当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文

兴国医院男科医生普及晚报会昌县妇幼保健所好不好

2019年09月23日 22:40:49    日报  参与评论()人

赣州第二人民医院怎么样赣州有做男子结扎疏通手术医院吗REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENTON IMPROVING VETERANS’ HEALTH CAREDwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office BuildingRoom 45011:54 A.M. EDTTHE PRESIDENT: Thank you, John, for your outstanding service, and your friendship is greatly appreciated. I want to thank my two outstanding Secretaries who are behind me -- Bob Gates, who is doing just an extraordinary job over at the Pentagon, and General Shinseki, now Secretary Shinseki, who has served our country with extraordinary valor.I also want to acknowledge all the wounded warriors and veterans and all those who care for them who are here today. You make us very, very proud.To the VSO and MSO leaders who work hard on behalf of those who serve this nation, thank you for your advocacy and your hard work. As I look out in the audience, especially seeing these folks in their uniforms, I am reminded of the fact that we have the best fighting force in world history, and the reason we do is because of all of you. And so I'm very grateful for what you've done to protect and serve this country.It is good to be back. We've had a productive week working to advance America's interests around the world. We worked to renew our alliances to enhance our common security. We collaborated with other nations to take steps towards rebuilding the global economy, which will revitalize our own. And before coming home, I stopped to visit with our men and women who are serving bravely in Iraq. First and foremost, I wanted to say "thank you" to them on behalf of a grateful nation. They've faced extraordinary challenges, and they have performed brilliantly in every mission that's been given to them. They have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country, and that is a great gift.You know, we often talk about ideals like sacrifice and honor and duty. But these men and women, like the men and women who are here, embody it. They have made sacrifices many of us cannot begin to imagine.We're talking about men like Specialist Jake Altman and Sergeant Nathan Dewitt, two of the soldiers who I had the honor to meet when I was in Baghdad. In 2007, as Specialist Altman was clearing mines so that other soldiers might travel in safety, he lost his hand when an IED struck his vehicle. And at Walter Reed, he asked to relearn the skills necessary to perform his duties with a prosthetic so that he could rejoin his old battalion. Sergeant Dewitt was severely injured in an attack last September, but he refused to let his injuries stop him from giving first aid to his wounded comrades. Today, they're both back alongside their fellow soldiers in their old units.And we're talking about women like Tammy Duckworth, who I think is here -- Tammy, where are you? There you are -- a great friend who lost her legs when a rocket struck the Black Hawk helicopter she was piloting over Iraq. And when she returned home, she continued to serve her country heading the Department of Veterans Affairs in Illinois, and she serves her country still as my nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.We're talking about heroes like all the service members and veterans of the ed States Armed Forces, including the veterans who've joined us here today -- many who gave up much yet signed up to give more; many with their own battles still to come; all with their own stories to tell.For their service and sacrifice, warm words of thanks from a grateful nation are more than warranted, but they aren't nearly enough. We also owe our veterans the care they were promised and the benefits that they have earned. We have a sacred trust with those who wear the uniform of the ed States of America. It's a commitment that begins at enlistment, and it must never end.04/66687赣州妇幼保健院泌尿系统在线咨询 ^UIhn|j0|QDq8wCbWuJ;(ssU#8*OTo those who understand that our country cannot prosper unless we draw on the talents of all Americans, we say: We will pass the Equal Rights Amendment.The issue is not what America can do for women, but what women can do for America.To the Americans who will lead our country into the 21st century, we say: We will not have a Supreme Court that turns the clock back to the 19th century.To those concerned about the strength of American and family values, as I am, I say: We are going to restore those values -- love, caring, partnership -- by including, and not excluding, those whose beliefs differ from our own. Because our own faith is strong, we will fight to preserve the freedom of faith for others.To those working Americans who fear that banks, utilities, and large special interests have a lock on the White House, we say: Join us; lets elect the peoples President; and lets have government by and for the American people again.LAc~ps2PO)3yf%EHIrj+~3_X8xrBZTZYnnAy#c9ut+j,j.+Y%EO0eVBH)(iBr|7+201201/168181亲,你们想拥有一口流利的英语口语吗?你们想像世界名人一样拥有敏锐的智慧、滔滔不绝的口才吗?在这里,大家不但可以聆听抑扬顿挫的英文,而且还可以学习到名人的过人之处,相信会受益匪浅的!听,他们来了......166104岿美山钨矿职工医院治疗前列腺疾病哪家医院最好

龙南人民医院割包皮手术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石城医院治疗龟头炎哪家医院最好 Download Video: mp4 (56MB) | mp3 (5MB)This morning, President Obama hosted a reception for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HU’s) at the White House in honor of National HU Week. HU’s have played a crucial role in the American higher education system. As President Obama said in his remarks, HU’s have “made it possible for millions of people to achieve their dreams and gave so many young people a chance they never thought they’d have -- a chance that nobody else would give them.”201009/114221赣州石城医院治疗前列腺炎多少钱

大余县下垅钨矿职工医院怎样预约But no president, no Congress, no government, can undertake this mission alone.任何总统、任何国会、任何政府都不能单独完成这一使命。My fellow Americans, you, too, must play your part in our renewal.同胞们,在我国复兴的过程中,你们也必须发挥作用。I challenge a new generation of young Americans to a season of service; to act on your idealism by helping troubled children, keeping company with those in need, reconnecting our torn communities.我向新一代美国年轻人挑战,要求你们投入这一奉献的季节,按照你们的理想主义行动起来,使不幸的儿童得到帮助,使贫困的人们得到关怀,使四分五裂的社区恢复联系。There is so much to be done; enough indeed for millions of others who are still young in spirit to give of themselves in service, too.要做的事情很多,确实够多的,以至几百万在精神上仍然年轻的人也可作出奉献。In serving, we recognize a simple but powerful truth, we need each other.在奉献过程中,我们认识到相互需要这一简单而又强大的真理。And we must care for one another.我们必须相互关心。Today, we do more than celebrate America; we rededicate ourselves to the very idea of America.今天,我们不仅是在赞颂美国,我们再一次把自己奉献给美国的理想。An idea born in revolution and renewed through two centuries of challenge.这个理想在革命中诞生,在两个世纪的挑战中更新;这个理想经受了认识的考验,An idea tempered by the knowledge that, but for fate we, the fortunate and the unfortunate, might have been each other.大家认识到,若不是命运的安排,幸运者或不幸者有可能互换位置;An idea ennobled by the faith that our nation can summon from its myriad diversity the deepest measure of unity.这个理想由于一种信念而变得崇高,即我国能够从纷繁的多佯性中实现最深刻的统一性,An idea infused with the conviction that Americas long heroic journey must go forever upward.这个理想洋溢着一种信:美国漫长而英勇的旅程必将永远继续。And so, my fellow Americans, at the edge of the 21st century, let us begin with energy and hope, with faith and discipline, and let us work until our work is done.同胞们,在我恻即将跨入21世纪之际,让我们以旺盛的精力和满腔的希望,以坚定的信心和 严明的纪律开始工作,直到把工作完成。The scripture says, ;And let us not be weary in well-doing, for in due season, we shall reap, if we faint not.;《圣经》说:;我们行善,不可丧志,若不灰心,到了时候,就要收成。;From this joyful mountaintop of celebration, we hear a call to service in the valley.在这个欢乐的山巅,我们听见山谷里传来了要我们作出奉献的召唤。We have heard the trumpets.我们听到了号角声。We have changed the guard.我们已经换岗。And now, each in our way, and with Gods help, we must answer the call.现在,我们必须以各自的方式,在上帝的帮助下响应这一召唤。Thank you, and God bless you all.谢谢大家 上帝保佑你们。03/438230 President Bush Delivers Commencement Address at Greensburg High School   THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Superintendent, thank you for that kind introduction. Governor Sebelius, thank you for being here. Senator Brownback, Senator Roberts, Congressman Tiahrt, Mayor Janssen, Mayor-Elect Dixson, City Administrator Hewitt, Principal Fulton, members of the administration, faculty and staff, distinguished guests, family, friends, and most importantly, the Class of 2008. (Applause.)   I am honored to be at Greensburg High School -- home of the Rangers. (Applause.) As some of you may know, I used to be one of the owners of a baseball team with that name. (Laughter.) So from one Ranger fan to another, I give you this message: "Beat 'em up, beat 'em up, G-H-S." (Applause.)   And I thank you for rescheduling this ceremony so I could make it. (Laughter.) I know you originally planned to hold the commencement next weekend -- it's the same weekend as my daughter's wedding. I could have suggested changing the date of the wedding instead -- (laughter) -- I think we all know how that would have turned out. (Laughter.) So thanks so very much.   It is fitting that we hold the commencement on this day -- because it marks the one-year anniversary of the tornado that forever changed your lives. Those of you who lived through the storm remember your ears popping from the change in the air pressure. You remember huddling with your loved ones in basements. And when it was safe to come out, you remember the shock of seeing your entire town in ruins.   At this ceremony, we celebrate your year-long journey from tragedy to triumph. We celebrate the resurgence of a town that stood tall when its buildings and homes were laid low. We celebrate the power of faith, the love of family, and the bonds of friendship that guided you through the disaster. And finally, we celebrate the resilience of 18 seniors who grow closer together when the world around them blew apart. When the Class of 2008 walks across the stage today you will send a powerful message to our nation: Greensburg, Kansas is back -- and its best days are ahead. (Applause.)   To reach this day, the Class of 2008 has overcome challenges unlike those faced by any other graduating class. You spent a year in portable classrooms that look very different from the red book -- red school you attended as freshmen. Many of you have gone home to trailers that lack the comforts of the houses you had. All of you have had to juggle a full load of schoolwork and activities while also working to help this community rebuild. Through it all, you've shown determination and perseverance -- and today you have earned the right to call yourselves graduates of Greensburg High School. And I congratulate you all on a tremendous achievement. (Applause.)   To reach this day, the Class of 2008 depended on the support of loving families. Your families are proud of what you've accomplished -- and I know you are grateful for their unconditional love. I ask all the parents to stand and receive the thanks of the Class of 2008. (Applause.)   To reach this day, the Class of 2008 also relied on the guidance and wisdom of your teachers and administrators. They have known many of you since your first day of kindergarten -- and they were determined to help you graduate in the town where your education began. Less than four months after the storm, they managed to reopen classes for the start of the new school year. Under the leadership of your superintendent and the principal, the faculty and staff of Greensburg High School have given this community stability and strength in a time of desperate need -- and today, we give them all our thanks. (Applause.)   Over the past year, the members of your class have relied on fundamental values that have given you strength and comfort as you deal with hardship, and you heal your community, and you rebuild your lives. You've learned some important lessons that will serve you for whatever you do next.   The Greensburg Class of 2008 has learned that America's communities are stronger than any storm. The tornado tore apart the beams and boards that held your houses together, but it could not break the bonds of family and faith that hold your town together. We see the strength of those bonds in the way you held commencement last year on a golf course just weeks after the storm. We see the strength of those bonds in congregations that have stuck together despite losing their church buildings. We see the strength of those bonds in the caravan of cars that follow your school sports teams wherever they go. Because the storm destroyed your athletic facilities, you had a full schedule of away games. Even though you're always on the road, they tell me you always had a home crowd.   When your boys' basketball team made it to the sub-state finals, nearly every person in this town turned out. The team even got a police escort -- they say it was bigger than the one I got. (Laughter.) Your fans rushed to the court after you won on a buzzer beater to advance to the state tournament for the first time in 30 years. And I have been told that the first person to spring out of the stands was Principal Fulton. (Laughter.) The basketball team finished with a great record -- and along with all your other school teams, it has given this good town a lot to cheer about.   As the Class of 2008 ventures into the world, your hometown will always be a source of stability and comfort and pride. Greensburg is where many of your parents and grandparents grew up. It's where you went to church with your neighbors on Sundays. It's where you wanted home to be after the storm. So wherever you go, you will be able to rely on the ties of family, and your faith, and your friends that were forged here, and you'll always carry Greensburg, Kansas in your heart.   The Greensburg Class of 2008 has learned that Americans will always rebuild stronger and better than before. Often in life, you're dealt a hand that you did not expect. The test of a community -- and the test of an individual -- is how you play the hand. Over the past seven years, I've seen Americans in communities across our country overcome some tough hands. I've seen the resolve of the American spirit in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the flood waters of Hurricane Katrina, eight hurricanes in Florida, tornadoes in states like Missouri, Tennessee, and Alabama, wildfires of southern California and in Oregon. I saw the same resolve and the same determination in the people of Greensburg, Kansas.   When I visited Greensburg last year, I remember walking your streets, and I remember meeting Kaye Hardinger. She was standing outside the wreckage of her home. She took a look at me and said, "I would have invited you in for coffee," but she didn't have time to dust. (Laughter.) Today, Kaye lives in a trailer with her family in a nearby town. But she continues to plan for the day when she and her family move back to Greensburg, and rebuild. And Kaye, when that day comes, fire up the coffee pot. (Laughter.)   When I visited Greensburg I also met a man named Kelly Estes. Kelly is a John Deere dealer. I remember so very well walking with Kelly and his wife and his family through the rubble after that storm hit. He lost more than million worth of equipment. But he was y to look for the future. After caring for his employees who had lost their homes, he began making plans to bring his business back to Greensburg. Earlier this year, he broke ground on a new dealership that will be a model of energy efficiency, create more than two dozen new jobs and inject new vitality into Greensburg economy.   People like Kaye and Kelly are part of a more hopeful future for your city. The leaders of your town understand that out of the devastation of the storm comes an opportunity to rebuild with a free hand and a clean slate. They envision a future where new jobs flourish, where every public building meets the highest environmental standards, and where the beauty of rural America meets the great possibilities of new technology. The community is dedicated to putting the "green" in Greensburg. (Applause.) And as you work to achieve this vision, the federal government will honor its commitments, and continue to stand by you.   Ultimately, the future of Greensburg -- and the future of our nation -- will belong to the young. The education that you've received at this school will prepare you for a lifetime of opportunity and achievement. And the lessons that you have learned in this town will give you the strength to rise above any obstacle in your path. You've seen life at its most difficult. You have emerged stronger from it. Now I call on you to take this spirit forward -- and help our country in a way that makes us more resilient and more courageous as a people.   And finally, the Greensburg Class of 2008 also understands what it means to serve a higher cause. In the hours after the storm, your concern was not for what you'd lost; it was for the safety of the people you loved. As Senior Class President Jarrett Schaef said, he'd look for his friends in the dark of night. And I appreciate that kind of leadership. When someone suggested that he leave town, he refused. Here is what he said: "I hadn't found nearly enough of my friends, and I wasn't going to leave until I had."   Jarrett wasn't alone that night. As you well know, many of your family members rushed to Greenburg [sic] from nearby counties and other states to offer love and support. Other folks came from towns, as well -- compassionate citizens who came to do their duty to help a neighbor in need.   You'll always remember these generous and caring souls. And you will always remember the thousands of other volunteers who descended upon Greensburg in the months that followed. The volunteers came from all across America. One of them was a student named Christopher Skrzypczak. Last year, Christopher almost lost his life when a tornado tore through his high school in Enterprise, Alabama. So when he saw the news reports about Greensburg, he wanted to help. He raised money to purchase hundreds of new books for your library. He drove with his family all the way from Enterprise to Greensburg to deliver the books in person. Volunteers like Christopher brought hope to this community -- and they set an inspiring example for our country.   Over the past year, students in Greensburg have also answered the call to serve others. Despite all that you lost, each of you has discovered that you have far more to give. Over the summer, many of you worked with AmeriCorps to clear debris and help the needy. On Greensburg Make a Difference Day, you helped plant new trees and flowers in the parks. When a tornado hit Jackson, Tennessee in February, elementary and middle school students worked with their teachers to raise more than ,000 in aid for the victims. In these acts of service, we are reminded that as much as Greensburg changes, the compassion of its citizens is a constant source of strength.   One member of your class who represents the spirit of service is Aaron Widner. This fall, Aaron decided to enlist in the Marine Corps. Like many other courageous young men and women across America, he has stepped forward to defend our freedom during a time of war -- and we honor him today. And, Aaron, I wish you the best of luck at boot camp -- and I look forward to serving as your Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.)   On this graduation day, I ask every member of your class to devote your lives to a cause larger than yourselves. Over the past year you've learned that you can never predict what tomorrow will bring. Wherever the winds of life take you, you can be certain that serving others will always make your lives more fulfilling.   As we watch the Class of 2008 graduate today, the dark clouds from one year ago have parted and have made way for a brighter future. We'll always hold in our hearts those who lost their lives. But with faith in He who rides above the mighty storm, we go forth with confidence that Greensburg will rise again. (Applause.)   I thank you for having me today. God bless you, and may God bless the Class of 2008. Thank you. (Applause.) 200806/41530章贡区妇幼保健院收费标准赣州寻乌前列腺炎多少钱

赣州军医院
赣州定南前列腺炎多少钱
赣州市第二人民医院官网专家在线咨询求医报
江西省全南县大吉山矿医院治疗早泄哪家医院最好
中华大夫定南人民医院专家咨询
信丰县人民医院治疗男性不育哪家医院最好
赣州哪家医院治疗阳萎早泄最好
西华山钨矿职工医院男科最好的医院搜医解答赣州宁都泌尿外科
同城分享江西省赣州人民医院专家预约天涯信息
(责任编辑:图王)
 
五大发展理念

龙江会客厅

赣州全南人民医院割包皮多少钱
兴国县中医院正规吗 会昌县妇幼保健所看男科怎么样中医新闻 [详细]
赣州包皮手术恢复
石城县妇幼保健所收费标准 石城县钽铌矿职工医院不孕不育预约 [详细]
安远妇幼保健院人民医院地址
赣州南康医院治疗前列腺炎哪家医院最好 久久媒体赣州于都妇幼保健院不孕不育预约网上健康 [详细]
大余县中医院治疗男性不育多少钱
搜索资讯大余县不孕不育预约 于都县人民医院医院预约乐视资讯上犹县社溪中心卫生院地址查询 [详细]