Khrushchev’s Secret Speech The death of Joseph Stalin on March 5, 1953 many people were upset. He had led his people to victory in World War II. He had been their harsh leader, the Father of the Peoples, the Supreme Commander, and the top military leader. Khrushchev was Stalin’s assistant and a loyal follower of the brutal dictator. This loyalty served him well, because in 1954 Khrushchev became the Premier of the Soviet Union.
On the other hand, I think that our government has the right to do everything in it’s power to ensure our safety, including spying on those in countries who have threatened our own. If the NSA could have taken a closer look or had more information about Hazmi and Midhar’s plan to travel to the United States, their trip would have never been successful. The NSA needs to focus their attention more to the other countries instead of basically wasting all of their time with U.S. citizens, and maybe slips like letting terrorist into our homeland wouldn’t happen. They are getting their systems blown up with information that is useless to them from Americans. If they didn’t have to spend the time to sort through all of America’s “evidence,” then they would probably be able to seek out and confirm the terroristic threats and evidence coming from outside of the
Criticizing Bill Clinton Speech Essay “If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he should resign” William J. Clinton,1974 Introduction: Critics should pay a very special attention to the Bill Clinton apology speech. The speech of the ex-president Bill Clinton was a bright example of how perfect rhetoric techniques might fail to deliver the message of a president to a mass audience if it goes about his morality. In his speech, Clinton, actually confesses he had a private relationship with Monica Lewinsky. It is a rule that such a confession and especially from a person of the highest position in the society means the end of the career. It took William Jefferson Clinton seven month to realize that people need apologies not for the deed, but for the lies.
However, the opposing side was strongly worried that the United States government was going to have a loss of power. The opposing side had a goal to make the debate drug out as long as possible, by having long speeches about how the Bill angered them. Barry Goldwater stated that he believed that the United States government should not get involved in the employment area because there is “no constitutional basis for the exercise of federal regulatory.” Also stated in this selection Senator Sam Ervin says that it would ruin the relationships with the state and the federal government. Last but not least Senator John Stennis pointed out mainly that citizens should be able to their own businesses or property as that wished upon. (Source 6) Filibusters was another main event that took part in of the passing of the bill.
The American prison system fails because it does not deter crime, it does not rehabilitate criminals, and it does not serve justice for the victims, and does not promote civilized social interaction by reducing the amount of offenders. In many cases, it does the opposite. If it were in fact, doing what is proposes to do; there would not be such a staggering amount of persons incarcerated within cells. How could we change our prisons system to make it both more effective and less explosive? We would need to begin by recognizing the difference between punishment and restraint.
The Patriot Act authorizes unethical and unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens with a negligible improvement in national security. Free speech, free thinking, and a free American lifestyle cannot survive in the climate of distrust and constant fear created by the Patriot Act. The words that Bush once said about protecting civil liberties have been forgotten. Undoubtedly, The Patriot Act takes away individual privacy rights and liberties from American citizens in exchange for the “greater good” of the country. The first reason of how the Patriot Act negatively affects our society is by taking away freedom of speech and the right to express and communicate ideas.
I could blame the defeat which would have been the result of my action on him and come out as Peacemaker…But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world.” However, this idealistic standpoint was mere propaganda. In private, President Nixon would favour a more militant and aggressive approach. This contradictory position not only exposed Nixon’s vulnerability to public opinion, but also his disillusion and misunderstanding of the complexities of such a war. It is imperative to understand the factors which influenced President Nixon’s strategies and decision making during the Vietnam War.
Firstly, that the waging of war is off the back of every possible alternate method of peaceful resolution being exhausted. If mediation or negotiation are ignored and battle is the chief intention from the outset a war is not considered just and should not be engaged in. Secondly, a ‘just’ war must have the backing of an authority that is able and permitted to sanction the call of warfare. A private person or a group with no legal entitlement would not be able to wage a just war as they do not have the right or the capacity to do so. Thirdly, a just war is one that is waged because the party waging it have suffered a wrong and are seeking to rectify the situation.
The policy of The British Empire as set by Her Majesty’s Government was to avoid becoming embroiled in the conflict on either side, in short to remain neutral. To senior members of HMG the risks of becoming involved through recognition, conflict or mediation were too great. However neither the United States nor the Confederacy was contented by this and from the very beginning HMG was pitted in a fierce battle for neutrality from the twin forces of Yankee antagonism and Southern favouritism. NEUTRALITY
Hate speech or other speeches that can cause harm to society’s welfare should not be disclosed under any circumstances. The topic of free speech has been one of the most controversial subjects. There will always be a conflict of interest unless we can reach an agreement to what extent should Freedom of Speech be allowed. To many, Freedom of Speech should be defended at all cost. They believe that Freedom of Speech is a part of our entire way of life.