[Repost] [Thought Leader] Jan Jekielek protects children against Marxist attacks

[Yu Pan: In today’s China, “Marxism” is not still a gold-lettered brand that can swagger across the market. A very vivid example is that a reading club of Peking University students studying "Marxism" encountered interference from the authorities and was forcibly disbanded. Those involved should be left-wing young people who are enthusiastic about the government's policies and actively follow them. Therefore, there is no news of purges. This is certainly a good thing. But this has also triggered the rich imagination of some good people, who feel that Marxism is still a banner that protesters can hold high, proving that this century-old school of thought can "keep revolutionary youth forever" because of this. The following interview took place across the Pacific. That place should be the base camp of capitalism. To borrow the words of an expert, there is no soil for socialist revolution there at all. Therefore, it has never suffered the harm of Marxism to society like Europe. That being the case, why does the United States appear to be so weak and inexperienced in the eyes of its interlocutors that it needs adults to protect its children from Marxism? I often tell young people that it is easy to learn bad things but hard to learn well. Three feet of ice cannot be frozen in one day. The Yankees are consciously or unintentionally promoting security. The result is that the younger generation who are most vulnerable to drugs finally have the opportunity to become the target of evil forces. It's scary to think about it. The reality is shocking and the harm cannot be underestimated. On the other hand, there are still many dissatisfied potential rebels in China who are diligently studying Marxism. To say that their vision is narrow seems not entirely true. There are many people who climb over the wall. There are even many who have turned their bodies inside out. But still unwilling to abandon Marx. Why? Not long ago, I saw a program on YouTube. The speaker talked freely about how Marx plagiarized the works of sages from Britain, France, and Germany, transformed them into stand-on-head-toeings, and carried evil private goods to fool the world. He wondered and said, you are now spending energy reading these fake and shoddy products, but you are not willing to dabble in the real achievements of civilization. If you are not stupid, then why are you doing it? Judging from the number of subscribers of that channel, which is more than 300,000, it seems that it is also very popular among netizens. All we can say is that although people have their own ambitions, they don’t have to and cannot force it, but they should still make good use of the remaining free environment. Once the space for Western thought to read speech is lost like that of China as described in the following interview. Oh, that time, how can it be described as miserable! 】

[Thought Leader] Jan Jekielek protects children against Marxist attacks

Mr. Jekielek: In this episode, I interviewed Liz Hui, the author of the new book "Hide Your Children: Exposing the Marxists Behind the Attack on America's Kids" Liz Wheeler.
Liz Wheeler: Social-emotional learning is one of the most interesting parts of how Marxist ideology affects every child.
Mr. Jekielek: What are the main ways Marxists seize power? Why might the concept of neutrality actually be a trap?
Liz Wheeler: What we believe is true is that there shouldn't be any type of values ​​or moral order introduced into society.
Mr. Jekielek: This is "American Thought Leaders" and I'm Jan Jekielek.
The man behind the attacks on our children - the Marxist Mr Jekielek: Liz Wheeler, great to have you here on American Thought Leaders.
Liz Wheeler: Thank you for inviting me. I am very honored.
Mr. Jekielek: I enjoyed reading your book. The title of the book arouses a bit of intense interest. We're talking about Marxists targeting children. What is the reality in this regard? When you say that, what do you mean?
Liz Wheeler: Well, the title of the book is "Hide Your Children: Exposing the Marxists Who Targeted America's Children," and that's usually the first question people ask. They usually say, Liz, really, a Marxist? Isn’t this an unsubstantiated personal attack thrown out on cable news? Isn’t this something we use to insult people but no one really understands what it means? I say, mind you, like many other parents during the pandemic, I think this is true whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, a conservative or a liberal. During online classes at home, we caught a glimpse behind our children of what they were learning in school. We see them being brainwashed by critical race theory and trans ideology, but also by old-fashioned moral relativism, where your truth and my truth are more important than the truth itself. I thought to myself that this seemed like a coordinated effort, a series of attacks on our children. Why, why did this happen suddenly? Later, it turned out that the answer to the question was no longer "why", but more about who did it and who was behind it? So, I realized that this is not new, this is not something that just started happening during the pandemic.
For nearly a century, the left has been trying to regain control of our society. Unfortunately, they were very successful at this. They have kidnapped four of what I call the top five cultural institutions, our foundational institutions. They've kidnapped the media, they've kidnapped the education system, they've kidnapped religious institutions in general, and they're about to kidnap the legal system. They set their sights on the nuclear family and almost destroyed it. You might say that there is one element left in the nuclear family that has always been there: the children, which might explain why the left targets children.

[Yu Shen: The reason why they are "very successful" is certainly due to the foresight and foresight of the Monkey War of the Communist International represented by Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, but it is also inseparable from European and American Western society itself. It is in line with the trend of the times to despise Christian faith and lean towards materialism, atheism and advocating scientific worship. I once gave an example of how Nixon's winning method in kitchen debates was the satisfaction of overflowing desires. alright. Isn't there a unique skill in martial arts that treats the other person's body in his own way? China understands this and uses the fat bait of low human rights and a big market to hang before the eyes of Europe, America and the West. Just look at the rise in the east and the fall in the west in recent years. Is there anyone who won't take the bait? This is not so much a "kidnapping" as it is a fall. They hit it off immediately. This is the real danger facing the world. 】

In the book I name the people, the agencies that carried out the kidnappings, the names of those who were behind the attacks on our children. I found that those black actors all claimed to be Marxists, or had clearly accepted Marxist ideology. This is the first half of my book, where I analyze the reality we face. I often say that if we as conservatives and Republicans refuse to acknowledge the status quo of the political enemies we face, even if it sounds hyperbolic when you say "Marxists," if we refuse to acknowledge who these people are and who they are No matter what ideology we espouse, we cannot effectively fight back against them, and therefore we cannot win. I offer a solution in the second half of the book that I acknowledge is different from what Republicans are offering. The solution I offer is how can we take back our institutions and protect our children, certainly to protect their own souls, but if we turn our children over to the left, our country is doomed.
Where did “wokeism” come from? what is it?
Mr. Jekielek: Please describe what you saw.
Wheeler: Well, for six months we've seen a debate in this country, not even needing to go back two or three years, but there's been a debate over the last six months about what the word "woke" means. . Can you define the word "awakening"? Many thought leaders are asked this question. Likewise, within the Republican conservative movement, because we've accepted that we are an anti-"woke" party, yet many people can't put a definition on it that they can recognize when they see it. They know it's "woke" when white kids are told they are racist just because they are white. Or a little girl, if you think you are a boy, you are a boy, you are a boy, you decide your identity. They identify this as "awakening," but they can't really define what it is.
One of the things I do in the book is I trace the roots of “awakening.” Where does it come from? what is it? How can we fight back if we don’t even understand what it is? I discovered that it was the brainchild of Brazilian Marxist Paolo Freire. Freire’s point is crazy. He calls himself a "Marxist" who does not believe in objective reality or objective truth. So when he looked at schools, the education system, he didn't believe that children were being taught knowledge because he didn't believe that knowledge was something important. He believed that all “knowledge” in quotation marks was simply the prevailing political narrative. Not because it was right, not because it was true, but simply because it won the political contest. He believes that children should not be taught the prevailing political narrative, but rather be taught how to see the world through critical consciousness, critical consciousness. Of course, if you study what critical consciousness is, the essence of critical consciousness is to see the world through a Marxist perspective. Everything and everyone is either the oppressed or the oppressor. This is classic Marxist dialectics. And this critical consciousness, this seeing the world through a Marxist perspective, is exactly "awakening." Just changing a sign or redefining a word is a favorite trick from the Marxist perspective, a euphemism. This is now being instilled in our children in school.

[Remaining case: Tucker Carlson has just launched an interview with a Chinese mother (Xi Van Fleet [Dr. Kristin Baker?]) who was born in China. She is the author of the new book "Mao's America." Having experienced China's Cultural Revolution, she couldn't bear to see the United States go down this dead end. He rose up and spoke out, becoming a rare Asian conservative in the United States. See the link later. It's also interesting to say. She Talks to Carson had just come out, and as if to prove that what she said was true, there really were demonstrations by the Revolutionary Communist Party of America on the streets of New York. She laughed and said, could it really be God’s will? 】

Once we understand this, when you see this, it's really hard to ignore it. Then we put it all together, calm down, and think about Marxism. What is Marxism? What many people understand is economic Marxism. You think of Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto. The simplest explanation is class struggle with communism as the goal, right? The working class rebels against the ruling class in order to allow collective ownership to take over everything and completely eliminate private ownership. To be honest, it hasn't worked that well in the past. It was never global. It did not spark a global revolution, as Marx and Engels envisioned. It therefore died. It can be said that the wind and waves only exist among madmen, weirdos and universities. It was not put into practice until a man named Antonio Gramsci revived it and revived it in the 20th century. He recognized that countries that successfully carried out Marxist revolutions did not do so entirely for economic reasons but first attacked civil institutions, which was just another way of saying working-class cultural institutions. So Gramsci proposed that in order to move a country from what we think of as a liberal democracy to a Marxist or communist country, first of all, before that revolution can happen, you have to destroy the cultural institutions on which the working class relies. Those cultural institutions he refers to are exactly the same structures that we now see modern Marxists in the United States attacking in our society. The ultimate goal of communism is the complete denial of basic human rights. Communism leads to oppression, tyranny, and death, resulting in the crushing of character in countries dominated by communist dictators. This is evil.

[Remainder: Engels concluded in front of Marx’s funeral tombstone that so-called Marxism includes two points: class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Many people pay attention to the latter, but inadvertently ignore the modernity of the former. More than a hundred years ago, Marx only divided "classes" based on economic status. If you look at the creativity of his disciples and descendants now, you will know that class classification, apart from economic status, is simply a "pocket" sin that can be put into it for everything in this world. Things like skin color, accent, and even gender, not to mention ideologies that are different from them. Anyway, anything can become their habitual means of forcibly dividing the crowd and then drawing one group into another and fighting against the other. At that time, Dana's structure was too small, and it only targeted a small group of Jewish capitalists and so on. Today's Marxists have gone even further, directly labeling people who disagree with their practices as "Nazis." Have you heard such curses from them in recent years? It is said that birds of a feather flock together and people flock together. There are always differences between people. alright. This is their inexhaustible resource for struggle. Conquering and occupying cultural institutions is only the preliminary work. Next, isn’t it about realizing communism? Mao Zedong has long said that class struggle will be effective as soon as it is grasped. How could these modern Marxists give up, with the words still ringing in their ears? The old thief also said that if you don’t occupy the position of the school, the enemy will definitely occupy it. If we don’t let others talk nonsense, Western people really need to listen carefully and think about the profoundness of these words. 】

They are destroying the traditional nuclear family Mr. Jekielek: its emphasis on group identity. This is one of the common denominators across all those different, let's call it Marxist derivatives, that you describe as "awakening." This is very interesting. Of course, a lot of the guests that I have on the show study it, look at it from different perspectives, just like we're trying to understand it. I want to talk about the nuclear family. You touched on some interesting stuff. I haven't thought about it that way before. When you say that children are a part of the nuclear family that may not be compromised, what exactly do you mean by that?
Wheeler: Well, if you look at the traditional nuclear family, it's made up of five elements, man, woman, marriage, sex and children. Throughout human history, this has been the understanding of the nuclear family. For 150 years in our country, starting very early in our country, people have been working together to destroy families. Feminism, radical feminism, tells women that they are less valuable and that they should imitate men, which actually destroys some parts of the nuclear family and is tantamount to attacking men. This is probably one of the most prevalent realities in our culture right now. This cultural attack on masculinity, telling men that testosterone is a toxin, that if they are not feminine, they are essentially rapists, and that their desire to protect and provide for their families and wives is somehow misplaced, Marginalizing the wife. This, of course, has culminated in the Me Too movement, which has sought to legally, but also socially, deprive men of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

[Yu Case: Gender struggles and even wars should be said to have existed since ancient times. It has just become a new tool, even a sharp weapon, in modern Marxist class struggle. As I mentioned above, one of the ways they go beyond Dana is by pulling the concept of "class" away from economic status and making it a universal way of dividing people in society. Then one of the "classes" is regarded as the target of struggle. Probably male today. In another field, such as China, women will also become the targets of their struggle. Its tricks are endless and you can do whatever you want. As long as the struggle requires it, you can do anything. 】

The same goes for marriage. In our country, we have legalized same-sex marriage. I know this is a topic that many Republicans and conservatives don't want to talk about. You can put aside for a moment the idea of ​​homosexuality, or that two people can do whatever they want in their own home, you put that aside. The danger in legalizing same-sex marriage is the ability of government officials to redefine words. Because whoever has the power to redefine words becomes the arbiter of truth. Arbiter of truth, I think, is really just a nice way to describe authoritarianism. So, when we allow, when we leave marriage to the justices of the Supreme Court to redefine a word that simply cannot be redefined, the institution of marriage has been around long before us, long before our country. We have taken away a crucial part of our freedom. Of course, we also had the sexual revolution that tried to twist and distort sex, and there were actually all sorts of different elements to that. It is heartbreaking to live through all these attacks because all these aspects of the nuclear family have been targeted by Marxists at one point or another.
It’s not just the left, it’s not just the Democrats, it’s the Marxists too, and the remaining elements are the children. The left needs to sacrifice children because they understand that in a simple debate, Marxism cannot defeat capitalism. If there is a fair one-on-one fight: this is what communism offers, this is what capitalism offers, communism will never win. So what they have to do is, they have to separate the child from the parents, they have to twist the child's mind. They must sacrifice reality by redefining words so that these children can be "coerced" and perhaps "indoctrinated" into eternal Marxism before they are fully developed intellectually, psychologically and spiritually. Neo-Marxist revolutionaries for the cause.

[Yu Pan: I don’t know why, but the commentator didn’t mention here that gender, marriage, etc. are originally defined by God. Therefore God is the way, truth and life. Their arrogance is revealed in their attempt to replace God and become the "arbiter" of the world. Human laws are reasonable and just only when they are consistent with God's law, that is, natural law. This is the reason why tyrants have always hated Christianity. The same point made above: their success would be inconceivable without the eager cooperation of Western societies themselves. Mao Tie-dong is right again: external factors must work through internal factors. The ultimate battle between good and evil gods and demons is reflected in the value recognition of the majority of people in society. Without the blessing barrier of values ​​and beliefs, the people, especially the younger generation, have no ability to resist Marxism, which is like a drug and a virus. This is how they win. That's what's important about this interview. 】

They target children to instill a Marxist worldview through the education system. Mr. Jekielek: We continue our interview with Liz Wheeler, author of "Hide Your Children: Exposing the Marxists Who Target America's Children." I noticed that one of your chapters focuses on “social-emotional learning.”
Wheeler: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: I've heard it described as some kind of "Trojan horse," so talk to me about that.
Wheeler: Okay. Social-emotional learning is one of the most interesting parts of how Marxist ideology affects every child. After our daughter was born, my husband and I had an interesting conversation about how we should educate our daughter, now two and a half years old. Should she be sent to private school, public school, or homeschooled? Every new parent thinks about this question. I certainly support homeschooling. I was homeschooled myself, which I thought was great. My husband went to public school. He felt like, oh, there's not going to be that kind of "wokeness" or anything like that in the public schools in our community, and she'd be fine there. You just go over and talk to the teacher. This conversation we had was unforgettable to me because it is so common, or has always been common. Parents all think that, yes, the "awakening" is happening in other places, maybe in California, maybe in New York, but it won't happen in our community, and it won't happen in the classroom where my children attend class.
But slowly, parents' eyes across the country have opened up and they realize that this thing is reaching out to your children, even in the public schools you went to as a child, even if the same teacher in the classroom has been there for a long time. Ten years on, it feels like it’s there. The way this “awakening” spreads is through activities such as “social-emotional learning.” What is social-emotional learning? It sounds good. These words are harmless and do not have any negative connotations. It is not a subject, unlike history or science. It disguises itself as values ​​education, which also sounds good. We want our children to be taught values, we want them to be taught to distinguish right from wrong. But the question parents should ask, and the question I realized as I wrote this chapter, is, what are those values? If it is values ​​education, what are the intrinsic values? It is actually an aspect of the worldview that is packaged with all other themes. So you no longer have a math class, your math class is a math class that includes social-emotional learning. You no longer have a science class, your science class is a science class that includes social-emotional learning. You don't even have physical education anymore, your physical education is physical education that includes social-emotional learning. And what is it? This value education is critical consciousness. This is the critical consciousness of Paulo Freire, and they try to teach children to look at everything through this lens, from math problems to family interactions to how you treat others. The worldview they teach children is a Marxist worldview.

[Yu Pan: Alas, in this respect it is so worthwhile for Westerners to listen to Dongtu’s consistent and exquisite teachings. You think that what belongs to Caesar belongs to Caesar, that academics are independent and free from political interference. They sneak into the night and moisten things silently with the wind. The party, government, military and civilians learn from east to west, north to south, and the party is the one who leads everything. "There is no such thing as neutral education"! That's so true. No wonder the speaker also "smiled and admitted that I agreed." Values ​​are never "neutral". Right and wrong, right and wrong, and so on, how can we be "neutral"? "Indoctrination" sounds disgusting, but it is the essence of education. Only by giving advice can one "cultivate people". You have to talk about it often and every day so that it can melt into your blood. There is nothing wrong with indoctrination itself. The mistake is to see what is being instilled. There is no possibility of "neutrality" in this kind of "antagonism". 】

“There is no such thing as neutral education”
Mr. Jekielek: I want to talk a little bit about Paulo Freire. Because anyway, recently, let’s just say in the past year, I realized how incredible his influence is. By some accounts, he is the most cited scholar on education in the American system. Somehow this has been woven into the education of every teacher I know in our country, in every teachers college, with maybe a few exceptions, but how did this happen?
Wheeler: He once said something, Paulo Freire said it, and I laugh and admit that I agree with it. He said, "There's no such thing as neutral education." At first when you hear that, you think, oh, indoctrination, that's bad. The more I thought about this, the more I realized he was right. There is no such thing as neutrality. Neutrality is an idea that Republicans believe in. We believe that we should not introduce any kind of values ​​or moral order into our society and that we should not use the impartial authority of government, the government, to help establish that moral order. Because of this, many of our hijacked institutions have removed our values. Of course, since there is no such thing as neutrality, Democrats have stepped into the void we left for them and hijacked those institutions for their own purposes.
I think the best way to illustrate this is that public education in our country was not mandatory until 1852 when it became mandatory in Massachusetts. A lot of people think, oh, that wasn't that long ago. The reason why Massachusetts had compulsory public education was because there were a lot of immigrants coming to the United States at that time, and many of the immigrants who came to the United States were Catholics. The Protestant politicians of the time wanted to make sure that children born in other countries that were their home countries came to the United States and received an education in American citizenship because they would be the next generation of Americans. Politicians at the time expected children to be loyal to the United States if they were to become Americans, rather than loyal to their own country first. So they mandated public education to instill American values ​​and Protestant values ​​in children because the politicians at the time were Protestant and they were anti-Catholic. As a Catholic, I laugh about it now. But it reminds us that indoctrination is actually morally neutral. Regarding indoctrination, we think, oh, the left is indoctrinating our children. This is wrong because of what they are indoctrinating the children, not because of what they are indoctrinating the children themselves. Indoctrination, the morality of indoctrination depends entirely on the content being instilled. Public education was created to be a system of indoctrination. People on the right knew this then. But then we hand over to others the institutions we built for indoctrination. We've handed it over to the left, with a false "neutrality" in name only, a false "separation of church and state" in name only, a misunderstood topic.

Freedom is the means to something greater - justice Mr. Jekielek: I think people would say, or I might say, and I've heard others say, well, yeah, there's indoctrination, and then there's criticality Thinking teaching. So I think indoctrination is the approach that's commonly used, and the suggestion is that you teach someone the right thing, the specific and right way to look at something, rather than teaching them the tools to be able to figure things out, whether there's an ethical platform involved here or not . So are you saying that indoctrination is about imparting a specific moral stance? This is what I'm trying to understand.
Wheeler: I've used the term "critical thinking" my whole life because when I was in school, when I was homeschooled, I always felt like the education that I was getting was relatively different than what I was getting in public school. One is that I can think critically about things while some of them can't. But in the process of writing this book, I realized that I shouldn't use this word, because "critical thinking" is the word used by Paulo Freire. It just describes thinking through critical theory, not like you and I think, oh, are we analyzing? This is exactly what we are talking about when we say critical thinking, we are talking about independent thinking. We're talking about the ability to problem solve or the ability not to be led by groupthink. But critical thinking is a misleading term that has permeated our culture and is actually completely wrong.
I advise and strongly advise my fellow Americans, especially parents, especially conservatives and Republicans, to understand that the ideas I am discussing are not new. If you will allow me to tell you a little story, this little story changed my mind. About seven or eight years ago, in 2016, I spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Then I got to the lobby and an independent reporter came up to me and asked: What do you think the role of government is in America? How do you define freedom? Like a very philosophical question. I gave a very liberal answer. I said, well, its role is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, otherwise, stay out of our business, unless someone's inherent inalienable rights are being violated, then the government really should stay out of our business. This independent journalist said to me, he said, "So, do you advocate legalizing drugs?" I was kind of caught off guard. I said, "What drugs do you mean? Like hard drugs?" Actually, yes, he was talking about meth, he was talking about heroin, he was talking about fentanyl, he was talking about cocaine. I said, well, no, I don't think we should legalize these drugs, it would lead to... it would be self-destructive, it would lead to social chaos. He responded, Doesn’t this contradict your definition of freedom? I realize, yes, that's a contradiction. Turns out he's not a journalist, he's a marijuana legalization activist, which I guess is irrelevant to the purpose of this story.

[Yu Pan: As the old saying goes: Even if it is the right direction, taking one more step may be wrong. This is the basis of the so-called golden mean. The only way to go beyond the middle is to go to the extreme. No matter left or right, just like a normal person having left and right hands, everything is normal. The difference in orientation does not affect mutual communication to achieve mutual understanding. Both can obey the command of the central nervous system of the brain and jointly serve the person himself. But once it goes off the rails and crosses the middle path, everything that is normal becomes abnormal in their eyes. They will attack the opponent crazily, hoping to put the opponent to death quickly. Just listen to the clamoring leftists who have dominated the mainstream media over the years and you will know what is going on. 】

But it always bothered me because in a sense he was right. The view that freedom is the ultimate end, or that the definition of freedom is as close as we can get to absolute freedom, is a wrong definition of freedom. I hope people will think carefully about this issue. I know this is a confusing question, but address the question: Is freedom the end, or a means to something greater? We know that some grown men dress up as sexy strippers and pose in front of children. We all know in our hearts that this is weird, immoral, terrible, and evil. If freedom itself is the ultimate goal, then it must have some inherent morality attached to it. But that was not the case, and it prompted a change in my view of freedom. If freedom is not an end, it must mean that freedom is a means to something greater. So what is this greater thing? Facts have proven that the framers of our Constitution actually solved this problem. This is not something I invented, this is not a unique problem that I have considered.
James Madison, the author of our Constitution, defined “liberty” in Article 51 of the Federalist Papers. His definition of freedom is that it is a means to something greater. The greater thing, he said, is justice. I read Federalist Papers 51 dozens of times. But all of a sudden, as I was writing the book and doing the research, I understood it in a completely different way because I realized what James Madison was referring to. When he said justice, I thought, oh, this is John Locke's view of liberty versus Edmund Burke's view of liberty. Burke was a huge influence on Madison, and Burke came up with the definition of justice at that time, because of course we, say, okay, fine, the definition of liberty is justice. And what is justice? The definition of justice reflects original justice, where the English expression is capitalized O and J. He was talking about natural law. So I realized that this moral order of "liberty as a means to an end" would not be fully realized or understood in our country unless we, as a society, understood the existence of objective truth, the understanding of men and women, marriage, morality and injustice. Morality, right and wrong, truth, freedom and justice, the definition of all these words. And these definitions are now up for grabs in our country, and these definitions of words are found in the Judeo-Christian morals that are the cornerstone of our Constitution.

[Yu Pan: This speaker is still holding the pipa half-hiding his face. They are unwilling or even afraid to admit that the unity of politics and religion is the essence of natural law. The premise of the separation of church and state is that "politics" follow the right path designated by "religion". At the same time, it is extremely important that "teaching" cannot degenerate into a simple social organization charity. The ancients all knew that the great affairs of the country lie in sacrifice and military affairs. The so-called "sacrifice" is just one of the expressions of "teaching". What is more important is the sum of all the values ​​and traditions of this ethnic group and this nation. When the founding fathers formulated the Constitution, they skillfully translated the basic principles in the Bible into the spirit of the Constitution. So that the literal "separation" at this time is actually the essential "unity". This makes this constitution inherently uphold the sanctity of the Bible. To ignore or even deny this point is to deny the U.S. Constitution. This is exactly what Bai Zuo is doing at the moment. 】

The response I often get to this is, well, are you talking about forcing a Christian state? Are you talking about theocracy? Are you talking about religion? My answer is, no, I'm not talking about theocracy. Yes, I'm talking about religion, because you don't have to be a devout Christian, you don't have to worship Jesus Christ to admit that when our Founding Fathers were creating the system of government that was meant to guide, form our society, In doing so, they acknowledge that the definitions of these words have roots, originating in biblical principles or Judeo-Christian values. So my strong advice to conservatives is that for our society to recover from this disorder, we must re-embrace the idea of ​​natural law, re-embrace the idea of ​​objective truth.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, Liz Wheeler, it's great to have you as a guest on our show.
Wheeler: Thank you very much for having me.
Mr. Jekielek: Thank you for watching my interview with Liz Wheeler on this episode of "American Thought Leaders." I'm your host Mr. Jekielek.
https://www.epochtimes.com/gb/24/1/12/n14156379.htm

Survivor of Chairman Mao's cultural revolution tells Tucker she sees the same signs in the US
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/02/27/survivor-of-chairman-maos-cultural-revolution-tells-tucker-she-sees-the-same-signs-in-the-us-1440569/

America Is Following in China's Footsteps. Here's How We Stop It.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIay3uL17Jg

Mao's America: A Survivor's Warning by Xi Van Fleet