OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Poems of Felicia Hemans in The Literary Souvenir, 1830/The Sisters of Scio

* THE SISTERS OF SCIO
* Painted by A. PhaliponEngraved by Henry Rolls
THE SISTERS OF SCIO.
BY MRS. HEMANS.
As are our hearts, our way is one,
And cannot be divided. Strong affection
Contends with all things, and o'ercometh all things.
Will I not live with thee? Will I not cheer thee?
Wouldst thou be lonely then? Wouldst thou be sad?
Joanna Baillie.
I.
"Sister, sweet sister! let me weep awhile!
 Bear with me—give the sudden passion way?
Thoughts of our own lost home—our sunny isle—
 Come, as the wind that o'er a reed hath sway;
Till my heart dies with yearnings and sick fears;—
Oh! could my life melt from me in these tears!
II.
"Our father's voice—our mother's gentle eye—
 Our brother's bounding step—where are they, where?
Desolate, desolate our chambers lie:
 How hast thou won thy spirit from despair?
O'er mine, swift shadows, gusts of terror sweep;
I sink away—bear with me—let me weep!"
III.
"Yes, weep, my sister! weep, till from thy heart
 The weight flow forth in tears—yet sink thou not!
I bind my sorrow to a lofty part,
 For thee, my gentle one! our orphan lot,
To meet in quenchless trust:—my soul is strong—
Thou, too, wilt rise in holy might, ere long.
IV.
"A breath of our free heavens and noble sires,
 A memory of our old victorious dead,—
These mantle me with power; and though their fires
 In a frail censer briefly may be shed,
Yet shall they light us onward, side by side:—
Have the wild birds, and have not we a guide?
V.
"Cheer, then, beloved! on whose meek brow is set
 Our mother's image—in whose voice a tone,
A faint, sweet sound of hers is lingering yet,
 An echo of our childhood's music gone;—
Cheer thee! thy sister's heart and faith are high;
Our path is one—with thee I live and die!"
# Poems of Felicia Hemans in The Winter's Wreath, 1828

This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This work is available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
Poems of Felicia Hemans in The Winter’s Wreath, 1828
Compiled (From The Ladies' Garland) by Peter J. Bolton
Contents
* The Penitent's Offering
* The Stranger's Heart
# Posterior Analytics (Bouchier)/Book I/Chapter XXVII
### Chapter XXVII: What science is more certain and prior, and what less certain and inferior

    The highest science is that which gives both the fact and the cause. The science which gives the cause only is superior to that which gives the fact only. One science may also be superior to another because it has immaterial objects or simpler principles.
A science is more exact than and prior to another when it gives the fact and the cause at the same time, and when there are not separate sciences for each. Further a science which has no material object is more exact than and prior to one which has (as in the case of arithmetic as contrasted with harmonics). Lastly a science with simpler principles is superior to one which requires a greater number. What I mean by this may be illustrated by the following example. Point is a substance in position, Unit a substance without position. Hence ‘point’ is possessed of additional qualities or principles.
# Posterior Analytics (Bouchier)/Book I/Chapter XXIX
### Chapter XXIX: Concerning many Demonstrations of the same thing

    Several demonstrations of the same conclusion may be given, and their middle terms may be taken from different series as well as from the same series. Such middle terms must however be reciprocally predicable.
It is possible to give several demonstrations of the same things, not only by taking a middle term from the same series of terms, and that too a middle term which is not logically proximate (as for instance by taking as middles between A and B not only the proximate term C, but also D and E) but by taking one from a different series of terms. As an instance of this last let A represent Changing, B Rejoicing, D Moving, and again H represent Being calm. Now D may be correctly predicated of B, and also A of D, for one who rejoices experiences movement, and that which moves undergoes a change. Again A may also be predicated of H, and H of B, for everyone who rejoices feels a calm, and one who feels a calm undergoes a change. Hence the syllogism is established by different middle terms not derived from the same series. It is not however allowable that neither of these middle terms should be predicable of the other, for both are necessarily predicable of a common third term. The other figures of the syllogism may also be examined in order to see in how many ways a syllogism with the same conclusion may be constructed.
# Posterior Analytics (Bouchier)/Book I/Chapter XXVI
### Chapter XXVI: Direct Demonstration is superior to Reduction per impossible

    Negative demonstration is superior to demonstration by reduction to the impossible, for, though both are proved by means of Not-being, in the case of the negative demonstration this Not-being is anterior to the demonstration, in the case of the other it follows. This advantage of priority makes the Negative superior.
Since the affirmative argument is superior to the negative it is clearly superior to the reduction to the impossible. The difference between them should be noticed. Thus, let no B be A, and all B be C. It follows necessarily that no C can be A. When terms are thus placed the negative demonstration shewing that C is not A is direct. The reduction to the impossible on the other hand proceeds as follows. If one have to prove that B is not A one must assume that it is A, and also that C is B; whence it follows that C is A. This is already known and acknowledged to be impossible. Hence the conclusion follows that B cannot be A. If then C be acknowledged to be A, B cannot be A.
The terms then are arranged in a similar way in both methods, but a difference arises according to which of the two negative premises is the better known, whether that shewing that B is not A, or that C is not A. When the conclusion that C is not A is better known we have a demonstration by reduction to the impossible, when the other negative proposition in the syllogism itself (B is not A) is better known, the demonstration is direct. Now the proposition B is A is naturally prior to the proposition C is A, for that from which the conclusion is drawn is prior to the conclusion itself. But the proposition C is not A is the conclusion, the proposition B is not A is a premise from which the conclusion is drawn; and the refutation of any statement does not consist merely in the conclusion but in the premises from which it is drawn. Now that from which a conclusion is drawn is a syllogism so constituted that one premise bears to the other the relation of whole to part or part to whole. The premises CA and BA, however, have not this relation to one another. If then the demonstration from prior and better known premises be superior, and if further both methods of demonstration rest on the assumption that something does not exist, if thirdly one of these methods be derived from a more, another from a less primary source, then negative demonstration is, from this fact alone, superior to reduction to the impossible. Hence, if affirmative be superior to negative demonstration, it is plainly superior to reduction to the impossible.
# Posterior Analytics (Bouchier)/Book I/Chapter XX
### Chapter XX: Middle terms are not infinite

    Middle terms cannot be limitless; otherwise the subject and attribute could never be brought into the relation demanded by the syllogism. Attribution also is limited both in the direction of the general and of the particular.
That the intervening terms of a predication cannot be infinite if predications terminate both in an upward and a downward direction is obvious. [I mean by ‘upward’ that which is more in the direction of universal, by ‘downward’ that which is nearer to the particular]. For if, when A is predicated of F, the intervening terms (here designated as B) could be infinite, it is clear that if one proceeded from A in the direction of the particular one could continue to predicate one term of another to infinity, [the terms intervening between A and F are here regarded as infinite]; and similarly, if one proceeded from F in the direction of the more general, one would traverse an infinite number of terms before arriving at A. If, however, there can be no such infinite progress or regress, the terms intervening between A and F cannot be infinite.
It is of no avail to maintain that some of the intervening terms, say A, B, C, follow one another so closely as to admit of no further intervening term, while others of the series are not so closely connected. For whichever of the B’s I care to select must have a certain relation to A or to F, and the intervening terms must be finite or infinite. To enquire from what starting point one begins the process to infinity, and whether this process is mediate or immediate is not to the purpose, for everything which follows any given point must be looked on as limitless.
# Posterior Analytics (Bouchier)/Book I/Chapter XXVIII
### Chapter XXVIII: What constitutes one or many Sciences

    A science is one when it applies to a single genus, and when all the principles used belong to that science. Otherwise demonstration would be impossible (cf. Bk. I, c. 7).
Those sciences are one and the same which belong to the same genus, namely those which have the same primary principles and common parts or essential qualities. One science differs from another when their elementary principles are not drawn from the same source, and when the principles of one science are not derived from those of the other. A proof of this may be seen when one reaches the indemonstrable propositions of a science. These, if the sciences be one, must belong to the same genus as the things which are demonstrated. Another proof of this is that the things demonstrated are homogeneous to those indemonstrable propositions by which they are proved.
# Presidential Weekly Address - 9 December 2017

Weekly address delivered on 9 December 2017
“Help me, Dad.”
Those were the last words spoken by Kate Steinle as she lay dying on a San Francisco pier – a precious young American woman killed in the prime of her life.
Kate’s death is a tragedy that was entirely preventable. She was shot by an illegal alien and a 7-time convicted felon who had been deported five times – but he was free to harm an innocent American because our leaders refused to protect our border, and because San Francisco is a Sanctuary City. In Sanctuary States and Cities, innocent Americans are at the mercy of criminal aliens because state and local officials defy federal authorities and obstruct the enforcement of our immigration laws.
Last week, in a final injustice, Kate’s killer was acquitted on all of the most serious charges – yet one more reason Americans are so upset by Sanctuary Cities and open border politicians who shield criminal aliens from federal law enforcement and all of the problems involved with the whole concept of a sanctuary city. They’re no good. We mourn for all of the American Families, of all backgrounds, who will have any empty seat at Christmas this year because our immigration laws were not enforced. No American should be separated from their loved ones because of preventable crime committed by those illegally in our country. Our cities should be Sanctuaries for Americans – not for criminal aliens.
Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress not only oppose our efforts to stop illegal immigration and crack down on Sanctuary Cities – now they are demanding amnesty as a condition for funding the government, holding troop funding hostage and putting our national security at risk. We cannot allow it.
Every Senator and Congressman will have to make a choice: do they want to protect American citizens or do they want to protect criminal aliens? Reasonable people can disagree on many things, but there can be no disagreement that the first duty of government is to serve, protect, and defend American Citizens.
People can have different views on the technical details of budget policy or transportation, but no one who serves in elected office should disagree that our highest priority must be the safety and well-being of our nation’s citizens.
Thank you.
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
# Presidential Weekly Address - 9 April 2011

Weekly address delivered on 9 April 2011.
THE PRESIDENT: Last night, after weeks of long and difficult negotiations over our national budget, leaders of both parties came together to avert a government shutdown, cut spending, and invest in our future.
This is good news for the American people. It means that small businesses can get the loans they need, our families can get the mortgages they applied for, folks can visit our national parks and museums, and hundreds of thousands of Americans will get their paychecks on time – including our brave men and women in uniform.
This is an agreement to invest in our country’s future while making the largest annual spending cut in our history. Like any compromise, this required everyone to give ground on issues that were important to them. I certainly did. Some of the cuts we agreed to will be painful – programs people rely on will be cut back; needed infrastructure projects will be delayed. And I would not have made these cuts in better circumstances. But we also prevented this important debate from being overtaken by politics and unrelated disagreements on social issues. And beginning to live within our means is the only way to protect the investments that will help America compete for new jobs – investments in our kids’ education and student loans; in clean energy and life-saving medical research.
Reducing spending while still investing in the future is just common sense. That’s what families do in tough times. They sacrifice where they can, even if it’s hard, to afford what’s really important.
A few months ago, I was able to sign a tax cut for American families because both parties worked through their differences and found common ground. Now, the same cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history. And it’s my sincere hope that we can continue to come together as we face the many difficult challenges that lie ahead – from creating jobs and growing our economy to educating our children and reducing our long-term deficits.
That’s our responsibility. That’s what the American people expect us to do. And it’s what the American people deserve.
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
# Presidential Weekly Address - 9 January 2016

Weekly address delivered on [9 January 2016].
THE PRESIDENT: Hi everybody. Seven years ago, the American auto industry was on the brink of collapse. Plants were closing. Hundreds of thousands of workers were getting laid off from jobs that had been their ticket to a middle-class life. And as the pain spread across the country, another one million Americans would have lost their jobs in the middle of the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes.
Some said it was too late to turn things around. But I refused to turn my back on so many of the workers that I’d met. Instead, I placed my bet on American workers. I placed my bet on American manufacturing. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We said the auto industry would have to truly change, not just pretend that it did. We got labor and management to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Everyone had some skin in the game.
Our plan wasn’t popular. Critics said it was a “road to socialism,” or a “disaster” waiting to happen. But I’d make that bet again any day of the week. Because today, the American auto industry is back. Since our plan went into effect, our automakers have added more than 640,000 new jobs. We’ve cut the Detroit-area unemployment rate by more than half. The Big Three automakers are raising wages. Seven years ago, auto sales hit a 27-year low. Last year, they hit an all-time high.
Later this month, I’ll visit the Detroit Auto Show to see this progress firsthand. Because I believe that every American should be proud of what our most iconic industry has done.
It’s not unlike what America overall has done these past seven years. Our businesses are now on a 70-month streak of job creation, with more than 14 million new jobs in all. We’ve revamped our schools and the way we pay for college. We’ve made historic investments in clean energy and put ourselves on a path to a low-carbon future. We’ve brought more than 17 million Americans into our health care system, seen health care prices grow at the lowest rate in fifty years, and covered more than 90% of our people for the very first time. We’ve even cut our deficits by nearly 75% in the process.
The point is America can do anything. Even in times of great challenge and change, our future is entirely up to us. That’s been on my mind while I’m writing my final State of the Union Address. And on Tuesday, I’m going to talk about the choices we have to make to set this country firmly on an even better, brighter course for decades to come.
Thanks, and have a great weekend.
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
# Presidential Weekly Address - 9 June 2012

Weekly address delivered on 9 June 2012.
THE PRESIDENT: This week, I spent some time talking with college students about how we can make higher education more affordable. And one of the things I told them was how proud I was that they were making that investment in themselves – because in today’s economy, the best predictor of success is a good education.
That’s not just true for our individual success; it’s also true for America’s success. New jobs and new businesses will take root wherever they can find the most highly-educated, highly-skilled workers. And I want those workers to be American workers. I want those good-paying, middle-class jobs to take root right here.
So it should concern everyone that right now – all across America – tens of thousands of teachers are getting laid off. In Pennsylvania alone, there are 9,000 fewer educators in our schools today than just a year ago. In Ohio, the number is close to 7,000. And nationwide, over the past three years, school districts have lost over 250,000 educators. Think about what that means for our country. When there are fewer teachers in our schools, class sizes start climbing up. Our students start falling behind. And our economy takes a hit.
The point is: teachers matter. One study found that a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can change the course of a child’s life. So the last thing our country needs is to have fewer teachers in our schools.
Now, I know states are still going through some tough times. I realize that every Governor is dealing with limited resources and many face stark choices when it comes to their budgets.
But that doesn’t mean we should just stand by and do nothing. When states struggle, it’s up to Congress to step in and help out. In 2009 and in 2010, we provided aid to states to help keep hundreds of thousands of teachers in the classroom. But we need to do more. That’s why a critical part of the jobs bill that I sent to Congress back in September was to help states prevent even more layoffs and rehire even more teachers who had lost their jobs.
But months later, we’re still waiting on Congress to act.
When it comes to this recovery, we can’t fully control everything that happens in other parts of the world. But there are plenty of things we can control. There are plenty of steps we can take, right now, to strengthen our economy. Putting teachers back in our kids’ classrooms is one of those steps. And there’s no excuse for inaction. You work hard. Your leaders should, too. Especially at this make-or-break moment for the middle class.
I know this is an election year. But some things are bigger than an election. Some things are bigger than politics. So I hope you’ll join me in telling Congress to do the right thing; to get to work and to help get our teachers back in the classroom. We can’t afford to wait any longer.
Thanks and have a great weekend.
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
# Presidential Weekly Address - 9 July 2016

Weekly address delivered on [9 July 2016].
THE PRESIDENT: Although I didn’t know the five police officers who were killed, or the seven who were wounded in Dallas this week – I knew them.
They were the folks I grew up with: The boy with the most courage and the most compassion; the man with a brave heart and a generous soul, whose words were always encouraging; the son who made his mother proud every time he turned and smiled at her; and the friend who you could always count on. Being a cop wasn’t just what they did. It was who they were—like every officer who joined for essentially the same reason. There was something about them that made them think they could help, that they should serve, that they had a duty.
So when an assassin’s bullet targeted the police force in Dallas, it touched the soul of the nation. Those killed and wounded were protecting the safety of those who were peacefully protesting against racial injustices in the criminal justice system. Those who were marching against the kind of shocking images we saw in St. Paul and Baton Rouge—and have seen too often elsewhere—of too many black lives lost.
I believe the Dallas Police Department is one of the finest in the nation—and this incredibly diverse city can bridge any divide. To paraphrase Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings, let us use our words carefully. Let us act with unity, not division. As Dallas Police Chief David Brown—one of the leading chiefs in America—said, “There are no words to describe the atrocity that occurred to our city, all I know is that this must stop, this divisiveness between our police and our citizens.”
As Americans, we are wounded by all of these deaths. It’s on all of us to stand up, to speak out about disparities in our criminal justice system — just as it’s on all of us to stand up for the police who protect us in our communities every day. In the days and weeks ahead, we’ll continue offering our thoughts and prayers to provide comfort to the broken-hearted families. But they will only be redeemed by the courage of our actions that honor their memories.
So while we’re being tested, we can’t be pulled apart. We are America, with bonds that hold us together. We endure, we persevere, we overcome, we stand together.
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