Based on Woody Guthrie's 1940 song "This Land is Your Land," how do you think Guthrie would respond to both Roosevelt's "Hyphenated Americans" speech (1915) and Senator Smith's "Shut the Door" speech (1924)?

Woody Guthrie, the singer of "This Land is Your Land," would have an interesting opinion of both the "Hyphenated Americans" speech and the "Shut the Door" speech from the turn of the twentieth century. In his song, Guthrie warbles about how the land of America belongs to everyone in it and sings that it is a land of freedom and acceptance. Without knowing exactly his personal views on the matter, one would assume Guthrie would be in favor of accepting any immigrants who wished to come so they could partake in the land of America.
The two speeches in question have a decidedly anti-immigrant slant. The first speech implies that there is no room for so-called "Hyphenated Americans": "Irish-Americans," "Mexican-Americans," or the like. Essentially, Roosevelt says, if you're going to be American, you become completely American and leave your past nationality behind.
In the "Shut the Door" speech, politicians presented the idea to shut the doors to the country and refuse to accept any new immigrants, thereby saving their resources for "natural born" Americans.
Because of the disparate views expressed between these two speeches and Guthrie's song, one could assume Guthrie would react poorly and be decidedly against the ideas laid out in these speeches.

What did Martin Van Buren do while he was in office?

Martin Van Buren (1782–1862) served as president (1837–41) after Andrew Jackson. He had been Jackson's vice president, and he sought to continue Jackson's policies in many areas. Van Buren was also a founder of the Democratic party.
As soon as Van Buren entered the White House, the country faced an economic crisis called the Panic of 1837. One reason for the economic tumult was Jackson's decision to transfer federal funds into state banks. Many of those state banks failed. Van Buren worked to rectify the country's shaky finances, and he supported the establishment of the Independent Treasury System. He did not, however, help those ordinary Americans who suffered during the economic crisis.
Van Buren continued Jackson's harsh policies towards Native Americans. These included another war against the Seminoles in Florida and the transfer of Indians to regions West of the Mississippi River.
Tensions between North and South were high during his presidency. He blocked Texas from joining the Union, and this damaged his standing in the South.
The economic crisis and his stand on the question of Texas's admission cost him the presidency. He was badly defeated in the presidential election of 1840.

How would a low-cost price leader enforce its leadership through implied threats to a rival?

As a general rule, modern monopoly laws don't allow organizations to coordinate with one another on prices. That means that discount stores and other "price leaders" can't outright threaten competitors with a price war; beyond the unprofessionalism of that conduct, it would likely constitute price-fixing in a court of law.
However, that threat is very valuable and important to stores that rely on discount models to provide competitive advantages. While discount stores typically have production and/or supply line advantages over their competitors, price wars cut into every company's profits, so those discount stores would lose a great deal of money on their way to their inevitable victory.
Therefore, many price leaders will communicate their intentions indirectly, through market signals and actions. The most common way to do this is through communications with customers. For example, you've almost certainly seen fliers and advertisements of stores with price-match guarantees, a published promise that the store will match the price of a product if a competitor lists it for a lower price. These guarantees target customers and are published in customer-facing ads, so they do not typically run afoul of anti-price-fixing statutes, but the public declaration that a company will not be undercut is easily understood by other firms competing with similar products and offerings. Such a guarantee makes clear that there is little competitive advantage to be gained by discounting prices below those of the price leader and therefore that competitors should seek other value propositions than pure pricing in order to distinguish themselves from the price leaders and attract their own market segment.

What are the prepositional phrases in "The Fly"?

A prepositional phrase begins with a preposition and is followed by an article (a, an, the) and a noun or just a noun (without an article). Prepositions often give a location, such as "on," "under," "over," "around," "for," "from," and "by." For example, "the fly is on the shelf" or "The fly flew above my head." They also can tell who something is for or from: "the flyswatter is for the fly" or "the bug-spray is from the market."
“Of” is also a lesser-known preposition that shows belonging or relation. For example, “I am the of the house of Fly,” meaning “I belong to the important house of Fly.” Or “I am of royal fly blood,” meaning “I am important because I am related to royal flies.”
The word "like" is also a preposition, although usually a lesser-known one. It makes a comparison. “On a hot day, families swarm around the ice cream shop like flies.”
In William Blake’s poem, the speaker addresses the fly (a device called apostrophe) in order to contemplate his own frailty:

Little fly,Thy summer’s playMy thoughtless handHas brushed away.
Am not IA fly like thee?Or art not thouA man like me?
For I danceAnd drink and sing,Till some blind handShall brush my wing.
If thought is lifeAnd strength and breath,And the wantOf thought is death,
Then am IA happy fly,If I live,Or if I die.

In the second stanza, there are two comparisons made with prepositional phrases. “Like thee” is one prepositional phrase, where “like” is the preposition and “thee” is the object of the preposition. The second is similar: “like me.” The speaker simply reverses the question in effort to say, “I am just like you, Fly, and you are just like me.” The preposition is used to set up a more detailed comparison of how they are alike. Sadly, the ways they are alike are kind of depressing: they could both be swatted dead by the hand of providence at any moment—they have no control over their mortality. The second comparison the speaker makes to the fly is that if they both suddenly die, neither will know they are dead because they won't be able to think. So the thought of being dead won’t nag at them like a gnat on a hot summer’s day.
In the fourth stanza, where the second comparison is made, another prepositional phrase appears: “Of thought.” This prepositional phrase is part of the subject of the clause. The entire clause (or complete idea with a subject and verb) is “And the want of thought is death.” This sentence is saying that the absence of the ability to think is equal to death, or in other words, when the mind stops thinking, one must be dead. Without the preposition “of thought,” this idea would not be clearly understood by the reader. It would say, "And the want is death," which entirely changes the meaning. So, as you see, prepositional phrases add important detail to poems, stories, and essays, and detail is powerful because it can help you to more clearly be understood.

How did the demographics of the US change in the 1980s and 1990s, and what does this diversity mean for American society and politics?

In the past few decades, the demographics of the US have changed considerably. The population has continued to increase, and at a higher rate than most other developed countries (who typically see their population stagnate). The US has also gotten older, as the Baby Boomer generation has reached old age. At the same time, the higher population growth also means that the United States has retained a higher proportion of younger people than most developed countries. Perhaps most importantly, however, the US has seen a dramatic change in diversity. Immigration has continued into the country, bringing in people of different cultures from all around the world.
The biggest change, however, has been the rise in the Hispanic population in the United States. From 1980 to 2000, the Hispanic population grew by over 20 million, from 14.6 million in 1980 to over 35 million in 2000. This was the result of immigration into the US as well as higher fertility rates than other demographic groups in the US. Their total share of the US population grew from 6.4% in 1980 to 12.5% in 2000, nearly doubling in only twenty years.
In American society, this rise in the Hispanic population has been the biggest aspect of an increasingly diverse population. This has been partially caused by a decrease in growth of the white population in the United States, which is now the slowest growing group in the country. Most predictions place the white population below 50% of the total population by 2050. Like many times in American history, the influx of different cultures has affected the general culture; Hispanic culture in particular has become increasingly prominent and mainstream.
This increasingly diverse electorate has also transformed politics. Appealing to diverse groups is not a new strategy in the United States, but it has become an increasingly viable and even necessary tactic in the twenty-first century. As the US becomes increasingly more diverse and non-white, political power has moved away from the classic white Protestant group that has been the dominating force in American politics since the country’s founding. Some have argued this has had a positive effect on domestic politics, as different, often marginalized groups have newfound political voice and involvement.
The increasing diversity has also caused a backlash, however, mostly from the traditional white population. Recent elections have suggested that diversity has not been viewed as a purely positive force in American society. As it continues to increase in America, and white political power continues to decline, it calls into question how future political struggles will be framed, and how much these demographic shifts will play into those conflicts.

How does Beauvoir compare the position of women with that of other marginalized people?

Beauvoir uses the Hegelian concept of master-slave dialectic to reduce femininity to an Other that is mastered, much as any slave in human culture must be dehumanized to justify enslavement. Instead of using Hegel’s slave and master terms, Beauvoir uses Subject and Other to reveal how anyone, not just women, can be compartmentalized, reduced, and thus made less in society’s eyes by becoming an Other.
Beauvoir states that “One is not born but becomes woman,” meaning that every woman learns through culture—starting with parents, then school and a gradual introduction to social norms—the subtle differences that make a woman an Other. In the same fashion, marginalized ethnic groups and even generations of slave culture are gradually indoctrinated with an Other mentality.
Just as some learn through their cultural education to become Others, so, too, do some learn to become Subjects. Male education teaches men the otherness view that subjugates women, much as any culture that endorses slavery teaches its masters their roles.

A. Should abortion be legalized?

I will assume that this is a debate question. For the record, abortion is legal in the United States and in most other developed nations, though we will focus on the United States. The Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade (1973) made abortion legal throughout the nation. However, subsequent decisions in both Congress and in the Supreme Court have placed more restrictions on access to abortion. For instance, the Hyde Amendment, introduced by Senator Henry Hyde of Illinois, prohibited the use of federal funds for abortions that were not performed strictly to save the life of the mother. Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) introduced the notion that an anti-abortion law could be struck down if it placed an "undue burden" on one's right to obtain an abortion. In regard to Casey, the Court upheld statutes related to parental notification and a 24-hour waiting period before getting an abortion, but it rejected others, such as spousal notification.
Previously, abortion was legal in some states but not in others, which required women in states who did not provide it to go to neighboring states where the procedure was safe and legal, or even out of the continental United States. Those who could not afford to travel risked their lives with what were called "back alley abortions"—induced miscarriages performed by non-medical professionals. The argument in favor of maintaining Roe v. Wade is that without it, poor women would again resort to illegal methods.
The argument against abortion is that the procedure terminates a life. Advocates on this side of the debate insist that when a woman is carrying another life, she has no right to determine if that life should exist or not, for it is a separate and autonomous being that she has helped to create.
Therefore, in deciding your position in this debate or in how to argue it, it is important to look at the issue of autonomy and whose is most important—the mother or the prospective child. Also, it is important to consider the "right to privacy" protection given in the Fourteenth Amendment (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut), which was the basis on which Roe v. Wade was decided.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Planned-Parenthood-of-Southeastern-Pennsylvania-v-Casey