese yoke are freed. We shall fight for a complete peace as well as a complete victory. The people’s revolution is on the march, and the devil and all his angels can not prevail against it. They can not prevail, for on the side of the people is the Lord. He giveth power to the faint; [and] to them that have no might He increaseth strength….they that wait upon the Lord…shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; [and] they shall walk, and not be faint.3 Strong in the strength of the Lord, we who fight in the people’s cause will never stop until that cause is won. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) 1 An allusion to a famous line from President Abraham Lincoln’s House Divided Speech: “I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest this further spread and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is on a course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates shall press it forward, until it shall become alike lawful in all of the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.” [emphasis. added] 2 An allusion to Ragnarkök 3 Isaiah 40: 29-31 [KJV] Original Text Source: Internet Archive Image Source: Goodreads.com Page Updated: 8/5/17 U.S. Copyright Status: Text and Image = Uncertain.

Hillary Clinton Announcing Suspension of Presidential Campaign delivered 7 June 2008, National Building Museum, Washington, D.C.   Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, so much. Thank you, all. Thank you very, very much. Well — Well, this isn’t exactly the party I’d planned, but I sure like the company. And I want to start today by saying how grateful I am to all of you, to everyone who poured your hearts and your hopes into this campaign, who drove for miles and lined the streets waving homemade signs, who scrimped and saved to raise money, who knocked on doors and made calls, who talked, sometimes argued with your friends and neighbors, who e-mailed and contributed online, who invested so much in our common enterprise, to the moms and dads who came to our events, who lifted their little girls and little boys on their shoulders and whispered in their ears, “See, you can be anything you want to be.” To the young people like 13-year-old Anne Riddell [ph] from Mayfield, Ohio, who had been saving for two years to go to Disney World and decided to use her savings instead to travel to Pennsylvania with her mom and volunteer there, as well. To the veterans, to the childhood friends, to New Yorkers and Arkansans who traveled across the country, telling anyone who would listen why you supported me. And to all of those women in their 80s and their 90s born before women could vote, who cast their votes for our campaign. I’ve told you before about Florence Stein [ph] of South Dakota who was 88 years old and insisted that her daughter bring an absentee ballot to her hospice bedside. Her daughter and a friend put an American flag behind her bed and helped her fill out the ballot. She passed away soon after and, under state law, her ballot didn’t count, but her daughter later told a reporter, “My dad’s an ornery, old cowboy, and he didn’t like it when he heard Mom’s vote wouldn’t be counted. I don’t think he had voted in 20 years, but he voted in place of my mom.” So to all those who voted for me and to whom I pledged my utmost, my commitment to you and to the progress we seek is unyielding. You have inspired and touched me with the stories of the joys and sorrows that make up the fabric of our lives. And you have humbled me with your commitment to our country. Eighteen million of you, from all walks of life — women and men, young and old, Latino and Asian, African- American and Caucasian, rich, poor, and middle-class, gay and straight, you have stood with me. And I will continue to stand strong with you every time, every place, in every way that I can. The dreams we share are worth fighting for. Remember, we fought for the single mom with the young daughter, juggling work and school, who told me, “I’m doing it all to better myself for her.” We fought for the woman who grabbed my hand and asked me, “What are you going to do to make sure I have health care?” and began to cry, because even though she works three jobs, she can’t afford insurance. We fought for the young man in the Marine Corps t-shirt who waited months for medical care and said, “Take care of my buddies over there, and then will you please take care of me?” We fought for all those who’ve lost jobs and health care, who can’t afford gas or groceries or college, who have felt invisible to their President these last seven years. I entered this race because I have an old-fashioned conviction that public service is about helping people solve their problems and live their dreams. I’ve had every opportunity and blessing in my own life, and I want the same for all Americans. And until that day comes, you’ll always find me on the front lines of democracy, fighting for the future. The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next President of the United States. Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him. And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me. I have served in the Senate with him for four years. I have been in this campaign with him for 16 months. I have stood on the stage and gone toe-to-toe with him in 22 debates. I’ve had a front-row seat to his candidacy, and I have seen his strength and determination, his grace and his grit. In his own life, Barack Obama has lived the American dream, as a community organizer, in the State Senate, as a United States senator. He has dedicated himself to ensuring the dream is realized. And in this campaign, he has inspired so many to become involved in the democratic process and invested in our common future. Now, when I started this race, I intended to win back the White House and make sure we have a President who puts our country back on the path to peace, prosperity and progress. And that’s exactly what we’re going to do, by ensuring that Barack Obama walks through the doors of the Oval Office on January 20, 2009. Now, I understand — I understand that we all know this has been a tough fight, but the Democratic Party is a family. And now it’s time to restore the ties that bind us together and to come together around the ideals we share, the values we cherish, and the country we love. We may have started on separate journeys, but today our paths have merged. And we’re all heading toward the same destination, united and more ready than ever to win in November and to turn our country around, because so much is at stake. We all want an economy that sustains the American dream, the opportunity to work hard and have that work rewarded, to save for college, a home and retirement, to afford that gas and those groceries, and still have a little left over at the end of the month, an economy that lifts all of our people and ensures that our prosperity is broadly distributed and shared. We all want a health care system that is universal, high-quality and affordable, so that parents don’t have to choose between care for themselves or their children or be stuck in dead-end jobs simply to keep their insurance. This isn’t just an issue for me. It is a passion and a cause, and it is a fight I will continue until every single American is insured, no exceptions and no excuses. We all want an America defined by deep and meaningful equality, from civil rights to labor rights, from women’s rights to gay rights from ending discrimination to promoting unionization, to providing help for the most important job there is: caring for our families. And we all want to restore America’s standing in the world, to end the war in Iraq, and once again lead by the power of our values and to join with our allies to confront our shared challenges, from poverty and genocide to terrorism and global warming. You know, I’ve been involved in politics and public life in one way or another for four decades. And during those — during those 40 years, our country has voted 10 times for President. Democrats won only three of those times, and the man who won two of those elections is with us today. We made tremendous progress during the ’90s under a Democratic President, with a flourishing economy and our leadership for peace and security respected around the world. Just think how much more progress we could have made over the past 40 years if we’d had a Democratic President. Think about the lost opportunities of these past seven years on the environment and the economy, on health care and civil rights, on education, foreign policy and the Supreme Court. Imagine how far we could have come, how much we could have achieved if we had just had a Democrat in the White House. We cannot let this moment slip away. We have come too far and accomplished too much. Now, the journey ahead will not be easy. Some will say we can’t do it, that it’s too hard, we’re just not up to the task. But for as long as America has existed, it has been the American way to reject can’t-do claims and to choose instead to stretch the boundaries of the possible through hard work, determination, and a pioneering spirit. It is this belief, this optimism that Senator Obama and I share and that has inspired so many millions of our supporters to make their voices heard. So today I am standing with Senator Obama to say: Yes, we can! And that together we will work — we’ll have to work hard to achieve universal health care. But on the day we live in an America where no child, no man, and no woman is without health insurance, we will live in a stronger America. That’s why we need to help elect Barack Obama our President. We’ll have to work hard to get back to fiscal responsibility and a strong middle class. But on the day we live in an America whose middle class is thriving and growing again, where all Americans, no matter where they live or where their ancestors came from, can earn a decent living, we will live in a stronger America. And that is why we must help elect Barack Obama our President. We’ll have to work hard to foster the innovation that will make us energy independent and lift the threat of global warming from our children’s future. But on the day we live in an America fueled by renewable energy, we will live in a stronger America. And that is why we have to help elect Barack Obama our President. We’ll have to work hard to bring our troops home from Iraq and get them the support they’ve earned by their service. But on the day we live in an America that’s as loyal to our troops as they have been to us, we will live in a stronger America. And that is why we must help elect Barack Obama our President. This election is a turning-point election. And it is critical that we all understand what our choice really is. Will we go forward together, or will we stall and slip backwards? Now, think how much progress we’ve already made. When we first started, people everywhere asked the same questions. Could a woman really serve as commander-in-chief? Well, I think we answered that one. Could an African-American really be our President? And Senator Obama has answered that one. Together, Senator Obama and I achieved milestones essential to our progress as a nation, part of our perpetual duty to form a more perfect union. Now, on a personal note, when I was asked what it means to be a woman running for President, I always gave the same answer, that I was proud to be running as a woman, but I was running because I thought I’d be the best President. But — But I am a woman and, like millions of women, I know there are still barriers and biases out there, often unconscious, and I want to build an America that respects and embraces the potential of every last one of us. I ran as a daughter who benefited from opportunities my mother never dreamed of. I ran as a mother who worries about my daughter’s future and a mother who wants to leave all children brighter tomorrows. To build that future I see, we must make sure that women and men alike understand the struggles of their grandmothers and their mothers, and that women enjoy equal opportunities, equal pay, and equal respect. Let us — Let us resolve and work toward achieving very simple propositions: There are no acceptable limits, and there are no acceptable prejudices in the 21st century in our country. You can be so proud that, from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories; unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee; unremarkable to think that a woman can be the President of the United States — and that is truly remarkable, my friends. To those who are disappointed that we couldn’t go all of the way, especially the young people who put so much into this campaign, it would break my heart if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours. Always aim high, work hard, and care deeply about what you believe in. And, when you stumble, keep faith. And, when you’re knocked down, get right back up and never listen to anyone who says you can’t or shouldn’t go on. As we gather here today in this historic, magnificent building, the 50th woman to leave this Earth is orbiting overhead. If we can blast 50 women into space, we will someday launch a woman into the White House. Although we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it’s got about 18 million cracks in it, and the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time. That has always been the history of progress in America. Think of the suffragists who gathered at Seneca Falls in 1848 and those who kept fighting until women could cast their votes. Think of the abolitionists who struggled and died to see the end of slavery. Think of the civil rights heroes and foot soldiers who marched, protested, and risked their lives to bring about the end of segregation and Jim Crow. Because of them, I grew up taking for granted that women could vote and, because of them, my daughter grew up taking for granted that children of all colors could go to school together. Because of them, Barack Obama and I could wage a hard-fought campaign for the Democratic nomination. Because of them and because of you, children today will grow up taking for granted that an African-American or a woman can, yes, become the President of the United States. And so when that day arrives, and a woman takes the oath of office as our President, we will all stand taller, proud of the values of our nation, proud that every little girl can dream big and that her dreams can come true in America. And all of you will know that, because of your passion and hard work, you helped pave the way for that day. So I want to say to my supporters: When you hear people saying or think to yourself, “If only, or, “What if,” I say, please, don’t go there. Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward. Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Senator Obama is our next President. And I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort. To my supporters and colleagues in Congress, to the governors and mayors, elected officials who stood with me in good times and bad, thank you for your strength and leadership. To my friends in our labor unions who stood strong every step of the way, I thank you and pledge my support to you. To my friends from every stage of my life, your love and ongoing commitment sustained me every single day. To my family, especially Bill and Chelsea and my mother, you mean the world to me, and I thank you for all you have done. And to my extraordinary staff, volunteers and supporters, thank you for working those long, hard hours. Thank you for dropping everything, leaving work or school, traveling to places that you’ve never been, sometimes for months on end. And thanks to your families, as well, because your sacrifice was theirs, too. All of you were there for me every step of the way. Now, being human, we are imperfect. That’s why we need each other, to catch each other when we falter, to encourage each other when we lose heart. Some may lead, some may follow, but none of us can go it alone. The changes we’re working for are changes that we can only accomplish together. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that belong to us as individuals. But our lives, our freedom, our happiness are best enjoyed, best protected, and best advanced when we do work together. That is what we will do now, as we join forces with Senator Obama and his campaign. We will make history together, as we write the next chapter in America’s story. We will stand united for the values we hold dear, for the vision of progress we share, and for the country we love. There is nothing more American than that. And looking out at you today, I have never felt so blessed. The challenges that I have faced in this campaign are nothing compared to those that millions of Americans face every day in their own lives. So today I’m going to count my blessings and keep on going. I’m going to keep doing what I was doing long before the cameras ever showed up and what I’ll be doing long after they’re gone: working to give every American the same opportunities I had and working to ensure that every child has the chance to grow up and achieve his or her God- given potential. I will do it with a heart filled with gratitude, with a deep and dividing love for our country, and with nothing but optimism and confidence for the days ahead. This is now our time to do all that we can to make sure that, in this election, we add another Democratic President to that very small list of the last 40 years and that we take back our country and once again move with progress and commitment to the future. Thank you all. And God bless you, and God bless America. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Image (Screenshot) = Uncertain.

Hillary Clinton Democratic National Convention Keynote Address delivered 26 August 2008, INVESCO Field at Mile High Stadium, Denver, Colorado Thank you all very much. I — I am so honored to be here tonight. You know, I — I’m here tonight as a proud mother, as a proud democrat, as a proud Senator from New York, a proud American, and a proud supporter of Barack Obama. My friends, it is time to take back the country we love. And whether you voted for me or you voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single Party with a single purpose. We are on the same team, and none of us can afford to sit on the sidelines. This is a fight for the future and it’s a fight we must win together. I haven’t spent the past 35 years in the trenches — I haven’t spent the past 35 years in the trenches advocating for children, campaigning for universal health care, helping parents balance work and family, and fighting for women’s rights here at home and around the world to see another Republican in the White House squander our promise of a country that really fulfills the hopes of our people. And you haven’t worked so hard over the last 18 months or endured the last eight years to suffer through more failed leadership. No way, no how, no McCain. Barack Obama is my candidate, and he must be our President. Tonight, I ask you to remember what a presidential election is really about. When the polls have closed, and the ads are finally off the air, it comes down to you, the American people, and your lives and your children’s’ futures. For me, it’s been a privilege to meet you in your homes, your workplaces, and your communities. Your stories reminded me that every day America’s greatness is bound up in the lives of the American people. Your hard work, your devotion to duty, your love for your children, and your determination to keep going — often in the face of enormous obstacles — you taught me so much. And you made me laugh, and, yes, you even made my cry. You allowed me to become part of your lives, and you became part of mine. I will always remember the single mom who had adopted two kids with autism. She didn’t have any health insurance; and she discovered that she had cancer. But she greeted me with her bald head, painted with my name on it, and asked me to fight for health care for her and her children. I will always remember the young man in a Marine Corps t-shirt who waited months for medical care, and he said to me, “Take care of my buddies. A lot of them are still over there.” And then, “Will you please take care of me.” And I will always remember the young boy who told me his mom worked for the minimum wage, that her employer had cut her hours. He said he just didn’t know what his family was going to do. I will always be grateful for everyone from all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the Territories, who joined our campaign on behalf of all those people left our and left behind by the Bush Administration. To my supporters, to my champions, so my “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pant Suits,” from the bottom of my heart — thank you. Thank you because you never gave in and you never gave up. And together we made history, and along the way America lost two great democratic champions who would have been here with us tonight. One of our finest young leaders, Arkansas democratic chair, Bill Gwatney, who believed with all his heart that America and the South should be democratic from top to bottom; and Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a dear friend to many of us — a loving mother, a courageous leader who never gave up her quest to make America fairer and stronger, smarter and better; steadfast in her beliefs, a fighter of uncommon grace, she was an inspiration to me and to us all. Our heart goes out to Stephanie’s son, Mervyn Jr., and Bill’s wife, Rebecca, who traveled here to Denver to join this family of Democrats. You know, Bill Gwatney and Stephanie Tubbs Jones knew that after eight years of George Bush, people are hurting at home; and our standing has eroded around the world. We have a lot of work ahead of us: jobs lost, houses gone, falling wages, rising prices, a Supreme Court in a right-wing headlock, and our government in partisan gridlock; the biggest deficit in our nation’s history, money borrowed from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis; Putin and Georgia, Iran and Iraq. I ran for President to renew the promise of America, to rebuild the middle-class and sustain the American Dream, to provide opportunity to those who are willing to work hard for it and have that work rewarded; so they could save for college, a home, and retirement; afford gas and groceries and have a little left over each month; to promote a clean energy economy that will create millions of green collar jobs; to create a health care system that is universal, high quality and affordable, so that every single parent knows their children will be taken care of. We want to create a world-class education system, and make college affordable again; to fight for an America that is defined by deep and meaningful equality — from civil rights to labor rights, from women’s rights to gay rights; from ending discrimination to promoting unionization; to providing help for the most important job there is: caring for our families; and to help every child live up to his or her God-given potential; to make America once again a nation of immigrants and of laws; to restore fiscal sanity to Washington, and to make our Government an institution of the public good, not of private plunder; to restore America’s standing the world, to end the war in Iraq, bring our troops home with honor, care for our veterans and given them the services they have earned. We will work for an America again that will join with our allies in confronting our shared challenges, from poverty and genocide to terrorism and global warming. Most of all, I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years. Those are the reasons I ran for President, and those are the reasons I support Barack Obama for President. I want you — I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that young boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible? We need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism that has enabled generations before us to meet our toughest challenges — leaders who can help us show ourselves and the world that with our ingenuity, creativity and innovative spirit, there are no limits to what is possible in America. Now, this will not be easy. Progress never is. But it will be impossible if we don’t fight to put a Democrat back into the White House. We need to elect Barack Obama because we need a President who understands that America can’t compete in the global economy by padding the pockets of energy speculators while ignoring the workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas. We need a President who understands we can’t solve the problems of global warming by giving windfall profits to the oil companies while ignoring opportunities to invest in the new technologies that will build a green economy. We need a President who understands that the genius of America has always depended on the strength and vitality of the middle class. Barack Obama began his career fighting for workers displaced by the global economy. He built his campaign on a fundamental belief that change in this country must start from the ground up, not the top down. And he knows that government must be about “We the people” — not “We the favored few.” And when Barack Obama is in the White House, he’ll revitalize our economy, defend the working people of America, and meet the global challenges of our time. Democrats know how to do this. As I recall, we did it before with President Clinton and the Democrats. And if we do our part, we’ll do it again with President Obama and the Democrats. Just think of what America will be as we transform our energy economy, create those millions of jobs, build a strong base for economic growth and shared prosperity, get middle class families get the tax relief they deserve. And I cannot wait to watch Barack Obama sign into law a health care plan that covers every single American. And we know that President Obama will end the war in Iraq responsibly, bring our troops home, and begin to repair our alliances around the world. And Barack will have with him a terrific partner in Michelle Obama. Anyone who saw Michelle’s speech last night knows she will be a great First Lady for America. And Americans are fortunate that Joe Biden will be at Barack Obama’s side — a strong leader, a good man, who understands both the economic stresses here at home and the strategic challenges abroad. He is pragmatic; he’s tough; and he’s wise. And, Joe, of course, will be supported by his wonderful wife, Jill. They will be a great team for our country. Now, John McCain is my colleague and my friend. He has served our country with honor and courage. But we don’t need four more years of the last eight years: more economic stagnation and less affordable health care; more high gas prices and less alternative energy; more jobs getting shipped overseas and fewer jobs created here at home; more skyrocketing debt and home foreclosures and mounting bills that are crushing middle class families; more war and less diplomacy; more of a government where the privileged come first and everyone else comes last. Well, John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. John McCain doesn’t think 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. And in 2008, he still thinks it’s okay when women don’t earn equal pay for equal work. Now, with an agenda like that, it makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities — because these days they’re awfully hard to tell apart. You know, America is still around after 232 years because we have risen to every challenge and every new time, changing to be faithful to our values of equal opportunity for all and the common good. And I know what that can mean for every man, woman, and child in America. I’m a United States Senator because in 1848 a group of courageous women and a few brave men gathered in Seneca Falls, New York, many traveling for days and nights, to participate in the first convention on women’s rights in our history. And so dawned a struggle for the right to vote that would last 72 years, handed down by mother to daughter to granddaughter — and a few sons and grandsons along the way. These women and men looked into their daughters’ eyes and imagined a fairer and freer world, and found the strength to fight, to rally, to picket, to endure ridicule and harassment, and brave violence and jail. And after so many decades — 88 years ago on this very day — the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote became enshrined in our Constitution. My mother was born before women could vote. My daughter got to vote for her mother for President. This is the story of America, of women and men who defy the odds and never give up. So how do we give this country back to them? By following the example of a brave New Yorker, a woman who risked her lives [sic] to bring slaves along the Underground Railroad. On that path to freedom, Harriet Tubman had one piece of advice: If you hear the dogs, keep going. If you see the torches in the woods, keep going. If they’re shouting after you, keep going. Don’t ever stop. Keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going. And even in the darkest of moments, that is what Americans have done. We have found the faith to keep going. I’ve seen it. I have seen it in our teachers and our firefighters, our police officers, our nurses, our small business owners and our union workers. I’ve seen it in the men and women of our military. In America, you always keep going. We’re Americans. We’re not big on quitting. And remember, before we can keep going, we’ve got to get going by electing Barack Obama the next President of the United States. We don’t have a moment to lose or a vote to spare. Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hangs in the balance. I want you to think about your children and grandchildren come Election Day. Think about the choices your parents and grandparents made that had such a big impact on your lives and on the life of our nation. We’ve got to ensure that the choice we make in this election honors the sacrifices of all who came before us, and will fill the lives of our children with possibility and hope. That is our duty, to build that bright future, to teach our children that, in America, there is no chasm too deep, no barrier too great, no ceiling too high for all who work hard, who keep going, have faith in God, in our country, and each other. That is our mission, Democrats. Let’s elect Barack Obama and Joe Biden for that future worthy of our great country. Thank you. God bless you, and Godspeed. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) U.S. Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Image = Uncertain.

Hillary Clinton Speech on the Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century delivered 14 December 2009, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. Thank you. It is wonderful being back here at Georgetown in this magnificent Gaston Hall, and to give you something to do during exam week. It’s one of those quasi-legitimate reasons for taking a break — which I’m very happy to have provided. I want to thank Jas for his introductory remarks, and clearly, those of you who are in the Foreign Service School heard reflections of the extraordinary opportunity you’ve been given to study here as he spoke about the culture of human rights. It is also a real honor for me to be delivering this speech at Georgetown, because there is no better place than this university to talk about human rights. And President DeGioia, the administration, and the faculty embody the university’s long tradition of supporting free expression and free inquiry and the cause of human rights around the world. I know that President DeGioia himself has taught a course on human rights, as well as on the ethics of international development with one of my longtime colleagues, Carol Lancaster, the acting dean of the School of Foreign Service. And I want to commend the faculty here who are helping to shape our thinking on human rights, on conflict resolution, on development and related subjects. It is important to be at this university because the students here, the faculty, every single year add to the interreligious dialogue. You give voice to many advocates and activists who are working on the front lines of the global human rights movement, through the Human Rights Institute here at the law school and other programs. And the opportunities that you provide your students to work in an international women’s rights clinic are especially close to my heart. All of these efforts reflect the deep commitment of the Georgetown administration, faculty, and students to this cause. So first and foremost, I am here to say thank you. Thank you for keeping human rights front and center. Thank you for training the next generation of human rights advocates, and more generally, introducing students who may never be an activist, may never work for Amnesty International or any other organization specifically devoted to human rights, but who will leave this university with it imbued in their hearts and minds. So thank you, President DeGioia, for all that you do and all that Georgetown has done. Today, I want to speak to you about the Obama Administration’s human rights agenda for the 21st century. It is a subject on the minds of many people who are eager to hear our approach, and understandably so, because it is a critical issue that warrants our energy and our attention. My comments today will provide an overview of our thinking on human rights and democracy and how they fit into our broader foreign policy, as well as the principles and policies that guide our approach. But let me also say that what this is not. It could not be a comprehensive accounting of abuses or nations with whom we have raised human rights concerns. It could not be and is not a checklist or a scorecard. We issue a Human Rights Report every year and that goes into great detail on the concerns we have for many countries. But I hope that we can use this opportunity to look at this important issue in a broader light and appreciate its full complexity, moral weight, and urgency. And with that, let me turn to the business at hand. In his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize last week, President Obama said that while war is never welcome or good, it will sometimes be right and necessary, because, in his words, “Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can be truly lasting.” Throughout history and in our own time, there have been those who violently deny that truth. Our mission is to embrace it, to work for lasting peace through a principled human rights agenda, and a practical strategy to implement it. President Obama’s speech also reminded us that our basic values, the ones enshrined in our Declaration of Independence — the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — are not only the source of our strength and endurance; they are the birthright of every woman, man, and child on earth. That is also the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the prerequisite for building a world in which every person has the opportunity to live up to his or her God-given potential, and the power behind every movement for freedom, every campaign for democracy, every effort to foster development, and every struggle against oppression. The potential within every person to learn, discover and embrace the world around them, the potential to join freely with others to shape their communities and their societies so that every person can find fulfillment and self-sufficiency, the potential to share life’s beauties and tragedies, laughter and tears with the people we love — that potential is sacred. That, however, is a dangerous belief to many who hold power and who construct their position against an “other” — another tribe or religion or race or gender or political party. Standing up against that false sense of identity and expanding the circle of rights and opportunities to all people — advancing their freedoms and possibilities — is why we do what we do. This week we observe Human Rights Week. At the State Department, though, every week is Human Rights Week. Sixty-one years ago this month, the world’s leaders proclaimed a new framework of rights, laws, and institutions that could fulfill the vow of “never again.” They affirmed the universality of human rights through the Universal Declaration and legal agreements including those aimed at combating genocide, war crimes and torture, and challenging discrimination against women and racial and religious minorities. Burgeoning civil society movements and nongovernmental organizations became essential partners in advancing the principle that every person counts, and in exposing those who violate that standard. As we celebrate that progress, though, our focus must be on the work that remains to be done. The preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights encourages us to use it as a, quote, “standard of achievement.” And so we should. But we cannot deny the gap that remains between its eloquent promises and the life experiences of so many of our fellow human beings. Now, we must finish the job. Our human rights agenda for the 21st century is to make human rights a human reality, and the first step is to see human rights in a broad context. Of course, people must be free from the oppression of tyranny, from torture, from discrimination, from the fear of leaders who will imprison or “disappear” them. But they also must be free from the oppression of want — want of food, want of health, want of education, and want of equality in law and in fact. To fulfill their potential, people must be free to choose laws and leaders; to share and access information, to speak, criticize, and debate. They must be free to worship, associate, and to love in the way that they choose. And they must be free to pursue the dignity that comes with self-improvement and self-reliance, to build their minds and their skills, to bring their goods to the marketplace, and participate in the process of innovation. Human rights have both negative and positive requirements. People should be free from tyranny in whatever form, and they should also be free to seize the opportunities of a full life. That is why supporting democracy and fostering development are cornerstones of our 21st century human rights agenda. This Administration, like others before us, will promote, support, and defend democracy. We will relinquish neither the word nor the idea to those who have used it too narrowly, or to justify unwise policies. We stand for democracy not because we want other countries to be like us, but because we want all people to enjoy the consistent protection of the rights that are naturally theirs, whether they were born in Tallahassee or Tehran. Democracy has proven the best political system for making human rights a human reality over the long term. But it is crucial that we clarify what we mean when we talk about democracy, because democracy means not only elections to choose leaders, but also active citizens and a free press and an independent judiciary and transparent and responsive institutions that are accountable to all citizens and protect their rights equally and fairly. In democracies, respecting rights isn’t a choice leaders make day by day; it is the reason they govern. Democracies protect and respect citizens every day, not just on Election Day. And democracies demonstrate their greatness not by insisting they are perfect, but by using their institutions and their principles to make themselves and their union more perfect, just as our country continues to do after 233 years. At the same time, human development must also be part of our human rights agenda. Because basic levels of well-being — food, shelter, health, and education — and of public common goods like environmental sustainability, protection against pandemic disease, provisions for refugees — are necessary for people to exercise their rights, and because human development and democracy are mutually reinforcing. Democratic governments are not likely to survive long if their citizens do not have the basic necessities of life. The desperation caused by poverty and disease often leads to violence that further imperils the rights of people and threatens the stability of governments. Democracies that deliver on rights, opportunities, and development for their people are stable, strong, and most likely to enable people to live up to their potential. So human rights, democracy, and development are not three separate goals with three separate agendas. That view doesn’t reflect the reality we face. To make a real and long-term difference in people’s lives, we have to tackle all three simultaneously with a commitment that is smart, strategic, determined, and long-term. We should measure our success by asking this question: Are more people in more places better able to exercise their universal rights and live up to their potential because of our actions? Our principles are our North Star, but our tools and tactics must be flexible and reflect the reality on the ground wherever we are trying to have a positive impact. Now, in some cases, governments are willing but unable without support to establish strong institutions and protections for citizens — for example, the nascent democracies in Africa. And we can extend our hand as a partner to help them try to achieve authority and build the progress they desire. In other cases, like Cuba or Nigeria, governments are able but unwilling to make the changes their citizens deserve. There, we must vigorously press leaders to end repression, while supporting those within societies who are working for change. And in cases where governments are both unwilling and unable — places like the eastern Congo — we have to support those courageous individuals and organizations who try to protect people and who battle against the odds to plant seeds for a more hopeful future. Now, I don’t need to tell you that challenges we face are diverse and complicated. And there is not one approach or formula, doctrine or theory that can be easily applied to every situation. But I want to outline four elements of the Obama Administration’s approach to putting our principles into action, and share with you some of the challenges we face in doing so. First, a commitment to human rights starts with universal standards and with holding everyone accountable to those standards, including ourselves. On his second full day in office, President Obama issued an executive order prohibiting the use of torture or official cruelty by any U.S. official and ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Next year, we will report on human trafficking, as we do every year, but this time, not only just on other countries, but also on our own. And we will participate through the United Nations in the Universal Periodic Review of our own human rights record, just as we encourage other nations to do. By holding ourselves accountable, we reinforce our moral authority to demand that all governments adhere to obligations under international law; among them, not to torture, arbitrarily detain and persecute dissenters, or engage in political killings. Our government and the international community must counter the pretensions of those who deny or abdicate their responsibilities and hold violators to account. Sometimes, we will have the most impact by publicly denouncing a government action, like the coup in Honduras or violence in Guinea. Other times, we will be more likely to help the oppressed by engaging in tough negotiations behind closed doors, like pressing China and Russia as part of our broader agenda. In every instance, our aim will be to make a difference, not to prove a point. Calling for accountability doesn’t start or stop, however, at naming offenders. Our goal is to encourage — even demand — that governments must also take responsibility by putting human rights into law and embedding them in government institutions; by building strong, independent courts, competent and disciplined police and law enforcement. And once rights are established, governments should be expected to resist the temptation to restrict freedom of expression when criticism arises, and to be vigilant in preventing law from becoming an instrument of oppression, as bills like the one under consideration in Uganda would do to criminalize homosexuality. We know that all governments and all leaders sometimes fall short. So there have to be internal mechanisms of accountability when rights are violated. Often the toughest test for governments, which is essential to the protection of human rights, is absorbing and accepting criticism. And here too, we should lead by example. In the last six decades we have done this — imperfectly at times but with significant outcomes — from making amends for the internment of our own Japanese American citizens in World War II, to establishing legal recourse for victims of discrimination in the Jim Crow South, to passing hate crimes legislation to include attacks against gays and lesbians. When injustice anywhere is ignored, justice everywhere is denied. Acknowledging and remedying mistakes does not make us weaker, it reaffirms the strength of our principles and institutions. Second, we must be pragmatic and agile in pursuit of our human rights agenda — not compromising on our principles, but doing what is most likely to make them real. And we will use all the tools at our disposal, and when we run up against a wall, we will not retreat with resignation or recriminations, or repeatedly run up against the same well, but respond with strategic resolve to find another way to effect change and improve people’s lives. We acknowledge that one size does not fit all. And when old approaches aren’t working, we won’t be afraid to attempt new ones, as we have this year by ending the stalemate of isolation and instead pursuing measured engagement with Burma. In Iran, we have offered to negotiate directly with the government on nuclear issues, but have at the same time expressed solidarity with those inside Iran struggling for democratic change. As President Obama said in his Nobel speech, “They have us on their side.” And we will hold governments accountable for their actions, as we have just recently by terminating Millennium Challenge Corporation grants this year for Madagascar and Niger in the wake of government behavior. As the President said last week, “we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.” We are also working for positive change within multilateral institutions. They are valuable tools that, when in their best, leverage the efforts of many countries around a common purpose. So we have rejoined the UN Human Rights Council not because we don’t see its flaws, but because we think that participating gives us the best chance to be a constructive influence. In our first session, we cosponsored the successful resolution on Freedom of Expression, a forceful declaration of principle at a time when that freedom is jeopardized by new efforts to constrain religious practice, including recently in Switzerland, and by efforts to criminalize the defamation of religion — a false solution which exchanges one wrong for another. And in the United Nations Security Council, I was privileged to chair the September session where we passed a resolution mandating protections against sexual violence in armed conflict. Principled pragmatism informs our approach on human rights with all countries, but particularly with key countries like China and Russia. Cooperation with each of those is critical to the health of the global economy and the nonproliferation agenda we seek, also to managing security issues like North Korea and Iran, and addressing global problems like climate change. The United States seeks positive relationships with China and Russia, and that means candid discussions of divergent views. In China, we call for protection of rights of minorities in Tibet and Xinxiang; for the rights to express oneself and worship freely; and for civil society and religious organizations to advocate their positions within a framework of the rule of law. And we believe strongly that those who advocate peacefully for reform within the constitution, such as Charter 2008 signatories, should not be prosecuted. With Russia, we deplore the murders of journalists and activists and support the courageous individuals who advocate at great peril for democracy. With China, Russia, and others, we are engaging on issues of mutual interest while also engaging societal actors in these same countries who are working to advance human rights and democracy. The assumption that we must either pursue human rights or our “national interests” is wrong. The assumption that only coercion and isolation are effective tools for advancing democratic change is also wrong. Across our diplomacy and development efforts, we keep striving for innovative ways to achieve results. That’s why I commissioned the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review to develop a forward-looking strategy built on analysis of our objectives, our challenges, our tools, and our capacities to achieve America’s foreign policy and national security objectives. And make no mistake, issues of Democracy and Governance — D&G as they are called at USAID — are central to this review. The third element of our approach is that we support change driven by citizens and their communities. The project of making human rights a human reality cannot be just one for governments. It requires cooperation among individuals and organizations within communities and across borders. It means that we work with others who share our commitment to securing lives of dignity for all who share the bonds of humanity. Six weeks ago, in Morocco, I met with civil society activists from across the Middle East and North Africa. They exemplify how lasting change comes from within and how it depends on activists who create the space in which engaged citizens and civil society can build the foundations for rights-respecting development and democracy. Outside governments and global civil society cannot impose change, but we can promote and bolster it and defend it. We can encourage and provide support for local grassroots leaders, providing a lifeline of protection to human rights and democracy activists when they get in trouble, as they often do, for raising sensitive issues and voicing dissent. This means using tools like our Global Human Rights Defenders Fund, which in the last year has provided targeted legal and relocation assistance to 170 human rights defenders around the world. And we can stand with these defenders publicly, as we have by sending a high-level diplomatic mission to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, and as I have done around the world, from Guatemala to Kenya to Egypt, speaking out for civil society and political leaders who are working to try to change their societies from within, and also working through the backchannels for the safety of dissidents and protecting them from persecution. We can amplify the voices of activists and advocates working on these issues by shining a spotlight on their progress. They often pursue their mission in isolation, often so marginalized within their own societies. And we can endorse the legitimacy of their efforts. We recognize these with honors like the Women of Courage awards that First Lady Michelle Obama and I presented earlier this year and the Human Rights Defenders award I will present next month, and we can applaud others like Vital Voices, the RFK Center for Justice and Human Rights, and the Lantos Foundation, that do the same. We can give them access to public forums that lend visibility to their ideas, and continue to press for a role for nongovernmental organizations in multilateral institutions like the United Nations and the OSCE. And we can enlist other allies like international labor unions who were instrumental in the Solidarity movement in Poland or religious organizations who are championing the rights of people living with HIV/AIDS in Africa. We can help change agents, gain access to and share information through the internet and mobile phones so that they can communicate and organize. With camera phones and Facebook pages, thousands of protestors in Iran have broadcast their demands for rights denied, creating a record for all the world, including Iran’s leaders, to see. I’ve established a special unit inside the State Department to use technology for 21st century statecraft. In virtually every country I visit — from Indonesia to Iraq, from South Korea to the Dominican Republic — I conduct a town hall or roundtable discussion with groups outside of government to learn from them, and to provide a platform for their voices, ideas, and opinions. When I was recently in Russia, I visited an independent radio station to give an interview, and express through word and deed our support for independent media at a time when free expression is under threat. On my visits to China, I have made a point of meeting with women activists. The UN Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 inspired a generation of women civil society leaders who have become rights defenders for today’s China. In 1998, I met with a small group of lawyers in a crowded apartment on the fifth floor of a walk-up building. They described for me their efforts to win rights for women to own property, have a say in marriage and divorce, and be treated as equal citizens. When I visited China again earlier this year, I met with some of the same women, but this group had grown and expanded its scope. Now there were women working not just for legal rights, but for environmental, health, and economic rights as well. Yet one of them, Dr. Gao Yaojie, has been harassed for speaking out about AIDS in China. She should instead be applauded by her government for helping to confront the crisis. NGOs and civil society leaders need the financial, technical and political support we provide. Many repressive regimes have tried to limit the independence and effectiveness of activists and NGOs by restricting their activities, including more than 25 governments that have recently adopted new restrictions. But our funding and support can give a foothold to local organizations, training programs, and independent media. And of course, one of the most important ways that we and others in the international community can lay the foundation for change from the bottom up is through targeted assistance to those in need, and through partnerships that foster broad-based economic development. To build success for the long run, our development assistance needs to be as effective as possible at delivering results and paving the way for broad-based growth and long-term self-reliance. Beyond giving people the capacity to meet their material needs for today, economic empowerment should give them a stake in securing their own futures, in seeing their societies become the kind of democracies that protect rights and govern fairly. So we will pursue a rights-respecting approach to development — consulting with local communities, ensuring transparency, midwifeing accountable institutions — so our development activities act in concert with our efforts to support democratic governance. That is the pressing challenge we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan today. The fourth element of our approach is that we will widen our focus. We will not forget that positive change must be reinforced and strengthened where hope is on the rise, and we will not ignore or overlook places of seemingly intractable tragedy and despair. Where human lives hang in the balance, we must do what we can to tilt that balance toward a better future. Our efforts to support those working for human rights, economic empowerment, and democratic governance are driven by commitment, not convenience. But they have to be sustained. They cannot be subject to the whims or the wins of political change in our own country. Democratic progress is urgent but it is not quick, and we should never take for granted its permanence. Backsliding is always a threat, as we’ve learned in places like Kenya where the perpetrators of post-election violence have thus far escaped justice; and in the Americas where we are worried about leaders who have seized property, trampled rights, and abused justice to enhance personal rule. And when democratic change occurs, we cannot afford to become complacent. Instead, we have to continue reinforcing NGOs and the fledgling institutions of democracy. Young democracies like Liberia, East Timor, Moldova and Kosovo need our help to secure improvements in health, education and welfare. We must stay engaged to nurture democratic development in places like Ukraine and Georgia, which experienced democratic breakthroughs earlier this decade but have struggled to consolidate their democratic gains because of both internal and external factors. So we stand ready — both in our bilateral relationships and through international institutions — to help governments that have committed to improving themselves by assisting them in fighting corruption and helping train police forces and public servants. And we will support regional organizations and institutions like the Organization of American States, the African Union, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, where they take their own steps to defend democratic principles and institutions. Success stories deserve our attention so they continue to make progress and also serve as a model for others. And even as we reinforce the successes, conscience demands that we are not cowed by the overwhelming difficulty of making inroads against misery in the hard places like Sudan, Congo, North Korea, Zimbabwe, or on the hard issues like ending gender inequality and discrimination against gays and lesbians, from the Middle East to Latin America, Africa to Asia. Now, we have to continue to press for solutions in Sudan where ongoing tensions threaten to add to the devastation wrought by genocide in Darfur and an overwhelming refugee crisis. We will work to identify ways that we and our partners can enhance human security, while at the same time focusing greater attention on efforts to prevent genocide elsewhere. And of course, we have to remain focused on women — women’s rights, women’s roles, and women’s responsibilities. As I said in Beijing in 1995, “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights,” but oh, I wish it could be so easily translated into action and changes. That ideal is far from being realized in so many places around our world, but there is no place that so epitomizes the very difficult, tragic circumstances confronting women than in eastern Congo. I was in Goma last August, the epicenter of one of the most violent and chaotic regions on earth. And when I was there, I met with victims of horrific gender and sexual violence, and I met with refugees driven from their homes by the many military forces operating there. I heard from those working to end the conflicts and to protect the victims in such dire circumstances. I saw the best and the worst of humanity in a single day, the unspeakable acts of violence that have left women physically and emotionally brutalized, and the heroism of the women and men themselves, of the doctors, nurses and volunteers working to repair bodies and spirits. They are on the front lines of the struggle for human rights. Seeing firsthand their courage and tenacity of they and the Congolese people and the internal fortitude that keeps them going is not only humbling, but inspires me every day to keep working. So those four aspects of our approach — accountability, principled pragmatism, partnering from the bottom up, keeping a wide focus where rights are at stake — will help build a foundation that enables people to stand and rise above poverty, hunger, and disease and that secures their rights under democratic governance. We must lift the ceiling of oppression, corruption, and violence. And we must light a fire of human potential through access to education and economic opportunity. Build the foundation, lift the ceiling, and light the fire all together, all at once. Because when a person has food and education but not the freedom to discuss and debate with fellow citizens, he is denied the life he deserves. And when a person is too hungry or sick to work or vote or worship, she is denied a life she deserves. Freedom doesn’t come in half measures, and partial remedies cannot redress the whole problem. But we know that the champions of human potential have never had it easy. We may call rights inalienable, but making them so has always been hard work. And no matter how clearly we see our ideals, taking action to make them real requires tough choices. Even if everyone agrees that we should do whatever is most likely to improve the lives of people on the ground, we will not always agree on what course of action fits that description in every case. That is the nature of governing. We all know examples of good intentions that did not produce results, some that even produced unintended consequences that led to greater violations of human rights. And we can learn from the instances in which we have fallen short in the past, because those past difficulties are proof of how difficult progress is, but we do not accept the argument by some that progress in certain places is impossible, because we know progress happens. Ghana emerged from an era of coups to one of stable democratic governance. Indonesia moved from repressive rule to a dynamic democracy that is Islamic and secular. Chile exchanged dictatorship for democracy and an open economy. Mongolia’s constitutional reforms successfully ushered in multiparty democracy without violence. And there is no better example than the progress made in Central and Eastern Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago, an event I was privileged to help celebrate last month at the Brandenburg Gate. While the work in front of us is daunting and vast, we face the future together with partners on every continent, partners in faith-based organizations, NGOs, and socially responsible corporations, and partners in governments. From India, the world’s largest democracy, and one that continues to use democratic processes and principles to perfect its union of 1.1 billion people, to Botswana where the new president in Africa’s oldest democracy has promised to govern according to what he calls the “5 Ds” — democracy, dignity, development, discipline, and delivery — providing a recipe for responsible governance that contrasts starkly with the unnecessary and manmade tragedy in neighboring Zimbabwe. In the end, this isn’t just about what we do; it is about who we are. And we cannot be the people we are — people who believe in human rights — if we opt out of this fight. Believing in human rights means committing ourselves to action, and when we sign up for the promise of rights that apply everywhere, to everyone, that rights will be able to protect and enable human dignity, we also sign up for the hard work of making that promise a reality. Those of you here at this great university spend time studying the cases of what we’ve tried to do in human rights, or as Jas said, the culture of human rights. You see the shortcomings and the shortfalls. You see the fact that, as Mario Cuomo famously said about politics here in the United States, we campaign in poetry and we govern in prose. Well, that’s true internationally as well. But we need your ideas, we need your criticism, we need your support, we need your intelligent analysis of how together we can slowly, steadily expand that circle of opportunity and rights to every single person. It is work that we take so seriously. It is work that we know we don’t have all the answers for. But it is the work that America signed up to do. And we will continue, day by day, inch by inch, to try to make whatever progress is humanly possible. Thank you all very much. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Text, Audio, Image (Screenshot) Source: http://www.state.gov Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Image = Public domain.

Hillary Clinton Address to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women delivered 12 March 2010, United Nations, New York Thank you. Thank you to Ambassador Alex Wolff and to our U.S. Mission here at the United Nations. And it’s wonderful to be back at the United Nations for this occasion. I want to thank the deputy secretary general for being with us. I’m very pleased that my friend and someone who once represented the United States here before becoming Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, could join us; members of the diplomatic corps and representatives to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women; many of my friends, elected officials from New York, including Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who has been recognized and who is a great champion of women’s rights and responsibilities — and to all of you. This final day of the 54th session of the UN Commission brings to a close a week of a lot of activity, and it reminds us of the work that still lies ahead. Fifteen years ago, delegates from 189 countries met in Beijing for the Fourth World Conference on Women. It was a call to action — a call to the global community to work for the laws, reforms, and social changes necessary to ensure that women and girls everywhere finally have the opportunities they deserve to fulfill their own God-given potentials and contribute fully to the progress and prosperity of their societies. For many of us in this room today, that was a call to action that we have heeded. I know some of you have made it the cause of your life. You have worked tirelessly, day in and day out, to translate those words into realities. And we have seen the evidence of such efforts everywhere. In South Africa, women living in shanty towns came together to build a housing development outside Cape Town all on their own, brick by brick. And today, their community has grown to more than 50,000 homes for low income families, most of them female-headed. In Liberia, a group of church women began a prayer movement to stop their country’s brutal civil war. It grew to include thousands of women who helped force the two sides to negotiate a peace agreement. And then, those women helped elect Ellen Johnson Sirleaf president, the first woman to lead an African nation. In the United States, a young woman had an idea for a website where anyone could help a small business on the other side of the world get off the ground. And today, the organization she co-founded, Kiva, has given more than $120 million in microloans to entrepreneurs in developing countries, 80 percent of them women. So as we meet here in New York, women worldwide are working hard to do their part to improve the status of women and girls. And in so doing, they are also improving the status of families, communities, and countries. They are running domestic violence shelters and fighting human trafficking. They are rescuing girls from brothels in Cambodia and campaigning for public office in Kuwait. They are healing women injured in childbirth in Ethiopia, providing legal aid to women in China, and running schools for refugees from Burma. They are rebuilding homes and re-stitching communities in the aftermath of the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile. And they are literally leaving their marks on the world. For example, thanks to the environmental movement started by Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai, 45 million trees are now standing tall across Kenya, most of them planted by women. And even young girls have been empowered to stand up for their rights in ways that were once unthinkable. In Yemen, a 10-year-old girl forced to marry a much older man made headlines around the world by marching into court and demanding that she be granted a divorce, which she received. And her courage helped to shine a spotlight on the continuing practice of child marriage in that country and elsewhere. Now, these are just a few of the stories, and everyone here could stand up and tell even more. These are the stories of what women around the world do every day to confront injustice, to solve crises, propel economies, improve living conditions, and promote peace. Women have shown time and again that they will seize opportunities to improve their own and their families’ lives. And even when it seems that no opportunity exists, they still find a way. And thanks to the hard work and persistence of women and men, we have made real gains toward meeting the goals set in Beijing. Today, more girls are in school. More women hold jobs and serve in public office. And as women have gained the chance to work, learn, and participate in their societies, their economic, political, and social contributions have multiplied. In many countries, laws that once permitted the unequal treatment of women have been replaced by laws that recognize their equality, although for too many, laws that exist on the books are not yet borne out in their daily lives. But the progress we have made in the past 15 years is by no means the end of the story. It is, maybe, if we’re really lucky, the end of the beginning. There is still so much more to be done. We have to write the next chapter to fully realize the dreams and potential that we set forth in Beijing. Because for too many millions and millions of girls and women, opportunity remains out of reach. Women are still the majority of the world’s poor, the uneducated, the unhealthy, the unfed. In too many places, women are treated not as full and equal human beings with their own rights and aspirations, but as lesser creatures undeserving of the treatment and respect accorded to their husbands, their fathers, and their sons. Women are the majority of the world’s farmers, but are often forbidden from owning the land they tend to every day, or accessing the credit they need to invest in those farms and make them more productive. Women care for the world’s sick, but women and girls are less likely to get treatment when they are sick. Women raise the world’s children, but too often receive inadequate care when they give birth. And as a result, childbirth remains a leading cause of death and injury to women worldwide. Women rarely cause armed conflicts, but they always suffer their consequences. And when warring sides sit at one table to negotiate peace, women are often excluded, even though it is their future and their children’s future that is being decided. Though many countries have passed laws to deter violence against women, it remains a global pandemic. Women and girls are bought and sold to settle debts and resolve disputes. They are raped as both a tactic and a prize of armed conflict. They are beaten as punishment for disobedience and as a warning to other women who might assert their rights. And millions of women and girls are enslaved in brothels, forced to work as prostitutes, while police officers pocket bribes and look the other way. Women may be particularly vulnerable to human rights violations like these. But we also know that in many places, women now are leading the fight to protect and promote human rights for everyone. With us today are several women I was proud to honor earlier this week at this year’s United States State Department’s International Women of Courage Awards. They have endured isolation and intimidation, violence and imprisonment, and even risked their lives to advance justice and freedom for others. And though they may work in lonely circumstances, these women, and those like them around the world, are not alone. Let them know that every one of us and the many others whom we represent are standing with them as they wage their lonely but essential efforts on behalf of us all. The status of the world’s women is not only a matter of morality and justice. It is also a political, economic, and social imperative. Put simply, the world cannot make lasting progress if women and girls in the 21st century are denied their rights and left behind. The other day I heard The New York Times columnist Nick Kristof, who has done so much to bring to a wide audience the stories of individual women who are working and suffering because of conditions under which they are oppressed. And he said, you know, in the 19th century, the great moral imperative was the fight against slavery. And in the 20th century, it was the fight against totalitarianism. And in the 21st century, it is the fight for women’s equality. He was right, and we must accept — and promote that fundamental truth. Now, I know there are those — hard to believe — but there are those who still dispute the importance of women to local, national, and global progress. But the evidence is irrefutable. When women are free to develop their talents, all people benefit: women and men, girls and boys. When women are free to vote and run for public office, governments are more effective and responsive to their people. When women are free to earn a living and start small businesses, the data is clear: they become key drivers of economic growth across regions and sectors. When women are given the opportunity of education and access to health care, their families and communities prosper. And when women have equal rights, nations are more stable, peaceful, and secure. In 1995, in one voice, the world declared human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights. And for many, those words have translated into concrete actions. But for others they remain a distant aspiration. Change on a global scale cannot and does not happen overnight. It takes time, patience, and persistence. And as hard as we have worked these past 15 years, we have more work to do. So today, let us renew our commitment to finishing the job. And let us intensify our efforts because it is both the right thing to do and it is the smart thing as well. We must declare with one voice that women’s progress is human progress, and human progress is women’s progress once and for all. This principle was enshrined 10 years ago in Millennium Development Goal Number 3, the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women. And that goal is essential for the realization of every other goal. Today, this principle is also at the heart of the foreign policy of the United States. We believe that women are critical to solving virtually every challenge we face as individual nations and as a community of nations. Strategies that ignore the lives and contributions of women have little chance of succeeding. So in the Obama Administration, we are integrating women throughout our work around the world. We are consulting with women as we design and implement our policies. We are taking into greater account how those policies will impact women and girls. And we are working to identify women leaders and potential leaders around the world to make them our partners and to help support their work. And we are measuring progress, in part, by how much we improve the conditions of the lives of women and girls. This isn’t window dressing, and it’s not just good politics. President Obama and I believe that the subjugation of women is a threat to the national security of the United States. It is also a threat to the common security of our world, because the suffering and denial of the rights of women and the instability of nations go hand in hand. The United States is implementing this approach in our strategy in Afghanistan. As I said in London in January at the International Conference on Afghanistan, the women of Afghanistan have to be involved at every step in securing and rebuilding their country. Our stabilization strategy for both Afghanistan and Pakistan includes a Women’s Action Plan that promotes women’s leadership in both the public and private sectors; increases their access to education, health, and justice; and generates jobs for women, especially in agriculture. This focus on women has even been embraced by the United States Military. All-women teams of Marines will be meeting with Afghan women in their homes to assess their needs. Congress has joined this focus as well. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under Chairman John Kerry, empowered a subcommittee charged with global women’s issues that recently held hearings on promoting opportunity for Afghan women and girls. History has taught us that any peace not built by and for women is far less likely to deliver real and lasting benefits. As we have seen from Guatemala to Northern Ireland to Bosnia, women can be powerful peacemakers, willing to reach across deep divides to find common ground. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 reflects this principle. Now, we must work together to render it into action and achieve the full participation of women as equal partners in peace. And as women continue to advocate for peace, even risking their lives to achieve it, many are praying that we will keep the promise we made in Resolution 1888 to take significant steps to end sexual violence against women and children in conflict. We have begun the process laid out in the resolution. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has appointed a special representative. Now we must press ahead to end forever the evil of rape in conflict, which has caused suffering beyond imagination for victims and their families. For the United States, women are also central to our ongoing work to elevate development as a key pillar of our foreign policy alongside diplomacy and defense. As those who grow the world’s food, collect the water, gather the firewood, wash the clothes, and increasingly, work in the factories, run the shops, launch the businesses, and create jobs, women are powerful forces for any country’s economic growth and social progress. So our development strategies must reflect their roles and the benefits they bring. Three major foreign policy initiatives illustrate our commitment. The first is our Global Health Initiative, a $63 billion commitment to improve health and strengthen health systems worldwide. Improving global health is an enormous undertaking, so we are focusing first on those people whose health has the biggest impact on families and communities — women and girls. We aim to reduce maternal and child mortality and increase access to family planning. And we especially commend the commission and the UN’s adoption by consensus of the resolution on maternal mortality. We also — intend to further reduce the numbers of new HIV infections. AIDS has now become a woman’s disease, passed from men to women and too often, to children. Through our Global Health Initiative and our continued work through PEPFAR, we hope to stop that deadly progression by giving women and girls the tools and knowledge they need to protect themselves, and by treating HIV-positive mothers so they are less likely to pass on the disease to their children. Our global food security program, which I previewed here at the United Nations last September, is a $3.5 billion commitment to strengthen the world’s food supply, so farmers can earn enough to support their families and food can be available more broadly. And women are integral to this mission. Most of the world’s food is grown, harvested, stored, and prepared by women, often in extremely difficult conditions. They face droughts, floods, storms, pests without the fertilizers or enriched seeds that farmers in wealthy countries use. Many consider themselves lucky if they can scratch out a harvest sufficient to feed their children. Giving these women the tools and the training to grow more food and the opportunity to get that food to a market where it can be sold will have a transformative impact on their lives and it will grow the economies of so many countries. I have to confess that when we started our Food Security Initiative, I did not know that most food was grown by women. I remember once driving through Africa with a group of distinguished experts. And I saw women working in the fields and I saw women working in the markets and I saw women with wood on their heads and water on their heads and children on their backs. And I remarked that women just seem to be working all the time. And one of the economists said, “But it doesn’t count.” I said, “How can you say that?” He said, “Well, it’s not part of the formal economy.” I said, “Well, if every woman who did all that work stopped tomorrow, the formal economy would collapse.” A third initiative is our government’s response to the challenge of climate change. In Copenhagen in December, I announced that the United States would work with other countries to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate needs of developing countries. The effects of climate change will be felt by us all, but women in developing countries will be particularly hard hit, because as all of the changes of weather go on to produce more drought conditions and more storms and more floods, the women will have to work even harder to produce food and walk even farther to find water safe for drinking. They are on the front lines of this crisis, which makes them key partners and problem solvers. So we believe we must increase women’s access to adaptation and mitigation technologies and programs so they can protect their families and help us all meet this global challenge. These initiatives amount to more than an assortment of programs designed with women in mind. They reflect a fundamental shift in U.S. policy, one that is taking place in offices across Washington and in our embassies around the globe. But we are still called to do more — every single one of us. The Obama Administration will continue to work for the ratification of CEDAW. Now, I don’t have to tell those of you who are Americans how hard this is. But we are determined, because we believe it is past time, to take this step for women in our country and in all countries. Here at the United Nations, a single, vibrant agency dedicated to women — run by a strong leader with a seat at the secretary general’s table, would help galvanize the greater levels of coordination and commitment that the women of the world deserve. And as the United Nations strives to better support the world’s women, it would benefit from having more women in more of its leadership positions. Just as there are talented women working unnoticed in every corner of the world, there are women with great talent and experience whose potential leadership is still largely untapped, and they deserve the chance to serve and lead. The Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action was not only a pledge to help women in other lands, it was also a promise by all countries to do more to advance opportunity and equality for our own citizens. Because in every country on earth, talent is universal, but opportunity is not. In my travels across the United States, I’ve met women for whom higher education is a distant dream. They have the talent, they have the drive, but they don’t have the money. I’ve met mothers trapped in abusive relationships desperate to escape with their children, but with no means of support. I’ve met too many women who cannot afford necessary healthcare for themselves and their children. And I’ve met girls who have heard their whole lives that they were less than — less talented, less worthy of respect — until they eventually came to believe it was true. So whether we live in New York or New Delhi, Lagos or La Paz, women and girls share many of the same struggles and aspirations. The principle of women’s equality is a simple, self-evident truth, but the work of turning that principle into practice is rarely simple. It takes years and even generations of patient, persistent work, not only to change a country’s laws, but to change its people’s minds, to weave throughout culture and tradition in public discourse and private views the unassailable fact of women’s worth and women’s rights. Some of you may have seen the cover of the most recent issue of The Economist. If you haven’t, I commend it to you. And like me, you may do a double-take. Because I looked quickly at it and I thought it said “genocide.” And then I looked more carefully at it, and it said “gendercide.” Because it was pointing out the uncomfortable fact that there are approximately 100 million fewer girls than there should be, if one looked at all the population data. I was so struck by that: a word that I had never heard before, but which so tragically describes what has gone on, what we have let go on, in our world. My daughter is here with me today — and being the mother of a daughter is a great inspiration and motivation for caring about the girls of the world. And I would hope that we would want not only for our own daughters the opportunities that we know would give them the chance to make the most of their lives, to fulfill that God-given potential that resides within each of us, but that we would recognize doing the same for other daughters of mothers and fathers everywhere would make the world a safer and better place for our own children. So we must measure our progress not by what we say in great venues like this, but in how well we are able to improve the condition of women’s lives, some near at hand who deserve the opportunities many of us take for granted, some in far distant cities and remote villages — women we are not likely ever to meet but whose lives will be shaped by our actions. Let us recommit ourselves, as individuals, as nations, as the United Nations, to build upon the progress of the past and achieve once and for all that principle that we all believe in, or we would not be here today. The rights and opportunities of all women and girls deserve our attention and our support because as they make progress, then the progress that should be the birthright of future generations will be more likely, and the 21st century will fulfill the promise that we hold out today. So let’s go forth and be reenergized in the work that lies ahead. Thank you all very much. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Also in this database: Hillary Clinton – Speech to the United Nations 4th World Conference in Beijing Text & Image (Screenshot) Source: State.gov Research Note: Audio to text transcription verified by Sidni Kirby Copyright Status: Text, Image = Public domain.

Hillary Clinton Newseum Address on Internet Freedom delivered 21 January 2010, Washington, D.C. Thank you very much, Alberto, for not only that kind introduction but your and your colleagues’ leadership of this important institution. It’s a pleasure to be here at the Newseum. The Newseum is a monument to some of our most precious freedoms, and I’m grateful for this opportunity to discuss how those freedoms apply to the challenges of the 21st century. Although I can’t see all of you because in settings like this, the lights are in my eyes and you are in the dark, I know that there are many friends and former colleagues. I wish to acknowledge Charles Overby, the CEO of Freedom Forum here at the Newseum; Senator Edward Kaufman and Senator Joe Lieberman, my former colleagues in the Senate, both of whom worked for passage of the Voice Act, which speaks to Congress’s and the American people’s commitment to internet freedom, a commitment that crosses party lines and branches of government. Also, I’m told here as well are Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Ted Kaufman, Representative Loretta Sanchez, many representatives of the Diplomatic Corps, ambassadors, chargés, participants in our International Visitor Leadership Program on internet freedom from China, Colombia, Iran, and Lebanon, and Moldova. And I also want to acknowledge Walter Isaacson, president of the Aspen Institute, recently named to our Broadcasting Board of Governors and, of course, instrumental in supporting the work on internet freedom that the Aspen Institute has been doing. This is an important speech on a very important subject. But before I begin, I want to just speak briefly about Haiti, because during the last eight days, the people of Haiti and the people of the world have joined together to deal with a tragedy of staggering proportions. Our hemisphere has seen its share of hardship, but there are few precedents for the situation we’re facing in Port-au-Prince. Communication networks have played a critical role in our response. They were, of course, decimated and in many places totally destroyed. And in the hours after the quake, we worked with partners in the private sector; first, to set up the text “HAITI” campaign so that mobile phone users in the United States could donate to relief efforts via text messages. That initiative has been a showcase for the generosity of the American people, and thus far, it’s raised over $25 million for recovery efforts. Information networks have also played a critical role on the ground. When I was with President Preval in Port-au-Prince on Saturday, one of his top priorities was to try to get communication up and going. The government couldn’t talk to each other, what was left of it, and NGOs, our civilian leadership, our military leadership were severely impacted. The technology community has set up interactive maps to help us identify needs and target resources. And on Monday, a seven-year-old girl and two women were pulled from the rubble of a collapsed supermarket by an American search-and-rescue team after they sent a text message calling for help. Now, these examples are manifestations of a much broader phenomenon. The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet. When something happens in Haiti or Hunan, the rest of us learn about it in real time – from real people. And we can respond in real time as well. Americans eager to help in the aftermath of a disaster and the girl trapped in the supermarket are connected in ways that were not even imagined a year ago, even a generation ago. That same principle applies to almost all of humanity today. As we sit here, any of you – or maybe more likely, any of our children – can take out the tools that many carry every day and transmit this discussion to billions across the world. Now, in many respects, information has never been so free. There are more ways to spread more ideas to more people than at any moment in history. And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable. During his visit to China in November, for example, President Obama held a town hall meeting with an online component to highlight the importance of the internet. In response to a question that was sent in over the internet, he defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens hold their own governments accountable, generates new ideas, encourages creativity and entrepreneurship. The United States belief in that ground truth is what brings me here today. Because amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights. Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns, or nuclear power can either energize a city or destroy it, modern information networks and the technologies they support can be harnessed for good or for ill. The same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaida to spew hatred and incite violence against the innocent. And technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights. In the last year, we’ve seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. In Vietnam, access to popular social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and activists were detained. One member of this group, Bassem Samir, who is thankfully no longer in prison, is with us today. So while it is clear that the spread of these technologies is transforming our world, it is still unclear how that transformation will affect the human rights and the human welfare of the world’s population. On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress, but the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it. Now, this challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. The words of the First Amendment to our Constitution are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone. Franklin Roosevelt built on these ideas when he delivered his Four Freedoms speech in 1941. Now, at the time, Americans faced a cavalcade of crises and a crisis of confidence. But the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear transcended the troubles of his day. And years later, one of my heroes, Eleanor Roosevelt, worked to have these principles adopted as a cornerstone of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They have provided a lodestar to every succeeding generation, guiding us, galvanizing us, and enabling us to move forward in the face of uncertainty. So as technology hurtles forward, we must think back to that legacy. We need to synchronize our technological progress with our principles. In accepting the Nobel Prize, President Obama spoke about the need to build a world in which peace rests on the inherent rights and dignities of every individual. And in my speech on human rights at Georgetown a few days later, I talked about how we must find ways to make human rights a reality. Today, we find an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital frontiers of the 21st century. There are many other networks in the world. Some aid in the movement of people or resources, and some facilitate exchanges between individuals with the same work or interests. But the internet is a network that magnifies the power and potential of all others. And that’s why we believe it’s critical that its users are assured certain basic freedoms. Freedom of expression is first among them. This freedom is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution. Blogs, emails, social networks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas, and created new targets for censorship. As I speak to you today, government censors somewhere are working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already condemned these tactics. Two months ago, I was in Germany to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The leaders gathered at that ceremony paid tribute to the courageous men and women on the far side of that barrier who made the case against oppression by circulating small pamphlets called samizdat. Now, these leaflets questioned the claims and intentions of dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc and many people paid dearly for distributing them. But their words helped pierce the concrete and concertina wire of the Iron Curtain. The Berlin Wall symbolized a world divided and it defined an entire era. Today, remnants of that wall sit inside this museum where they belong, and the new iconic infrastructure of our age is the internet. Instead of division, it stands for connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place of visible walls. Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day. As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools. In the demonstrations that followed Iran’s presidential elections, grainy cell phone footage of a young woman’s bloody murder provided a digital indictment of the government’s brutality. We’ve seen reports that when Iranians living overseas posted online criticism of their nation’s leaders, their family members in Iran were singled out for retribution. And despite an intense campaign of government intimidation, brave citizen journalists in Iran continue using technology to show the world and their fellow citizens what is happening inside their country. In speaking out on behalf of their own human rights, the Iranian people have inspired the world. And their courage is redefining how technology is used to spread truth and expose injustice. Now, all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people across the world. And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible. It is an unfortunate fact that these issues are both growing challenges that the international community must confront together. And we must also grapple with the issue of anonymous speech. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities. But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes. The freedom of expression may be the most obvious freedom to face challenges with the spread of new technologies, but it is not the only one. The freedom of worship usually involves the rights of individuals to commune or not commune with their Creator. And that’s one channel of communication that does not rely on technology. But the freedom of worship also speaks to the universal right to come together with those who share your values and vision for humanity. In our history, those gatherings often took place in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. Today, they may also take place on line. The internet can help bridge divides between people of different faiths. As the President said in Cairo, freedom of religion is central to the ability of people to live together. And as we look for ways to expand dialogue, the internet holds out such tremendous promise. We’ve already begun connecting students in the United States with young people in Muslim communities around the world to discuss global challenges. And we will continue using this tool to foster discussion between individuals from different religious communities. Some nations, however, have co-opted the internet as a tool to target and silence people of faith. Last year, for example, in Saudi Arabia, a man spent months in prison for blogging about Christianity. And a Harvard study found that the Saudi Government blocked many web pages about Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam. Countries including Vietnam and China employed similar tactics to restrict access to religious information. Now, just as these technologies must not be used to punish peaceful political speech, they must also not be used to persecute or silence religious minorities. Now, prayers will always travel on higher networks. But connection technologies like the internet and social networking sites should enhance individuals’ ability to worship as they see fit, come together with people of their own faith, and learn more about the beliefs of others. We must work to advance the freedom of worship online just as we do in other areas of life. There are, of course, hundreds of millions of people living without the benefits of these technologies. In our world, as I’ve said many times, talent may be distributed universally, but opportunity is not. And we know from long experience that promoting social and economic development in countries where people lack access to knowledge, markets, capital, and opportunity can be frustrating and sometimes futile work. In this context, the internet can serve as a great equalizer. By providing people with access to knowledge and potential markets, networks can create opportunities where none exist. Over the last year, I’ve seen this firsthand in Kenya, where farmers have seen their income grow by as much as 30 percent since they started using mobile banking technology; in Bangladesh, where more than 300,000 people have signed up to learn English on their mobile phones; and in Sub-Saharan Africa, where women entrepreneurs use the internet to get access to microcredit loans and connect themselves to global markets. Now, these examples of progress can be replicated in the lives of the billion people at the bottom of the world’s economic ladder. In many cases, the internet, mobile phones, and other connection technologies can do for economic growth what the Green Revolution did for agriculture. You can now generate significant yields from very modest inputs. And one World Bank study found that in a typical developing country, a 10 percent increase in the penetration rate for mobile phones led to an almost 1 percent increase in per capita GDP. To just put this into context, for India, that would translate into almost $10 billion a year. A connection to global information networks is like an on-ramp to modernity. In the early years of these technologies, many believed that they would divide the world between haves and have-nots. But that hasn’t happened. There are 4 billion cell phones in use today. Many of them are in the hands of market vendors, rickshaw drivers, and others who’ve historically lacked access to education and opportunity. Information networks have become a great leveler, and we should use them together to help lift people out of poverty and give them a freedom from want. Now, we have every reason to be hopeful about what people can accomplish when they leverage communication networks and connection technologies to achieve progress. But make no mistake – some are and will continue to use global information networks for darker purposes. Violent extremists, criminal cartels, sexual predators, and authoritarian governments all seek to exploit these global networks. Just as terrorists have taken advantage of the openness of our societies to carry out their plots, violent extremists use the internet to radicalize and intimidate. As we work to advance freedoms, we must also work against those who use communication networks as tools of disruption and fear. Governments and citizens must have confidence that the networks at the core of their national security and economic prosperity are safe and resilient. Now this is about more than petty hackers who deface websites. Our ability to bank online, use electronic commerce, and safeguard billions of dollars in intellectual property are all at stake if we cannot rely on the security of our information networks. Disruptions in these systems demand a coordinated response by all governments, the private sector, and the international community. We need more tools to help law enforcement agencies cooperate across jurisdictions when criminal hackers and organized crime syndicates attack networks for financial gain. The same is true when social ills such as child pornography and the exploitation of trafficked women and girls online is there for the world to see and for those who exploit these people to make a profit. We applaud efforts such as the Council on Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime that facilitate international cooperation in prosecuting such offenses. And we wish to redouble our efforts. We have taken steps as a government, and as a Department, to find diplomatic solutions to strengthen global cyber security. We have a lot of people in the State Department working on this. They’ve joined together, and we created two years ago an office to coordinate foreign policy in cyberspace. We’ve worked to address this challenge at the UN and in other multilateral forums and to put cyber security on the world’s agenda. And President Obama has just appointed a new national cyberspace policy coordinator who will help us work even more closely to ensure that everyone’s networks stay free, secure, and reliable. States, terrorists, and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks. Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government, and our civil society. Countries or individuals that engage in cyber attacks should face consequences and international condemnation. In an internet-connected world, an attack on one nation’s networks can be an attack on all. And by reinforcing that message, we can create norms of behavior among states and encourage respect for the global networked commons. The final freedom, one that was probably inherent in what both President and Mrs. Roosevelt thought about and wrote about all those years ago, is one that flows from the four I’ve already mentioned: the freedom to connect – the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace. It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate. Once you’re on the internet, you don’t need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have a huge impact on society. The largest public response to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai was launched by a 13-year-old boy. He used social networks to organize blood drives and a massive interfaith book of condolence. In Colombia, an unemployed engineer brought together more than 12 million people in 190 cities around the world to demonstrate against the FARC terrorist movement. The protests were the largest antiterrorist demonstrations in history. And in the weeks that followed, the FARC saw more demobilizations and desertions than it had during a decade of military action. And in Mexico, a single email from a private citizen who was fed up with drug-related violence snowballed into huge demonstrations in all of the country’s 32 states. In Mexico City alone, 150,000 people took to the streets in protest. So the internet can help humanity push back against those who promote violence and crime and extremism. In Iran and Moldova and other countries, online organizing has been a critical tool for advancing democracy and enabling citizens to protest suspicious election results. And even in established democracies like the United States, we’ve seen the power of these tools to change history. Some of you may still remember the 2008 presidential election here. (Laughter.) The freedom to connect to these technologies can help transform societies, but it is also critically important to individuals. I was recently moved by the story of a doctor – and I won’t tell you what country he was from – who was desperately trying to diagnose his daughter’s rare medical condition. He consulted with two dozen specialists, but he still didn’t have an answer. But he finally identified the condition, and found a cure, by using an internet search engine. That’s one of the reasons why unfettered access to search engine technology is so important in individuals’ lives. Now, the principles I’ve outlined today will guide our approach in addressing the issue of internet freedom and the use of these technologies. And I want to speak about how we apply them in practice. The United States is committed to devoting the diplomatic, economic, and technological resources necessary to advance these freedoms. We are a nation made up of immigrants from every country and every interest that spans the globe. Our foreign policy is premised on the idea that no country more than America stands to benefit when there is cooperation among peoples and states. And no country shoulders a heavier burden when conflict and misunderstanding drive nations apart. So we are well placed to seize the opportunities that come with interconnectivity. And as the birthplace for so many of these technologies, including the internet itself, we have a responsibility to see them used for good. To do that, we need to develop our capacity for what we call, at the State Department, 21st century statecraft. Realigning our policies and our priorities will not be easy. But adjusting to new technology rarely is. When the telegraph was introduced, it was a source of great anxiety for many in the diplomatic community, where the prospect of receiving daily instructions from capitals was not entirely welcome. But just as our diplomats eventually mastered the telegraph, they are doing the same to harness the potential of these new tools as well. And I’m proud that the State Department is already working in more than 40 countries to help individuals silenced by oppressive governments. We are making this issue a priority at the United Nations as well, and we’re including internet freedom as a component in the first resolution we introduced after returning to the United Nations Human Rights Council. We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship. We are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them in local languages, and with the training they need to access the internet safely. The United States has been assisting in these efforts for some time, with a focus on implementing these programs as efficiently and effectively as possible. Both the American people and nations that censor the internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote internet freedom. We want to put these tools in the hands of people who will use them to advance democracy and human rights, to fight climate change and epidemics, to build global support for President Obama’s goal of a world without nuclear weapons, to encourage sustainable economic development that lifts the people at the bottom up. That’s why today I’m announcing that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals. By relying on mobile phones, mapping applications, and other new tools, we can empower citizens and leverage our traditional diplomacy. We can address deficiencies in the current market for innovation. Let me give you one example. Let’s say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries, including ours, on their responsiveness and efficiency and also to ferret out and report corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy. If people took advantage of this tool, it would help us target our foreign assistance spending, improve lives, and encourage foreign investment in countries with responsible governments. However, right now, mobile application developers have no financial assistance to pursue that project on their own, and the State Department currently lacks a mechanism to make it happen. But this initiative should help resolve that problem and provide long-term dividends from modest investments in innovation. We’re going to work with experts to find the best structure for this venture, and we’ll need the talent and resources of technology companies and nonprofits in order to get the best results most quickly. So for those of you in the room who have this kind of talent, expertise, please consider yourselves invited to help us. In the meantime, there are companies, individuals, and institutions working on ideas and applications that could already advance our diplomatic and development objectives. And the State Department will be launching an innovation competition to give this work an immediate boost. We’ll be asking Americans to send us their best ideas for applications and technologies that help break down language barriers, overcome illiteracy, connect people to the services and information they need. Microsoft, for example, has already developed a prototype for a digital doctor that could help provide medical care in isolated rural communities. We want to see more ideas like that. And we’ll work with the winners of the competition and provide grants to help build their ideas to scale. Now, these new initiatives will supplement a great deal of important work we’ve already done over this past year. In the service of our diplomatic and diplomacy objectives, I assembled a talented and experienced team to lead our 21st century statecraft efforts. This team has traveled the world helping governments and groups leverage the benefits of connection technologies. They have stood up a Civil Society 2.0 Initiative to help grassroots organizations enter the digital age. They are putting in place a program in Mexico to help combat drug-related violence by allowing people to make untracked reports to reliable sources to avoid having retribution visited against them. They brought mobile banking to Afghanistan and are now pursuing the same effort in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Pakistan, they created the first-ever social mobile network, called Our Voice, that has already produced tens of millions of messages and connected young Pakistanis who want to stand up to violent extremism. In a short span, we have taken significant strides to translate the promise of these technologies into results that make a difference. But there is still so much more to be done. And as we work together with the private sector and foreign governments to deploy the tools of 21st century statecraft, we have to remember our shared responsibility to safeguard the freedoms that I’ve talked about today. We feel strongly that principles like information freedom aren’t just good policy, not just somehow connected to our national values, but they are universal and they’re also good for business. To use market terminology, a publicly listed company in Tunisia or Vietnam that operates in an environment of censorship will always trade at a discount relative to an identical firm in a free society. If corporate decision makers don’t have access to global sources of news and information, investors will have less confidence in their decisions over the long term. Countries that censor news and information must recognize that from an economic standpoint, there is no distinction between censoring political speech and commercial speech. If businesses in your nations are denied access to either type of information, it will inevitably impact on growth. Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions. I hope that their competitors and foreign governments will pay close attention to this trend. The most recent situation involving Google has attracted a great deal of interest. And we look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement. And we also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent. The internet has already been a source of tremendous progress in China, and it is fabulous. There are so many people in China now online. But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century. Now, the United States and China have different views on this issue, and we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently in the context of our positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship. Now, ultimately, this issue isn’t just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit. It’s about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors. Information freedom supports the peace and security that provides a foundation for global progress. Historically, asymmetrical access to information is one of the leading causes of interstate conflict. When we face serious disputes or dangerous incidents, it’s critical that people on both sides of the problem have access to the same set of facts and opinions. As it stands, Americans can consider information presented by foreign governments. We do not block your attempts to communicate with the people in the United States. But citizens in societies that practice censorship lack exposure to outside views. In North Korea, for example, the government has tried to completely isolate its citizens from outside opinions. This lopsided access to information increases both the likelihood of conflict and the probability that small disagreements could escalate. So I hope that responsible governments with an interest in global stability will work with us to address such imbalances. For companies, this issue is about more than claiming the moral high ground. It really comes down to the trust between firms and their customers. Consumers everywhere want to have confidence that the internet companies they rely on will provide comprehensive search results and act as responsible stewards of their own personal information. Firms that earn that confidence of those countries and basically provide that kind of service will prosper in the global marketplace. I really believe that those who lose that confidence of their customers will eventually lose customers. No matter where you live, people want to believe that what they put into the internet is not going to be used against them. And censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere. And in America, American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I’m confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles. Now, we are reinvigorating the Global Internet Freedom Task Force as a forum for addressing threats to internet freedom around the world, and we are urging U.S. media companies to take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments’ demands for censorship and surveillance. The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not simply what’s a quick profit. We’re also encouraged by the work that’s being done through the Global Network Initiative, a voluntary effort by technology companies who are working with nongovernmental organizations, academic experts, and social investment funds to respond to government requests for censorship. The initiative goes beyond mere statements of principles and establishes mechanisms to promote real accountability and transparency. As part of our commitment to support responsible private sector engagement on information freedom, the State Department will be convening a high-level meeting next month co-chaired by Under Secretaries Robert Hormats and Maria Otero to bring together firms that provide network services for talks about internet freedom, because we want to have a partnership in addressing this 21st century challenge. Now, pursuing the freedoms I’ve talked about today is, I believe, the right thing to do. But I also believe it’s the smart thing to do. By advancing this agenda, we align our principles, our economic goals, and our strategic priorities. We need to work toward a world in which access to networks and information brings people closer together and expands the definition of the global community. Given the magnitude of the challenges we’re facing, we need people around the world to pool their knowledge and creativity to help rebuild the global economy, to protect our environment, to defeat violent extremism, and build a future in which every human being can live up to and realize his or her God-given potential. So let me close by asking you to remember the little girl who was pulled from the rubble on Monday in Port-au-Prince. She’s alive, she was reunited with her family, she will have the chance to grow up because these networks took a voice that was buried and spread it to the world. No nation, no group, no individual should stay buried in the rubble of oppression. We cannot stand by while people are separated from the human family by walls of censorship. And we cannot be silent about these issues simply because we cannot hear the cries. So let us recommit ourselves to this cause. Let us make these technologies a force for real progress the world over. And let us go forward together to champion these freedoms for our time, for our young people who deserve every opportunity we can give them. Thank you all very much. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Audio, Image (Screenshot) Source: http://www.state.gov Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Image = Public domain.

Hillary Clinton Internet Rights &Wrongs: Choices and Challenges in a Networked World delivered 15 February 2001, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Thank you all very much and good afternoon. It is a pleasure, once again, to be back on the campus of the George Washington University, a place that I have spent quite a bit of time in all different settings over the last now nearly 20 years. I’d like especially to thank President Knapp and Provost Lerman, because this is a great opportunity for me to address such a significant issue, and one which deserves the attention of citizens, governments, and I know is drawing that attention. And perhaps today in my remarks, we can begin a much more vigorous debate that will respond to the needs that we have been watching in real time on our television sets. A few minutes after midnight on January 28th, the internet went dark across Egypt. During the previous four days, hundreds of thousands of Egyptians had marched to demand a new government. And the world, on TVs, laptops, cell phones, and smart phones, had followed every single step. Pictures and videos from Egypt flooded the web. On Facebook and Twitter, journalists posted on-the-spot reports. Protestors coordinated their next moves. And citizens of all stripes shared their hopes and fears about this pivotal moment in the history of their country. Millions worldwide answered in real time, “You are not alone and we are with you.” Then the government pulled the plug. Cell phone service was cut off, TV satellite signals were jammed, and internet access was blocked for nearly the entire population. The government did not want the people to communicate with each other and it did not want the press to communicate with the public. It certainly did not want the world to watch. The events in Egypt recalled another protest movement 18 months earlier in Iran, when thousands marched after disputed elections. Their protestors also used websites to organize. A video taken by cell phone showed a young woman named Neda killed by a member of the paramilitary forces, and within hours, that video was being watched by people everywhere. The Iranian authorities used technology as well. The Revolutionary Guard stalked members of the Green Movement by tracking their online profiles. And like Egypt, for a time, the government shut down the internet and mobile networks altogether. After the authorities raided homes, attacked university dorms, made mass arrests, tortured and fired shots into crowds, the protests ended. In Egypt, however, the story ended differently. The protests continued despite the internet shutdown. People organized marches through flyers and word of mouth and used dial-up modems and fax machines to communicate with the world. After five days, the government relented and Egypt came back online. The authorities then sought to use the internet to control the protests by ordering mobile companies to send out pro-government text messages, and by arresting bloggers and those who organized the protests online. But 18 days after the protests began, the government failed and the president resigned. What happened in Egypt and what happened in Iran, which this week is once again using violence against protestors seeking basic freedoms, was about a great deal more than the internet. In each case, people protested because of deep frustrations with the political and economic conditions of their lives. They stood and marched and chanted and the authorities tracked and blocked and arrested them. The internet did not do any of those things; people did. In both of these countries, the ways that citizens and the authorities used the internet reflected the power of connection technologies on the one hand as an accelerant of political, social, and economic change, and on the other hand as a means to stifle or extinguish that change. There is a debate currently underway in some circles about whether the internet is a force for liberation or repression. But I think that debate is largely beside the point. Egypt isn’t inspiring people because they communicated using Twitter. It is inspiring because people came together and persisted in demanding a better future. Iran isn’t awful because the authorities used Facebook to shadow and capture members of the opposition. Iran is awful because it is a government that routinely violates the rights of its people. So it is our values that cause these actions to inspire or outrage us, our sense of human dignity, the rights that flow from it, and the principles that ground it. And it is these values that ought to drive us to think about the road ahead. Two billion people are now online, nearly a third of humankind. We hail from every corner of the world, live under every form of government, and subscribe to every system of beliefs. And increasingly, we are turning to the internet to conduct important aspects of our lives. The internet has become the public space of the 21st century – the world’s town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse, and nightclub. We all shape and are shaped by what happens there, all 2 billion of us and counting. And that presents a challenge. To maintain an internet that delivers the greatest possible benefits to the world, we need to have a serious conversation about the principles that will guide us, what rules exist and should not exist and why, what behaviors should be encouraged or discouraged and how. The goal is not to tell people how to use the internet any more than we ought to tell people how to use any public square, whether it’s Tahrir Square or Times Square. The value of these spaces derives from the variety of activities people can pursue in them, from holding a rally to selling their vegetables, to having a private conversation. These spaces provide an open platform, and so does the internet. It does not serve any particular agenda, and it never should. But if people around the world are going come together every day online and have a safe and productive experience, we need a shared vision to guide us. One year ago, I offered a starting point for that vision by calling for a global commitment to internet freedom, to protect human rights online as we do offline. The rights of individuals to express their views freely, petition their leaders, worship according to their beliefs – these rights are universal, whether they are exercised in a public square or on an individual blog. The freedoms to assemble and associate also apply in cyberspace. In our time, people are as likely to come together to pursue common interests online as in a church or a labor hall. Together, the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online comprise what I’ve called the freedom to connect. The United States supports this freedom for people everywhere, and we have called on other nations to do the same. Because we want people to have the chance to exercise this freedom. We also support expanding the number of people who have access to the internet. And because the internet must work evenly and reliably for it to have value, we support the multi-stakeholder system that governs the internet today, which has consistently kept it up and running through all manner of interruptions across networks, borders, and regions. In the year since my speech, people worldwide have continued to use the internet to solve shared problems and expose public corruption, from the people in Russia who tracked wildfires online and organized a volunteer firefighting squad, to the children in Syria who used Facebook to reveal abuse by their teachers, to the internet campaign in China that helps parents find their missing children. At the same time, the internet continues to be restrained in a myriad of ways. In China, the government censors content and redirects search requests to error pages. In Burma, independent news sites have been taken down with distributed denial of service attacks. In Cuba, the government is trying to create a national intranet, while not allowing their citizens to access the global internet. In Vietnam, bloggers who criticize the government are arrested and abused. In Iran, the authorities block opposition and media websites, target social media, and steal identifying information about their own people in order to hunt them down. These actions reflect a landscape that is complex and combustible, and sure to become more so in the coming years as billions of more people connect to the internet. The choices we make today will determine what the internet looks like in the future. Businesses have to choose whether and how to enter markets where internet freedom is limited. People have to choose how to act online, what information to share and with whom, which ideas to voice and how to voice them. Governments have to choose to live up to their commitments to protect free expression, assembly, and association. For the United States, the choice is clear. On the spectrum of internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness. Now, we recognize that an open internet comes with challenges. It calls for ground rules to protect against wrongdoing and harm. And internet freedom raises tensions, like all freedoms do. But we believe the benefits far exceed the costs. And today, I’d like to discuss several of the challenges we must confront as we seek to protect and defend a free and open internet. Now, I’m the first to say that neither I nor the United States Government has all the answers. We’re not sure we have all the questions. But we are committed to asking the questions, to helping lead a conversation, and to defending not just universal principles but the interests of our people and our partners. The first challenge is achieving both liberty and security. Liberty and security are often presented as equal and opposite; the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. In fact, I believe they make it each other possible. Without security, liberty is fragile. Without liberty, security is oppressive. The challenge is finding the proper measure: enough security to enable our freedoms, but not so much or so little as to endanger them. Finding this proper measure for the internet is critical because the qualities that make the internet a force for unprecedented progress – its openness, its leveling effect, its reach and speed – also enable wrongdoing on an unprecedented scale. Terrorists and extremist groups use the internet to recruit members, and plot and carry out attacks. Human traffickers use the internet to find and lure new victims into modern-day slavery. Child pornographers use the internet to exploit children. Hackers break into financial institutions, cell phone networks, and personal email accounts. So we need successful strategies for combating these threats and more without constricting the openness that is the internet’s greatest attribute. The United States is aggressively tracking and deterring criminals and terrorists online. We are investing in our nation’s cyber-security, both to prevent cyber-incidents and to lessen their impact. We are cooperating with other countries to fight transnational crime in cyber-space. The United States Government invests in helping other nations build their own law enforcement capacity. We have also ratified the Budapest Cybercrime Convention, which sets out the steps countries must take to ensure that the internet is not misused by criminals and terrorists while still protecting the liberties of our own citizens. In our vigorous effort to prevent attacks or apprehend criminals, we retain a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. The United States is determined to stop terrorism and criminal activity online and offline, and in both spheres we are committed to pursuing these goals in accordance with our laws and values. Now, others have taken a different approach. Security is often invoked as a justification for harsh crackdowns on freedom. Now, this tactic is not new to the digital age, but it has new resonance as the internet has given governments new capacities for tracking and punishing human rights advocates and political dissidents. Governments that arrest bloggers, pry into the peaceful activities of their citizens, and limit their access to the internet may claim to be seeking security. In fact, they may even mean it as they define it. But they are taking the wrong path. Those who clamp down on internet freedom may be able to hold back the full expression of their people’s yearnings for a while, but not forever. The second challenge is protecting both transparency and confidentiality. The internet’s strong culture of transparency derives from its power to make information of all kinds available instantly. But in addition to being a public space, the internet is also a channel for private communications. And for that to continue, there must be protection for confidential communication online. Think of all the ways in which people and organizations rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. Businesses hold confidential conversations when they’re developing new products to stay ahead of their competitors. Journalists keep the details of some sources confidential to protect them from exposure or retribution. And governments also rely on confidential communication online as well as offline. The existence of connection technologies may make it harder to maintain confidentiality, but it does not alter the need for it. Now, I know that government confidentiality has been a topic of debate during the past few months because of WikiLeaks, but it’s been a false debate in many ways. Fundamentally, the WikiLeaks incident began with an act of theft. Government documents were stolen, just the same as if they had been smuggled out in a briefcase. Some have suggested that this theft was justified because governments have a responsibility to conduct all of our work out in the open in the full view of our citizens. I respectfully disagree. The United States could neither provide for our citizens’ security nor promote the cause of human rights and democracy around the world if we had to make public every step of our efforts. Confidential communication gives our government the opportunity to do work that could not be done otherwise. Consider our work with former Soviet states to secure loose nuclear material. By keeping the details confidential, we make it less likely that terrorists or criminals will find the nuclear material and steal it for their own purposes. Or consider the content of the documents that WikiLeaks made public. Without commenting on the authenticity of any particular documents, we can observe that many of the cables released by WikiLeaks relate to human rights work carried on around the world. Our diplomats closely collaborate with activists, journalists, and citizens to challenge the misdeeds of oppressive governments. It is dangerous work. By publishing diplomatic cables, WikiLeaks exposed people to even greater risk. For operations like these, confidentiality is essential, especially in the internet age when dangerous information can be sent around the world with the click of a keystroke. But of course, governments also have a duty to be transparent. We govern with the consent of the people, and that consent must be informed to be meaningful. So we must be judicious about when we close off our work to the public, and we must review our standards frequently to make sure they are rigorous. In the United States, we have laws designed to ensure that the government makes its work open to the people, and the Obama Administration has also launched an unprecedented initiative to put government data online, to encourage citizen participation, and to generally increase the openness of government. The U.S. Government’s ability to protect America, to secure the liberties of our people, and to support the rights and freedoms of others around the world depends on maintaining a balance between what’s public and what should and must remain out of the public domain. The scale should and will always be tipped in favor of openness, but tipping the scale over completely serves no one’s interests. Let me be clear. I said that the WikiLeaks incident began with a theft, just as if it had been executed by smuggling papers in a briefcase. The fact that WikiLeaks used the internet is not the reason we criticized its actions. WikiLeaks does not challenge our commitment to internet freedom. And one final word on this matter: There were reports in the days following these leaks that the United States Government intervened to coerce private companies to deny service to WikiLeaks. That is not the case. Now, some politicians and pundits publicly called for companies to disassociate from WikiLeaks, while others criticized them for doing so. Public officials are part of our country’s public debates, but there is a line between expressing views and coercing conduct. Business decisions that private companies may have taken to enforce their own values or policies regarding WikiLeaks were not at the direction of the Obama Administration. A third challenge is protecting free expression while fostering tolerance and civility. I don’t need to tell this audience that the internet is home to every kind of speech – false, offensive, incendiary, innovative, truthful, and beautiful. The multitude of opinions and ideas that crowd the internet is both a result of its openness and a reflection of our human diversity. Online, everyone has a voice. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the freedom of expression for all. But what we say has consequences. Hateful or defamatory words can inflame hostilities, deepen divisions, and provoke violence. On the internet, this power is heightened. Intolerant speech is often amplified and impossible to retract. Of course, the internet also provides a unique space for people to bridge their differences and build trust and understanding. Some take the view that, to encourage tolerance, some hateful ideas must be silenced by governments. We believe that efforts to curb the content of speech rarely succeed and often become an excuse to violate freedom of expression. Instead, as it has historically been proven time and time again, the better answer to offensive speech is more speech. People can and should speak out against intolerance and hatred. By exposing ideas to debate, those with merit tend to be strengthened, while weak and false ideas tend to fade away; perhaps not instantly, but eventually. Now, this approach does not immediately discredit every hateful idea or convince every bigot to reverse his thinking. But we have determined as a society that it is far more effective than any other alternative approach. Deleting writing, blocking content, arresting speakers – these actions suppress words, but they do not touch the underlying ideas. They simply drive people with those ideas to the fringes, where their convictions can deepen, unchallenged. Last summer, Hannah Rosenthal, the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, made a trip to Dachau and Auschwitz with a delegation of American imams and Muslim leaders. Many of them had previously denied the Holocaust, and none of them had ever denounced Holocaust denial. But by visiting the concentration camps, they displayed a willingness to consider a different view. And the trip had a real impact. They prayed together, and they signed messages of peace, and many of those messages in the visitors books were written in Arabic. At the end of the trip, they read a statement that they wrote and signed together condemning without reservation Holocaust denial and all other forms of anti-Semitism. The marketplace of ideas worked. Now, these leaders had not been arrested for their previous stance or ordered to remain silent. Their mosques were not shut down. The state did not compel them with force. Others appealed to them with facts. And their speech was dealt with through the speech of others. The United States does restrict certain kinds of speech in accordance with the rule of law and our international obligations. We have rules about libel and slander, defamation, and speech that incites imminent violence. But we enforce these rules transparently, and citizens have the right to appeal how they are applied. And we don’t restrict speech even if the majority of people find it offensive. History, after all, is full of examples of ideas that were banned for reasons that we now see as wrong. People were punished for denying the divine right of kings, or suggesting that people should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, or religion. These restrictions might have reflected the dominant view at the time, and variations on these restrictions are still in force in places around the world. But when it comes to online speech, the United States has chosen not to depart from our time-tested principles. We urge our people to speak with civility, to recognize the power and reach that their words can have online. We’ve seen in our own country tragic examples of how online bullying can have terrible consequences. Those of us in government should lead by example, in the tone we set and the ideas we champion. But leadership also means empowering people to make their own choices, rather than intervening and taking those choices away. We protect free speech with the force of law, and we appeal to the force of reason to win out over hate. Now, these three large principles are not always easy to advance at once. They raise tensions, and they pose challenges. But we do not have to choose among them. Liberty and security, transparency and confidentiality, freedom of expression and tolerance – these all make up the foundation of a free, open, and secure society as well as a free, open, and secure internet where universal human rights are respected, and which provides a space for greater progress and prosperity over the long run. Now, some countries are trying a different approach, abridging rights online and working to erect permanent walls between different activities – economic exchanges, political discussions, religious expressions, and social interactions. They want to keep what they like and suppress what they don’t. But this is no easy task. Search engines connect businesses to new customers, and they also attract users because they deliver and organize news and information. Social networking sites aren’t only places where friends share photos; they also share political views and build support for social causes or reach out to professional contacts to collaborate on new business opportunities. Walls that divide the internet, that block political content, or ban broad categories of expression, or allow certain forms of peaceful assembly but prohibit others, or intimidate people from expressing their ideas are far easier to erect than to maintain. Not just because people using human ingenuity find ways around them and through them but because there isn’t an economic internet and a social internet and a political internet; there’s just the internet. And maintaining barriers that attempt to change this reality entails a variety of costs – moral, political, and economic. Countries may be able to absorb these costs for a time, but we believe they are unsustainable in the long run. There are opportunity costs for trying to be open for business but closed for free expression – costs to a nation’s education system, its political stability, its social mobility, and its economic potential. When countries curtail internet freedom, they place limits on their economic future. Their young people don’t have full access to the conversations and debates happening in the world or exposure to the kind of free inquiry that spurs people to question old ways of doing and invent new ones. And barring criticism of officials makes governments more susceptible to corruption, which create economic distortions with long-term effects. Freedom of thought and the level playing field made possible by the rule of law are part of what fuels innovation economies. So it’s not surprising that the European-American Business Council, a group of more than 70 companies, made a strong public support statement last week for internet freedom. If you invest in countries with aggressive censorship and surveillance policies, your website could be shut down without warning, your servers hacked by the government, your designs stolen, or your staff threatened with arrest or expulsion for failing to comply with a politically motivated order. The risks to your bottom line and to your integrity will at some point outweigh the potential rewards, especially if there are market opportunities elsewhere. Now, some have pointed to a few countries, particularly China, that appears to stand out as an exception, a place where internet censorship is high and economic growth is strong. Clearly, many businesses are willing to endure restrictive internet policies to gain access to those markets, and in the short term, even perhaps in the medium term, those governments may succeed in maintaining a segmented internet. But those restrictions will have long-term costs that threaten one day to become a noose that restrains growth and development. There are political costs as well. Consider Tunisia, where online economic activity was an important part of the country’s ties with Europe while online censorship was on par with China and Iran, the effort to divide the economic internet from the “everything else” internet in Tunisia could not be sustained. People, especially young people, found ways to use connection technologies to organize and share grievances, which, as we know, helped fuel a movement that led to revolutionary change. In Syria, too, the government is trying to negotiate a non-negotiable contradiction. Just last week, it lifted a ban on Facebook and YouTube for the first time in three years, and yesterday they convicted a teenage girl of espionage and sentenced her to five years in prison for the political opinions she expressed on her blog. This, too, is unsustainable. The demand for access to platforms of expression cannot be satisfied when using them lands you in prison. We believe that governments who have erected barriers to internet freedom, whether they’re technical filters or censorship regimes or attacks on those who exercise their rights to expression and assembly online, will eventually find themselves boxed in. They will face a dictator’s dilemma and will have to choose between letting the walls fall or paying the price to keep them standing, which means both doubling down on a losing hand by resorting to greater oppression and enduring the escalating opportunity cost of missing out on the ideas that have been blocked and people who have been disappeared. I urge countries everywhere instead to join us in the bet we have made, a bet that an open internet will lead to stronger, more prosperous countries. At its core, it’s an extension of the bet that the United States has been making for more than 200 years, that open societies give rise to the most lasting progress, that the rule of law is the firmest foundation for justice and peace, and that innovation thrives where ideas of all kinds are aired and explored. This is not a bet on computers or mobile phones. It’s a bet on people. We’re confident that together with those partners in government and people around the world who are making the same bet by hewing to universal rights that underpin open societies, we’ll preserve the internet as an open space for all. And that will pay long-term gains for our shared progress and prosperity. The United States will continue to promote an internet where people’s rights are protected and that it is open to innovation, interoperable all over the world, secure enough to hold people’s trust, and reliable enough to support their work. In the past year, we have welcomed the emergence of a global coalition of countries, businesses, civil society groups, and digital activists seeking to advance these goals. We have found strong partners in several governments worldwide, and we’ve been encouraged by the work of the Global Network Initiative, which brings together companies, academics, and NGOs to work together to solve the challenges we are facing, like how to handle government requests for censorship or how to decide whether to sell technologies that could be used to violate rights or how to handle privacy issues in the context of cloud computing. We need strong corporate partners that have made principled, meaningful commitments to internet freedom as we work together to advance this common cause. We realize that in order to be meaningful, online freedoms must carry over into real-world activism. That’s why we are working through our Civil Society 2.0 initiative to connect NGOs and advocates with technology and training that will magnify their impact. We are also committed to continuing our conversation with people everywhere around the world. Last week, you may have heard, we launched Twitter feeds in Arabic and Farsi, adding to the ones we already have in French and Spanish. We’ll start similar ones in Chinese, Russian, and Hindi. This is enabling us to have real-time, two-way conversations with people wherever there is a connection that governments do not block. Our commitment to internet freedom is a commitment to the rights of people, and we are matching that with our actions. Monitoring and responding to threats to internet freedom has become part of the daily work of our diplomats and development experts. They are working to advance internet freedom on the ground at our embassies and missions around the world. The United States continues to help people in oppressive internet environments get around filters, stay one step ahead of the censors, the hackers, and the thugs who beat them up or imprison them for what they say online. While the rights we seek to protect and support are clear, the various ways that these rights are violated are increasingly complex. I know some have criticized us for not pouring funding into a single technology, but we believe there is no silver bullet in the struggle against internet repression. There’s no app for that. (Laughter.) Start working, those of you out there. (Laughter.) And accordingly, we are taking a comprehensive and innovative approach, one that matches our diplomacy with technology, secure distribution networks for tools, and direct support for those on the front lines. In the last three years, we have awarded more than $20 million in competitive grants through an open process, including interagency evaluation by technical and policy experts to support a burgeoning group of technologists and activists working at the cutting edge of the fight against internet repression. This year, we will award more than $25 million in additional funding. We are taking a venture capital-style approach, supporting a portfolio of technologies, tools, and training, and adapting as more users shift to mobile devices. We have our ear to the ground, talking to digital activists about where they need help, and our diversified approach means we’re able to adapt the range of threats that they face. We support multiple tools, so if repressive governments figure out how to target one, others are available. And we invest in the cutting edge because we know that repressive governments are constantly innovating their methods of oppression and we intend to stay ahead of them. Likewise, we are leading the push to strengthen cyber security and online innovation, building capacity in developing countries, championing open and interoperable standards and enhancing international cooperation to respond to cyber threats. Deputy Secretary of Defense Lynn gave a speech on this issue just yesterday. All these efforts build on a decade of work to sustain an internet that is open, secure, and reliable. And in the coming year, the Administration will complete an international strategy for cyberspace, charting the course to continue this work into the future. This is a foreign policy priority for us, one that will only increase in importance in the coming years. That’s why I’ve created the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, to enhance our work on cyber security and other issues and facilitate cooperation across the State Department and with other government agencies. I’ve named Christopher Painter, formerly senior director for cyber security at the National Security Council and a leader in the field for 20 years, to head this new office. The dramatic increase in internet users during the past 10 years has been remarkable to witness. But that was just the opening act. In the next 20 years, nearly 5 billion people will join the network. It is those users who will decide the future. So we are playing for the long game. Unlike much of what happens online, progress on this front will be measured in years, not seconds. The course we chart today will determine whether those who follow us will get the chance to experience the freedom, security, and prosperity of an open internet. As we look ahead, let us remember that internet freedom isn’t about any one particular activity online. It’s about ensuring that the internet remains a space where activities of all kinds can take place, from grand, ground-breaking, historic campaigns to the small, ordinary acts that people engage in every day. We want to keep the internet open for the protestor using social media to organize a march in Egypt; the college student emailing her family photos of her semester abroad; the lawyer in Vietnam blogging to expose corruption; the teenager in the United States who is bullied and finds words of support online; for the small business owner in Kenya using mobile banking to manage her profits; the philosopher in China reading academic journals for her dissertation; the scientist in Brazil sharing data in real time with colleagues overseas; and the billions and billions of interactions with the internet every single day as people communicate with loved ones, follow the news, do their jobs, and participate in the debates shaping their world. Internet freedom is about defending the space in which all these things occur so that it remains not just for the students here today, but your successors and all who come after you. This is one of the grand challenges of our time. We are engaged in a vigorous effort against those who we have always stood against, who wish to stifle and repress, to come forward with their version of reality and to accept none other. We enlist your help on behalf of this struggle. It’s a struggle for human rights, it’s a struggle for human freedom, and it’s a struggle for human dignity. Thank you all very much. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Text Source: http://www.state.gov Image Source (Screenshot): YouTube.com Copyright Status: Text, Audio = Public domain. Image = Uncertain.

Hillary Clinton Remarks on the Situation in Libya and Resolution 1973 delivered 19 March 2011, Paris, France Before we begin, I want to say a few words about Warren Christopher. He was a friend, a mentor, and truly a diplomat’s diplomat. He served our country with such great distinction in so many capacities over his long and very productive life. There are a lot of days in this job when I ask myself, “What would Warren do?” From the Balkans to the Middle East, to China and Vietnam, he helped guide the United States through difficult challenges with tremendous grace and wisdom. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and with his many, many friends and colleagues throughout our country and around the world.Now, this has been a quick but productive trip, and I want to give you a brief update and then answer your questions. First, let’s remember how we got here. As you know, Americans and people around the world watched with growing concern as Libyan civilians were gunned down by a government that has lost all legitimacy. The people of Libya appealed for help. The Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council called for action. The international community came together to speak with one voice and to deliver a clear and consistent message: Colonel Gaddafi campaign of violence against his own people must stop. The strong votes in the United Nations Security Council underscored this unity. And now the Gaddafi forces face unambiguous terms: a ceasefire must be implemented immediately – that means all attacks against civilians must stop; troops must stop advancing on Benghazi and pull back from Adjabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; water, electricity, and gas supplies must be turned on to all areas; humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. Yesterday, President Obama said very clearly that if Gaddafi failed to comply with these terms, there would be consequences. Since the President spoke, there has been some talk from Tripoli of a ceasefire, but the reality on the ground tells a very different story. Colonel Gaddafi continues to defy the world. His attacks on civilians go on. Today, we have been monitoring the troubling reports of fighting around and within Benghazi itself. As President Obama also said, we have every reason to fear that, left unchecked, Gaddafi will commit unspeakable atrocities. It is against that backdrop that nations from across the region and the world met today here in Paris to discuss the ways we can, working together, implement Resolution 1973. We all recognize that further delay will only put more civilians at risk. So let me be very clear about the position of the United States: We will support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of Resolution 1973. As you may know, French planes are already in the skies above Benghazi. Now, America has unique capabilities and we will bring them to bear to help our European and Canadian allies and Arab partners stop further violence against civilians, including through the effective implementation of a no-fly zone. As President Obama said, the United States will not deploy ground troops, but there should be no mistaking our commitment to this effort. Today, I was able to discuss next steps with the full group and also conduct smaller focused conversations with many of my colleagues. I met first with President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron. Both France and the United Kingdom, along with other key partners, have stepped forward to play a leading role in enforcing 1973. We reviewed the latest reports from the ground and discussed how we can work together most effectively in the hours and days ahead, and how we would work very cooperatively with our other partners, including Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, as well as others that are not in that long list. I also had the opportunity to engage today with my Arab counterparts, including Foreign Minister Zebari of Iraq representing the presidency of the Arab Summit, Secretary General Amr Moussa of the Arab League, Prime Minister Hamid bin Jasim of Qatar, Sheikh Abdallah bin Zayid of the UAE, Foreign Minister Fassi Fihri of Morocco, and Foreign Minister Judeh of Jordan. We have said from the start that Arab leadership and participation in this effort is crucial, and the Arab League showed that with its pivotal statements on Libya what really that meant. It changed the diplomatic landscape. They have sent another strong message by being here today, and we look to them for continued leadership as well as active participation and partnership going forward. With Sheikh Abdallah and Prime Minister Hamid bin Jasim, I reiterated our strong and enduring partnership. The United States has an abiding commitment to Gulf security and a top priority is working together with our partners on our shared concerns about Iranian behavior in the region. We share the view that Iran’s activities in the Gulf, including its efforts to advance its agenda in neighboring countries, undermines peace and stability. Our Gulf partners are critical to the international community’s efforts on Libya, and we thank them for their leadership. We also had a constructive discussion on Bahrain. We have a decades-long friendship with Bahrain that we expect to continue long into the future. Our goal is a credible political process that can address the legitimate aspirations of all the people of Bahrain, starting with the Crown Prince’s dialogue, which all parties should join. Of course, that process should unfold in a peaceful, positive atmosphere that protects the freedom of peaceful assembly while ensuring that students can go to school, businesses can operate, and people can undertake their normal daily activities. My GCC counterparts said they share the same goals in Bahrain. Now, Bahrain obviously has the sovereign right to invite GCC forces into its territory under its defense and security agreements. The GCC has also announced a major aid package for economic and social development in Bahrain. We have made clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing Bahrain. As I said earlier this week, violence is not and cannot be the answer. A political process is. We have raised our concerns about the current measures directly with Bahraini officials and will continue to do so. With all of these partners, we have discussed the urgent humanitarian needs arising from the crisis in Libya. I thanked the Arab leaders for their generous contributions to aid refugees fleeing Gaddafi’s violence, and we agreed that this will be a critical concern in the days ahead. Egypt and Tunisia, in particular, will need all of our support. The United States has made significant pledges of assistance, and we look to all our allies and partners to join us in this work. Now, this is a fluid and fast-moving situation, which may be the understatement of the time. And I know that there are lots of questions that people have about what next and what will we be doing. So let me just underscore the key point: This is a broad international effort; the world will not sit idly by while more innocent civilians are killed. The United States will support our allies and partners as they move to enforce Resolution 1973. We are standing with the people of Libya and we will not waver in our efforts to protect them. Thank you. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Text Source: http://www.state.gov Copyright Status: Text = Public domain.

Hillary Clinton Press Conference on Libya and Resolutions 1970 and 1073 delivered 24 March 2011, Washington, D.C. Good evening. I’m just returning from the White House, where I met with the President and the national security team, and I want to give you an update on the international community’s efforts to implement UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, and protect the civilians of Libya. Events have moved very quickly, so let’s be clear about where we stand and how we got here. When the Libyan people sought to realize their democratic aspirations, they were met by extreme violence from their own government. The Libyan people appealed to the world to help stop the brutal attacks on them, and the world listened. The Arab League called for urgent action. In response, the UN Security Council mandated all necessary measures to protect civilians, including a no-fly zone. But the regime’s forces continued their assaults, and last weekend they reached Benghazi itself. We faced the prospect of an imminent humanitarian disaster. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were in danger. So an international coalition was compelled to act. French planes were the first to reach the skies over Benghazi. Cruise missiles from the United States and the United Kingdom followed, striking the region — the regime’s air defenses and clearing the way for allied aircraft to implement the no-fly zone. Many other nations have now joined this effort. After only five days, we have made significant progress. A massacre in Benghazi was prevented. Gaddafi’s air force and air defenses have been rendered largely ineffective, and the coalition is in control of the skies above Libya. Humanitarian relief is beginning to reach the people who need it. For example, just today we learned that at least 18 doctors and nurses from an organization funded by the United States Agency for International Development had arrived in Benghazi and were beginning to provide support to the city’s main hospital. Gaddafi’s troops have been pushed back but they remain a serious threat to the safety of the people. From the start, President Obama has stressed that the role of the U.S. military would be limited in time and scope. Our mission has been to use America’s unique capabilities to create the conditions for the no-fly zone and to assist in meeting urgent humanitarian needs. And as expected, we’re already seeing a significant reduction in the number of U.S. planes involved in operations as the number of planes from other countries increase in numbers. Today we are taking the next step. We have agreed, along with our NATO allies, to transition command and control for the no-fly zone over Libya to NATO. All 28 allies have also now authorized military authorities to develop an operations plan for NATO to take on the broader civilian protection mission under Resolution 1973. NATO is well-suited to coordinating this international effort and ensuring that all participating nations are working effectively together toward our shared goals. This coalition includes countries beyond NATO, including Arab partners, and we expect all of them to be providing important political guidance going forward. We have always said that Arab leadership and participation is crucial. The Arab League showed that leadership with its pivotal statement on Libya. They joined the discussions in Paris last weekend on implementation, and we are deeply appreciative of their continuing contributions, including aircrafts and pilots from Qatar. This evening, the United Arab Emirates announced they are joining the coalition and sending planes to help protect Libyan civilians and enforce the no-fly zone. We welcome this important step. It underscores both the breadth of this international coalition and the depth of concern in the region for the plight of the Libyan people. In the days ahead, as NATO assumes command and control responsibilities, the welfare of those civilians will be of paramount concern. This operation has already saved many lives, but the danger is far from over. As long as the Gaddafi regime threatens its people and defies the United Nations, we must remain vigilant and focused. To continue coordinating with our partners and charting the way forward, I will travel to London to attend an international conference on Tuesday, convened by the United Kingdom. Our military will continue to provide support to our efforts to make sure that Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 will be enforced. This is an important effort that has garnered the support and the active participation of nations who recognize the significance of coming together in the international community, through the United Nations, to set forth a clear statement of action to be taken in order to protect innocent civilians from their own government. It is an effort that we believe is very important, and we’ll look forward to coordinating closely with all those nations that are participating. Thank you very much. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Text, Audio, Image: http://www.state.gov Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Image = Public domain.

Hillary Clinton International Human Rights Day Address at Palais des Nations delivered 6 December 2011, Geneva, Switzerland Good evening, and let me express my deep honor and pleasure at being here. I want to thank Director General Tokayev and Ms. Wyden along with other ministers, ambassadors, excellencies, and UN partners. This weekend, we will celebrate Human Rights Day, the anniversary of one of the great accomplishments of the last century. Beginning in 1947, delegates from six continents devoted themselves to drafting a declaration that would enshrine the fundamental rights and freedoms of people everywhere. In the aftermath of World War II, many nations pressed for a statement of this kind to help ensure that we would prevent future atrocities and protect the inherent humanity and dignity of all people. And so the delegates went to work. They discussed, they wrote, they revisited, revised, rewrote, for thousands of hours. And they incorporated suggestions and revisions from governments, organizations, and individuals around the world. At three o’clock in the morning on December 10th, 1948, after nearly two years of drafting and one last long night of debate, the president of the UN General Assembly called for a vote on the final text. Forty-eight nations voted in favor; eight abstained; none dissented. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It proclaims a simple, powerful idea: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people. It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are, or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them. In the 63 years since the declaration was adopted, many nations have made great progress in making human rights a human reality. Step by step, barriers that once prevented people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity have fallen away. In many places, racist laws have been repealed, legal and social practices that relegated women to second-class status have been abolished, the ability of religious minorities to practice their faith freely has been secured. In most cases, this progress was not easily won. People fought and organized and campaigned in public squares and private spaces to change not only laws, but hearts and minds. And thanks to that work of generations, for millions of individuals whose lives were once narrowed by injustice, they are now able to live more freely and to participate more fully in the political, economic, and social lives of their communities. Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment, that reality, and progress for all people. Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm. I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country’s record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home. Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere. The first issue goes to the heart of the matter. Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren’t thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity. This recognition did not occur all at once. It evolved over time. And as it did, we understood that we were honoring rights that people always had, rather than creating new or special rights for them. Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights. It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity. The second issue is a question of whether homosexuality arises from a particular part of the world. Some seem to believe it is a Western phenomenon, and therefore people outside the West have grounds to reject it. Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors. Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality. And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments do. South Africa’s constitution, written in the aftermath of Apartheid, protects the equality of all citizens, including gay people. In Colombia and Argentina, the rights of gays are also legally protected. In Nepal, the supreme court has ruled that equal rights apply to LGBT citizens. The Government of Mongolia has committed to pursue new legislation that will tackle anti-gay discrimination. Now, some worry that protecting the human rights of the LGBT community is a luxury that only wealthy nations can afford. But in fact, in all countries, there are costs to not protecting these rights, in both gay and straight lives lost to disease and violence, and the silencing of voices and views that would strengthen communities, in ideas never pursued by entrepreneurs who happen to be gay. Costs are incurred whenever any group is treated as lesser or the other, whether they are women, racial, or religious minorities, or the LGBT. Former President Mogae of Botswana pointed out recently that for as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS. Well, that holds true for other challenges as well. The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn’t cultural; it’s criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights. In each of these cases, we came to learn that no practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us. And this holds true for inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing. Of course, it bears noting that rarely are cultural and religious traditions and teachings actually in conflict with the protection of human rights. Indeed, our religion and our culture are sources of compassion and inspiration toward our fellow human beings. It was not only those who’ve justified slavery who leaned on religion, it was also those who sought to abolish it. And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures. The fourth issue is what history teaches us about how we make progress towards rights for all. Progress starts with honest discussion. Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true. They are also unlikely to disappear if those who promote or accept them are dismissed out of hand rather than invited to share their fears and concerns. No one has ever abandoned a belief because he was forced to do so. Universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief, even if our words or beliefs denigrate the humanity of others. Yet, while we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all. Reaching understanding of these issues takes more than speech. It does take a conversation. In fact, it takes a constellation of conversations in places big and small. And it takes a willingness to see stark differences in belief as a reason to begin the conversation, not to avoid it. But progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate. Many in my country thought that President Truman was making a grave error when he ordered the racial desegregation of our military. They argued that it would undermine unit cohesion. And it wasn’t until he went ahead and did it that we saw how it strengthened our social fabric in ways even the supporters of the policy could not foresee. Likewise, some worried in my country that the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would have a negative effect on our armed forces. Now, the Marine Corps Commandant, who was one of the strongest voices against the repeal, says that his concerns were unfounded and that the Marines have embraced the change. Finally, progress comes from being willing to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. We need to ask ourselves, “How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love? How would it feel to be discriminated against for something about myself that I cannot change?” This challenge applies to all of us as we reflect upon deeply held beliefs, as we work to embrace tolerance and respect for the dignity of all persons, and as we engage humbly with those with whom we disagree in the hope of creating greater understanding. A fifth and final question is how we do our part to bring the world to embrace human rights for all people including LGBT people. Yes, LGBT people must help lead this effort, as so many of you are. Their knowledge and experiences are invaluable and their courage inspirational. We know the names of brave LGBT activists who have literally given their lives for this cause, and there are many more whose names we will never know. But often those who are denied rights are least empowered to bring about the changes they seek. Acting alone, minorities can never achieve the majorities necessary for political change. So when any part of humanity is sidelined, the rest of us cannot sit on the sidelines. Every time a barrier to progress has fallen, it has taken a cooperative effort from those on both sides of the barrier. In the fight for women’s rights, the support of men remains crucial. The fight for racial equality has relied on contributions from people of all races. Combating Islamaphobia or anti-Semitism is a task for people of all faiths. And the same is true with this struggle for equality. Conversely, when we see denials and abuses of human rights and fail to act, that sends the message to those deniers and abusers that they won’t suffer any consequences for their actions, and so they carry on. But when we do act, we send a powerful moral message. Right here in Geneva, the international community acted this year to strengthen a global consensus around the human rights of LGBT people. At the Human Rights Council in March, 85 countries from all regions supported a statement calling for an end to criminalization and violence against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. At the following session of the Council in June, South Africa took the lead on a resolution about violence against LGBT people. The delegation from South Africa spoke eloquently about their own experience and struggle for human equality and its indivisibility. When the measure passed, it became the first-ever UN resolution recognizing the human rights of gay people worldwide. In the Organization of American States this year, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a unit on the rights of LGBT people, a step toward what we hope will be the creation of a special rapporteur. Now, we must go further and work here and in every region of the world to galvanize more support for the human rights of the LGBT community. To the leaders of those countries where people are jailed, beaten, or executed for being gay, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. It also means ensuring that all citizens are treated as equals under your laws, because let me be clear – I am not saying that gay people can’t or don’t commit crimes. They can and they do, just like straight people. And when they do, they should be held accountable, but it should never be a crime to be gay. And to people of all nations, I say supporting human rights is your responsibility too. The lives of gay people are shaped not only by laws, but by the treatment they receive every day from their families, from their neighbors. Eleanor Roosevelt, who did so much to advance human rights worldwide, said that these rights begin in the small places close to home – the streets where people live, the schools they attend, the factories, farms, and offices where they work. These places are your domain. The actions you take, the ideals that you advocate, can determine whether human rights flourish where you are. And finally, to LGBT men and women worldwide, let me say this: Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people. The Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy. In our embassies, our diplomats are raising concerns about specific cases and laws, and working with a range of partners to strengthen human rights protections for all. In Washington, we have created a task force at the State Department to support and coordinate this work. And in the coming months, we will provide every embassy with a toolkit to help improve their efforts. And we have created a program that offers emergency support to defenders of human rights for LGBT people. This morning, back in Washington, President Obama put into place the first U.S. Government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad. Building on efforts already underway at the State Department and across the government, the President has directed all U.S. Government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT status and conduct, to enhance efforts to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, to ensure that our foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights, to enlist international organizations in the fight against discrimination, and to respond swiftly to abuses against LGBT persons. I am also pleased to announce that we are launching a new Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world. This fund will help them record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs, and forge partnerships with women’s organizations and other human rights groups. We have committed more than $3 million to start this fund, and we have hope that others will join us in supporting it. The women and men who advocate for human rights for the LGBT community in hostile places, some of whom are here today with us, are brave and dedicated, and deserve all the help we can give them. We know the road ahead will not be easy. A great deal of work lies before us. But many of us have seen firsthand how quickly change can come. In our lifetimes, attitudes toward gay people in many places have been transformed. Many people, including myself, have experienced a deepening of our own convictions on this topic over the years, as we have devoted more thought to it, engaged in dialogues and debates, and established personal and professional relationships with people who are gay. This evolution is evident in many places. To highlight one example, the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality in India two years ago, writing, and I quote, “If there is one tenet that can be said to be an underlying theme of the Indian constitution, it is inclusiveness.” There is little doubt in my mind that support for LGBT human rights will continue to climb. Because for many young people, this is simple: All people deserve to be treated with dignity and have their human rights respected, no matter who they are or whom they love. There is a phrase that people in the United States invoke when urging others to support human rights: “Be on the right side of history.” The story of the United States is the story of a nation that has repeatedly grappled with intolerance and inequality. We fought a brutal civil war over slavery. People from coast to coast joined in campaigns to recognize the rights of women, indigenous peoples, racial minorities, children, people with disabilities, immigrants, workers, and on and on. And the march toward equality and justice has continued. Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honors them. Those who tried to constrict human rights were wrong, and history reflects that as well. I know that the thoughts I’ve shared today involve questions on which opinions are still evolving. As it has happened so many times before, opinion will converge once again with the truth, the immutable truth, that all persons are created free and equal in dignity and rights. We are called once more to make real the words of the Universal Declaration. Let us answer that call. Let us be on the right side of history, for our people, our nations, and future generations, whose lives will be shaped by the work we do today. I come before you with great hope and confidence that no matter how long the road ahead, we will travel it successfully together. Thank you very much. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Text and Image Source: http://www.state.gov Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Image = Public domain.

Hillary Clinton Address to the Ministerial Conference on Internet Freedom delivered 8 December 2011, Fokker Terminal, The Hague, Netherlands Well, good evening, and it’s wonderful to be back in The Hague. I want to thank my colleague and friend, Foreign Minister Rosenthal, a longtime friend, and co-conspirator from time to time, Eric Schmidt. Also, thanks to Leon Willems, the director of the Free Press Unlimited, and to those of my colleagues whom I know are here, namely Carl Bildt, an incredibly connected foreign minister, along with other ministers, ambassadors, the diplomatic community, and ladies and gentlemen. It’s a pleasure to join you here today to discuss this issue, because we think it is vitally important to every nation represented and every nation in the world; namely, internet freedom. And I want to thank Uri and the Netherlands for hosting this conference, which is a reflection of your long tradition of defending and advancing people’s human rights and fundamental freedoms everywhere, including online. And thanks as well to the representatives of nearly two dozen other governments here, all of whom I know will be working to get real solutions and recommendations agreed to tomorrow. I’m pleased we also have representatives from the private sector and civil society. So it all adds up to a multi-stakeholder event. Now, in two days, on December 10th, we’ll celebrate Human Rights Day, which is the anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And in the 63 years since that achievement, the world has been implementing a global commitment around the rights and freedoms of people everywhere, no matter where they live or who they are. And today, as people increasingly turn to the internet to conduct important aspects of their lives, we have to make sure that human rights are as respected online as offline. After all, the right to express one’s views, practice one’s faith, peacefully assemble with others to pursue political or social change — these are all rights to which all human beings are entitled, whether they choose to exercise them in a city square or an internet chat room. And just as we have worked together since the last century to secure these rights in the material world, we must work together in this century to secure them in cyberspace. This is an urgent task. It is most urgent, of course, for those around the world whose words are now censored, who are imprisoned because of what they or others have written online, who are blocked from accessing entire categories of internet content, or who are being tracked by governments seeking to keep them from connecting with one another. In Syria, a blogger named Anas Maarawi was arrested on July 1st after demanding that President Asad leave. He’s not been charged with anything, but he remains in detention. In both Syria and Iran, many other online activists — actually too many to name — have been detained, imprisoned, beaten, and even killed for expressing their views and organizing their fellow citizens. And perhaps the most well known blogger in Russia, Alexei Navalny, was sentenced on Tuesday to 15 days in jail after he took part in protests over the Russian elections. In China, several dozen companies signed a pledge in October, committing to strengthen their (quote) “self-management, self-restraint, and strict self-discipline.” Now, if they were talking about fiscal responsibility, we might all agree. But they were talking about offering web-based services to the Chinese people, which is code for getting in line with the government’s tight control over the internet. Now, these and many other incidents worldwide remind us of the stakes in this struggle. And the struggle does not belong only to those on the front lines and who are suffering. It belongs to all of us: first, because we all have a responsibility to support human rights and fundamental freedoms everywhere. Second, because the benefits of the network grow as the number of users grow. The internet is not exhaustible or competitive. My use of the internet doesn’t diminish yours. On the contrary, the more people that are online and contributing ideas, the more valuable the entire network becomes to all the other users. In this way, all users, through the billions of individual choices we make about what information to seek or share, fuel innovation, enliven public debates, quench a thirst for knowledge, and connect people in ways that distance and cost made impossible just a generation ago. But when ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled, and people constrained in their choices, the internet is diminished for all of us. What we do today to preserve fundamental freedoms online will have a profound effect on the next generation of users. More than two billion people are now connected to the internet, but in the next 20 years, that number will more than double. And we are quickly approaching the day when more than a billion people are using the internet in repressive countries. The pledges we make and the actions we take today can help us determine whether that number grows or shrinks, or whether the meaning of being on the internet is totally distorted. Delivering on internet freedom requires cooperative actions, and we have to foster a global conversation based on shared principles and with the right partners to navigate the practical challenges of maintaining an internet that is open and free while also interoperable, secure, and reliable. Now, this enterprise isn’t a matter of negotiating a single document and calling the job done. It requires an ongoing effort to reckon with the new reality that we live in, in a digital world, and doing so in a way that maximizes its promise. Because the advent of cyberspace creates new challenges and opportunities in terms of security, the digital economy, and human rights, we have to be constantly evolving in our responses. And though they are distinct, they are practically inseparable, because there isn’t an economic internet, a social internet, and a political internet. There is just the internet, and we’re here to protect what makes it great. Tomorrow’s sessions provide the opportunity for us to make concrete progress. At this kickoff event, I’d like to briefly discuss three specific challenges that defenders of the internet must confront. The first challenge is for the private sector to embrace its role in protecting internet freedom, because whether you like it or not, the choices that private companies make have an impact on how information flows or doesn’t flow on the internet and mobile networks. They also have an impact on what governments can and can’t do, and they have an impact on people on the ground. In recent months, we’ve seen cases where companies, products, and services were used as tools of oppression. Now, in some instances, this cannot be foreseen, but in others, yes, it can. A few years ago, the headlines were about companies turning over sensitive information about political dissidents. Earlier this year, they were about a company shutting down the social networking accounts of activists in the midst of a political debate. Today’s news stories are about companies selling the hardware and software of repression to authoritarian governments. When companies sell surveillance equipment to the security agency of Syria or Iran or, in past times, Kaddafi, there can be no doubt it will be used to violate rights. Now, there are some who would say that in order to compel good behavior by businesses, responsible governments should simply impose broad sanctions, and that will take care of the problem. Well, it’s true that sanctions and export controls are useful tools, and the United States makes vigorous use of them when appropriate; and if they are broken, we investigate and pursue violators. And we’re always seeking to work with our partners, such as the European Union, to make them as smart and effective as possible. Just last week, for example, we were glad to see our EU partners impose new sanctions on technology going to Syria. So sanctions are part of the solution, but they are not the entire solution. Dual-use technologies and third-party sales make it impossible to have a sanctions regime that perfectly prevents bad actors from using technologies in bad ways. Now, sometimes companies say to us at the State Department, “Just tell us what to do, and we’ll do it.” But the fact is, you can’t wait for instructions. In the 21st century, smart companies have to act before they find themselves in the crosshairs of controversy. I wish there were, but there isn’t, an easy formula for this. Making good decisions about how and whether to do business in various parts of the world, particularly where the laws are applied haphazardly or they are opaque, takes critical thinking and deliberation and asking hard questions. So what kind of business should you do in a country where it has a history of violating internet freedom? Is there something you can do to prevent governments from using your products to spy on their own citizens? Should you include warnings to consumers? How will you handle requests for information from security authorities when those requests come without a warrant? Are you working to prevent post-purchase modifications of your products or resale through middlemen to authoritarian regimes? Now, these and others are difficult questions, but companies must ask them. And the rest of us stand ready to work with you to find answers and to hold those who ignore or dismiss or deny the importance of this issue accountable. A range of resources emerged in recent years to help companies work through these issues. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which were adopted in June, and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises both advise companies on how to meet responsibilities and carry out due diligence. And the Global Network Initiative, which is represented here tonight, is a growing forum where companies can work through challenges with other industry partners, as well as academics, investors, and activists. And of course, companies can always learn from users. The Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference in October brought together companies, activists, and experts to discuss real life problems and identify solutions. And some participants issued what they called the Silicon Valley Standard for stakeholders to aspire to. Working through these difficult questions by corporate executives and board members should help shape your practices. Part of the job of responsible corporate management in the 21st century is doing human rights due diligence on new markets, instituting internal review procedures, identifying principles by which decisions are to be made in tough situations, because we cannot let the short-term gains that all of us think are legitimate and worth seeking jeopardize the openness of the internet and human rights of individuals who use it without it coming back to haunt us all in the future. Because a free and open internet is important not just to technology companies but to all companies. Whether it’s run with a single mobile phone or an extensive corporate network, it’s hard to find any business today that doesn’t depend in some way on the internet and doesn’t suffer when networks are constrained. And also I would add that, in this day, brand and reputation are precious corporate assets. Companies that put them at risk when they are careless about freedom of the internet can often pay a price. So I think it’s particularly appropriate and important that the private sector is strongly represented at this meeting and that Google is co-hosting tonight’s event. In both securing the promise of a free and open internet and managing the risks that new technologies raise, the private sector is a crucial partner. But even as companies must step up, governments must resist the urge to clamp down, and that is the second challenge we face. If we’re not careful, governments could upend the current internet governance framework in a quest to increase their own control. Some governments use internet governance issues as a cover for pushing an agenda that would justify restricting human rights online. We must be wary of such agendas and united in our shared conviction that human rights apply online. So right now, in various international forums, some countries are working to change how the internet is governed. They want to replace the current multi-stakeholder approach, which includes governments, the private sector, and citizens, and supports the free flow of information, in a single global network. In its place, they aim to impose a system cemented in a global code that expands control over internet resources, institutions, and content, and centralizes that control in the hands of governments. Now, in a way, that isn’t surprising, because governments have never met a voice or public sphere they didn’t want to control at some point or another. They want to control what gets printed in newspapers, who gets into universities, what companies get oil contracts, what churches and NGOs get registered, where citizens can gather, so why not the internet? But it’s actually worse than that. It’s not just that they want governments to have all the control by cutting out civil society and the private sector; they also want to empower each individual government to make their own rules for the internet that not only undermine human rights and the free flow of information but also the interoperability of the network. In effect, the governments pushing this agenda want to create national barriers in cyberspace. This approach would be disastrous for internet freedom. More government control will further constrict what people in repressive environments can do online. It would also be disastrous for the internet as a whole, because it would reduce the dynamism of the internet for everyone. Fragmenting the global internet by erecting barriers around national internets would change the landscape of cyberspace. In this scenario, the internet would contain people in a series of digital bubbles, rather than connecting them in a global network. Breaking the internet into pieces would give you echo chambers rather than an innovative global marketplace of ideas. The United States wants the internet to remain a space where economic, political, and social exchanges flourish. To do that, we need to protect people who exercise their rights online, and we also need to protect the internet itself from plans that would undermine its fundamental characteristics. Now, those who push these plans often do so in the name of security. And let me be clear: The challenge of maintaining security and of combating cyber crime, such as the theft of intellectual property, are real — a point I underscore whenever I discuss these issues. There are predators, terrorists, traffickers on the internet, malign actors plotting cyber attacks, and they all need to be stopped. We can do that by working together without compromising the global network, its dynamism, or our principles. Now, there’s a lot to be said about cyber security. I won’t go into that tonight. I’ll be talking about it more, but my basic point is that the United States supports the public-private collaboration that now exists to manage the technical evolution of the internet in real time. We support the principles of multi-stakeholder internet governance developed by more than 30 nations in the OECD earlier this year. A multi-stakeholder system brings together the best of governments, the private sector, and civil society. And most importantly, it works. It has kept the internet up and running for years all over the world. So to use an American phrase, our position is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And there’s no good reason to replace an effective system with an oppressive one. The third and final challenge is that all of us — governments, private, sector, civil society, must do more to build a truly global coalition to preserve an open internet. And that’s where all of you here today come in, because internet freedom cannot be defended by one country or one region alone. Building this global coalition is hard, partly because for people in many countries the potential of the internet is still unrealized. While it’s easy for us in the United States or in the Netherlands to imagine what we would lose if the internet became less free, it is harder for those who have yet to see the benefit of the internet in their day to day lives. So we have to work harder to make the case that an open internet is and will be in everyone’s best interests. And we have to keep that in mind as we work to build this global coalition and make the case to leaders of those countries where the next generation of internet users live. These leaders have an opportunity today to help ensure that the full benefits are available to their people tomorrow, and in so doing, they will help us ensure an open internet for everyone. So the United States will be making the case for an open internet in our work worldwide, and we welcome other countries to join us. As our coalition expands, countries like Ghana and Kenya, represented here tonight, Mongolia, Chile, also represented, I saw, Indonesia and others are sure to be effective at bringing other potential partners on board who have perspectives that can help us confront and answer difficult questions. And new players from governments, the private sector, and civil society will be participating in managing the internet in coming decades as billions more people from all different regions go online. So let’s lay the groundwork now for these partnerships that will support an open internet in the future. And in that spirit, I want to call attention to two important items on your agenda for tomorrow. The first will be to build support for a new cross-regional group that will work together in exactly the way that I’ve just discussed, based on shared principles, providing a platform for governments to engage creatively and energetically with the private sector, civil society, and other governments. Several countries have already signaled their intention to join. I hope others here will do the same, and going forward, others will endorse the declaration that our Dutch hosts have prepared. It’s excellent work, Uri, and we thank you for your leadership. The second item I want to highlight is a practical effort to do more to support cyber activists and bloggers who are threatened by their repressive governments. The Committee to Protect Journalists recently reported that of all the writers, editors, and photojournalists now imprisoned around the world, nearly half are online journalists. The threat is very real. Now, several of us already provide support, including financial support, to activists and bloggers, and I was pleased that the EU recently announced new funding for that purpose. And I know that other governments, including the Netherlands, are also looking for ways to help out. By coordinating our efforts, we can make them go further and help more people. Earlier, I heard what the foreign minister here is proposing. And we have talked about creating a digital defenders partnership to be part of this global effort. We hope tomorrow’s meetings will give us a chance to discuss with other potential partners how such a partnership could work. So while we meet here in the Netherlands in this beautiful city to talk about how to keep the internet open, unfortunately some countries are pulling very hard in the opposite direction. They’re trying to erect walls between different activities online, economic exchanges, political discussions, religious expression, social interaction, and so on. They want to keep what they like and which doesn’t threaten them and suppress what they don’t. But there are opportunity costs for trying to be open for business but closed for free expression, costs to a nation’s education system, political stability, social mobility, and economic potential. And walls that divide the internet are easier to erect than to maintain. Our government will continue to work very hard to get around every barrier that repressive governments put up, because governments that have erected barriers will eventually find themselves boxed in, and they will face the dictator’s dilemma. They will have to choose between letting the walls fall or paying the price for keeping them standing by resorting to greater repression and to escalating the opportunity cost of missing out on the ideas that have been blocked and the people who have disappeared. I urge countries everywhere, instead of that alternative dark vision, join us here today in the bet that we are making, a bet that an open internet will lead to stronger, more prosperous countries. This is not a bet on computers or mobile phones. It’s a bet on the human spirit. It’s a bet on people. And we’re confident that together, with our partners and government, the private sector, and civil society around the world, who have made this same bet like all of you here tonight, we will preserve the internet as open and secure for all. On the eve of Human Rights Day, this meeting reminds us of the timeless principles that should be our north star. And a look at the world around us and the way it is changing reminds us there is no auto-pilot steering us forward. We have to work in good faith and engage in honest debate, and we have to join together to solve the challenges and seize the opportunities of this exciting digital age. Thank you all for being committed to that goal and that vision. The United States pledges our support and our partnership going forward. Thank you all very much. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Text, Audio, Image Source: http://www.state.gov/ Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Image = Public domain.

Hillary Clinton On the 9/11 Deaths of American Personnel in Benghazi, Libya delivered 12 September 2012, Washington, D.C. Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed. They included Sean Smith, a Foreign Service information management officer, and our Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. We are still making next of kin notifications for the other two individuals. This is an attack that should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world. We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence, and we send our prayers to the families, friends, and colleagues of those we’ve lost. All over the world, every day, America’s diplomats and development experts risk their lives in the service of our country and our values, because they believe that the United States must be a force for peace and progress in the world, that these aspirations are worth striving and sacrificing for. Alongside our men and women in uniform, they represent the best traditions of a bold and generous nation. In the lobby of this building, the State Department, the names of those who have fallen in the line of duty are inscribed in marble. Our hearts break over each one. And now, because of this tragedy, we have new heroes to honor and more friends to mourn. Chris Stevens fell in love with the Middle East as a young Peace Corps volunteer teaching English in Morocco. He joined the Foreign Service, learned languages, won friends for America in distant places, and made other people’s hopes his own. In the early days of the Libyan revolution, I asked Chris to be our envoy to the rebel opposition. He arrived on a cargo ship in the port of Benghazi and began building our relationships with Libya’s revolutionaries. He risked his life to stop a tyrant, then gave his life trying to help build a better Libya. The world needs more Chris Stevenses. I spoke with his sister, Ann, this morning, and told her that he will be remembered as a hero by many nations. Sean Smith was an Air Force veteran. He spent 10 years as an information management officer in the State Department, he was posted at The Hague, and was in Libya on a brief temporary assignment. He was a husband to his wife Heather, with whom I spoke this morning. He was a father to two young children, Samantha and Nathan. They will grow up being proud of the service their father gave to our country, service that took him from Pretoria to Baghdad, and finally to Benghazi. The mission that drew Chris and Sean and their colleagues to Libya is both noble and necessary, and we and the people of Libya honor their memory by carrying it forward. This is not easy. Today, many Americans are asking — indeed, I asked myself — how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be. But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya. Everywhere Chris and his team went in Libya, in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners. And when the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post. Some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris’ body to the hospital, and they helped rescue and lead other Americans to safety. And last night, when I spoke with the President of Libya, he strongly condemned the violence and pledged every effort to protect our people and pursue those responsible. The friendship between our countries, borne out of shared struggle, will not be another casualty of this attack. A free and stable Libya is still in America’s interest and security, and we will not turn our back on that, nor will we rest until those responsible for these attacks are found and brought to justice. We are working closely with the Libyan authorities to move swiftly and surely. We are also working with partners around the world to safeguard other American embassies, consulates, and citizens. There will be more time later to reflect, but today, we have work to do. There is no higher priority than protecting our men and women wherever they serve. We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear – there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith. And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace. It is especially difficult that this happened on September 11th. It’s an anniversary that means a great deal to all Americans. Every year on that day, we are reminded that our work is not yet finished, that the job of putting an end to violent extremism and building a safe and stable world continues. But September 11th means even more than that. It is a day on which we remember thousands of American heroes, the bonds that connect all Americans, wherever we are on this Earth, and the values that see us through every storm. And now it is a day on which we will remember Sean, Chris, and their colleagues. May God bless them, and may God bless the thousands of Americans working in every corner of the world who make this country the greatest force for peace, prosperity, and progress, and a force that has always stood for human dignity – the greatest force the world has ever known. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. Thank you. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement U.S Copyright Status: Text, Audio = Public domain.

Hillary Clinton Address at the Dignified Transfer of Remains Ceremony for the Victims of the Attacks on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi delivered 14 September 2012, Joint Base Andrews AFB Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Secretary Panetta, Ambassador Rice, Secretary Powell and Mrs. Powell, family members of the four patriots and heroes we bring home, members of the State Department family, ladies and gentlemen: Today we bring home four Americans who gave their lives for our country and our values. To the families of our fallen colleagues, I offer our most heartfelt condolences and deepest gratitude. Sean Smith joined the State Department after six years in the Air Force. He was respected as an expert on technology by colleagues in Pretoria, Baghdad, Montreal, and The Hague. He enrolled in correspondence courses at Penn State and had high hopes for the future. Sean leaves behind a loving wife, Heather, two young children, Samantha and Nathan, and scores of grieving family, friends, and colleagues. And that’s just in this world. Because online in the virtual worlds that Sean helped create, he is also being mourned by countless competitors, collaborators, and gamers who shared his passion. Tyrone Woods, known to most as “Rone,” spent two decades as a Navy SEAL, serving multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2010, he protected American diplomatic personnel in dangerous posts from Central America to the Middle East. He had the hands of a healer as well as the arms of a warrior, earning distinction as a registered nurse and certified paramedic. Our hearts go out to Tyrone’s wife, Dorothy, and his three sons: Tyrone, Jr., Hunter, and Kai, born just a few months ago, along with his grieving family, friends, and colleagues. Glen Doherty, who went by “Bub,” was also a former SEAL and an experienced paramedic. He too died as he lived, serving his country and protecting his colleagues. Glen deployed to some of the most dangerous places on Earth, including Iraq and Afghanistan, always putting his life on the line to safeguard other Americans. Our thoughts and prayers are with Glen’s father, Bernard, his mother, Barbara, his brother, Gregory, his sister, Kathleen, and their grieving families, friends, and colleagues. I was honored to know Ambassador Chris Stevens. I want to thank his parents and siblings, who are here today, for sharing Chris with us and with our country. What a wonderful gift you gave us. Over his distinguished career in the Foreign Service, Chris won friends for the United States in far-flung places. He made those people’s hopes his own. During the revolution in Libya, he risked his life to help protect the Libyan people from a tyrant, and he gave his life helping them build a better country. People loved to work with Chris, and as he rose through the ranks they loved to work for Chris. He was known not only for his courage but for his smile — goofy but contagious — for his sense of fun and that California cool. In the days since the attack, so many Libyans — including the Ambassador from Libya to the United States, who is with us today — have expressed their sorrow and solidarity. One young woman, her head covered and her eyes haunted with sadness, held up a handwritten sign that said: “Thugs and killers don’t represent Benghazi nor Islam.” The President of the Palestinian Authority, who worked closely with Chris when he served in Jerusalem, sent me a letter remembering his energy and integrity, and deploring — and I quote — “an act of ugly terror.” Many others from across the Middle East and North Africa have offered similar sentiments. This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless and it is totally unacceptable. The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts. And we will, under the President’s leadership, keep taking steps to protect our personnel around the world. There will be more difficult days ahead but it is important that we don’t lose sight of the fundamental fact that America must keep leading the world. We owe it to those four men to continue the long, hard work of diplomacy. I am enormously proud of the men and women of the State Department. I’m proud of all those across our government, civilian and military alike, who represent America abroad. They help make the United States the greatest force for peace, progress, and human dignity the world has ever known. If the last few days teach us anything, let it be — be this: that this work, and the men and women who risk their lives to do it, are at the heart of what makes America great and good. So we will wipe away our tears, stiffen our spines, and face the future undaunted — and we will do it together, protecting and helping one another, just like Sean, Tyrone, Glen, and Chris always did. May God bless them and grant their families peace and solace. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Audio Source: WhiteHouse.gov Image #1 (Screenshot): WhiteHouse.gov Image #2: http://www.andrews.af.mil/ Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Images = Public domain.

Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign Concession Address delivered 10 November 2016 Secretary Clinton: And I love you all, too. Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful President for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for, and I’m sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country. But I feel — I feel pride and gratitude for this wonderful campaign that we built together — this vast, diverse, creative, unruly, energized campaign. You represent the best of America and being your candidate has been one of the greatest honors of my life. I — I know how disappointed you feel because I feel it too, and so do tens of millions of Americans who invested their hopes and dreams in this effort. This is painful and it will be for a long time, but I want you to remember this: Our campaign was never about one person or even one election. It was about the country we love and about building an America that’s hopeful, inclusive, and big-hearted. We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought. But I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our President. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power, and we don’t just respect that — we cherish it. It also enshrines other things: the rule of law; the principle that we are all equal in rights and dignity; freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values, too, and we must defend them. Now — And — And let me add, our constitutional democracy demands our participation, not just every four years but all the time. So let’s do all we can to keep advancing the causes and values we all hold dear: making our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top; protecting our country and protecting our planet; and breaking down all the barriers that hold any American back from achieving their dreams. We’ve spent a year and a half bringing together millions of people from every corner of our country to say with one voice that we believe that the American dream is big enough for everyone — for people of all races and religions, for men and women, for immigrants, for LGBT people, and people with disabilities. For everyone. So now, our responsibility as citizens is to keep doing our part to build that better, stronger, fairer America we seek. And I know you will. I am so grateful to stand with all of you. I want to thank Tim Kaine and Anne Holton for being our partners on this journey. It has been a joy getting to know them better, and it gives me great hope and comfort to know that Tim will remain on the front lines of our democracy representing Virginia in the Senate. To Barack and Michelle Obama, our country owes you an enormous debt of gratitude. We — We thank you for your graceful, determined leadership that has meant so much to so many Americans and people across the world. And to Bill and Chelsea, Mark, Charlotte, Aidan, our brothers and our entire family, my love for you means more than I can ever express. You crisscrossed this country on our behalf and lifted me up when I needed it most — even four-month-old Aidan who traveled with his mom. I will always be grateful to the creative, talented, dedicated men and women at our headquarters in Brooklyn and across our country. You poured your hearts into this campaign. For some of you who are veterans, it was a campaign after you had done other campaigns. Some of you, it was your first campaign. I want each of you to know that you were the best campaign anybody could have ever expected or wanted. And to the millions of volunteers, community leaders, activists, and union organizers, who knocked on doors, talked to neighbors, posted on Facebook, even in secret, private Facebook sites, I want everybody coming out from behind that and make sure your voices are heard going forward. To everyone who sent in contributions as small at five dollars, and kept us going, thank you. Thank you, from all of us. And to the young people in particular, I hope you will hear this. I have, as Tim said, spent my entire adult life fighting for what I believe in. I’ve had successes and I’ve had setbacks, sometimes, really painful ones. Many of you are at the beginning of your professional public and political careers. You will have successes and setbacks, too. This loss hurts, but please never stop believing that fighting for what’s right is worth it. It is. It is worth it. And so we need — we need you to keep up these fights now and for the rest of your lives. And to all the women, and especially the young women, who put their faith in this campaign and in me, I want you to know that nothing has made me prouder than to be your champion. Now, I — I know — I know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling, but some day someone will and hopefully sooner than we might think right now. And — And to all the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams. Finally — Finally, I am so grateful for our country and for all it has given to me. I count my blessings every single day that I am an American. And I still believe, as deeply as I ever have, that if we stand together and work together with respect for our differences, strength in our convictions, and love for this nation, our best days are still ahead of us — because, you know — you know, I believe we are stronger together and we will go forward together. And you should never, ever regret fighting for that. You know, Scripture tells us, “Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.”1 So my friends, let us have faith in each other. Let us not grow weary. Let us not lose heart. For there are more seasons to come, and there is more work to do. I am incredibly honored and grateful to have had this chance to represent all of you in this consequential election. May God bless you and may God bless the United States of America. 1 Galatians 6:9 (quotation close to NKJV version which uses “while” instead of “in”…doing good”) Audio Source: C-SPAN.org Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement U.S. Copyright Status: Text and Audio = Uncertain. Secretary Clinton: Thank you, thank you so very much for being here — Audience Members: We love you all.

Hillel Neuer Address to the United Nations Council on Human Rights delivered 23 March 2007, 4th Regular Session Thank you, Mr. President. Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of this noble dream? In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has this Council pronounced? What has it decided? Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal. One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council. But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something. It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements — and there will be three more this session — Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world — millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries — continue to go ignored. So yes, this Council has done something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing, and that they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights. So, too, the racist murderers of Darfur women, the rapists of Darfur women, tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims. But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights? Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights — Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard — say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy, Salam Balousha, and his two brothers, were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops. Why has this Council chosen silence? Because — Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the despots who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights. They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: To distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights. You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream? Of Eleanor Roosevelt, of Réné Casssin, of John Humphrey, P.C. Chang, Charles Malik, who assembled here in Geneva sixty years ago? Mr. President, with terrible lies and moral inversion, this Council is turning that dream into a nightmare. Thank you, Mr. President. Luis Alfonso de Alba1 Response to Mr. Neuer (transcription based on UN Interpreter) For the first time in this session, I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch — if you’d kindly listen to me. I am sorry, but I am not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the Council itself was referred to — all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) 1 President, United Nations Human Rights Council U.S. Copyright Status: Text and Audio = Uncertain.

Herbert Morrison Herb Morrison WLS Radio (Chicago) Broadcast on the Hindenburg Disaster delivered 6 May 1937, Lakehurst, NJ We both flew down from Chicago yesterday afternoon aboard one of the giant new 21-passenger flagships of American Airlines. It took us only 3 hours, 55 minutes to fly nonstop from Chicago to New York. When we landed at Newark we found another flagship of American Airlines waiting to take us to Lakehurst with our equipment when we were ready to go. And incidentally, American Airlines is the only airline in the — the United States which makes connections with the Hindenburg. The Hindenburg left Frankfurt, Germany — Tuesday evening, rather, at 7:30 their time and for better than two and a half days they’ve been speeding through the skies over miles and miles of water here to America. Now they’re coming in to make a landing of the Zeppelin. I’m going to step out here and cover it from the outside. So as I move out, we’ll just stand by a second. Well, here it comes, ladies and gentlemen; we’re out now, outside of the hangar. And what a great sight it is, a thrilling one, just a marvelous sight. It’s coming down out of the sky, pointed directly towards us and toward the mooring mast. The mighty diesel motors just roared, the propellers biting into the air and throwing it back into a gale-like whirlpool. No wonder this great floating palace can travel through the air at such a speed, with these powerful motors behind it. *Now and then the propellers are caught in the rays of sun, their highly polished surfaces reflect. The sun is striking the windows of the observation deck on the eastward side and sparkling like glittering jewels on the background of black velvet.* Now the field that we thought active when we first arrived has turned into a moving mass of cooperative action. The landing crew is directed to their posts — the posts and spots and orders are being passed along and last-minute preparations are being completed for the moment we’ve waited for so long. The ship is riding majestically toward us like some great feather, riding as though it was mighty — mighty proud of the place it’s playing in the world’s aviation. The ship is no doubt busting with activity, as we can see. Orders are shouted to the crew, the passengers probably lining the windows looking down at the field ahead of them, getting their glimpse of the mooring mast. *And these giant flagships standing here, the American Airline flagships, waiting to direct them to all points in the United States when they get the ship moored. There are a number of important persons on board, and no doubt the new commander, Captain Max Pruss, is thrilled, too, for this is his great moment, the first time he’s commanded the Hindenburg. On previous flights, he acted as Chief Officer under Captain Lehmann.* It’s practically standing still now; they’ve dropped ropes out of the nose of the ship, and it’s been taken a hold-of down on the field by a number of men. It’s starting to rain again — the rain had slacked up a little bit. The back motors of the ship are just holding it, just enough to keep it from — — It burst into flames! *Get out of the way! Get out of the way!* Get this Charley! Get this Charley! It’s burning and it’s crashing! It’s crashing terrible! Oh my, get out of the way please. It’s burning, bursting into flames and it’s — and it’s falling on the mooring mast and all the folks agree that this is terrible. This is one of the worst catastrophes in the world. And oh, it’s…burning, oh, four or five hundred feet into the sky. It’s a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. The smoke and the flames now and the frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the mooring mast. Oh, the humanity and all the passengers screaming around here. I told you. It’s — I can’t even talk to people whose friends were on there. It — It’s….I — I can’t talk ladies and gentlemen. Honest, it’s completely a mass of smoking wreckage. And everybody can’t hardly breathe. It’s hard, it’s crazy. Lady, I — I — I’m sorry. Honestly, I — I can hardly breathe. I — I’m gonna step inside where I cannot see it. Charley, that’s terrible. I – I can’t….Listen folks, I — I’m gonna have to stop for a minute because I’ve lost my voice. This is the worst thing I’ve ever witnessed. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Well, ladies and gentlemen, I’m back again. I’ve…sort of recovered from the terrific explosion and the terrific crash that occurred just as it was being pulled down to the mooring mast. The terrible amount of hydrogen gas in it just caused the — the tail surface broke into flames first. Then there was a terrific explosion and that followed by the burning of the nose and the crashing nose into the ground. And everybody tearing back at break-neck speed to get out from underneath it because it was over the people at the time it burst into flames. Now whether it fell on the people who were witnessing it we do not know. But as it exploded they raced back. And now it’s smoking a terrific black smoke floating up into the sky. The flames are still leaping maybe 30, 40 feet from the ground the entire 811 feet length of it. They’re frantically calling for ambulances and things. The wires are being — humming with activity. And, I — I’ve…lost my — my breath several times during this exciting moment here. Will you pardon me just a moment? I’m not going to stop talking — I’m just going to swallow several times until I can keep on. I should imagine that the nose is not more than 500 feet or maybe 700 feet from the mooring mast. They had dropped two ropes and whether or not some spark or something set it on fire we don’t know, or whether something pulled loose on the inside of the ship causing a spark and causing it to explode in the tail surface. But everything crashed to the ground and there’s not a possible chance of anybody being saved. I wish I could stop in just a moment and see if I can get my breath again. And Charley if you’ll save it out just a minute. I’ll come back with more description, ladies and gentlemen. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I’m back again. I raced down to the burning tip and just as I walked up to the tip over — climbed over those picket lines, I met a man coming out, a dazed, dazed — He couldn’t find his way. I grabbed a hold of him. It’s Philip Mangone, Philip Mangone, that’s [M]-A-N-G-O-N-E, of New York. Philip Mangone, he’s burned terribly in the hands, and he’s burned terribly in the face. His eyebrows, all his hair is burned off but he’s walking and talking plainly and distinctly. And he told me he jumped; he jumped with other passengers. Now there’s a Mr. Trey — it sounds like “Trey” — we’re not sure of it and he also got out. Now it is our sincere hope that the majority of the passengers jumped when it came close to the ground, according to what Mr. Mangone told me. He said, “Thank God he jumped.” And — and we say thank God for him also. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) * = Text within asterisks absent from this audio. Video Source: Archive.org Hindenburg Image Source: Wikipedia.org Morrison Image Source: Archives.gov Audio Note: This audio version has been treated with various digital filters. In addition, the pitch has been dropped by a little over one semitone with a corresponding drop in the rate of speech. A rationale for the latter audio treatment is located here (along with a differently treated audio version). The National Archives has an audio copy designated “use at own risk.” Click here for documentation (pdf file). Video Note: This video version has been digitally modified from the master located at the Internet Archive. The moving images have been lock stabilized and hued slightly purple. Also, The audio track pitch has been lowered (see “Audio Note” link above for rationale). See Also: Entire recorded broadcast and additional discussion at OTR. Page Updated: 9/2/17 U.S. Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Image of Morrison = Uncertain. Video and Image = No Known Restrictions.

Howard Schmidt Cybersecurity Summit Address at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s 3rd Annual Cybersecurity Summit delivered 28 October 2014, Washington, D.C. Thank you, Anne, for that — that kind introduction and to all of you for attending. And more broadly, thank you to the Chamber for your continued support of cyber security and the things that we’re doing. I think back every time I’m in this room here. I think back to about 1996-’97 time frame when President Clinton had put together the President’s Commission for Critical Infrastructure Protection, ultimately resulting in Presidential Decision Directive No. 63. And the core of that is much of what Anne had mentioned about private-public partnerships. Immediately, when that was released the Chamber pulled together all its great members, as many people as they could sort of round up from the government that knew anything about this at that time, and working with some of the sponsors that very similar to what we see today, and had one of the first cyber summits. And the room was nowhere near as large. The attendance was nowhere near as great. And I think the expertise and discussions were much more junior than what we have today. So it’s wonderful that — that they continue to do that. The other thing I want to reflect on relative to the Chamber is the support they’ve given us for many of the initiatives both in private sector and the government. And specifically, I want to thank the — the Chamber for when we released the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, or the NSTIC — the huge outpouring that we had from private sector with the leadership of the U.S. Chamber. I remember the three of us were up here at the time from the White House and talked it — Gene Sperling,1 [and] former Ambassador to China, who is my former governor, Gary Locke. And it was an interesting day because it really, I think, put a mark in — at least in the D.C. area — that many of these problems we’re dealing with, many of the things can be solved, but often times can be solved by private sector. And it’s interesting, when you put together all the pieces of this — you look at the military, the law enforcement, the private sector, the Executive Branch of the government, the congressional piece of it, which may not move as fast as I think we all would like to see it — at least we have the same direction. We have the same function of saying, “Yes, we really need to do something.” On a personal note, a number of months back [at] my home in Seattle, a pipe separated and flooded much of the house. And I haven’t been back in — to be able to move back in. But in doing so, my wife got one of her biggest wishes: to get rid of all that stuff I’ve accumulated over the years — all the binders, all the briefings, all the — the old hardware and drives and stuff that we had that contained a lot of this stuff. And in doing so, of course very selectively, I found a report from 1998. It was a report by RAND Corporation in joint with the Chamber and a lot of other organizations looking at critical infrastructure protection, particularly looking at it from a perspective of “How do we do this?” It was a clarion call, if you would, for private-public partnerships. And it was very clear at the time: the government give information to private sector, private sector shared information with the government; and more importantly that the private sector share information amongst themselves, particularly on threats, vulnerabilities, and best practices. Here we are almost 20 years later. We’re having the same discussion. We have to really refine the things that we’re doing. Now, I ideal a fair amount with financial services, international energy companies, and I see on a day-to-day basis not just incremental but great leaps moving forward on securing their systems. They’re working with the government task forces, you know, the — the energy sector, the — the Capability Maturity Model that — that we started a few years back. These companies are not taking this lightly. There are certain things that Anne suggested that we need the government to do. We need to good — have good legislation that protects the companies from sharing that information because there’s a lot of people out there, and particularly in…a lot of the [Legal] Counsel offices [who say], “Well, we’re not sure you can do this.” Or, “If you share information with the government and some issue becomes of it and litigation starts out of it, as you may be on the hook, you may not have the same level of expertise to — to fight the case for you, as you’re going to hire outside counsel. You’re going to have to do these things, and as a consequence, it’s just not worth it. But now some of the boardrooms that I’m sitting in and some of the meetings I’m having with some of the chairman — Tom [Ridge]2 and I do on a regular basis — the discussion has changed. It’s not, “We can’t do it.” It’s, “How do we do it?” How do we make sure that we support what the government’s efforts are with — without inferring additional regulation on us. Some of the sectors we work with are so heavily regulated, it’s difficult to actually do the things that they need to do. And that’s where we’re working at now. And that’s what I think all of you with the Chamber and the sponsors here should be talking about today. We’re going to hear from great speakers. Michael [ph],3 a panel later on the day on some of these things. But at the end of it, when all the “speechifying” — as John Brennan used to call it all the time — when that is done, we’ve got to go to work. We’ve got the strategies, the strategies going back to — to 2003 with the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, the International Strategy, the NSTIC, NICE, the National — the International Strategy for Cyberspace. And by the way, note: It’s not about securing cyberspace. It’s what cyberspace generally will do to us. And then, in sort of closing, to — to once again thank the Executive Branch. When all the retail things that we’ve seen in the news recently about intrusions and breaches, and — and sort of we’re looking at this whole system that we operate. There was a lot going on. There continues to be a lot going on. And I don’t know how many else in the audience in the recent weeks got that little card in the mail that says, by the way, just as “precaution,” we’re replacing your credit card. Got mine the other day and had PIN and chip technology built in to it. So, we’re making progress. And when the President called for a secure buying for the government, we in private sector are moving [in] that direction as well. No longer are we going to be part of a system that depends on User ID and passwords to do all the work that we need to do. It’s not easy. It’s not cheap. But if we continue to admire the problem and not put the pieces together that said, “Here’s the strategies that we’re looking at” from the government perspective, from the private sector perspective, from the research and development community — if we’re not taking those strategies and executing on them, next year we’re going to be having a discussion at this conference again about the things that we should be doing. The time for strategy and looking at the problem is long gone. That 1998 report that I mentioned a few moment ago, it could have been written yesterday. So we need to execute on the plans that we have. We need to actually do the collaboration and figure out ways to make it better. We’re on a path to do that. I think everyone in this room is committed to do that. I think the people from the government are here to commit to that. And I think if we each to do that, we each do our part to secure our part of cyberspace, then next year when we have this meeting, it will be about all the things that we’ve been able to accomplish — not only to build a better security but also to improve the business and economic environment globally; because when it comes down to it, that’s what keeps the machine running. So with that, I thank you once again for your attendance and in the — in the Chamber I thank you for inviting us and I look forward to the rest of the deliberations. Thank you very much. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) 1 Mr. Sperling served as economic advisor to the President. He played a pivotal role in negotiating the World Trade Organization accord between the U.S. and China in 1999. 2 Referent of “Tom” is an educated guess. Governor Tom Ridge and Howard Schmidt were cofounders of and partners at the cybersecurity consulting firm Ridge-Schmidt Cyber LLC (reconfigured as Ridge Global following Schmidt’s passing). 3 Possibly NSA Director Adm Michael S. Rogers who was scheduled to deliver (and accordingly did deliver) that day’s luncheon keynote address: “Sharing Cyber Threat Information to Protect Business and America” Audio Source: C-SPAN.org Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement Research Note: Principal transcription by South Transcription Unlimited, Inc. | www.southtranscription.com | [email protected] | (+63) 920.921.8709. Supplementary transcription work and editorial oversight by Michael E. Eidenmuller. Page Updated: 3/31/17 U.S. Copyright Status: Text = Uncertain. Audio = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com. Image (Screenshot) = Fair Use.

H.R. McMaster White Houses Statement on Venezuela Sanctions delivered 25 August 2017 President Trump promised strong action if Maduro moved ahead and ignored his people’s will. With today’s announcement, the President is keeping his promise of strong action and continuing to show strong leadership. This executive order does not need to be permanent. The President has said that (quote) “[the] stable and peaceful Venezuela is in the best interest of the entire hemisphere.”1 We will continue to work with our friends and partners in the international community to support the Venezuelan people until their rights and democracy are fully restored. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) 1 Full quotation; “President Santos and I also discussed the deteriorating situation in Venezuela, and it is really in a very bad state, as you see and as we all see through the media. The stable and peaceful Venezuela is in the best interest of the entire hemisphere, and America stands with all of the people in our great hemisphere yearning to be free.” [Joint Press Conference with President Santos of Colombia, 18 May 2017] Original Text Source: WhiteHouse.gov Original Audio and Video Source: WhiteHouse.gov Audio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement U.S. Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Video = Property of AmericanRhetoric.com. Good afternoon, everybody. As you’ve seen, the President signed a new executive order that strongly punishes the Venezuelan regime. This order demonstrates more clearly than ever that the United States will not allow an illegitimate dictatorship to take hold in the Western Hemisphere at the expense of its people. Through the President’s strong action, the United States will target the means with which the Maduro dictatorship can accumulate debt to enrich its corrupt regime insiders and perpetuate its repressive behavior. Only six weeks ago, several million Venezuelans voted overwhelmingly against the Maduro regime’s plans to convene a Constituent Assembly that the people of Venezuela never requested. The United States and the regional community stood in solidarity with the Venezuelan people and demanded that their voices be heard. But Maduro chose to embrace dictatorship over his own people. As a result, a dozen of Venezuela’s neighbors gathered in Lima, Peru, and rejected Maduro’s actions.

Huey P. Long Every Man a King — Radio Speech to the Nation delivered 23 February 1934 Is that a right of life, when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men that is by 120 million people? Ladies and gentlemen, I have only 30 minutes in which to speak to you this evening, and I, therefore, will not be able to discuss in detail so much as I can write when I have all of the time and space that is allowed me for the subjects, but I will undertake to sketch them very briefly without manuscript or preparation, so that you can understand them so well as I can tell them to you tonight. I contend, my friends, that we have no difficult problem to solve in America, and that is the view of nearly everyone with whom I have discussed the matter here in Washington and elsewhere throughout the United States — that we have no very difficult problem to solve. It is not the difficulty of the problem which we have; it is the fact that the rich people of this country — and by rich people I mean the super-rich — will not allow us to solve the problems, or rather the one little problem that is afflicting this country, because in order to cure all of our woes it is necessary to scale down the big fortunes, that we may scatter the wealth to be shared by all of the people. We have a marvelous love for this Government of ours; in fact, it is almost a religion, and it is well that it should be, because we have a splendid form of government and we have a splendid set of laws. We have everything here that we need, except that we have neglected the fundamentals upon which the American Government was principally predicated. How may of you remember the first thing that the Declaration of Independence said? It said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that there are certain inalienable rights of the people, and among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”; and it said, further, “We hold the view that all men are created equal.” Now, what did they mean by that? Did they mean, my friends, to say that all me were created equal and that that meant that any one man was born to inherit $10,000,000,000 and that another child was to be born to inherit nothing? Did that mean, my friends, that someone would come into this world without having had an opportunity, of course, to have hit one lick of work, should be born with more than it and all of its children and children’s children could ever dispose of, but that another one would have to be born into a life of starvation? That was not the meaning of the Declaration of Independence when it said that all men are created equal of “That we hold that all men are created equal.” Now was it the meaning of the Declaration of Independence when it said that they held that there were certain rights that were inalienable — the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is that right of life, my friends, when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men than it is by 120,000,000 people? Is that, my friends, giving them a fair shake of the dice or anything like the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or anything resembling the fact that all people are created equal; when we have today in America thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of children on the verge of starvation in a land that is overflowing with too much to eat and too much to wear? I do not think you will contend that, and I do not think for a moment that they will contend it. Now let us see if we cannot return this Government to the Declaration of Independence and see if we are going to do anything regarding it. Why should we hesitate or why should we quibble or why should we quarrel with one another to find out what the difficulty is, when we know what the Lord told us what the difficulty is, and Moses wrote it out so a blind man could see it, then Jesus told us all about it, and it was later written in the Book of James, where everyone could read it? I refer to the Scriptures, now, my friends, and give you what it says not for the purpose of convincing you of the wisdom of myself, not for the purpose ladies and gentlemen, of convincing you of the fact that I am quoting the Scripture means that I am to be more believed than someone else; but I quote you the Scripture, rather refer you to the Scripture, because whatever you see there you may rely upon will never be disproved so long as you or your children or anyone may live; and you may further depend upon the fact that not one historical fact that the Bible has ever contained has ever yet been disproved by any scientific discovery or by reason of anything that has been disclosed to man through his own individual mind or through the wisdom of the Lord which the Lord has allowed him to have. But the Scripture says, ladies and gentlemen, that no country can survive, or for a country to survive it is necessary that we keep the wealth scattered among the people, that nothing should be held permanently by any one person, and that 50 years seems to be the year of jubilee in which all property would be scattered about and returned to the sources from which it originally came, and every seventh year debt should be remitted. Those two things the Almighty said to be necessary — I should say He knew to be necessary, or else He would not have so prescribed that the property would be kept among the general run of the people and that everyone would continue to share in it; so that no one man would get half of it and hand it down to a son, who takes half of what was left, and that son hand it down to another one, who would take half of what was left, until, like a snowball going downhill, all of the snow was off of the ground except what the snowball had. I believe that was the judgment and the view and the law of the Lord, that we would have to distribute wealth every so often, in order that there could not be people starving to death in a land of plenty, as there is in America today. We have in American today more wealth, more goods, more food, more clothing, more houses than we have ever had. We have everything in abundance here. We have the farm problem, my friends, because we have too much cotton, because we have too much wheat, and have too much corn, and too much potatoes. We have a home-loan problem because we have too many houses, and yet nobody can buy them and live in them. We have trouble, my friends, in the country, because we have too much money owing, the greatest indebtedness that has ever been given to civilization, where it has been shown that we are incapable of distributing to the actual things that are here, because the people have not money enough to supply themselves with them, and because the greed of a few men is such that they think it is necessary that they own everything, and their pleasure consists in the starvation of the masses, and in their possessing things they cannot use, and their children cannot use, but who bask in the splendor of sunlight and wealth, casting darkness and despair and impressing it on everyone else. “So, therefore,” said the Lord, in effect, “if you see these things that now have occurred and exist in this and other countries, there must be a constant scattering of wealth in any country if this country is to survive.” “Then,” said the Lord, in effect, “every seventh year there shall be a remission of debts; there will be no debts after 7 years.” That was the law. Now, let us take America today. We have in American today, ladies and gentlemen, $272,000,000,000 of debt. Two hundred and seventy-two thousand millions of dollars of debts are owed by the various people of this country today. Why, my friends, that cannot be paid. It is not possible for that kind of debt to be paid. The entire currency of the United States is only $6,000,000,000. That is all of the money that we have got in America today. All the actual money you have got in all of your banks, all that you have got in the Government Treasury, is $6,000,000,000; and if you took all that money and paid it out today you would still owe $266,000,000,000; and if you took all that money and paid again you would still owe $260,000,000,000; and if you took it, my friends, 20 times and paid it you would still owe $150,000,000,000. You would have to have 45 times the entire money supply of the United States today to pay the debts of the people of America, and then they would just have to start out from scratch, without a dime to go on with. So, my friends, it is impossible to pay all of these debts, and you might as well find out that it cannot be done. The United States Supreme Court has definitely found out that it could not be done, because, in a Minnesota case, it held that when a State has postponed the evil day of collecting a debt it was a valid and constitutional exercise of legislative power. Now, ladies and gentlemen, if I may proceed to give you some other words that I think you can understand — I am not going to belabor you by quoting tonight — I am going to tell you what the wise men of all ages and all times, down even to the present day, have all said: That you must keep the wealth of the country scattered, and you must limit the amount that any one man can own. You cannot let any man own $300,000,000,000 or $400,000,000,000. If you do, one man can own all of the wealth that they United States has in it. Now, my friends, if you were off on an island where there were 100 lunches, you could not let one man eat up the hundred lunches, or take the hundred lunches and not let anybody else eat any of them. If you did, there would not be anything else for the balance of the people to consume. So, we have in America today, my friends, a condition by which about 10 men dominate the means of activity in at least 85 percent of the activities that you own. They either own directly everything or they have got some kind of mortgage on it, with a very small percentage to be excepted. They own the banks, they own the steel mills, they own the railroads, they own the bonds, they own the mortgages, they own the stores, and they have chained the country from one end to the other, until there is not any kind of business that a small, independent man could go into today and make a living, and there is not any kind of business that an independent man can go into and make any money to buy an automobile with; and they have finally and gradually and steadily eliminated everybody from the fields in which there is a living to be made, and still they have got little enough sense to think they ought to be able to get more business out of it anyway. If you reduce a man to the point where he is starving to death and bleeding and dying, how do you expect that man to get hold of any money to spend with you? It is not possible. Then, ladies and gentlemen, how do you expect people to live, when the wherewith cannot be had by the people? In the beginning I quoted from the Scriptures. I hope you will understand that I am not quoting Scripture to convince you of my goodness personally, because that is a thing between me and my Maker, that is something as to how I stand with my Maker and as to how you stand with your Maker. That is not concerned with this issue, except and unless there are those of you who would be so good as to pray for the souls of some of us. But the Lord gave his law, and in the Book of James they said so, that the rich should weep and howl for the miseries that had come upon them; and, therefore, it was written that when the rich hold goods they could not use and could not consume, you will inflict punishment on them, and nothing but days of woe ahead of them. Then we have heard of the great Greek philosopher, Socrates, and the greater Greek philosopher, Plato, and we have read the dialog between Plato and Socrates, in which one said that great riches brought on great poverty, and would be destructive of a country. Read what they said. Read what Plato said; that you must not let any one man be too poor, and you must not let any one man be too rich; that the same mill that grinds out the extra rich is the mill that will grind out the extra poor, because, in order that the extra rich can become so affluent, they must necessarily take more of what ordinarily would belong to the average man. It is a very simple process of mathematics that you do not have to study, and that no one is going to discuss with you. So that was the view of Socrates and Plato. That was the view of the English statesmen. That was the view of American statesmen. That was the view of American statesmen like Daniel Webster, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, and Theodore Roosevelt, and even as late as Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both of these men, Mr. Hoover and Mr. Roosevelt, came out and said there had to be a decentralization of wealth, but neither one of them did anything about it. But, nevertheless, they recognized the principle. The fact that neither one of them ever did anything about it is their own problem that I am not undertaking to criticize; but had Mr. Hoover carried out what he says ought to be done, he would be retiring from the President’s office, very probably, 3 years from now, instead of 1 year ago; and had Mr. Roosevelt proceeded along the lines that he stated were necessary for the decentralization of wealth, he would have gone, my friends, a long way already, and within a few months he would have probably reached a solution of all of the problems that afflict this country. But I wish to warn you now that nothing that has been done up to this date has taken one dime away from these big-fortune holders; they own just as much as they did, and probably a little bit more; they hold just as many of the debts of the common people as they ever held, and probably a little bit more; and unless we, my friends, are going to give the people of this country a fair shake of the dice, by which they will all get something out of the funds of this land, there is not a chance on the topside of this God’s eternal earth by which we can rescue this country and rescue the people of this country. It is necessary to save the Government of the country, but is much more necessary to save the people of America. We love this country. We love this Government. It is a religion, I say. It is a kind of religion people have read of when women, in the name of religion, would take their infant babes and throw them into the burning flame, where they would be instantly devoured by the all-consuming fire, in days gone by; and there probably are some people of the world even today, who, in the name of religion, throw their tear-dimmed eyes into the sad faces of their fathers and mothers, who cannot given them food and clothing they both needed, and which is necessary to sustain them, and that goes on day after day, and night after night, when day gets into darkness and blackness, knowing those children would arise in the morning without being fed, and probably to bed at night without being fed. Yet in the name of our Government, and all alone, those people undertake and strive as hard as they can to keep a good government alive, and how long they can stand that no one knows. If I were in their place tonight, the place where millions are, I hope that I would have what I might say — I cannot give you the word to express the kind of fortitude they have; that is the word — I hope that I might have the fortitude to praise and honor my Government that had allowed me here in this land, where there is too much to eat and too much to wear, to starve in order that a handful of men can have so much more than they can ever eat or they can ever wear. Now, we have organized a society, and we call it “Share Our Wealth Society,” a society with the motto “every man a king.” Every man a king, so there would be no such thing as a man or woman who did not have the necessities of life, who would not be dependent upon the whims and caprices and ipsi dixit of the financial martyrs for a living. What do we propose by this society? We propose to limit the wealth of big men in the country. There is an average of $15,000 in wealth to every family in America. That is right here today. We do not propose to divide it up equally. We do not propose a division of wealth, but we propose to limit poverty that we will allow to be inflicted upon any man’s family. We will not say we are going to try to guarantee any equality, or $15,000 to families. No; but we do say that one third of the average is low enough for any one family to hold, that there should be a guaranty of a family wealth of around $5,000; enough for a home, and automobile, a radio, and the ordinary conveniences, and the opportunity to educate their children; a fair share of the income of this land thereafter to that family so there will be no such thing as merely the select to have those things, and so there will be no such thing as a family living in poverty and distress. We have to limit fortunes. Our present plan is that we will allow no one man to own more than $50,000,000. We think that with that limit we will be able to carry out the balance of the program. It may be necessary that we limit it to less than $50,000,000. It may be necessary, in working out of the plans, that no man’s fortune would be more than $10,000,000 or $15,000,000. But be that as it may, it will still be more than any one man, or any one man and his children and their children, will be able to spend in their lifetimes; and it is not necessary or reasonable to have wealth piled up beyond that point where we cannot prevent poverty among the masses. Another thing we propose is old-age pension of $30 a month for everyone that is 60 years old. Now, we do not give this pension to a man making $1,000 a year, and we do not give it to him if he has $10,000 in property, but outside of that we do. We will limit hours of work. There is not any necessity of having over-production. I think all you have got to do, ladies and gentlemen, is just limit the hours of work to such an extent as people will work only so long as is necessary to produce enough for all of the people to have what they need. Why, ladies and gentleman, let us say that all of these labor-saving devices reduce hours down to where you do not have to work but 4 hours a day; that is enough for these people, and then praise be the name of the Lord, if it gets that good. Let it be good and not a curse, and then we will have 5 hours a day and 5 days a week, or even less that that, and we might give a man a whole month off during a year, or give him 2 months; and we might do what other countries have seen fit to do, and what I did in Louisiana, by having schools by which adults could go back and learn the things that have been discovered since they went to school. We will not have any trouble taking care of the agricultural situation. All you have to do is balance your production with your consumption. You simply have to abandon a particular crop that you have too much of, and all you have to do is store the surplus for the next year, and the Government will take it over. When you have good crops in the area in which the crops that have been planted are sufficient for another year, put in your public works in the particular year when you do not need to raise any more, and by that means you get everybody employed. When the Government has enough of any particular crop to take care of all of the people, that will be all that is necessary; and in order to do all of this, our taxation is going to be to take the billion-dollar fortunes and strip them down to frying size, not to exceed $50,000,000, and it is necessary to come to $10,000,000, we will come to $10,000,000. We have worked the proposition out to guarantee a limit upon property (and no man will own less than one third the average), and guarantee a reduction of fortunes and a reduction of hours to spread wealth throughout this country. We would care for the old people above 60 and take them away from this thriving industry and given them a chance to enjoy the necessities and live in ease, and thereby lift from the market the labor which would probably create a surplus of commodities. Those are the things we propose to do. “Every man a king.” Every man to eat when there is something to eat; all to wear something when there is something to wear. That makes us all sovereign. You cannot solve these things through these various and sundry alphabetical codes. You can have the N.R.A. and P.W.A. and C.W.A. and the U.U.G. and G.I.N. and any other kind of “dad-gummed” lettered code. You can wait until doomsday and see 25 more alphabets, but that is not going to solve this proposition. Why hide? Why quibble? You know what the trouble is. The man that says he does not know what the trouble is just hiding his face to keep from seeing the sunlight. God told you what the trouble was. The philosophers told you what the trouble was; and when you have a country where one man owns more than 100,000 people, or a million people, and when you have a country where there are four men, as in America, that have got more control over things than all the 120,000,000 people together, you know what the trouble is. We had these great incomes in this country; but the farmer, who plowed from sunup to sundown, who labored here from sunup to sundown for 6 days a week, wound up at the end of the with practically nothing. And we ought to take care of the veterans of the wars in this program. That is a small matter. Suppose it does cost a billion dollars a year — that means that the money will be scattered throughout this country. We ought to pay them a bonus. We can do it. We ought to take care of every single one of the sick and disabled veterans. I do not care whether a man got sick on the battlefield or did not; every man that wore the uniform of this country is entitled to be taken care of, and there is money enough to do it; and we need to spread the wealth of the country, which you did not do in what you call the N.R.A. If the N.R.A. has done any good, I can put it all in my eye without having it hurt. All I can see that N.R.A. has done is to put the little man out of business — the little merchant in his store, the little Dago that is running a fruit stand, or the Greek shoe-shining stand, who has to take hold of a code of 275 pages and study with a spirit level and compass and looking-glass; he has to hire a Philadelphia lawyer to tell him what is in the code; and by the time he learns what the code is, he is in jail or out of business; and they have got a chain code system that has already put him out of business. The N.R.A. is not worth anything, and I said so when they put it through. Now, my friends, we have got to hit the root with the axe. Centralized power in the hands of a few, with centralized credit in the hands of a few, is the trouble. Get together in your community tonight or tomorrow and organize one of our Share Our Wealth societies. If you do not understand it, write me and let me send you the platform; let me give you the proof of it. This is Huey P. Long talking, United States Senator, Washington, D.C. Write me and let me send you the data on this proposition. Enroll with us. Let us make known to the people what we are going to do. I will send you a button, if I have got enough of them left. We have got a little button that some of our friends designed, with our message around the rim of the button, and in the center “Every man a king.” Many thousands of them are meeting through the United States, and every day we are getting hundreds and hundreds of letters. Share Our Wealth societies are now being organized, and people have it within their power to relieve themselves from this terrible situation. Look at what the Mayo brothers announced this week, these greatest scientists of all the world today, who are entitled to have more money than all the Morgans and the Rockefellers, or anyone else, and yet the Mayos turn back their big fortunes to be used for treating the sick, and said they did not want to lay up fortunes in this earth, but wanted to turn them back where they would do some good; but the other big capitalists are not willing to do that, are not willing to do what these men, 10 times more worthy, have already done, and it is going to take a law to require them to do it. Organize your Share Our Wealth Society and get your people to meet with you, and make known your wishes to your Senators and Representatives in Congress. Now, my friends, I am going to stop. I thank you for this opportunity to talk to you. I am having to talk under the auspices and by the grace and permission of the National Broadcasting System tonight, and they are letting me talk free. If I had the money, and I wish I had the money, I would like to talk to you more often on this line, but I have not got it, and I cannot expect these people to give it to me free except on some rare instance. But, my friends, I hope to have the opportunity to talk with you, and I am writing to you, and I hope that you will get up and help in the work, because the resolution and bills are before Congress, and we hope to have your help in getting together and organizing your Share Our Wealth society. Now, that I have but a minute left, I want to say that I suppose my family is listening in on the radio in New Orleans, and I will say to my wife and three children that I am entirely well and hope to be home before many more days, and I hope they have listened to my speech tonight, and I wish them and all their neighbors and friends everything good that may be had. I thank you, my friends, for your kind attention, and I hope you will enroll with us, take care of your own work in the work of this Government, and share or help in our Share Our Wealth society. I thank you. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Text: Source: Speeches and introductions reprinted from Robert C. Byrd, The Senate, 1789-1989: Classic Speeches, 1830-1993. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1994. Image Source: NARS, FDR Library NPX-83-73. Research Note: Credit is due Raymond Napolitan III for bringing several transcription errors to my attention. Page Updated: 2/26/17 U.S. Copyright Status: Text & Image = Public domain.

Huey P. Long Speech to Senate Staffers at the Washington Press Club 11 December 1934, Washington, D.C. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: I’ve never given a free speech in my life. I don’t mean by that that I got money for everything I said. I’ve, on several occasions, had the particular honor of being invited to make some speeches that I was supposed to get some kind of a mora — an honorarium for. (I started to say moratorium.) And at the conclusion of each one of those speeches — one time over in Cleveland I was supposed to get $150, and one time in New York I was to get five, six, seven hundred dollars — but my conscience wouldn’t allow me on either of these occasions to take the money. Now, however, I have never made a free speech. I never made a speech unless it was before a court or before a crowd where I was trying to get votes or before an audience where I was trying to get converts. And I am probably addressing, for the benefit of the work I am pursuing, the most important and probably the farest-reaching [sic] organization that I’ve ever had the pleasure of speaking to, because you are the people that have the contact with the American people. And so, I’m not leaving my beaten path. I’m going to take time to explain to you, as best as my limited ability will permit me, what I’m undertaking to accomplish in the United State Senate. Course I’ve had a double purpose. First thing I’ve had to do is fight for the right to stay there — and I’ve managed to make pretty good. But if you’ll permit me to backtrack, that’s been my line on every position I’ve ever held…. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – And I, when I wiggled through that I managed to become governor in 1928. And they impeached me in the year 1929. And in 1930, I was the Democratic National Committeeman. And they made a move to unseat me in that same year. And as you probably know, they pursued me, to eliminate me from the United States Senate for a couple of years after that time. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Our United States Government under the auspices of Woodrow Wilson, then the President, undertook to find out what was the trouble in America — with the people generally. They appointed an Industrial Relations Committee headed by Frank P. Walsh of Kansas City, Missouri. They made an intensive study, and at the conclusion of that study they reported that the chief cause and the chief trouble with America was that a small percent of the people owned a large percent of the wealth. Now, you’ll find that in the report of 1916 published by Congress. In other words, Woodrow Wilson’s Administration in 1916 said too few have too much, too many have too little. They gave a table: They said that 2% of the people own 60% of the wealth. They said there’s a middle class of 33% that owns 35% of the wealth. They said that 65% of the people own less than 5% of the wealth, that 2 million people own more than 110 million people. That was the finding of our Industrial Conference serving under the appointment of Congress and Woodrow Wilson, the President. I propose a limitation on the size of fortunes — both ways. I propose a limitation on how big a fortune can get and a limitation on how little a fortune can get. I propose that a third of the average is the smallest. One third the average is the smallest. I propose that none should be over a few millions of dollars. A capital levy tax to be levied — the first one million not to be taxed except as it is now taxed; and second million to be taxed 1%, the third million 2%, the fourth million 4%, the fifth million 8%, the sixth million 16%, the 7th million 32%, the eighth million 64%, the ninth million 100%. That means that no man with that tax levied against him every year can possess a fortune of more than from 3 to 4 of 5 million dollars to any one man. Now what’s that going to mean? That’s going to mean that within two to three years time, the United States finds that the treasure of the United States in possession of 165 billion dollars of the wealth of this country — 165 billion at the minimum. Then, we start from the bottom — that the 25 or more million American families shall have a homestead — Louisiana has a homestead. Florida has a homestead. Texas has a homestead — that every citizen in the United States shall have a homestead up to $5000, 1/3 the average wealth per family — not like Mr. Brisbane said. (When a man has to mistake the facts, he’s probably run out of arguments.) My friend Arthur Brisbane…. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – According to the tables which we have assembled, it is our estimate that 4 percent of the American people own 85 percent of the wealth of America, and that over 70 percent of the people of America don’t own enough to pay for the debts that they owe. Any man with a thimble-full of sense ought to know that if you take 85 percent off of that table and give it to one man that you are bound to have 2/3 the people starving because they haven’t got enough to eat. Give them a yacht! Give them palace! Send them to Reno and give them a new wife when they want it — if that’s what they want…. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Also in this database: Huey P. Long – “Every Man a King” Video & Image (Screenshots) Source: Louisiana Secretary of State Archives Copyright Status: Text = Public domain. Image = Uncertain.

Huey P. Long Radio Speech – Share Our Wealth (as entered into the 12 March 1935 Congressional Records) Broadcast 7 March 1935, National Broadcasting Company, New York Ladies and gentlemen, it has been publicly announced that the White House orders of the Roosevelt administration have declared war on HUEY LONG. The late and lamented, the pampered ex-crown prince, Gen. Hugh S. Johnson, one of those satellites loaned by Wall Street to run the Government, and who, at the end of his control over and dismissal from the NRA, pronounced it “as dead as a dodo”, this Mr. Johnson was apparently selected to make the lead-off speech in this White House charge begun last Monday night. The Johnson speech was followed by more fuss and fury on behalf of the administration by spellbinders in and out of Congress. In a far-away island, when a queen dies, her first favorite is done the honor to be buried alive with her. The funeral procession of the NRA (another one of these new-deal schisms or isms) is about ready to occur. It is said that General Johnson’s speech of Monday night to attack me was delivered on the eve of announcing the publication of his obituary in the Red Book Magazine. Seems then that soon this erstwhile prince of the deranged alphabet makes ready to appear at the funeral of NRA like unto the colored lady in Mississippi who there asserted: “I is de wife of dese remains.” I shall undertake to cover my main subject and make answer to these gentlemen in the course of this speech tonight. It will serve no purpose to our distressed people for me to call my opponents more bitter names than they call me. Even were I able, I have not the time to present my side of the argument and match them in billingsgate or profanity. What is this trouble with this administration of Mr. [Franklin D.] Roosevelt, Mr. [Hugh S.] Johnson, Mr. [James A.] Farley,l Mr. [Vincent] Astor, and all their spoilers and spellbinders? They think that HUEY LONG is the cause of all their worry. They go gunning for me. But, am I the cause of their misery? They are like old Davy Crockett, who went out to hunt a possum. He saw in the gleam of the moonlight that a possum in the top of a tree was going from limb to limb. He shot and missed. He saw the possum again. He fired a second time and missed again. Soon he discovered that it was not a possum he saw at all in the top of that tree. It was a louse in his own eyebrow. I do not make this illustration to do discredit to any of these gentlemen. I make it to show how often we imagine we see great trouble being done to us by someone at a distance, when, in reality, all of it may be a fault in our own make-up. The trouble with the Roosevelt administration is that when their schemes and isms have failed, these things I told them not to do and voted not to do, that they think it will help them to light out on those of us who warned them in the beginning that the tangled messes and noble experiments would not work. The Roosevelt administration has had its way for two years. They have been allowed to set up or knock down anything and everybody. There was one difference between [Herbert] Hoover and Roosevelt. Hoover could not get the Congress to carry out the schemes he wanted to try. We managed to lick him on a roll call in the United States Senate time after time. But, different with Mr. Roosevelt. He got his plans through Congress. But on cold analysis they were found to be the same things Hoover tried to pass and failed. The kitchen cabinet that sat in to advise Hoover was not different from the kitchen cabinet which advised Roosevelt. Many of the persons are the same. Many of those in Roosevelt’s kitchen cabinet are of the same men or set of men who furnished employees to sit in the kitchen cabinet to advise Hoover. Maybe you see a little change in the man waiting on the tables, but back in the kitchen the same set of cooks are fixing up the victuals for us that cooked up the mess under Hoover. Why, do you think this Roosevelt’s plan for plowing up cotton, corn, and wheat; and for pouring milk in the river, and for destroying and burying hogs and cattle by the millions, all while people starve and go naked — do you think those plans were the original ideas of this Roosevelt administration? If you do, you are wrong. The whole idea of that kind of thing first came from Hoover’s administration. Don’t you remember when Mr. Hoover proposed to plow up every fourth row of cotton? We laughed him into scorn. President Roosevelt flayed him for proposing such a thing in the speech which he made from the steps of the capitol in Topeka, Kans. And so we beat Mr. Hoover on his plan. But when Mr. Roosevelt started on his plan, it was not to plow up every fourth row of cotton as Hoover tried to do. Roosevelt’s plan was to plow up every third row of cotton, just one-twelfth more cotton to be plowed up than Hoover proposed. Roosevelt succeeded in his plan. So it has been that while millions have starved and gone naked; so it has been that while babies have cried and died for milk; so it has been that while people have begged for meat and bread, Mr. Roosevelt’s administration has sailed merrily along, plowing under and destroying the things to eat and to wear, with tear-dimmed eyes and hungry souls made to chant for this new deal so that even their starvation dole is not taken away, and meanwhile the food and clothes craved by their bodies and souls go for destruction and ruin. What is it? Is it government? Maybe so. It looks more like St. Vitus dance. Now, since they sallied forth with General Johnson to start the war on me, let us take a look at this NRA that they opened up around here two years ago. They had parades and Fascist signs just as Hitler, and Mussolini. They started the dictatorship here to regiment business and labor much more than anyone did in Germany or Italy. The only difference was in the sign. Italy’s sign of the Fascist was a black shirt. Germany’s sign of the Fascist was a swastika. So in America they sidetracked the Stars and Stripes, and the sign of the Blue Eagle was used instead. And they proceeded with the NRA. Everything from a peanut stand to a power house had to have a separate book of rules and laws to regulate what they did. If a peanut stand started to parch a sack of goobers for sale, they had to be careful to go through the rule book. One slip and he went to jail. A little fellow w ho pressed a pair of pants went to jail because he charged 5 cents under the price set in the rule book. So they wrote their NRA rule book, codes, laws, etc. They got up over 900 of them. One would be as thick as an unabridged dictionary and as confusing as a study of the stars. It would take 40 lawyers to tell a shoe-shine stand how to operate and be certain he didn’t go to jail. Some people came to me for advice, as a lawyer, on how to run business. I took several days and then couldn’t understand it myself. The only thing I could tell them was that it couldn’t be much worse in jail than it was out of jail with that kind of thing going on in the country, and so to go on and do the best they could. The whole thing of Mr. Roosevelt, as run under General Johnson, became such a national scandal that Roosevelt had to let Johnson slide out as the scapegoat. Let them call for an NRA parade tomorrow and you couldn’t get enough people to form a funeral march. It was under this NRA and the other funny alphabetical combinations which followed it that we ran the whole country into a mares nest. The Farleys and Johnsons combed the land with agents, inspectors, supervisors, detectives, secretaries, assistants, etc., all armed with the power to arrest and send to jail whomever they found not living up to some rule in one of these 900 catalogs. One man whose case reached the Supreme Court of the United States was turned loose because they couldn’t even find the rule he was supposed to have violated in a search throughout the United States. And now it is with PWA’s, CWA’s, NRA’s, AAA’s, J-UG’s, G-IN’s, and every other flimsy combination that the country finds its affairs and business tangled to where no one can recognize it. More men are now out of work than ever; the debt of the United States has gone up another $10 billion. There is starvation; there is homelessness; there is misery on every hand and corner, but mind you, in the meantime, Mr. Roosevelt has had his way. He is one man that can’t blame any of his troubles on HUEY LONG. He has had his way. Down in my part of the country if any man has the measles he blames that on me; but there is one man that can’t blame anything on anybody but himself, and that is Mr. Franklin De-La-No Roosevelt. And now, on top of that, they order war on me because nearly 4 years ago I told Hoover’s crowd it wouldn’t do and because 3 years ago I told Roosevelt and his crowd it wouldn’t do. In other words, they are in a rage at HUEY LONG because I have said, “I told you so.” I am not overstating the conditions now prevailing in this country. In their own words they have confessed all I now say or ever have said. Mr. Roosevelt and even Mrs. Roosevelt have bewailed the fact that food, clothes, and shelter have not been provided for the people. Even Gen. Hugh S. Johnson said in his speech of Monday night that there are 80 million people in America who are badly hurt or wrecked by this depression. Mr. Harry Hopkins, who runs the relief work, says the dole roll has risen now to 22,375,000 persons, the highest it has ever been. And now, what is there for the Roosevelt crowd to do but to admit the facts and admit further that they are now on their third year, making matters worse instead of better all the time? No one is to blame, except them, for what is going on because they have had their way. And if they couldn’t change the thing in over two years, now bogged down worse than ever, how could anyone expect any good of them hereafter? God save us two more years of the disaster we have had under that gang. Now, my friends, when this condition of distress and suffering among so many millions of our people began to develop in the Hoover administration, we knew then what the trouble was and what we would have to do to correct it. I was the first man to say publicly — but Mr. Roosevelt followed in my tracks a few months later and said the same thing. We said that all of our trouble and woe was due to the fact that too few of our people owned too much of our wealth. We said that in our land, with too much to eat, and too much to wear, and too many houses to live in, too many automobiles to be sold, that the only trouble was that the people suffered in the land of abundance because too few controlled the money and the wealth and too many did not have money with which to buy the things they needed for life and comfort. So I said to the people of the United States in my speeches which I delivered in the United States Senate in the early part of 1932 that the only way by which we could restore our people to reasonable life and comfort was to limit the size of the big man’s fortune and guarantee some minimum to the fortune and comfort of the little man’s family. I said then, as I have said since, that it was inhuman to have food rotting, cotton and wool going to waste, houses empty, and at the same time to have millions of our people starving, naked, and homeless because they could not buy the things which other men had and for which they had no use whatever. So we convinced Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt that it was necessary that he announce and promise to the American people that in the event he were elected President of the United States he would pull down the size of the big man’s fortune and guarantee something to every family — enough to do away with all poverty and to give employment to those who were able to work and education to the children born into the world. Mr. Roosevelt made those promises; he made them before he was nominated in the Chicago convention. He made them again before he was elected in November, and he went so far as to remake those promises after he was inaugurated President of the United States. And I thought for a day or two after he took the oath as President, that maybe he was going through with his promises. No heart was ever so saddened; no person’s ambition was ever so blighted, as was mine when I came to the realization that the President of the United States was not going to undertake what he had said he would do, and what I know to be necessary if the people of America were ever saved from calamity and misery. So now, my friends, I come to that point where I must in a few sentences describe to you just what was the cause of our trouble which became so serious in 1929, and which has been worse ever since. The wealth in the United States was three times as much in 1910 as it was in 1890, and yet the masses of our people owned less in 1910 than they did in 1890. In the year 1916 the condition had become so bad that a committee provided for by the Congress of the United States reported that 2 percent of the people in the United States owned 60 percent of the wealth in the country, and that 65 percent of the people owned less than 5 percent of the wealth. This report showed, however, that there was a middle class — some 33 percent of the people — who owned 35 percent of the wealth. This report went on to say that the trouble with the American people at that time was that too much of the wealth was in the hands of too few of the people, and recommended that something be done to correct the evil condition then existing. It was at about the same time that many of our publications began to deplore the fact that so few people owned so much and that so many people owned so little. Among those commenting upon that situation was the Saturday Evening Post, which, in an issue of September 23, 1916, said: Along one statistical line you can figure out a Nation bustling with wealth; along another a bloated plutocracy comprising 1 percent of the population lording it over a starving horde with only a thin margin of merely well-to-do in between. And it was, as the Saturday Evening Post and the committee appointed by Congress said, it was a deplorable thing back in 1916, when it was found that 2 percent of the people owned twice as much as all of the remainder of the people put together, and that 65 percent of all of our people owned practically nothing. But what did we do to correct that condition? Instead of moving to take these big fortunes from the top and spreading them among the suffering people at the bottom, the financial masters of America moved in to take complete charge of the Government for fear our lawmakers might do something along that line. And as a result, 14 years after the report of 1916, the Federal Trade Commission made a study to see how the wealth of this land was distributed, and did they find it still as bad as it was in 1916? They found it worse! They found that 1 percent of the people owned about 59 percent of the wealth, which was almost twice as bad as what was said to be an intolerable condition in 1916, when 2 percent of the people owned 60 percent of the wealth. And as a result of foreclosures, failures, and bankruptcies, which began to happen prior to and in the year of 1929, before the campaign of 1932, and at this late date, it is the estimate of all conservative statisticians that 75 percent of the people in the United States don’t own anything, that is, not enough to pay their debts, and that 4 percent of the people, or maybe less than 4 percent of the people, own from 85 to 90 percent of all our wealth in the United States. Remember, in 1916 there was a middle class — 33 percent of the people — who owned 35 percent of the wealth. That middle class is practically gone today. It no longer exists. They have dropped into the ranks of the poor. The thriving man of independent business standing is fast fading. The corner grocery store is becoming a thing of the past. Concentrated chain-merchandise and banking systems have laid waste to all middle opportunity. That “thin margin of merely well-to-do in between” which the Saturday Evening Post mentioned on September 23, 1916, has dwindled to practically no margin of well-to-do in between. Those suffering on the bottom and the few lords of finance on the top are nearly all that are left. It became apparent that the billionaires and multimillionaires even began to squeeze out the common millionaires, closing in and taking their properties and wrecking their businesses. And so we arrived (and are still there) at the place that in abundant America where we have everything for which a human heart can pray, the hundreds of millions — or, as General Johnson says, the 80 million — of our people are crying in misery for the want of the things which they need for life, notwithstanding the fact that the country has had and can have more than the entire human race can consume. The 125 million people of America have seated themselves at the barbecue table to consume the products which have been guaranteed to them by their Lord and Creator. There is provided by the Almighty what it takes for them all to eat; yea, more. There is provided more than what is needed for all to eat. But the financial masters of America have taken off the barbecue table 90 percent of the food placed thereon by God, through the labors of mankind, even before the feast begins, and there is left on that table to be eaten by 125 million people less than should be there for 10 million of them. What has become of the remainder of those things placed on the table by the Lord for the use of us all? They are in the hands of the Morgans, the Rockefellers, the Mellons, the Baruches, the Bakers, the Astors, and the Vanderbilts — 600 families at the most either possessing or controlling the entire 90 percent of all that is in America. They cannot eat the food, they cannot wear the clothes, so they destroy it. They have it rotted; they plow it up; they pour it into the rivers; they bring destruction through the acts of mankind to let humanity suffer; to let humanity go naked; to let humanity go homeless, so that nothing may occur that will do harm to their vanity and to their greed. Like the dog in the manger, they command a wagon load of hay, which the dog would not allow the cow to eat, though he could not eat it himself. So now, ladies and gentlemen, we come to that plan of mine for which I have been so roundly denounced and condemned by such men as Mr. Farley, Mr. Robinson, and Gen. Hugh S. Johnson, and other spellers and speakers and spoilers of the Roosevelt administration. It is for the redistribution of wealth and for guaranteeing comforts and conveniences to all humanity out of this abundance in our country. I hope none will be horror-stricken when they hear me say that we must limit the size of the big man’s fortune in order to guarantee a minimum of fortune, life and comfort to the little man; but, if you are, think first that such is the declaration on which Roosevelt rode into the nomination and election of President. While my urgings are declared by some to be the average of a madman, and by such men as General Johnson as insincere bait of a pied piper, if you will listen to me you will find that it is restating the laws handed down by God to man; you will find that it was the exact provision of the contract and law of the Pilgrim Fathers who landed at Plymouth in 1620. Here’s what the Pilgrim Fathers said in the contract with the early settlers in the year 1620. I read you article 5 from that contract: 5: That at ye end of ye 7. years, ye capital & profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods, and chattels, be equally divided betwixt ye adventurers, and planters; which done, every man shall be free from other of them of any debt or detriment concerning this adventure. So the Pilgrim Fathers wrote into the covenant to do just exactly what the Bible said to do, that they should have an equal division of the wealth every seven years. I don’t go that far; I merely advocate that no man be allowed to become so big that he makes paupers out of a million other people You will find that it is the cornerstone on which nearly every religion since the beginning of man has been founded. You will find that it was urged by Bacon, Milton, and Shakespeare in England, by Socrates, Plato, Theognis, and other wisest of men in Greece, by Pope Pius XI in the Vatican, by the world’s greatest inventor, Marconi in Italy, by Daniel Webster, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, and Theodore Roosevelt in the United States, as well as by nearly all of the thousands of great men whose names are yet mentioned in history. The principle was not only the mainspring of Roosevelt’s nomination and election, but in the closing speech of Herbert Hoover at Madison Square Garden in November 1932, even Hoover said: My conception of America is a land where men and women may walk in ordered liberty, where they may enjoy the advantages of wealth, not concentrated in the hands of a few but diffused through the lives of all. And so now I come to give you again that plan, taken from these leaders of all times and from the Bible, for the sponsoring of which I am labeled America’s menace, madman, pied piper, and demagogue. I propose: First: That every big fortune shall be cut down immediately by a capital levy tax to where no one will own more than a few million dollars, as a matter of fact, to where no one can very long own a fortune in excess of about three to four millions of dollars. I propose that the surplus of all the big fortunes, above the few millions to any one person at the most, shall go into the United States ownership. How would we get all these surplus fortunes into the United States Treasury? Not hard to do. We would not do it by making everyone sell what he owned; no. We would send everyone a questionnaire. On that he would list the properties he owns, lands and houses, stocks and bonds, factories and patents, and so on. Every man would place his appraisal on his property, which the Government would review and maybe change on some items. On that appraisal the big fortune holder would say out of what property he would retain the few millions allowed to him, the balance to go to the United States. Say Mr. Henry Ford should allow that he owned all the stock of the Ford Motor Co., worth, say, $2 billion; he could claim, say $4 million of the Ford stock, but $1,996,000,000 would go to the United States. Say the Rockefeller fortune was listed at $10 billion in oil stocks, bank stocks, money, and stores. Each Rockefeller could say whether he wanted his limit in either the money, oil, or bank stocks, but about nine billion and eight hundred million would go to the Government. And so, in this way, the Government of the United States would come into the possession of about two-fifths of its wealth, which on normal values would be worth, say, $165 billion. Then we would turn to the inventories of the 25 million families of America. All those who showed properties and money clear of debts that were above $5,000 and up to the limit of a few millions would not be touched. But those showing less than $5,000 to the family free of debt would be added to, so that every family would start life again with homestead possessions of at least a home and the comforts needed for a home, including such things as a radio and an automobile. These things would go to every family as a homestead, not to be sold either for debts or taxes or even by consent of the owner except by the consent of the court or Government, and then only on condition that the court hold it to be spent for the purpose of buying another home and comforts thereof. Such would mean that the $165 billion or more taken from big fortunes would have about $100 billion of it used to provide all with the comforts of home and living. The Government might have to issue warrants for claim and location, or even currency to be retired from such property as was claimed, but all that is a detail not impractical to get these homes into the hands of the people. So America would start again with millionaires, but no multi-millionaires or billionaires; with some poor, but none too poor to be denied the comforts of life. America, however, would still have maybe a $65 billion balance from these big fortunes not yet used to set up the poor people. What would we do with that? Wait a moment. I am coming to that, too. Second: We propose that after homes and comforts of homes have been set up for the families of the country, that we shall turn our attention to the children and the youth of the land, providing first for their education and training. We would not have to worry about the problem of child labor, because the very first thing which we would place in front of every child would be not only a comfortable home during his early years but the opportunity for education and training, not only through the grammar school and the high school but through college and to include vocational and professional training for every child. If necessary, that would include the living cost of that child while he attended college, if one should be too distant for him to live at home and conveniently attend, as would be the case with many of those living in the rural areas. We now have an educational system, and in States like Louisiana — and it is the best one — where school books are furnished free to every child and where transportation by bus is given to every student, however far he may live from a grammar or high school; there is a fairly good assurance of education through grammar and high school for the child whose father and mother have enough at home to feed and clothe them. But when it comes to a matter of college education, except in few cases the right to a college education is determined at this day and time by the financial ability of the father and mother to pay for the cost and the expense of a college education. It don’t make any difference how brilliant a boy or girl may be, that don’t give them the right to a college education in America today. Now, Gen. Hugh Johnson says I am indeed a very smart demagogue, a wise and dangerous menace. But I am one of those who didn’t have the opportunity to secure a college education or training. We propose that the right to education and the extent of education shall be determined and gauged not so much by the financial ability of the parents but by the mental ability and energy of a child to absorb the learning at a college. This should appeal to General Johnson, who says I am a smart man, since, had I enjoyed the learning and college training which my plan would provide for others, I might not have fallen into the path of the dangerous menace and demagogue that he has now found me to be. Remember, we have $65 billion to account for that would lie in the hands of the United States, even after providing home comforts for all families. We will use a large part of it immediately to expand particularly the colleges and universities of this country. You would not know the great institutions like Yale, Harvard, and Louisiana State University. Get ready for a surprise. College enrollments would multiply 1,000 percent. We would immediately call in the architects and engineers, the idle professors and scholars of learning. We would send out a hurry call because the problem of providing college education for all of the youth would start a fusillade of employment which might suddenly and immediately make it possible for us to shorten the hours of labor, even as we contemplate in the balance of our program. And how happy the youth of this land would be tomorrow morning if they knew instantly their right to a home and the comforts of a home and to complete college and professional training and education were assured! I know how happy they would be, because I know how I would have felt had such a message been delivered to my door. I cannot deliver that promise to the youth of this land tonight, but I am doing my part. I am standing the blows; I am hearing the charges hurled at me from the four quarters of the country. It is the same fight which was made against me in Louisiana when I was undertaking to provide the free school books, free busses, university facilities, and things of that kind to educate the youth of that State as best I could. It is the same blare which I heard when I was undertaking to provide for the sick and the afflicted. When the youth of this land realizes what is meant and what is contemplated the billingsgate and the profanity of all the Farleys and Johnsons in America can’t prevent the light of truth from hurling itself in understandable letters against the dark canopy of the sky. Now, when we have landed at the place where homes and comforts are provided for all families and complete education and training for all young men and women, the next problem is what about our income to sustain our people thereafter. How shall that be arranged to guarantee all the fair share of what soul and body need to sustain them conveniently. That brings us to our next point. We propose: Number 3: We shall shorten the hours of labor by law so much as may be necessary that none will be worked too long and none unemployed. We shall cut the hours of toil to 30 hours per week, maybe less; we may cut the working year to 11 months’ work and 1 month’s vacation; maybe less. If our great improvement programs show we need more labor than we may have, we will lengthen the hours as convenience requires. At all events, the hours for production will be gauged to meet the market for consumption. We will need all our machinery for many years, because we have much public improvement to do; and, further, the more use that we may make of them, the less toil will be required for all of us to survive in splendor. Now, a minimum earning would be established for any person with a family to support. It would be such a living which one, already owning a home, could maintain a family in comfort, of not less than $2,500 per year to every family. And now by reason of false statements made, particularly by Mr. Arthur Brisbane and Gen. Hugh S. Johnson, I must make answer to show you that there is more than enough in this country and more than enough raised and made every year to do what I propose. Mr. Brisbane says I am proposing to give every person $15,000 for a home and its comforts, and he says that would mean the United States would have to be worth over a trillion dollars. Why make that untrue statement, Mr. Brisbane? You know that is not so. I do not propose any home and comfort of $15,000 to each person — it is a minimum of $5,000 to every family, which would be less than $125 billion, which is less than one-third of this Nation’s wealth in normal times of $400 billion. General Johnson says that my proposal is for $5,000 guaranteed earning to each family, which he says would cost from four to five hundred millions of dollars per year, which he says is four times more than our whole national income ever has been. Why make such untrue statements, General Johnson? Must you be a false witness to argue your point? I do not propose $5,000 income per year to each family. I propose a minimum of from $2,000 to $2,500 income per year to each family. For 25 million families that minimum income per family would require from $50 billion to $60.6 billion. In the prosperous days we have had nearly double that for income some years already, which allowed plenty for the affluent; but with the unheard prosperity we would have, if all our people could buy what they need, our national income would be double what it has ever been. The Wall Street writer and statistician says we could have an income of at least $10,000 to every family in goods if all worked short hours and none were idle. According to him, only one-fourth of the average income would carry out my plan. And now I come to the remainder of the plan. We propose: Number 4: That agricultural production will be cared for in the manner specified in the Bible. We would plow under no crops; we would burn no corn; we would spill no milk into the river; we would shoot no hogs; would slaughter no cattle to be rotted. What we would do is this: We would raise all the cotton that we could raise, all the corn that we could raise, and everything else that we could raise. Let us say, for example, that we raised more cotton than we could use. But here again I wish to surprise you when I say that if everyone could buy all the towels, all the sheets, all the bedding, all the clothing, all the carpets, all the window curtains, and all of everything else he reasonably needs; America would consume 20 million bales of cotton per year without having to sell a bale to the foreign countries. The same would be true of the wheat crop, and of the corn crop, and of the meat crop. Whenever everyone could buy the things he desires to eat, there would be no great excess in any of those food supplies. But for the sake of the argument, let us say, however, that there would be a surplus. And I hope there will be, because it will do the country good to have a big surplus. Let us take cotton as an example. Let us say that the United States will have a market for 10 million bales of cotton and that we raise 15 million bales of cotton. We will store 5 million bales in warehouses provided by the Government. If the next year we raise 15 million bales of cotton and only need 10, we will store another 5 million bales of cotton, and the Government will care for that. When we reach the year when we have enough cotton to last for twelve or eighteen months, we will plant no more cotton for that next year. The people will have their certificates of the Government which they can cash in for that year for the surplus, or if necessary, the Government can pay for the whole 15 million bales of cotton as it is produced every year; and when the year comes that we will raise no cotton, we will not leave the people idle and with nothing to do. That is the year when, in the cotton States, we will do our public improvement work that needs to be done so badly. We will care for the flood-control problems; we will extend the electricity lines into rural areas; we will widen roads and build more roads; and if we have a little time left, some of us can go back and attend a school for a few months and not only learn some of the things we have forgotten but we can learn some things that they have found out about that they didn’t know anything about when we were children. Now the example of what we would do about cotton is the same policy we would follow about all other crops. This program would necessitate the building of large storage plants, both heated and cold storage, and warehouses in all the counties of America, and that building program alone would take up all the idle people that America has today. But the money spent would go for good and would prevent any trouble happening in the future. And then there is another good thing. If we would fill these warehouses, then if there were to come a year of famine there would be enough on hand to feed and clothe the people of the Nation. It would be the part of good sense to keep a year or two of stock on hand all the time to provide for an emergency, maybe to provide for war or other calamity. I give you the next step in our program: Number 5: We will provide for old-age pensions for those who reach the age of 60 and pay it to all those who have an income of less than $1,000 per year or less than $10,000 in property or money. This would relieve from the ranks of labor those persons who press down the price for the use of their flesh and blood. Now the person who reaches the age of 60 would already have the comforts of home as well as something else guaranteed by reason of the redistribution that had been made of things. They would be given enough more to give them a reasonably comfortable existence in their declining days. However, such would not come from a sales tax or taxes placed upon the common run of people. It would be supported from the taxes levied on those with big incomes and the yearly tax that would be levied on big fortunes, so that they would always be kept down to a few million dollars to any one person. Number 6: We propose that the obligations which this country owes to the veterans of its wars, including the soldiers’ bonus and to care for those who have been either incapacitated or disabled, would be discharged without stint or unreasonable limit. I have always supported each and every bill that has had to do with the payment of the bonus due to the ex-service men. I have always opposed reducing the allowances which they have been granted. It is an unfair thing for a country to begin its economy while big fortunes exist by inflicting misery on those who have borne the burden of national defense. Now, ladies and gentlemen, such is the share-our-wealth movement. What I have here stated to you will be found to be approved by the law of our Divine Maker. You will find it in the Book of Leviticus, from the twenty-fifth to the twenty-seventh chapters. You will find it in the writings of King Solomon. You will find it in the teachings of Christ. You will find it in the words of our great teachers and statesmen of all countries and of all times. If you care to write to me for such proof, I shall be glad to furnish it to you, free of expense, by mail. Will you not organize a share-our-wealth society in your community tonight or tomorrow to place this plan into law? You need it; your people need it. Write me, wire to me; get into this work with us if you believe we are right. Help to save humanity. Help to save this country. If you wish a copy of this speech or a copy of any other speech I have made, write me and it will be forwarded to you. You can reach me always in Washington, D. C. I thank you. Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008) Also in this database: Huey P. Long – “Every Man a King” Text Source: The Congressional Record, March 12, 1935 Image Source: NARS, FDR Library NPX-83-73. Copyright Status: Text & Image = Public domain.

Huey P. Long Radio Address: A Fair Deal for the Veterans delivered 11 May 1935 We have generally referred to this proposition as a “soldier’s bonus,” but here is what it was. When the boys came back from the war in 1918 and 1919 and some as late as 1920, the government said that since all common labor had been paid from three dollars to four dollars per day during the war without taking any chance of being shot down, or of having their legs shot off, or their eyes shot out, that they would pay the soldiers for the time that they worked, fought, and risked their lives and money — the same amount per day as the commonest kind of laborer was paid for the same days worked during the war. Now since they figured that the soldier had already been paid around 30 dollars to 40 dollars per month while he was in the war, they deducted the one dollar or dollar and a quarter per day and gave the soldier a certificate for the balance. So that when the certificate was paid, the soldier would receive as much money from the days that he stood in the trenches as a commonest kind of laborer received for the same day that he worked. Now I think you or I or most any other person would say that as a general rule, the man who worked and fought, who slept in the trenches on the ground, in the rain, and in the mud, and who took a chance of never coming back, was entitled to get a little bit more money for that kind of service, than the man who lived in comfort in his home and took no such chance of being maimed or killed. But we did not regard it that way when we gave the soldiers our certificates for service. We took the view that they were not entitled to any more money than the sorriest kind of field hand or workhand. And that is the certificate which they hold today and which is called the soldiers’ bonus. A few years ago Congress provided that the soldiers could borrow about half the money that was due on the certificates. Now what we have done here this week is to provide to pay them the balance, equal to the face value of the certificate issued by the government for their services. Some people talk as though the soldiers had already been paid one bonus. That is not true at all. We have not paid the soldiers the bonus — once or twice or anything of the kind. What we did was to issue a certificate to each man, giving him an allowance to be paid later. And we have allowed them to borrow on this certificate up to one-half the face value. But we have never paid the obligation at all. That is what we’re trying to do now. Now we proposed and it passed to law to pay the amount in full. The law which has been passed is known as the Patman Bill. It is the same bill that previously passed the House of Representatives. Last year I offered this bill as an amendment to another bill in the United States Senate. It failed to pass. But in this session of Congress, this same Patman Bill was voted in the House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority. It came to the Senate and it was voted there by a very large majority. It will become the law if the President will sign it. But even though the President vetoes the bill, it would still become the law if two-thirds of the United States senators will vote to override the President’s veto. We are very near to the mark of getting two-thirds of the senators to vote to override the veto in case the President vetoes. It is a shame to have a few votes doing this wrong to the men who fought our battles. That being the case, every person whether he has or has not written to the President, should immediately write or wire to his United States senators asking them to vote to override the veto on the soldiers’ bonus bill in case the President vetoes the bill. We hear that the President is being urged to turn a deaf ear to the people’s plea. Therefore, wire your senators. We hope that will not be necessary. We hope the President won’t veto the bill. But for fear that he is going to do it, wire your United States senators asking them to vote to override the v