肯尼迪就职演讲 肯尼迪就职演讲稿范文（中英文4篇
【导言】此例“肯尼迪就职演讲 肯尼迪就职演讲稿范文（中英文4篇”的范文资料由阿拉题库网友为您分享整理，以供您学习参考之用，希望这篇资料对您有所帮助，喜欢就复制下载支持吧！
约翰・肯尼迪就职中文优秀演说稿【第一篇】
约翰・肯尼迪就职中文优秀演说稿
我们今天不是祝贺党派的胜利，而是参加自由的庆典：它象征着一个开始――也是一个结束；它代表换代――也是更新。因为在你们和全能的上帝面前，我已经宣布了一百七十四年前我们祚告诫这同一个庄严的誓言。
现在的世界发生巨大的变化。人类用自己的死亡之手握住了荡尽所有人间贫困和所有人类生命的势力。然而，我们祚这战斗的这同一个信念，仍然围绕着地球在争论――这个信念就是：人类的权利并非来自政府的慷慨施舍，而是来自上帝的手赠送。
今天，我们不敢忘记我们是独立的后嗣。让这个词从这个时刻，这个地点传给朋友，也传给敌人。这个火把已经传给了新的一代美国人――他们诞生在这个国度，经历过战争的锻炼，又接受了一个艰苦、严峻的和平时期的考验；他们为自己继承的悠久传统自豪；他们不愿意目睹或容忍那些人类权利无休无止的躁蹭。正是为了这些权利，这个国家一直在献身；也正是为了这些权利，我们今天在国内、在世界各地还在继续献身；也正是为了这些权利，我们今天在国内，在世界各地还在继续献身。
让每一个国家都知道，不论它是祝福我们，还是诅咒我们，我们将不惜任何代价、肩负任何重担、迎对任何艰难、支援任何朋友、反抗任何敌人，以保障自由的主权和胜利！
这就是我们的保证，而且不仅如此：
――对那些分享其文化、精神血统的昔日盟国，我们保证是他们忠实朋友。团结起来我们在合作探险的广阔天地里就无所不能；一旦分裂，我们则将一事无成，因为在争吵与离异中，我们就不敢面对强有力的挑战。
――对那些我们欢迎加入自由行列的新独立国家，我们保证：决不允许殖民统治刚刚死亡，就又被一位变本加厉的专制暴君代替！我们并不总是期待着看到他们支持我们的观点，但是，我们将永远希望看见他们坚决维护自己的自由，并且记住：在以往，凡是愚蠢地骑在虎背上追求权力的人，无不葬身虎腹……
――对我们国家南部的姐妹共和国，我们提出特别保证：把我们善意的词句变成善意的行动，在一个争取进步的联盟里，帮助自由人民共国和自由政府斩断贫穷的锁链。但是，这个希望中的和平不能成为不友好政权嘴中的猎物。让我们所有的邻邦都知道：我们将坚决和他们一起，反抗在美洲任何地方的侵略与颠覆；也让每一个外部势力都清楚，这个半球决意继续当它自己房间的主人。
――对联合国这个主权国家的世界集体，我们在战争机器远远胜过和平机器的一段时期里表示过最良好的祝愿。我们重申支持它的保证；阻止它就仅是恶语攻击的讲坛；加强它保护新独立国家和弱小国家作用；扩大服从它的法令地区。
――最后，对那些愿作我们敌人的国家，我们提出的不是保证，而是一项请求，不要挨到被科学释放的毁灭性可怕能量在蓄谋或意外的自毁中吞灭了整个人类，让我们双方重新开始寻求和平吧。
我们不敢用软弱来劝诱他们。只有当我们武器不容置疑的充足，我们才能毋庸置疑地肯定它们永久不会被使用。然而，两个强大阵营都不可能从我们目前的角逐中尝到舒适――双方都背负着现代武器的沉重耗费；双方都受到原子死神扩散的直言警告；可是双方又都拼命改变那延缓人类末日战争指针转动的，不稳定的恐怖平衡。
因此让我们重新开始――双方都记住：礼貌并非是怯懦的表示，而真诚则永远需要得到验证。让我们决不要因为害怕而谈判，但是，让我们决不要害怕谈判。让双方都来探索使我们走到一起的途径，而不是对那些使我们对立的问题作不必要的说明。让双方都第一次提出严肃的切实可行的建议，来检查和控制武器，并且把摧毁别国的绝对力量置于所有国家的绝对控制之下。
让以方都来寻求科学奇迹的福星，而不是它的恐惧。让我们来共同探索星球、征服沙漠、根绝疾病、开发海底以及鼓励艺术和商业贸易。
让双方联合起来，在这片土地的每一个角落，遵从以赛亚的指引，“解下轭上的索，使被欺压者得到自由”。
如果建立合作的基础可以缓和尔虞我诈的恶争，让我们携手进行新的努力，不是新的势力平衡，而是一个新法法制世界，在那里，强者正义，弱者无虑，和平受到保卫。
所有这些在一百日内不会完成，在一千日内和本届政府的任期内也不会完成，甚至当我们（这一代人）在这个星球上终止我们的生命时，它们也许会完成。但是，让我们着手吧！
我的同胞们，在我的手里，更在你们的手里决定着我们的事业的最后成败。自从这个国家建立以来，每一个美国人都受到召唤在证明他对国家的忠诚。年轻的美国人响应了这一召唤，为国尽忠，他们的陵墓遍布世界各地。
现在，号角又在召唤我们：不是扛起枪，尽管我们需要武器；不是战斗，尽管我们严阵以待。而是肩负起漫长的黎明前斗争的重担，年复一年，“在希望中欢乐，在苦难中忍耐”――这是反对暴政、贫困、疾病和战争本身这些人类共同敌人一场斗争。
南方、北方、东部、西部，我们就不能铸成反对那些敌人的雄壮的全球同盟吗？它能够保证整个人类生活得更富裕丰足。你们愿意参加这个具有历史意义的斗争吗？
在这世界古老的历史中，在自由身陷最危险境地的时刻，只有几代人被赋予了保卫它的使命。我决不在这个责任面前退缩。我欢迎它。我不相信我们中有谁会把我们的重任推给别人或是另外一代人。精力、信念、献身――我们呈奉给这场斗争的牺牲――将照亮我们的国家和所有为她尽忠的人。从这簇火焰中升华的光辉一定能够照亮世界！
所以，我的美国同胞们！不要问人的祖国能为你们做什么，问一问你们能为自己的祖国做什么。
我的同属于这个世界的公民们，不要问美国将为你们做些什么，问一问我们能为人类的自由共同做些什么。最后，不论你是美利坚公民还是世界公民，我要求你的力量与献身，你在这里也向我们提出同样高的要求吧，怀着一颗良心――我们唯一确定无疑的赏赐，伴随着历史――我们行为的最后法官，让我们走上前来引领我们热爱的这块土地，祈求上帝的祝愿和保佑，但是要记住：在地球的这里，上帝的努力也就是我们的努力！
我们今天不是祝贺党派的胜利，而是参加自由的庆典：它象征着一个开始――也是一个结束；它代表换代――也是更新。因为在你们和全能的上帝面前，我已经宣布了一百七十四年前我们祚告诫这同一个庄严的誓言。
现在的世界发生巨大的变化。人类用自己的死亡之手握住了荡尽所有人间贫困和所有人类生命的势力。然而，我们祚这战斗的这同一个信念，仍然围绕着地球在争论――这个信念就是：人类的权利并非来自政府的慷慨施舍，而是来自上帝的手赠送。
今天，我们不敢忘记我们是独立的后嗣。让这个词从这个时刻，这个地点传给朋友，也传给敌人。这个火把已经传给了新的一代美国人――他们诞生在这个国度，经历过战争的锻炼，又接受了一个艰苦、严峻的。和平时期的考验；他们为自己继承的悠久传统自豪；他们不愿意目睹或容忍那些人类权利无休无止的躁蹭。正是为了这些权利，这个国家一直在献身；也正是为了这些权利，我们今天在国内、在世界各地还在继续献身；也正是为了这些权利，我们今天在国内，在世界各地还在继续献身。
让每一个国家都知道，不论它是祝福我们，还是诅咒我们，我们将不惜任何代价、肩负任何重担、迎对任何艰难、支援任何朋友、反抗任何敌人，以保障自由的主权和胜利！
这就是我们的保证，而且不仅如此：
――对那些分享其文化、精神血统的昔日盟国，我们保证是他们忠实朋友。团结起来我们在合作探险的广阔天地里就无所不能；一旦分裂，我们则将一事无成，因为在争吵与离异中，我们就不敢面对强有力的挑战。
――对那些我们欢迎加入自由行列的新独立国家，我们保证：决不允许殖民统治刚刚死亡，就又被一位变本加厉的专制暴君代替！我们并不总是期待着看到他们支持我们的观点，但是，我们将永远希望看见他们坚决维护自己的自由，并且记住：在以往，凡是愚蠢地骑在虎背上追求权力的人，无不葬身虎腹……
――对我们国家南部的姐妹共和国，我们提出特别保证：把我们善意的词句变成善意的行动，在一个争取进步的联盟里，帮助自由人民共国和自由政府斩断贫穷的锁链。但是，这个希望中的和平不能成为不友好政权嘴中的猎物。让我们所有的邻邦都知道：我们将坚决和他们一起，反抗在美洲任何地方的侵略与颠覆；也让每一个外部势力都清楚，这个半球决意继续当它自己房间的主人。
――对联合国这个主权国家的世界集体，我们在战争机器远远胜过和平机器的一段时期里表示过最良好的祝愿。我们重申支持它的保证；阻止它就仅是恶语攻击的讲坛；加强它保护新独立国家和弱小国家作用；扩大服从它的法令地区。
――最后，对那些愿作我们敌人的国家，我们提出的不是保证，而是一项请求，不要挨到被科学释放的毁灭性可怕能量在蓄谋或意外的自毁中吞灭了整个人类，让我们双方重新开始寻求和平吧。
林肯第一次就职演讲稿中英文【第二篇】
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the United States: In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President before he enters on the execution of this office.“ I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered.
There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that-- I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another. There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.
All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause ”shall be delivered up“ their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that ”the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States“? I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success.
Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution.
It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was ”to form a more perfect Union.“ But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and Ishall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession? Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other. Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor. Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people. By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years. My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ”preserve, protect, and defend it." I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
肯尼迪就职的演说稿【第三篇】
肯尼迪就职的演说稿
John F. Kennedy: Inaugural Address
Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, Reverend Clergy, fellow citizens:
We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge -- and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
就职演讲稿【第四篇】
作为班长，要对班里的事务全面负责，协助其他班委干好班内事务。
我在学习中，生活中有许多不足之处，因此我要努力改正自己，做一名合格的班委，我的成绩并不优秀，但是我相信我能够管理好九班这个温馨的大家庭。
在我这几天的观察中，班里还有许多问题存在，在学习方面：课下抄袭现象大有存在，我想这可能由于作业太多的原因，在卫生方面：比以前好了很多，同学们能够自觉打扫卫生，在教室内能够做到不乱扔垃圾，在纪律方面：自习上说话的现象较多，班委管根本就不起作用，安静一会就又开始说话，课下又有许多同学喜欢打闹，我想，喜欢打闹是男孩子的天性，，但是也不要闹的过火。
我希望各位同学能够自觉遵守班内的规章制度，多做为班集体争光的事情，望各位班委成员，对班级事务尽职尽责，
为班集体做出贡献。
让我们共同努力吧！相信我们九班在班主任的带领下将更加辉煌！