OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Proclamation 7949

Delivered on 14 October 2005.
By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation
Americans who are blind or visually impaired are valuable and contributing members of our society, and many use a white cane to help them succeed at school, home, or work. White canes give these individuals greater mobility and enable them to participate in more aspects of community life. On White Cane Safety Day, we celebrate the progress that has been made for those who are blind or visually impaired, and we reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that these citizens can live and work with greater freedom and independence.
One of our Nation's defining values is compassion, and we must make certain that all our citizens are able to harness their talents, engage in productive work, and participate fully in society. My Administration is working to fulfill this goal for individuals with disabilities through the New Freedom Initiative. This comprehensive program helps increase the development and use of assistive and universally designed technologies, expand educational and employment opportunities, and improve access into daily community life. By working to reduce barriers and change old ways of thinking, we can help ensure that our Nation's opportunities are more accessible to all.
The Congress, by joint resolution (Public Law 88-628) approved on October 6, 1964, as amended, has designated October 15 of each year as "White Cane Safety Day."
Now, Therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 15, 2005, as White Cane Safety Day. I call upon public officials, business leaders, educators, librarians, and all the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this fourteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.
George W. Bush
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Proclamation 7944

Delivered on 7 October 2005.
By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation
Christopher Columbus'journey across uncharted waters in 1492 changed the course of history. Overcoming many obstacles, the explorer from Genoa pursued a dream that carried him to the "New World" and helped launch an age of exploration, leading to the founding of new countries across the Americas. Through the years, the desire to discover and understand has been a part of our Nation's character, and Columbus' spirit has inspired generations of explorers and inventors. On Columbus Day, we honor Christopher Columbus and the vision that carried him on his historic voyage.
Since 1934, when President Roosevelt first proclaimed the national holiday, our Nation has observed Columbus Day to mark the moment when the Old World met the New. As we recognize Columbus' legacy, we also celebrate the contributions of Italian Americans to our Nation's growth and well-being. Americans of Italian descent are musicians and athletes, doctors and lawyers, teachers and first responders. They are serving bravely in our Armed Forces. From our country's first days, the sons and daughters of Italy have brought honor to themselves and enriched our national life.
More than 500 years after Columbus' journey, we are honored that the Italian Republic is among our closest friends and strongest allies. On Columbus Day, we celebrate this strong bond between America and Italy.
In commemoration of Columbus' journey, the Congress, by joint resolution of April 30, 1934, and modified in 1968 (36 U.S.C. 107), as amended, has requested that the President proclaim the second Monday of October of each year as "Columbus Day."
Now, Therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 10, 2005, as Columbus Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I also direct that the flag of the United States be displayed on all public buildings on the appointed day in honor of Christopher Columbus.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.
George W. Bush
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter43
### Chapter XLIII

Consideration of the common attributes of both and the individual properties of each.
Now that so many and so important properties of each have been discovered, whereby a strange plurality, as ineffable as it is inevitable, is proved to exist in the supreme unity, I think it most interesting to reflect, again and again, upon so unfathomable a mystery.
For observe: although it is so impossible that he who begets, and he who is begotten, are the same, and that parent and offspring are the same --so impossible that necessarily one must be the progenitor and the other the begotten, and one the Father, the other the Son; yet, here it is so necessary that he who begets and he who is begotten shall be the same, and also that parent and offspring shall be the same, that the progenitor cannot be any other than what the begotten is, nor the Father any other than the Son.
And although the one is one, and the other another, so that it is altogether evident that they are two; yet that which the one and the other are is in such a way one and the same, that it is a most obscure mystery why they are two. For, in such a way is one the Father and the other the Son, that when I speak of both I perceive that I have spoken of two; and yet so identical is that which both Father and Son are, that I do not understand why they are two of whom I have spoken.
For, although the Father separately is the perfectly supreme Spirit, and the Son separately is the perfectly supreme Spirit, yet, so are the Spirit-Father and the Spirit-Son one and the same being, that the Father and the Son are not two spirits, but one Spirit. For, just as to separate properties of separate beings, plurality is not attributed, since they are not properties of two things, so, what is common to both preserves an indivisible unity, although it belongs, as a whole, to them taken separately.
For, as there are not two fathers or two sons, but one Father and one Son, since separate properties belong to separate beings, so there are not two spirits, but one Spirit; although it belongs both to the Father, taken separately, and to the Son, taken separately, to be the perfect Spirit. For so opposite are their relations, that the one never assumes the property of the other; so harmonious are they in nature, that the one ever contains the essence of the other. For they are so diverse by virtue of the fact that the one is the Father and the other the Son, that the Father is never called the Son, nor the Son the Father; and they are so identical, by virtue of their substance, that the essence of the Son is ever in the Father, and the essence of the Father in the Son.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter41
### Chapter XLI

He most truly begets, and it is most truly begotten.
But it will be impossible to establish this proposition, unless, in equal degree, he most truly begets, and it is most truly begotten. As the former supposition is evidently true, so the latter is necessarily most certain. Hence, it belongs to the supreme Spirit most truly to beget, and to his Word to be most truly begotten.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter42
### Chapter XLII

It is the property of the one to be most truly progenitor and Father, and of the other to be the begotten and Son.
I should certainly be glad, and perhaps able, now to reach the conclusion, that he is most truly the Father, while this Word is most truly his Son. But I think that even this question should not be neglected: whether it is more fitting to call them Father and Son, than mother and daughter, since in them there is no distinction of sex.
For, if it is consistent with the nature of the one to be the Father, and of his offspring to be the Son, because both are Spirit (Spiritus, masculine); why is it not, with equal reason, consistent with the nature of the one to be the mother, and the other the daughter, since both are truth and wisdom (veritas et sapientia, feminine)?
Or, is it because in these natures that have a difference of sex, it belongs to the superior sex to be father or son, and to the inferior to be mother or daughter? And this is certainly a natural fact in most instances, but in some the contrary is true, as among certain kinds of birds, among which the female is always larger and stronger, while the male is smaller and weaker.
At any rate, it is more consistent to call the supreme Spirit father than mother, for this reason, that the first and principal cause of offspring is always in the father. For, if the maternal cause is ever in some way preceded by the paternal, it is exceedingly inconsistent that the name mother should be attached to that parent with which, for the generation of offspring, no other cause is associated, and which no other precedes. It is, therefore, most true that the supreme Spirit is Father of his offspring. But, if the son is always more like the father than is the daughter, while nothing is more like the supreme Father than his offspring; then it is most true that this offspring is not a daughter, but a Son.
Hence, just as it is the property of the one most truly to beget, and of the other to be begotten, so it is the property of the one to be most truly progenitor, and of the other to be most truly begotten. And as the one is most truly the parent, and the other his offspring, so the one is most truly Father, and the other most truly Son.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter45
### Chapter XLV

The Son may more appropriately be called the essence of the Father, than the Father the essence of the Son: and in like manner the Son is the virtue, wisdom, etc., of the Father.
And although, for reasons we have noted, this is true, it is much more proper to call the Son the essence of the Father than the Father the essence of the Son. For, since the Father has his being from none other than himself, it is not wholly appropriate to say that he has the being of another than himself; while, since the Son has his being from the Father, and has the same essence with his Father, he may most appropriately be said to have the essence of his Father.
Hence, seeing that neither has an essence, except by being an essence; as the Son is more appropriately conceived to have the essence of the Father than the Father to have the essence of the Son, so the Son may more fitly be called the essence of the Father than the Father the essence of the son. For this single explanation proves, with sufficiently emphatic brevity, that the Son not only has the same essence with the Father, but has this very essence from the Father; so that, to assert that the Son is the essence of the Father is the same as to assert that the Son is not a different essence from the essence of the Father nay, from the Father essence.
In like manner, therefore, the Son is the virtue of the Father, and is wisdom, and justice, and whatever is consistently attributed to the essence of the supreme Spirit.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter47
### Chapter XLVII

The Son is the intelligence of intelligence and the Truth of truth.
But if the very substance of the Father is intelligence, and knowledge, and wisdom, and truth, it is consequently inferred that as the Son is the intelligence, and knowledge, and wisdom, and truth, of the paternal substance, so he is the intelligence of intelligence, the knowledge of knowledge, the wisdom of wisdom, and the truth of truth.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter40
### Chapter XL

He is most truly a parent, and that Word his offspring.
But if it is most properly said to be born, and is so like him of whom it is born, why should it be esteemed like, as a child is like his parent? why should it not rather be declared, that the Spirit is more truly a parent, and the Word his offspring, the more he alone is sufficient to effect this birth, and the more what is born expresses his likeness? For, among other beings which we know bear the relations of parent and child, none so begets as to be solely and without accessory, sufficient to the generation of offspring; and none is so begotten that without any admixture of unlikeness, it shows complete likeness to its parent.
If, then, the Word of the supreme Spirit so derives its complete existence from the being of that Spirit himself alone, and is so uniquely like him, that no child ever so completely derives existence from its parent, and none is so like its parent, certainly the relation of parent and offspring can be ascribed to no beings so consistently as to the supreme Spirit and his Word. Hence, it is his property to be most truly parent, and its to be most truly his offspring.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter46
### Chapter XLVI

How some of these truths which are thus expounded may also be conceived of in another way.
Yet, some of these truths, which may be thus expounded and conceived of, are apparently capable of another interpretation as well, not inconsistent with this same assertion. For it is proved that the Son is the true Word, that is, the perfect intelligence, conceiving of the whole substance of the Father, or perfect cognition of that substance, and knowledge of it, and wisdom regarding it; that is, it understands, and conceives of, the very essence of the Father, and cognizes it, and knows it, and is wise (sapit) regarding it.
If, then, in this sense, the Son is called the intelligence of the Father, and wisdom concerning him, and knowledge and cognition of him, and acquaintance with him; since the Son understands and conceives of the Father, is wise concerning him, knows and is acquainted with him, there is no departure from truth.
Most properly, too, may the Son be called the truth of the Father, not only in the sense that the truth of the Son is the same with that of the Father, as we have already seen; but in this sense, also, that in him no imperfect imitation shall be conceived of, but the complete truth of the substance of the Father since he is no other than what the Father is.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter48
### Chapter XLVIII

How the Son is the intelligence or wisdom of memory or the memory of the Father and of memory.
But what is to be our notion of memory? Is the Son to be regarded as the intelligence conceiving of memory, or as the memory of the Father, or as the memory of memory? Indeed, since it cannot be denied that the supreme Wisdom remembers itself, nothing can be more consistent than to regard the Father as memory, just as the Son is the Word; because the Word is apparently born of memory, a fact that is more clearly seen in the case of the human mind.
For, since the human mind is not always thinking of itself, though it ever remembers itself, it is clear that, when it thinks of itself, the word corresponding to it is born of memory. Hence, it appears that, if it always thought of itself, its word would be always born of memory. For, to think of an object of which we have remembrance, this is to express it mentally; while the word corresponding to the object is the thought itself, formed after the likeness of that object from memory.
Hence, it may be clearly apprehended in the supreme Wisdom, which always thinks of itself, just as it remembers itself, that, of the eternal remembrance of it, its coeternal Word is born. Therefore, as the Word is properly conceived of as the child, the memory most appropriately takes the name of parent. If, then, the child which is born of the supreme Spirit alone is the child of his memory, there can be no more logical conclusion than that his memory is himself. For not in respect of the fact that he remembers himself does he exist in his own memory, like ideas that exist in the human memory, without being the memory itself; but he so remembers himself that he is his own memory.
It therefore follows that, just as the Son is the intelligence or wisdom of the Father, so he is that of the memory of the Father. But, regarding whatever the Son has wisdom or understanding, this he likewise remembers. The Son is, therefore, the memory of the Father, and the memory of memory, that is, the memory that remembers the Father, who is memory, just as he is the wisdom of the Father, and the wisdom of wisdom, that is, the wisdom wise regarding the wisdom of the Father; and the Son is indeed memory, born of memory, as he is wisdom, born of wisdom, while the Father is memory and wisdom born of none.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter49
### Chapter XLIX

The supreme Spirit loves himself.
But, while I am here considering with interest the individual properties and the common attributes of Father and Son, I find none in them more pleasurable to contemplate than the feeling of mutual love. For how absurd it would be to deny that the supreme Spirit loves himself, just as he remembers himself, and conceives of himself! Since even the rational human mind is convinced that it can love both itself and him, because it can remember itself and him, and can conceive of itself and of him; for idle and almost useless is the memory and conception of any object, unless, so far as reason requires, the object itself is loved or condemned. The supreme Spirit, then, loves himself, just as he remembers himself and conceives of himself.
# Redfield v. Parks

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Redfield v. Parks."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Redfield v. Parks (130 U.S. 623)
* Redfield v. Parks (132 U.S. 239)
# Redfield v. Parks (130 U.S. 623)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
130 U.S. 623
Redfield v. Parks
Sol. F. Clark, for plaintiff in error.
Danl. W. Jones, for defendants in error.
BLATCHFORD, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 174
Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for plaintiff in error.
in error.
A. W. Griswold, for defendant in error.
MATTHEWS, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Redfield v. Bartels

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
139 U.S. 694
Redfield v. Bartels
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for plaintiffs in error.
S. F. Phillips and Frederic D. McKenney, for defendants in error.
FULLER, C. J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Redfield v. Parks (132 U.S. 239)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
132 U.S. 239
Redfield v. Parks
Sol. F. Clark and John F. Dillon, for plaintiff in error.
D. W. Jones, A. H. Garland, and A. G. Safford, for defendants in error.
[Citations from pages 240-241 intentionally omitted]
MILLER, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas/Appendix E

* Page 1
* Page 2
* Page 3
* Page 4
* Page 5
* Page 6
* Page 7
* Page 8
* Page 9
* Page 10
* Page 11
* Page 12
* Page 13
* Page 14
* Page 15
* Page 16
* Page 17
* Page 18
* Page 19
* Page 20
* Page 21
* Page 22
* Page 23
* Page 24
* Page 25
* Page 26
* Page 27
# Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas/Appendix H
## Appendix H: Intelligence on Sanitary Conditions Inside Compound

    WACMUR
    AS OF 4/17/93
    SANITARY CONDITIONS IN COMPOUND
| 4/17/93 | LOUIS ANTHONY ALANIZ, left compound 4/17/93, advised that he- relieved himself in a bucket. Buckets of rain water were used to wash clothes. |
| 3/21/93 | JAMES LOUIS LAWTER (released from compound) advised bodies from inside the compound were moved to an underground area near the tunnels and bus. The bodies were buried in that area. The human waste from inside the compound was buried in the same area. LAWTER also advised that the bodies were buried in the dirt at the end of the building and that there was no odor from the corpses. The compound has no plumbing, insofar as toilets were concerned. Buckets were used for elimination purposes. |
| 3/20/93 | Analysis by SSA JOE BROSS, FBI, reflected that persons released from compound were in need of bathing. |
| 3/15/93 | BLANK |
| 3/13/93 | MARK SPOON, neighbor of Compound, advised that there are no toilets in the compound, so occupants use buckets in their rooms to collect human waste. There was a septic tank on the property, but it is no longer used. |
| 3/10/93 | SAMUEL HENRY has family members in compound and advised that when visiting the compound he was shocked to learn that there were no toilet facilities in the compound. He knew that they had to use buckets and dispose of the waste outside. |
| 3/8/93 | DONALD E. BUNDS, electronics technician at the Compound, advised that the compound has no underground utilities, sewers or drains. There are no inside restroom facilities or showers. men are required to use a outhouse and the women use plastic buckets, which are dumped on a regular basis. |
| 3/7/93 | JAUNESSA MARIE WENDEL, child released from compound, advised that there is a room on the second floor where individuals go to the bathroom. A wall dividing the room separates the males from the females. individuals use the bathroom in buckets which are normally emptied outside; however, now they just get more buckets. Odors are beginning to accumulate, but they have Lysol spray. |
# Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas/Closing
## Closing

The events at the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco, Texas were exceptional and required an-exceptional response by law enforcement. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of law enforcement, the incident also had an exceptionally tragic ending. This report is being provided with the hope that everyone, whether government official or citizen, can understand, to the greatest degree possible, what happened at Mt. Carmel, and can avoid similar situations in the future.