Provide Education on Drug and Alcohol Abuse. ...
Increase Access to Addiction Treatment. ...
Enhance Skills on Recognizing and Reducing Incidents of Drug Use. ...
Shift Punishment and Consequences of Drug Use.
Answer:The Mexican–American War,[a] also known in the United States as the Mexican War and in Mexico as the Intervención Estadounidense en México (United States intervention in Mexico),[b] was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848. It followed in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas, which was not formally recognized by the Mexican government, who disputed the Treaties of Velasco signed by Mexican caudillo President/General Antonio López de Santa Anna after the Texas Revolution a decade earlier. In 1845, newly elected U.S. President James K. Polk, who saw the annexation of Texas as the first step towards a further expansion of the United States,[5] sent troops to the disputed area and a diplomatic mission to Mexico. After Mexican forces attacked U.S. forces, the United States Congress declared war.
U.S. forces quickly occupied the regional capital of Santa Fe de Nuevo México along the upper Rio Grande and the Pacific coast province of Alta California, and then moved south. Meanwhile, the Pacific Squadron of the U.S. Navy blockaded the Pacific coast farther south in lower Baja California Territory. The U.S. Army under Major General Winfield Scott eventually captured Mexico City through stiff resistance, having marched west from the port of Veracruz on the Gulf Coast, where the U.S. staged its first ever major amphibious landing.
The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, forced onto the remnant Mexican government, ended the war and enforced the Mexican Cession of the northern territories of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo México to the United States. The U.S. agreed to pay $15 million compensation for the physical damage of the war and assumed $3.25 million of debt already owed earlier by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico acknowledged the loss of what became the State of Texas and accepted the Rio Grande as its northern border with the United States.
The victory and territorial expansion Polk envisioned[6] inspired great patriotism in the United States, but the war and treaty drew some criticism in the U.S. for their casualties, monetary cost, and heavy-handedness,[7][8] particularly early on. The question of how to treat the new acquisitions also intensified the debate over slavery. Mexico's worsened domestic turmoil and losses of life, territory and national prestige left it in what prominent Mexicans called a "state of degradation and ruin".[9]
Answer:
all are Republican except for Clinton and Wilson
Answer:
Sixty years ago, Allied political leaders and military commanders at the highest strategic levels fretfully considered the question of when the war in Europe would end and what that end would look like. Guessing would not be useful, and hopes could not be blind. The coming of the end of the war needed to be a matter of educated assessment, flexible planning and unprecedented coordination within government and the armed services.
Fortunately, Winston Spencer Churchill proved to be a master at meeting all of those demands. Britain’s prime minister had an uncanny ability to anticipate the course of events and to encourage or admonish as necessary. Above all, Churchill clearly foresaw the end of war in Europe. He showed such sound judgment, in fact, that one could say his predictions make a handsome bookend to his other, long-recognized predictions in the 1930s about the coming of the war. First as min-ister of defense and later as prime minister and a key member of a multinational coalition, Churchill masterfully managed the situation and never lost his faith in the war’s eventual outcome. He was also brilliantly adept at preparing his nation and its allies for the problems that they would face when peace finally did return.
Explanation:
The Political “left”
These New Deal flaws have led modern civil rights commentator Ta-Nehisi Coates to argue that modern liberalism is intrinsically racist, but many civil rights leaders have been leftists or liberals and even the New Deal helped minorities in important ways. There is no lasting causal connection between liberal politics and racism. After all, the 1960s civil rights movement’s biggest gains happened during America’s most liberal phase: LBJ’s Great Society. In the 1930s, African Americans and Hispanics still did better than they had under Hoover because many New Deal programs covered all workers. Notably, the few Blacks who could vote migrated to the Democratic Party in the 1930s. But civil rights were not on the New Deal agenda despite the wishes of FDR’s wife, Eleanor (his 5th cousin), at least for the most part. But she successfully insisted that African Americans be included in the National Youth Administration (NYA) that focused on job creation for 16-25 year-olds. Eleanor, or ER, also worked tirelessly with the NAACP and the KKK once put a $25k bounty on her head. Anyone the KKK wanted to kill that badly is someone we should all take note of. Eleanor Roosevelt was the most political First Lady in American history and had earned her reputation advocating for the rights and good treatment of wounded Doughboys during WWI when she worked with the Red Cross. When WWII broke out, she defended the rights of African-American soldiers like the Tuskegee Airmen. By taking the lead on civil rights, ER served as a lightning rod for FDR, diverting attention onto herself so as to spare him the career-killing, coalition-busting, bad publicity of being an anti-racist.
