The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Do you consider Bishop Eusebius’s account to be reliable?
No, really not.
The reason why because his account had created many controversies.
Eusebius has been known as the official historian of the church. He participated in the Council of Nice in 314, organized by Roman Emperor Constantine to revise the religious or historic documents that would end up being in the Bible.
So Eusebius based most of his comments on personal opinions and other historic document's interpretations. It is difficult to say that he did the proper research and had reliable sources. During the Nicea Council, a group of Bishops decided what documents had to be part of the Bible and which not, based on their own criteria. That is not a good indicator of the validity of the documents included, even less we can consider those as sacred.
The United States often makes aid decisions, both military and humanitarian, using the prism of our "strategic advantage."
So, if it would be advantageous to please a military dictator, either because of port access or drilling rights or the use of a base for refueling, it is likely that the aid will be used as an inducement to allow the United States to do those things.
The correct answer for the question that is being presented above is this one: "Exclusionary rule." The e<span>xclusionary rule </span>says that evidence gained as a result of an illegal act by police cannot be used against the person from whom it was seized
Jefferson actually said and believed that the people are the most important aspect of the government as the government is of the people for the people. This means that the people chose who will represent them in the government so they have to be involved in order to get the right people in the government. By doing this citizens uphold their responsibility and by participating and concerning with politics they protect their rights and interests.
