当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文

成都/首秀培训机构修眉绣眉毛漂眉雕眉培训普及新闻邛崃市韩式半永久化妆培训学校

2018年05月27日 15:57:45    日报  参与评论()人

自贡纹绣工具箱绵竹市半永久培训机构演讲文本Ronald Reagan: "A Time for Choosing" ( October 27,1964, Los Angeles) Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan: Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks. I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good." But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value. As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers. Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down -- [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will e have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming -- that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow. Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil. At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the ed States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore. Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of b goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down. Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed. We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing? But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than it was in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead. Now -- so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency. But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd aly done that very thing. Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that. A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can. At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road. In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth? I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations. I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country. No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So.governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth. Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the ed States." I think that's exactly what he will do. But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England. Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery aly exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that we're to choose just between two personalities. Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing. This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there. An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load. During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won. Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender. Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all. You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny. Thank you very much. 200603/5019彭州市林教头纹绣培训学校哪家好 Friday 12 May - Strategic Direction of Government You may have heard me and my colleagues talking over the last few days about the need to keep focussed on the long-term - warning of the need not to get blown about by day to day events. In Government there will always be up and downs and I'm sure there will be plenty more. The downs, in particular, make up the daily headlines in the news. But what's important is to stay focussed on what really matters, on the fundamentals - on economy and jobs, welfare reform, on health, education, crime and transport. On long-term change necessary to deliver opportunity and security for the many, not the few. I'm the first to admit we have got a great deal more to do. But by concentrating on these fundamentals, I believe we've been able to make more progress than anyone would have thought possible two or three years ago. The overall goal is clear. It's to build a Britain that is strong modern, and fair. It's an ambitious task. Of course will take time. And it can't be done without change, without hard choices, keeping our eye firmly on the long-term. Because unless something works for the long term, it doesn't really work at all. Tough decisions like giving the Bank of England independence or keeping a tight control of public spending in our first two years which meant saying no as well as yes to a lot of spending plans made to us. But the result today is a Britain with a strong economy where inflation is lower for longer than for decades, public borrowing has been cut by pound;40 billion and as a result of the stability of the economy, nearly 900,000 more people in work than three years ago. Tough decisions like making work pay ensuring we offer more than just a benefit cheque to those out of work. So we have brought in the minimum wage, the Working Families Tax Credit and the New Deal which has helped cut youth unemployment aly by 70%. Tough decisions on pensioners as well. And I know that many people are angry at what they say is simply the 75p rise in the basic state pension. And of course we could have taken the opportunity to put all the money into the basic state pension and win some short-term popularity. But it would have been the wrong decision. Because had we given the pension rise across the board the same for everyone, no matter what they had been given it would have gone exactly the same way to better off and poorer pensioners alike. But the poorest pensioners would hardly have seen a penny of this because their other benefits would have gone down as their basic state pension rose. So what we've done and done deliberately, is to target help first on those poorest pensioners in a way which delivers the most help to those who need it most. So for example the pound;150 winter allowance and the free TV licences for those aged over 75. They have been introduced in a way which means they're not affected by other benefits that people have. And for those above the benefit levels, there's an increase in capital limits and the 10p tax rate. And of course for the very poorest pensioners the new minimum income guarantee means that for a million pensioners, those who are the very poorest pensioners they will get income rises and have got income rises of in some cases up to pound;15 or pound;20 a week. The package together adds up to pound;6.5 billion - that is more than if we uprated the basic pension in line with earnings. So we made some tough choices but we made them from the right values - fairness, helping those that need it most. We have made tough choices too on Education. We need far more investment in education, and we're doing it. An extra investment of an extra pound;300 per pupil over the three years up to 2001. But it's investment tied to reform. Reform of course hasn't always been popular. There was opposition to the literacy and numeracy hour, for example. There's opposition now to reforming pay so teachers can earn extra money without having to leave the classroom for management roles in schools. But as a result of these reforms we are seeing standards improve. The eleven year olds' results for literacy and numeracy were the best ever. The new specialist schools are raising their results quicker than any other schools in the country. So we've taken the long-term view, we've made our reforms and we're going to stick to our guns with them. And it's the same on the health service. We've had to put in place the right strategy for the long-term heath of the National Health Service - backed by the biggest ever sustained increase in funding the Health Service has seen. Not just for one year as used to happen in the past, but now for the next four years we know that the Health Service is going to get the money that we need. And this aly means that we are getting more doctors and nurses into our hospitals. More are now being trained. There are thirty eight new hospitals being built in England alone. Over the next few weeks, we are going to be drawing up the plan to ensure that every penny of the extra investment goes to the Health Service in a way that really brings about a decent improvement in health care. And this plan, the first of it's kind, is not just about spending money, but allying it with change and reform and will I believe deliver a step change in patient care to match our step change in investment and resources. So I know, of course, there are frustrations at the speed of progress, at how much hasn't been done for years, over how much remains to be done. But in fact an immense amount has been done aly, it's just we have a lot more to do. But I've not come across many people who say we are wrong in what we are doing, or disagree with the big decisions we've made or believe we are taking the country in the wrong direction. They agree with us on the destination, they simply want us to get there faster. And so do I. But to get there faster means doing it for the long term. For there's no use doing it fast if it can't be sustained. So on Monday. Gordon Brown will set out how we meet the goal of abolishing child poverty in 20 years. By the end of this month aly one million children will have been lifted out of poverty. On Tuesday at the Confederation for British Industry, I'll set out how we will meet the goal of delivering stability and prosperity for people in a world of rapid economic and technological change. On Wednesday at the Police Federation conference, Jack Straw, the Home Secretary will set out how we take forward the next phase of our programme to tackle crime. So we're going to keep concentrating on what needs to be done to strengthen our economy and our society to deliver opportunity and security for all. Britain's always worked well for the top ten per cent. Our task is and remains to make the changes necessary to make it work for all our people. 200705/13858亲,你们想拥有一口流利的英语口语吗?你们想像世界名人一样拥有敏锐的智慧、滔滔不绝的口才吗?在这里,大家不但可以聆听抑扬顿挫的英文,而且还可以学习到名人的过人之处,相信会受益匪浅的!听,他们来了......165299四川纹绣培训视频

成都/百变妆颜半永久培训学眉妆眼妆水雾眉多少钱In this week’s address, President Obama laid out a policy agenda that would strengthen our economy and create jobs right here in America by offering tax incentives to businesses that hire new employees, making the research and experimentation tax credit permanent and providing a tax cut for clean energy manufacturing. The President also wants to close tax loopholes worth billions of dollars that encourage companies to invest in overseas, while Republicans in the House have voted 11 times in just the last four years to keep those loopholes open. Download mp4 (102MB) | mp3 (3MB)201010/115918成都/菲菲学校纹绣学习纹眉绣眼线多少钱 资阳学绣眉毛多少钱

成都/尚美优品纹绣培训学校收费多少贵吗We know it because, if we look below the surface, we sense it still sping on every continent我们知道民主不会死亡.因为如果我们透过表面看问题、就会感觉到它仍在每一片大陆上扩展,for it is the most humane, the most advanced, and in the end the most unconquerable of all forms of human society.因为它是最人道、最先进,说到底也是最不可征的人类社会形式。A nation, like a person, has a body—a body that must be fed and clothed and housed, invigorated and rested, in a manner that measures up to the standards of our time.国家象人一样有一个身体——它必须以我们时代的目标为标准,得到吃、穿、住、活动和休息。A nation, like a person, has a mind—a mind that must be kept informed and alert, that must know itself,国家象人一样有一个脑袋——它必须了解情况和处于戒备状态。它必须了解自己,that understands the hopes and the needs of its neighbors all the other nations that live within the narrowing circle of the world.了解邻居的希望和需要,这个邻居就是生活在这个狭小世界范围内的所有其他国家。And a nation, like a person, has something deeper, something more permanent, something larger than the sum of all its parts.国家象人一样不止是各个部分的总和,它还有更深、更广、更持久的东西。It is that something which matters most to its future which calls forth the most sacred guarding of its present.这就是最关系到它的前途的东西——唤起民众最神圣地保卫其现在的东西。It is a thing for which we find it difficult even impossible to hit upon a single, simple word.对这件东西,我们发觉很难,甚至不可能用一句简单的话来表达。And yet we all understand what it is the spirit the faith of America. 不过,我们都了解它是什么——它是精神——它是美国的信念。It is the product of centuries. It was born in the multitudes of those who came from many lands some of high degree,它是好几个世纪的结晶。它是在大批群众中产生的、他们来自世界上的许多地方,有一些人层次较高、but mostly plain people, who sought here, early and late, to find freedom more freely.但大多数是普通人,他们在此致力于总有一天能更不受约束地寻找自由。The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history. It is human history.在人类历史上,渴望民主并不是最近阶段的事情.它本身就是一部人类史。It permeated the ancient life of early peoples. It blazed anew in the middle ages. It was written in Magna Charta.这样的例子在古代各国人民的生活中俯拾即是。它在中世纪重新燃起了火炬。它被载入了英国大宪章。02/439530 President Bush Celebrates Hispanic Heritage MonthTHE PRESIDENT: Hola! Siéntese. Bienvenidos a la Casa Blanca. (Laughter.) Eacute;ste es el último "Mes de la Hispanidad" que paso como presidente -- y por eso, le dije a mi personal que hoy quería hablarles sólo en espantilde;ol. (Applause.) Me contestaron: "Sentilde;or presidente, antes de dar un discurso en espantilde;ol, iquest;por qué no llega primero a dominar el inglés?" (Applause and laughter.) I am proud to be with you. I am proud to be with current and former Latino members of my administration. (Applause.) I want to thank the ambassadors from the Diplomatic Corps for joining us today. We're proud to be your friends. I want to thank the members of the ed States Armed Forces who have joined us. I want to thank my friend Emilio Estefan, President of Estefan Enterprises. (Applause.) And I want to thank Andrés Cabas, from Colombia, who is going to sing a couple of songs for us. Thank you and your band for joining us. (Applause.) Every year at this time, we recognize the great contributions Hispanic Americans make to our country. And we should. From coast to coast, people of Hispanic descent enrich our culture and make our nation a better place. They serve in top positions throughout business and government. They bring their strong values of faith and family to our communities. My family is proud to have Latino blood -- mi cuntilde;ada. (Applause.) Jeb and I both married very well. (Laughter.) Hispanic Americans cherish the limitless promise of our nation. During the past eight years, I've been proud to work with you to ensure que -- ensure que todos puedan alcanzar las promesas de los Estados Unidos. (Applause.) One promise is good education. I mean, you can't have a hopeful nation unless you've got a good education system. So we worked with Congress to pass the No Child Left Behind Act. This act raises standards and accountability across schools in the country, and I'm pleased to report Hispanic students are scoring at all-time highs on tests, and therefore an achievement gap is narrowing. For hundreds of thousands of Hispanic children, the best hope for good education is found in America's faith-based schools. Earlier this year, I proposed a new program called Pell Grants for Kids, which would help low-income children in underperforming public schools attend a private, a parochial, or out-of-district public school of their choice. (Applause.) Earlier this year I met a very interesting young woman at the White House Summit on Inner-City Children and Faith-Based Schools. The whole purpose was to help these schools realize a comeback and make sure our communities were able to have these schools as a part of their future. The woman I met is a woman named Katrina [sic] Ramírez. She grew up in a Chicago neighborhood. It was plagued by gang violence, and she had a tough time in school because she didn't speak English. But at Cristo Rey Jesuit High School, Karina received a top-notch education. She received real work experience, and she got herself a ticket to college. Karina says, "My dad went from garbage picking in Mexico to having a daughter going to Georgetown." Karina, thank you for coming. (Applause.) She is proof that el Suentilde;o Americano es para todos. (Applause.) Economic opportunity is a promise of our country. And the truth of the matter is, for generations people have found opportunities in this country that would have been impossible in the places where they were born, and that has made us a vibrant country and it's encouraged entrepreneurship. Today, the economy obviously is going through a very tough stretch, and that's why the administration will work with Congress to pass a financial rescue plan. The goal of this plan is to free up the flow of capital to help all Americans get the capital and loans necessary to help weather these difficult times. Part of the plan is to free up capital for small businesses. After all, small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and interestingly enough, according to the most recent data, more than 1.5 million small businesses are owned by Hispanic owners. (Applause.) In times of economic uncertainty, we need to be promoting free trade, particularly with friends in our neighborhood. During my time as President, we've opened up trade agreements with a lot of nations, including nations in Central America and in South America. But there's a couple of them that need to be approved by the ed States Congress. We approved the free trade agreement with Peru, but waiting on Congress to approve the free trade agreements with Panama and Colombia. (Applause.) I'm confident in our economy's long-term prospects. We'll get through this deal. And the reason why I'm confident is because we got the most talented and productive workers in the world. And many are Hispanic men and women who work hard every single day to support their families. (Applause.) One promise of America is the compassion of our people. During my time in office I've been proud to work with Hispanic Americans to lift up nuestros hermanos y hermanas in need. I established the USA Freedom Corps to foster a culture of citizenship and responsibility and service. And today nearly 61 million Americans volunteer their time to help our fellow citizens -- many of them Hispanics. Through our Faith-Based and Community Initiative, we are harnessing the compassion of religious groups to reduce homelessness and break the chains of addiction, give prisoners a second chance, and alleviate suffering at home and abroad. Recently I met a woman from San Diego whose life has been transformed by America's armies of compassion. Edith Espinoza suffered terrible abuse from her husband. She turned to "El Nido" program, an interfaith shelter network supported by the Faith-Based and Community Initiative. "El Nido" is a place where Edith received counseling and learned how to get a job and save money. She and her daughters now live in an apartment that she pays on her own. Her goal is to become a social worker so she can help other families like hers. She is showing that because of the good hearts of our citizens, el suentilde;o Americano es por todos. (Applause.) One promise of America's freedom -- freedom for all. Hispanic Americans are extending this country's promise of freedom and liberty to others. Hispanics serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, to help those young democracies realize the blessings of freedom. I particularly want to thank those who are working to hasten the day of freedom for the Cuban people. (Applause.) I'm especially proud to be the Commander-In-Chief of a military in which there's 225,000 Hispanic men and women. (Applause.) One of these hispanos is an Army Lieutenant Colonel named Enrique Guerra. Listen to his story. Enrique fled Cuba with his parents when he was an infant. They wanted their young child to grow up in a society that was free and hopeful. He spent more than 22 years in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. Today, he is a battalion commander at Camp Cropper in Iraq, helping the people in the Middle East secure their own freedom and therefore lay the foundation of peace for generations to come. Enrique puts it this way: "As a Cuban America [sic], I was born with a strong sense of patriotism, and that is why I serve." And today I'm proud to honor his service, and the service of all Hispanic Americans, who ensure that freedom is available to all. Enrique, bienvenidos. Thank you for coming. (Applause.) Thank you, sir. And so today we celebrate the many contributions that generations of Hispanics have made to the American Dream. Their creativity and determination help our country to live up to its promise of opportunity and prosperity and freedom for all our citizens. During Hispanic Heritage Month we give thanks for these blessings and we ask for God's continued blessings on you and your families, y los Estados Unidos. And now it's my honor to welcome one of Latin America's most popular young vocalists, Colombia's Andrés Cabas. (Applause.) 200810/52397乐山学韩式雾眉多少钱邛崃市学纹绣去哪里

眉山学修眉多少钱
成都/美社美甲培训学校学习半永久化妆PCD纹绣多少钱
四川省纹绣最好的学校中华共享
成都/市玲珑纹绣
百家新闻成都/APL韩式半永久培训学校学纹眼线美容纹绣多少钱
阿坝州纹美瞳线培训学校哪家好
什邡市半永久定妆学习
巴中学眉妆多少钱百度诊疗内江韩式切眉术培训学校哪家好
飞度门户德阳半永久性化妆培训泡泡对话
(责任编辑:图王)
 
五大发展理念

龙江会客厅

甘孜藏族自治州学习纹绣到哪里
遂宁美丽俏佳人化妆学校学习半永久化妆PCD纹绣多少钱 成都/尚美优品纹绣电话地址管时讯 [详细]
成都/市洗眉毛
绵阳首秀美容纹绣培训韩式定妆眉毛切眉术培训 江油市韩式雾眉培训学校哪家好 [详细]
成都/蓝美人韩式半永久纹绣培训学校学纹眼线美容纹绣多少钱
绵阳纹绣培训学院学习韩式半永久雾眉毛多少钱 快乐解答阿坝州学绣眉毛多少钱百度口碑 [详细]
成都/木恩韩式美妆学院培训多少天包吃住吗
爱问在线崇州市纹绣培训课程 广汉市纹绣培训课程泡泡门户广汉市韩式半永久培训学校哪家好 [详细]