有趣的世界名人故事演講稿
在世界上很多有名的名人進(jìn)行的演講對(duì)于聽眾有著不可磨滅的影響。下面是百分網(wǎng)小編為你整理的世界名人演講100篇內(nèi)容，歡迎參考閱讀。
世界名人演講100篇篇一
這次戰(zhàn)役盡管我們失利，但我們決不投降，決不屈服，我們將戰(zhàn)斗到底。
我們必須非常慎重，不要把這次援救說成是勝利。戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)不是靠撤退贏得的。但是，在這次援救中卻蘊(yùn)藏著勝利，這一點(diǎn)應(yīng)當(dāng)注意到。這個(gè)勝利是空軍獲得的。歸來的許許多多士兵未曾見到過我們空軍的行動(dòng)，他們看到的只是逃脫我們空軍掩護(hù)性攻擊的敵人轟炸機(jī)。他們低估了我們空軍的成就。關(guān)于這件事，其理由就在這里。我一定要把這件事告訴你們。
這是英國(guó)和德國(guó)空軍實(shí)力的一次重大考驗(yàn)。德國(guó)空軍的目的是要是我們從海灘撤退成為不可能，并且要擊沉所有密集在那里數(shù)以千計(jì)的船只。除此之外，你們能想象出他們還有更大的目的嗎?除此而外，從整個(gè)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的目的來說，還有什么更大的`軍事重要性和軍事意義呢?他們?cè)σ愿�，但他們終于被擊退了;他們?cè)趫?zhí)行他們的任務(wù)中遭到挫敗。我們把陸軍撤退了，他們付出的代價(jià)，四倍于他們給我們?cè)斐傻膿p失......已經(jīng)證明，我們所有的各種類型的飛機(jī)和我們所有的飛行人員比他們現(xiàn)在面臨的敵人都要都好。
當(dāng)我們說在英倫三島上空抵御來自海外的襲擊將對(duì)我們更有好處時(shí)，我應(yīng)當(dāng)指出，我從這些事實(shí)里找到了一個(gè)可靠的論據(jù)，我們實(shí)際可行而有萬無一失的辦法就是根據(jù)這個(gè)論據(jù)想出來的。我對(duì)這些青年飛行員表示敬意。強(qiáng)大的法國(guó)陸軍當(dāng)時(shí)在幾千輛裝甲車的沖擊下大部分潰退了。難道不可以說，文明事業(yè)本身將有數(shù)千飛行員的本領(lǐng)和忠誠(chéng)來保護(hù)嗎?
有人對(duì)我說，希特勒先生有一個(gè)入侵英倫三島的計(jì)劃，過去也時(shí)常有人這么盤算過。當(dāng)拿破侖帶著他的平底船和他的大軍在羅涅駐扎一年之后，有人對(duì)他說：“英國(guó)那邊有厲害的雜草。”自從英國(guó)遠(yuǎn)征軍歸來后，這種雜草當(dāng)然就更多了。
我們目前在英國(guó)本土擁有的兵力比我們?cè)谶@次大戰(zhàn)中或上次大戰(zhàn)中任何時(shí)候的兵力不知道要強(qiáng)大多少倍，這一事實(shí)當(dāng)然對(duì)抵抗入侵本土防御問題其有利作用。但不能這樣繼續(xù)下去。我們不能滿足于打防御戰(zhàn)，我們對(duì)我們的盟國(guó)負(fù)有義務(wù)，我們必須再重新組織在英勇的總司令戈特勛爵指揮下發(fā)動(dòng)英國(guó)遠(yuǎn)征軍。這一切都在進(jìn)行中，但是在這段期間，我們必須使我們本土上的防御達(dá)到這樣一種高度的組織水平，即只需要極少數(shù)的人便可以有效地保障安全，同時(shí)又可發(fā)揮攻勢(shì)活動(dòng)最大的潛力。我們現(xiàn)在正進(jìn)行著方面的部署。
這次戰(zhàn)役盡管我們失利，但我們決不投降，決不屈服，我們將戰(zhàn)斗到底，我
們將在法國(guó)戰(zhàn)斗，我們將在海洋上戰(zhàn)斗，我們將充滿信心在空中戰(zhàn)斗!我們將不惜任何代價(jià)保衛(wèi)本土，我們將在海灘上戰(zhàn)斗!在敵人登陸地點(diǎn)作戰(zhàn)!在田野和街頭作戰(zhàn)!在山區(qū)作戰(zhàn)!我們?nèi)魏螘r(shí)候都不會(huì)投降。即使我們這個(gè)島嶼或這個(gè)島嶼的大部分被敵人占領(lǐng)，并陷于饑餓之中，我們有英國(guó)艦隊(duì)武裝和保護(hù)的海外帝國(guó)也將繼續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗。
這次戰(zhàn)役我軍死傷戰(zhàn)士達(dá)三萬人，損失大炮近千門，海峽兩岸的港口也都落入希特勒手中，德國(guó)將向我國(guó)或法國(guó)發(fā)動(dòng)新的攻勢(shì)，已成為既定的事實(shí)。法蘭西和比利時(shí)境內(nèi)的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，已成為千古憾事。法軍的勢(shì)力被削弱，比利時(shí)的軍隊(duì)被殲滅，相比較而言，我軍的實(shí)力較為強(qiáng)大。現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)是檢驗(yàn)英德空軍實(shí)力的時(shí)候到了!撤退回國(guó)的士兵都認(rèn)為，我們的空軍未能發(fā)揮應(yīng)有的作用，但是，要知道我們已經(jīng)出動(dòng)了所有的飛機(jī)，用盡了所有的飛行員，以寡敵眾，絕非這一次!在今后的時(shí)間內(nèi)，我們可能還會(huì)遭受更嚴(yán)重的損失，曾經(jīng)讓我們深信不疑的防線，大部分被突破，很多有價(jià)值的工礦都已經(jīng)被敵人占領(lǐng)。從今后，我們要做好充分準(zhǔn)備，準(zhǔn)備承受更嚴(yán)重的困難。對(duì)于防御性戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，決不能認(rèn)為已經(jīng)定局!我們必須重建遠(yuǎn)征軍，我們必須重建遠(yuǎn)征軍，我們必須加強(qiáng)國(guó)防，必須減少國(guó)內(nèi)的防衛(wèi)兵力，增加海外的打擊力量。在這次大戰(zhàn)中，法蘭西和不列顛將聯(lián)合一起，決不屈服，決不投降!
世界名人演講100篇篇二
Good evening, my fellow Americans.
晚上好!親愛的同胞們：
Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world, the war in Vietnam.
今晚，我想與各位探討一個(gè)問題，這是所有美國(guó)人和全球無數(shù)人所深切關(guān)注的一個(gè)問題——越南戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。
I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.
我認(rèn)為，在關(guān)于越南戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)一事上，大家的觀點(diǎn)出現(xiàn)了嚴(yán)重分歧的一個(gè)重要原因在于：很多美國(guó)民眾對(duì)我們的政府所宣揚(yáng)的政策已失去了信心。當(dāng)前情況下，除非美國(guó)人民真正認(rèn)清政策本質(zhì)，否則不能也不應(yīng)該被要求去支持涉及戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)與和平等重大問題的政策。
Tonight, therefore, I would like to answer some of the questions that I know are on the minds of many of you listening to me.
所以，今晚，我想借此機(jī)會(huì)回答一些問題，一些縈繞在你們?cè)S多人腦海中的問題。
How and why did America get involved in Vietnam in the first place?
How has this administration changed the policy of the previous Administration?
What has really happened in the negotiations in Paris and on the battlefront in Vietnam?
What choices do we have if we are to end the war?
What are the prospects for peace?
Now let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20: The war had been going on for four years. Thirty-one thousand Americans had been killed in action. The training program for the South Vietnamese was beyond [behind] schedule. Five hundred and forty-thousand Americans were in Vietnam with no plans to reduce the number. No progress had been made at the negotiations in Paris and the United States had not put forth a comprehensive peace proposal.
The war was causing deep division at home and criticism from many of our friends, as well as our enemies, abroad.
In view of these circumstances, there were some who urged that I end the war at once by ordering the immediate withdrawal of all American forces. From a political standpoint, this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat, which would be the result of my action, on him -- and come out as the peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing Johnson’s war to become Nixon’s war.
But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my Administration, and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation, and on the future of peace and freedom in America, and in the world.
Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace. The question at issue is not whether Johnson’s war becomes Nixon’s war. The great question is: How can we win America’s peace?
Well, let us turn now to the fundamental issue: Why and how did the United States become involved in Vietnam in the first place? Fifteen years ago North Vietnam, with the logistical support of Communist China and the Soviet Union, launched a campaign to impose a Communist government on South Vietnam by instigating and supporting a revolution.
In response to the request of the Government of South Vietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a Communist takeover. Seven years ago, President Kennedy sent 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisers. Four years ago, President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam.
Now many believe that President Johnson’s decision to send American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong. And many others, I among them, have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted.
But the question facing us today is: Now that we are in the war, what is the best way to end it?
In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of all American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace.
For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before. They then murdered more than 50,000 people and hundreds of thousands more died in slave labor camps.
We saw a prelude of what would happen in South Vietnam when the Communists entered the city of Hue last year. During their brief rule there, there was a bloody reign of terror in which 3,000 civilians were clubbed, shot to death, and buried in mass graves.
With the sudden collapse of our support, these atrocities at Hue would become the nightmare of the entire nation and particularly for the million-and-a half Catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam when the Communists took over in the North.
For the United States this first defeat in our nation’s history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership not only in Asia but throughout the world.
Three American Presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in Vietnam and understood what had to be done.
In 1963 President Kennedy with his characteristic eloquence and clarity said,
"We want to see a stable Government there," carrying on the [a] struggle to maintain its national independence." We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam but Southeast Asia. So we’re going to stay there."
President Eisenhower and President Johnson expressed the same conclusion during their terms of office.
For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would be a disaster of immense magnitude. A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends. Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of worlds conquest. This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace -- in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere. Ultimately, this would cost more lives. It would not bring peace. It would bring more war.
For these reasons I rejected the recommendation that I should end the war by immediately withdrawing all of our forces. I chose instead to change American policy on both the negotiating front and the battle front in order to end the war fought on many fronts. I initiated a pursuit for peace on many fronts. In a television speech on May 14, in a speech before the United Nations, on a number of other occasions, I set forth our peace proposals in great detail.
We have offered the complete withdrawal of all outside forces within one year. We have proposed a cease fire under international supervision. We have offered free elections under international supervision with the Communists participating in the organization and conduct of the elections as an organized political force. And the Saigon government has pledged to accept the result of the election.
We have not put forth our proposals on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We have indicated that we’re willing to discuss the proposals that have been put forth by the other side. We have declared that anything is negotiable, except the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future.
At the Paris peace conference Ambassador Lodge has demonstrated our flexibility and good faith in 40 public meetings. Hanoi has refused even to discuss our proposals. They demand our unconditional acceptance of their terms which are that we withdraw all American forces immediately and unconditionally and that we overthrow the government of South Vietnam as we leave.
We have not limited our peace initiatives to public forums and public statements. I recognized in January that a long and bitter war like this usually cannot be settled in a public forum. That is why in addition to the public statements and negotiations, I have explored every possible private avenue that might lead to a settlement.
Tonight, I am taking the unprecedented step of disclosing to you some of our other initiatives for peace, initiatives we undertook privately and secretly because we thought we thereby might open a door which publicly would be closed.
I did not wait for my inauguration to begin my quest for peace. Soon after my election, through an individual who was directly in contact on a personal basis with the leaders of North Vietnam, I made two private offers for a rapid, comprehensive settlement. Hanoi’s replies called in effect for our surrender before negotiations. Since the Soviet Union furnishes most of the military equipment for North Vietnam, Secretary of State Rogers, my assistant for national security affairs, Dr. Kissinger, Ambassador Lodge and I personally have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the Soviet Government to enlist their assistance in getting meaningful negotiations started. In addition, we have had extended discussions directed toward that same end with representatives of other governments which have diplomatic relations with North Vietnam.
None of these initiatives have to date produced results. In mid-July I became convinced that it was necessary to make a major move to break the deadlock in the Paris talks. I spoke directly in this office, where I’m now sitting, with an individual who had known Ho Chi Minh on a personal basis for 25 years. Through him I sent a letter to Ho Chi Minh. I did this outside of the usual diplomatic channels with the hope that with the necessity of making statements for propaganda removed, there might be constructive progress toward bringing the war to an end.
Let me read from that letter to you now:
I realize that it is difficult to communicate meaningfully across the gulf of four years of war. But precisely because of this gulf I wanted to take this opportunity to reaffirm in all solemnity my desire to work for a just peace. I deeply believe that the war in Vietnam has gone on too long and delay in bringing it to an end can benefit no one, least of all the people of Vietnam. The time has come to move forward at the conference table toward an early resolution of this tragic war. You will find us forthcoming and open-minded in a common effort to bring the blessings of peace to the brave people of Vietnam. Let history record that at this critical juncture both sides turned their face toward peace rather than toward conflict and war."
I received Ho Chi Minh’s reply on August 30, three days before his death. It simply reiterated the public position North Vietnam had taken at Paris and flatly rejected my initiative. The full text of both letters is being released to the press.
In addition to the public meetings that I have referred to, Ambassador Lodge has met with Vietnam’s chief negotiator in Paris in 11 private sessions. And we have taken other significant initiatives which must remain secret to keep open some channels of communications which may still prove to be productive.
But the effect of all the public, private, and secret negotiations which have been undertaken since the bombing halt a year ago, and since this Administration came into office on January 20th, can be summed up in one sentence: No progress whatever has been made except agreement on the shape of the bargaining table.
Well, now, who’s at fault? It’s become clear that the obstacle in negotiating an end to the war is not the President of the United States. It is not the South Vietnamese Government. The obstacle is the other side’s absolute refusal to show the least willingness to join us in seeking a just peace. And it will not do so while it is convinced that all it has to do is to wait for our next concession, and our next concession after that one, until it gets everything it wants.
There can now be no longer any question that progress in negotiation depends only on Hanoi ’s deciding to negotiate -- to negotiate seriously. I realize that this report on our efforts on the diplomatic front is discouraging to the American people, but the American people are entitled to know the truth -- the bad news as well as the good news -- where the lives of our young men are involved.
Now let me turn, however, to a more encouraging report on another front. At the time we launched our search for peace, I recognized we might not succeed in bringing an end to the war through negotiations. I therefore put into effect another plan to bring peace -- a plan which will bring the war to an end regardless of what happens on the negotiating front. It is in line with the major shift in U. S. foreign policy which I described in my press conference at Guam on July 25. Let me briefly explain what has been described as the Nixon Doctrine -- a policy which not only will help end the war in Vietnam but which is an essential element of our program to prevent future Vietnams.
世界名人演講100篇篇三
When I came into your hall tonight, I thought of the last time I was in your city. Twenty-one years ago I came here with Susan B. Anthony, and we came for exactly the same purpose as that for which we are here tonight. Boys have been born since that time and have become voters, and the women are still trying to persuade American men to believe in the fundamental principles of democracy, and I never quite feel as if it was a fair field to argue this question with men, because in doing it you have to assume that a man who professes to believe in a Republican form of government does not believe in a Republican form of government, for the only thing that woman's enfranchisement means at all is that a government which claims to be a Republic should be a Republic, and not an aristocracy.
The difficulty with discussing this question with those who oppose us is that they make any number of arguments but none of them have anything to do with Woman's Suffrage; they always have something to do with something else, therefore the arguments which we have to make rarely ever have anything to do with the subject, because we have to answer our opponents who always escape the subject as far as possible in order to have any sort of reason in connection with what they say.
Now one of two things is true: either a Republic is a desirable form of government, or else it is not. If it is, then we should have it, if it is not then we ought not to pretend that we have it. We ought at least be true to our ideals, and the men of New York have for the first time in their lives, the rare opportunity on the second day of next November, of making the state truly a part of the Republic. It is the greatest opportunity which has ever come to the men of the state. They have never had so serious a problem to solve before, they will never have a more serious problem to solve in any future of our nation's life, and the thing that disturbs me more than anything else in connection with it is that so few people realize what a profound problem they have to solve on November 2. It is not merely a trifling matter; it is not a little thing that does not concern the state, it is the most vital problem we could have, and any man who goes to the polls on the second day of next November without thoroughly informing himself in regard to this subject is unworthy to be a citizen of this state, and unfit to cast a ballot.
If woman's suffrage is wrong, it is a great wrong; if it is right, it is a profound and fundamental principle, and we all know, if we know what a Republic is, that it is the fundamental principle upon which a Republic must rise. Let us see where we are as a people; how we act here and what we think we are. The difficulty with the men of this country is that they are so consistent in their inconsistency that they are not aware of having been inconsistent; because their consistency has been so continuous and their inconsistency so consecutive that it has never been broken, from the beginning of our Nation's life to the present time.
If we trace our history back we will find that from the very dawn of our existence as a people, men have been imbued with a spirit and a vision more lofty than they have been able to live; they have been led by visions of the sublimest truth, both in regard to religion and in regard to government that ever inspired the souls of men from the time the Puritans left the old world to come to this country, led by the Divine ideal which is the sublimest and the supremest ideal in religious freedom which men have ever known, the theory that a man has a right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, without the intervention of any other man or any other group of men. And it was this theory, this vision of the right of the human soul which led men first to the shores of this country.
Now, nobody can deny that they are sincere, honest, and earnest men. No one can deny that the Puritans were men of profound conviction, and yet these men who gave up everything in behalf of an ideal, hardly established their communities in this new country before they began to practice exactly the same sort of persecutions on other men which had been practiced upon them. They settled in their communities on the New England shores and when they formed their compacts by which they governed their local societies, they permitted no man to have a voice in the affairs unless he was a member of the church, and not a member of any church, but a member of the particular church which dominated the particular community in which he happened to be.
In Massachusetts they drove the Baptists down to Rhode Island; in Connecticut they drove the Presbyterians over to New Jersey; they burned the Quakers in Massachusetts and ducked the witches, and no colony, either Catholic or Protestant allowed a Jew to have a voice. And so a man must worship God according to the conscience of the particular community in which he was located, and yet they called that religious freedom, they were not able to live the ideal of religious liberty, and from that time to this the men of this government have been following along the same line of inconsistency, while they too have been following a vision of equal grandeur and power.
Never in the history of the world did it dawn upon the human mind as it dawned upon your ancestors, what it would mean for men to be free. They got the vision of a government in which the people would be the supreme power, and so inspired by this vision men wrote such documents as were went from the Massachusetts legislature, from the New York legislature and from the Pennsylvania group over to the Parliament of Great Britain, which rang with the profoundest measures of freedom and justice. They did not equivocate in a single word when they wrote the Declaration of Independence; no one can dream that these men had not got the sublimest ideal of democracy which had ever dawned upon the souls of men. But as soon as the war was over and our government was formed, instead of asking the question, who shall be the governing force in this great new Republic, when they brought those thirteen little territories together, they began to eliminate instead of include the men who should be the great governing forces, and they said, who shall have the voice in this great new Republic, and you would have supposed that such men as fought the Revolutionary War would have been able to answer that every man who has fought, everyone who has given up all he has and all he has been able to accumulate shall be free, it never entered their minds.
These excellent ancestors of yours had not been away from the old world long enough to realize that man is of more value than his purse, so they said every man who has an estate in the government shall have a voice; and they said what shall that estate be? And they answered that a man who had property valued at two hundred and fifty dollars will be able to cast a vote, and so they sang "The land of the free and the home of the brave." And they wrote into their Constitution, "All males who pay taxes on $250 shall cast a vote," and they called themselves a Republic, and we call ourselves a Republic, and they were not quite so much of a Republic that we should be called a Republic yet. We might call ourselves angels, but that wouldn't make us angels, you have got to be an angel before you are an angel, and you have got to be a Republic before you are a Republic. Now what did we do? Before the word "male" in the local compacts, they wrote the word "Church-members"; and they wrote in the word "taxpayer."
Then there arose a great Democrat, Thomas Jefferson, who looked down into the day when you and I are living and saw that the rapidly accumulated wealth in the hands of a few men would endanger the liberties of the people, and he knew what you and I know, that no power under heaven or among men is known in a Republic by which men can defend their liberties except by the power of the ballot, and so the Democratic party took another step in the evolution of the Republic out of a monarchy and they rubbed out the word "taxpayer" and wrote in the word "white", and then the Democrats thought the millennium had come, and they sang " The land of the free and the home of the brave" as lustily as the Republicans had sung it before them and spoke of the divine right of motherhood with the same thrill in their voices and at the same time they were selling mother's babies by the pound on the auction block-and mothers apart from their babies.
Another arose who said a man is not a good citizen because he is white, he is a good citizen because he is a man, and the Republican party took out that progressive evolutionary eraser and rubbed out the word "white" from before the word "male' and could not think of another word to put in there- they were all in, black and white, rich and poor, wise and otherwise, drunk and sober; not a man left out to be put in, and so the Republicans could not write anything before the word "male", and they had to let the little word, "male" stay alone by itself.
And God said in the beginning, "It is not good for man to stand alone." That is why we are here tonight, and that is all that woman's suffrage means; just to repeat again and again that first declaration of the Divine, "It is not good for man to stand alone," and so the women of this state are asking that the word "male" shall be stricken out of the Constitution altogether and that the Constitution stand as it ought to have stood in the beginning and as it must before this state is any part of a Republic. Every citizen possessing the necessary qualifications shall be entitled to cast one vote at every election, and have that vote counted. We are not asking as our Anti-Suffrage friends think we are, for any of awful things that we hear will happen if we are allowed to vote; we are simply asking that that government which professes to be a Republic shall be a Republic and not pretend to be what it is not.
Now what is a Republic? Take your dictionary, encyclopedia lexicon or anything else you like and look up the definition and you will find that a Republic is a form of government in which the laws are enacted by representatives elected by the people. Now when did the people of New York ever elect their own representatives? Never in the world. The men of New York have, and I grant you that men are people, admirable people, as far as they go, but they only go half way. There is still another half of the people who have not elected representatives, and you never read a definition of a Republic in which half of the people elect representatives to govern the whole of the people. That is an aristocracy and that is just what we are. We have been many kinds of aristocracies. We have been a hierarchy of church members, than an oligarchy of sex.
There are two old theories, which are dying today. Dying hard, but dying. One of them is dying on the plains of Flanders and the Mountains of Galicia and Austria, and that is the theory of the divine right of kings. The other is dying here in the state of New York and Massachusetts and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and that is the divine right of sex. Neither of them had a foundation in reason, or justice, or common sense.
Now I want to make this proposition, and I believe every man will accept it. Of course he will if he is intelligent. Whenever a Republic prescribes the qualifications as applying equally to all the citizens of the Republic, when the Republic says in order to vote, a citizen must be twenty-one years of age, it applies to all alike, there is no discrimination against any race or sex. When the government says that a citizen must be a native-born citizen or a naturalized citizen that applies to all; we are either born or naturalized, somehow or other we are here. Whenever the government says that a citizen, in order to vote, must be a resident of a community a certain length of time, and of the state a certain length of time and of the nation a certain length of time, that applies to all equally. There is no discrimination.
We might go further and we might say that in order to vote the citizen must be able to read his ballot. We have not gone that far yet. We have been very careful of male ignorance in these United States.
【有趣的世界名人故事演講稿】相關(guān)文章：
世界名人演講稿06-23
古代名人飲食的有趣故事作文04-02
世界名人的著名演講稿精選08-22
世界名人的勵(lì)志演講稿精選08-23
名人故事勵(lì)志演講稿08-22
世界名人的英語演講稿08-10
世界名人的英語演講稿10-12
世界名人的經(jīng)典語錄演講稿08-22