We already have one. Are you happy with Obama?
No, and for most if not all the reasons listed in these comments. I do believe that our actions at this time will determine whether we win or lose and if we lose we have lost the future. With the 80 thousand muslims being brought in this year, the ones we already have, the illegals coming in the southern border, the illegal muslims coming in from Canada, these will continue to multiply like rabbits. Then we see how our children and grand children are being taught and indoctrinized at school, TV, political correctness, and that the socialist prefer muslims because they are a segment of the population that adapts well to living under tyrants. I believe we will have a muslim president of the 57 states of of the new caliphate, amerika. I do believe we have one now, he’s just not so open about it. If we don’t get it stopped now we will have another one.
We very likely have one now—or at least one born a Muslim with Muslim sympathies.
Never.
Don’t we have one now? Or did he simply become an atheist like his mother and his alleged father?
HECK NO!
Er, history much? There were Puritan areas in New England, but not universally, especially not by the 18th century. The rest of the country, especially the culturally and economically dominant South, had few or none. I'll grant you pockets of Presbyterianism. But overall, the Anglicans ruled, and there was no serious question about this that I have ever read. As far as I know, the purpose of the 1-A was for the Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, and so on to keep them from making it official.
Nope. The history of Islam in the lands where it existed prior to the founding of the US is one of conquest, tyranny, savagery, and poverty. The US, the culmination of Western Civilization, the penultimate achievement of the Enlightenment, cannot be allowed to fall victim to Muhammed’s monumental fraud.
At the present time,January 15,2012, we current have one ,a muslim, that occupies the White house. he was placed there on November 4, 2008 by a majority of those that voted.
I hope not. As a Catholic, I'd be in mortal danger. The name "Puritan" was derived from the desire to "purify" the Church of England of those "blasphemous" Catholics and their "demonic" influences. Anything, up to and including killing Catholics was accepted.
If you celebrate Christmas, you'd better hope not, too. Puritans severely punished those who celebrated Christmas. They suppressed it through the law, and used soldiers who went door to door taking anything that seemed too celebratory, by force, of course. http://www.timetravel-britain.com/articles/christmas/ban.shtml
Puritans regularly went door to door attacking women who wore makeup or dressing in ways they didn't like. So if a woman in your life wears makeup, you'd better thank the Good Lord that we're not a Puritan Nation. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cromwell_england.htm
And that is just for starters.
So, I'm just going to assume that the author never got around to reading a biography of Oliver Cromwell and just wrote "Puritan" because it has a nice ring to it.
Not even the Amish would last long in a Puritan America.
A Christian Nation, which is how the Founders saw us, in no way equates to a Puritan Nation. John Adams was raised in a Puritan home, and was vehemently against Freemasons as a consequence. But the type of Puritanism which originally came here was very different 100 years or so later when Adams was born.
Never. Any adherent to a religion which has a text mandating the lying to unbelievers in order to forward the “faith”; dictates the death of Jews; and mandates that all non-believers be either converted (at the tip of a blade if necessary), enslaved or murdered, is an individual that would NEVER trust enough with my vote.
That “faith” is the only “religion” which I do not trust. I refuse to ever trust any individual which chooses to follow that “faith”.
We already have one.
Would you vote for one?
The short answer is NO!
The long answer is HELL NO!