text:
being repressed. And those attitudes start with each of us individually. It’s important that government play a role in making sure that it applies laws fairly, not arbitrarily, not on the basis of preferring one group over another.

 * But what’s also true is that each of us have to cultivate an attitude of tolerance and mutual respect. And for young people, we have to try to encourage each other to be tolerant and respectful. So in the United States, obviously one of the biggest problems historically has been the issue of racial discrimination. And part of our efforts to overcome racial discrimination involve passing laws like the Civil Rights Law and the Voting Rights Law, and that required marches and protests and Dr. King. But part of the effort was also people changing the hearts and minds, and realizing that just because somebody doesn’t look like me doesn’t mean that they’re not worthy of respect. And when you’re growing up and you saw a friend of yours call somebody by a derogatory name, a rude name because they were different, it’s your job to say to that person, actually, that’s not the right way to think. If you are Christian and you have a friend who says I hate Muslims, then it’s up to you to say to that friend, you know what, I don’t believe in that; I think that’s the wrong attitude, I think we have to be respectful of the Muslim population. If you’re Buddhist and you say -- you hear somebody in your group say I want to treat a Hindu differently, it’s your job to speak out. So the most important thing I think is for you to, in whatever circle of influence you have, speak out on behalf of tolerance and diversity and respect. If you are quiet, then the people who are intolerant, they’ll own the stage and they’ll set the terms of the debate. And one of the things that leadership requires is saying things even when it’s uncomfortable, even when it’s unpopular -- especially when it’s unpopular. So I hope that as you get more influence, you’ll continue to speak out on behalf of these values.

 * Okay, I’m going to go –- now, the one thing I’m going to do is I’m going to go boy, girl, boy, girl to make sure that it’s fair, because one thing I didn’t say in my initial speech is societies that are most successful also treat their women and girls with respect. Otherwise, they won’t be successful.

 * I’m very proud of the United States. I believe that the United States is a force for good around the world. But I wouldn’t be a good President if I don’t listen to criticism of our policies and stay open to what other countries say about us. Sometimes I think those criticisms are unfair. Sometimes I think people like to complain about the United States because we’re doing too much. Sometimes they complain because they’re doing too little. Every problem around the world, why isn’t the United States doing something about it. Sometimes there are countries that don’t take responsibility for themselves and they want us to fix it. And then when we do try to fix it, they say why are you meddling in our affairs. Yes, it’s kind of frustrating sometimes. But the fact that we are getting these criticisms means that we’re constantly thinking, okay, is this how we should apply this policy? Are we doing the right thing when we provide aid to a country, but the country is still ruled by a small elite and maybe it’s not getting down to the people? Are we doing the right thing when we engage in training a military to become more professional, but maybe the military is still engaging in repressive activity? If we’re not open to those criticisms, then we won’t get better, we won’t improve.

 * But my understanding is there are many villages you go to where there’s really no schools, as a practical matter, and many of the schools still teach just how to memorize certain things rather than how to think critically about problems. And every country at this point, if it wants to succeed, needs to put in place free, compulsory education for its young people -- because they just can’t succeed unless they have some basic skills. They have to be able to read. They have to be able to do mathematics. They have to have some familiarity with computers. They have to be able to understand basic principles of science. If you don’t have those basic tools, then it’s very hard to find a decent job in today’s economy.

 * But what I said to the civil society groups is, yes, it is important to protect specific ethnic groups from discrimination. And it is natural in a democracy that ethnic groups organize among themselves to be heard in the halls of power. So in the United States, for example, as its democracy developed, the Irish in big cities, they came together and they built organizations, and they were able to promote the interests of Irish Americans. And African Americans, when they were seeking their freedom, you had organizations like the NAACP that promoted the interests of African Americans. So there's nothing wrong with groups organizing around ethnic identity, or around economic interests, or around regional concerns. That's how a democracy naturally works. You get with people who agree with you or who are like you to make sure that your concerns are heard. But what I said is that it is important for a democracy that people's identities are also a national identity. If you walk down the streets of New York City, you will see people looking more different than this group right here. You'll see blue-eyed, blonde people. You'll see dark-skinned, black people. You'll see Asians. You'll see Muslims. You'll see -- but if you ask any of those people, “What are you?” -- I'm American. Now I may be an African American or an Asian American or an Irish American, but the first thing I'll say is, I'm an American. And if you don't have that sense of national unity, then it's very hard for a country to succeed -- particularly a small country like Myanmar. If people think in terms of ethnic identity before national identity, then I think over time the country will start breaking apart and democracy will not work. So there has to be a sense of common purpose. But that's not an excuse then for majority groups to say, don’t complain, to ethnic minorities -- because the ethnic minorities may have some real complaints. And part of what is important for the majority groups to do -- if, in fact, you have a national identity, that means that you've got to be concerned with a minority also because it reflects badly on your country if somebody from a minority group is not being treated fairly. America could not live up to its potential until it treated its black citizens fairly. That's just a fact, that that was a stain on America when an entire group of people couldn't vote, or didn't have legal protections. Because it made all [[United States Declarations of Independence|the Declarations of Independence and Constitution and rule of law, it made that seem like an illusion. And so when the Civil Rights Movement happened in the United States, that wasn't just a victory for African Americans, that was a victory for America because what it showed was that the whole country was going to be concerned about everybody, not just about some people. And it was a victory for America's national identity that it was treating minorities fairly. And that's I think how every country in ASEAN, including Myanmar, needs to think about these problems. You need to respect people's differences. You need to be attentive to the grievances of minorities that may be discriminated against. But both the majority and the minority, the powerful and the powerless, also have to have a sense of national identity in order to be successful.

 * But I also think that from what I've heard, one of the reforms that will need to take place in universities here is to make sure that in all the departments there is the ability for universities and students to shape curriculums and to have access to information from everywhere around the world, and that it's not just a narrow process of indoctrination. Because the best universities are ones that teach you how to think not what to think, right? A good education is not just knowing facts, although you need to know facts. You need to know that two plus two is four; it's not five. That's an important fact. But you also need to know how to ask questions, and how to critically analyze a problem, and how to be able to distinguish between fact and opinion, and how to compare two different ideas.

 * And this is probably a good place for me to end by just saying that the issue of climate change is a perfect example of why young people have to lead. Because old people, they've created a mess, and then they'll be gone. And then you -- (applause) -- you're the ones who have to deal with it. And also what happens is old people get set in their ways. So the older you get, the more likely you are to say, that's how it's always been so that's how I'm going to keep on doing it -- even if there's a better way to do things. Young people, they're asking, well, why do I have to do it that way? Let's try it this way. And that kind of willingness to accept challenges and try things in a new way, to not be stuck in the past, or to look towards the future, that's what all of you represent.

State of the Union Address (January 2015)
Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address at U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. (January 20, 2015)

 * The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong.

 * We are a strong, tight-knit family who has made it through some very, very hard times.

 * Middle-class economics works. Expanding opportunity works. And these policies will continue to work as long as politics don’t get in the way. We can’t slow down businesses or put our economy at risk with government shutdowns or fiscal showdowns. We can’t put the security of families at risk by taking away their health insurance, or unraveling the new rules on Wall Street, or refighting past battles on immigration when we’ve got to fix a broken system.

 * And in fact, at every moment of economic change throughout our history, this country has taken bold action to adapt to new circumstances and to make sure everyone gets a fair shot. We set up worker protections, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid to protect ourselves from the harshest adversity. We gave our citizens schools and colleges, infrastructure and the Internet -- tools they needed to go as far as their effort and their dreams will take them. That’s what middle-class economics is -- the idea that this country does best when everyone gets their fair shot, everyone does their fair share, everyone plays by the same set of rules. We don’t just want everyone to share in America’s success, we want everyone to contribute to our success.

 * When we make rash decisions, reacting to the headlines instead of using our heads; when the first response to a challenge is to send in our military -- then we risk getting drawn into unnecessary conflicts, and neglect the broader strategy we need for a safer, more prosperous world. That’s what our enemies want us to do. I believe in a smarter kind of American leadership. We lead best when we combine military power with strong diplomacy; when we leverage our power with coalition building; when we don’t let our fears blind us to the opportunities that this new century presents. That’s exactly what we’re doing right now. And around the globe, it is making a difference. [...] That’s how America leads -- not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve.

 * Looking to the future instead of the past. Making sure we match our power with diplomacy, and use force wisely. Building coalitions to meet new challenges and opportunities. Leading -- always -- with the example of our values. That’s what makes us exceptional. That’s what keeps us strong. That’s why we have to keep striving to hold ourselves to the highest of standards -- our own.

 * A better politics is one where we appeal to each other’s basic decency instead of our basest fears. A better politics is one where we debate without demonizing each other; where we talk issues and values, and principles and facts, rather than “gotcha” moments, or trivial gaffes, or fake controversies that have nothing to do with people’s daily lives. A politics -- a better politics is one where we spend less time drowning in dark money for ads that pull us into the gutter, and spend more time lifting young people up with a sense of purpose and possibility, asking them to join in the great mission of building America. If we’re going to have arguments, let’s have arguments, but let’s make them debates worthy of this body and worthy of this country.

 * Because I want this chamber, I want this city to reflect the truth -- that for all our blind spots and shortcomings, we are a people with the strength and generosity of spirit to bridge divides, to unite in common effort, to help our neighbors, whether down the street or on the other side of the world. I want our actions to tell every child in every neighborhood, your life matters, and we are committed to improving your life chances as committed as we are to working on behalf of our own kids. I want future generations to know that we are a people who see our differences as a great gift, that we’re a people who value the dignity and worth of every citizen -- man and woman, young and old, black and white, Latino, Asian, immigrant, Native American, gay, straight, Americans with mental illness or physical disability. Everybody matters. I want them to grow up in a country that shows the world what we still know to be true: that we are still more than a collection of red states and blue states; that we are the United States of America.

Supreme Court Decision on Marriage Equality (June 2015)
Remarks by the President on the Supreme Court Decision on Marriage Equality at the White House Rose Garden, Washington, District of Columbia, USA (June 26, 2015)

 * Our nation was founded on a bedrock principle that we are all created equal. The project of each generation is to bridge the meaning of those founding words with the realities of changing times -- a never-ending quest to ensure those words ring true for every single American. Progress on this journey often comes in small increments, sometimes two steps forward, one step back, propelled by the persistent effort of dedicated citizens. And then sometimes, there are days like this when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.

 * This morning, the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitution guarantees marriage equality. In doing so, they’ve reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law. That all people should be treated equally, regardless of who they are or who they love. [...] This ruling will strengthen all of our communities by offering to all loving same-sex couples the dignity of marriage across this great land.

 * In my second inaugural address, I said that if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. It is gratifying to see that principle enshrined into law by this decision.

 * This ruling is a victory for Jim Obergefell and the other plaintiffs in the case. It's a victory for gay and lesbian couples who have fought so long for their basic civil rights. It’s a victory for their children, whose families will now be recognized as equal to any other. It’s a victory for the allies and friends and supporters who spent years, even decades, working and praying for change to come. And this ruling is a victory for America. This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts: When all Americans are treated as equal we are all more free.

 * I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs. All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact; recognize different viewpoints; revere our deep commitment to religious freedom. But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple, often painfully, real change is possible. Shifts in hearts and minds is possible. And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them. Because for all our differences, we are one people, stronger together than we could ever be alone. That’s always been our story. We are big and vast and diverse; a nation of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, different experiences and stories, but bound by our shared ideal that no matter who you are or what you look like, how you started off, or how and who you love, America is a place where you can write your own destiny.

 * What an extraordinary achievement. What a vindication of the belief that ordinary people can do extraordinary things.  What a reminder of what Bobby Kennedy once said about how small actions can be like pebbles being thrown into a still lake, and ripples of hope cascade outwards and change the world.

 * I believe in the principle of treating people equally under the law, and that they are deserving of equal protection under the law and that the state should not discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. And I say that, recognizing that there may be people who have different religious or cultural beliefs. But the issue is how does the state operate relative to people. If you look at the history of countries around the world, when you start treating people differently -- not because of any harm they’re doing anybody, but because they’re different -- that’s the path whereby freedoms begin to erode and bad things happen. And when a government gets in the habit of treating people differently, those habits can spread. And as an African-American in the United States, I am painfully aware of the history of what happens when people are treated differently, under the law, and there were all sorts of rationalizations that were provided by the power structure for decades in the United States for segregation and Jim Crow and slavery, and they were wrong.
 * Remarks by President Obama and President Kenyatta of Kenya in a Press Conference at Kenyan State House in Nairobi, Kenya (July 25, 2015)

 * So I’m unequivocal on this. If somebody is a law-abiding citizen who is going about their business, and working in a job, an obeying the traffic signs and doing all the other things that good citizens are supposed to do, and not harming anybody -- the idea that they are going to be treated differently or abused because of who they love is wrong. Full stop. And the state does not need to weigh in on religious doctrine. The state just has to say we’re going to treat everybody equally under the law. And then everybody else can have their own opinions.
 * Remarks by President Obama and President Kenyatta of Kenya in a Press Conference at Kenyan State House in Nairobi, Kenya (July 25, 2015)

 * And this is something that I emphasize wherever I go -- democracy does not stop on Election Day. For a real democracy to work, and for a society to thrive and continually improve, it requires that people continue to participate. And there have to be laws in place to protect that space and facilitate people’s ability to participate.
 * Remarks by President Obama in Conversation with Members of Civil Society at YALI Regional Leadership Center, Kenyatta University,Nairobi, Kenya (July 26, 2015)

 * And one of the rules of good civil society I believe is that you’re respectful of the people who disagree with you. And that's part of what makes civil society work. If you can have civil disagreements, and you can listen to each other and not just shout, that's what creates an environment that leads to progress over the long term.
 * Remarks by President Obama in Conversation with Members of Civil Society at YALI Regional Leadership Center, Kenyatta University,Nairobi, Kenya (July 26, 2015)

 * But as I said in the press conference yesterday, one of the important lessons that we've learned is that you can't just fight terrorism through military and the police. You also have to change people’s hearts and minds, and give them a sense that they’re included in the society and enlist them in assisting in fighting against terrorism.
 * Remarks by President Obama in Conversation with Members of Civil Society at YALI Regional Leadership Center, Kenyatta University,Nairobi, Kenya (July 26, 2015)

Remarks by President Obama to the Kenyan People (July 2015)

Remarks by President Obama to the Kenyan People at Safaricom Indoor Arena, Nairobi, Kenya (July 26, 2015)

 * We know a history so that we can learn from it. We learn our history because we understand the sacrifices that were made before, so that when we make sacrifices we understand we're doing it on behalf of future generations. There’s a proverb that says, “We have not inherited this land from our forebears, we have borrowed it from our children.” In other words, we study the past so it can guide us into the future, and inspire us to do better.

 * I want to be very clear here -- a politics that’s based solely on tribe and ethnicity is a politics that's doomed to tear a country apart.

 * In the United States, I always say that what makes America exceptional is not the fact that we’re perfect, it's the fact that we struggle to improve. We're self-critical. We work to live up to our highest values and ideals, knowing that we're not always going to achieve them perfectly, but we keep on trying to perfect our union.

 * You can't be complacent and accept the world just as it is. You have to imagine what the world might be and then push and work toward that future. Progress requires that you honestly confront the dark corners of our own past; extend rights and opportunities to more of your citizens; see the differences and diversity of this country as a strength, just as we in America try to see the diversity of our country as a strength and not a weakness. So you can choose the path to progress, but it requires making some important choices.

 * And the ability of citizens to organize and advocate for change -- that's the oxygen upon which democracy depends.

 * Democracy is sometimes messy, and for leaders, sometimes it's frustrating. Democracy means that somebody is always complaining about something. Nobody is ever happy in a democracy about their government. If you make one person happy, somebody else is unhappy. Then sometimes somebody who you made happy, later on, now they’re not happy. They say, what have you done for me lately?  But that's the nature of democracy. That's why it works, is because it's constantly challenging leaders to up their game and to do better.

 * Because corruption holds back every aspect of economic and civil life. It’s an anchor that weighs you down and prevents you from achieving what you could. If you need to pay a bribe and hire somebody’s brother -- who’s not very good and doesn’t come to work -- in order to start a business, well, that’s going to create less jobs for everybody. If electricity is going to one neighborhood because they’re well-connected, and not another neighborhood, that’s going to limit development of the country as a whole. If someone in public office is taking a cut that they don't deserve, that’s taking away from those who are paying their fair share. So this is not just about changing one law -- although it's important to have laws on the books that are actually being enforced. It’s important that not only low-level corruption is punished, but folks at the top, if they are taking from the people, that has to be addressed as well. But it's not something that is just fixed by laws, or that any one person can fix. It requires a commitment by the entire nation -- leaders and citizens -- to change habits and to change culture. [...] People who break the law and violate the public trust need to be prosecuted.  NGOs have to be allowed to operate who shine a spotlight on what needs to change. And ordinary people have to stand up and say, enough is enough.'''

 * Every country and every culture has traditions that are unique and help make that country what it is. But just because something is a part of your past doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t mean that it defines your future. [...] Just because something is a tradition doesn’t make it right.

 * Well, so around the world, there is a tradition of repressing women and treating them differently, and not giving them the same opportunities, and husbands beating their wives, and children not being sent to school. Those are traditions. Treating women and girls as second-class citizens, those are bad traditions. They need to change. They’re holding you back.

 * Treating women as second-class citizens is a bad tradition. It holds you back. There’s no excuse for sexual assault or domestic violence. There’s no reason that young girls should suffer genital mutilation. There’s no place in civilized society for the early or forced marriage of children. These traditions may date back centuries; they have no place in the 21st century. These are issues of right and wrong -- in any culture. But they’re also issues of success and failure. Any nation that fails to educate its girls or employ its women and allowing them to maximize their potential is doomed to fall behind in a global economy.

 * You know, we're in a sports center. Imagine if you have a team and you don't let half of the team play. That's stupid. That makes no sense. And the evidence shows that communities that give their daughters the same opportunities as their sons, they are more peaceful, they are more prosperous, they develop faster, they are more likely to succeed. [...] And that's why one of the most successful development policies you can pursue is giving girls and education, and removing the obstacles that stand between them and their dreams. And by the way, if you educate girls -- they grow up to be moms  -- and they, because they’re educated, are more likely to produce educated children.

 * Terrorists who try to sow chaos, they must be met with force and they must also be met, though, with a forceful commitment to uphold the rule of law, and respect for human rights, and to treat everybody who’s peaceful and law-abiding fairly and equally.

 * So we can all appreciate our own identities, our bloodlines, our beliefs, our backgrounds -- that tapestry is what makes us who we are. But the history of Africa -- which is both the cradle of human progress and a crucible of conflict -- shows us that when define ourselves narrowly, in opposition to somebody just because they’re of a different tribe, or race, or religion  -- and we ignore who is a good person or a bad person, are they working hard or not, are they honest or not, are they peaceful or violent -- when we start making distinctions solely based on status and not what people do, then we're taking the wrong path and we inevitably suffer in the end.  This is why Martin Luther King called on people to be judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character.  And in the same way, people should not be judged by their last name, or their religious faith, but by their content of their character and how they behave. Are they good citizens? Are they good people?

Remarks to the People of Africa (July 2015)
Remarks by President Obama to the People of Africa at Mandela Hall, African Union Headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (July 28, 2015)

 * For us, for our children, Africa and its people teach us a powerful lesson -- that we must uphold the inherent dignity of every human being. Dignity -- that basic idea that by virtue of our common humanity, no matter where we come from, or what we look like, we are all born equal, touched by the grace of God. Every person has worth. Every person matters. Every person deserves to be treated with decency and respect. Throughout much of history, mankind did not see this. Dignity was seen as a virtue reserved to those of rank and privilege, kings and elders. It took a revolution of the spirit, over many centuries, to open our eyes to the dignity of every person. And around the world, generations have struggled to put this idea into practice in laws and in institutions.

 * Africa’s progress will depend on unleashing economic growth -- not just for the few at the top, but for the many, because an essential element of dignity is being able to live a decent life. That begins with a job. And that requires trade and investment.

 * It is not unique to Africa -- corruption exists all over the world, including in the United States. But here in Africa, corruption drains billions of dollars from economies that can't afford to lose billions of dollars -- that's money that could be used to create jobs and build hospitals and schools. And when someone has to pay a bribe just to start a business or go to school, or get an official to do the job they’re supposed to be doing anyway -- that’s not “the African way.” It undermines the dignity of the people you represent.

 * But, ultimately, the most powerful antidote to the old ways of doing things is this new generation of African youth. History shows that the nations that do best are the ones that invest in the education of their people. You see, in this information age, jobs can flow anywhere, and they typically will flow to where workers are literate and highly skilled and online.

 * Africa’s progress will depend on development that truly lifts countries from poverty to prosperity -- because people everywhere deserve the dignity of a life free from want.

 * I believe Africa’s progress will also depend on democracy, because Africans, like people everywhere, deserve the dignity of being in control of their own lives. We all know what the ingredients of real democracy are. They include free and fair elections, but also freedom of speech and the press, freedom of assembly. These rights are universal. […] And I have to proclaim, democracy is not just formal elections. When journalists are put behind bars for doing their jobs, or activists are threatened as governments crack down on civil society then you may have democracy in name, but not in substance. And I'm convinced that nations cannot realize the full promise of independence until they fully protect the rights of their people.

 * No country is perfect, but we have to be honest, and strive to expand freedoms, to broaden democracy. The bottom line is that when citizens cannot exercise their rights, the world has a responsibility to speak out.

 * I have to also say that Africa’s democratic progress is also at risk when leaders refuse to step aside when their terms end. […] When a leader tries to change the rules in the middle of the game just to stay in office, it risks instability and strife -- as we’ve seen in Burundi. And this is often just a first step down a perilous path. And sometimes you’ll hear leaders say, well, I'm the only person who can hold this nation together. If that's true, then that leader has failed to truly build their nation. […] Nobody should be president for life. And your country is better off if you have new blood and new ideas. I'm still a pretty young man, but I know that somebody with new energy and new insights will be good for my country. It will be good for yours, too, in some cases.

 * Africa’s progress will also depend on security and peace -- because an essential part of human dignity is being safe and free from fear.

 * Our efforts to ensure our shared security must be matched by a commitment to improve governance. Those things are connected. Good governance is one of the best weapons against terrorism and instability. Our fight against terrorist groups, for example, will never be won if we fail to address legitimate grievances that terrorists may try to exploit, if we don’t build trust with all communities, if we don’t uphold the rule of law. There’s a saying, and I believe it is true -- if we sacrifice liberty in the name of security, we risk losing both.

 * And finally, Africa’s progress will depend on upholding the human rights of all people -- for if each of us is to be treated with dignity, each of us must be sure to also extend that same dignity to others.

 * Our girls have to be treated the same. We can’t let old traditions stand in the way. The march of history shows that we have the capacity to broaden our moral imaginations. We come to see that some traditions are good for us, they keep us grounded, but that, in our modern world, other traditions set us back. When African girls are subjected to the mutilation of their bodies, or forced into marriage at the ages of 9 or 10 or 11 -- that sets us back. That's not a good tradition. It needs to end. […]

 * And when girls cannot go to school and grow up not knowing how to read or write -- that denies the world future women engineers, future women doctors, future women business owners, future women presidents -- that sets us all back. That's a bad tradition -- not providing our girls the same education as our sons. I was saying in Kenya, nobody would put out a football team and then just play half the team. You’d lose. The same is true when it comes to getting everybody and education. You can't leave half the team off -- our young women.

 * [...] let girls learn so they grow up healthy and they grow up strong. And that will be good for families. And they will raise smart, healthy children, and that will be good for every one of your nations. Africa is the beautiful, strong women that these girls grow up to become. The single best indicator of whether a nation will succeed is how it treats its women. When women have health care and women have education, families are stronger, communities are more prosperous, children do better in school, nations are more prosperous. Look at the amazing African women here in this hall. If you want your country to grow and succeed, you have to empower your women. […] Let’s work together to stop sexual assault and domestic violence. Let’s make clear that we will not tolerate rape as a weapon of war -- it’s a crime.And those who commit it must be punished.  Let’s lift up the next generation of women leaders who can help fight injustice and forge peace and start new businesses and create jobs -- and some might hire some men, too. We’ll all be better off when women have equal futures.

 * In this tree of humanity, with all of our branches and diversity, we all go back to the same root.  We’re all one family -- we're all one tribe. And yet so much of the suffering in our world stems from our failure to remember that -- to not recognize ourselves in each other. We think because somebody’s skin is slightly different, or their hair is slightly different, or their religious faith is differently expressed, or they speak a different language that it justifies somehow us treating them with less dignity. And that becomes the source of so many of our problems. And we think somehow that we make ourselves better by putting other people down. And that becomes the source of so many of our problems. When we begin to see other as somehow less than ourselves -- when we succumb to these artificial divisions of faith or sect or tribe or ethnicity -- then even the most awful abuses are justified in the minds of those who are thinking in those ways. And in the end, abusers lose their own humanity, as well.

 * Every one of us is equal. Every one of us has worth. Every one of us matters. And when we respect the freedom of others -- no matter the color of their skin, or how they pray or who they are or who they love -- we are all more free. Your dignity depends on my dignity, and my dignity depends on yours. Imagine if everyone had that spirit in their hearts. Imagine if governments operated that way. Just imagine what the world could look like -- the future that we could bequeath these young people.

 * Yes, in our world, old thinking can be a stubborn thing. That's one of the reasons why we need term limits -- old people think old ways. […] The old ways can be stubborn. But I believe the human heart is stronger. I believe hearts can change.  I believe minds can open. That’s how change happens. That’s how societies move forward. It's not always a straight line -- step by halting step -- sometimes you go forward, you move back a little bit. But I believe we are marching, we are pointing towards ideals of justice and equality.

 * New thinking. Unleashing growth that creates opportunity. Promoting development that lifts all people out of poverty.Supporting democracy that gives citizens their say. Advancing the security and justice that delivers peace. Respecting the human rights of all people. These are the keys to progress -- not just in Africa, but around the world.

Town Hall meeting with Young Leaders of the Americas (April 2015)
Remarks by President Obama in Town Hall with Young Leaders of the Americas at University of the West Indies in Kingston, Jamaica (April 9, 2015)

 * But I believe that engagement is a more powerful force than isolation, and the changes we are making can help improve the lives of the Cuban people.

 * And that impulse to make the world better, to push back on those who try to make it worse, that’s something that your generation has to hold on to. And you have to remember, it’s never easy; there are no days off. But if there’s one thing that I know from my own life, it’s that with hard work and with hope, change is always within our reach.

 * But I do believe there are certain principles that are universal. I think that all people want basic dignity and want basic freedom, and want to be able to worship as they please without being discriminated against, or they should be able to speak their mind about an important issue pertaining to their community without being arrested.

 * More broadly, I think that the -- if you look at some of the most successful countries in the world, they’re actually pretty small countries -- like Singapore, for example -- that on paper look like they have no assets, and yet, if you go to Singapore, it has one of the highest standards of living in the world. What is it that Singapore did that might be replicable? Well, one of the most important things they did was they made an enormous investment in their people. And if you’ve got a highly skilled, highly educated workforce, if you’ve set up rules of law and governance that are transparent and non-corrupt, then you can attract actually a lot of service industries to supplement the tourist industry, because people would want to locate in your country.  You could envision people wanting to operate and have offices there where you’ve got a trained workforce.  And these days, so many businesses are operating over the Internet that if you’ve got a really skilled workforce that provides value added, you will attract companies and you’ll attract businesses.

 * What deters people from investing in most countries is conflict, corruption, and a lack of skills or infrastructure. And those countries that are able to address those problems have rule of law and eliminate corruption.  Make sure that you are investing in the education of your people and it’s a continuous education; it doesn’t just stop at the lower grades, but you give people constant opportunities to upgrade their skills.  You have a decent infrastructure -- you’re going to be able to succeed.  That’s the recipe, the formula for a 21st-century economy.

 * Because what it turns out is, is that if a -- the best way for a country to reduce its debt is to grow really fast, and to generate more income.

 * And I think the question that the people of Jamaica, just like the people of the United States and everywhere else, should be asking is: If the government is spending money right now, is it on something that is going to help create long-term growth and help people succeed? If the answer is no, you shouldn’t spend that money. Spending money just for the sake of spending money is not -- that’s not the formula for success.  But if the money is being spent on what we talked about -- early childhood education; if it’s being spent on infrastructure; if it’s being spent on research; if it’s being spent on building skills for workers -- those are good investments.

Remarks at Panama Civil Society Forum (April 2015)
Remarks by President Obama at the Panama Civil Society Forum at Hotel El Panama, Panama City, Panama (April 10, 2015)

 * We believe that strong, successful countries require strong and vibrant civil societies. We know that throughout our history, human progress has been propelled not just by famous leaders, not just by states, but by ordinary men and women who believe that change is possible; by citizens who are willing to stand up against incredible odds and great danger not only to protect their own rights, but to extend rights to others.

 * It's the dreamers -- no matter how humble or poor or seemingly powerless -- that are able to change the course of human events. We saw it in South Africa, where citizens stood up to the scourge of apartheid. We saw it in Europe, where Poles marched in Solidarity to help bring down the Iron Curtain. In Argentina, where mothers of the disappeared spoke out against the Dirty War. It’s the story of my country, where citizens worked to abolish slavery, and establish women’s rights and workers’ rights, and rights for gays and lesbians.

 * So civil society is the conscience of our countries. It’s the catalyst of change. It’s why strong nations don’t fear active citizens. Strong nations embrace and support and empower active citizens.

 * We also know that our support for civil society is not just about what we’re against, but also what we’re for. Because we’ve noticed that governments that are more responsive and effective are typically governments where the people are free to assemble, and speak their minds, and petition their leaders, and hold us accountable.

 * We know that our economies attract more trade and investment when citizens are free to start a new business without paying a bribe. We know that our societies are more likely to succeed when all our people -- regardless of color, or class, or creed, or sexual orientation, or gender -- are free to live and pray and love as they choose. [...] And, increasingly, civil society is a source of ideas -- about everything from promoting transparency and free expression, to reversing inequality and rescuing our environment.

Final News Conference as President (January 2017)

 * Full transcript of a news conference that President Obama held in the White House Washington, United States of America, as prepared by the Federal News Service. (January 18, 2017)

 * We have traveled the world together. We did a few singles, a few doubles together. I’ve offered advice that I thought was pretty sound, like don’t do stupid stuff.(LAUGHTER) And even when you complained about my long answers, I just want you to know that the only reason they were long was because you asked six-part questions.(LAUGHTER)But I have enjoyed working with all of you. That does not, of course, mean that I’ve enjoyed every story that you have filed, but that’s the point of this relationship. You’re not supposed to be (inaudible) fans, you’re supposed to be skeptics, you’re supposed to ask me tough questions. You’re not supposed to be complimentary, but you’re supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power and make sure that we are accountable to the people who sent us here, and you have done that. And you have done it for the most part in ways that I could appreciate for fairness, even if I didn’t always agree with your conclusions. And having you in this building has made this place work better. It keeps us honest, it makes us work harder. You have made us think about how we are doing what we do and whether or not we’re able to deliver on what’s been requested by our constituents.
 * On his reationship with the press in Washington, D.C. and its role in a democracy

 * I spent a lot of time on my — in my farewell address talking about the state of our democracy. It goes without saying that essential to that is a free press. That is part of how this place, this country, this grand experiment of self-government has to work. It doesn’t work if we don’t have a well-informed citizenry, and you are the conduit through which they receive the information about what’s taking place in the halls of power. So America needs you and our democracy needs you. We need you to establish a baseline of facts and evidence that we can use as a starting point for the kind of reasoned and informed debates that ultimately lead to progress. And so my hope is is that you will continue with the same tenacity that you showed us, to do the hard work of getting to the bottom of stories and getting them right and to push those of us in power to be the best version of ourselves and to push this country to be the best version of itself.
 * On the role of the press in a democracy

 * I can tell you that — and this is something I have told him — that this is a job of such magnitude that you can’t do it by yourself. You are enormously reliant on a team. Your Cabinet, your senior White House staff, all the way to fairly junior folks in their 20s and 30s but who are executing on significant responsibilities. And so, how you put a team together to make sure that they’re getting you the best information and they are teeing up the options from which you will ultimately make decisions. That’s probably the most useful constructive advice and the most constructive advice that I’ve been able to give him, that if you find yourself isolated because the process breaks down or if you’re only hearing from people who agree with you on everything or if you haven’t created a process that is fact-checking and probing and asking hard questions about policies or promises that you’ve made, that’s when you start making mistakes.And as I indicated in some of my previous remarks, reality has a way of biting back if you’re not paying attention to it.'''
 * On the job of the U.S. President and the need of good advisers and staff

 * Well, let me be absolutely clear. I did not mean that I was going to be running for anything anytime soon. So, what I meant is that it’s important for me to take some time to process this amazing experience that we’ve gone through; to make sure that my wife, with whom I will be celebrating a 25th anniversary this year, is willing to re-up and put up with me for a little bit longer. [...] But there’s a difference between that normal functioning of politics and certain issues or certain moments where I think our core values may be at stake. I put in that category if I saw systematic discrimination being ratified in some fashion. I put in that category explicit or functional obstacles to people being able to vote, to exercise their franchise.I’d put in that category institutional efforts to silence dissent or the press. And for me at least, I would put in that category efforts to roundup kids who have grown up here and for all practical purposes are American kids, and send them someplace else, when they love this country. They are our kids’ friends and their classmates, and are now entering into community colleges or in some cases serving in our military, that the notion that we would just arbitrarily or because of politics punish those kids, when they didn’t do anything wrong themselves, I think would be something that would merit me speaking out.
 * Partial answers on the questions: "And what did you mean when you said you would come back? Would you lobby Congress? Maybe explore the political arena again?"

 * But you know, we — when we feel stress, when we feel pressure, when we’re just fed information that encourages some of our worst instincts, we tend to fall back into some of the old racial fears and racial divisions and racial stereotypes, and it’s very hard for us to break out of those and to listen and to think about people as people and to imagine being in that person’s shoes. And by the way, it’s no longer a black and white issue alone. You got Hispanic folks and you got Asian folks, this is not just the same old battles that — we’ve got this stew that’s bubbling up from people everywhere and we’re going to have to make sure that we in our own lives and our own families and work places do a better job of treating everybody with basic respect and understanding that not everybody starts off in the same situation and imaging what would it be like if you were born in an inner city and had no job prospects anywhere within a 20 mile radius or how does it feel being born in some rural county where there’s no job opportunities within in a 20 mile radius and seeing those two things as connected as opposed to separate. So, you know, we got work to do, but overall, I think on this front, the trend lines, ultimately, I think will be good.

 * I think it was really interesting to see how Malia and Sasha reacted. They were disappointed. They paid attention to what their mom said during the campaign and believed it because it’s consistent with what we have tried to teach them in our household and what I’ve tried to model as a father with their mom and what we’ve asked them to expect from future boyfriends or spouses. But what we’ve also tried to teach them is resilience and we’ve tried to teach them hope and that the only thing that is the end of the world is the end of the world. And so, you get knocked down, you get up, brush yourself off and you get back to work.

 * I believe in this country. I believe in the American people. I believe that people are more good than bad. I believe tragic things happen. I think there’s evil in the world, but I think at the end of the day, if we work hard and if we’re true to those things in us that feel true and feel right, that the world gets a little better each time. That’s what this presidency has tried to be about.

The Bill of Rights imposes legal limits on the powers of governments and acts as anti-majoritarian/minoritarian safeguard by providing deeply entrenched legal protection for various civil libiterties and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court for example concluded in the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) case that the founders intended the Bill of Rights to put some rights out of reach from majorities, ensuring that some liberties would endure beyond political majorities. As the Court noted the idea of the Bill of Rights “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

16th Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture (July 2018)

 * 2018 Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture in Johannesburg, South Africa (July 17, 2018) commemorating the 100th anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s birth. Sources: "'We Now Stand at a Crossroads.' Here's What Barack Obama Said During His First Big Speech Since He Left Office" by the Time Magazine's Siobhan Morrin on July 17, 2018. Archived via Wayback Machine on July 23, 2018. "Barack Obama Slams 'Strongman Politics' Without Directly Attacking President Trump" by the Time Magazine's Siobhan Morrin on July 17, 2018. Archived via Wayback Machine on July 23, 2018.

I Am Not Your Negro Reviews
Für Philipp Holstein von der Rheinischen Post ist der Film "der sehenswerte und bedrückende Dokumentarfilm, der [...] Geschichte erzählt." Für ihn bleiben die Texte von Baldwin angesichts von Organisationen wie Black Lives Matter, die sich gegen Rassismus engagieren, leider dringlich. Beseelt vom gerechten Zorn über die Verhältnisse und gepaart mit kraftvoller Lust an Aufklärung gelinge nach Worten von Programmkinokritiker.de Luidgard Koch Regisseur Raoul Peck ein brennend aktueller Essayfilm. "Sein brillant komponierter Rückblick auf die Ära der amerikanischen Bürgerrechtsbewegung sowie das Leben und Werk des verstorbenen afroamerikanischen Schriftstellers James Baldwin erschüttert. Unmissverständlich zeigt der gebürtige Haitianer, dass Unterdrückung, Ungerechtigkeit, Rassismus und Klassenunterschiede keineswegs durch globalen Neoliberalismus verschwunden sind."

Knut Elstermann vom MDR bezeichnete den Film als "großartigen Dokumentarfilm über den homosexuellen Schriftsteller und die bewegten sechziger Jahre", der "eine fulminante Montage aus Archivmaterial, Interviews mit dem 1987 gestorbenen, sprachgewaltigen und scharfsinnigen Autor und Reflexionen über den Zustand einer noch immer rassistisch geprägten Gesellschaft" darstelle. Nach Worten von Susanne Lenz in ihrer Kritik für die Berliner Zeitung meint, dass I Am Not Your Negro eine aufwühlende Dokumentation sei, in der sich Baldwins Text und Pecks Bilder, die Filmausschnitte, Fotos, Nachrichtenbilder historisch und aktuell so kongenial ergänzen. Gia Maihofer von der Zeitung Der Tagesspiegel meint, dass Regisseur Peck eine "essayistische Annäherung an Baldwins Denken" geschaffe habe. Der Regisseur habe aus dem reichen literarischen Œuvre der 1960er Jahre Peck ein Amalgam kreirt, das die Psychopathologie und paranoide Imagination des weißen Amerikas offenlege, im Privatleben wie in der Populärkultur. "Die Reise in die Vergangenheit wird zur Konfrontation mit der Gegenwart", in der sich das weiße, liberale Amerika sich mit einer medialen Fantasiewelt narkotisiere und halte in dieser Fantasiewelt die Illusion der eigenen Unschuld aufrecht. "Es verweigert sich der Auseinandersetzung mit der von Sklaverei, Segregation und Unterdrückung geprägten Geschichte, die Baldwin immer wieder fordert [...]." Maihofer bilanziert über Peck's Dokumentarfilm: "Pecks eindrucksvolle Hommage reiht sich in diese Erinnerungsarbeit ein. Ihm ist mit „I’m not your Negro“ ein pointierter Essay über Amerikas tief sitzenden Rassismus und ein Höhepunkt seines politischen Weltkinos gelungen. Ein Film der Stunde, dessen Botschaft und Botschafter nichts an Relevanz verloren haben."

Geri Krebs meinte in der "Neuen Zürcher Zeitung", dass Raoul Peck mit I Am Not Your Negro eine Tour d'Horizon durch die Geschichte der Schwarzen in den USA vollziehe, die "beispielhaft von Vergangenem erzählt und dabei die Gegenwart im Auge hat." Und wenn in den Nachrichtenbildern etwa die Unruhen von Watts 1965 mit jenen von Ferguson 2014 kollidieren, lässt sich die Aktualität von Vergangenem nicht leugnen. Nach Auffassung von ttt – titel, thesen, temperamente Autor Joachim Gaertner habe Raoul Peck "einen faszinierenden Dokumentarfilm gemacht, in dem man mehr über amerikanische Geschichte lernt als in jedem Geschichtsbuch." Gaertner bilanziert mit Blick auf US-Präsident Donald Trump: "Es ist beängstigend zu sehen, welche Aktualität Baldwins Analysen bis heute haben. Der Film macht klar: Unter dem heutigen Präsidenten, der offen rassistische Stereotype propagiert, fängt der Kampf für Bürgerrechte noch einmal ganz neu an. [...] Eine Lösung, folgerte Baldwin, kann also nicht sein, wenn Schwarze sich in die weiße Gesellschaft integrieren, sondern nur, wenn sie ihre eigene Identität und Geschichte in den Traum eines neuen, gemeinsamen Amerikas einbringen"

Nach Weiland Freund von Der Welt erzählt I Am Not Your Negro die Geschichte der Bürgerrechtsbewegung, die Geschichte von Medgar Evers, Malcolm X und Martin Luther King, die Geschichte von James Baldwin und die Geschichte danach: Rodney King, Barack Obama, Trayvon Martin; Selma, Weißes Haus, Ferguson. "„I Am Not Your Negro“ ist unter anderem deshalb ein eindrucksvoller, ein großer Dokumentarfilm, weil er in anderthalb Stunden fasst, was mit einiger Berechtigung auch den Platz einer vielteiligen Serie hätte beanspruchen können." Jan Kedves von der Süddeutschen Zeitung betont, dass Raoul Peck ein sehr feinfühliges Porträt des Kämpfers James Baldwin, dessen Waffe unbedingt die Rhetorik war, gelungen sei. Er attestiert dem Film, dass er "auf beachtliche Weise dreierlei leistet: Er erinnert an Baldwin und illustriert dabei dessen Absicht, die "Geschichte Amerikas anhand der Leben dreier seiner ermordeten Freunde zu erzählen". Damit sind Medgar Evers, Malcolm X und Martin Luther King Jr. gemeint. Und drittens: Dass die Schwarzen in den USA nicht Schwarze sind, sondern zu Schwarzen gemacht werden, von den Weißen, das hat man lange nicht mehr so anschaulich in einem Film dargelegt bekommen." Auch Julian Brimmers bemerkt die von Weiland Freund bemerkten Paralle zwischen den 1960er Jahre und aktuellen Ereignisse der 201er Jahren in den USA, indem auf folgenden Aspekt des Dokumentarfilm verweist: "Hier passiert alles auf einmal: die rassistischen Ausschreitungen in Little Rock 1957 und "Black Lives Matter"-Proteste in Ferguson 2014, die Vereidigung Barack Obamas neben den Morden an Evers, Malcolm X und King, die Aufstände in Watts von 1965 neben Bildern der jüngsten Opfer von Polizeigewalt." Insgesamt sei I Am Not Your Negro weniger ein historisches Biopic als eine Aufforderung an den Zuschauer, seine eigene Toleranz und Handlungsfähigkeit zu hinterfragen.

I am Not Your Negro ist die Biografie des Autors James Baldwin, welcher seine Geschichte anhand der Geschichte drei seiner Freunde aus der Zeit der ameriaknischen Bürgerrechtsbewegung erzählt. Bei den Freunden handelt es sich um den 1963 ermorderten Menschenrechtsanwalt Medgar Evers, den 1965 ermorderten Menschenrechtsaktivist Malcolm X und den 1968 ermorderten Pfarrer Martin Luther King. Ausgangspunkt des Regisseur Raoul Peck ist ein 30-seitiger Textentwurf von Baldwin aus dem unvollendenten Roman Remember This House für eine Geschichte der Schwarzen. Peck verwendet dazu eine Collage aus Briefen, die Baldwin an seinen Agenten Jay Acton schreibt (Tonspur: das Gehacke der Schreibmaschine), Texte, die aus dem Werk Baldwins von Samuel L. Jackson zitiert werden, und einer Fülle biografischer Fotos und Videoexzerpten von Baldwin.

Thematisch handelt der Film von "Kapitel Zwei der sogenannten Befreiung der Schwarzen, in dem die Nachkommen der Sklaven um ihre Bürgerrechte kämpften [...]." In einem zeitlichen Bogen von 1890 bis 2014 werden dabei Szenen weißer Gewalt gegenüber Farbigen jeder Couleur, welche die Historie Amerikas takteten, gezeigt. Dabei handelt es sich um das Massaker in Wounded Knee 1890, die Gewalt der Polizei unter Eugene „Bull“ Connor in Birmingham 1963, der Watts-Aufruhr in Los Angeles des Jahres 1965, und der Todesfall Michael Brown in Ferguson 2014.

I Am Not Your Negro grossed as of April 6, 2017 $6,838,593. As of April 7, 2017 the movie was estimated to gross more than $7 million. The film industry and review website IndieWire attributed the fiancial success of the movie to the three factors : 1.) The release date of February 3, 2017 which was less than two weeks after the Academy Award nominees would be announced, 2.) Opening the movie nationwide in 43 theaters and 18 cities and 3.) Opening in nontraditional movie theaters where “I Am Not Your Negro” would generate strong word of mouth.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 Reviews
Der Film konnte bislang 86 Prozent der Kritiker bei Rotten Tomatoes überzeugen. Karsten Scholz lobte etwa in seiner Kritik für die Internetseite buffed.de vier Sachen an Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2: 1.) Die technische Perfektion, 2.) die neuen Völker und Schauplätze, 3.) die höhere Schlagzahl der Gags im Vergleich zum Vorgänger und 4.) "ein kunterbuntes Sammelsurium an Easter Eggs und Cameo-Auftritten, das dank des erneut fantastischen Soundtracks auch gleich den Retro-Fan in uns anspricht." In seinem Fazit moniert er zwar Schwächen, diese sind aber marginal. So schreibt er über den Film in seinem Fazit: "Schwächen besitzt der Film nur wenige. Einige nicht zünden wollende Gags, aber auch der Bösewicht, der mit seinen Machenschaften zwar die gesamte Galaxie bedroht, der Marvel-typisch jedoch ziemlich blass bleibt. Unterm Strich spielt beides keine Rolle. Dafür sind alle anderen Facetten von Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 zu gut, dafür rockt der Streifen über die gesamte Laufzeit zu sehr die Leinwand."

In einer Video-Kritk meinte Christoph Kellerbach von der Rheinischen Post, dass Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 ein "absolut fantastischer Weltraum-Spaß geworden" ist, "der etliche Sachen gleich, aber viele auch anders macht." Die Charaktäre seien die große Stärke von James Gunn's Film. Ergänzt um eine fantastische Optik, auch in 3D, und einem wunderbarem Ohrwurm-Soundtrack ist Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 genau wie sein Vorgänger nach Auffassung von Kellerbach ein "exzellenter Weltraum-Comic-Spaß". Hannes Könitzer bewertete in seiner Kritik für die Internetseite robots-and-dragons.de die drei primären Handlungsstränge des Films unteschiedlich: Während die Geschichte rund um Peter Quill und seinen Vater einen hohen Unterhaltswert hätten und die Geschichte rund um Rocket die richtige Mischung aus Spaß und Spannung aufweise, sei der Handlungsstrang um Gamorra und Nebula der schwächste der drei Handlungsstränge. Könnitzer lobte den Humor und die Musiktitel aus den 70ern und 80ern. In seinem Fazit urteilte er: "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 macht genauso viel Spaß wie Teil 1. Wer es im ersten Film genossen hat, Zeit mit der sympathischen Heldentruppe zu verbringen, der dürfte auch in der Fortsetzung auf seine Kosten kommen. Die Geschichte punktet dabei nicht nur durch Humor, sondern bietet auch auf emotionaler Ebene eine überraschende Tiefe. Ein dritter Teil darf sich gern anschließen."

Dimitry Halley hebt in seiner Kritik für GameStar die Charaktäre besonders lobend hervor. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 punkte vor allem mit seinen meisterhaft inszenierten und unglaublich sympathischen Figuren. So schaffe es der Film nicht nur die komplette Truppe rund um Star Lord und Co. ins Herz der Zuschauer zu befördern, sondern auch jeder Figur mindestens einen glaubhaften inneren Konflikt zu geben. "Der Film wärmt nicht einfach das Zusammentreffen aus dem ersten Teil auf, sondern setzt deren Beziehungen tatsächlich fort (wie es sich eben für eine Fortsetzung gehört). Oder anders: Wo Guardians of the Galaxy 1 die Truppe durch die stürmische Kennenlern-Phase führt, geht die Beziehung in Teil Zwei erst richtig los." Er bilanzierte, dass die Guardians Star Lord, Rocket, Drax und Co. auf der Leinwand so unglaublich gut funktionieren, dass die Comics in seinen Augen im Vergleich den Kürzeren ziehen. Das war beim ersten Guardians of the Galaxy so, und das gelte auch für Teil Zwei. Denn der "Film baut eine Crew aus Charakteren auf, die den Avengers und auch der Justice League in puncto Persönlichkeit, Charme und Humor die Show stehlen."

Vier von fünf Punkten vergebend ist bei MovieJones zu lesen:"Während die Dramaturgie zwar über weite Strecken schwächelt, wird dies durch Witz, ganz viel Familie und für Marvel sogar ungewöhnlich emotionale Momente wieder wettgemacht. Das neue Abenteuer bringt das MCU nicht vorwärts, dafür uns die Protagonisten noch näher und beschert uns eine verdammt gute Zeit." Im Filmblog Filmverliebt wurden die Sammlung an verrückten Charakteren, die visuell einwandfreie Inszenierung und der Humor gelobt. Im Fazit ist dann zu lesen: "Auch wenn Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 nicht an die Qualität des Vorgängers heranreicht – Marvel hat hier wieder erstklassiges Popcorn-Kino abgeliefert." Vienna Online meinte, dass der Film mit viel Liebe zum Detail und einem ausgewogenen Cast punkte, der bestens aufeinander eingespielt agiere. Fazit: "“Vol. 2” glänzt weniger als eigenständiges Album, denn als gelungene Compilation mit den “Greatest Hits” aus dem schenkelklopfendem Sci-Fi-Universum – und hat am Ende ein Versprechen parat: Fortsetzung folgt!"

Auf der Interseite Filmfutter.com wurde dem Regisseur James Gunn ein konservativer Ansatz attestiert, der auf Bewährtes des Vorgängerfilms zurückgreife: Sympathische Antihelden, anarchischer Humor, freche Sprüche, ein flottes Erzähltempo, bunte Weltraumaction und ein fetziger Soundtrack. Dabei sei wie in Fast and Furious 8 Familie das Thema, das den Film zusammenhalte und den emotionalen Kern des Sequels bilde. Daran anknüpfend ist im Fazit folgendes zu lesen:"Man sucht sich seine Familie nicht aus, doch manchmal findet sie einen selbst, wenn man es am wenigsten erwartet. Das ist das Thema von Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, der zwar nicht mehr die Frische seines Vorgängers besitzt, dafür aber den größten emotionalen Kern unter allen bisherigen Marvel-Abenteuern. Mit viel Humor, Herz, fantastischen visuellen Einfällen, einer liebevollen Weiterentwicklung seiner Hauptfiguren und einem großartigen Kurt Russsell auf dem Hoch seines Karriere-Revivals zeigen James Gunn und Marvel, wie ein gutes Sequel sein sollte. Fans des Originals werden nicht enttäuscht sein!" Auch die Interseite Ingame.de lobte den Film und meinte in Richtung der potentiell Zuschauenden: "''Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 ist sein Kinogeld mehr als wert, denn selten wurden wir von einer Fortsetzung so gut unterhalten wie hier. Auf euch warten mal wieder abgefahrene Marvel-Helden, jede Menge Space-Action und ein lässiger Soundtrack für ein awesome Kinoerlebnis.''"

Doch nicht bei allen Kritikern kam der Film gut an. Sascha Westphal schreibt in der Westdeutschen Allgemeinen Zeitung, anders als beim ersten Guardians of the Galaxy, in dem sich die einzelnen Elemente wunderbar zu einem ungeheuer mitreißenden Weltraum-Abenteuer zusammengefügt hätten, ergebe das Ganze diesmal weniger als die Summe der einzelnen Teile. Regisseur James Gunn begnüge sich über weite Strecken des Films damit, einfach nur Lücken in den Hintergründen seiner Figuren auszufüllen, so Westphal, wobei er sich vor allem auf den von Chris Pratt gespielten Peter Quill konzentriere. Durch dessen Begegnung mit seinem leiblichen Vater entwickele sich aus einer zunächst rührselig gestimmten Familienzusammenführung einer der zentralen Konflikte des Films. Heiner Gumprecht von Blasting News nahm den Film mit zwiespältigen Gefühlen auf. Der Vorgängerfilm hatte seiner Meinung nach frische Ansätze, viele eigene Ideen und diese besondere Gruppendynamik innerhalb der Guardians, die keiner wirklich vermutet hätte. James Gunns Fortsetzung vertiefe stattdessen lieber jedoch die Eckpunkte des Films, die Teil 1 zu einem immensen Erfolg verholfen haben. Dabei bleibe die Geschichte auf der Strecke zurück und wirke eher wie ein Gerüst, dass die wertvolle Statue stützen soll, als selbst Teil des Kunstwerks zu sein. So fiel dann sein Fazit auch entsprechend zwiespältig aus: "Ohne Diskussion äußerst gelungen in dem, was er sein möchte, unterm Strich aber so viel weniger, als wir erwarten durften. "Würdig" ist in dieser Hinsicht ein hartes Wort, denn kommt es ganz darauf an, was ihr am ersten Teil so interessant/positiv fandet. Waren es die Sprüche, die Action und der derbe Mix aus Sci-Fi und Oldies der Popmoderne, dann macht ihr mit einem Kinobesuch in der Fortsetzung nichts falsch. Abseits davon bietet Vol. 2 jedoch keine neuen Gründe, sich ein Ticket zu kaufen."

Björn Becher von der Filmstart Redaktion vergab 3,5 von 5 Punkten und verwies in seiner Kritk auf das Wechselspiel von Stärken und Schwächen des Films. Zwar sei der Film kurzweilig und mache viel Spaß, aber die erzählerische Stringenz lasse ein wenig zu wünschen übrig, die Spannung bleibe weitgehend auf der Strecke und die Bösewichte überzeugten nicht wirklich. Man lache immer wieder über eine wundervolle Hommage oder die ironische Brechung eines kitschigen Moments und freue sich über einen der vielen überraschenden Cameo-Auftritte oder die Entdeckung einiger Easter Eggs. Und auch James Gunn sorge konstant für Humor, doch er gebe den Zuschauern lange Zeit kaum Gelegenheit, mit den Figuren mitzufiebern. Becher Fazit: "„Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2“ ist nicht frei von Schwächen, macht aber sehr viel Spaß." Marin Schwickert von der Augsburger Allgemeinen Zeitung konstatierte eine "eher schlaff-komische Gruppendynamik im Heldenteam", die sich "auf ihren Charakterisierungen aus Teil 1" ausruhen und "in ihrem schrägen Dasein" erstarrt wirken. Zwei von fünf Punkten vergebend urteilte er: "„Vol. 2“ ist in 137 Minuten ein ermüdender Wiederaufguss und zeigt erneut, dass sich Humor und Komik selten erfolgreich in einem Franchise rekultivieren lassen." Daniel Benedict von der Neuen Osnabrücker Zeitung bemerkte eine Selbstironie, die selbst im nonchalanten Marvel-Universum einzigartig sei. Action und Effekte seien in dieser immer wieder sehr lustigen „Guardians“-Fortsetzung grundsätzlich ihre eigene Persiflage. Sein Fazit fiel wie das seines Kollegen aus deer Ausgburger Allgemeinen Zeitung aber negativ aus: "Zwei Stunden lang feiern die Guardians gemeinsam mit ihren Fans eine funky Party, an deren Ende sogar die Asche kremierter Helden wie Holi-Puder durchs All schwebt. Konfetti in kosmischen Nichts: Ein schönes Bild für das jubelnde „Anything goes“ dieses Films, der in jeder Szene beides zugleich ist: übervoll, aber auch leer. . "

Sokovia Accords

 * 1) The accords mentioned in the second post-credits scene are the Sokovia Accords  which "ask each individual superhero to be accountable for their actions."

Infrmation regarding the second post-credits scene and the mention of the accords therein was reversed with the following statement: "/Film uses the term "likely", Movieweb first says "may be" and in later articles doesn't give any attribution to where the information came from. Please wait for something more concrete and use the talk page first next time". Before I response to the accords itself some sentence with respect to the talk page process. I added information which in my eyes was concrete enough to added. After it was pointed out that I cited the wrong source I responded by adding other sources to support my claim. After the above cited response to my second edit I'm willing to discuss the issue at the talk page. So while I'm willing to react to responses I'm unwilling to use the talk page first to make my case without to the ability to use the article page first for some edits. At least two edits should be allowed for editors to react to edit responses before the accusation of edit warring is raised or an edit war starts.

I think the information that the accords mentioned in the second post credits scene are not speculative. Evidences (emphasis added):

 * 1) Dash Film source: "Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and and Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie) discuss what to do next, revealing that they can’t call Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) because of  “the Accords,” referencing the Sokovia Accords that have been put in place following the events of The Avengers: Age of Ultron[...]."
 * 2) 2015-07-23 MovieWeb source: "And this is follow-up up by a plaque that may be The Sokovia Accords, which are the Accords Steve Rogers reveals during the Ant-Man stinger that won't allow Tony Stark to help them."
 * 3) 2015-08-28 MovieWeb source: "Going off the Ant-Man post-credit scene, which finds Falcon and Captain America trying to free The Winter Solider's bionic arm from a vice, the Superhero Registration Act is being called the Sokovia Accords in Captain America: Civil War, and they ask each individual superhero to be accountable for their actions."

As the wording of the stressed verbs shows the accords are not mentioned as something speculative but something of the past and present it is fair to say the accords are real and not speculative. Further evidence comes from Marvel President Kevin Feige. He revealed that the post-credit sequence was footage shot by Anthony and Joe Russo from Captain America: Civil War. This reinforces the Dash Film source and 2015-07-23 MovieWeb source because thus  we know the accords mentioned in the second Ant-Man post credits scene are real i.e. are already part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Conclusion: The accords mentioned in the second Ant-Man post credits scene aren't speculative, but real and concrete and should be therefore added as The Sokovia Accords.

Joseph Wigler of MTV.com considered the movie as "one of the most entertaining Ethan Hunt adventures" which proves that "the franchise still has plenty of fight left in it, with no signs of slowing down." He praised the perfomances of Cruise and Ferguson, aplauding the latter for playing "the most fascinating character in the entire movie" and "one of the most complicated and alluring characters in the entire five film series."

As of February 23, 2016 91 prisoners remain in Guantánamo. From these 91 prisoners 35 are recommended for transfer if security conditions can be met. The remaining prisoners are expected to be brought to U.S. facilities in the United States. If brought to the United States, some of those detainees would continue through military commissions; others might face trial in civilian courts. 13 potential facilities in the United States that might be used to house detainees were reviewed by the Obama Administration, but their names were not revealed. The foregoing information were published because the U.S. Congress has asked the administration to include information about where and how the administration intends to hold existing and future detainees, if Guantanamo is closed. Obama's plan was rejected by several Republicans in Congress.

Der Einsatz militärischer Gewalt im Inland durch die Bundeswehr ist demnach unter engen Grenzen ultima ratio zulässig und durch Artikel 35 Absatz 2 Satz 2 und Absatz 3 Grundgesetz grundsätzlich auch nicht ausgeschlossen.

Die Redation der auf Unterhaltung spezialisierten Nachrichtenagentur spot on news nahm Gal Gadots schauspielerische Leistung positiv auf. Gadot gehe in anspruchsvollen Rolle der Wonder Woman voll auf und vermöge dabei die Augen der Zuschauer aus Rührung oder vor Lachen glänzen zu lassen. Ungeachtet ihrer schwer von der Hand zu weisenden, physischen Attraktivität verkörpere Gadot vor allem eine Heldin, die mit ihren Werten, ihren Überzeugungen und ihrer Selbstständigkeit überzeuge. In diesem Zusammenhang wurde jedoch moniert, dass es eigentlich ein Jammer sei, dass eine ähnliche Erkenntnis erst im Jahr 2017 in einem gelungenen Film mit einer weiblichen Superheldin (von einer weiblichen Regisseurin) münde und daher als Meilenstein gefeiert werden müsse. Die Redaktion von spot on news bilanziert: "Es ist kein Leichtes, eine übertriebene Superheldin wie "Wonder Woman" einerseits lustig-charmant, andererseits kriegsgebeutelt darzustellen. Regisseurin Patty Jenkins ist dieser Spagat nicht nur gelungen, sie hat mit ihrem Film ein längst überfälliges Statement im Comicfilm-Universum gesetzt. [...] Auch wenn "Wonder Woman" meist auf bewährten Action-Einheitsbrei setzt, die positive Stimmung, mit der der Film Frauen wie Männer in die Nacht entlässt, bleibt: Von solchen Superheldinnen wollen wir mehr sehen."

 * Bundesministerium für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz (ohne Datum): Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz. Archiviert vom Original am 2. November 2017. Abgerufen am 2. November 2017.
 * Bundesministerium für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz (ohne Datum): Fair im Netz - Fragen und Antworten zum Thema:Netzwerkdurchsetzunggesetz. Archiviert vom Original am 2. November 2017. Abgerufen am 2. November 2017.

Haus ohne Dach Rezeptionen
Jenni Zylka von SPIEGEL Online meinte zwar, dass die Geschichte Fahrt in Richtung typisches Wurzelsuche-Genre aufnehme, aber dank der kurdisch-deutschen Regisseurin Soleen Yusef doch glücklicherweise einen ganz anderen und weniger ausgetretenen Weg gehe. Sie lobte die Darstellung der Figuren: So machen "authentische Figuren den Charme des Films aus: Die ruppigen Tankstellenjungs mit dem großherzigen Vater, der die Geschwister selbstlos bewirtet und zum Übernachten auf seiner Steinveranda unter den Sternen einlädt; der auf den ersten Blick regimetreue, dann aber doch höchst sensible Polizist; der weise Schäfer; der aufdringliche, aber gutherzige Taxifahrer - ohne zu sehr in Stereotype zu fallen, zeichnet Yusef mit genauem Blick und knappen Dialogen ein glaubhaftes Bild der Situationen."

Der Journalist und Historiker Nils Michaelis von der Zeitung vorwärts sah in Haus ohne Dach ein ungewöhnliches Roadmovie, in dem die Regisseurin es vermeidet "Land und Leute zu idyllisieren oder in allzu dramatischen Farben zu malen. Vielmehr bemüht sich der Film um Eindruck von Alltäglichkeit." Michaelis lobt Soleen Yusef für "ihren so unaufgeregten wie genauen Blick bewahrt, mit dem sie die von den Schrecken der Vergangenheit und der Gegenwart erzählt." Leyla Yenirce von der Zeitung Der Tagespiegel knüpft an die Beobachtung von Michaelis an, indem sie Soleen Yusef für ihre Herangehensweise an den Film lobte: "Trotz des schwierigen politischen Hintergrunds trifft Yusef einen ernsten, aber humorvollen Ton und zeigt so ganz nebenbei, dass ein Film über die Geschichte Kurdistans nicht ausschließlich melancholisch und leidvoll erzählt sein muss. Sie leistet damit einen wichtigen Beitrag nicht nur für das kurdische Kino, sondern zeigt auch neue Perspektiven im deutschen Kino auf."

Markus Raska vom Wochenmagazin ZITTY lobte Youssef ebenfalls. Dieser gelinge "es in ihrem wunderbaren Debüt nicht nur, das Politische im Privaten zu spiegeln, sie kreiert auch durch die bis in die Nebenfiguren mit viel Wärme gezeichneten Rollen eine Atmosphäre voller feinem Humor und sanfter Poesie. Im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Filmen von und über diese unruhige Gegend der Welt verweist sie trotz der grausamen Abgründe, die auch hier nie weit entfernt sind, auf das Gute im Menschen."

Sabine Fischer von der Stuttgarter Zeitung lobte einerseits die mit "erstaunlich viel Einfühlungsvermögen und einen Blick für die Tragik kaum sichtbarer Augenblicke" erzählte innere Entwicklung der Protagonisten, und andererseits die clevere Einbettung von Versatzstücken der Weltgeschichte, wodurch auf subtile Art und Weise den Blick auf ein Gesamtbild geweitet werde, das für viele Zuschauer sonst nur aus Fernsehreportagen und abstrakten Zahlen bestehen dürfte. Fischer sah in Haus ohne Dach zudem einen autobiographischen Film von Soleen Yusef: "In ihrem Familiendrama „Haus ohne Dach“ erzählt die kurdisch-deutsche Regisseurin Soleen Yusef [...] eindrucksvoll von der zehrenden Identitätssuche ihrer Generation – und das mit klarer Erzählstimme und scharfem Blick für die inneren Kämpfe ihrer Figuren. [...] Die ungleichen Geschwister personalisieren auf clevere Art und Weise verschiedene Stadien der Identitätssuche, der sich so viele Migrantenkinder gegenüber sehen: Liya, die Angepasste. Alan, der Verlorene. Jan, der Traditionsbewusste. Drei Menschen, drei Strategien, um mit der Frage umzugehen, wer genau man eigentlich ist. Und die versucht Yusef zu beantworten, indem sie die drei Lebenswelten mit großem Wumms aufeinander prallen lässt." Regisseurin Soleen Yusef merkte in diesem Zusammenhang in einem Interview mit dem Deutschlandradio Kultur von Ende August 2017 an: "Ich verstehe den Film immer als so eine Art Patchwork aus vielen Geschichten aus meinem Umfeld. Die Beziehung zwischen den Geschwistern wie auch der Konflikt zu den Eltern ist, glaube ich, sehr autobiografisch. Alles andere ist so eine Art Geschichtserzählung aus einem ganzen Ort sozusagen, die irgendwie zusammengewebt worden sind zu einer Familienbiografie."

Knut Elsterman von MDR Kultur sah im Debütfilm von Soleen Yusef eine erstaunliche Geschlossenheit und große emotionale Kraft, die vor allem daher rühre, dass sich die Regisseurin ganz auf ihre Figuren konzentriere. Sie begleite diese zerrissenen Menschen mit großer innerer Anteilnahme bei dieser gefahrvollen Reise und vermittele wie nebenbei tiefere Einsichten in die verzweifelte Lage des Landes. Das Hamburger Abendblatt sah in der Kurdistan-Odyssee der Geschwister-Protagonisten einerseits eine Art Roadtrip, und anderseits ein unter schwierigen Drehbedingungen entstandenes, teils sehr aufreibendes Drama, das auch für deutsche Kinozuschauer interessant sei. Und die Jury des First Steps Awards urteilte: "Ein kurdischer Heimatfilm, klischeefrei, lustig, anrührend – und ein anderer Blick auf die Menschen, die „Flüchtlinge“ genannt werden."

Ulrich Sonnenschein von epd Film meint, man sehe dem Film nicht an, unter welchen Bedingungen und mit welchem Budget er entstand: „Starke Charaktere, karge, aber treffende Dialoge und eine Bewegung, die auch die knapp zwei Stunden überdauert, das Konzept ist durchdacht und überzeugend.“ Wenn Soleen Yusef starke Bilder finden musste, so Sonnenschein, suchte sie diese in den Gesichtern der Menschen, denn bei aller Faszination für den Ort, bei aller Heimatverbundenheit und Sehnsucht nach dem eigenen Land, gehe es ihr in erster Linie um das Gefühl der Zusammengehörigkeit. Michael Heins von programmkino.de, dem Kinomagazin der deutschen Arthouse-, Filmkunst- und Programmkinos, monierte eine nicht immer eine gelungene Balance zwischen Andeutung und Zuspitzung, die zu bekannt, zu sehr nach Variation von erzählerischen Mustern, zu überlegt und gewollt wirke. Demnoch attestierte er dem Film, dass das etwas unbestimmte Erzählen zu einer Stärke werde, "die am Ende dazu beiträgt, dass „Haus ohne Dach“ nicht auf intellektuelle, aber dafür emotionale Weise über den Krieg im Osten der Türkei und das Schicksal der Kurden in der Region erzählt" Verene Schmöller vom Portal für Film und Kino kino-zeit.de meinte das Haus ohne Dach ein Film sei, indem das Bild sehr wichtig sei. Sie schreibt: "Die Milieus und die politischen Verhältnisse, die den Film ebenso prägen wie das Dazwischensein zwischen der deutschen und der kurdischen Kultur, machen den Film allerdings zu etwas Besonderem. Sie nehmen den Zuschauer mit auf eine Reise in eine fremde Kultur, geben ihm eine einzigartige Tonalität und wecken in der Regisseurin, wie sie sagt, Erinnerungen und ein Gefühl von Heimat. [...] Und es sind vor allem die Bilder, mit denen Yusuf überzeugt: Totalen, die die karge, aber beeindruckende Landschaft zeigen, wechseln sich ab mit Nahaufnahmen, die das Hin- und Hergerissensein der Figuren sichtbar machen."

Die Erfindung der Wahrheit Rezeptionen
Marie Schmidt von ZEIT Online lobte einerseits den Kontrast zwischen der Jessica Chastain gespielten Miss Sloante und der Schauspielerin selber, kritisierte aber andererseits den Film als solches. Sie schrieb: "Der Kontrast zwischen der zynischen Kälte ihrer Figur und der feinnervigen Sensibilität der Schauspielerin gibt diesem Film ein Charisma, das er eigentlich nicht verdient hat.Denn dieser mit routiniertem Drive inszenierte und geschnittene Film ist ein Empörstück, das wie der politische Populismus ein großes Theater veranstaltet um die Idee, "die da oben" würden unsere Geschicke unter sich ausdealen, mit Machtgier und vielen Millionen Dollar." Verena Lueken von der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung kritisierte den Film hingegen als zäh. "Zwar wird teilweise rasant geschnitten und mit einiger Schärfe geredet und argumentiert, aber die Figuren gewinnen keine Kontur, so dass es für den Zuschauer letztlich keine Rolle spielt, wer die Gefechte gewinnt."

David Kleingers von SPIEGEL Online hob die schauspielerische Leistung von Jessica Chastain und der von ihr gespielten Elisabeth Sloane positiv hervor. Er kam zu folgenden Schluss: "Unterstützt von einem starken Ensemble bereitet der Film [...] die Bühne für die raumgreifende Performance von "Miss Sloane" - so der Originaltitel -, und es ist ein wendungsreiches wie zynisches Vergnügen, Jessica Chastains Lobbyistin bei der Meinungsmache in den Korridoren der Macht zuzusehen. Eine andere Erzählung hätte womöglich einen dramatischen Läuterungsprozess der Figur ins Zentrum gestellt, doch Elisabeth Sloane bleibt in ihrer ethischen und zwischenmenschlichen Zwiespältigkeit bis zum spannenden Finale unkalkulierbar."

Hans-Georg Rodeck von der Zeitung die Welt sah im Film eine Dualität bestehend aus dem "Porträt einer Frau, die beruflichen Erfolg über alles stellt" und einem "Blick hinter die Kulissen einer Tätigkeit, die eine andere Filmfigur „den moralisch korruptesten Berufsstand seit den Geisterheilern“ nennt." Dabei sei „Die Erfindung der Wahrheit“ das Sittengemälde einer Branche und das Seelengemälde einer Frau, die sich vorgenommen habe, Männer an Taffness noch weit zu überholen. Und ebenso liefere Jessica Chastain die besten Vorstellung ihrer an Höhepunkten nicht armen Karriere. Rodeck lobte den Film bilanzierend als "geistreich, verdichtet und (meistens) dem mitdenkenden Zuschauer anderthalb Wendungen voraus."

Der für die Zeitung Der Tagesspiegel arbeitende Christian Schröder sah in Die Erfindung der Wahrheit eine Demonstration, wie sehr die Sitten verfallen seien sowie ein Kommentar zur Bedeutung von Fake News in Zeiten von Donald Trump. Er bilanzierte: "Wenn man nicht schon aus der Präsidentenserie „House of Cards“ wüsste, dass in Washington die Gesetze von Shakespeare gelten – in „Die Erfindung der Wahrheit“ würde man es lernen. Allerdings überdreht der Film am Ende etwas zu arg, und dass Sloane als beziehungsunfähige, unbefriedigte Karrierefrau sich mit Callboys treffen muss, ist ein ärgerliches Klischee. Doch Jessica Chastain wahrt bis zum Schluss ihr Geheimnis. Inmitten unaufhörlichen Geplappers ist das eine oscarreife Leistung. Ebenfalls lobend nahm Knut Elstermann die schauspielerische Leistung von Jessica Chastain auf: "Jessica Chastains differenziertes Spiel in dieser zwiespältigen Rolle ist ein Ereignis. Eine hochintelligente Frau, die das Gute mit schlimmen Mitteln will. Dabei enthüllt der starke Thriller auch noch, welche manipulativen Prozesse hinter politischen Entscheidungen der Politiker stehen, beeinflusst und gesteuert von Menschen ohne Mandat wie Miss Sloane, die niemand gewählt hat."

Patrick Seyboth von epd Film meinte, dass es der Regisseur John Madden schaffe, dass die Melange aus Charakterstudie und Politthriller nie langweilig werde. Seine Inszenierung konzentriere sich auf die Figuren und deren Interaktion und beweise einen ausgeprägten Sinn für subtile visuelle Akzente – genau das richtige Rezept, um mit dem Dialogfeuerwerk des Drehbuchs umzugehen. "Diesem allerdings merkt man an, dass es das Werk eines Debütanten ist: So viel Schärfe die verbalen Scharmützel aus der Feder von Jonathan Perera entfalten und so elegant immer wieder die Themen Wahrheit, Identität und Moral eingeflochten sind, so überambitioniert wirken spätestens im letzten Viertel des Films die immer unglaubwürdigeren Wendungen. Um wie viel stärker könnte dieser Film sein, hätten die Produzenten auf ein paar Überraschungen weniger bestanden. So verpufft am Ende einiges von der Wirkung der Geschichte, während immerhin Miss Sloane wenig sympathisch, aber sehr faszinierend bleibt."

Lucas Barwenczik vom Portal für Film und Kino kino-zeit.de sah im Film Die Erfindung der Warheit eine auf Momentbasis gelingende Charakterstudie. "Gelegentlich entlockt Chastain der skrupellosen Lobbyistin eine interessante Geste, einen besonders kalten Blick oder aber auch das Gegenteil – eine kurze Entgleisung, eine Eruption, vielleicht sogar einen Hauch von Zweifel. Sloane ist eine Figur, die Masken über Masken trägt. [...] Ein moralischer, emotionaler Kern wird angedeutet, tief unter Schichten des Pragmatismus verborgen, doch eigentlich geht es nicht um eine wie auch immer geartete Enthüllung. Eine letzte Panzerschicht bleibt bestehen, zum Glück: In ihrer endgültigen Dekonstruktion hätte kein Wert gelegen. Das gerade so zu erahnende Pochen eines Herzens ist in diesem Fall spannender als der offene Brustkorb." Barwenczik kritisierte jedoch, dass sich alles zu sehr um den Charakter der Elisabeth Sloane drehe: "Selbst die Nebenfiguren, gespielt von Stars wie Mark Strong oder John Lithgow, sind nie mehr als ihre Funktion, Bezugspunkte im System Elizabeth Sloane. Hätte John Madden konsequent sein wollen, er hätte nur eine einzige Schauspielerin gebraucht."

Nobel Peace Prize Lecture (December 10, 2014)
Nobel lecture during the Nobel Peace Prize awards ceremony at the City Hall in Oslo, Norway on December 10, 2014

 * This award is not just for me. It is for those forgotten children who want education. It is for those frightened children who want peace. It is for those voiceless children who want change. I am here to stand up for their rights, raise their voice ... it is not time to pity them. It is time to take action so it becomes the last time that we see a child deprived of education.

 * I have found that people describe me in many different ways. Some people call me the girl who was shot by the Taliban. And some, the girl who fought for her rights. Some people, call me a "Nobel Laureate" now. As far as I know, I am just a committed and stubborn person who wants to see every child getting quality education, who wants equal rights for women and who wants peace in every corner of the world.

 * Education is one of the blessings of life — and one of its necessities.

 * When my world suddenly changed, my priorities changed too. I had two options. One was to remain silent and wait to be killed. And the second was to speak up and then be killed. I chose the second one. I decided to speak up.

 * I am not a lone voice, I am not a lone voice, I am many. I am Malala. But I am also Shazia. I am Kainat. I am Kainat Soomro. I am Mezon. I am Amina. I am those 66 million girls who are deprived of education. And today I am not raising my voice, it is the voice of those 66 million girls.

 * Sometimes people like to ask me why should girls go to school, why is it important for them. But I think the more important question is why shouldn't they, why shouldn't they have this right to go to school.

 * I hope the steps that Kailash Satyarthi and I have taken so far and will take on this journey will also bring change – lasting change. My great hope is that this will be the last time, this will be the last time we must fight for education. Let's solve this once and for all. We have already taken many steps. Now it is time to take a leap. It is not time to tell the world leaders to realise how important education is - they already know it - their own children are in good schools. Now it is time to call them to take action for the rest of the world's children. We ask the world leaders to unite and make education their top priority.

 * The world can no longer accept, the world can no longer accept that basic education is enough. Why do leaders accept that for children in developing countries, only basic literacy is sufficient, when their own children do homework in Algebra, Mathematics, Science and Physics? Leaders must seize this opportunity to guarantee a free, quality, primary and secondary education for every child. Some will say this is impractical, or too expensive, or too hard. Or maybe even impossible. But it is time the world thinks bigger.

 * Why is it that countries which we call strong" are so powerful in creating wars but are so weak in bringing peace? Why is it that giving guns is so easy but giving books is so hard? Why is it, why is it that making tanks is so easy, but building schools is so hard?

 * We are living in the modern age and we believe that nothing is impossible. We have reached the moon 45 years ago and maybe will soon land on Mars. Then, in this 21st century, we must be able to give every child quality education.

Inaugural Address (1965)
Lyndon Baines Johnson: Inaugural Address (20 January 1965

 * We are one nation and one people. Our fate as a nation and our future as a people rest not upon one citizen, but upon all citizens. This is the majesty and the meaning of this moment.

 * For every generation, there is a destiny. For some, history decides. For this generation, the choice must be our own. [...] Our destiny in the midst of change will rest on the unchanged character of our people, and on their faith.

 * They came here—the exile and the stranger, brave but frightened—to find a place where a man could be his own man. They made a covenant with this land. Conceived in justice, written in liberty, bound in union, it was meant one day to inspire the hopes of all mankind; and it binds us still. If we keep its terms, we shall flourish.

 * First, justice was the promise that all who made the journey would share in the fruits of the land. In a land of great wealth, families must not live in hopeless poverty. In a land rich in harvest, children just must not go hungry. In a land of healing miracles, neighbors must not suffer and die unattended. In a great land of learning and scholars, young people must be taught to read and write.

 * Justice requires us to remember that when any citizen denies his fellow, saying, "His color is not mine," or "His beliefs are strange and different," in that moment he betrays America, though his forebears created this Nation.

 * Liberty was the second article of our covenant. It was self-government. It was our Bill of Rights. But it was more. America would be a place where each man could be proud to be himself: stretching his talents, rejoicing in his work, important in the life of his neighbors and his nation. This has become more difficult in a world where change and growth seem to tower beyond the control and even the judgment of men. We must work to provide the knowledge and the surroundings which can enlarge the possibilities of every citizen. The American covenant called on us to help show the way for the liberation of man. And that is today our goal. Thus, if as a nation there is much outside our control, as a people no stranger is outside our hope.

 * We are all fellow passengers on a dot of earth. And each of us, in the span of time, has really only a moment among our companions. How incredible it is that in this fragile existence, we should hate and destroy one another. There are possibilities enough for all who will abandon mastery over others to pursue mastery over nature. There is world enough for all to seek their happiness in their own way.

 * We aspire to nothing that belongs to others. We seek no dominion over our fellow man, but man's dominion over tyranny and misery. But more is required. Men want to be a part of a common enterprise—a cause greater than themselves. Each of us must find a way to advance the purpose of the Nation, thus finding new purpose for ourselves. Without this, we shall become a nation of strangers.

 * The third article was union. [...] By working shoulder to shoulder, together we can increase the bounty of all. We have discovered that every child who learns, every man who finds work, every sick body that is made whole—like a candle added to an altar—brightens the hope of all the faithful. So let us reject any among us who seek to reopen old wounds and to rekindle old hatreds. They stand in the way of a seeking nation. Let us now join reason to faith and action to experience, to transform our unity of interest into a unity of purpose. For the hour and the day and the time are here to achieve progress without strife, to achieve change without hatred—not without difference of opinion, but without the deep and abiding divisions which scar the union for generations.

 * I do not believe that the Great Society is the ordered, changeless, and sterile battalion of the ants. It is the excitement of becoming—always becoming, trying, probing, falling, resting, and trying again—but always trying and always gaining.

 * In each generation, with toil and tears, we have had to earn our heritage again. If we fail now, we shall have forgotten in abundance what we learned in hardship: that democracy rests on faith, that freedom asks more than it gives, and that the judgment of God is harshest on those who are most favored. If we succeed, it will not be because of what we have, but it will be because of what we are; not because of what we own, but, rather because of what we believe. For we are a nation of believers. Underneath the clamor of building and the rush of our day's pursuits, we are believers in justice and liberty and union, and in our own Union. We believe that every man must someday be free. And we believe in ourselves.

 * Our enemies have always made the same mistake. In my lifetime—in depression and in war—they have awaited our defeat. Each time, from the secret places of the American heart, came forth the faith they could not see or that they could not even imagine. It brought us victory. And it will again. For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest sleeping in the unplowed ground. Is our world gone? We say "Farewell." Is a new world coming? We welcome it—and we will bend it to the hopes of man.

 * To these trusted public servants and to my family and those close friends of mine who have followed me down a long, winding road, and to all the people of this Union and the world, I will repeat today what I said on that sorrowful day in November 1963: "I will lead and I will do the best I can." But you must look within your own hearts to the old promises and to the old dream. They will lead you best of all.

Am 25.03.2013 erklärte das Bundesverfassungsgerichts Teile des ZDF-Staatsvertrages für unvereinbar mit der Rundfunkfreiheit,  nachdem es folgende Vorgaben für die Aufsichtsgremien von öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten gemacht hat:
 * 1) Der Anteil "staatlicher und staatsnaher Personen" in Aufsichtsgremien öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunkanstalten darf höchstens ein Drittel betragen. Auf einen staatlichen oder staatsnahen Vertreter in den Aufsichtsgremien müssen mindestens zwei nicht dem Staat zuzurechnende Mitglieder kommen.   Zur staatlichen Sphäre gehören Ministerpräsidenten, Minister, politische Beamte und Parteivertreter.
 * 2) Da die Rundfunkfreiheit auf eine Sicherung inhaltlicher Vielfalt angelegt sei, "wie sie allein über den freien Markt nicht gewährleistet werden kann", müssen in den Aufsichtsgremien "Personen mit möglichst vielfältigen Perspektiven und Erfahrungshorizonten aus allen Bereichen des Gemeinwesens" präsent sein.
 * 3) VertreterInnen der Exekutive dürfen auf die Auswahl der staatsfernen Mitglieder keinen bestimmenden Einfluss haben; zudem sind Inkompatibilitätsregelungen zu schaffen, die die Staatsferne der staatsfernen Mitglieder in persönlicher Hinsicht gewährleisten.
 * 4) Zur Stärkung der persönlichen Unabhängigkeit müssen Mitglieder von Aufsichtsgremien von etwaigen Weisungen unabhängig sein und dürfen nur aus "wichtigem Grund" abberufen werden.
 * 5) Mindestmaß an Transparenz in den Aufsichtsgremien, d.h. 1.) Zusammensetzung der Gremien und Ausschüsse sowie die anstehenden Tagesordnungen müssen ohne Probleme erfahrbar sein & 2.) Zeitnahe Veröffentlichung der Sitzungsprotokolle der Aufsichtsgremien und -ausschüsse oder substanzielle Unterrichtung der Öffentlichkeit über Gegenstand und Ergebnisse der Beratungen auf anderem Weg.

Simpel Rezeptionen
Der Film bekam trotz mancher kritischer Rezensionen größenteils gute Bewertungen. Die Zeitung Westfälische Nachrichten zufolge etwa ist die Flucht der beiden Brüder vor der Polizei nach Hamburg "Auftakt einer tollen, zwischen humorvollen und rührenden Szenen gelassen pendelnden Odyssee und eine schöne Geschichte über Bruderliebe. Viel besser als der vergleichbare halbgare und alberne Schweiger-Film „Honig im Kopf“ und einer der deutschen Filme des Jahres." Jenny Hoch von der Zeitung Die ZEIT lobte nebden Hauptdarstellern Kross und Lau auch die sonstige Besetzung. So lobte sie die Darsteller Annette Frier, Emilia Schüle und Devid Striesow. Hoch hob die Rolle der Stadt Hamburg hervor: "Simpel ist kein einfacher Film. Er besticht durch Schattierungen und hat sogar noch einen dritten Hauptdarsteller, der sich zwar erst nach einer guten halben Stunde ins Bild mogelt, aber dann sehr präsent ist: die Stadt Hamburg. Von ein paar Luftbildern der glitzernden Metropole bei Nacht abgesehen, dient die Großstadt nicht als Traumkulisse, sondern als Auslöser für die innere Entwicklung der Figuren. Die rastlosen Hochbahnen, das Treiben auf der Fruchtallee, im Schanzenviertel und auf St. Pauli, das alles kann Angst machen, aber auch neue Lebenswege aufzeigen. Je tiefer die Helden in die Topografie der Stadt vordringen, desto weiter wird ihr Horizont."

Britta Schmeis von epd Film sagt, Markus Goller habe den gleichnamigen Jugendroman von Marie-Aude Murail als bewegende Tragikomödie inszeniert, die alle Fragen von Verantwortung, Pflichtgefühl, Familie und Freundschaft aufgreife. Schmeis erklärt, Simpels liebenswerte Kindlichkeit entwaffne und führe zu urkomischen und rührenden Situationen, etwa wenn er, stets mit seinem Stofftier Hasehase im Schlepptau, auf einem Spielplatz ein behindertes Mädchen trifft und sich mit ihm anfreundet. Aber auch das liebevolle, fast allzu aufopfernde Kümmern Bens zerreiße einem so manches Mal das Herz, so Schmeis, und es handele sich um einen Film, der viele menschliche Gefühle anspreche und daher berühre. In diesselbe Richtung wie Britta Schmeis sah auch Bettina Peulecke vom Norddeutschen Rundfunk den Film. Ihrer Meinung ist die Inszenierung der besonderen Bruderbeziehung "ein größtenteils gelungener Balanceakt zwischen Tragik und Komik, der man manche überzogene Momente aufgrund ihrer Aufrichtigkeit schnell verzeiht."

Matthias Halbig spricht in der Hannoverschen Allgemeinen von großem, echtem Gefühlskino: „'Simpel' ist witzig, traurig, zart und randvoll mit Abenteuern – ein Lehrgang zum Herzen, den Regisseur Markus Goller dem Zuschauer nie mit Kitsch zustellt. Kross ist großartig als enthusiastischer, unschuldiger Kindmann, Lau nicht minder anrührend als bester Freund, den ein Bruder haben kann. Zwei Typen, die das Kino mit ihrer Geschichte der Inklusion durch Liebe bereichern, wie es damals Arnie (Leonardo DiCaprio) und Gilbert Grape (Johnny Depp) taten, irgendwo in Iowa.“

In einer Kritik zum Film bei Focus Online ist der Film als warmherziges und amüsantes Roadmovie mit großartigen Schauspielern beschrieben: „Mit zwei sehr unterschiedlichen Menschen in den Hauptrollen, deren Stärke es ist, immer füreinander da zu sein. Genau von dieser Beziehung zwischen Ben und Simpel lebt der Film. Frederick Lau und David Kross haben keinerlei Berührungsängste, sodass man ihnen ohne jeden Zweifel abnimmt, dass sie Brüder sind. Die Rollen scheinen perfekt auf die beiden Schauspieler zugeschnitten worden zu sein.“

Über Kross sagt Peter Zander von der Berliner Morgenpost, es sei bewegend, wie er bei Eiseskälte in Unterhosen und Moonboots im Watt tanzt und mit seiner naiven Gutmütigkeit selbst die Herzen wildfremder Menschen öffnet. Aber auch Lau berühre als Ben, der alles für seinen Bruder tut, auch wenn er dadurch nie Zeit für ein eigenes Leben hat und letztlich mit der Situation heillos überfordert ist.

Gemischte Kritk gab es von Marc Reichwein von der Zeitung Die Welt. Er meinte, dass Feel-Good-Filme schon zu oft die waren, die viel wollen und wenig können. Der Film schaffe zwar schafft anrührende Szenen, führe die wechselseitige Abhängigkeit von Familienmitgliedern vor, birge komische und tragikomische Momente. Daneben störten aber einige irgendwie verschenkte Szenen, Simpels Eindringen in die Familie seines leiblichen Vaters etwa. Sein Fazit: "Man geht emotional nicht gerade erschüttert, ergriffen, geläutert aus dem Kino. Dafür nämlich ist dieser Film dann irgendwie doch zu lau, namentlich die Figur, die Lau verkörpert. Alles, was Simpel begegnet, fügt sich ein bisschen zu wohlgefällig ins sozialpädagogisch Gute. Vielleicht, ahnt man, ist die Realität doch ein bisschen weniger simpel als „Simpel“."

Eugen Zentner vom Filmblog Filmverliebt lobte zwar die schauspielerische Leistungen von David Kross und Frederick Lau. Sein Fazit fiel jedoch ebenfalls gemischt aus: "«Simpel» ist eine Tragikomödie über Respekt, Nächstenliebe und Lebensängste, die visuell kühle Bilder mit menschlicher Wärme kontrastiert. Der Tonfall der Erzählung macht sie gewiss zu einem rührenden Film. Dennoch wäre es gewagt, hier von einem «Feel-Good-Movie» zu sprechen. Gute Laune gibt es nur in sehr kleinen Portionen, was größtenteils der spannungsarmen Handlung und dem nicht immer stilsicheren Witz geschuldet ist. Der Film ist ganz passabel, feinfühlig und atmosphärisch dicht. Doch das reicht nicht aus, um mit Feel-Good-Movies wie «Garden State» oder «Forrest Gump» mithalten zu können."

Hingegen befindet Martin Schwickert in der Sächsischen Zeitung, der Film kranke „erheblich an der Glaubwürdigkeit seiner eindimensionalen Charaktere“ und behandele die Probleme im Zusammenleben mit behinderten Menschen „vollkommen oberflächlich [...], um den flauschigen Wohlfühlcharakter des Unterhaltungsproduktes nicht zu gefährden“. Die „deutlich komplexer ausgearbeitete“ Vorlage werde „ins deutsche Mainstreamformat hineinbanalisiert“. Bianka Piringer von "kino-zeit.de - Das Portal für Film und Kino" meinte kritisch bilanzierend: "Der Film entlässt seine Zuschauer ohne emotionalen Nachhall und auch nicht mit dem Eindruck, etwas Relevantes über die Welt und ihre Menschen erfahren zu haben."

2020-06-01 ARD Videotext Meldungen zum 2020-05-31 Tod von Christo Vladimiroff Javacheff

 * 2020-06-01 ARD Videotext Meldungen zum 2020-05-31 Tod von Christo Vladimiroff Javacheff:
 * 1) Videotext Seite 411 "Verhüllungskünstler Christo tot" aus dem Bereich Kultur: Nachrichten. Archiviert 1. Juni 2020 und gesichert am 2. Juni 2020 vom Original
 * 2) Videotext Seite 412 "Porträt: Christo" aus dem Bereich Kultur: Nachrichten. Archiviert 1. Juni 2020 und gesichert am 2. Juni 2020 vom Original"
 * 3) Videotext Seite 413 "Hintergrund: Christo - Chronologie" aus dem Bereich Kultur: Nachrichten''. Archiviert am 1. Juni 2020 und gesichert am 2. Juni 2020 vom Original"
 * 4) Videotext Seite 414 "Bundesregierung würdigt Christo" aus dem Bereich Kultur: Nachrichten. Archiviert 1. Juni 2020 und gesichert am 2. Juni 2020 vom Original"

2014 äußerte sich Christo zu seine Arbeiten mit folgenden Worten: "Es ist total irrational und sinnlos." Millionen Mesnchen waren demnoch von der Schönheit seiner in abstrakte Objekte verwandelten Gebäude und Landschaften fasziniert.

In seinem von 1935 bis 2020 reichenden Leben realisierte Christo zusammen mit seiner Frau viele Kunstprojekte.

Das Lebenswerk von Christo wurde nach dessen Tod von der Bundesregierung gewürdigt. So schrieb Kulturstaatsministerin Monika Grütters (CDU) auf Twitter, Christo habe "die Menschen weltweit gelehrt, neu und schärfer zu sehen." Bundesaußenminister Heiko Maaß (SPD) äußerte sich dahingehend, dass Christo und Jeanne-Claude "mit Kunst unsere Welt bereichert" hätten. Mit der Verhüllung des Reichtstages habe Christo "unserem wiedervereinten Land ein spektakuläres Denkmal" gesetzt, so der Bundesaußenminister auf Twitter

Erste Reaktionen
Bislang konnte der Film 84 Prozent der Kritiker bei Rotten Tomatoes überzeugen.

In ersten Reaktionen nach dem Wegfall des Social-Media-Embargos zeigten sich Filmkritiker via Twitter von dem voller Easter Eggs und Refenzen gespickten Film begeistert, auch wenn bemängelt wurde, der Film fühle sich wie die erste Hälfte eines Zweiteilers an, obwohl Marvel mehrmals betont hatte, dass dem nicht so sein sollte. Auch die ersten internationalen Pressestimmen waren größenteils begeitstern vom Film, während am Film beteiligte Schauspieler es auch waren.

Wilson Morales von Blackfilm.com meint, Avengers: Infinity War sei Non-Stop-Action von Anfang bis Ende, auch wenn sich etwas mehr Substanz in der Handlung finden könnte.

Eric Eisenberg von CinemaBlend spricht von atemberaubenden Momenten, einer großartigen Interaktion zwischen den Figuren und oft verheerenden Überraschungen. Sein Kollege Conner Schwerdtfeger meint, Avengers: Infinity War bewege sich auf einem nächsten Level und sei eine der emotionalsten, intensivsten und eindringlichsten Erfahrungen seines Lebens gewesen.

Joshua Yehl von IGN meint, der Film habe ihn durchgehend und über seine komplette Handlung hinweg entweder zum Lachen, Schreien oder zum Weinen gebracht. Sein Kollege Scott Collura bemerkt, besonders das Ende sei brilliant.

Address and Question and Answer Period at the Economic Club of New York

 * The President spoke at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City on December 14, 1962. Source: John F. Kennedy, Address and Question and Answer Period at the Economic Club of New York. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.

 * Less than a month ago this Nation reminded the world that it possessed both the will and the weapons to meet any threat to the security of free men. The gains we have made will not be given up, and the course that we have pursued will not be abandoned. But in the long run, that security will not be determined by military or diplomatic moves alone. It will be affected by the decisions of finance ministers as well as by the decisions of Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense; by the deployment of fiscal and monetary weapons as well as by military weapons; and above all by the strength of this Nation's economy as well as by the strength of our defenses.

 * But a leading nation, a nation upon which all depend not only in this country but around the world, cannot afford to be satisfied, to look back or to pause. On our strength and growth depend the strength of others, the spread of free world trade and unity, and continued confidence in our leadership and our currency. The underdeveloped countries are dependent upon us for the sale of their primary commodities and for aid to their struggling economies. In short, a prosperous and growing America is important not only to Americans--it is, as the spokesman for 20 Western nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, as he stressed this week, of vital importance to the entire Western World.

 * There is no need for us to be satisfied with a rate of growth that keeps good men out of work and good capacity out of use.

 * There are a number of ways by which the Federal Government can meet its responsibilities to aid economic growth. We can and must improve American education and technical training. We can and must expand civilian research and technology. One of the great bottlenecks for this country's economic growth in this decade will be the shortage of doctorates in mathematics, engineering, and physics; a serious shortage with a great demand and an under-supply of highly trained manpower. We can and must step up the development of our natural resources. But the most direct and significant kind of Federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand--to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing Federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the Government and our economy. If Government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency.

 * The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system; and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.

 * I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last 5 years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures. [...] While rising demand will expand imports, new investment in more efficient productive facilities will aid exports and a new economic climate could both draw capital from abroad and keep capital here at home.

 * Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues--but the greatest danger is a tax cut too little or too late to be effective.

 * When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are high.

 * Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The Government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. [...] For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.

 * Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates; they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax load of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service. These various exclusions and concessions have been justified in part as a means of overcoming oppressively high rates in the upper brackets--and a sharp reduction in those rates, accompanied by base-broadening, loophole-closing measures, would properly make the new rates not only lower but also more widely applicable. Surely this is more equitable on both counts.

 * I am confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut. Profit margins will be improved and both the incentive to invest and the supply of internal funds for investment will be increased. There will be new interest in taking risks, in increasing productivity, in creating new jobs and new products for long-term economic growth. Other national problems, moreover, will be aided by full employment. It will encourage the location of new plants in areas of labor surplus and provide new jobs for workers that we are retraining and facilitate the adjustment which will be necessary under our new trade expansion bill and reduce a number of government expenditures.

 * If the economy today were operating close to capacity levels with little unemployment, or if a sudden change in our military requirements should cause a scramble for men and resources, then I would oppose tax reductions as irresponsible and inflationary; and I would not hesitate to recommend a tax increase, if that were necessary. But our resources and manpower are not being fully utilized; the general level of prices has been remarkably stable; and increased competition, both at home and abroad, along with increased productivity will help keep both prices and wages within appropriate limits.

 * When I announced in April of 1961 that this kind of comprehensive tax reform would follow the bill enacted this year, I had hoped to present it in an atmosphere of a balanced budget. But it has been necessary to augment sharply our nuclear and conventional forces, to step up our efforts in space, to meet the increased cost of servicing the national debt and meeting our obligations, established by law, to veterans. These expenditure increases, let me stress, constitute practically all of the increases which have occurred under this administration, the remainder having gone to fight the recession we found in industry--mostly through the supplemental employment bill-and in agriculture. We shall, therefore, neither postpone our tax cut plans nor cut into essential national security programs. This administration is determined to protect America's security and survival and we are also determined to step up its economic growth. I think we must do both.

 * Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

 * I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.

 * I do not underestimate the obstacles which the Congress will face in enacting such legislation. No one will be satisfied. Everyone will have his own approach, his own bill, his own reduction. A high order of restraint and determination will be required if the possible is not to wait on the perfect. But a nation capable of marshaling these qualities in any dramatic threat to its security is surely capable, as a great free society, of meeting a slower and more complex threat to our economic vitality. This Nation can afford to reduce taxes, we can afford a temporary deficit, but we cannot afford to do nothing. For on the strength of our free economy rests the hope of all free nations. We shall not fail that hope, for free men and free nations must prosper and they must prevail.

 * When I was a Congressman I never realized how important Congress was, but now I do.

 * Well, the purpose of reform really is directed to the encouraging of growth and employment. I quite agree that to launch into a full scale battle on general reform for academic reasons would be unwise. The central purpose behind the reform must therefore be to encourage those changes in our tax laws which will encourage economic growth for that purpose, and not merely because it might have some longer range interest or significance. The primary job will be to encourage the flow of capital into those areas which stimulate the national growth and not diminish it. But it is going to be a tough fight, because once you spell out, as I said before, reform, it's bound to affect adversely the interests of some, while favoring the interests of others. Therefore reform may be a longer task, and we are anxious that in the effort to get reform, that we do not lose the very important matter of tax reduction for the sake of the economy.

 * So that as I tried to say in my speech, we are not faced with the question of balancing our budget, or having a tax reduction. I believe we are faced with the fact that we are going to have a deficit mostly because of the sharp rise in the recent years in space and defense, and to increase our taxes sufficient to bring that budget into balance would be defeating, because of course it would provide a heavy deflationary effect on our economy, and move us into a recession at an accelerated rate.

 * I want to point out that we have increased in conventional forces in the last 2 years the number of our divisions from 11 to 16, and we are also providing equipment for 22 divisions in case it were necessary to mobilize our Guard. We have six divisions in Europe, and we have the equipment for two more. Now, I think the Cuban incident indicated the importance of a strong conventional force. The greatest factor on our side was the fact that we had superior conventional strength on the scene, and it would have been necessary to equalize that strength for the Soviets to initiate the use of nuclear weapons, which of course they were quite reluctant to do.

 * But I must say I am reminded of Mr. Robert Frost's motto about not taking down a fence until you know why it is put up, and this is a method by which the United States maintains a position of influence and control around the world, and sustains a good many countries which would definitely collapse or pass into the Communist bloc.

Speech to Special Joint Session of Congress

 * Address to a Joint Session of Congress (25 May 1961); this includes his Special Message to the Congress on urgent national needs the goal of sending a Man to the Moon before the 1960's are over. More specifically President Kennedy asked for an additional $7 billion to $9 billion over the next five years for the space program, proclaiming that “this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.” President Kennedy settled upon this dramatic goal as a means of focusing and mobilizing our lagging space efforts. He did not justify the needed expenditure on the basis of science and exploration, but placed the program clearly in the camp of the competing ideologies of democracy vs. communism.

 * These are extraordinary times. And we face an extraordinary challenge. Our strength as well as our convictions have imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom's cause. No role in history could be more difficult or more important. We stand for freedom. That is our conviction for ourselves--that is our only commitment to others. No friend, no neutral and no adversary should think otherwise. We are not against any man--or any nation--or any system--except as it is hostile to freedom. Nor am I here to present a new military doctrine, bearing any one name or aimed at any one area. I am here to promote the freedom doctrine.

 * The great battleground for the defense and expansion of freedom today is the whole southern half of the globe--Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East--the lands of the rising peoples. Their revolution is the greatest in human history. They seek an end to injustice, tyranny, and exploitation. More than an end, they seek a beginning. And theirs is a revolution which we would support regardless of the Cold War, and regardless of which political or economic route they should choose to freedom. For the adversaries of freedom did not create the revolution; nor did they create the conditions which compel it. But they are seeking to ride the crest of its wave--to capture it for themselves. Yet their aggression is more often concealed than open. They have fired no missiles; and their troops are seldom seen. They send arms, agitators, aid, technicians and propaganda to every troubled area. But where fighting is required, it is usually done by others--by guerrillas striking at night, by assassins striking alone--assassins who have taken the lives of four thousand civil officers in the last twelve months in Vietnam alone--by subversives and saboteurs and insurrectionists, who in some cases control whole areas inside of independent nations. They possess a powerful intercontinental striking force, large forces for conventional war, a well-trained underground in nearly every country, the power to conscript talent and manpower for any purpose, the capacity for quick decisions, a closed society without dissent or free information, and long experience in the techniques of violence and subversion. They make the most of their scientific successes, ,their economic progress and their pose as a foe of colonialism and friend of popular revolution. They prey on unstable or unpopular governments, unsealed, or unknown boundaries, unfilled hopes, convulsive change, massive poverty, illiteracy, unrest and frustration. With these formidable weapons, the adversaries of freedom plan to consolidate their territory--to exploit, to control, and finally to destroy the hopes of the world's newest nations; and they have ambition to do it before the end of this decade. It is a contest of will and purpose as well as force and violence--a battle for minds and souls as well as lives and territory. And in that contest, we cannot stand aside. We stand, as we have always stood from our earliest beginnings, for the independence and equality of all nations. This nation was born of revolution and raised in freedom. And we do not intend to leave an open road for despotism.

 * There is no single simple policy which meets this challenge. Experience has taught us that no one nation has the power or the wisdom to solve all the problems of the world or manage its revolutionary tides-that extending our commitments does not always increase our security--that any initiative carries with it the risk of a temporary defeat--that nuclear weapons cannot prevent subversion--that no free people can be kept free without will and energy of their own-- and that no two nations or situations are exactly alike.

 * Our security and progress cannot be cheaply purchased; and their price must be found in what we all forego as well as what we all must pay.

 * I stress the strength of our economy because it is essential to the strength of our nation. And what is true in our case is true in the case of other countries. Their strength in the struggle for freedom depends on the strength of their economic and their social progress. We would be badly mistaken to consider their problems in military terms alone. For no amount of arms and armies can help stabilize those governments which are unable or unwilling to achieve social and economic reform and development. Military pacts cannot help nations whose social injustice and economic chaos invite insurgency and penetration and subversion. The most skillful counter-guerrilla efforts cannot succeed where the local population is too caught up in its own misery to be concerned about the advance of communism.'''

 * This is also our great opportunity in 1961. If we grasp it, then subversion to prevent its success is exposed as an unjustifiable attempt to keep these nations from either being free or equal. But if we do not pursue it, and if they do not pursue it, the bankruptcy of unstable governments, one by one, and of unfilled hopes will surely lead to a series of totalitarian receiverships.

 * But while we talk of sharing and building and the competition of ideas, others talk of arms and threaten war. So we have learned to keep our defenses strong--and to cooperate with others in a partnership of self-defense.

 * The main burden of local defense against local attack, subversion, insurrection or guerrilla warfare must of necessity rest with local forces. Where these forces have the necessary will and capacity to cope with such threats, our intervention is rarely necessary or helpful. Where the will is present and only capacity is lacking, our Military Assistance Program can be of help. But this program, like economic assistance, needs a new emphasis. It cannot be extended without regard to the social, political and military reforms essential to internal respect and stability. The equipment and training provided must be tailored to legitimate local needs and to our own foreign and military policies, not to our supply of military stocks or a local leader's desire for military display. And military assistance can, in addition to its military purposes, make a contribution to economic progress, as do our own Army Engineers.

 * Military and economic assistance has been a heavy burden on our citizens for a long time, and I recognize the strong pressures against it; but this battle is far from over, it is reaching a crucial stage, and I believe we should participate in it. We cannot merely state our opposition to totalitarian advance without paying the price of helping those now under the greatest pressure.

 * This Administration has been looking hard at exactly what civil defense can and cannot do. It cannot be obtained cheaply. It cannot give an assurance of blast protection that will be proof against surprise attack or guaranteed against obsolescence or destruction. And it cannot deter a nuclear attack. We will deter an enemy from making a nuclear attack only if our retaliatory power is so strong and so invulnerable that he knows he would be destroyed by our response. If we have that strength, civil defense is not needed to deter an attack. If we should ever lack it, civil defense would not be an adequate substitute. But this deterrent concept assumes rational calculations by rational men. And the history of this planet, and particularly the history of the 20th century, is sufficient to remind us of the possibilities of an irrational attack, a miscalculation, an accidental war, for a war of escalation in which the stakes by each side gradually increase to the point of maximum danger which cannot be either foreseen or deterred. It is on this basis that civil defense can be readily justifiable--as insurance for the civilian population in case of an enemy miscalculation. It is insurance we trust will never be needed--but insurance which we could never forgive ourselves for foregoing in the event of catastrophe. Once the validity of this concept is recognized, there is no point in delaying the initiation of a nation-wide long-range program of identifying present fallout shelter capacity and providing shelter in new and existing structures. Such a program would protect millions of people against the hazards of radioactive fallout in the event of large-scale nuclear attack. Effective performance of the entire program not only requires new legislative authority and more funds, but also sound organizational arrangements.

'''
 * I cannot end this discussion of defense and armaments without emphasizing '''our strongest hope: the creation of an orderly world where disarmament will be possible. Our aims do not prepare for war--they are efforts to discourage and resist the adventures of others that could end in war.
 * Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. […] Now it is time to take longer strides — time for a great new American enterprise — time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth. I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure theft fulfillment. Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of lead-time, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. We take an additional risk by making it in full view of the world, but as shown by feat of astronaut Shepard, this very risk enhances our stature when we are successful. But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.

 * I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations — explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon — if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.

 * Let it be clear — and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make — let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action — a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62 — an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.

 * It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you have lived through the last four years and have seen the significance of space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space. I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year.

 * This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel. New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further — unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space.

 * In conclusion, let me emphasize one point: that we are determined, as a nation in 1961 that freedom shall survive and succeed--and whatever the peril and set-backs, we have some very large advantages. The first is the simple fact that we are on the side of liberty--and since the beginning of history, and particularly since the end of the Second World War, liberty has been winning out all over the globe. A second great asset is that we are not alone. We have friends and allies all over the world who share our devotion to freedom. [...] A third asset is our desire for peace. It is sincere, and I believe the world knows it. [...] Yet it is important to know that our patience at the bargaining table is nearly inexhaustible, though our credulity is limited-that our hopes for peace are unfailing, while our determination to protect our security is resolute.

 * Finally, our greatest asset in this struggle is the American people--their willingness to pay the price for these programs--to understand and accept a long struggle--to share their resources with other less fortunate people-to meet the tax levels and close the tax loopholes I have requested--to exercise self-restraint instead of pushing up wages or prices, or over-producing certain crops, or spreading military secrets, or urging unessential expenditures or improper monopolies or harmful work stoppages--to serve in the Peace Corps or the Armed Services or the Federal Civil Service or the Congress--to strive for excellence in their schools, in their cities and in their physical fitness and that of their children--to take part in Civil Defense-to pay higher postal rates, and higher payroll taxes and higher teachers' salaries, in order to strengthen our society--to show friendship to students and visitors from other lands who visit us and go back in many cases to be the future leaders, with an image of America--and I want that image, and I know you do, to be affirmative and positive-and, finally, to practice democracy at home, in all States, with all races, to respect each other and to protect the Constitutional rights of all citizens.

 * I have not asked for a single program which did not cause one or all Americans some inconvenience, or some hardship, or some sacrifice. But they have responded-and you in the Congress have responded to your duty--and I feel confident in asking today for a similar response to these new and larger demands. It is heartening to know, as I journey abroad, that our country is united in its commitment to freedom-and is ready to do its duty.

Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility (2013)
Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility (4 December 2013) at THEARC in Washington, D.C.

 * And your work reflects a tradition that runs through our history -- a belief that we’re greater together than we are on our own. And that’s what I’ve come here to talk about today.

 * Now, the premise that we’re all created equal is the opening line in the American story. And while we don’t promise equal outcomes, we have strived to deliver equal opportunity -- the idea that success doesn’t depend on being born into wealth or privilege, it depends on effort and merit. And with every chapter we’ve added to that story, we’ve worked hard to put those words into practice.

 * So let me repeat: The combined trends of increased inequality and decreasing mobility pose a fundamental threat to the American Dream, our way of life, and what we stand for around the globe. And it is not simply a moral claim that I’m making here. There are practical consequences to rising inequality and reduced mobility. For one thing, these trends are bad for our economy. One study finds that growth is more fragile and recessions are more frequent in countries with greater inequality. And that makes sense. When families have less to spend, that means businesses have fewer customers, and households rack up greater mortgage and credit card debt; meanwhile, concentrated wealth at the top is less likely to result in the kind of broadly based consumer spending that drives our economy, and together with lax regulation, may contribute to risky speculative bubbles.
 * And rising inequality and declining mobility are also bad for our families and social cohesion -- not just because we tend to trust our institutions less, but studies show we actually tend to trust each other less when there’s greater inequality. And greater inequality is associated with less mobility between generations. That means it’s not just temporary; the effects last. It creates a vicious cycle. For example, by the time she turns three years old, a child born into a low-income home hears 30 million fewer words than a child from a well-off family, which means by the time she starts school she’s already behind, and that deficit can compound itself over time.

 * And finally, rising inequality and declining mobility are bad for our democracy. Ordinary folks can’t write massive campaign checks or hire high-priced lobbyists and lawyers to secure policies that tilt the playing field in their favor at everyone else’s expense. And so people get the bad taste that the system is rigged, and that increases cynicism and polarization, and it decreases the political participation that is a requisite part of our system of self-government.

 * It’s true that government cannot prevent all the downsides of the technological change and global competition that are out there right now, and some of those forces are also some of the things that are helping us grow. And it’s also true that some programs in the past, like welfare before it was reformed, were sometimes poorly designed, created disincentives to work. But we’ve also seen how government action time and again can make an enormous difference in increasing opportunity and bolstering ladders into the middle class. Investments in education, laws establishing collective bargaining, and a minimum wage -- these all contributed to rising standards of living for massive numbers of Americans.

 * It was Adam Smith, the father of free-market economics, who once said, “They who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.” And for those of you who don’t speak old-English let me translate. It means if you work hard, you should make a decent living. If you work hard, you should be able to support a family.

 * I realize we are not going to resolve all of our political debates over the best ways to reduce inequality and increase upward mobility this year, or next year, or in the next five years. But it is important that we have a serious debate about these issues. For the longer that current trends are allowed to continue, the more it will feed the cynicism and fear that many Americans are feeling right now -- that they’ll never be able to repay the debt they took on to go to college, they’ll never be able to save enough to retire, they’ll never see their own children land a good job that supports a family.
 * If you still don’t like Obamacare -- and I know you don’t even though it’s built on market-based ideas of choice and competition in the private sector, then you should explain how, exactly, you’d cut costs, and cover more people, and make insurance more secure. You owe it to the American people to tell us what you are for, not just what you’re against. That way we can have a vigorous and meaningful debate. That’s what the American people deserve. That’s what the times demand. It’s not enough anymore to just say we should just get our government out of the way and let the unfettered market take care of it -- for our experience tells us that’s just not true.

 * Look, I’ve never believed that government can solve every problem or should -- and neither do you. We know that ultimately our strength is grounded in our people -- individuals out there, striving, working, making things happen. It depends on community, a rich and generous sense of community -- that’s at the core of what happens at THEARC here every day. You understand that turning back rising inequality and expanding opportunity requires parents taking responsibility for their kids, kids taking responsibility to work hard. It requires religious leaders who mobilize their congregations to rebuild neighborhoods block by block, requires civic organizations that can help train the unemployed, link them with businesses for the jobs of the future. It requires companies and CEOs to set an example by providing decent wages, and salaries, and benefits for their workers, and a shot for somebody who is down on his or her luck. We know that’s our strength -- our people, our communities, our businesses. But government can’t stand on the sidelines in our efforts. Because government is us. It can and should reflect our deepest values and commitments. And if we refocus our energies on building an economy that grows for everybody, and gives every child in this country a fair chance at success, then I remain confident that the future still looks brighter than the past, and that the best days for this country we love are still ahead.

Love is not a feeling ~ The Article (1995)

 * Love is not a feeling ~ The Article by Barry Long, published in What is Enlightenment magazine, Volume 4, Number 2, Summer 1995.

 * I suppose the most radical part of my teaching at present is that love is not a feeling. Everybody suffers from love, or the fear of it, or the lack of it. Why? Why is love so universally and inevitably heart-breaking, whether it be through the end of a love affair, the death of a loved one or being locked in with the habitual casualness or grim indifference of a partner? The answer is because we've been taught and conditioned by the world to believe that love is a feeling.

 * Love is not a feeling; it's a sensation. Drinking water when you're thirsty is a sensation, not a feeling. Being in nature or swimming in the sea is a sensation, not a feeling. Lying down when you're tired is sensational, not a feeling, although you may say it feels good. Feeling is an emotional interpretation of experience and these sensations don't need interpretation; they are just good or right. Making physical love rightly is a sensation, not a feeling. So is the love of God. The same goes for joy and beauty; both are sensational.

 * But in our ignorance we emotionalise joy, beauty and love. We make feelings of them, personal interpretations based on our old emotions. We put our personal past on the present with the result that joy, beauty and love don't seem to last. But it's our emotional substitutes that don't last and we become bored, discontented and unhappy again. The sensation or knowledge of joy, beauty and love is of course still there but it's overwhelmed by these coarser feelings.

 * Feelings are constantly changing. None is dependable for long. You can love someone intensely today, and tomorrow or next month not feel a thing. Except perhaps for the feeling of doubt or depression that what was so beautiful could change so quickly.

 * Feelings, even the best of them, turn to negativity - disappointment, anger, discontent, resentment, jealousy, guilt, etc. A good feeling starts off being elevating, exciting, like taking a drug substance, alcohol or having sex. But what goes up must come down and feelings are no exception. So in a couple of hours or days the down side starts and you perhaps wonder why you feel moody, depressed, suicidal or just plain unhappy. You're paying the piper for yesterday's music. And between the upside and the downside is the no-man's and no-woman's land of boredom, indifference, inertia, weariness and pointlessness.

 * Okay, so you don't have drugs, alcohol and sex but you love someone, as a feeling. Then it won't be long before you'll be experiencing one or more of the painful feelings I've mentioned above - and thinking it's natural! Wait and see. Even in every day living you're continually interpreting experience via your emotions instead of being the experience direct. "This is good, that's bad," your feelings swing subtly to and fro all day long obscuring the reality, the sensational knowledge or gnosis that it's not bad at all; it's simply life as it is.

 * All feelings are false and deceptive. [...] Enlightenment is to be emptied (not empty) of feelings and thus at one with the pure sensation of divine being. And that pretty well sums up the whole spiritual process. But the spiritual process is so little understood that people don't realise their feelings are personal and false and have been misleading them all their life. If that's not true, why is humanity still unenlightened and basically unhappy after all this time - when enlightenment is the completely natural, sensational state of being every moment?

 * By disidentifying with your feelings you break your attachment to them. When that is done sufficiently you're back at the beginning, in pure sensation or unconditioned knowledge. You've been beating your head against the wall to get some feelings and all you've got to do is break the habit and get used to living anew without pain and conflict. But that's a mighty realisation, and a mighty simple one which few are going to accept - they'll be too busy defending their feelings! So, I guess I'll still be demonstrating this the

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:P3Y229/sandbox