Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Forwarned

Second McCain - Obama debate, October 7, 2008. You can't say we weren't warned...

Senator Barack Obama:

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we h...ave to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

Senator John McCain:

You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say walk softly -- talk softly, but carry a big stick. Sen. Obama likes to talk loudly.

In fact, he said he wants to announce that he's going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable.

[Snip]

When you announce that you're going to launch an attack into another country, it's pretty obvious that you have the effect that it had in Pakistan: It turns public opinion against us.

[Snip]

And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick.


Full Transcript

Risk V

"The idea that life can ever be without risk is an invitation to self-selected enslavement."
--Claudia Woodward-Rice

Monday, November 29, 2010

Manners

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon"

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Ideas

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
--John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) 35th US President

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Free

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." --Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942

Friday, November 26, 2010

Prospects

"As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few years farther into life; that eminence will present a prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight."
--Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Thanksgiving III

"Thanksgiving is nothing but a toast to genocide."
--Stephen Evans

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Primal

"Part of understanding the creative urge is understanding that it's primal. Wanting to change the world is not a noble calling, it's a primal calling."
--Hugh Macleod, How To Be Creative: 17. Merit can be bought. Passion can't. , 08-22-04

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Justice

"Justice in the hands of the powerful is merely a governing system like any other. Why call it justice? Let us rather call it injustice, but of a sly effective order, based entirely on cruel knowledge of the resistance of the weak, their capacity for pain, humiliation and misery."
--Georges Bernanos (1888-1948)
Source: in Diary of a Country Priest

Monday, November 22, 2010

Greatest II

"It was the greatest hoax that has ever perpetrated"
--Richard M. Nixon, 37th US President, on the Warren Commission Report

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Enslave

"To become a popular religion, it is only necessary for a superstition to enslave a philosophy."
--Dean William R. Inge

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Options

"Under every government the dernier [Fr. last, or final] resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people... entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens."
--A Framer (Anonymous 'framer' of the US Constitution)
Source: Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791

Friday, November 19, 2010

"Liberal" and "Progressive" Disconnect


From Mitch Stewart, BarackObama.com:

President Obama has made it clear: He wants Congress to deliver the DREAM Act to his desk before the year is out.

This important step forward on immigration reform would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented youth willing to work for a college degree or serve in our armed forces -- people who are Americans in every way but their legal status.

________________________________________

Why do "liberals" and "progressives" favor feeding the war machine by giving it more human beings to maim and kill, to be maimed and killed, all to support the interests of the international oil companies?

Do we really want to encourage the immigration of people who had to go out and commit murders for multinational corporations in order to become citizens?

And how long to the "liberals" and "progressives" think it will be before those killing machines are turned on the American people?

Facilitating the turning of the US into a complete Police State is "reform"?

TLC

Contest

I lost the trivia contest at the church social last night by one point.
The last question was, "Where do most women have curly hair?
Apparently the correct answer is: Africa.
I've been asked to find another place to worship.
--Author unknown

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Bad

"It is bad luck to be superstitious." --Andrew W. Mathis

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Alive

When you know who you are;
when your mission is clear and you
burn with the inner fire of unbreakable will;
no cold can touch your heart;
no deluge can dampen your purpose.
You know that you are alive.
--Chief Seattle

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Armies

"Governments need armies to protect them against their enslaved and oppressed subjects." --Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi (1828-1910) Russian writer, 1893

Monday, November 15, 2010

Herb

"Herb masks the fascism, until the DEA kicks in the door for possession of a product imported by the CIA"
--TLC

Sunday, November 14, 2010

OMG


Saturday, November 13, 2010

Values

"The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.

Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."

--Zbigniew Brezhinsky
National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter and advisor to 4 other presidents, Executive Director of Trilateral Commission
Source: from his book, "Between Two Ages"

Friday, November 12, 2010

Perpetual III

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -­ kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervour ­- with the cry of grave national emergency. Always, there has been some terrible evil at home, or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it."
--General Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964)
WWII Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific, Supreme United Nations Commander
Source: Whan, ed. "A Soldier Speaks: Public Papers and Speeches of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur," (1965); Nation, August 17, 1957

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Liberty VI

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
--George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) Irish comic dramatist
Source: Maxims for Revolutionists, 1912

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Creeping

"Ask the American public if they want an FBI wiretap and they'll say, 'No.' If you ask them do they want a feature on their phone that helps the FBI find their missing child they’ll say, 'Yes.'" --Louis Freeh (1950- ), FBI Director (1993-2001) Source: Testimony on the Digital Telephony bill, September 13, 1994

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Three II

"To solve any problem, here are three questions to ask yourself: First, what could I do? Second, what could I read? And third, who could I ask?" --Jim Rohn: Motivational speaker, author

Monday, November 08, 2010

Standards II

"The test for whether one is living in a police state is that those who are charged with enforcing the law are allowed to break the laws with impunity."
--Jon Roland

Sunday, November 07, 2010

Deductible

"If you attend a church where your donations are tax-deductible, then you are not part of a bona-fide religion. Rather, you are attending a performance by a government-subsidized entity that, in exchange for tax deductibility of your payment and non-taxation of its income, tells you only what the government wants it to say, or will allow it to say".
--TLC

Saturday, November 06, 2010

Limits IV

"Interestingly, koi, when put in a fish bowl, will only grow up to three inches. When this same fish is placed in a large tank, it will grow to about nine inches long. In a pond koi can reach lengths of eighteen inches. Amazingly, when placed in a lake, koi can grow to three feet long. The metaphor is obvious. You are limited by how you see the world."
--Vince Poscente

Friday, November 05, 2010

Test


Thursday, November 04, 2010

Speak

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
--John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) English philosopher and economist
Source: On Liberty, 1859

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Named

"I wouldn't call it fascism exactly, but a political system nominally controlled by an irresponsible, dumbed-down electorate who are manipulated by dishonest, cynical, controlled mass media that dispense the propaganda of a corrupt political establishment can hardly be described as democracy either." --Edward Zehr (1936-2001) Columnist

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Vote

Yes children, the DemocRATS love you. That's why Obama's using predator drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, to blow up civilians and citizens who dare to defend their country against colonial invaders, so that your grandchildren will be fighting wars without end that keep the military-industrial complex fat and happy, and make the US a third-world nation supplying grunt labor to China. And why the DemocRATS in CONgress are doing nothing to stop Obama, just as they did nothing to stop Bu$h ("Impeachment is off the table") who was working toward the same goals.

Those paying attention know that George Bush was part-and-parcel of the 9/11 attacks on America. But is it any better that BP announced it would attack America with millions of gallons of cancerous/otherwise toxic "dispersants", Barack Obama did nothing, and BP carried out its attack? And likewise, neither of the two supposedly different "political parties" did anything before or after the fact.

So much of the fearmongering from the "left"--and the same thing is happening on the "right"--focuses on some of the nutcases and Brownshirts running for office, while completely ignoring the worthlessness, indeed the similarity in results, from the corporate DemocRATS. The best example of this is Nevada. It's easy to beat up on Sharon Angle, Harry Reid couldn't have picked a better "opponent"--yet Reid is so deserving of permanent retirement, let him go formally work for the special interests he has helped for all these years. Pity Alaska, with it's main "choices" being Joe "Jackboot" Miller and Lisa "What's-She-On" Murkowski"

But do go out and vote, just find a third-party to vote for (unless one of the candidates, like Meg Whitman, is simply too vile to risk). Write-In someone in your community that you would actually *support* being in office. Write in Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul. Hell, if all else fails, wherever you are, write-in Terry Lee Clark of Arcata, California. But don't stay home and do nothing, go forth and at least start doing something. With limited exceptions like Whitman/Brown, stop voting for the lesser of evils, because you always end up supporting evil. Stop "choosing" between Hitler and Mussolini, because either way you get the same thing. The game is rigged, the cards are marked. As I often say, "When you don't like the way the game is going, change the rules".

Remember the Declaration Of Independence and its reference to the "consent of the governed"? It's time to withdraw that consent!

And if you went to public schools or otherwise never gained an appreciation for the ACTUAL eternal struggle that maintaining a Constitutional Republic requires, get a copy of Naomi Wolf's excellent "Give Me Liberty: A Handbook For American Revolutionaries".

Then start looking for people--perhaps yourself--to run for office that actually have integrity.

TLC

Monday, November 01, 2010

Remembering Theodore Sorensen

Theodore Sorensen, May 8, 1928 - October 31, 2010

Not just a "speechwriter", Sorensen was the heart of the Kennedy Administration, who brought out the best in President Kennedy and sought to bring out the best in America. Theirs was truly a collaborative effort, akin to Lennon & McCartney.

The best example of Sorensen's work is President Kennedy's American University speech, which sealed President Kennedy's fate. But as many have said in various ways, you can't kill an idea, and President Kennedy's--and Ted Sorensen's--words live on, with a far greater legacy than we find with most officeholders today since the murder of Paul Wellstone.

The best way to appreciate the American University speech is by downloading it and burning it onto a CD. As with only a few other great speeches, every time you listen to it you can find a different emphasis than you did when you listened to it before.

The speech can be listened to/downloaded at HERE.

TLC
__________________________________

Commencement Address at American University
President John F. Kennedy
Washington, D.C.
June 10, 1963

President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending night law school, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst's enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and the conduct of the public's business. By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the Nation deserve the Nation's thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating.

Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.

"There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John Masefield in his tribute to English universities--and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the university, he said, because it was "a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see."

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."

Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists' interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy--or of a collective death-wish for the world.

To secure these ends, America's weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self- restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.

For we can seek a relaxation of tension without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people--but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.

Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system--a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.

At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others--by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.

Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge

Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope-- and the purpose of allied policies--to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.

This will require a new effort to achieve world law--a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other's actions which might occur at a time of crisis.

We have also been talking in Geneva about the other first-step measures of arms control designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament-- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920's. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this effort--to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.

The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security--it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.

I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.

First: Chairman khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history--but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.

Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.

Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives--as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.

But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because the freedom is incomplete.

It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government--local, State, and National--to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land.

All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's ways please the Lord," the Scriptures tell us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights--the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation--the right to breathe air as nature provided it--the right of future generations to a healthy existence?

While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can--if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers--offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.

Source: JFK Library

Labels

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
--Abraham Lincoln