Is The US a Christian Nation?
Sources
Dimella, Ashley J., Trump warns ‘godless communists’ will turn cities into slums as Dems fail to fight socialist surge, Fox News, 26 June 2026, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-warns-godless-communists-turn-cities-slums-dems-fail-fight-socialist-surge
Rapid Response 47, "POTUS delivers remarks to members of the Faith & Freedom Coalition...", Twitter, 26 Jun 2026, https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/2070568301244121371
Humble, Ahmed, The internet fact-checked Dan Patrick's latest church-and-state remarks, Chron, 27 June 2026, https://www.chron.com/politics/article/dan-patrick-church-state-constitution-viral-22323383.php
Gilani, Haajrah, Dan Patrick challenges separation of church and state through federal policy proposals, Houston Chronicle, 26 June 2026, https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/religion/article/religious-liberty-commission-report-22322759.php
Boorstein, Michelle, Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission takes aim at church-state separation, The Washington Post, 26 June 2026, https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2026/06/26/trumps-religious-liberty-commission-takes-aim-church-state-separation/
The Interfaith Alliance et al v. Trump et al, 26-cv-01075 (2026) [COMPLAINT], https://www.au.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/1-Complaint.pdf
Americans' First Freedom, The Presidential Religious Liberty Commission [DRAFT REPORT], https://www.justice.gov/religious-liberty-commission/media/1449896/dl?inline
Is America a Christian Nation?, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, https://www.au.org/about-au/history/is-america-a-christian-nation/
Lepore, Jill, These Truths: A History of the United States, Chapter Six: The Soul and the Machine, (2018)
Religious Landscape Study, Pew Research, https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/
RLC Public Comment: https://www.justice.gov/religious-liberty-commission/resources
Hamilton, Marci A., Interpretation & Debate: The Establishment Clause, The National Constitution Center, https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/interpretations/264
Blackwood, Kate, Religion: less ‘opiate,’ more suppressant, study finds, Cornell Chronicle, 19 October 2020, https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2020/10/religion-less-opiate-more-suppressant-study-finds
IRS Tax Guide for Churches & Religious Organizations: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Transcript
If you were to exclusively consume the propaganda soup coming out of the second Trump administration, you would think that the United States is a deeply pious, Christian nation, founded on Christian ideals, imbued with Christianity at its core. You might even think the United States’ official religion was Christianity. And there is a not insignificant portion of the population that buys into that narrative. [insert clips] And while it’s true, to be clear, that the United States DOES NOT have an official religion, is it true that, at its core, the US was founded to be a Christian nation? That our founders intended for it to be by and for Christians? It’s true a majority of people in the US ascribe to some form of Christianity. It’s true that there have been periods of deep religiosity in this country. But was it intended by the founders of the country to Be Christian? And is the current administration justified in its attempt to force Christianity down all our throats because the founders were Christians?
On Friday last week, Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, which he created by executive order in May last year, dropped a 224-page draft report called Americans’ First Freedom, presenting “12 key recommendations to strengthen religious liberty for all Americans.” But what does “religious liberty” mean? Does it mean my right to be free from any religion? Or does it mean someone else’s right to discriminate against me because their religion says it's okay? Is it true that religious liberty is under attack in the United States, a great CHRISTIAN nation? Let’s discuss. It’s Tuesday, June 30th, 2026, You’re tuned in to Why, America?? I’m your lawyer friend, Leeja Miller.
AD
Scams. Identity theft. I feel like in this digital age we’re all getting pretty desensitized to the risk we’re in when our personal data gets exposed online. On people search sites, data broker databases, shady directories, it’s all out there available to anyone who wants to access your information for nefarious purposes or to spam your inbox for all eternity. The information out there about you could be your address, your phone number, your social security number, your mom’s name your grandma’s name, it’s all being bought and sold by shady actors online, usually because of major data breaches that are becoming more common every year. But it’s more that just annoying spam email. Did you know some of the people buying up all your information include health insurance companies that can use the info to raise your rates? And, on top of THAT, some of these people profile sites compile inaccurate information from across the web, information that your potential future employers could see, risking future jobs based on inaccurate information. It’s a mess. It should be regulated out of existence but ALAS of course our lawmakers have done very little to protect us. My partner on today’s video Incogni can help. Incogni tracks down and removes your personal data from hundreds of sites, including online directories, people search sites, and even commercial databases. Here’s how it works: you create an account and give Incogni some bare minimum personal info so they can identify you, then they automatically get to work removing your information from across the web. And with the custom removal feature, if you come across your information on some obscure site somewhere, just send it to Incogni and they’ll get your information removed asap. And Incogni checks their work–some sites will add you back into their listings even after you’ve been removed, but Incogni will be there to make sure that doesn’t happen. And Incogni offers a 30 day money back guarantee, so you can try them out risk free. I think you’ll enjoy the peace of mind that comes from knowing your personal information is being actively protected. Take your personal data back with Incogni! Go to incogni dot com slash leeja and use code LEEJA to get 60% off an annual plan today! That’s incogni dot com slash leeja, use code LEEJA for SIXTY PERCENT OFF an annual plan! Thanks Incogni!
At the White House event on Friday announcing the release of the draft report, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, a member of Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission made the claim that “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution. [insert clip]. Dr. Phil is also inexplicably a member of Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission and sorry what is happening to Dr. Phil in this clip.
That same day, Trump addressed the Faith and Freedom Coalition. [insert video]
In that same speech he lamented the recent democratic socialist sweep in New York, saying quote “These are not social democrats. These are hardcore, godless communists. They're godless communists. All communists are godless. They don't believe in God. This is the most serious threat to our country since its existence.” Bold words coming from a president who historically falls into the 29% of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated according to Pew Research. But of course calling communists “godless” is a tired line from a tired playbook, though it makes sense Trump would pull from it given that he grew up in the 50s hearing the same refrain over and over during the red scare which used Christianity as a tool to pit us, the good Christian nation, against the godless communist nations, to equate communism with the devil himself. So it’s no surprise that the Christian nationalists currently running our government would use the current democratic socialist surge as fodder for fearmongering about communism.
Surprisingly, however, the words communism and socialism don’t show up a single time in the 224 page report issued by Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission. Instead, the report spends a lot of pages explaining why religion is important for everyone, and how religious liberty serves everyone. To the members of this commission, religion serves as the basis for their identity, for their community, and for their participation in all aspects of civic life. The report says quote “Because religion is so central to human identity, and family and communal life, the church and state must have a rightly ordered relationship for individuals and societies to flourish.” Even though the report makes sweeping assumptions about how people in America define themselves and their lives–for many people religion plays no part in their human identity, despite what the report says, the report also posits that everyone should care about religious freedom, even if they’re not religious, because a totalitarian regime wouldn’t allow its people to believe in a power higher than the government, so religious freedom is always the first flashpoint on the road to totalitarianism. And this is just one of numerous nods to history throughout the report that doesn’t actually have a basis in fact or provide any historical references or sources, it just uses ahistorical references to justify that generally religion is really really important and that their version of “religious liberty” is the only answer to the threat of complete societal decline.
The report offers 12 key recommendations to strengthen religious liberty for all Americans. The first recommendation is to instruct the department of justice to issue guidance clarifying the proper understanding of the Establishment Clause and separation of church and state. Meaning they want the DOJ to tell the Supreme Court how to properly interpret the first amendment. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says quote “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Amendment goes on to say “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Just so we’re all reminded that there’s more to that very important amendment than the first clause. So the founders were really really clear that the government was never allowed to establish religion. In fact that’s not the first time religion is mentioned in the Constitution. The first time is in Article 4, which says “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Pretty clear there.
Here’s the thing about the Establishment clause, though. It is not entirely clear how it applies in most religious situations. It’s really really clear that it means that the government can’t force anyone to practice a certain religion or pass laws explicitly benefiting one religion over another. But beyond that legal scholars have been arguing for as long as the clause has existed how it applies in other more nuanced situations. And it really is the place of legal scholars to be doing the debating and, ultimately, Supreme Court justices to be doing the interpreting, as they are the ones who say what the law means. It is not the place of the executive branch, through the DOJ, to make one final determination as to what the Establishment clause means.
The central tension it’s important to know and think about when it comes to the establishment clause and to the idea of “religious liberty” generally, is the tension between freedom FROM versus freedom TO. In what areas are we more concerned with people’s right to be free FROM religion, free from having any religion imposed on them at all, versus when are we concerned with peoples’ freedom TO practice their religion freely. The Establishment clause kind of equally attempts to protect both–government can’t impose religion, that’s freedom FROM, and government can’t prohibit the free exercise of religion, that’s freedom TO. But in public and civic life, those two freedoms will invariably come into conflict. And it ultimately comes down to a decision about which matters more, and being able to back up that decision with facts and logic. The problem with facts and logic is that you can kind of cherry pick whatever you want from history, and create all sorts of logical gymnastics to justify pretty much anything. That’s the nature of our legal system generally. So your answer to the question “is someone’s freedom to live the values of their religious beliefs by refusing to perform an abortion as part of their job more important than someone’s right to be free from that person’s religion and get access to that abortion?” is going to depend on which interest is more important in that fact-specific scenario–the right to be free to practice religion vs the right to be free from the consequences and imposition of someone else’s religion onto you.
For the better part of the 20th century, the Supreme Court tended towards the latter–that the government’s role is to be as neutral as possible and, barring that, to provide as little support as possible to religion. That a person’s freedom FROM having someone else’s religion imposed upon them often was more important than someone’s freedom to freely practice their religion when that free expression impacted the people around them negatively. This included banning prayer in school, generally requiring the government to be neutral on religion and not get overly entangled in it, and avoiding allowing government funds to go towards institutions that would use the funds to communicate religious doctrine. But in the 21st century, especially in the last decade, the Supreme Court has been moving away from that interpretation and towards a preference for protecting especially Christians’ rights to freely practice their religion, even if it implicates government funds, even if it erodes the rights of the people around them to be free from the consequences of someone else’s religion.
For example, in 2022 in Carson v. Makin, the Supreme Court ordered that Maine’s tuition reimbursement program couldn’t exclude kids who went to religious schools. In 2021 in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the court ruled that the city couldn’t terminate a contract with Catholic Social Services over its refusal to allow same-sex couples to be foster parents. Or in 2022’s Kennedy v. Bremerton School District in which the court found that a public school football coach could make his team sit through a prayer at the 50 yard line as part of his religious freedom. Or in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in which the Supreme Court found that a cake shop owner’s religious freedom to discriminate against a gay couple was more important than the state’s interest in protecting the couple from discrimination. Or in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, a case from 2020 in which the Supreme Court struck down New York's ban on large religious gatherings saying that the state’s interest in protecting people from COVID 19 was less important than the religious freedom to gather despite public health outcomes that impacted literally the entire rest of New York City. And on and on, the current conservative Supreme Court has proven itself incredibly willing to buy into the idea that religious liberty should come above all else, that religious liberty is more important than civil rights.
But of course, in these lawsuits, in the Religious Liberty Commission’s report, even in the title of the commission, the Trump regime is attempting to play lip service to the idea of general religious liberty. That ALL religions should be free to flourish in the US. But the more they talk, the more obvious it is that they don’t actually mean that. That they don’t think ALL religions should be equally free in the United States. They quote the Christian bible. They speak of Jesus and when they say God they know and we know and everyone knows they mean a Christian god. They don’t mean Allah. And that’s also clear from their actions. A recent lawsuit challenging the establishment of the Religious Liberty Commission, brought by Americans United for Separation of Church and State along with other interested parties argues that there is no way this commission will create any thorough report and that the commission itself was created in a way that violates federal protections for equality of representation, because every single member of the 13-member commission, except for one, espouses conservative christian values. The only non-Christian is an orthodox jewish rabbi. The commission held its first three meetings at The Museum of the Bible and has closed its meetings with a Christian prayer in Jesus’ name, according to the lawsuit. So even though they claim that religious liberty is for everyone, they only invite those to the table who are Christians who espouse their particular version of Christian nationalism and support the view that the country was founded as a “judeo-christian” state. Trump himself confirmed that his creation of the Religious Liberty Commission was an attempt to quote “protect the judeo-christian principles of our founding.”
But were we really founded as a Judeo-Christian nation? Really? The report and the people who posit that the United States was founded as and meant to be a Christian nation point to the personal beliefs of the founders as proof that they wanted this country to be Christian. The problem, as I always say, is that anyone can cherry pick from history to find facts that support their argument. It’s up to you to decide what’s most persuasive. It is true that certain of the founders of the United States were devout Christians and many made religious overtures in their writings and speeches, as was customary at the time. It is true that some of them even wanted the country to be explicitly Christian. But I posit that this country is not a Christian nation, and many historians agree, and there are a lot of things, including the Constitution of the United States, that support that argument.
First of course is the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, which explicitly bars the country from ever naming an official religion. Not an official Christian sect. An official religion, period. Then there’s the religious test clause in the Constitution as well, which explicitly bars religious tests. Not tests regarding which sect of Christianity, any religious test whatsoever. And this was written when Jews and Muslims and many other religions existed. The founders weren’t idiots, they knew that, they could at least surmise at a minimum how a ban on religious tests would mean that the government could not bar anyone from serving in government no matter what their religion was. And that clause passed unanimously. There’s also the popularly cited letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Danbury Baptists in Connecticut in 1802 in which he stated there should be a “wall of separation between Church & State.” And while, as Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick stated, those specific words don’t appear in the Constitution, the Establishment clause and the religious test clause make it quite clear that the state plays no role in imposing any specific religion onto the people.
The Americans United for separation of church and state lawsuit points to other instances. Quote "A few years before the Constitution was ratified in a letter to Irish Catholic people who arrived in New York, George Washington, the first President of the United States, declared that the “bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation in our rights & privileges.” In an article on the Americans United website, they say quote “when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he spoke of “unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.” He used generic religious language that all religious groups of the day would respond to, not narrowly Christian language traditionally employed by nations with state churches.” Indeed, some of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, worked to end the state of Virginia’s religious establishment, and created a law in Virginia called the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty that held, quote “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.“
And I would be remiss not to quote from historian Jill Lepore’s tome These Truths A History of the United States in which she says, quote “The United States was founded during the most secular era in American history, either before or since. In the late eighteenth century, church membership was low, and anticlerical feeling was high. It is no accident that the Constitution does not mention God. … The United States was not founded as a Christian nation. The Constitution prohibits religious tests for officeholders. The Bill of Rights forbids the federal government from establishing a religion, James Madison having argued that to establish a religion would be "to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits."” Okay so Madison is saying that forcing people to practice a religion would indicate that the religion is so unconvincing that even its own adherents don’t believe the people would practice their religion unless forced.
Lepore goes on to write quote “These were neither casual omissions nor accidents; they represented an intentional disavowal of a constitutional relationship between church and state, a disavowal that was not infrequently specifically stated. In 1797, John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, securing the release of American captives in North Africa, and promising that the United States would not engage in a holy war with Islam because "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." … The separation of church and state allowed religion to thrive; that was one of its intentions. Lacking an established state religion, Americans founded new sects, from Shakers to Mormons, and rival Protestant denominations sprung up in town after town. Increasingly, the only unifying, national religion was a civil religion, a belief in the American creed. This faith bound the nation together, and provided extraordinary political stability in an era of astonishing change, but it also tied it to the past, in ways that often proved crippling. In 1816, when Jefferson was seventy-three and the awakening was just beginning, he warned against worshipping the men of his generation. "This they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead," he wrote: "... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind." To treat the founding documents as Scripture would be to become a slave to the past. "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched," Jefferson conceded. But when they do, "They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human."”
And that is exactly what originalists and those who cling to the idea that the country is a Christian nation want us to do–to revere the founding fathers as possessing wisdom more than human, as possessing divine wisdom, in fact, that the founding document was ordained by God. A Christian God, specifically. That is what we’re doing when we attempt to make an argument that whatever the founders intended at the writing of the Constitution is what is meant to be for all eternity. The founders themselves didn’t believe that. But even if we were to go back to the founding and look at what they said, as I’ve just shown there is ample evidence to prove that they very much intended the government to function wholly separately from religion of any kind. And even if they did want religion to be part of the US government, it's 2026 not 1776, and the fact of the matter is that our government and our supreme court are all WAY more religious than the average US population and this commission makes it plainly clear that our leaders are wholly out of touch with what people actually give a shit about. While 62% of people in the US do identify as Christians, within that there are NUMEROUS sects represented, including Evangelical Protestants and Mainline Protestants and then WITHIN THOSE there are separate sects, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, not a single one of which amounts to more than 10% of the population, and each sect, while ascribing to Christianity generally, has many differing viewpoints. In fact it is Catholics, at 19% of the population, which represents the single largest sect of any religion in the United States. Then there’s 7% of the population that practice something other than Christianity–Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, Pagan, etc. And then fully 29% of people in the United States are religiously unaffiliated, with 19%, tied with Catholics as the largest sect, identifying with “nothing in particular.” Not agnostic, not atheist, fully 19% are just like I don’t know and I don’t care. The fact is that for the VAST majority of Americans, they are pretty supportive of the separation of church and state, whether they identify with a religion or not. And for a growing portion of the population, religion plays absolutely no role in their life. So why is the Trump regime spending so much time and paying so much lip service to the importance of religion and to the small handful of people screaming that their religious liberty is being taken away when they aren’t allowed to discriminate against gay people or harass trans people in bathrooms?
The reasons are likely many, not least of which being that the majority of the people pulling the strings behind the scenes of the Trump regime ascribe to some form of Christian nationalism, which requires them to believe or at least espouse the belief that the United States has a divine right to exist, that it is the greatest country on the planet and that is because God made it so–this argument has been used for centuries to justify all forms of atrocities committed by the United States government, from genocide of the native population and “manifest destiny” to covert operations to spread “democracy” to godless communist countries and more.
There is also the marxist idiom that religion is the opiate of the masses. As Karl Marx saw it, religion gave the people something to comfort them in their poverty and in their subjugation, it offered them comfort like an opiate would but it also dulled their senses and sedated them against the larger fight against class inequality. And while you know a JD Vance or a Marco Rubio would hate to find out they’re espousing Marxist theory, I’m certain that the draw of attempting to increase religiosity in the masses is because it tends to benefit Republicans. It is ultimately at the heart of a lot of the wedge issues they use to divide us and distract us from the greater social and class inequalities that unite us all. And that plays out in the numbers. A study published in May, 2020, found that “religion suppresses the likelihood that women, Black, Latinx, and low-income Americans will vote for Democrats. According to the data, these and other disadvantaged groups are already more likely to vote for Democrats, but they would be even more likely to do so if it were not for religion.” The study found that “People in socially disadvantaged groups – including women, racial minorities and low-income people, many of whom are quite politically engaged – seek religion in higher numbers than white, well-to-do men. … This is because religion provides disadvantaged groups with resources that compensate for lack of social status. … Religious organizations that provide such spiritual possibility then step in with moral schemas that shape political views.”
So it all kind of feeds into this larger idea–the people are oppressed, they feel it, they’re uncomfortable with it, if they realize they’re all in it together, they would significantly outnumber the elites in power, therefore we must distract them with religion and religiously-motivated wedge issues, and their seeking out religious affiliation is actually a product of their subjugation. Frankly a tale as old as time, playing out on the national stage in the United States for all to see. The analogy starts to break down a bit when you look to the work that various religions like Quakers working as ardent abolitionists before the Civil War or black Christians in the South organizing and staging protests aided by their religious affiliations during the Civil Rights Movement–there are examples of people using religiosity as a tool to advocate for the oppressed, and in theory that should make sense based on the actual teachings of Jesus Christ vis a vis how to treat your neighbors and those who have less than you do, but the Christian nationalists are betting that far more people will believe in their whole “America is ordained by God and criminals deserve whats coming to them ignore the parts of the Bible that say otherwise”, fire and brimstone evangelical style religion because they have all the cash and the flashy megachurches and the special effects to draw the people in. Or so I hear, I’ve never actually been to a megachurch but I have seen every episode of the Righteous Gemstones and it looks like they have a wide array of special effects going on in there.
The point is, the United States was not founded as an explicitly Christian Nation, and the constitution makes that very clear. The remaining arguments over which rights matter more–the right to be free FROM religion versus to be free TO practice religion, are nuanced. The Christian nationalists have been hard at work for decades to get the current supreme court, one which has made it clear they very much value Christians’ right to practice religion no matter who it hurts over all the rest of our right to be free from the imposition of religion onto our daily lives. And those currently in power are doing their absolute best to try to keep the tide turning in Christian’s favor in order to justify whatever atrocity they have planned next. But one thing history can teach us, is that extremism in any direction tends to act as a pendulum, and that pendulum is going to likely swing back in favor of the peoples’ freedom from religion being imposed upon them. It’s just a matter of time.
In the meantime–what can we do about this? Form your own church. I’m serious. In order to be considered a 501(c)(3) organization and get tax exempt status, a church must have net earnings that do not benefit any private person or interests, and their purpose must be exclusively religious, scientific, charitable, or educational. They also cannot intervene in any political campaign or influence legislation, but Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission’s report calls for getting rid of that provision altogether, which would allow churches to officially endorse political candidates and probably engage in all sorts of nefarious campaign finance hijinx. Might as well join them if you can. Now of course you can’t just MAKE UP a religion and lie about it, I WOULD NEVER ADVISE THAT, and in fact this isn’t legal advice at all, proceed at your own risk. But if you have a GENUINELY HELD religious belief, you have a right to get tax exempt status for it. There are a lot of creative ways to utilize those tax exempt benefits, as churches demonstrate all the time.
If you’re not ready to form a tax exempt church with all your friends, at the very least the Religious Liberty Commission’s 224 page report is linked with the sources in the description and it is at this point just a draft. It is open to public comment until July 12th. Email your public comment to RLC at usdoj dot gov with the subject line PUBLIC COMMENT - TOPIC OR CHAPTER NAME - YOUR NAME. As the DOJ says, “Please be aware that public comments are open to public inspection, not confidential. Please do not include personally identifiable information, such as personal addresses, in your comments.
After the fifteen (15) day comment period, Commission will hold a virtual public meeting to review comments reviewed, discuss the draft, and finalize the report. Attendance information will be posted on the “Upcoming Events” page and in the Federal Register at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.” I’ve linked that in the description as well.
To support my work, please consider joining on Patreon to get all these episodes completely ad free as well. Thank you to my multi-platinum patrons Christopher Cowan, Evan Friedley, Marc, Sarah Shelby, Dennis Smith, Art, David, L’etranger (Lukus), Thomas Johnson, and Tay. Your generosity makes this channel what it is, so thank you! If you liked this episode, you’ll like the one from last week about the Trump regime’s attack on “antifa.”
