当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文

郴州治疗前列腺肥大去哪家医院光明中文郴州医院专业

2019年12月06日 03:10:32    日报  参与评论()人

郴州资兴市有泌尿科吗郴州治疗生殖感染哪家医院比较好mp4 视频下载Weekly Address: Financial Reform to Protect ConsumersPrepared Remarks of President Barack ObamaWeekly AddressJune 20, As we continue to recover from an historic economic crisis, it is clear to everyone that one of its major causes was a breakdown in oversight that led to widesp abuses in the financial system. An epidemic of irresponsibility took hold from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street. And the consequences have been disastrous. Millions of Americans have seen their life savings erode; families have been devastated by job losses; businesses large and small have closed their doors. In response, this week, my administration proposed a set of major reforms to the rules that govern our financial system; to attack the causes of this crisis and to prevent future crises from taking place; to ensure that our markets can work fairly and freely for businesses and consumers alike. We are going to promote markets that work for those who play by the rules. We’re going to stand up for a system in which fair dealing and honest competition are the only way to win. We’re going to level the playing field for consumers. And we’re going to have the kinds of rules that encourage innovations that make our economy stronger – not those that allow insiders to exploit its weaknesses for their own gain.And one of the most important proposals is a new oversight agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. It’s charged with just one job: looking out for the interests of ordinary Americans in the financial system. This is essential, for this crisis may have started on Wall Street. But its impacts have been felt by ordinary Americans who rely on credit cards, home loans, and other financial instruments.It is true that this crisis was caused in part by Americans who took on too much debt and took out loans they simply could not afford. But there are also millions of Americans who signed contracts they did not always understand offered by lenders who did not always tell the truth. Today, folks signing up for a mortgage, student loan, or credit card face a bewildering array of incomprehensible options. Companies compete not by offering better products, but more complicated ones – with more fine print and hidden terms. It’s no coincidence that the lack of strong consumer protections led to abuses against consumers; the lack of rules to stop deceptive lending practices led to abuses against borrowers.This new agency will have the responsibility to change that. It will have the power to set tough new rules so that companies compete by offering innovative products that consumers actually want – and actually understand. Those ridiculous contracts – pages of fine print that no one can figure out – will be a thing of the past. You’ll be able to compare products – with descriptions in plain language – to see what is best for you. The most unfair practices will be banned. The rules will be enforced.Some argue that these changes – and the many others we’ve called for – go too far. And I welcome a debate about how we can make sure our regulations work for businesses and consumers. But what I will not accept – what I will vigorously oppose – are those who do not argue in good faith. Those who would defend the status quo at any cost. Those who put their narrow interests ahead of the interests of ordinary Americans. We’ve aly begun to see special interests mobilizing against change. That’s not surprising. That’s Washington.For these are interests that have benefited from a system which allowed ordinary Americans to be exploited. These interests argue against reform even as millions of people are facing the consequences of this crisis in their own lives. These interests defend business-as-usual even though we know that it was business-as-usual that allowed this crisis to take place. Well, the American people did not send me to Washington to give in to the special interests; the American people sent me to Washington to stand up for their interests. And while I’m not spoiling for a fight, I’m y for one. The most important thing we can do to put this era of irresponsibility in the past is to take responsibility now. That is why my administration will accept no less than real and lasting change to the way business is done – on Wall Street and in Washington. We will do what is necessary to end this crisis – and we will do what it takes to prevent this kind of crisis from ever happening again.Thank you. 06/75072郴州东方男子医院龟头炎症 It is good to be back here with all of you.很高兴能与大家相聚在这里。I’ve got a few acknowledgments I’ve got to make before I say what I’ve got to say. 在我发言之前我不得不进行一些确认。First of all, somebody who has served our country with the kind of distinction that doesn’t happen a lot, somebody who has been a leader for you and a leader for our country for a very long time -- give your commander,General John Allen, a big, big round of applause. 首先,是一位用荣誉效忠我们的国家的人,而这并不多见,这个人为一直是你们的领导,而且很长一段时间内也是我们国家的领导——向你们的指挥官约翰#8226;艾伦,致以热烈、非常热烈的掌声。We also have somebody who is John’s partner on the civilian side and has made extraordinary sacrifices, first in Iraq, now in Afghanistan -- Ambassador Ryan Crocker is here. 我们也有某人,曾经是约翰的伙伴,首先是在伊拉克,现在是在阿富汗以文官的身份做出了很大的牺牲——大使雷恩#8226;克罗克就在这里。Please give him a big round of applause.请也向他致以热烈的掌声。All right, now, let me just see if I’ve got this right. 好的,现在,让我就来看看我是否说的对。We’ve got the First Infantry Division in the house.这间屋子中有我们的第一步兵师。We’ve got the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing. 有我们的第455空中远征翼。We’ve got the Task Force Muleskinner.有我们的穆勒斯齐纳特遣部队。We’ve got the 101st Army Field Sustainment Brigade.有我们的101野战保障旅。We’ve got Task Force Paladin in the house.在这间屋子中有我们的圣骑士特遣部队。And we’ve got Task Force Defender in the house. 有我们的防御者特遣部队。And we’ve got me in the house.我自己也身在其中。Eighty-second in the house — 82nd in the house.在屋子中有82人。You know, somebody is going to be in trouble that they didn’t have 82nd on here.你知道,有人要有麻烦了,他们没有在这里排名第82位。Anybody else I’m missing? 还有我错过的人吗?There you go. All right. 我们开始。好的。I love all of you.我爱你们所有的人。Now, listen, I’m not going to give a long speech.现在,听着,我不打算发表长篇大论。I’m going to have the opportunity to address the nation from Bagram just in a little bit, and it’s going to be broadcast back home during primetime.我将有机会只是从巴拉格姆讲一点点这个国家,而且在回家的时候也会在黄金时段播放。So all I want to do is just say thank you. 所以我想做的只是说谢谢你们。The sacrifices all of you have made, the sacrifices your families make every single day are what make America free and what make America secure.所有你们所做的牺牲,你们的家人牺牲的每一天都使美国自由而且让美国的安全。And I know that sometimes, out here, when you’re in theater, it’s not clear whether folks back home fully appreciate what’s going on.我知道,有时,如果不在这里,当你在剧院的时候,现在还不清楚人们回家时是否完全理解发生了什么。And let’s face it, a lot of times it’s easier to get bad news on the news than good news.让我们面对这个问题,很多时候坏消息比好消息更容易得到。But here’s the good news, and here’s part of the reason that I’m here. 但现在是好消息,这是我在这里的一部分原因。I just finished signing a Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan that signals the transition in which we are going to be turning over responsibility for Afghan security to the Afghans.我刚与阿富汗签订完战略合作协议,这标志着为了阿富汗安全,我们将责任移交给阿富汗。Were not going to do it overnight.我们不会一夜之间完成的。Were not going to do it irresponsibly. 我们不会去不负责任的去做。Were going to make sure that the gains, the hard-fought gains that have been made are preserved.我们要确保那确实行之有效,所取得的来之不易的成果被保留下来。But the reason were able to do that is because of you.但我们之所以能够这样做是因为你们。The reason that the Afghans have an opportunity for a new tomorrow is because of you. 阿富汗人有新的明天的机会是因为你们。And the reason America is safe is because of you. 美国安全的原因也是因为你们。We did not choose this war. This war came to us on 9/11.我们并没有主动选择这场战争。这场战争因9/11而起让我们无从选择。And there are a whole bunch of folks here, Ill bet, who signed up after 9/11. 还有一大堆人在这里,我打赌,是在9/11后入伍的。We dont go looking for a fight.我们不会去主动寻找战斗。But when we see our homeland violated, when we see our fellow citizens killed, then we understand what we have to do.但当我们看到我们的国家遭到亵渎,当我们看到我们的公民死亡,然后我们知道我们需要做什么。And because of the sacrifices now of a decade, and a new Greatest Generation, not only were we able to blunt the Taliban momentum, not only were we able to drive al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but slowly and systematically we have been able to decimate the ranks of al Qaeda, and a year ago we were able to finally bring Osama bin Laden to justice.由于现在十多年的牺牲及一个新的伟大的一代,我们不仅能够削弱塔利班的势头,我们还能让“基地”组织离开阿富汗,但慢慢地、系统地我们已经能够削弱基地组织的的等级,而一年前我们还能够最终把奥萨马#8226;本#8226;拉登绳之以法。That could have only happened because each and every one of you, in your own way, were doing your jobs. 那些能够发生的唯一原因是你们每一个人,你们以自己的方式,做好属于你们自己的工作。Each and every one of you -- without a lot of fanfare, without a lot of fuss — you did your jobs. 你们每一个人——没有浮夸,没有抱怨,你们就是做你们的工作。No matter how small or how big, you were faithful to the oath that you took to protect this nation.不管多么渺小或是多么庞大,你都们忠于自己的誓言保护着这个国家。And your families did their job -- supporting you and loving you and remembering you and being there for you.你们的家庭也在做他们的工作——持你们,爱你们,将你们铭记在心并永远是你们的坚强后盾。And so, together, you guys represent what is best in America. 因此,一起,你们这些人代表着美国最好的。And youre part of a long line of those who have worn this uniform to make sure that we are free and secure, to make sure that those of us at home have the capacity to live our lives. 你们是那一长排人中穿这件制的一部分,确保着我们的自由和安全,确保这些人在家里有能力过我们的生活。And when youre missing a birthday or youre missing a soccer game or when youre missing an anniversary, and those of us back home are able to enjoy it, its because of you. 当你错过了一次生日,你错过一场足球比赛或你错过一次周年聚会,我们回家后就能够享受,而这些权因为你们。And Im here to tell you, everybody in America knows that. 我来这里是告诉你们,每个美国人都了解这些。And everybody in America appreciates it. 在美国,每个人都充满感激。And everybody in America honors it. 在美国,每个人都以此为荣。And when the final chapter of this war is written, historians will look back and say, not only was this the greatest fighting force in the history of the world, but all of you also represented the values of America in an exemplary way.当战争的最后一章被谱写,历史学家回顾并会言道: 在世界的历史长河中这不仅是最伟大的战斗力量,而且你们所有人也代表着美国价值观的一种模范方式。I could not be prouder of you.我可能不会因为是你们自己而感到那种自豪。And I want you to understand, I know its still tough.但我想让你们知道,我知道前方道路仍很艰难。I know the battle is not yet over. 我知道战斗尚未结束。Some of your buddies are going to get injured, and some of your buddies may get killed. 你们的一些朋友已经负伤, 你们的一些朋友已经为国捐躯。And there’s going to be heartbreak and pain and difficulty ahead.悲伤,痛苦和困难永远排在首位。But there’s a light on the horizon because of the sacrifices you’ve made. 因为你们已经做出的巨大的牺牲,在地平线上有一道亮光。And that’s the reason why for Michelle and me nothing is more important than looking after your families while you’re here. 那就是为什么米歇尔和我认为当你们在这里的时候照顾你们的家庭是更重要的原因。And I want everybody here to know that when you get home, we are going to be there for you when you’re in uniform and we will stay there for you when you’re out of uniform.我希望这里的每个人知道当你回家的时候, 当你穿着制时,我们将会守候你;当你脱下制时,我们仍然将在那里守候你。Because you’ve earned it; you earned a special place in our hearts.为你们当之无愧,你们在我们心中处于一个特别的位置。And I could not be prouder to be your Commander-in-Chief.我可能不会因为是你们的总司令而感到那种骄傲。God bless you, and God bless the ed States of America. 上帝保佑你们,上帝保佑美利坚合众国。Now I want to shake some hands. 现在我想要跟诸位将士们握握手。201206/186160郴州治疗梅毒最专业医院

安仁县人民中妇幼保健医院割包皮多少钱President's Radio Address   THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This weekend, families across America are coming together to celebrate Easter. This is the most important holiday in the Christian faith. And during this special and holy time each year, millions of Americans pause to remember a sacrifice that transcended the grave and redeemed the world.Easter is a holiday that beckons us homeward. This weekend is an occasion to reflect on the things that matter most in life: the love of family, the laughter of friends, and the peace that comes from being in the place you call home. Through good times and bad, these quiet mercies are sources of hope.   On Easter, we hold in our hearts those who will be spending this holiday far from home -- our troops on the front lines. I deeply appreciate the sacrifices that they and their families are making. America is blessed with the world's greatest military, made up of men and women who fulfill their responsibilities with dignity, humility, and honor. Their dedication is an inspiration to our country and a cause for gratitude this Easter season.   On Easter, we remember especially those who have given their lives for the cause of freedom. These brave individuals have lived out the words of the Gospel: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." And our Nation's fallen heroes live on in the memory of the Nation they helped defend.   On Easter, we also honor Americans who give of themselves here at home. Each year, millions of Americans take time to feed the hungry and clothe the needy and care for the widow and the orphan. Many of them are moved to action by their faith in a loving God who gave His son so that sin would be forgiven. And in this season of renewal, millions across the world remember the gift that took away death's sting and opened the door to eternal life. Laura and I wish you all a happy Easter.   Thank you for listening. 200806/41152郴州安仁县治疗膀胱炎多少钱 William Jennings BryanImperialismdelivered 8 August 1900, Indianapolis, INAudio mp3 Excerpt Studio Reading of AddressMr. Chairman and Members of the Notification Committee: I shall, at an earlyAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 2 of 16day, and in a more formal manner, accept the nomination which you tender, andshall at that time discuss the various questions covered by the Democraticplatform. It may not be out of place, however, to submit a few observations atPharmacethis time upon the general character of the contest before us and upon theConferencquestion which is declared to be of paramount importance in this campaign.Leading SForumWhen I say that the contest of 1900 is a contest of 1900 is a contest between PharmaceDemocracy on the one hand and plutocracy on the other I do not mean to sayBiotech Exthat all our opponents have deliberately chosen to give to organized wealth a predominating influence in the affairs of the Government, but I do assert that onthe important issues of the day the Republican party is dominated by thoseinfluences which constantly tend to substitute the worship of mammon for theprotection of the rights of man.The War WGet The LaIn 1859 Lincoln said that the Republican Party believed in the man and the News On Tdollar, but that in case of conflict it believed in the man before the dollar. This is Ongoing Wthe proper relation which should exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of A ReliableGod, comes first; money, the handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is the master, money the servant, but upon all important questions todayRepublican legislation tends to make money the master and man the servant.The maxim of Jefferson, ;equal rights to all and special privileges to none,;andHistory Nowthe doctrine of Lincoln that this should be a government ;of the people, by theA new onlipeople and for the people,;are being disregarded and the instrumentalities ofjournal forgovernment are being used to advance the interests of those who are in aamp; studentsposition to secure favors from the Government.AmericanThe Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth; ithas no desire to discourage industry, economy and thrift. On the contrary, itgives to every citizen the greatest possible stimulus to honest toil when itpromises him protection in the enjoyment of the proceeds of his labor. Property Globalrights are most secure when human rights are most respected. Democracy Governmestrives for civilization in which every member of society will share according to Eventshis merits. Senior leveconferenceNo one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for Governmethe services No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair Technologycompensation for the services which he renders to society. If he secures more it is at the expense of some one else. It is no injustice to him to prevent his doinginjustice to another. To him who would, either through class legislation or in theabsence of necessary legislation, trespass upon the rights of another theDemocratic party says ;Thou shalt not.;Against us are arrayed a comparatively small but politically and financiallypowerful number who really profit by Republican policies; but with them areassociated a large number who, because of their attachment to their party name,are giving their support to doctrines antagonistic to the former teachings of theirown party.Republicans who used to advocate bimetallism now try to convince themselvesthat the gold standard is good; Republicans who were formerly attached to thegreenback are now seeking an excuse for giving national banks control of thenations paper money; Republicans who used to boast that the Republican partywas paying off the national debt are now looking for reasons to support aperpetual and increasing debt; Republicans who formerly abhorred a trust nowbeguile themselves with the delusion that there are good trusts, and bad trusts,while in their minds, the line between the two is becoming more and moreobscure; Republicans who, in times past, congratulated the country upon thesmall expense of our standing army, are now making light of the objectionswhich are urged against a large increase in the permanent militaryestablishment; Republicans who gloried in our independence when the nationwas less powerful now look with favor upon a foreign alliance; Republicans whoAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 3 of 16three years ago condemned ;forcible annexation; as immoral and even criminalare now sure that it is both immoral and criminal to oppose forcible annexation.That partisanship has aly blinded many to present dangers is certain; howlarge a portion of the Republican party can be drawn over to the new policiesremains to be seen.For a time Republican leaders were inclined to deny to opponents the right tocriticize the Philippine policy of the administration, but upon investigation theyfound that both Lincoln and Clay asseWilliam Jennings BryanImperialismdelivered 8 August 1900, Indianapolis, INAudio mp3 Excerpt Studio Reading of AddressMr. Chairman and Members of the Notification Committee: I shall, at an earlyAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 2 of 16day, and in a more formal manner, accept the nomination which you tender, andshall at that time discuss the various questions covered by the Democraticplatform. It may not be out of place, however, to submit a few observations atPharmacethis time upon the general character of the contest before us and upon theConferencquestion which is declared to be of paramount importance in this campaign.Leading SForumWhen I say that the contest of 1900 is a contest of 1900 is a contest between PharmaceDemocracy on the one hand and plutocracy on the other I do not mean to sayBiotech Exthat all our opponents have deliberately chosen to give to organized wealth a www.gtcbio.cpredominating influence in the affairs of the Government, but I do assert that onthe important issues of the day the Republican party is dominated by thoseinfluences which constantly tend to substitute the worship of mammon for theprotection of the rights of man.The War WGet The LaIn 1859 Lincoln said that the Republican Party believed in the man and the News On Tdollar, but that in case of conflict it believed in the man before the dollar. This is Ongoing Wthe proper relation which should exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of A ReliableGod, comes first; money, the handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is www.NewYorthe master, money the servant, but upon all important questions todayRepublican legislation tends to make money the master and man the servant.The maxim of Jefferson, ;equal rights to all and special privileges to none,;andHistory Nowthe doctrine of Lincoln that this should be a government ;of the people, by theA new onlipeople and for the people,;are being disregarded and the instrumentalities ofjournal forgovernment are being used to advance the interests of those who are in aamp; studentsposition to secure favors from the Government.Americanwww.historynThe Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth; ithas no desire to discourage industry, economy and thrift. On the contrary, itgives to every citizen the greatest possible stimulus to honest toil when itpromises him protection in the enjoyment of the proceeds of his labor. Property Globalrights are most secure when human rights are most respected. Democracy Governmestrives for civilization in which every member of society will share according to Eventshis merits. Senior leveconferenceNo one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair compensation for Governmethe services No one has a right to expect from a society more than a fair Technologycompensation for the services which he renders to society. If he secures more it www.terrapinis at the expense of some one else. It is no injustice to him to prevent his doinginjustice to another. To him who would, either through class legislation or in theabsence of necessary legislation, trespass upon the rights of another theDemocratic party says ;Thou shalt not.;Against us are arrayed a comparatively small but politically and financiallypowerful number who really profit by Republican policies; but with them areassociated a large number who, because of their attachment to their party name,are giving their support to doctrines antagonistic to the former teachings of theirown party.Republicans who used to advocate bimetallism now try to convince themselvesthat the gold standard is good; Republicans who were formerly attached to thegreenback are now seeking an excuse for giving national banks control of thenations paper money; Republicans who used to boast that the Republican partywas paying off the national debt are now looking for reasons to support aperpetual and increasing debt; Republicans who formerly abhorred a trust nowbeguile themselves with the delusion that there are good trusts, and bad trusts,while in their minds, the line between the two is becoming more and moreobscure; Republicans who, in times past, congratulated the country upon thesmall expense of our standing army, are now making light of the objectionswhich are urged against a large increase in the permanent militaryestablishment; Republicans who gloried in our independence when the nationwas less powerful now look with favor upon a foreign alliance; Republicans whoAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 3 of 16three years ago condemned ;forcible annexation; as immoral and even criminalare now sure that it is both immoral and criminal to oppose forcible annexation.That partisanship has aly blinded many to present dangers is certain; howlarge a portion of the Republican party can be drawn over to the new policiesremains to be seen.For a time Republican leaders were inclined to deny to opponents the right tocriticize the Philippine policy of the administration, but upon investigation theyfound that both Lincoln and Clay asserted and exercised the right to criticize aPresident during the progress of the Mexican war.Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive plan fordealing with the Philippine question, the Republican convention adopted aplatform the larger part of which was devoted to boasting and self-congratulation.In attempting to press economic questions upon the country to the exclusion ofthose which involve the very structure of our government, the Republicanleaders give new evidence of their abandonment of the earlier ideals of theirparty and of their complete subserviency to pecuniary considerations.But they shall not be permitted to evade the stupendous and far-reaching issuewhich they have deliberately brought into the arena of politics. When thepresident, supported by a practically unanimous vote of the House and Senate,entered upon a war with Spain for the purpose of aiding the struggling patriots ofCuba, the country, without regard to party, applauded.Although the Democrats realized that the administration would necessarily gain apolitical advantage from the conduct of a war which in the very nature of thecase must soon end in a complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in thesupport which they gave to the president. When the war was over and theRepublican leaders began to suggest the propriety of a colonial policy oppositionat once manifested itself.When the President finally laid before the Senate a treaty which recognized theindependence of Cuba, but provided for the cession of the Philippine Islands tothe ed States, the menace of imperialism became so apparent that manypreferred to reject the treaty and risk the ills that might follow rather than take thechance of correcting the errors of the treaty by the independent action of thiscountry.I was among the number of those who believed it better to ratify the treaty andend the war, release the volunteers, remove the excuse for war expendituresand then give the Filipinos the independence which might be forced from Spainby a new treaty.In view of the criticism which my action aroused in some quarters, I take thisoccasion to restate the reasons given at that time. I thought it safer to trust theAmerican people to give independence to the Filipinos than to trust theaccomplishment of that purpose to diplomacy with an unfriendly nation.Lincoln embodied an argument in the question when he asked, ;Can aliensmake treaties easier than friends can make laws?; I believe that we are now in abetter position to wage a successful contest against imperialism than we wouldhave been had the treaty been rejected. With the treaty ratified a clean-cut issueis presented between a government by consent and a government by force, andimperialists must bear the responsibility for all that happens until the question issettled.If the treaty had been rejected the opponents of imperialism would have beenheld responsible for any international complications which might have arisenbefore the ratification of another treaty. But whatever difference of opinion mayAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 4 of 16have existed as to the best method of opposing a colonial policy, there neverwas any difference as to the great importance of the question and there is nodifference now as to the course to be pursued.The title of Spain being extinguished we were at liberty to deal with the Filipinosaccording to American principles. The Bacon resolution, introduced a monthbefore hostilities broke out at Manila, promised independence to the Filipinos onthe same terms that it was promised to the Cubans. I supported this resolutionand believe that its adoption prior to the breaking out of hostilities would haveprevented bloodshed, and that its adoption at any subsequent time would haveended hostilities.If the treaty had been rejected considerable time would have necessarily elapsedbefore a new treaty could have been agreed upon and ratified and during thattime the question would have been agitating the public mind. If the Baconresolution had been adopted by the senate and carried out by the president,either at the time of the ratification of the treaty or at any time afterwards, itwould have taken the question of imperialism out of politics and left the Americanpeople free to deal with their domestic problems. But the resolution was defeatedby the vote of the Republican Vice-President, and from that time to this arepublican congress has refused to take any action whatever in the matter.When hostilities broke out at Manila republican speakers and Republican editorsat once sought to lay the blame upon those who had delayed the ratification ofthe treaty, and, during the progress of the war, the same republicans haveaccused the opponents of imperialism of giving encouragement to the Filipinos.This is a cowardly evasion of responsibility.If it is right for the ed States to hold the Philippine Islands permanently andimitate European empires in the government of colonies, the Republican partyought to state its position and defend it, but it must expect the subject races toprotest against such a policy and to resist to the extent of their ability.The Filipinos do not need any encouragement from Americans now living. Ourwhole history has been an encouragement not only to the Filipinos, but to all whoare denied a voice in their own government. If the republicans are prepared tocensure all who have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hateforeign domination, let them condemn the speech of Patrick Henry. When heuttered that passionate appeal, ;Give me liberty or give me death,; he expresseda sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men.Let them censure Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have usedwords so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage. Letthem censure Washington, who declared that the colonists must choosebetween liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute of limitations has run again the sinsof Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln, whoseGettysburg speech will be ed in defense of popular government when thepresent advocates of force and conquest are forgotten.Some one has said that a truth once spoken, can never be recalled. It goes onand on, and no one can set a limit to its ever-widening influence. But if it werepossible to obliterate every word written or spoken in defense of the principlesset forth in the Declaration of Independence, a war of conquest would still leaveits legacy of perpetual hatred, for it was God himself who placed in every humanheart the love of liberty. He never made a race of people so low in the scale ofcivilization or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master.Those who would have this Nation enter upon a career of empire must consider,not only the effect of imperialism on the Filipinos, but they must also calculate itseffects upon our own nation. We cannot repudiate the principle of self-government in the Philippines without weakening that principle here.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 5 of 16Lincoln said that the safety of this Nation was not in its fleets, its armies, or itsforts, but in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands,everywhere, and he warned his countrymen that they could not destroy this spiritwithout planting the seeds of despotism at their own doors.Even now we are beginning to see the paralyzing influence if imperialism.Heretofore this Nation has been prompt to express its sympathy with those whowere fighting for civil liberty. While our sphere of activity has been limited to theWestern Hemisphere, our sympathies have not been bounded by the seas. Wehave felt it due to ourselves and to the world, as well as to those who werestruggling for the right to govern themselves, to proclaim the interest which ourpeople have, from the date of their own independence, felt in every contestbetween human rights and arbitrary power.Three-quarters of a century ago, when our nation was small, the struggles ofGreece aroused our people, and Webster and Clay gave eloquent expression tothe universal desire for Grecian independence. In 1896 all parties manifested alively interest in the success of the Cubans, but now when a war is in progress inSouth Africa, which must result in the extension of the monarchical idea, or in thetriumph of a republic, the advocates of imperialism in this country dare not say aword in behalf of the Boers.Sympathy for the Boers does not arise from any unfriendliness towards England;the American people are not unfriendly toward the people of any nation. Thissympathy is due to the fact that, as stated in our platform, we believe in theprinciples of self-government and reject, as did our forefathers, the claims ofmonarchy. If this nation surrenders its belief in the universal application of theprinciples set forth in the Declaration of Independence, it will lose the prestigeand influence which it has enjoyed among the nations as an exponent of populargovernment.Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek to confuseimperialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jefferson as asupporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke so freely and used language with suchprecision that no one can be ignorant of his views. On one occasion he declared:;If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of everyAmerican, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.; And again hesaid: ;Conquest is not in our principles; it is inconsistent with our government.;The forcible annexation of territory to be governed by arbitrary power differs asmuch from the acquisition of territory to be built up into States as a monarchydiffers from a democracy. The Democratic party does not oppose expansionwhen expansion enlarges the area of the Republic and incorporates land whichcan be settled by American citizens, or adds to our population people who arewilling to become citizens and are capable of discharging their duties as such.The acquisition of the Louisiana territory, Florida, Texas and other tracts whichhave been secured from time to time enlarged the republic and the Constitutionfollowed the flag into the new territory. It is now proposed to seize upon distantterritory aly more densely populated than our own country and to force uponthe people a government for which there is no warrant in our Constitution or ourlaws.Even the argument that this earth belongs to those who desire to cultivate it andwho have the physical power to acquire it cannot be invoked to justify theappropriation of the Philippine Islands by the ed States. If the islands wereuninhabited American citizens would not be willing to go there and till the soil.The white race will not live so near the equator. Other nations have tried tocolonize in the same latitude. The Netherlands have controlled Java for threehundred years and yet today there are less than sixty thousand people ofEuropean birth scattered among the twenty-five million natives.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 6 of 16After a century and a half of English domination in India, less than one-twentiethof one per cent of the people of India are of English birth, and it requires an armyof seventy thousand British soldiers to take care of the tax collectors. Spain hadasserted title to the Philippine Islands for three centuries and yet when our fleetentered Manila bay there were less than ten thousand Spaniards residing in thePhilippines.A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippine Islands a fewtraders, a few taskmasters and a few office-holders and an army large enough tosupport the authority of a small fraction of the people while they rule the natives.If we have an imperial policy we must have a great standing army as its naturaland necessary complement. The sprit which will justify the forcible annexation ofthe Philippine Islands will justify the seizure of other islands and the dominationof other people, and with wars of conquest we can expect a certain, if not rapid,growth of our military establishment.That a large permanent increase in our regular army is intended by Republicanleaders is not a matter of conjecture, but a matter of fact. In his message ofDecember 5,1898, the president asked for authority to increase the standingarmy to 100,000. In 1896 the army contained about 25,000. Within two years thepresident asked for four times that many, and a Republican house ofrepresentatives complied with the request after the Spanish treaty had beensigned, and when no country was at war with the ed States.If such an army is demanded when an imperial policy is contemplated, but notopenly avowed, what -may be expected if the people encourage the Republicanparty by indorsing its policy at the polls?A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and, ifaccompanied by compulsory service, a constant source of irritation, but it is evera menace to a Republican form of government.The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably change theideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts ofpeace to the science of war. The Government which relies for its defense uponits citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body ofprofessional soldiers.A small standing army and a well-equipped and well-disciplined state militia aresufficient at ordinary times, and in an emergency the nation should in the futureas in the past place its dependence upon the volunteers who come from alloccupations at their countrys call and return to productive labor when theirservices are no longer required --men who fight when the country needs fightersand work when the country needs workers. The Republican platform assumesthat the Philippine Islands will be retained under American sovereignty, and wehave a right to demand of the republican leaders a discussion of the future statusof the Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a subject? Are we to bring into the bodypolitic eight or ten million Asiatics so different from us in race and history thatamalgamation is impossible? Are they to share with us in making the laws andshaping the destiny of this nation? No republican of prominence has been boldenough to advocate such a proposition.The McEnery resolution, adopted by the senate immediately after the ratificationof the treaty, expressly negatives this idea. The Democratic platform describesthe situation when it says that the Filipinos cannot be citizens withoutendangering our civilization. Who will dispute it? And what is the alternative? Ifthe Filipino is not to be a citizen, shall we make him a subject? On that questionthe Democratic platform speaks with equal emphasis. It declares that the Filipinocannot be a subject without endangering our form of government. A republic canhave no subjects. A subject is possible only in a government resting upon force;he is unknown in a government derived without consent and taxation withoutAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 7 of 16representation.The Republican platform says that ;the largest measure of self-governmentconsistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them (theFilipinos) by law.; This is a strange doctrine for a government which owes itsvery existence to the men who offered their lives as a protest againstgovernment without consent and taxation without representation. In what respectdoes the position of the Republican party differ from the position taken by theEnglish Government in 1776? Did not the English Government promise a goodgovernment to the colonists? What king ever promised a bad government to hispeople? Did not the English Government promise that the colonists should havethe largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Englishduties? Did not the Spanish Government promise to give to the Cubans thelargest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Spanishduties? The whole difference between a monarchy and a republic may besummed up in one sentence. In a monarchy the king gives to the people what hebelieves to be a good government; in a republic the people secure forthemselves what they believe to be a good government.The Republican party has accepted the European idea and planted itself uponthe ground taken by George III., and by every ruler who distrusts the capacity ofthe people for self-government or denies them a voice in their own affairs.The Republican platform promises that some measure of self-government is tobe given the Filipinos by law; but even this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly sixteenmonths elapsed after the ratification of the treaty before the adjournment ofcongress last June and yet no law was passed dealing with the Philippinesituation. The will of the president has been the only law in the Philippine islandswherever the American authority extends. Why does the Republican partyhesitate to legislate upon the Philippine question? Because a law would disclosethe radical departure from history and precedent contemplated by those whocontrol the Republican party. The storm of protest which greeted the PuertoRican bill was an indication of what may be expected when the American peopleare brought face to face with legislation upon this subject.If the Puerto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied theguarantees of our Constitution, what is to be the lot of the Filipinos, who resistedour authority? If secret influences could compel a disregard of our plain dutytoward friendly people, living near our shores, what treatment will those sameinfluences provide for unfriendly people 7,000 miles away? If, in this countrywhere the people have a right to vote, republican leaders dare not take the sideof the people against the great monopolies which have grown up within the lastfew years, how can they be trusted to protect the Filipinos from the corporationswhich are waiting to exploit the islands?Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the people of the ed States,and the twilight of semi-citizenship endured by the people of Puerto Rico, whilethe thick darkness of perpetual vassalage covers the Philippines? The PuertoRico tariff law asserts the doctrine that the operation of the constitution isconfined to the forty-five states.The Democratic party disputes this doctrine and denounces it as repugnant toboth the letter and spirit of our organic law. There is no place in our system ofgovernment for the deposit of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That the leadersof a great party should claim for any president or congress the right to treatmillions of people as mere ;possessions; and deal with them unrestrained by theconstitution or the bill of rights shows how far we have aly departed from theancient landmarks and indicates what may be expected if this nation deliberatelyenters upon a career of empire.The territorial form of government is temporary and preparatory, and the chiefsecurity a citizen of a territory has is found in the fact that he enjoys the sameAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 8 of 16constitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general laws as the citizenof a state. Take away this security and his rights will be violated and his interestssacrificed at the demand of those who have political influence. This is the evil ofthe colonial system, no matter by what nation it is applied.What is our title to the Philippine Islands? Do we hold them by treaty or byconquest? Did we buy them or did we take them? Did we purchase the people?If not, how did we secure title to them? Were they thrown in with the land? Willthe Republicans say that inanimate earth has value but that when that earth ismolded by the divine hand and stamped with the likeness of the Creator itbecomes a fixture and passes with the soil? If governments derive their justpowers from the consent of the governed, it is impossible to secure title topeople, either by force or by purchase. We could extinguish Spains title bytreaty, but if we hold title we must hold it by some method consistent with ourideas of government. When we made allies of the Filipinos and armed them tofight against Spain, we disputed Spains title. If we buy Spains title we are notinnocent purchasers.There can be no doubt that we accepted and utilized the services of theFilipinos, and that when we did so we had full knowledge that they were fightingfor their own independence, and I submit that history furnishes no example ofturpitude baser than ours if we now substitute our yoke for the Spanish yoke.Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in support of animperialistic policy. Some say that it is our duty to hold the Philippine Islands. Butduty is not an argument; it is a conclusion. To ascertain what our duty is, in anyemergency, we must apply well settled and generally accepted principles. It isour duty to avoid stealing, no matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great orlittle value. It is our duty to avoid killing a human being, no matter where thehuman being lives or to what race or class he belongs.Every one recognizes the obligation imposed upon individuals to observe boththe human and the moral law, but as some deny the application of those laws tonations, it may not be out of place to e the opinions of others. Jefferson,than whom there is no higher political authority, said:;I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or collectively.;Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and virtue are a part of the priceless legacybequeathed to use from the revolutionary days, expressed the same idea ineven stronger language when he said:;Justice is strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. Ahighwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single;and the nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang.;Many may dare to do in crowds what they would not dare to do as individuals,but the moral character of an act is not determined by the number of those whojoin it. Force can defend a right, but force has never yet created a right. If it wastrue, as declared in the resolutions of intervention, that the Cubans ;are and ofright ought to be free and independent; (language taken from the Declaration ofIndependence), it is equally true that the Filipinos ;are and of right ought to befree and independent.;The right of the Cubans to freedom was not based upon their proximity to theed States, nor upon the language which they spoke, nor yet upon the race orraces to which they belonged. Congress by a practically unanimous votedeclared that the principles enunciated at Philadelphia in 1776 were still aliveand applicable to the Cubans. Who will draw a line between the natural rights ofthe Cubans and the Filipinos? Who will say that the former has a right to libertyand that the latter has no rights which we are bound to respect? And, if theCoffeehousAds by GAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 9 of 16Filipinos ;are and of right ought to be free and independent,; what right have weto force our government upon them without their consent? Before our duty canbe ascertained their rights must be determined, and when their rights are oncedetermined it is as much our duty to respect those rights as it was the duty ofSpain to respect the rights of the people of Cuba or the duty of England torespect the rights of the American colonists. Rights never conflict; duties neverclash. Can it be our duty to usurp political rights which belong to others? Can itbe our duty to kill those who, following the example of our forefathers, love libertywell enough to fight for it?A poet has described the terror which overcame a soldier who in the midst of thebattle discovered that he had slain his brother. It is written ;All ye are brethren.;Let us hope for the coming day when human life --which when once destroyedcannot be restored --will be so sacred that it will never be taken except whennecessary to punish a crime aly committed, or to prevent a crime about tobe committed.It is said that we have assumed before the world obligations which make itnecessary for us to permanently maintain a government in the Philippine Islands.I reply first, that the highest obligation of this nation is to be true to itself. Noobligation to any particular nations, or to all the nations combined, can requirethe abandonment of our theory of government, and the substitution of doctrinesagainst which our whole national life has been a protest. And, second, that ourobligation to the Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, is greater than any obligationwhich we can owe to foreigners who have a temporary residence in thePhilippines or desire to trade there.It is argued by some that the Filipinos are incapable of self-government and that,therefore, we owe it to the world to take control of them. Admiral Dewey, in anofficial report to the Navy Department, declared the Filipinos more capable ofself-government than the Cubans and said that he based his opinion upon aknowledge of both races. But I will not rest the case upon the relativeadvancement of the Filipinos. Henry Clay, in defending the right of the people ofSouth America to self-government said:;It is the doctrine of thrones that man is too ignorant to govern himself. Theirpartisans assert his incapacity in reference to all nations; if they cannotcommand universal assent to the proposition, it is then demanded to particularnations; and our pride and our presumption too often make converts of us. Icontend that it is to arraign the disposition of Providence himself to suppose thathe has created beings incapable of governing themselves, and to be trampled onby kings. Self-government is the natural government of man.;Clay was right. There are degrees of proficiency in the art of self-government,but it is a reflection upon the Creator to say that he denied to any people thecapacity for self-government. Once admit that some people are capable of self-government and that others are not and that the capable people have a right toseize upon and govern the incapable, and you make force --brute force --theonly foundation of government and invite the reign of a despot. I am not willing tobelieve that an all-wise and an all-loving God created the Filipinos and then leftthem thousands of years helpless until the islands attracted the attention ofEuropean nations.Republicans ask, ;Shall we haul down the flag that floats over our dead in thePhilippines?; The same question might have been asked, when the Americanflag floated over Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but thetourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national cemetery owned by theed States and cared for by an American citizen. Our flag still floats over ourdead, but when the treaty with Mexico was signed American authority withdrewto the Rio Grande, and I venture the opinion that during the last fifty years thepeople of Mexico have made more progress under the stimulus of independenceand self-government than they would have made under a carpet-bagAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 10 of 16government held in place by bayonets. The ed States and Mexico, friendlyrepublics, are each stronger and happier than they would have been had theformer been cursed and the latter crushed by an imperialistic policy disguised as;benevolent assimilation.;;Can we not govern colonies?;we are asked. The question is not what we cando, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but itmust accept responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in the way,the people can amend the Constitution. I repeat, the nation can do whatever itdesires to do, but it cannot avoid the natural and legitimate results of it ownconduct.The young man upon reaching his majority can do what he pleases. He candisregard the teachings of his parents; he can trample upon all that he has beentaught to consider sacred; he can disobey the laws of the State, the laws ofsociety and the laws of God. He can stamp failure upon his life and make hisvery existence a curse to his fellow men, and he can bring his father and motherin sorrow to the grave; but he cannot annul the sentence, ;The wages of sin isdeath.;And so with the nation. It is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn thetraditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests;it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it canconquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property andkill their people; but it cannot repeal the moral law or escape the punishmentdecreed for the violation of human rights.;Would we t in the paths of tyranny,Nor reckon the tyrants cost?Who taketh anothers libertyHis freedom is also lost.Would we win as the strong have ever won,Make y to pay the debt,American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 11 of 16For the God who reigned over BabylonIs the God who is reigning yet.;Some argue that American rule in the Philippine Islands will result in the bettereducation of the Filipinos. Be not deceived. If we expect to maintain a colonialpolicy, we shall not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The educatedFilipinos are now in revolt against us, and the most ignorant ones have made theleast resistance to our domination. If we are to govern them without theirconsent and give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must pay,we dare not educate them, lest they learn to the Declaration ofIndependence and Constitution of the ed States and mock us for ourinconsistency.The principal arguments, however, advanced by those who enter upon adefense of imperialism are:First-That we must improve the present opportunity to become a world powerand enter into international politics.Second-That our commercial interests in the Philippine Islands and in the Orientmake it necessary for us to hold the islands permanently.Third-That the sp of the Christian religion will be facilitated by a colonialpolicy.Fourth-That there is no honorable retreat from the position which the nation hastaken.The first argument is addrest to the nationrsquo;s pride and the second to the nationrsquo;spocket-book. The third is intended for the church member and the fourth for thepartisan.It is sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more than a century thisnation has been a world power. For ten decades it has been the most potentinfluence in the world. Not only has it been a world power, but it has done moreto shape the politics of the human race than all the other nations of the worldcombined. Because our Declaration of Independence was promulgated othershave been promulgated. Because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty otherhave fought for it. Because our Constitution was adopted other constitutionshave been adopted.The growth of the principle of self-government, planted on American soil, hasbeen the overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. It has made thisnation conspicuous among the nations and given it a place in history such as noother nation has ever enjoyed. Nothing has been able to check the onwardmarch of this idea. I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside theomnipotent weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of physical warfare. Iwould not exchange the glory of this Republic for the glory of all empires thathave risen and fallen since time began.The permanent chairman of the last Republican Nation Convention presentedthe pecuniary argument in all its baldness when he said:;We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in the Philippines solelyon account of others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a sacredtrust, we regard the welfare of American people first. We see our duty toourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By everylegitimate means within the province of government and constitution we mean tostimulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets.;American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 12 of 16This is the commercial argument. It is based upon the theory that war can berightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and that it is profitable to purchase tradeby force and violence. Franklin denied both of these propositions. When LordHowe asserted that the acts of Parliament which brought on the Revolution werenecessary to prevent American trade from passing into foreign channels,Franklin replied:;To me it seems that neither the obtaining nor retaining of any trade, howsoevervaluable, is an object for which men may justly spill each others blood; that thetrue and sure means of extending and securing commerce are the goodness andcheapness of commodities, and that the profits of no trade can ever be equal tothe expense of compelling it and holding it by fleets and armies. I consider thiswar against us, therefore, as both unjust and unwise.;I place the philosophy of Franklin against the sordid doctrine of those who wouldput a price upon the head of an American soldier and justify a war of conquestupon the ground that it will pay. The democratic party is in favor of the expansionof trade. It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful means; but itis not willing to make merchandise of human blood.But a war of conquest is as unwise as it is unrighteous. A harbor and coalingstation in the Philippines would answer every trade and military necessity andsuch a concession could have been secured at any time without difficulty.It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them. We carry on tradetoday with every part of the world, and our commerce has expanded morerapidly than the commerce of any European empire. We do not own Japan orChina, but we trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics ofCentral and South America, but we trade with them. It has not been necessary tohave any political connection with Canada or the nations of Europe in order totrade with them. Trade cannot be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary.When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must betaken out of the profits and the profits are never large enough to cover theexpense. Such a system would never be defended but for the fact that theexpense is borne by all the people, while the profits are enjoyed by a few.Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it would be profitable tothe ship owners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring deadsoldiers back; it would be profitable to those who would seize upon thefranchises, and it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would befixed here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring man and to thevast majority of those engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditurewithout return and risk without reward.Farmers and laboring men have, as a rule, small incomes and under systemswhich place the tax upon consumption pay much more than their fair share of theexpenses of government. Thus the very people who receive least benefit fromimperialism will be injured most by the military burdens which accompany it.In addition to the evils which he and the farmer share in common, the laboringman will be the first to suffer if oriental subjects seek work in the ed States;the first to suffer if American capital leaves our shores to employ oriental labor inthe Philippines to supply the trade of China and Japan; the first to suffer from theviolence which the military spirit arouses and the first to suffer when the methodsof imperialism are applied to our own government.It is not strange, therefore, that the labor organizations have been quick to notethe approach of these dangers and prompt to protest against both militarism andimperialism.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 13 of 16The pecuniary argument, the more effective with certain classes, is not likely tobe used so often or presented with so much enthusiasm as the religiousargument. If what has been termed the ;gunpowder gospel;were urged againstthe Filipinos only it would be a sufficient answer to say that a majority of theFilipinos are now members of one branch of the Christian church; but theprinciple involved is one of much wider application and challenges seriousconsideration.The religious argument varies in positiveness from a passive belief thatProvidence delivered the Filipinos into our hands, for their good and our glory, tothe exultation of the minister who said that we ought to ;thrash the natives(Filipinos) until they understand who we are,;and that ;every bullet sent, everycannon shot and every flag waved means righteousness.;We cannot approve of this doctrine in one place unless we are willing to apply iteverywhere. If there is poison in the blood of the hand it will ultimately reach theheat. It is equally true that forcible Christianity, if planted under the Americanflag in the far-away Orient, will sooner or later be transplanted upon Americansoil.If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings ofChrist, who will say that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite andproselyte with the sword? He who would declare the divine will must prove hisauthority either by Holy Writ or by evidence of a special dispensation.Imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible. The command, ;Go ye into all theworld and preach the gospel to every creature,;has no Gatling gun attachment.When Jesus visited a village of Samaria and the people refused to receive him,some of the disciples suggested that fire should be called down from Heaven toavenge the insult; but the Master rebuked them and said: ;Ye know not whatmanner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy menrsquo;s lives,but to save them.;Suppose he had said: ;We will thrash them until theyunderstand who we are,;how different would have been the history ofChristianity! Compare, if you will, the swaggering, bullying, brutal doctrine ofimperialism with the golden rule and the commandment, ;Thou shalt love thyneighbor as thyself.;Love not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not theexploitation of them, was His method of reaching the human heart. A missionaryrecently told me that the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because hisassailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it.Let it be known that our missionaries are seeking souls instead of sovereignty;let be it known that instead of being the advance guard of conquering armies,they are going forth to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with the truthand their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, wearing thebreastplate of righteousness and carrying the sword of the spirit; let it be knownthat they are citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens of othernations as carefully as it protects the rights of its own citizens, and the welcomegiven to our missionaries will be more cordial than the welcome extended to themissionaries of any other nation.The argument made by some that it was unfortunate for the nation that it hadanything to do with the Philippine Islands, but that the naval victory at Manilamade the permanent acquisition of those islands necessary, is also unsound.We won a naval victory at Santiago, but that did not compel us to hold Cuba.The shedding of American blood in the Philippine Islands does not make itimperative that we should retain possession forever; American blood was shedat San Juan and El Caney, and yet the President has promised the Cubansindependence. The fact that the American flag floats over Manila does notcompel us to exercise perpetual sovereignty over the islands; the American flagAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 14 of 16floats over Havana to-day, but the President has promised to haul it down whenthe flag of the Cuban Republic is y to rise in its place. Better a thousandtimes that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag representing the idea of self-government than that the flag of this Republic should become the flag of anempire.There is an easy, honest, honorable solution of the Philippine question. It is setforth in the Democratic platform and it is submitted with confidence to theAmerican people. This plan I unreservedly indorse. If elected, I will conveneCongress in extraordinary session as soon as inaugurated and recommend animmediate declaration of the nationrsquo;s purpose, first, to establish a stable form ofgovernment in the Philippine Islands, just as we are now establishing a stableform of government in Cuba; second, to give independence to the Filipinos aswe have promised to give independence to the Cubans; third, to protect theFilipinos from outside interference while they work out their destiny, just as wehave protected the republics of Central and South America, and are, by theMonroe doctrine, pledged to protect Cuba.A European protectorate often results in the plundering of the ward by theguardian. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantageof our strength, without making it he victim of our greed. For three-quarters of acentury the Monroe doctrine has been a shield to neighboring republics and yet ithas imposed no pecuniary burden upon us. After the Filipinos had aided us inthe war against Spain, we could not leave them to be the victims of the ambitiousdesigns of European nations, and since we do not desire to make them a part ofus or to hold them as subjects, we propose the only alternative, namely, to givethem independence and guard them against molestation from without.When our opponents are unable to defend their position by argument they fallback upon the assertion that is destiny, and insist that we must submit to it, nomatter how much it violates our moral percepts and our principles ofgovernment. This is a complacent philosophy. It obliterates the distinctionbetween right and wrong and makes individuals and nations the helpless victimsof circumstance.Destiny is the subterfuge of the invertebrate, who, lacking the courage to opposeerror, seeks some plausible excuse for supporting it. Washington said that thedestiny of the republican form of government was deeply, if not finally, staked onthe experiment entrusted to the American people. How different Washingtonrsquo;sdefinition of destiny from the Republican definition!The Republicans say that this nation is in the hands of destiny; Washingtonbelieved that not only the destiny of our own nation but the destiny of therepublican form of government throughout the world was intrusted to Americanhands. Immeasurable responsibility! The destiny of this Republic is in the handsof its own people, and upon the success of the experiment here rests the hope ofhumanity. No exterior force can disturb this Republic, and no foreign influenceshould be permitted to change its course. What the future has in store for thisnation no one has authority to declare, but each individual has his own idea ofthe nationrsquo;s mission, and he owes it to his country as well as to himself tocontribute as best he may to the fulfillment of that mission.Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I can never fully discharge thedebt of gratitude which I owe to my countrymen for the honors which they haveso generously bestowed upon me; but, sirs, whether it be my lot to occupy thehigh office for which the convention has named me, or to spend the remainder ofmy days in private life, it shall be my constant ambition and my controllingpurpose to aid in realizing the high ideals of those whose wisdom and courageand sacrifices brought the Republic into existence.I can conceive of a national destiny surpassing the glories of the present and thepast --a destiny which meets the responsibility of today and measures up to theAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 15 of 16possibilities of the future. Behold a republic, resting securely upon the foundationstones quarried by revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth --arepublic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evidentpropositions that all men are created equal; that they are endowed withinalienable rights; that governments are instituted among men to secure theserights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of thegoverned. Behold a republic in which civil and religion liberty stimulate all toearnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for aneighbors injury --a republic in which every citizen is a sovereign, but in whichno one cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic standing erect while empires allaround are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments --a republic Art amp; Sciewhose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold a republic Coachingincreasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in influence, solving the Coachingproblems of civilization and hastening the coming of an universal brotherhood -- ICF Accreda republic which shakes thrones and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example World Classand gives light and inspiration to those who sit in darkness. Behold a republic Training-Tgradually but surely becoming the supreme moral factor in the worlds progress rted and exercised the right to criticize aPresident during the progress of the Mexican war.Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive plan fordealing with the Philippine question, the Republican convention adopted aplatform the larger part of which was devoted to boasting and self-congratulation.In attempting to press economic questions upon the country to the exclusion ofthose which involve the very structure of our government, the Republicanleaders give new evidence of their abandonment of the earlier ideals of theirparty and of their complete subserviency to pecuniary considerations.But they shall not be permitted to evade the stupendous and far-reaching issuewhich they have deliberately brought into the arena of politics. When thepresident, supported by a practically unanimous vote of the House and Senate,entered upon a war with Spain for the purpose of aiding the struggling patriots ofCuba, the country, without regard to party, applauded.Although the Democrats realized that the administration would necessarily gain apolitical advantage from the conduct of a war which in the very nature of thecase must soon end in a complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in thesupport which they gave to the president. When the war was over and theRepublican leaders began to suggest the propriety of a colonial policy oppositionat once manifested itself.When the President finally laid before the Senate a treaty which recognized theindependence of Cuba, but provided for the cession of the Philippine Islands tothe ed States, the menace of imperialism became so apparent that manypreferred to reject the treaty and risk the ills that might follow rather than take thechance of correcting the errors of the treaty by the independent action of thiscountry.I was among the number of those who believed it better to ratify the treaty andend the war, release the volunteers, remove the excuse for war expendituresand then give the Filipinos the independence which might be forced from Spainby a new treaty.In view of the criticism which my action aroused in some quarters, I take thisoccasion to restate the reasons given at that time. I thought it safer to trust theAmerican people to give independence to the Filipinos than to trust theaccomplishment of that purpose to diplomacy with an unfriendly nation.Lincoln embodied an argument in the question when he asked, ;Can aliensmake treaties easier than friends can make laws?; I believe that we are now in abetter position to wage a successful contest against imperialism than we wouldhave been had the treaty been rejected. With the treaty ratified a clean-cut issueis presented between a government by consent and a government by force, andimperialists must bear the responsibility for all that happens until the question issettled.If the treaty had been rejected the opponents of imperialism would have beenheld responsible for any international complications which might have arisenbefore the ratification of another treaty. But whatever difference of opinion mayAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 4 of 16have existed as to the best method of opposing a colonial policy, there neverwas any difference as to the great importance of the question and there is nodifference now as to the course to be pursued.The title of Spain being extinguished we were at liberty to deal with the Filipinosaccording to American principles. The Bacon resolution, introduced a monthbefore hostilities broke out at Manila, promised independence to the Filipinos onthe same terms that it was promised to the Cubans. I supported this resolutionand believe that its adoption prior to the breaking out of hostilities would haveprevented bloodshed, and that its adoption at any subsequent time would haveended hostilities.If the treaty had been rejected considerable time would have necessarily elapsedbefore a new treaty could have been agreed upon and ratified and during thattime the question would have been agitating the public mind. If the Baconresolution had been adopted by the senate and carried out by the president,either at the time of the ratification of the treaty or at any time afterwards, itwould have taken the question of imperialism out of politics and left the Americanpeople free to deal with their domestic problems. But the resolution was defeatedby the vote of the Republican Vice-President, and from that time to this arepublican congress has refused to take any action whatever in the matter.When hostilities broke out at Manila republican speakers and Republican editorsat once sought to lay the blame upon those who had delayed the ratification ofthe treaty, and, during the progress of the war, the same republicans haveaccused the opponents of imperialism of giving encouragement to the Filipinos.This is a cowardly evasion of responsibility.If it is right for the ed States to hold the Philippine Islands permanently andimitate European empires in the government of colonies, the Republican partyought to state its position and defend it, but it must expect the subject races toprotest against such a policy and to resist to the extent of their ability.The Filipinos do not need any encouragement from Americans now living. Ourwhole history has been an encouragement not only to the Filipinos, but to all whoare denied a voice in their own government. If the republicans are prepared tocensure all who have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hateforeign domination, let them condemn the speech of Patrick Henry. When heuttered that passionate appeal, ;Give me liberty or give me death,; he expresseda sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men.Let them censure Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have usedwords so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage. Letthem censure Washington, who declared that the colonists must choosebetween liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute of limitations has run again the sinsof Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln, whoseGettysburg speech will be ed in defense of popular government when thepresent advocates of force and conquest are forgotten.Some one has said that a truth once spoken, can never be recalled. It goes onand on, and no one can set a limit to its ever-widening influence. But if it werepossible to obliterate every word written or spoken in defense of the principlesset forth in the Declaration of Independence, a war of conquest would still leaveits legacy of perpetual hatred, for it was God himself who placed in every humanheart the love of liberty. He never made a race of people so low in the scale ofcivilization or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master.Those who would have this Nation enter upon a career of empire must consider,not only the effect of imperialism on the Filipinos, but they must also calculate itseffects upon our own nation. We cannot repudiate the principle of self-government in the Philippines without weakening that principle here.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 5 of 16Lincoln said that the safety of this Nation was not in its fleets, its armies, or itsforts, but in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands,everywhere, and he warned his countrymen that they could not destroy this spiritwithout planting the seeds of despotism at their own doors.Even now we are beginning to see the paralyzing influence if imperialism.Heretofore this Nation has been prompt to express its sympathy with those whowere fighting for civil liberty. While our sphere of activity has been limited to theWestern Hemisphere, our sympathies have not been bounded by the seas. Wehave felt it due to ourselves and to the world, as well as to those who werestruggling for the right to govern themselves, to proclaim the interest which ourpeople have, from the date of their own independence, felt in every contestbetween human rights and arbitrary power.Three-quarters of a century ago, when our nation was small, the struggles ofGreece aroused our people, and Webster and Clay gave eloquent expression tothe universal desire for Grecian independence. In 1896 all parties manifested alively interest in the success of the Cubans, but now when a war is in progress inSouth Africa, which must result in the extension of the monarchical idea, or in thetriumph of a republic, the advocates of imperialism in this country dare not say aword in behalf of the Boers.Sympathy for the Boers does not arise from any unfriendliness towards England;the American people are not unfriendly toward the people of any nation. Thissympathy is due to the fact that, as stated in our platform, we believe in theprinciples of self-government and reject, as did our forefathers, the claims ofmonarchy. If this nation surrenders its belief in the universal application of theprinciples set forth in the Declaration of Independence, it will lose the prestigeand influence which it has enjoyed among the nations as an exponent of populargovernment.Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek to confuseimperialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jefferson as asupporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke so freely and used language with suchprecision that no one can be ignorant of his views. On one occasion he declared:;If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of everyAmerican, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.; And again hesaid: ;Conquest is not in our principles; it is inconsistent with our government.;The forcible annexation of territory to be governed by arbitrary power differs asmuch from the acquisition of territory to be built up into States as a monarchydiffers from a democracy. The Democratic party does not oppose expansionwhen expansion enlarges the area of the Republic and incorporates land whichcan be settled by American citizens, or adds to our population people who arewilling to become citizens and are capable of discharging their duties as such.The acquisition of the Louisiana territory, Florida, Texas and other tracts whichhave been secured from time to time enlarged the republic and the Constitutionfollowed the flag into the new territory. It is now proposed to seize upon distantterritory aly more densely populated than our own country and to force uponthe people a government for which there is no warrant in our Constitution or ourlaws.Even the argument that this earth belongs to those who desire to cultivate it andwho have the physical power to acquire it cannot be invoked to justify theappropriation of the Philippine Islands by the ed States. If the islands wereuninhabited American citizens would not be willing to go there and till the soil.The white race will not live so near the equator. Other nations have tried tocolonize in the same latitude. The Netherlands have controlled Java for threehundred years and yet today there are less than sixty thousand people ofEuropean birth scattered among the twenty-five million natives.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 6 of 16After a century and a half of English domination in India, less than one-twentiethof one per cent of the people of India are of English birth, and it requires an armyof seventy thousand British soldiers to take care of the tax collectors. Spain hadasserted title to the Philippine Islands for three centuries and yet when our fleetentered Manila bay there were less than ten thousand Spaniards residing in thePhilippines.A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippine Islands a fewtraders, a few taskmasters and a few office-holders and an army large enough tosupport the authority of a small fraction of the people while they rule the natives.If we have an imperial policy we must have a great standing army as its naturaland necessary complement. The sprit which will justify the forcible annexation ofthe Philippine Islands will justify the seizure of other islands and the dominationof other people, and with wars of conquest we can expect a certain, if not rapid,growth of our military establishment.That a large permanent increase in our regular army is intended by Republicanleaders is not a matter of conjecture, but a matter of fact. In his message ofDecember 5,1898, the president asked for authority to increase the standingarmy to 100,000. In 1896 the army contained about 25,000. Within two years thepresident asked for four times that many, and a Republican house ofrepresentatives complied with the request after the Spanish treaty had beensigned, and when no country was at war with the ed States.If such an army is demanded when an imperial policy is contemplated, but notopenly avowed, what -may be expected if the people encourage the Republicanparty by indorsing its policy at the polls?A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and, ifaccompanied by compulsory service, a constant source of irritation, but it is evera menace to a Republican form of government.The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably change theideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts ofpeace to the science of war. The Government which relies for its defense uponits citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body ofprofessional soldiers.A small standing army and a well-equipped and well-disciplined state militia aresufficient at ordinary times, and in an emergency the nation should in the futureas in the past place its dependence upon the volunteers who come from alloccupations at their countrys call and return to productive labor when theirservices are no longer required --men who fight when the country needs fightersand work when the country needs workers. The Republican platform assumesthat the Philippine Islands will be retained under American sovereignty, and wehave a right to demand of the republican leaders a discussion of the future statusof the Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a subject? Are we to bring into the bodypolitic eight or ten million Asiatics so different from us in race and history thatamalgamation is impossible? Are they to share with us in making the laws andshaping the destiny of this nation? No republican of prominence has been boldenough to advocate such a proposition.The McEnery resolution, adopted by the senate immediately after the ratificationof the treaty, expressly negatives this idea. The Democratic platform describesthe situation when it says that the Filipinos cannot be citizens withoutendangering our civilization. Who will dispute it? And what is the alternative? Ifthe Filipino is not to be a citizen, shall we make him a subject? On that questionthe Democratic platform speaks with equal emphasis. It declares that the Filipinocannot be a subject without endangering our form of government. A republic canhave no subjects. A subject is possible only in a government resting upon force;he is unknown in a government derived without consent and taxation withoutAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 7 of 16representation.The Republican platform says that ;the largest measure of self-governmentconsistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them (theFilipinos) by law.; This is a strange doctrine for a government which owes itsvery existence to the men who offered their lives as a protest againstgovernment without consent and taxation without representation. In what respectdoes the position of the Republican party differ from the position taken by theEnglish Government in 1776? Did not the English Government promise a goodgovernment to the colonists? What king ever promised a bad government to hispeople? Did not the English Government promise that the colonists should havethe largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Englishduties? Did not the Spanish Government promise to give to the Cubans thelargest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Spanishduties? The whole difference between a monarchy and a republic may besummed up in one sentence. In a monarchy the king gives to the people what hebelieves to be a good government; in a republic the people secure forthemselves what they believe to be a good government.The Republican party has accepted the European idea and planted itself uponthe ground taken by George III., and by every ruler who distrusts the capacity ofthe people for self-government or denies them a voice in their own affairs.The Republican platform promises that some measure of self-government is tobe given the Filipinos by law; but even this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly sixteenmonths elapsed after the ratification of the treaty before the adjournment ofcongress last June and yet no law was passed dealing with the Philippinesituation. The will of the president has been the only law in the Philippine islandswherever the American authority extends. Why does the Republican partyhesitate to legislate upon the Philippine question? Because a law would disclosethe radical departure from history and precedent contemplated by those whocontrol the Republican party. The storm of protest which greeted the PuertoRican bill was an indication of what may be expected when the American peopleare brought face to face with legislation upon this subject.If the Puerto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied theguarantees of our Constitution, what is to be the lot of the Filipinos, who resistedour authority? If secret influences could compel a disregard of our plain dutytoward friendly people, living near our shores, what treatment will those sameinfluences provide for unfriendly people 7,000 miles away? If, in this countrywhere the people have a right to vote, republican leaders dare not take the sideof the people against the great monopolies which have grown up within the lastfew years, how can they be trusted to protect the Filipinos from the corporationswhich are waiting to exploit the islands?Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the people of the ed States,and the twilight of semi-citizenship endured by the people of Puerto Rico, whilethe thick darkness of perpetual vassalage covers the Philippines? The PuertoRico tariff law asserts the doctrine that the operation of the constitution isconfined to the forty-five states.The Democratic party disputes this doctrine and denounces it as repugnant toboth the letter and spirit of our organic law. There is no place in our system ofgovernment for the deposit of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That the leadersof a great party should claim for any president or congress the right to treatmillions of people as mere ;possessions; and deal with them unrestrained by theconstitution or the bill of rights shows how far we have aly departed from theancient landmarks and indicates what may be expected if this nation deliberatelyenters upon a career of empire.The territorial form of government is temporary and preparatory, and the chiefsecurity a citizen of a territory has is found in the fact that he enjoys the sameAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 8 of 16constitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general laws as the citizenof a state. Take away this security and his rights will be violated and his interestssacrificed at the demand of those who have political influence. This is the evil ofthe colonial system, no matter by what nation it is applied.What is our title to the Philippine Islands? Do we hold them by treaty or byconquest? Did we buy them or did we take them? Did we purchase the people?If not, how did we secure title to them? Were they thrown in with the land? Willthe Republicans say that inanimate earth has value but that when that earth ismolded by the divine hand and stamped with the likeness of the Creator itbecomes a fixture and passes with the soil? If governments derive their justpowers from the consent of the governed, it is impossible to secure title topeople, either by force or by purchase. We could extinguish Spains title bytreaty, but if we hold title we must hold it by some method consistent with ourideas of government. When we made allies of the Filipinos and armed them tofight against Spain, we disputed Spains title. If we buy Spains title we are notinnocent purchasers.There can be no doubt that we accepted and utilized the services of theFilipinos, and that when we did so we had full knowledge that they were fightingfor their own independence, and I submit that history furnishes no example ofturpitude baser than ours if we now substitute our yoke for the Spanish yoke.Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in support of animperialistic policy. Some say that it is our duty to hold the Philippine Islands. Butduty is not an argument; it is a conclusion. To ascertain what our duty is, in anyemergency, we must apply well settled and generally accepted principles. It isour duty to avoid stealing, no matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great orlittle value. It is our duty to avoid killing a human being, no matter where thehuman being lives or to what race or class he belongs.Every one recognizes the obligation imposed upon individuals to observe boththe human and the moral law, but as some deny the application of those laws tonations, it may not be out of place to e the opinions of others. Jefferson,than whom there is no higher political authority, said:;I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or collectively.;Franklin, whose learning, wisdom and virtue are a part of the priceless legacybequeathed to use from the revolutionary days, expressed the same idea ineven stronger language when he said:;Justice is strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. Ahighwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single;and the nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang.;Many may dare to do in crowds what they would not dare to do as individuals,but the moral character of an act is not determined by the number of those whojoin it. Force can defend a right, but force has never yet created a right. If it wastrue, as declared in the resolutions of intervention, that the Cubans ;are and ofright ought to be free and independent; (language taken from the Declaration ofIndependence), it is equally true that the Filipinos ;are and of right ought to befree and independent.;The right of the Cubans to freedom was not based upon their proximity to theed States, nor upon the language which they spoke, nor yet upon the race orraces to which they belonged. Congress by a practically unanimous votedeclared that the principles enunciated at Philadelphia in 1776 were still aliveand applicable to the Cubans. Who will draw a line between the natural rights ofthe Cubans and the Filipinos? Who will say that the former has a right to libertyand that the latter has no rights which we are bound to respect? And, if theCoffeehousAds by GAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 9 of 16Filipinos ;are and of right ought to be free and independent,; what right have weto force our government upon them without their consent? Before our duty canbe ascertained their rights must be determined, and when their rights are oncedetermined it is as much our duty to respect those rights as it was the duty ofSpain to respect the rights of the people of Cuba or the duty of England torespect the rights of the American colonists. Rights never conflict; duties neverclash. Can it be our duty to usurp political rights which belong to others? Can itbe our duty to kill those who, following the example of our forefathers, love libertywell enough to fight for it?A poet has described the terror which overcame a soldier who in the midst of thebattle discovered that he had slain his brother. It is written ;All ye are brethren.;Let us hope for the coming day when human life --which when once destroyedcannot be restored --will be so sacred that it will never be taken except whennecessary to punish a crime aly committed, or to prevent a crime about tobe committed.It is said that we have assumed before the world obligations which make itnecessary for us to permanently maintain a government in the Philippine Islands.I reply first, that the highest obligation of this nation is to be true to itself. Noobligation to any particular nations, or to all the nations combined, can requirethe abandonment of our theory of government, and the substitution of doctrinesagainst which our whole national life has been a protest. And, second, that ourobligation to the Filipinos, who inhabit the islands, is greater than any obligationwhich we can owe to foreigners who have a temporary residence in thePhilippines or desire to trade there.It is argued by some that the Filipinos are incapable of self-government and that,therefore, we owe it to the world to take control of them. Admiral Dewey, in anofficial report to the Navy Department, declared the Filipinos more capable ofself-government than the Cubans and said that he based his opinion upon aknowledge of both races. But I will not rest the case upon the relativeadvancement of the Filipinos. Henry Clay, in defending the right of the people ofSouth America to self-government said:;It is the doctrine of thrones that man is too ignorant to govern himself. Theirpartisans assert his incapacity in reference to all nations; if they cannotcommand universal assent to the proposition, it is then demanded to particularnations; and our pride and our presumption too often make converts of us. Icontend that it is to arraign the disposition of Providence himself to suppose thathe has created beings incapable of governing themselves, and to be trampled onby kings. Self-government is the natural government of man.;Clay was right. There are degrees of proficiency in the art of self-government,but it is a reflection upon the Creator to say that he denied to any people thecapacity for self-government. Once admit that some people are capable of self-government and that others are not and that the capable people have a right toseize upon and govern the incapable, and you make force --brute force --theonly foundation of government and invite the reign of a despot. I am not willing tobelieve that an all-wise and an all-loving God created the Filipinos and then leftthem thousands of years helpless until the islands attracted the attention ofEuropean nations.Republicans ask, ;Shall we haul down the flag that floats over our dead in thePhilippines?; The same question might have been asked, when the Americanflag floated over Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but thetourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national cemetery owned by theed States and cared for by an American citizen. Our flag still floats over ourdead, but when the treaty with Mexico was signed American authority withdrewto the Rio Grande, and I venture the opinion that during the last fifty years thepeople of Mexico have made more progress under the stimulus of independenceand self-government than they would have made under a carpet-bagAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 10 of 16government held in place by bayonets. The ed States and Mexico, friendlyrepublics, are each stronger and happier than they would have been had theformer been cursed and the latter crushed by an imperialistic policy disguised as;benevolent assimilation.;;Can we not govern colonies?;we are asked. The question is not what we cando, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but itmust accept responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in the way,the people can amend the Constitution. I repeat, the nation can do whatever itdesires to do, but it cannot avoid the natural and legitimate results of it ownconduct.The young man upon reaching his majority can do what he pleases. He candisregard the teachings of his parents; he can trample upon all that he has beentaught to consider sacred; he can disobey the laws of the State, the laws ofsociety and the laws of God. He can stamp failure upon his life and make hisvery existence a curse to his fellow men, and he can bring his father and motherin sorrow to the grave; but he cannot annul the sentence, ;The wages of sin isdeath.;And so with the nation. It is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn thetraditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests;it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it canconquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property andkill their people; but it cannot repeal the moral law or escape the punishmentdecreed for the violation of human rights.;Would we t in the paths of tyranny,Nor reckon the tyrants cost?Who taketh anothers libertyHis freedom is also lost.Would we win as the strong have ever won,Make y to pay the debt,American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 11 of 16For the God who reigned over BabylonIs the God who is reigning yet.;Some argue that American rule in the Philippine Islands will result in the bettereducation of the Filipinos. Be not deceived. If we expect to maintain a colonialpolicy, we shall not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The educatedFilipinos are now in revolt against us, and the most ignorant ones have made theleast resistance to our domination. If we are to govern them without theirconsent and give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must pay,we dare not educate them, lest they learn to the Declaration ofIndependence and Constitution of the ed States and mock us for ourinconsistency.The principal arguments, however, advanced by those who enter upon adefense of imperialism are:First-That we must improve the present opportunity to become a world powerand enter into international politics.Second-That our commercial interests in the Philippine Islands and in the Orientmake it necessary for us to hold the islands permanently.Third-That the sp of the Christian religion will be facilitated by a colonialpolicy.Fourth-That there is no honorable retreat from the position which the nation hastaken.The first argument is addrest to the nationrsquo;s pride and the second to the nationrsquo;spocket-book. The third is intended for the church member and the fourth for thepartisan.It is sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more than a century thisnation has been a world power. For ten decades it has been the most potentinfluence in the world. Not only has it been a world power, but it has done moreto shape the politics of the human race than all the other nations of the worldcombined. Because our Declaration of Independence was promulgated othershave been promulgated. Because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty otherhave fought for it. Because our Constitution was adopted other constitutionshave been adopted.The growth of the principle of self-government, planted on American soil, hasbeen the overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. It has made thisnation conspicuous among the nations and given it a place in history such as noother nation has ever enjoyed. Nothing has been able to check the onwardmarch of this idea. I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside theomnipotent weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of physical warfare. Iwould not exchange the glory of this Republic for the glory of all empires thathave risen and fallen since time began.The permanent chairman of the last Republican Nation Convention presentedthe pecuniary argument in all its baldness when he said:;We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in the Philippines solelyon account of others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a sacredtrust, we regard the welfare of American people first. We see our duty toourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By everylegitimate means within the province of government and constitution we mean tostimulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets.;American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 12 of 16This is the commercial argument. It is based upon the theory that war can berightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and that it is profitable to purchase tradeby force and violence. Franklin denied both of these propositions. When LordHowe asserted that the acts of Parliament which brought on the Revolution werenecessary to prevent American trade from passing into foreign channels,Franklin replied:;To me it seems that neither the obtaining nor retaining of any trade, howsoevervaluable, is an object for which men may justly spill each others blood; that thetrue and sure means of extending and securing commerce are the goodness andcheapness of commodities, and that the profits of no trade can ever be equal tothe expense of compelling it and holding it by fleets and armies. I consider thiswar against us, therefore, as both unjust and unwise.;I place the philosophy of Franklin against the sordid doctrine of those who wouldput a price upon the head of an American soldier and justify a war of conquestupon the ground that it will pay. The democratic party is in favor of the expansionof trade. It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful means; but itis not willing to make merchandise of human blood.But a war of conquest is as unwise as it is unrighteous. A harbor and coalingstation in the Philippines would answer every trade and military necessity andsuch a concession could have been secured at any time without difficulty.It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them. We carry on tradetoday with every part of the world, and our commerce has expanded morerapidly than the commerce of any European empire. We do not own Japan orChina, but we trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics ofCentral and South America, but we trade with them. It has not been necessary tohave any political connection with Canada or the nations of Europe in order totrade with them. Trade cannot be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary.When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must betaken out of the profits and the profits are never large enough to cover theexpense. Such a system would never be defended but for the fact that theexpense is borne by all the people, while the profits are enjoyed by a few.Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it would be profitable tothe ship owners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring deadsoldiers back; it would be profitable to those who would seize upon thefranchises, and it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would befixed here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring man and to thevast majority of those engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditurewithout return and risk without reward.Farmers and laboring men have, as a rule, small incomes and under systemswhich place the tax upon consumption pay much more than their fair share of theexpenses of government. Thus the very people who receive least benefit fromimperialism will be injured most by the military burdens which accompany it.In addition to the evils which he and the farmer share in common, the laboringman will be the first to suffer if oriental subjects seek work in the ed States;the first to suffer if American capital leaves our shores to employ oriental labor inthe Philippines to supply the trade of China and Japan; the first to suffer from theviolence which the military spirit arouses and the first to suffer when the methodsof imperialism are applied to our own government.It is not strange, therefore, that the labor organizations have been quick to notethe approach of these dangers and prompt to protest against both militarism andimperialism.American Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 13 of 16The pecuniary argument, the more effective with certain classes, is not likely tobe used so often or presented with so much enthusiasm as the religiousargument. If what has been termed the ;gunpowder gospel;were urged againstthe Filipinos only it would be a sufficient answer to say that a majority of theFilipinos are now members of one branch of the Christian church; but theprinciple involved is one of much wider application and challenges seriousconsideration.The religious argument varies in positiveness from a passive belief thatProvidence delivered the Filipinos into our hands, for their good and our glory, tothe exultation of the minister who said that we ought to ;thrash the natives(Filipinos) until they understand who we are,;and that ;every bullet sent, everycannon shot and every flag waved means righteousness.;We cannot approve of this doctrine in one place unless we are willing to apply iteverywhere. If there is poison in the blood of the hand it will ultimately reach theheat. It is equally true that forcible Christianity, if planted under the Americanflag in the far-away Orient, will sooner or later be transplanted upon Americansoil.If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings ofChrist, who will say that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite andproselyte with the sword? He who would declare the divine will must prove hisauthority either by Holy Writ or by evidence of a special dispensation.Imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible. The command, ;Go ye into all theworld and preach the gospel to every creature,;has no Gatling gun attachment.When Jesus visited a village of Samaria and the people refused to receive him,some of the disciples suggested that fire should be called down from Heaven toavenge the insult; but the Master rebuked them and said: ;Ye know not whatmanner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy menrsquo;s lives,but to save them.;Suppose he had said: ;We will thrash them until theyunderstand who we are,;how different would have been the history ofChristianity! Compare, if you will, the swaggering, bullying, brutal doctrine ofimperialism with the golden rule and the commandment, ;Thou shalt love thyneighbor as thyself.;Love not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not theexploitation of them, was His method of reaching the human heart. A missionaryrecently told me that the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because hisassailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it.Let it be known that our missionaries are seeking souls instead of sovereignty;let be it known that instead of being the advance guard of conquering armies,they are going forth to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with the truthand their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, wearing thebreastplate of righteousness and carrying the sword of the spirit; let it be knownthat they are citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens of othernations as carefully as it protects the rights of its own citizens, and the welcomegiven to our missionaries will be more cordial than the welcome extended to themissionaries of any other nation.The argument made by some that it was unfortunate for the nation that it hadanything to do with the Philippine Islands, but that the naval victory at Manilamade the permanent acquisition of those islands necessary, is also unsound.We won a naval victory at Santiago, but that did not compel us to hold Cuba.The shedding of American blood in the Philippine Islands does not make itimperative that we should retain possession forever; American blood was shedat San Juan and El Caney, and yet the President has promised the Cubansindependence. The fact that the American flag floats over Manila does notcompel us to exercise perpetual sovereignty over the islands; the American flagAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 14 of 16floats over Havana to-day, but the President has promised to haul it down whenthe flag of the Cuban Republic is y to rise in its place. Better a thousandtimes that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag representing the idea of self-government than that the flag of this Republic should become the flag of anempire.There is an easy, honest, honorable solution of the Philippine question. It is setforth in the Democratic platform and it is submitted with confidence to theAmerican people. This plan I unreservedly indorse. If elected, I will conveneCongress in extraordinary session as soon as inaugurated and recommend animmediate declaration of the nationrsquo;s purpose, first, to establish a stable form ofgovernment in the Philippine Islands, just as we are now establishing a stableform of government in Cuba; second, to give independence to the Filipinos aswe have promised to give independence to the Cubans; third, to protect theFilipinos from outside interference while they work out their destiny, just as wehave protected the republics of Central and South America, and are, by theMonroe doctrine, pledged to protect Cuba.A European protectorate often results in the plundering of the ward by theguardian. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantageof our strength, without making it he victim of our greed. For three-quarters of acentury the Monroe doctrine has been a shield to neighboring republics and yet ithas imposed no pecuniary burden upon us. After the Filipinos had aided us inthe war against Spain, we could not leave them to be the victims of the ambitiousdesigns of European nations, and since we do not desire to make them a part ofus or to hold them as subjects, we propose the only alternative, namely, to givethem independence and guard them against molestation from without.When our opponents are unable to defend their position by argument they fallback upon the assertion that is destiny, and insist that we must submit to it, nomatter how much it violates our moral percepts and our principles ofgovernment. This is a complacent philosophy. It obliterates the distinctionbetween right and wrong and makes individuals and nations the helpless victimsof circumstance.Destiny is the subterfuge of the invertebrate, who, lacking the courage to opposeerror, seeks some plausible excuse for supporting it. Washington said that thedestiny of the republican form of government was deeply, if not finally, staked onthe experiment entrusted to the American people. How different Washingtonrsquo;sdefinition of destiny from the Republican definition!The Republicans say that this nation is in the hands of destiny; Washingtonbelieved that not only the destiny of our own nation but the destiny of therepublican form of government throughout the world was intrusted to Americanhands. Immeasurable responsibility! The destiny of this Republic is in the handsof its own people, and upon the success of the experiment here rests the hope ofhumanity. No exterior force can disturb this Republic, and no foreign influenceshould be permitted to change its course. What the future has in store for thisnation no one has authority to declare, but each individual has his own idea ofthe nationrsquo;s mission, and he owes it to his country as well as to himself tocontribute as best he may to the fulfillment of that mission.Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I can never fully discharge thedebt of gratitude which I owe to my countrymen for the honors which they haveso generously bestowed upon me; but, sirs, whether it be my lot to occupy thehigh office for which the convention has named me, or to spend the remainder ofmy days in private life, it shall be my constant ambition and my controllingpurpose to aid in realizing the high ideals of those whose wisdom and courageand sacrifices brought the Republic into existence.I can conceive of a national destiny surpassing the glories of the present and thepast --a destiny which meets the responsibility of today and measures up to theAmerican Rhetoric: William Jennings Bryan -- ;Against Imperialism; Page 15 of 16possibilities of the future. Behold a republic, resting securely upon the foundationstones quarried by revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth --arepublic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evidentpropositions that all men are created equal; that they are endowed withinalienable rights; that governments are instituted among men to secure theserights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of thegoverned. Behold a republic in which civil and religion liberty stimulate all toearnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for aneighbors injury --a republic in which every citizen is a sovereign, but in whichno one cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic standing erect while empires allaround are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments --a republic Art amp; Sciewhose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold a republic Coachingincreasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in influence, solving the Coachingproblems of civilization and hastening the coming of an universal brotherhood -- ICF Accreda republic which shakes thrones and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example World Classand gives light and inspiration to those who sit in darkness. Behold a republic Training-Tgradually but surely becoming the supreme moral factor in the worlds progress /201205/182152郴州医院割包皮怎么样

资兴人民中妇幼保健医院尿科The President on the Economy: Protecting Americans, Holding Financial Institutions Accountable With America's economy having been pulled back from the brink of total collapse, is no small part due to actions like the Recovery Act that has saved and created over a million jobs, and TARP which was imperative to stabilizing a financial system is danger of dragging everybody down with it, the President today made clear to a dozen bank CEOs that they must do their part :Download Video: mp4 (106MB) | mp3 (8MB) So my main message in today's meeting was very simple: that America's banks received extraordinary assistance from American taxpayers to rebuild their industry -- and now that they're back on their feet, we expect an extraordinary commitment from them to help rebuild our economy.That starts with finding ways to help creditworthy small and medium-size businesses get the loans that they need to open their doors, grow their operations, and create new jobs. This is something I hear about from business owners and entrepreneurs across America -- that despite their best efforts, they're unable to get loans. At the same time, I've been hearing from bankers that they're willing to lend, but face a shortage of creditworthy individuals and businesses.12/92069 MRS. BUSH: Good morning. This is Laura Bush. For the weekly radio address, President Bush has handed the mic over to me. And today, I'd like to talk about something that's close to my heart -- America's heart health. February is American Heart Month -- a time to start heart-healthy habits, and to learn about the risk factors for heart disease. These risk factors include smoking, being overweight, lack of exercise, diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol, family history, and age. Heart disease affects more than 80 million people in the ed States and claims the life of one American every minute. By now, many women who've tuned in may be tempted to tune out. A few years ago, I might have. Like many women, I assumed heart disease was a "man's disease." But the Heart Truth is this: that heart disease is the leading cause of death among American women. In 2002, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute launched the Heart Truth campaign, and asked me to join. Over the last five years, I've seen the Heart Truth campaign sp the word to women about how they can protect their heart health. Symptoms of a heart attack can be different in women than in men. Symptoms in women can include persistent fatigue, difficulty breathing, and a pain in the jaw or neck. If women have these symptoms, they should go immediately to the hospital. Nothing draws attention like a little red dress, so this is the Heart Truth's symbol. Across the country, people are rallying around that dress. Women are taking heart disease more seriously. So are their doctors. And every year from 2000 to 2005, heart disease deaths among women decreased. This is good progress, but we still want more people to know the Heart Truth. Too many women, especially African-American women, die of heart disease. More than 80 percent of middle-aged women have at least one risk factor and many of them don't know it. Last year, as part of my work to tell the Heart Truth, I went on the Rachael Ray show, where I described the symptoms of heart attacks in women. One woman who watched, Candy Stauffer, says that a few weeks after she saw the show she woke up feeling nauseated and bothered by pain in the jaw. Candy's daughter remembered what she'd heard on Rachael Ray. And because Candy and her daughter paid attention to the symptoms of heart trouble, Candy got to the emergency room in time to be treated. Since her close call, Candy has started exercising every day. She's dropped 45 pounds. Now she's calling on others to take better care of their hearts. "My family is more aware," Candy says. "My friends are more aware." Even in line at the grocery store, Candy will tell other people about heart disease. I'm proud to serve as the Heart Truth's official national ambassador. But I'm even more proud of America's unofficial heart-health ambassadors. Across the ed States, doctors, researchers, and patients like Candy Stauffer are telling the Heart Truth, and they're saving women's lives. This American Heart Month, all of us can be Heart Truth ambassadors. Start by protecting your own heart, and sp the word to others. February is a month known for Valentines. This February, encourage your loved ones to take care of their health. It's the best Valentine's gift you could possibly give. Thanks for listening200806/40918郴州东方门诊正规吗郴州哪家医院检查男性不育

郴州嘉禾县看男科医院
湘南学院医院割包皮多少钱
郴州权微男科医院百姓新闻
郴州男性功能障碍医院
挂号新闻郴州人民医院预约
郴州包茎做手术多少钱
郴州哪家医院治性病技术好
郴州龟头炎治疗费用高吗好爱问郴州市第一人民医院北院看泌尿科怎么样
康生活北湖区泌尿外科丽晚报
(责任编辑:图王)
 
五大发展理念

龙江会客厅

郴州汝城县男科专家
郴州包皮龟头炎治疗费用 苏仙区治疗性功能障碍哪家医院最好华龙门户 [详细]
嘉禾县人民中妇幼保健医院男科专家挂号
郴州包皮手术需要多少钱 郴州治疗膀胱炎多少钱 [详细]
郴州市男科妇科网上预约
资兴市不孕不育医院预约挂号 88时讯郴州治疗尖锐湿疣的专科医院当当卫生 [详细]
郴州桂东县男科医院哪家好
飞新闻湘南学院医院男科专家 郴州割包皮哪家最好导医爱问郴州桂东县人民医院妇幼保健治疗生殖感染价格 [详细]