Thy Lord hath saved us from certain doom,
from the British, our fierce foes,
in the battles, when cannons go boom,
when in our just fright, we froze.
Thy Lord hath saved us, when in our eyes,
we lost the war already,
but thy Lord will help, and we shall rise,
for you we shall be ready.
Thy Lord hath saved us from the British,
now we are free from our woes,
the war, with thy Lord’s help, we finished,
and we have beat our old foes.
What are the different African government successes for different African economies? There are many different examples of African governments, but I will mention two of the most well-known.
One of the worst ones was Zaire under Mobutu Sese Seko. Zaire had rich copper mines and experienced an economic boom in the 1970s with copper prices rising. Zaire became prosperous because of this. However, this wealth was absorbed by the government and mainly Mobutu. He spent enormous sums of money on monuments and palaces. He made himself one of the world’s wealthiest men. He also launched the African “authenticity” program. Basically, Africans were to replace their Christian names with African names, they could not wear Western clothing, Christmas was canceled, and Mobutu’s portraits were in all the churches. He also drove out Asian merchants and Belgian technicians and businessmen. And when copper prices fell in the 1980s, his economic boom ended. And of course he had to invite the Asian’s and Belgian’s back. He also had high price inflation. He also had high debt. In summary, this form of government was a total failure.
The other one was Kenya under Jomo Kenyatta. He did not socialize the economy, he retained capitalist incentives, he did not tax people incredibly high, Kenya did not have mineral deposits, and less than 20% of its land was suitable for farming. Yet, Kenya did much better than Zaire did. He did not tax people to death. He did not drive out Europeans, in fact, he wanted their know-how, so that Africans could learn from them and have an even more prosperous society. Tourism and foreign investment were even encouraged. There was also the one-party rule. So you can see the massive differences between these two countries.
What are some of the major arguments advanced by the Public Choice school of economics? What is the public choice theory in economics? According to Wikipedia, “Public choice refers to the behavior and process of what public goods are provided, how they are provided and distributed, and the corresponding matching rules are established. Public choice theory expects to study and influence people’s public choice processes to maximize their social utility.” What are some of the major arguments? According to Econlib, “Public choice economists make the same assumption—that although people acting in the political marketplace have some concern for others, their main motive, whether they are voters, politicians, lobbyists, or bureaucrats, is self-interest.“
What is front-loading? According to the dictionary, front-loading means to “distribute or allocate (costs, effort, etc.) unevenly, with the greater proportion at the beginning of the enterprise or process.” It basically means to over-promise what it can deliver.
What is political engineering? It is when the military (or any other organization) spreads around a project to different infirmaries to make sure the job gets done. For example, if an organization wanted to build a plane, one infirmary would build one part of the plane, another infirmary would build another part, and another infirmary would put the pieces together, forming an airplane.
What does it mean to be tax-supported? First, what are taxes? According to Wikipedia, “A tax is a compulsory financial charge or some other type of levy imposed on a taxpayer by a governmental organization in order to collectively fund government spending, public expenditures, or as a way to regulate and reduce negative externalities.” I think that being tax-supported means that an institution is supported by taxes that people pay.
Is a tax-supported school different in principle from a tax-supported church? In principle, there is no difference between tax-supported schools and churches. If the government pays the institution, they get to decide what is taught and what is not taught. My church is not tax-supported, and it is doing perfectly fine. The church does not need money from the government in order to stay there, it does fine without it. Also, public schools are tax-supported, so the government decides what is taught and what is not taught, and look at where that got them. If you are not public schooled, have you seen what kind of crap and garbage those schools are teaching? Whereas private schools are not tax-supported, so they can teach whatever they want. They do not need to ask permission from the government to teach what they want to teach. That is why private schools are incredibly better than public schools. Although there is another solution, homeschooling. You work from home, and all you need to pay for is the school. I have been homeschooling for all my life, and already I know that I am more mature than some people twice my age who went to public school all their life.
What is capitalism? According to the dictionary, capitalism is “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.” The USA uses capitalism, for an example. What are Marx’s criticisms of capitalism? According to Econlib, “Marx condemned capitalism as a system that alienates the masses. His reasoning was as follows: although workers produce things for the market, market forces, not workers, control things. People are required to work for capitalists who have full control over the means of production and maintain power in the workplace.” He also said that capitalism will eventually destroy itself. That is not how I see it. I do not think capitalism alienates the masses, in fact, I think it helps the masses. And I do not think capitalism could destroy itself. He thought that capitalism would alienate the workers so the workers would overthrow the owners and take control themselves. This only takes place if the workers do not enjoy the working conditions or pay they get for working, but even then, why don’t they just leave and find another job? And this is not the case for all workers. Some workers could really enjoy their job. I do not think capitalism could destroy itself.
What Is To Be Done is a novel written by Vladimir Lenin. According to Wikipedia, “In What Is to Be Done?, Lenin argues that the working class will not spontaneously become political simply by fighting economic battles with employers over wages, working hours, and the like.” As you can probably already tell, the target audience were the workers.
What was the New Economic Policy? According to Britannica, “The New Economic Policy reintroduced a measure of stability to the economy and allowed the Soviet people to recover from years of war, civil war, and governmental mismanagement. The small businessmen and managers who flourished in this period became known as NEP men.” This policy was a huge success in creating an economic recovery after World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the Russian Civil War.
What was the Ukrainian terror-famine? According to Wikipedia, “The Holodomor, also known as the Great Ukrainian Famine, was a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The Holodomor was part of the wider Soviet famine of 1930–1933 which affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union.” About 28,000 people died every day. This famine was horrific. Ethnic discrimination, and lack of favored industries was what caused this devastating famine.
The primary values of fascism. What is fascism? According to World101, “Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen.” That doesn’t sound good. What are the primary values of fascism? According to Wikipedia, “Common themes among fascist movements include: authoritarianism, nationalism (including racial nationalism), hierarchy and elitism, and militarism. Other aspects of fascism such as perception of decadence, anti-egalitarianism and totalitarianism can be seen to originate from these ideas.” Fascism is not a good thing, as you can just see from these values. Nations that used fascism include Germany, China, Brazil, Austria, France, Greece, and many others.
What was life like for the businessman in Nazi Germany? One thing is that they lived in a socialist society under Hitler. According to the dictionary, socialism is “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” Socialism is a terrible thing. It never works. There was price control, which means that the government decides what can be sold for a specific amount of money. Business found a way to get around this, but then the government found out. Government officials dressed like normal people then go to these businessmen and try to get them to violate the laws and see if they do. There was also the lowering of product quality to cope with price controls. There was no free market in Germany. The economy was just a huge mess.
What is the idea of a “living Constitution”? What does it mean to have a “living constitution?” A “living constitution” means that the constitution considered to be living can be changed. This is not a solid constitution. If people can change the law to fit today’s standards, that constitution is not a solid foundation for a government. If people can change the law nilly willy, how do you know what the law is? And people can change the law to fit their standards, and not the standards of other people. Now, if somebody wanted to change the law, they would have to get permission from most of the states, but they can still change it. A man named Kevin Gutzman once said “the “living, breathing” Constitution is actually a dead Constitution.” The idea of a Constitution that can just change with the time is dead. How can a dead Constitution protect your liberties?
What is nullification? According to Wikipedia, “Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws which they deem unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution. There are similar theories that any officer, jury, or individual may do the same.” So nullification is an act people can do to point out if they think that a law, etc. does not go with the Constitution.
Is there anyone you think is more of the archetypal American than Franklin? What is an archetypal? According to the dictionary, an archetypal is “a very typical example of a certain person or thing.” Why is Benjamin Franklin considered an archetypal American? It was because he was industrious. According to Bartleby, “He was industrious. Franklin continually put forth the idea of the industrious American. He had support from the middle-class who did not care if he was rich but he was a man who was self-made and worked hard. This American attitude was formed early and most of it by him.” He was considered an archetypal American because of his beliefs on self-improvement, religion, determination, and even somewhat of his sort of prideful spirit. At a young age, he found an interest in reading and writing, so he began printing. He was sort of an amateur in this profession of his. However, he showed much promise in this. He never gave up on trying to achieve his life goals. This man is worth modeling yourself after. This is why he is a perfect model of an archetypal American. I do not think that anyone could be more of an archetypal American than Benjamin Franklin. This is why:
Why do I think that Franklin is the perfect example of an archetypal American? He was a middle class person who did not care about being rich. He did not care about having a lot of money. This is a good trait to have. You should not care about being rich or having a lot of money, but you should focus on the important things. He was also self-made. Now, what does it mean to be self-made? According to Wikipedia, “A “self-made man” is a person whose success is of their own making. In the intellectual and cultural history of the United States, the idea of the self-made man as an archetype or cultural ideal looms large, but has been criticized by some as a myth or cult.” Your success is of your own doing. Do not ask other people do do things for you, do it yourself and you will become a better person. Franklin was also a hard worker. Now this is important. If you want to do things in life, you need to work hard for it. Franklin never gave up trying to achieve his life goals, and neither should you. If you hit an obstacle, remove it or work around it. I am absolutely sure that Franklin met several obstacles in his time, and knowing his position when he died, I assume that he defeated the obstacles. He never gave up reaching for his life goals, and neither should you. Franklin was also industrious. What does it mean to be industrious? It means to be diligent, to work hard. This is what Franklin was best at. Franklin is the perfect model of an archetypal American, and I do not think that anybody could be better at that than him.
Compact and nationalist theories of the Union. What was the compact theory of the Union? According to Wikipedia, “In United States constitutional theory, compact theory is an interpretation of the Constitution which holds that the United States was formed through a compact agreed upon by all the states, and that the federal government is thus a creation of the states.” So the compact theory is just an interpretation of the Constitution which says that the federal government was formed by the states. What was the nationalist theory of the union? According to Wikipedia, “It holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power.” This simply states that each nation should be in charge of itself without any outside interference.
Can smaller political units contribute to the cause of liberty? I think they can. Smaller states tend to have more economic freedom. Now, a question is raised: Are large states necessary for security? I do not think so. Think of it this way, how safe were the large states involved in the 20th century? And you do not need great military power in order to keep a nation safe. You could use diplomacy, or economic power. Smaller states can really contribute to the cause of liberty if they have the necessary ‘equipment’ for it.
Note: This essay includes most of my successes in my life. This is meant to be read by a company who wants to hire me for a job. They can then see my main successes and see if they want to hire me for a job.
To begin with, my dad owns sixteen acres worth of land. Me and my family have several animals that live there, and we feed and water them every day. This is easy because our land is just down the road from where we live. My dad owns about forty sheep (I have not counted them recently), so I help him with putting up fences, separating boys and girls so that we can butcher the sheep, but we do not butcher them. However, we load them up into our van so we can take them to a butcher. I also own rabbits. I breed them and then I sell the babies. I have been doing this for several years now. My brothers own chickens and ducks, and we have a guard dog. There is always something new to do there.
Also, I am a part of a program called Trail Life. A form of Christ-centered boy scouts. At the point I wrote this essay, I am First Officer, the highest rank of anyone in my troop, Troop 13:20 (except for the adult leaders). In Trail Life I have learned to be an amazing leader, and numerous outdoors skills, like hiking, camping, and an amazing amount of other things that are good to have for anyone my age or older. You can look at the Trail Life website here.
Another important success in my life is I am two years ahead in my school. At the point I wrote this essay, I am home schooled, and I am in 10th grade, but I am doing 12th grade homework. I know more than most other kids my age. I am a student in the Ron Paul Curriculum.
I think that my #1 success in life is being a Christian. I have been a Christian from a very young age, and I have continued to grow farther and stronger in my faith since then. I have grown up in a Christian home, and nothing can make me renounce my faith.
Marks of a True Conversion was a sermon written and spoken by George Whitefield. George Whitefield lived from 1714-1770, which means he was alive during the Great Awakening which lasted from 1720-1780. According to Wikipedia, “George Whitefield, also known as George Whitfield, was an Anglican cleric and evangelist who was one of the founders of Methodism and the evangelical movement. Born in Gloucester, he matriculated at Pembroke College at the University of Oxford in 1732.” He was best known for being the central figure in the Great Awakening. According to Bartleby.com, “It (the sermon) is representative of the Great Awakening. It was a revival sermon, the goal was to gain conversions to Christ, the sermon used detailed imagery as rhetoric, it was Calvinistic. But, it didn’t focus on the role of the local church. It assumed the conventional preaching had not produced conversions.“
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God was a sermon written by Johnathan Edwards. According to Wikipedia, “”Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is a sermon written by the American theologian Jonathan Edwards, preached to his own congregation in Northampton, Massachusetts, to profound effect, and again on July 8, 1741 in Enfield, Connecticut. The preaching of this sermon was the catalyst for the First Great Awakening.” This was another sermon preached during the Great Awakening preached by Johnathan Edwards. According to Wikipedia, “Jonathan Edwards was an American revivalist preacher, philosopher, and Congregationalist theologian. A leading figure of the American Enlightenment, Edwards is widely regarded as one of America’s most important and original philosophical theologians.”
If you had heard the sermons “Marks of a True Conversion” and “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, would you have assumed that you were the target? If you read or listened to these sermons, would you assume that you were the target of the sermon? According to Bartleby.com, “His (Edwards’) sermons were intended as a wake-up call for those who underplayed the majesty of a holy God and overemphasized their own worthiness as a decent, hard-working, successful citizens. Edwards believed strongly that only a genuine conversion experience should qualify a person for church membership.” His and Whitefield’s sermons were intended as ‘wake-up’ calls for people who were already Christians. In fact, the sermons were intended for Christians. The goal of these sermons was not to convert people to Christianity, but to strengthen the faith of those who were already Christians. This was the entire reason for the Great Awakening.
So, if I had heard the sermons “Marks of a True Conversion” and “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, would I have assumed that I was the target? I feel like I was the target of the sermon. The target audience of the sermon were people who are Christians, and this sermon was not meant to convert people to Christianity, because that means that the sermon would be completely different, but rather to strengthen the faith of those who were already Christians. That refers to me and everybody else who is a Christian who read or listened to this sermon.