美国总统的演讲稿
博文学习网小编为您收集整理的美国总统的演讲稿,提供全面的美国总统的演讲稿信息,希望对您有用!
美国总统的演讲稿篇一：美国总统演讲稿
【美国总统演讲】确保同工同酬 严惩工资歧视
Weekly Address: Ensuring Equal Pay for Equal Work
WASHINGTON, DC – In this week’s address, the President underscored the importance of ensuring equal pay for equal work and highlighted the steps his Administration has taken to expand opportunity and narrow the pay gap that exists between men and women. Just this week – on Equal Pay Day – the President took action to increase transparency and make it easier to recognize pay discrimination. Women make up half of America’s workforce, and are increasingly the primary-breadwinners in American families. Ensuring that women are paid fairly is a commonsense step to grow our economy. That is why the President again called on Republicans in Congress to support the Paycheck Fairness Act and stop blocking progress that would benefit women – because when women succeed, America succeeds.
Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
April 12, 2014
Hi, everybody. Earlier this week was Equal Pay Day. It marks the extra time the average woman has to work into a new year to earn what a man earned the year before. You see, the average woman who works full-time in America earns less than a man – even when she’s in the same profession and has the same education.
That's wrong. In 2014, it’s an embarrassment. Women deserve equal pay for equal work.
This is an economic issue that affects all of us. Women make up about half our workforce. And more and more, they’re our families’ main breadwinners. So it’s good for everyone when women are paid fairly. That’s why, this week, I took action to prohibit more businesses from punishing workers who discuss their salaries – because more pay transparency makes it easier to spot pay discrimination. And I hope more business leaders will take up this cause.
But equal pay is just one part of an economic agenda for women.
Most lower-wage workers in America are women. So I’ve taken executive action to require federal contractors to pay their federally-funded employees at least ten dollars and ten cents an hour. I ordered a review of our nation’s overtime rules, to give more workers the chance to earn the overtime pay they deserve. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, tens of millions of women are now guaranteed free preventive care like mammograms and contraceptive care, and the days
when you could be charged more just for being a woman are over for good. Across the country, we’re bringing Americans together to help us make sure that a woman can have a baby without sacrificing her job, or take a day off to care for a sick child or parent without hitting hardship. It’s time to do away with workplace policies that belong in a “Mad Men” episode, and give every woman the opportunity she deserves.
Here’s the problem, though. On issues that would benefit millions of women, Republicans in Congress have blocked progress at every turn. Just this week, Senate Republicans blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act, commonsense legislation that would help more women win equal pay for equal work. House Republicans won’t vote to raise the minimum wage or extend unemployment insurance for women out of work through no fault of their own. The budget they passed this week would force deep cuts to investments that overwhelmingly benefit women and children – like Medicaid, food stamps, and college grants. And of course, they’re trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the fiftieth or so time, which would take away vital benefits and protections from millions of women.
I’m going to keep fighting to make sure that doesn’t happen. Because we do better when our economy grows for everybody, not just a few. And when women succeed, America succeeds. Thanks, and have a great weekend.
美国总统的演讲稿篇二：浅谈美国总统的演讲——演讲稿很关键
浅谈美国总统的演讲——演讲稿很关键
演讲，是一种语言艺术，是推动人类进步的力量。演讲，更是推动人们事业进步的阶梯，对于领导者尤其如此，领导者能否稳定全局、纵横捭阖在某种程度上也取决于其演讲能否笼络人心，能否鼓舞士气。纵观美国总统大选，演讲可谓是得票的关键，胜利者往往能够睿智的传达最精准的信息一语中的的切中选民的心理防线的要害。而成功的演讲必定离不开成功的演讲稿。演讲稿是演讲的基础，是骨骼，是人们透过表面的语言希望看到的实质内核。
美国的政客包括总统大都有自己的撰稿班子，他们或公开或隐蔽，被称为“影子写手”，总统的稿子往往要经班底内部多次检阅并承交总统批阅决定，由此可见美国演讲稿在各届美国总统的魅力演讲中扮演着多么举足轻重的角色！ 以美国第43任总统小布什为例，他在公众眼里是略输文采的总统，但其稿班底创造出的优秀演讲稿无疑很好的弥补了这一缺陷，使得小布什的演讲得到广泛好评。 “布什讲格森的话要比讲自己的话更好。” 一名演讲稿撰写专家评论说。
小布什十分注重演讲稿的质量，可谓是字斟句酌。布什发表演讲的流程一般是：确定题目，写作组交初稿，修改初稿，揣摩演练，最后是发表演讲。演讲稿必须选择准确的词汇体现出总统的立场，确保每个词都能最大程度地体现总统的立场、态度，吸引更多的听众。通常会有专门领域的官员参与演讲稿写作，比如环境保护专家或者武器专家等。国防部长拉姆斯菲尔德、国务卿鲍威尔、国家安全事务顾问赖斯等也会对布什的演讲稿提出各种建议。 写作组的任务是以一种“清楚、简明和有说服力”的方式精心构思起草总统的所有公开讲话，包括论据、论点和最重要的国情咨文。小布什十分注重演讲稿的细节，这也是其演讲稿的技巧性和演讲的特殊生命力所在。例如，加拿大《环球邮报》在一篇文章中详细介绍了布什对其写作班子的严格要求：“避免形容词”;不要用“但是”，而要用“和”，因为这样更能吸引妇女;尽量用单音节词，句子不要太长，要能一口气读完;要援引《圣经》中的词句，要有鲜明的道德立场;演讲要有节奏和旋律变化等等。布什在2003年1月28日的《国情咨文》甚至是经过了数百遍的修改润色之后的产物。
正是由于小布什在演讲稿上的精益求精，使得他的演讲独具风格，与以前的总统有着明显的不同，除了拥有优秀的演讲术之外，他喜欢用短小精炼的词语，而且总喜欢在演讲中包涵一种道德主题，提出黑白分明的选择。比如，“不支持反恐战争就是在支持恐怖分子”，“要么与我们一道，要么与恐怖分子一道。”布什演讲的另一特点是，将原来在戏剧或者电影中的词汇用到总统演讲稿中。自从“9·11”恐怖袭击发生以来，布什多次使用“卑鄙
的”、“暴君”、“邪恶”和“敌人”这样的带有强烈情感色彩的词语。这样的演讲稿配合上他习惯性的平静审慎的语言强调，显得是寓意深刻的，亦很鼓动人心。美国42任总统克林顿的主要演讲撰稿人保罗·格拉斯特利斯评价布什的演讲说： “布什的演讲达到了克林顿总统从未取得的一种修辞学和诗歌体的高度，他倾向于使用气势宏大的和《圣经》上的词语。布什的演讲是一种精美的艺术品，总是给你留下异常深刻的印象。尽管他那明晰的、说服性的语言总是掩盖住真正政策的空缺，但这些演讲无疑是最最突出的。”
从布什的例子可见演讲稿在演讲中发挥的作用是不可小视的，有一篇好的演讲稿，在一定意义上就为演讲成功奠定了基础。现在全国各种层次和类型的演讲比赛，与其说是演讲员比赛，倒不如说是演讲稿的较量。因为现在人们的演讲技巧，包括语言、形体、动作、服装等都十分接近，在演讲比赛中，特别是高规格、高级别的演讲大赛中演讲稿的好坏，就起着举足轻重的地位。也就是说：低层次的演讲比赛比的是嘴巴皮子，高层次的演讲比赛比的是脑袋瓜子，这个脑袋瓜子就是智慧。而演讲稿就是智慧的结晶。任何一名演讲者都希望自己演讲能获得成功，而获得成功的前提，就是要有一篇具有真情实感的、真知灼见的精彩的优秀的演讲稿。所以说学习演讲稿的写作技巧和掌握演讲稿的修改方法是至关重要的。
美国总统的演讲稿篇三：美国总统林肯的演讲稿
美国总统林肯演讲稿
Inaugural Speech by Abraham Lincoln
March 4th 1861
Speech：
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 n
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 labour. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labour 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 labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour 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 un-kept 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 un-repealed 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. Top
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 a contract, 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 I shall 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. Top
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 favourable 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.