Dear Mr. Trump?

Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2018 08:55 pm
Dear Mr. Trump; incumbent President of the U.S.A,

Although your Presidency to the U.S is your job and with some reservations coming from U.S citizens, a question would like to be asked.

Do you think that The First Lady to the White House, Mrs. Melania Trump, should have say in U.S political matters as to whom should or whom should not remain employed with and within the White House?

Sincerely in Christ (J)esus.

Thank you.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 2,320 • Replies: 4
No top replies

Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2018 08:59 pm
Another question that would like to be asked is this:

Will any U.S 'border' eradication be a future concern if and since border eradication(s) are being discussed elsewhere?
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2018 09:02 pm
Although persons have 'rights' to travel, do you think that they would be 'better off' in the place(s) they were born and raised in or do you think 'free world' travel is the better way to promote personal language and cultural heritages and lineages?

Not looking at personal 'well being' from a monetary 'freedom' sense but looking at personal well beings from the position of language/culture/foods/neighbors/histories, etc....

Has any 'studies' shown that newly moved in 'immigrants' tend to fare 'lower' than those that were of greater length generations? Does the 1st or 2nd generation tend to fare better or worse than the 3rd or 4th generation(s), so on, in Countries?

After all, what does 'antagonizing' citizens accomplish? Except nothing but a 'show' of bravadoism?

National Security: State Security: County Security: City Security: Neighborly Security: Personal Security.

Why have any 'need' to antagonize any of the above?

Even if Nation, State or County is 'okay' with a certain 'thing', but if a 'City' is not, why infringe upon that 'City' if they are not 'okay' with that certain thing which Nation, State and/or County might be okay with? Why antagonize? Why not promote 'Peace' by respecting what is regarded 'peaceful' within those places?

If for any non secular reasons, such as faith or religion come in to discussions, why not discuss the formal loosening of those faiths of religions rather than bluntly saying or insinuating that such 'faiths' and 'religions' were never Established within those places? In other words, telling of how those 'faith' and 'religious' establishments were 'done away with' rather than lying that those 'faith/religious' establishments never existed, would be easier to accept than trying to accept a 'lie' to live under.
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2018 09:19 pm
Many U.S citizens (?) claim that the U.S was not founded upon Christianity or upon Christian morals or even Holy Biblical principles. This 'theory' or 'piece of 'history'' has been shown and can be proven as not true.

And as far as the Establishment Clause is concerned, the separation of Church and State:

"The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England."


But England, France, Germany, Italy and many other 'Countries' had, at least, a State Religion which was sponsored by the Government. And some Countries still do have State Religions where The State 'sponsors' a certain 'faith/religion'.

Governments which recognize Buddhism as their official religion:

Bhutan (Drukpa Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism)
Cambodia (Theravada Buddhism)
Kalmykia, a republic within the Russian Federation (Tibetan Buddhism - sole Buddhist entity in Europe)[1]
Thailand (Theravada Buddhism)
Tibet Government in Exile (Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism)
Myanmar- written in the 1974 constitution
Sri Lanka

Scotland (Church of Scotland) established by law
Scotland assorted Free Presbyterian churches, unestablished.

Denmark (Church of Denmark)
Iceland (Church of Iceland)
Norway (Church of Norway)
Finland (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland)

England (Church of England) established by law; plus, unestablished, the world-wide Anglican Communion

States without any state religion
These states do not profess any state religion. Countries which officially decline to establish any religion include:

People's Republic of China (China)
Czech Republic
East Timor
New Zealand
Republic of China (Taiwan)
South Africa
South Korea
United States of America

Colony : Denomination: Disestablished

Connecticut: Congregational: 1818
Georgia: Church of England: 1789
Massachusetts: Congregational: 1780
New Brunswick: Church of England
New Hampshire: Congregational: 1790
Newfoundland: Church of England
North Carolina: Church of England: 1776
Nova Scotia: Church of England: 1850
Prince Edward Island: Church of England
South Carolina: Church of England: 1790
Upper Canada: Church of England: 1854
West Florida: Church of England : N/A
East Florida: Church of England: N/A
Virginia: Church of England: 1786
West Indies: Church of England: 1868

Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2018 09:44 pm
How would any 'border' elimination be helpful to any Country which seeks to keep its inward citizens from having too many influxes of 'other peoples', which they are entitled to do?
0 Replies

Related Topics

  1. Forums
  2. » Dear Mr. Trump?
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/29/2023 at 03:33:38