A.) a historian explains how events in the past are connected.<span>
Not true:
</span>
B.) a historian does not interpret caused and meanings of events.
C.) a historian considers how history affects society, not the individual.
D.) a historian only considers written records of the last to be valid.
The correct answer is D.
<em>Democracy promotion</em> has always been a key aspect of U.S. foreign policy. It means democracy as a political system but also promoting democratic values and rights. <em>Democracy promotion</em> is a term that describes different activities, undertaken as part of U.S. foreign policy, to initiate and foster democratic governance in various countries in the world. It is done by means of traditional diplomacy ( talks and agreements ), targeted foreign aid and assistance, covert and overt military operations.
Many times, in order to promote democracy, <em>capitalism is used</em>. Promoting capitalism had been more effective in countries with authoritarian regimes, opposed to any change. The authoritarians may become more willing to adopt to capitalism because it brings them visible effects fast ( more money and economy growth). Economic growth may in return strengthen the power of new, emerging leaders and<em> allow the transition of the country into</em> <em>a democracy.</em>
Answer:
A mortgage is a repayment of a loan which was given to you to buy a home.
Rent is a payment to someone who owns the building in which you live.
Explanation:
A mortgage is a loan used to buy a house and guaranteed by the same house by putting it as a collateral. For example; The loan you took to buy your property.
Rent is a payment that you give the property owner for the right to occupy the place for a specific period. You do not get any ownership rights in exchange.
Benefits: A mortgage is a good thing when you have a place to live somewhere, without paying monthly apartment rent, which means to lose money.
Rent helps low-income households to live in private rental dwellings at a low price.
<span>Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (2010). The 5-4 decision that ensued ruled against laws prohibiting unions and corporations from using their general treasury funds on political advertisements. The rationale behind this decision is that it was a fundamental violation of the First Amendment's right to free speech, which of course allows for the right for individuals to express their views, opinions, and support of various causes without fear of retribution from the government. The decision was highly controversial and has unquestionably increased both the scope and influence of superPACS and special interest groups.</span>
