妇联开展"巾帼示范村"创建活动总结

　　建设社会主义新农村是党中央按照科学发展观作出的重大战略决策，是从根本上解决“三农”问题的重要举措，也是构建和谐社会的必然要求。怀化洪江区妇联下设3个乡妇联，22个村妇代会。自XX年创建第一个巾帼示范村——桂花园乡茅头园村以来，通过示范带头作用，共发展区级巾帼示范村2个，分别为桂花园乡铁溪村、横岩乡鸬鹚村。几年来，洪江区妇联以培训为抓手、以促进增收致富为主线，积极发挥农村妇女在新农村建设中的引领、示范、辐射、带动作用，推动各项工作的开展，加快了社会主义新农村建设步伐。使创建工作在新农村建设和妇女发展两方面都取得实效。

　　一、理清思路，科学谋划布好局。

　　根据上级妇联“巾帼示范村”创建要求，围绕新农村建设的总体部署，洪江区成立了 “巾帼示范村”创建领导小组，坚持区妇联指导，乡、村负责，妇代会具体实施。明确了目标任务，按照党建带妇建的原则，把“巾帼示范村”创建工作作为推动妇女工作的一项重要工作来抓实、抓好。完善组织机构，下设创建小组，以争做“新女性、建设新农村”为创建活动主题，将“巾帼示范村”创建活动与新农村建设相结合，采取优中选优的方式，把“巾帼示范村”创建活动作为动员组织妇女参与社会主义新农村建设的重大举措，来推进各项工作。

　　二、注重实效，整体推进促发展

　　第一因地制宜壮大新产业。积极引导广大农村妇女顺应时代要求，树立创业理想，拓宽致富渠道，走科技型、集约型、特色型发展之路。横岩乡鸬鹚村以种植楠竹为主，且居家留守妇女为主，在新农村建设的实践中，村妇代会在区妇联的指导和乡党委的带领下引导当地妇女开展楠竹种植、加工，并引进志锋竹业(恒盾竹业有限公司)，进行专业楠竹加工工艺，广销省内外。今年3月，横岩乡党委又组织鸬鹚村部分种养殖能手，赴新晃县实地考察，参观了肉牛养殖基地。希望她们能将技术带回家，利用家乡的自然环境和丰富的生态资源，在发展养殖产业的这条致富道路上取得更好的成效。

　　第二实施“岗村共建”活动，协调城乡统筹发展。为创新工作，实现城乡联动，XX年年以来，结合本地实际，开展“岗村牵手，共建美好家园”活动。获全国“巾帼文明岗”的妇幼保健院与获怀化市“巾帼文明岗”的区地税局与三个巾帼示范村进行结对，成为了新农村建设的一个亮点工程。在共建活动中，通过送法律送科技下乡、赠书活动、文艺联欢、医疗服务等方式，搭建农村与文明岗之间的桥梁。

　　第三注重班子建设，开展村民自治管理。如铁溪村村委班子成员中，女性占60%，是洪江区为数不多的拥有女性支部书记的村庄之一。在她的带领下班子团结和谐，村务公开，民主议事。村务公开每季度一次，接受群众监督。通过鼓励和引导妇女参与村务公开、村务管理，从而发挥好村民自治管理的作用。同时积极发现和推荐优秀女性人才，做好妇女发展党员及入党积极分子的培养工作，坚持党建带妇建工作。

　　第四党建带妇建，共建和谐洪江。积极推动把妇联基层组织建设，特别是巾帼示范村建设纳入党的基层组织建设整体规划，使妇联的工作更好的落实在基层、发展在基层、受益在基层。今年4月，区妇联在鸬鹚村召开洪江区基层妇联组织建设示范点及“巾帼示范村”创建活动、创卫活动经验交流现场会。通过边走，边看，边学的方式交流经验，鼓励她们在创建活动中要敢想、敢做，为创建巾帼示范村，构建和谐洪江充分发挥基层妇联组织的积极作用。

　　三、形式多样，引导农村妇女作出新贡献

　　一是丰富农村妇女业余活动。横岩乡鸬鹚村以留守妇女为主，为了丰富她们的业余生活，村委班子在村部设立妇女活动中心，配备各类健身器材，成立一个健康跳操对，并请老师进行指导。二是组织妇女参与农村社会治安综合治理，深化“平安家庭”、“零家庭暴力村庄”创建活动，切实做到“六无”、“六防”，积极维护妇女权益，维护农村社会稳定。三是注重家庭教育，号召全村妇女参加预防青少年违法犯罪工作，为青少年健康成长营造良好的社会环境。四是成立了“巾帼文艺队”，每逢重要节日，巾帼文艺队总会走进村头巷尾，广泛宣传党的路线、方针和政策。宣传法律法规、科学知识、禁毒艾防知识，教育广大农村妇女抵御封建迷信，远离黄、赌、毒等违法行为，演出受到了广大村民的热情支持

篇2："WhoThenWillSpeakfortheCommonGood?"

　　Barbara Jordan: "Who Then Will Speak for the Common Good?"

　　Thank you ladies and gentlemen for a very warm reception.

　　It was one hundred and forty-four years ago that members of the Democratic Party first met in convention to select a Presidential candidate. Since that time, Democrats have continued to convene once every four years and draft a party platform and nominate a Presidential candidate. And our meeting this week is a continuation of that tradition. But there is something different about tonight. There is something special about tonight. What is different? What is special?

　　I, Barbara Jordan, am a keynote speaker.

　　A lot of years passed since 1832, and during that time it would have been most unusual for any national political party to ask that a Barbara Jordan to deliver a keynote address. But tonight here I am. And I feel that notwithstanding the past that my presence here is one additional bit of evidence that the American Dream need not forever be deferred.

　　Now that I have this grand distinction what in the world am I supposed to say? I could easily spend this time praising the accomplishments of this party and attacking the Republicans -- but I don't choose to do that. I could list the many problems which Americans have. I could list the problems which cause people to feel cynical, angry, frustrated: problems which include lack of integrity in government; the feeling that the individual no longer counts; the reality of material and spiritual poverty; the feeling that the grand American experiment is failing or has failed. I could recite these problems, and then I could sit down and offer no solutions. But I don't choose to do that either. The citizens of America expect more. They deserve and they want more than a recital of problems.

　　We are a people in a quandary about the present. We are a people in search of our future. We are a people in search of a national community. We are a people trying not only to solve the problems of the present, unemployment, inflation, but we are attempting on a larger scale to fulfill the promise of America. We are attempting to fulfill our national purpose, to create and sustain a society in which all of us are equal.

　　Throughout out history, when people have looked for new ways to solve their problems, and to uphold the principles of this nation, many times they have turned to political parties. They have often turned to the Democratic Party. What is it? What is it about the Democratic Party that makes it the instrument the people use when they search for ways to shape their future? Well I believe the answer to that question lies in our concept of governing. Our concept of governing is derived from our view of people. It is a concept deeply rooted in a set of beliefs firmly etched in the national conscience of all of us.

　　Now what are these beliefs? First, we believe in equality for all and privileges for none. This is a belief that each American regardless of background has equal standing in the public forum -- all of us. Because we believe this idea so firmly, we are an inclusive rather than an exclusive party. Let everybody come! I think it no accident that most of those emigrating to America in the 19th century identified with the Democratic Party. We are a heterogeneous party made up of Americans of diverse backgrounds.

　　We believe that the people are the source of all governmental power; that the authority of the people is to be extended, not restricted.

　　This can be accomplished only by providing each citizen with every opportunity to participate in the management of the government. They must have that, we believe. We believe that the government which represents the authority of all the people, not just one interest group, but all the people, has an obligation to actively -- underscore actively -- seek to remove those obstacles which would block individual achievement -- obstacles emanating from race, sex, economic condition. The government must remove them, seek to remove them.

　　We are a party of innovation. We do not reject our traditions, but we are willing to adapt to changing circumstances, when change we must. We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. We have a positive vision of the future founded on the belief that the gap between the promise and reality of America can one day be finally closed.

　　We believe that.

　　This, my friends, is the bedrock of our concept of governing. This is a part of the reason why Americans have turned to the Democratic Party. These are the foundations upon which a national community can be built. Let's all understand that these guiding principles cannot be discarded for short-term political gains. They represent what this country is all about. They are indigenous to the American idea. And these are principles which are not negotiable.

　　In other times, I could stand here and give this kind of exposition on the beliefs of the Democratic Party and that would be enough. But today that is not enough. People want more. That is not sufficient reason for the majority of the people of this country to vote Democratic. We have made mistakes. We realize that. In our haste to do all things for all people, we did not foresee the full consequences of our actions. And when the people raised their voices, we didn't hear. But our deafness was only a temporary condition, and not an irreversible condition.

　　Even as I stand here and admit that we have made mistakes, I still believe that as the people of America sit in judgment on each party, they will recognize that our mistakes were mistakes of the heart. They'll recognize that.

　　And now we must look to the future. Let us heed the voice of the people and recognize their common sense. If we do not, we not only blaspheme our political heritage, we ignore the common ties that bind all Americans. Many fear the future. Many are distrustful of their leaders, and believe that their voices are never heard. Many seek only to satisfy their private work wants. To satisfy their private interests. But this is the great danger America faces. That we will cease to be one nation and become instead a collection of interest groups: city against suburb, region against region, individual against individual. Each seeking to satisfy private wants. If that happens, who then will speak for America? Who then will speak for the common good?

　　This is the question which must be answered in 1976.

　　Are we to be one people bound together by common spirit, sharing in a common endeavor; or will we become a divided nation? For all of its uncertainty, we cannot flee the future. We must not become the new Puritans and reject our society. We must address and master the future together. It can be done if we restore the belief that we share a sense of national community, that we share a common national endeavor. It can be done.

　　There is no executive order; there is no law that can require the American people to form a national community. This we must do as individuals, and if we do it as individuals, there is no President of the United States who can veto that decision.

　　As a first step, we must restore our belief in ourselves. We are a generous people so why can't we be generous with each other? We need to take to heart the words spoken by Thomas Jefferson:

　　"Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life are but dreary things."

　　A nation is formed by the willingness of each of us to share in the responsibility for upholding the common good. A government is invigorated when each of us is willing to participate in shaping the future of this nation. In this election year we must define the common good and begin again to shape a common future. Let each person do his or her part. If one citizen is unwilling to participate, all of us are going to suffer. For the American idea, though it is shared by all of us, is realized in each one of us.

　　And now, what are those of us who are elected public officials supposed to do? We call ourselves public servants but I'll tell you this: We as public servants must set an example for the rest of the nation. It is hypocritical for the public official to admonish and exhort the people to uphold the common good if we are derelict in upholding the common good. More is required of public officials than slogans and handshakes and press releases. More is required. We must hold ourselves strictly accountable. We must provide the people with a vision of the future.

　　If we promise as public officials, we must deliver. If we as public officials propose, we must produce. If we say to the American people it is time for you to be sacrificial; sacrifice. If the public official says that, we [public officials] must be the first to give. We must be. And again, if we make mistakes, we must be willing to admit them. We have to do that. What we have to do is strike a balance between the idea that government should do everything and that idea, the belief, that government ought to do nothing. Strike a balance. Let there be no illusions about the difficulty of forming this kind of a national community. It's tough, difficult, not easy. But a spirit of harmony will survive in America only if each of us remembers that we share a common destiny. If each of us remembers when self-interest and bitterness seem to prevail that we share a common destiny.

　　I have confidence that we can form this kind of national community.

　　I have confidence that the Democratic Party can lead the way.

　　I have that confidence.

　　We cannot improve on the system of government handed down to us by the founders of the Republic. There is no way to improve upon that. But what we can do is to find new ways to implement that system and realize our destiny.

　　Now, I began this speech by commenting to you on the uniqueness of a Barbara Jordan making a keynote address. Well I am going to close my speech by quoting a Republican President and I ask you that as you listen to these words of Abraham Lincoln, relate them to the concept of a national community in which every last one of us participates:

　　"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of Democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no Democracy."

　　Thank you.

篇3："ATimeforChoosing"(aka"TheSpeech")

　　Ronald Reagan: "A Time for Choosing" (aka "The Speech")

　　Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan:

　　Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

　　I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."

　　But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

　　As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

　　Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

　　And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

　　This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

　　You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down -- [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

　　In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

　　Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

　　Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming -- that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.

　　Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

　　At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

　　Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

　　Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

　　They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

　　We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

　　But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

　　Now -- so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

　　But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.

　　Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything.

　　Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

　　Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

　　But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

　　A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?

　　Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

　　At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

　　In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?

　　I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

　　I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

　　No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So.governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.

　　Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.

　　Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

　　Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

　　But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

　　Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

　　Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that we're to choose just between two personalities.

　　Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

　　This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

　　An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

　　During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.

　　Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

　　We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

　　Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

　　You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

　　You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

　　You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

　　We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

　　We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

　　Thank you very much.

篇4：抓住"四点"推动谈心活动扎实开展

　　采油三厂党委抓住“四点” 推动谈心活动扎实开展

　　采油三厂党委在先进性教育活动分析评议阶段，以“四点”为切入推进谈心活动，着力提高谈心效果，初步达到了化解矛盾、增进团结、解决问题、促进工作的目的。

　　调研报告工作汇报规章制度事迹材料心得体会领导讲话会议发言稿庆典致辞竞聘演讲稿晚会主持词

　　挖掘矛盾点。谈心首先在于把问题找准、找实，才能有的放矢。进入分析评议阶段后，该厂各单位逐一制订了征求意见实施方案，采取召开座谈会、书面征求、个别访谈等形式，敞开大门，主动征求意见。党委领导班子成员和各基层单位党政领导率先垂范，带头听取党员、群众的意见和建议，厂党委和基层党组织共召开的意见征集座谈会20余次，收集对厂领导班子和领导干部个人的意见和建议共计81条。厂党委还专门设置征求意见箱、开通电子邮箱，充分反映群众关心的热点和难点问题，使谈心目标更加具体。

　　找准定位点。针对收集到的意见建议，该厂按照共性问题和个性问题进行了归类梳理，集中形成了对领导班子和领导班子成员有关班子建设、生产经营管理、队伍管理、综合治理、职工群众文化生活等5个方面的意见和建议。对梳理出的问题和意见建议，该厂党委进行认真分析研究，并提出解决举措，从而找到了谈心的切入点。该厂党委还要求基层党组织在征求意见和谈心之前，要求每名党员真正找准问题的思想根源，敞开思想，不怕丑、不怕痛、不遮掩、不躲躲闪闪，真正反映出个人的实际思想，特别是要求每名党员和干部对征求的意见主动对号“入座”，对自己画像，自我进行分析解剖，客观公正的评价自己，使每名同志在谈心前做到了心中有数。同时，也对谈心的对象也进行画像，搞清谈心对象的思想底数，把握具体特点，带着具体问题去开展谈心活动，以能够迅速形成共识，确保达到预期的效果。

　　取得沟通点。谈心活动开始后，该厂严格按照要求采取“一对一”的谈心方式，领导班子成员之间、党员和党员之间、党员和群众之间灵活运用上班面谈、休息日访谈、散步交流等方法，广泛开展了上下谈心、左右谈心、内外谈心活动。对群众意见比较多的同志，实实在在地点明问题，做好他们的思想政治工作，加强启发引导，理顺情绪，帮助他们放下包袱、轻装上阵。通过互相谈心，党员领导干部和普通党员之间、党员之间和党员与群众之间实现了真诚交流，营造了坦诚相见、真帮互助的良好氛围，为在下一步在民主生活会上有效开展批评和自我批评争取了主动。

　　激起共鸣点。在谈心过程中，采油三厂党委普遍把“与人为善、实事求是”作为谈心活动的出发点之一，除了在歪风邪气、大是大非面前不搞“好人主义”、认真进行批评外，对上下级之间、同事之间一些个性上的问题、无足轻重的矛盾、无可厚非的过失、无碍大局的缺点和不足，将心比心，善意地给予指正、予以帮助。通过互相之间真诚谈心交心，沟通互动更加畅通，激起了大家思想的共鸣，拉近了上下级之间的距离，消除了同事之间的矛盾摩擦，多了一份理解，多了一份关爱，彼此之间的感情更加和谐，在全厂形成了团结一致，干事创业的良好氛围，有力推动了各项工作开展。

篇5：“民主法治示范村”创建基本标准

　　一、村级组织机构健全，并能有效发挥作用

　　1、以村党组织为核心的村级组织健全配套。按照《中国共产党党章》和《中国共产农村基层组织工作条例》规定，村党组织健全，并成为“五个好”的村党组织。实施《中华人民共和国村民委员会组织法》，建立健全包括村民委员会、村民小组及村民委员会的下属单位在内的村民自治组织体系。按照有关规定，共青团、妇女、民兵等组织健全。

　　2、各村级组织依法组成，其成员符合法律法规规定的条件。

　　3、村民委员会和村经济合作社能自觉接受村党组织的领导，村民委员会依法开展村民自治工作，村经济合作社依法管理和发展村级经济工作。

　　4、村民委员会和村经济合作社能认真履行法律法规赋予的各项职责，在乡镇人民政府的指导下，协助乡镇人民政府积极开展工作。

　　5、各村级组织有健全的工作制度，并能认真执行各项制度。廉洁奉公，热心为村民服务。

　　二、有完善的民主选举程序，村级民主选举制度健全

　　1、选举工作制度健全，符合法律法规的规定，体现公平、公开、公正的原则。

　　2、村民能充分行使法律法规和政策赋予的民主权利，不受非法干涉。

　　3、选举程序规范、合法、公开，并严格执行，选举秩序良好。

　　4、选举结果群众满意，真正做到了把那些坚持依法办事、廉洁奉公、公道正派、勤劳实干、热心为村民服务的人选进村级组织。

　　5、村民委员会任期届满，按期进行换届选举，无未经批准自行提前或延期换届选举的行为。

　　6、村民委员会的主任、副主任和委员由村民直接选举产生。村民代表由村民推选产生。设有村民小组的村，村民小组长由村民小组会议推选。无任何组织或个人指定、委派或撤换村民委员会成员、村民代表和村民小组长的行为。

　　7、对村民委员会成员的罢免，依法定程序和条件实施。

　　三、有完善的民主议事程序，村级民主决策制度健全

　　1、把坚持党的领导、依法办事、人民当家作主有机统一起来。建立健全村级事务，特别是村级重大事务民主决策制度。决策过程中，坚持少数服从多数的原则。

　　2、村民会议和村民代表会议依法组成，制度健全，并能较好地发挥决策作用。

　　3、村级重大事务经村党组织、村民委员会讨论形成统一意见后，再交由村民(代表)会议讨论决定。

　　4、村级重大事务的范围明确。主要是涉及农村经济、政治、文化和社会发展的重大事项，尤其是与村民切身利益相关的事项，并能根据当地经济社会的发展变化，及时加以调整。

　　5、村级重大事务的决策程序明确。作出的决议、决定符合法律法规和政策的规定，并能严格执行。

　　四、有完善的村民自治章程，村级民主管理制度健全

　　1、依法制定村民自治章程和村规民约，内容全面、合法，没有与国家法律、法规和政策相抵触，不含有侵犯村民合法权利的内容，并能根据经济、社会发展实际及时进行修改和调整。

　　2、严格执行以村民自治章程和村规民约为基础的各项民主管理制度，民主渠道畅通。

　　3、村级各级组织之间关系明确，工作协调。村级组织自我管理、自我教育、自我服务的自治功能发挥较好。

　　4、能组织群众参与民主管理公共事务。村民委员会每年至少召开一次村民会议，并有不少于半数的村民参加；每季度至少应当召开一次村民代表会议，并有不少于三分之二的村民代表参加。123

　　5、村委会印章的制发使用和管理符合国家的有关规定。印章保管人的确定，须经村民会议或村民代表会议讨论决定。建立印章使用的审批、登记和备案制度。村委会换届后能及时办好移交手续。

　　五、有完善的公开办事程序，村级民主监督制度健全

　　1、村级干部的职责、权限、工作程序和行为规范公开化，能自觉接受群众的监督。

　　2、建立健全完善的村干部管理制度，包括民主评议干部制度、离任审计制度、过失责任追究赔偿制度、干部引咎辞职制度和责令辞职制度。

　　3、建立健全规范的村务、财务公开制度。凡村级重大事项和与村民密切相关的事项，都按时公开。

　　（1）村务公开的范围应当包括：村民会议或者村民代表会议讨论决定事项的实施情况；村财务收支情况；村土地、集体企业和财产的承包、经营和租赁情况；征用土地各项补偿费使用情况；宅基地使用审批情况；村民承担费用和劳务情况；水、电等费用的收支情况；优抚、救灾救济款物的发放情况；国家计划生育政策的执行情况；村干部年度工作目标执行情况；村公共设施建设项目的投资、承发包情况；税费收缴情况；招待费用支出情况；村干部报酬与补贴情况，以及涉及村民利益普遍关心的和群众要求公开的其他事项。

　　（2）村务、财务公开的时间应当固定统一，做到定期、及时公开，村财务一般每季度公开一次，有条件的村可每月公开。重大事项随时公开。时限长的事项，可以每完成一个阶段，公布一次。

　　（3）村务、财务公开的形式应当方便村民实行民主监督，做到场所固定，面向全体村民。一般通过村务、财务公开栏进行公开，必要时可通过村民(社员)会议、广播宣讲进行公开。

　　4、建立健全规范的村级财务管理制度。村级财务要全面实行委托代理制，纳入电算化管理，按照《会计法》和《村集体经济组织财务制度》、《村集体经济组织会计制度》要求，做到账簿健全，科目完整，管理严格，手续完备。村级日常开支的审批程序明确、规范，并能严格执行。

　　5、推行村级财务预决算制度，并向社员(代表)会议或村民(代表)会议报告预算方案和执行情况及结果。

　　6、建立村级民主理财小组。定期对村级项目的经营情况、财务收支情况进行审核，提出意见和建议。

　　7、建立村级民主监督小组。群众满意率达90%以上。没有发生因村级账目不清，村务、财务不公开而引发的群体性上访案件。

　　六、深入开展法制宣传教育，做到有组织、有计划、有人员、有阵地、有措施

　　1、法制宣传教育工作能紧紧围绕党和国家的中心工作和农村改革、发展、稳定的实际，按照“四五”普法规划的总体目标和要求实施。

　　2、成立法制宣传教育领导机构，有专人负责。村级有法制宣讲组，村民小组有法制宣讲员。

　　3、法制宣传教育内容全

　　面，能结合农村实际学习宣传与农民生产和生活密切相关的法律法规。

　　4、法制宣传教育形式多样，有固定的宣传阵地。

　　5、法制宣传教育做到与依法治理实践相结合，与思想道德教育相结合。村民学法、懂法、守法、用法，法律素质不断增强。村干部遵纪守法，依法办事，农村法治化管理水平逐步提高。

　　七、积极开展农村法律服务，农民能够依法维护自身的合法权益123

　　1、基层组织能正确引导农村法律服务工作的开展，采取有力措施，帮助、指导农民依法维护自身的合法权益。

　　2、农民具有依法维权的意识，懂得寻求法律帮助的渠道。

　　八、社会治安综合治理规范化、制度化，农村治安稳定

　　1、治保、调解组织体系完善，人员配备到位，工作制度健全，能充分发挥作用。

　　2、村民遵纪守法。连续三年无重大刑事案件，无群体性上访事件，无违反计划生育的行为，无失学儿童以及无其他严重违反法律法规的行为。

　　3、连续三年无因民间纠纷激化转化为刑事案件、无因民间纠纷引起的非正常死亡。民间纠纷调解率和调解成功率不低于本乡（镇）的平均水平，做到一般民间纠纷不出村。

　　4、安置帮教工作到位，连续三年无归正人员重新犯罪。

　　5、对本村的暂住人口管理有效，教育有方，其合法权益得到平等的保护，违法犯罪占暂住人口总数比例低于本乡（镇）的平均水平。

　　九、农村经济发展、社会公益事业不断发展，村民安居乐业，物质文明、政治文明、精神文明协调发展

　　1、村级集体经济持续性增长，农民收入逐年递增。

　　2、干群关系融洽，政令畅通。

　　3、基础建设得到加强，村风村貌显著改变

123

篇6：LyndonBainesJohnson:"LetUsContinue"

　　Lyndon Baines Johnson: "Let Us Continue"

　　Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, Members of the House, Members of the Senate, my fellow Americans:

　　All I have I would have given gladly not to be standing here today.

　　The greatest leader of our time has been struck down by the foulest deed of our time. Today, John Fitzgerald Kennedy lives on in the immortal words and works that he left behind. He lives on in the mind and memories of mankind. He lives on in the hearts of his countrymen. No words are sad enough to express our sense of loss. No words are strong enough to express our determination to continue the forward thrust of America that he began.

　　The dream of conquering the vastness of space, the dream of partnership across the Atlantic -- and across the Pacific as well -- the dream of a Peace Corps in less developed nations, the dream of education for all of our children, the dream of jobs for all who seek them and need them, the dream of care for our elderly, the dream of an all-out attack on mental illness, and above all, the dream of equal rights for all Americans, whatever their race or color. These and other American dreams have been vitalized by his drive and by his dedication. And now the ideas and the ideals which he so nobly represented must and will be translated into effective action.

　　Under John Kennedy's leadership, this nation has demonstrated that it has the courage to seek peace, and it has the fortitude to risk war. We have proved that we are a good and reliable friend to those who seek peace and freedom. We have shown that we can also be a formidable foe to those who reject the path of peace and those who seek to impose upon us or our allies the yoke of tyranny. This nation will keep its commitments from South Vietnam to West Berlin. We will be unceasing in the search for peace, resourceful in our pursuit of areas of agreement -- even with those with whom we differ -- and generous and loyal to those who join with us in common cause.

　　In this age when there can be no losers in peace and no victors in war, we must recognize the obligation to match national strength with national restraint. We must be prepared at one and the same time for both the confrontation of power and the limitation of power. We must be ready to defend the national interest and to negotiate the common interest. This is the path that we shall continue to pursue. Those who test our courage will find it strong, and those who seek our friendship will find it honorable. We will demonstrate anew that the strong can be just in the use of strength, and the just can be strong in the defense of justice.

　　And let all know we will extend no special privilege and impose no persecution. We will carry on the fight against poverty, and misery, and disease, and ignorance, in other lands and in our own. We will serve all the nation, not one section or one sector, or one group, but all Americans.

　　These are the United States: A united people with a united purpose.

　　Our American unity does not depend upon unanimity. We have differences; but now, as in the past, we can derive from those differences strength, not weakness, wisdom, not despair. Both as a people and a government, we can unite upon a program, a program which is wise and just, enlightened and constructive.

　　For 32 years Capitol Hill has been my home. I have shared many moments of pride with you, pride in the ability of the Congress of the United States to act, to meet any crisis, to distill from our differences strong programs of national action. An assassin's bullet has thrust upon me the awesome burden of the Presidency. I am here today to say I need your help. I cannot bear this burden alone. I need the help of all Americans, and all America.

　　This nation has experienced a profound shock, and in this critical moment, it is our duty, yours and mine, as the Government of the United States, to do away with uncertainty and doubt and delay, and to show that we are capable of decisive action; that from the brutal loss of our leader we will derive not weakness, but strength; that we can and will act and act now.

　　From this chamber of representative government, let all the world know and none misunderstand that I rededicate this Government to the unswerving support of the United Nations, to the honorable and determined execution of our commitments to our allies, to the maintenance of military strength second to none, to the defense of the strength and the stability of the dollar, to the expansion of our foreign trade, to the reinforcement of our programs of mutual assistance and cooperation in Asia and Africa, and to our Alliance for Progress in this hemisphere.

　　On the 20th day of January, in 19 and 61, John F. Kennedy told his countrymen that our national work would not be finished "in the first thousand days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet." "But," he said, "let us begin."

　　Today in this moment of new resolve, I would say to all my fellow Americans, let us continue.

　　This is our challenge -- not to hesitate, not to pause, not to turn about and linger over this evil moment, but to continue on our course so that we may fulfill the destiny that history has set for us.

　　Our most immediate tasks are here on this Hill. First, no memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the Civil Rights Bill for which he fought so long. We have talked long enough in this country about equal rights. We have talked for a hundred years or more. It is time now to write the next chapter, and to write it in the books of law. I urge you again, as I did in 19 and 57 and again in 19 and 60, to enact a civil rights law so that we can move forward to eliminate from this nation every trace of discrimination and oppression that is based upon race or color. There could be no greater source of strength to this nation both at home and abroad.

　　And second, no act of ours could more fittingly continue the work of President Kennedy than the early passage of the tax bill for which he fought all this long year. This is a bill designed to increase our national income and Federal revenues, and to provide insurance against recession. That bill, if passed without delay, means more security for those now working, more jobs for those now without them, and more incentive for our economy.

　　In short, this is no time for delay. It is a time for action -- strong, forward-looking action on the pending education bills to help bring the light of learning to every home and hamlet in America; strong, forward-looking action on youth employment opportunities; strong, forward-looking action on the pending foreign aid bill, making clear that we are not forfeiting our responsibilities to this hemisphere or to the world, nor erasing Executive flexibility in the conduct of our foreign affairs; and strong, prompt, and forward-looking action on the remaining appropriation bills.

　　In this new spirit of action, the Congress can expect the full cooperation and support of the executive branch. And, in particular, I pledge that the expenditures of your Government will be administered with the utmost thrift and frugality. I will insist that the Government get a dollar's value for a dollar spent. The Government will set an example of prudence and economy.

　　This does not mean that we will not meet our unfilled needs or that we will not honor our commitments. We will do both.

　　As one who has long served in both Houses of the Congress, I firmly believe in the independence and the integrity of the legislative branch. And I promise you that I shall always respect this. It is deep in the marrow of my bones. With equal firmness, I believe in the capacity and I believe in the ability of the Congress, despite the divisions of opinions which characterize our nation, to act -- to act wisely, to act vigorously, to act speedily when the need arises.

　　The need is here. The need is now. I ask your help.

　　We meet in grief, but let us also meet in renewed dedication and renewed vigor. Let us meet in action, in tolerance, and in mutual understanding.

　　John Kennedy's death commands what his life conveyed -- that America must move forward.

　　The time has come for Americans of all races and creeds and political beliefs to understand and to respect one another. So let us put an end to the teaching and the preaching of hate and evil and violence. Let us turn away from the fanatics of the far left and the far right, from the apostles of bitterness and bigotry, from those defiant of law, and those who pour venom into our nation's bloodstream.

　　I profoundly hope that the tragedy and the torment of these terrible days will bind us together in new fellowship, making us one people in our hour of sorrow.

　　So let us here highly resolve that John Fitzgerald Kennedy did not live or die in vain.

　　And on this Thanksgiving eve, as we gather together to ask the Lord's blessing, and give Him our thanks, let us unite in those familiar and cherished words:

　　America, America,

　　God shed His grace on thee,

　　And crown thy good

　　With brotherhood

　　From sea to shining sea.

来源: https://www.512406.cn/articles/em28.html