Its unclear whether we can manage promoting the development of energy overseas and support for Climate Change. Its uncertain whether we can utter the words natural gas in a policy statement, you know, coming out of the white house and say that we actually want other countries to develop it rather than we want to make the world more resilient because were using less, and theyll have more. So its unclear s. So the question as it affects russia and ukraine and i would say europe and the caspian too is are we doing all we can with all that we have to maximize this advantage. And i think the short answer to that is, no, not yet. And what i hope well talk about today is what our ageneral da should be for europe agenda should be for europe. You cant move gas from point to point. Are we doing enough as the United States to move europe in that direction . Is europe doing enough for itself . Development of shale gas. A lot of the opposition comes from gas [inaudible] some of it comes from Energy
Good morning, everyone. I am ceo here at the newseum. I want to welcome you all for todays rededication of the journalists memorial. In 2000e newseum opened eight, more than 4 million visitors have seen this soaring memorial behind me which pays tribute to over 2200 journalists worldwide who have died covering the news. Generalists d, journalists placed himself themselves in journal every journalists place themselves in danger every day. Although some may be in the wrong place at the wrong time, most are professionals taking calculated risks, and they pay with their lives for doing their jobs. The journalists memorial bears the names of milk journalists, photographers, broadcasters, and others who have died in a line of duty. Each year, this dedication renews the newseums commitment to make sure those brave journalists are remembered. This year, we have the regrettable task of adding new names to the memorial and it represents all journalists killed in 2013. Families andl friends and c
That happened. And we focus on this one dude Donald Sterling all we want. But we can look at what we accomplish when we all come together as one. That is what i think we should do. That is my closing comment. [applause] roland will close us out with a final thought. I sat on the set of cnn that night then when i was shedding tears, folks asked me why. I said it is not because of this election. I did not do it because i saw him. I saw the u. S. Soldiers who were hanging from trees and lynched in their uniforms. That was the image they came to my mind. But what ties in with sports is that i recognize that the inauguration parade is over. And if you have not read dr. Kings chaos or community, you should. What we are talking about today, he wrote in 1967 when we were grappling with riots across the country. He said it did not cost america much to allow us to sit at the same lunch counter or to be in the same hotel. He said now the question is the real cost is about to be tabulated, and is
Rebut. If you do not have to take the full three minutes, but if you want, you can. Mr. Bonifaz . I do want to clarify something at the outset. We at free speech for people are interested in lifting up voices, not suppressing voices. Our view of the Current Campaign finance system is that it suppresses voices because when you allow the very wealthy, and now very well endowed corporations and unions to drown out other peoples voices, you are effectively suppressing those voices. Jim agrees that money does not equal speech. I think that is fabulous that we have reached agreement on that. I wanted to make clear, however, that when we limit the amount of money in our elections, we are not limiting speech. We are limiting the volume of speech, the d. C. Circuit court of appeals in the buckley case understood that. Scholars of the First Amendment all over the country have understood that. Justice stephens understands that when he says money is property, it is not speech. We limit the volume