Episode 047: FAQs & FACTS - The Answers Part Won

In this wide-ranging freeform episode, Jeremiah Gunn reflects on faith, purpose, patriotism, and what he sees as the moral and political battles shaping America today.

Beginning with a personal story about meeting a listener from Australia, Jeremiah shares his appreciation for honest human connection before diving into a deeper discussion about finding joy through service, humility, and spiritual alignment. He explores the idea that true joy comes from putting God first, others second, and yourself last, emphasizing what he sees as the importance of proper priorities—both personally and nationally.

Jeremiah discusses themes of sacrifice, moral courage, and conviction, drawing on examples from history and popular culture, including Chariots of Fire, the Civil War, and the founding principles of the United States. He reflects on the tension between faith, family, and country, and argues that preserving moral clarity is essential in a time of deep cultural and political division.

The episode also launches the first part of a listener Q&A segment, where Jeremiah responds to questions about U.S. history, immigration law, religious liberty, and constitutional principles. In particular, he examines misconceptions surrounding the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, discusses the founders’ views on religious freedom and public office, and considers how historical concerns about ideology, national identity, and civic values continue to resonate today.

Throughout the episode, Jeremiah challenges listeners to think critically, resist complacency, and engage with difficult truths—even when they’re uncomfortable.

Topics include:

•  Finding joy through faith and service 
•  “God, country, family” and the importance of proper priorities 
•  Historical examples of conviction under pressure 
•  Cultural and political polarization in America 
•  Religious liberty and the Constitution 
•  The McCarran-Walter Act and immigration history 
•  Harvard, discrimination, and shifting definitions of morality 
•  Listener questions and freeform commentary 

Part one of Jeremiah’s freeform Q&A series—an unfiltered conversation about truth, values, and the challenges of navigating modern America.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:01

All right. Good good afternoon, good morning, whatever. Good night, darling there. Uh good morning wherever you are. I really care a lot about you. I really do care a lot. And I care what happens to you, and I want to talk to you in truth and love. The other day I a woman from Australia came out to my car and she was just think about that right there, the way they say a car. That's the way they say it in Boston to Right? Yeah, right, yeah. Good as gold. Same route. Boston. Australia. Anyway, this lady was from Australia. She said, she said, I really like that bumper sticker or that sign on your car. And uh so I I thought she was maybe from South Africa. So I I spoke a little bit of Afrikaans to her, and she said uh she didn't understand. So I tried to guess I tried to guess the accent, the dialect, and sometimes you get it wrong. And so she said, no, I'm not from South Africa. She she enunciated it like that. But probably the the two dialects that are closest, South Africa and Australia. Australia's a little bit more out there, a little more cowboy, a little more fun and friendly. South Africa Ockmanis, Huyamora, Totsteins, Fenster. This has a Dutch influence. I wasn't knocking it or anything, I wasn't saying there's anything wrong with it. That's just that's just the way it happened, you know. We had a good talk. I had spent time in Switzerland, actually. Not not a very long time, rather brief. But anyway. This is the Jeremiah Gunn Show. This Jeremiah Gunn Show. Uh we talk about and we only talk about things that are serious. You know, I I never I never I never really got into fiction. I don't I never got into fiction. You know, my my oldest brother wrote a couple of fiction books. And man, I just I just never have I've only been interested in nonfiction, and people find that kind of weird. But I'm I'm not trying to escape reality. I'm trying to do what the soldiers in Afghanistan did. Uh they came up with a motto called Embrace the Suck. I was just texting a friend of mine who whose mom is going through Alzheimer's very badly. Um, and I just tried to encourage him with that little rule for living, embrace the suck. Imagine how horrible it was to be a soldier in Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean, the environment is like hell. And then to top it off, just a little cherry on top is people are trying to kill you, blow you up, shoot you, ambush you because you're trying to help your fellow man, their fellow man. So anyway, I don't want to be doom and gloom, a doom scroller, but you know, um, you have to. The secret to joy is um a little formula that goes, Jesus others you. And you put it in that right priority. It's like a train. You don't put it in the wrong priority, even though locomotives can run backwards. You can't get the caboose in front and all that just doesn't work. The coal car, you know, you've got to have all so put your emphasis on your creator, and all the 12-step programs tell you that. They can't go and say what his name is, but they don't they wouldn't have the results they have without that. But anyway, uh you got to get it in the right order. So in order to have joy, you have to give of yourself and just try to help other people. That's all we're trying to do. There's people that robbed your joy, they're called psychic vampires. And I and you'll always hear me say that they're the same old, same old. They come from the father of all lies, communists. And why do you say democrats all the time? Because Democrats don't care if you're a progressive, if you're a communist, if you're a Marxist. Big tent. Come on in. Come on in. We'll take you. If it means power, take it. We don't have any shame, we don't have any morals, we don't have any standards. Islamist, Sharia law, it doesn't matter. You're all under our big D. Big D. So we're going to talk about it a little bit here. But this is Jeremy Guncho, this is CSN, the Common Sense Network, part of the ISI broadcasting system. I'm your war correspondent, broadcasting behind enemy lines. This is not a joke. This is not a drill. This is not meant to be something alarmist or, you know, you know, um the guy in Congress, he pulled the fire alarm to break up the because things were going too good for the enemy, he felt. You know, students will do that. They'll call in a bomb threat or they'll pull the fire alarm. But you know, when somebody does, even though Aesop told us way back in, you know, ancient Greece, told us about the boy who cried wolf, but sometimes when somebody sounds the alarm, it's good, isn't it? Isn't it? You don't want to yell fire in a crowded, in a crowded theater if there's no fire. But if there is a fire, you're kind of doing somebody a favor. So this is the Jeremiah Gunn Show. I'm your uh answer man, Professor No, Kno W. Uh I I want to devote today to be kind of free form and answer questions. I've gotten comments and questions coming in, and I want to answer them. And so just as a little preface, I want to talk about as we talk about getting joy in the right order. You come last. You don't come first, you won't have joy. J-O-Y. Jesus or justice, if you prefer to be secular, others and you. And just in that same way, you have to get God, country, and family in the right order. If your family is against your country, if your state is against your country, and they're against your God, it doesn't matter if they're a pastor, priest, rabbi, um uh woman wannabe pastor, rabbi, etc. It doesn't matter. It matters what side they're on. And so you might have to choose against your family in order to save your country for God's sake. You have to it has to be God, country, and family. So if your family if your family is against your country and is against God, Jesus said you're gonna have to make a choice. He said, I didn't come to bring peace. Yeah, but they call him the Prince of Peace. Uh-huh. It's you know, the the New Testament is the most amazing thing. Christianity is the most amazing religion. We'll talk about that on another show, but it's a perfect balance. And and the haters will say, well, that just shows that it's talking out of both sides of their mouth, and it's it's a riddle that you can't figure out. Jesus said it was a riddle. But he anybody could figure out. He came for fishermen and carpenters, farmers, you know. He didn't create something that has to be esoteric, and you got to go to some other authority to get it figured out. Nope. You need, he said, you need that no man teach you. You're capable of figuring this out. So but he said, I came to bring peace, to divide mother against daughter, and father against daughter, and son against father, and brother against brother. Where'd we hear that before? Civil war. You don't think that somebody said, Well, you know, I I'd love to sign up to save the black people from the Democrat Party's slavery, but my brother's fighting for their side. I can't shoot at my own brother. I'm just have to let the country go down. If that's what happens. I'm gonna have to. I I know that God doesn't have a stake in this. What? Both sides thought they were f fighting for God. So, yeah, you gotta get that in the right order. God, country, family. You can't get it out of order, it won't work. If you put the family first, you're gonna F the country and you're gonna F God. That's what these states are doing right now. The blue, no matter who, Democrat states. They're continuing the uh Civil War. They're saying, we don't have to. I just watched a debate the other day, California candidates. And they're and they're that's we're gonna talk about here. But anyway, God, Country Family. There's this great movie called Chariots of Fire. Came out, won Academy Awards. I thought it was just a beautiful, wonderful film. I read the story of the runner who uh was the story was based upon. He became a missionary, went to China, and died over there in a Japanese concentration camp. But um it was a great story. Anyway, it came out. I was just new in my career, and and and the we were so we were talking about it at work during lunch, and this one woman says, Yeah, I thought it was really boring. Okay. Okay, yeah. That's that's all you have to say. God forbid you'd be bored or learn anything or care about anybody. I just thought that movie was boring. Okay, go ahead. Go ahead, have fun. Eat, drink, and be merry. Tomorrow we perish. As that day edges closer and closer where we perish. It's another thing we're going to talk about today. Anyway, so this movie, Chariots of Fire, um, he would not, this runner would not um compete. Charles Liddell, some people say Little, I think it's Liddell. Uh Liddell. Um I don't know if his first name was Charles. It doesn't matter. Anyway, he he would not run in a qualifying heat in the Paris Olympics of 1924 that just had their centennial, the most recent one. Anyway, he would not compete because it was on the Sabbath. That's what he believed. And so what what did he so he there are there's this incredible scene where I I think the I think the I think the king is sitting there with the prime minister, his right-hand man, his chancellor or whatever, and uh and this and another guy and this athlete, uh Liddell, who won't run because it's the Sabbath. You know who else did that? Sandy Koufax. He wouldn't pitch on Yom Kippur. They think that's the day of the atonement, High Holy Day. He wouldn't pitch. It fell on a Sunday, so sorry. So it was a World Series, it doesn't matter. He wouldn't do it. So anyway, they're they're sitting there and they got Liddell, this athlete, world-class athlete. He was going to get the gold for the UK. He was from Scotland. But uh so they're trying to argue him. Imagine being a young man and you got the king and the chancellor and and uh and this other guy and they're arguing with you, I guess the head of the Olympic committee, going, What are you crazy? What's wrong with you? That's a lot of pressure for a young man. He had to get his ducks in a row, spiritually, philosophically. He had to. So and and and so at one point the Prime Minister is very upset. And he says, In my day, it was God first and then country. And the king looks over at him with a cigarette and his legs are crossed, and he just coolly says, Yes, and the war to end all wars just proved that point bitterly. World War One had just ended. That movie opens with a bunch of disfigured veterans sitting in the train station and so on from World War One. So that was a great line. Anyway. Um, so I'd like to talk today about three comments I got. But let's not mistake that this isn't a war. This is not a war, this is not an existential battle. Both sides are saying it. One side is saying it legitimately. The Republican, Trump, conservative. He's even having to pull the Republicans over to him. Because they don't know which end is up. It has to be Lincoln, he has to be Jefferson. It falls to him because of their lazy effete wussiness. They're sissies. They're not men. But anyway, the other side, the robot, the uh the meat puppet, corpse, cadaver, puppet for George Soros and Obama, he's he's saying it's an existential, it's a constitutional crisis. Both sides are saying it. So you there's no pressure on you. Just realize that it is. They're both right. Except that with our reverse barometer, one side is saying it's a constitutional crisis, it's a threat to democracy. Right. You you are the threat to democracy. Democracy. That's what makes it easy to understand what's going on now. If they say hate, they're the ones who hate. If they say racist, they're the ones that are racists. If they say uh democracy, they're the ones who are tyrants and don't want democracy and don't want a republic. So, you know, it's not like, well, we should all get along. We should all, you know, we should get along with them. You know, you shouldn't hate. You shouldn't hate them. I hate them. I hate them. In in the good book in the Old Testament, one of the prophets says, I he's he's talking to God. He says, I hate them that hate thee. I hate them. They're my enemies. I don't not know my enemy. I know my enemy. And they're making it plain every single day. Every single day. They've stolen everything and they're trying to destroy everything. It isn't like, well, you know, this guy was this philosopher. I used to go to these things called Mars Hill events. And that that's named after when Paul the Apostle went and spoke to a place called Mars Hill where all the philosophers sit around and talked, thought about stuff. And it says that's all they did was sit around and talk about new ideas. So anyway, they called this Mars Hill. And he said, he said, you know, let's take abortion. They'll say, you don't like abortion, don't have one. You don't like pornography, don't watch it. Even though it comes right to your phone, your TV, your children, your library. And their answer is, well, you don't like it, don't turn it off. But you can't say that about their values. You can't turn it off. They say that's uh uh oppression. Uh that's restraint, constraint, that's discrimination. I'm gonna talk about that a little bit. But yeah, I I'm not, you know, it isn't a question of whether I can be nice about this. It's not a question. It's more like Lincoln, you know, they like Lincoln's talked about this guy who holds up a stagecoach and he says, give me all your money. Lincoln made this analogy. Give me all your money, or I'll shoot you, and then you'll be guilty of murder. That's what they do. They're running a scam. They're they're they're they're calling discrimination and family values and hate. Remember that bumper sticker. Hate is not a family. You don't tell me what hate is. You don't even believe in the definition of love, let alone hate. And you, you know, I saw an editorial from Playboy. I saw an editorial from Playboy and uh never mind how I saw it, but uh, you know, what was the mission statement of Playboy? Uh when Hugh Hefner's daughter took over, he said she said, you know, they wanted to mainstream pornography, get it instead of a seedy liquor store in a bad part of town. They wanted to get it uh to the coffee table. That was their objective. So they had this editorial in there, and it said, oh, these self-appointed guardians of the public morals. And I remember I was pretty young. I was, I don't know, high school or something. I was, and I thought, they're self-appointed, these guys are bitching about self-appointed guardians of the public morals. But it doesn't matter if they're the self-appointed destroyers of public morals. They used to they'd run around saying you can't legislate you can't legislate morality. I I don't know about that. I mean, I think we should have crimes against murder and stealing and treason. I I think I think our founding fathers wanted us to have that. That's legislating morality. Deadbeat dads is legislating morality. Schools, what they can teach and what they can't teach is there's this fantastic man at Robert Woodson. He created this Woodson Center and he said that what we need to do, he works with the urban, ghetto, etc. It's a black man. He he he he's so brilliant. If you can find out anything about him, just check him out. Anyway, he says we need to re-moralize because we've been demoralized. DEM, first three letters, Democrat Party, demoralize. I'm not telling you this because I'm out to get Democrats. I'm telling you this because good people. How does evil triumph? Good good people do nothing. Good men do nothing. That's how evil triumphs. A good man, just by being good, can l can keep a great many others from going astray. This is real simple stuff. I'm not saying my number one, I'm against I'm saying it because there are people in the squishy middle that say, oh, I don't I don't think you can say I don't think you can say that you can't be a believer in God and the Constitution and be a Democrat. I you can't say that. Some some some of my best friends are Democrats. Whatever. They're what are they doing? What are the Democrats doing? They're enjoying your useful idiot status, but what are they doing? Look what they're doing. How many examples do we need? There was a thing the other night about Ilohan Omar, and I keep hearing, I've been hearing it for probably two years that she married her brother to defraud the immigration system. They put her in Congress. Is that true or not true? She should be suing for slander. So the other just the other day, they're talking about her her net worth went from 30 million, her tax status, to like 100,000 or 18,000 in one report. What? It doesn't matter. Nothing matters. That's called nihilism. That's the new zeitgeist or spirit of the age, nihilism. Nihil, nothing, nihilo, nothing. Nothing matters. Nothing matters. My older brother fell from grace and uh oldest brother. And you know, he he he loved Bill Maher because Bill Maher was ranting nihilism at the time, and I said, you know, you're a nihilist. He said, Well, I don't know if I'm a nihilist or not. As if it doesn't matter. But, you know, you can't like destroy everything and then expect me to say, oh, well, that's cool. That's fine. That's fine. No, I I I I tremble for our country. Thomas Jefferson said, I tremble for our country. This is horrible. Well, he had slaves. Yeah. So do you. So does your party. They never quit having them. They've just made more, different kinds. Anyway, we have to re-moralize. Yeah. We have to stop these lies of using words for lies. Make love, not war. That's what they said when Vietnam was going on. Make love, not war. Was that love? Was that love that they were doing? Free love. Free love. Well, we found out that it was sex, not love. Oh, that's one of the things you're not supposed to talk about. That's one of the things you're not supposed to talk about. Sex. Oh, okay, we'll just call it love. Bing. Do you think the children of those hookups and the the victims of those hookups thought it was love? But you why why do people couch terms in different terms? Why do they call an adultery an affair? Adultery, if you think about it, is kind of treason. You're breaking a covenant. You're cheating. They call it an affair. They're sleeping together. No, they're they're not sleeping. They're fornicating. Well, you're pretty you're pretty legalistic and and meh. Do you think it was love though? Do you do they have a right to just take a word and change it and take it away? Forget gay. Forget rainbow. They can take whatever words they want. Where did that morph into? Now they're taking the words hate and saying we're the ones who define what it is. They say you're divisive. And then you drive through the neighborhood and they got all these They got a different flag. They even took the American flag and put rainbow colors, rainbow stripes and things. And they have a symbol. So I put out a flag. Am I supposed to go find a flag? They have them. They're trying to be funny of heterosexual, you know, missionary position couple, like those mud flaps you see on the back of a truck of a woman silhouette. You know, very suggestive. Are we supposed to have am I supposed to put up one that says straight and get a red, white, and blue flag? That means why am I supposed to be dividing myself up? That means your your neighborhood flies a different flag. You you fly a different flag because you're trying to unite us? The United States of America? Or are you trying to divide us and then you call me divisive? And then you call me hate. First we tolerate, no. First we abhor, then we tolerate, then we embrace. And then the step four we have to add, stage four cancer, we have to say we are compelled, forced to embrace. And that's not if that's not tyranny, there's no such thing. What they've done to every single thing in our secular Ten Commandments religion, speech, assembly, peaceful assembly, um, arms, wrongful arrest, states' rights, federal rights superseding states' rights when necessary, like in the Civil War. So anyway, I want to talk about three sort of comments that we got here. One of them came from a uh well, they came from uh three different kinds of demographics. One was a veteran, Navy veteran, he's a retired professional, a construction manager, uh, you know, good good just salt of the earth, great guy. One of them came from an unwitting awful. Unwitting means you don't know. You don't know. It's like in the sixth sense. I see, I see, I see dumb people. They they don't know that they're stupid. They don't know that they're ignorant. I'm sorry, not stupid, not stupid, phi beta kappa in some pla cases, but but ignorant because they ignore something right in front of their nose. Because they have to for tribe's sake. So she's a useful idiot and awful. We'll define these terms. Awful, A-W-F-U-L, affluent white female, urbane leftist. Or uninformed, if you prefer to urbane. It just so happens that they always can coincide, big cities. Big cities are dark blue, and so are the universities that he that he uh uh basically equate to big cities in the flyover country. That's how that cancer spreads. So her, like like Kat Timf on Gutfeld. That's one of them. And and the other one is a young man who's just got a new wife and a new life, new career. And he he he's he's on our side, those of uh the righteous, the the the right, the conservative right. He's on our side, but he doesn't want anything but peace. So uh and the other one is another fine young man who said he he would like me to talk more about what used to be the law and and what changed and how it changed. So I uh first of all, I congratulate all of you because you all show that we're lost. You all show that we're lost, you know? Um so first one well let's take them in no particular, particular order, but this this veteran he he sent me a meme that talked about, let me see what it was, some sort of an act. It was the McWarren Walter Act of 1952. And it says, you know, the meme says that uh shows George H.W. Bush and says, oh, we're screwed now because uh that this law used to ban Muslims from holding office. Well, it's not true. So you know he kind of asks, what's your opinion about this? So I I, you know, here it is. You look it up, you get AI, which references AP and other places. Oh God, AP. Oh man. Got to think of an acronym for that piece of crap. Might as well be the old Pravda and Izvestia from the Soviet Union. Anyway, it says the claim that the McWarren Walter Act of 1952, officially the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, bans Muslims from holding public office is false. While this legislation was highly controversial and discriminatory, those are not bad words. Those are necessary words for life, controversial and discriminatory. You have to discriminate. Its restrictions focused on national origins, race, and political ideology. Wow, why would any country discriminate against political ideology if they were trying to keep their country? Why would they do that? Specifically communist subversion, not religious faith. It was passed in 1952, and uh what else? Um well, you know, what were what were they doing in 1952 with this thing? What were they doing? And it's always always always important to look at what they were doing. I was a basketball referee, and we were taught, think about the intent of the rule. This is the way SCOTIS should be thinking. What's the intent of our founders? To preserve and protect the Constitute, to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. That's it. They tried to set up the best thing they could. They did an unbelievable job. They're better than uh Shohei Utani. Or, or, or uh the greatest athletes, the greatest scientists rolled into what they did an awesome job of trying, but to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. That's what they did. That's what they were trying to do. So um so why so so what is the story with this mcwar mc McCarran Act or whatever? What but what was the story? What was the point? What was happening in 1952? What was happening? That's about the time they put under God in the in the Pledge of Allegiance. What was happening? Well, we were fighting the communists in Korea after we just saved them from the Japanese and World War and from the Germans in World War II. That's the thanks we got. They tried to take over the world. Mao, Stalin, the the the two worst people, this this Khomeini and his predecessor Homeini, Homeini, whatever, they they were the they were devils in the extreme, but but nothing like Stalin and and Mao. My God. So uh so what were they doing? They were trying to keep communists out. So they restricted the amount of places, they restricted the places where immigrants could come from. Hello? So so I had to I had to answer this guy. I answered him privately, but I'll do it here. Is that uh no, it it didn't it didn't have anything to do with with Muslims. Um but again if we go back to the Founding Fathers, um the Founding Fathers uh created this country and they didn't, they didn't they didn't factor in. They didn't they didn't really reckon on Muslims holding office because what was going on? They were fighting Muslims, they were fighting Muslims that that were in the, oh, I don't know, what should we say, acting like pirates in the area near Somalia? They were taking our ships, and they were doing it to all of NATO, pre-NATO Europe. They were taking our ships, taking our stuff, selling the ships, or holding it for ransom, or a protection racket. They were taking our people and putting them into slavery. And at one point, some of the founding fathers met with the head of the area in Libya or Algiers or wherever it was, this um Muslim Ufta, Mufta, whatever the heck he was, the hypan gendrum. He was an ambassador from that area. And they said, Why are you taking our people? Why are you take why do you think you can take our people? He says, Well, the Quran says we can. Well, Thomas Jefferson had a Quran. Yeah, yes, he did. He wanted to he wanted to read about it. He wanted to know what was going on. That doesn't mean you, you know, I one of the guys, Ellison, this Muslim Islamo-Nazi from Minnesota, what a shock. He was sworn in on the Quran that Thomas Jefferson, he checked it out like the Library of Congress and wanted to be sworn in. So the point is, they wouldn't have thought about, well, wait a minute, wait a minute. Because they just put into the Constitution Article VI that said that they can't discriminate against anybody's, they can't make them take a religious test to run for office. And and so Yeah. Otovov has clause three in Article VI. It requires senators, representatives, state legislators, and all executive judicial officers, both state and federal, to take an oath or affirmation to support the U.S. Why why affirmation? What if they didn't believe in God? That's what you do. You don't say, I swear to tell the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God. You say, I affirm. This is the genius of lawyers and judicial people that come up with the well, just have them say they affirm. But they were they were being cool with it back then. They said, what if what if? We'll talk about it on a whole nother show. But Jefferson was very responsible for setting up a lot of tolerance. That doesn't mean he was a Muslim. He was an atheist. He was a deist, blah, blah, blah, blah. Like they'll teach you at a very expensive college or university. Anyway, it requires senators, representatives, state legislators, and all executive judicial officers, both state and federal, to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. No religious test, clause three, specifically states that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public office or trust under the United States. You know, I went to Colonial Williamsburg, and uh they had a debate on the separation of church and state. It was between Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. I mean, these these men that that portray them, these reenactors, they're they're unbelievable. The one that was Jefferson, we saw him several times with our family there at his press conferences and things, at his speeches, you could go around. He's the guy that plays Jefferson when you go to the uh basement of the Jefferson Memorial. I mean, he's been doing it for oh if he's still alive, he was doing it a long time. Anyway, and they had this debate on separation of church and state, Patrick Henry and him. And uh and they and they brought up, you know, because the crowd yelled thing, well, what about Muslims? And Patrick Henry walks over to him and says, uh, it was very, very cute. He says, what is a Muslim? And Jefferson laughs and says, that's a follower of Mohammed, Mohammedans. And uh Patrick Henry says, Oh, oh, pagans. Okay. Yeah. But the problem they were having is that the problem that they were having was that uh there was this um there were uh they they they had this practice that kind of came from Europe is that taxes would go to building churches. A portion of your taxes would go to building churches. And if you didn't want that, not not one particular church, that's what the First Amendment is all about, but a church. They they thought it was a good thing if tax a portion of your taxes went to building churches, because they build the country up instead of tear it down, in theory. And in practice back then. But they they said, if you don't want it to go, you can earmark it to go to a public school to be built. So at one point in in the in this debate, somebody yelled out, what about Catholics? And uh uh Patrick Henry said, Well, you know what? They can they can either mark they can either mark their taxes to to go for a public school, because we're not going to build Catholic churches. Or we can uh they can go to Maryland where they can worship as they please. Because Maryland was set up as a haven for Catholics to tolerate 'em, but they never thought they would take over. They never thought they would hold high office. That's why 1960, 300 years after the Mayflower? That era? It it it took that long for any Catholic to be ho holding high office. JFK. Because why? They were afraid they would have more loyalty to the Pope than to their their country. That's was the fear that people had. And so uh Yeah, what is that legitimate? I don't look what the Pope's telling us now. The Pope is telling us, us being US, United States, how what we ought to do about foreign policy. Huh? What I don't want to repeat it again, but you you you understand. What what? What the Pope's telling us what we're supposed to do about foreign policy. You know, Maloney, uh, the president of Italy or Prime Minister or whatever they're called, she uh the Pope was telling her to take all these take all these migrants, take all these migrants. I mean, you know, it's a pretty short shot, just like Spain, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, whatever. It's a pretty short shot to come from Northern Africa or the Middle East and get there. And the Pope's saying, take them all, take them all. And she said, Oh, okay, cool, I'll put them in the Vatican. And uh, strangely silent. Put your vast wealth where your mouth is. Put your money where your mouth is, or shut up. But don't tell us. You know, the Vatican is a separate country. And I know Margaret Marco Rubio is a Catholic, I guess. And maybe J.D. Vance is Catholic. That's why I'm I'm losing patience with him. He was on talking very calmly and sweetly about, well, I think it's cool when the Pope says something that we ought to do. It's okay, it's all right. No, it is not. So Maloney called B.S. on him. She said, I love her. She said, Okay, okay, we'll put him on the all in the Vatican. It's a separate country. That's why Noriega in Panama could go hide in the uh in the Vatican Embassy, when he was hiding from the authorities when they were trying to get him as a drug runner. Another story for another day. But so when they had this thing about oaths of office, it requires senators, representatives, and all executives, both state and federal, to take an oath of affirmation, and no religious test specifically states that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public office. So, you know, I had to point out to this guy that they weren't worried about Muslims take getting high office, either New York like Mamdami, or the White House like Obama, and others that are competing for it right now, right now. They weren't worried about it because they knew we we're not gonna put people that we're at war with, an ideology that we're at war with, we're not gonna put them in in in here, not gonna not gonna take over. They weren't worried about Mormons either, because the Mormonism hadn't been invented yet. It was it was another thirty years or so before it was invented. So that's why you know Romney wouldn't have had to take a test. But they didn't think that such things would happen. So that's that's kind of the religious side, you know. Um Catholics uh have been kind of sort of discriminated against. Let's take Harvard, for example. Let's just take Harvard, the the granddaddy of them all. Um they had, and and and here's a here's a little thing to look for when AI tells you things. Uh you you look up, you know, I I I I had this idea in my head that Harvard allowed blacks and Jews in before they allowed uh Catholics. And so I had that in my head and I wanted to see it was true, so I look it up. And here's a little report from AI. Well, Harvard University did not have a formal policy banning Catholics that lasted longer than those against Jews or African Americans. It has a documented history of prejudice, quotas, and exclusionary practices against Catholics, Jews, and other groups, particularly in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Exclusion of Catholics, Jesuits in particular. In 1893, Harvard President Charles W. Eliot helped implement a policy that effectively barred graduates of Jesuit colleges from regular admission to Harvard Law School. Exclusion of Catholics. I've just read that, discrimination against Jews. In the 1920s, you know, almost 30 years later, President A. Lawrence Lowell attempted to impose a 12% quota on Jewish students. And while the faculty rejected it, the numbers were intensely cut in half anyway, through, in part, the introduction of, quote, character and quote, fitness criteria. Oh, God forbid, God forbid that the place that graduated Teddy Roosevelt who said to educate a man without morals is to create a menace to society. God forbid that Harvard would think about things like character and fitness. I'm not talking about whether they apply it to a religion or a color of a skin. I'm talking about the idea of them being allowed to have a bar to clear on with regard to character and fitness criteria. Timing of the quotas. By the early 1920s, quotas were operative against Jews, Catholics, and other new groups. Other new groups, keep that, keep that thought. These discriminatory practices, including the quote, secret court, unquote, of 1920, which targeted gay students, were largely dismantled after World War II, when admissions began to be standardized for a more diverse group of students. In summary, discrimination against Catholics was prevalent in the late 19th, 20th century, particularly against those from Jesuit institutions. Black students were largely kept out of Harvard until the mid 19th century. Those who were not taught, that's the 1800s. So around the time of the Civil War, they were allowed at Harvard. The first black undergraduate was admitted in 1847, 13 years before the Civil War, though he died before matrix. So let's recap. Harvard allowed Harvard, which was founded by Puritans, whose motto is truth, and who today has separate segregated dorms for blacks, segregated graduation ceremonies for blacks. Not in 1870, today. And they have lower standards for blacks to the exclusion of Asians who aren't mentioned in this. So let's recap. Harvard allowed blacks, men, only men. They only allowed women in the 1970s, 1975, right after Nixon. That's when women were allowed to harvard. It's kind of like voting. Women were allowed to vote after the amendment in 1920, but black men were allowed to vote way before that. So black men were allowed in first, and then they and then Jews and Catholics. So, you know, with the left, there's always this idea of, you know, it's it's an inanimate object. It's a gun, it's a condom, it's a color of the skin, pigmentation. It's always an inanimate object. And they said that, oh, oh, these guys, why was it wrong for them? Because they were doing it on a basis of discrimination. Why was it wrong why was that wrong? Because it was on a basis of discrimination. Okay. Uh against gender, skin color. What what what wait a minute? What are you saying today about gender? You don't even know what a woman is. Are we going to go back? Is there any retroactive credits or anything? Did all the people that you screwed out of it? But now you don't even know what they are? So, you know, you gotta have a you gotta have a decent compass. But they they call it discrimination and they say it's all on an inadimate object. No, the the people coming from Eastern Europe where they put the restrictions, they were bringing communism, anarchy. They were going around in the 20s blowing up buildings, like Obama's friend Professor Bill Eyre did with The Weather Underground. They were blowing up places, they were fighting for communism. They were trying to bring what destroyed their place they were escaping and bring it here. That's why it was against. It wasn't because they were Jews, it wasn't because this, that, the color of their skin. Don't reduce something to an inanimate object and go, aha. That's really, really ignorant. Anyway, I gotta get out of here. That's the end of part one here of the freeform answering of questions, and we will take it up next time. Thank you. Thank you for listening. Jeremiah Gunshow saying, I love you.