POLICY COUNSEL
MAY 2023 POLICY COUNSEL SPEECHES
Fred Fleitz
Vice Chair, Center for American Security
America First Policy Institute
Good morning. I’m going to talk about a fairly difficult and controversial topic today. It is an issue that divides the American people and the conservative movement: what American policy should be concerning the conflict in Ukraine.
Now one reason this is such a difficult topic is because if you say the wrong thing, if you talk about the wrong aspect of this conflict, you’re accused of being pro-Russia or pro-Putin or anti-Ukraine. We saw that recently in the CNN Town Hall when President Donald Trump was asked whether he wanted Ukraine to win this conflict, and Trump said, “I want everybody to stop dying. They’re dying. Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying.” He added, “I don’t think in terms of winning and losing, I think in terms of getting it settled so we can stop killing all those people.” Then Trump was asked if he thinks Putin is a war criminal, and he said, “This should be discussed later, and if you say he’s a war criminal, it’s going to be a lot harder to make a deal later to get this thing stopped.”
Now contrast this with Joe Biden who has already called Putin a killer and a war criminal. So, who’s being more presidential here? Well, the reality is unless we’re willing to risk nuclear war to depose Putin, to remove him from office, Trump was right that we have to find a way to work with Putin. We have to find a way to live with him. It’s not a happy situation, but we have lived with the leaders of adversary states throughout the history of our country. I also agree with Trump that the focus of American policy for Ukraine should be a cease-fire and starting peace-talks. And talking about that does not mean you’re siding with Russia. It does not mean you’re siding with Putin, regardless of what the Biden Administration and The New York Times may say.
I want to talk about where we are right now in this conflict before I talk about what U.S. policy should be. We’re hearing a lot of good predictions for Ukraine lately. Ukrainian President Zelensky just made a trip to Western Europe and got pledges of significant amounts of new weapons from the U.K., France, and Germany. I read in The Washington Post today that Ukraine may finally get F-16 fighters from the Netherlands and that the Biden Administration is inclined to allow the Netherlands to provide these weapons. Ukraine is planning a spring offensive that it believes will seize a significant amount of territory. We’ve seen some significant Ukrainian gains on the ground recently including shoot-downs of Russian aircraft and helicopters. There’s also been open bickering between the Wagner Group, the mercenary army that Putin has sent to fight in Ukraine. The Wagner officials are arguing over setbacks on the ground and shortages in ammunition. At the same time, we know that Russia is prepared for a Ukrainian springtime offensive. They’ve dug-in, laid extensive mine fields, and they seem to be responding to the prospect of this offensive with a huge wave of missile attacks in Ukraine, especially against the city of Kiev.
But listen to this, this is something that you may not know. In addition to this spring offensive, there are some troubling reports. Ukraine may be planning to expand this war with an offensive to retake Crimea. In addition—and this is from the documents that were leaked by that Airforce National Guardsman—according to these classified documents, Ukraine also may be planning to occupy Russian villages to gain leverage over Moscow; bombing a pipeline that transfers Russian oil to Hungary; and, possibly firing long-range missiles deep inside Russia to try to pressure the Russians to come to a peace agreement. I think this is very disturbing.
We’ve heard claims over the past year that this conflict has become a proxy U.S. war against Russia, and that if we push Russia too far we could approach a red line where Russia decides to use nuclear weapons. I don’t know where that red line is, but I think these reports, if they are accurate, is getting pretty close to it. And I’m very concerned about it.
It’s not getting a lot of coverage, but the position of European leaders to Zelensky, when they talk to him about additional military aid, is that they expect him to start peace talks. They’ve told him that they do not expect Ukraine will take back most of the territory Russia has seized. They expect a cease-fire and peace talks and have told Zelensky that significant amount of military aid to Ukraine from their countries is not indefinite. Their people are getting antsy about this war. I think that’s true in the United States, also.
Zelensky and the Ukrainian people obviously don’t see it that way. They want their country back. You must admire the determination and skill of the Ukrainian army, and how they bravely fought back a much larger and more powerful foe. They want everything back, including Crimea, which the Russians seized in 2014. The Biden Administration has been supportive of this and have been hostile to peace talks and a cease-fire. They’ve argued that this would reward Putin’s aggression and warned that we don’t want Putin to win by agreeing to a cease-fire or peace talks that would allow Russia to keep any territory. We know Biden’s strategy for Ukraine is to provide military aid “for as long as it takes.” Ladies and gentlemen, that is not a viable strategy.
Americans are a compassionate people and we do want the Ukrainians to win. We would like to see Russian forces expelled. We want to help. We want to do the right thing.
But, and this is what a lot of people don’t want to hear, Ukraine is not a vital U.S. interest. For that reason, our involvement in this conflict has to be limited and not open-ended. We know from experience that America is not the world’s policeman. We have our own problems at home. We’re using up our weapon arsenals, especially advanced missiles, that we may need elsewhere, especially in a conflict with Taiwan. And, although it’s great news that Germany, and the U.K. and France are providing additional weapons to Ukraine, they are still far from doing their share in providing military aid to Ukraine. The U.S. still carry the lion’s share of providing this aid.
Ukrainian officials and some of the western supporters say, “Well, look, we have got to stop Russia in Ukraine because next they’ll invade Eastern Europe.” That’s nonsense. The Russians have never shown any interest in invading Eastern Europe after Ukraine. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, if you read his writings, was because of his perverse reading of history: that Ukraine is not a separate country and Ukrainians are not a separate people. Even if this was an intention of Russia, its army has been devastated. It isn’t going to invade Poland after a peace settlement in Ukraine.
Sadly, if the Biden Administration had understood Putin’s writings on Ukraine, maybe this invasion wouldn’t have taken place. I think it’s very likely that we goaded the Russians into invading by holding out the prospect of NATO membership when we didn’t have to. This is why I think Trump has it right in making it a priority of ending the killing. In all likelihood, this Ukraine offensive will peter out, and we’ll be facing an endless war of attrition. The Europeans have said to the Ukrainians, “You will not win a war of attrition.” Will anyone win?
And then there’s China, which is trying to wriggle out a role by playing a peacemaker. It’s pretty clear that China’s intention is to find an outcome that is beneficial to China and to Russia. This is not in our interest.
So, what should we do? America should lead in this conflict with its own peace plan. American officials have to be tough with Zelensky and be clear that we’re not going to provide this high-level of military support indefinitely. We’re also not going to tolerate Ukraine expanding this war by going into Crimea or doing other things that would risk a nuclear confrontation with Russia.
We could start peace talks right now with empty chairs for the Russians and the Ukrainians. We could be talking with the European allies about confidence-building measures, how to rebuild Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia could join these talks when they’re ready.
A settlement is not going to be perfect. Ukraine is not going to get most of its territory back. Borders will probably be where troops end up. There won’t be war crimes trials and President Biden should stop saying there will be. Hopefully, we get some kind of agreement for reparations from Russia. Maybe a levy on Russian oil sales.
I know the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian people will have trouble accepting this. A lot of its supporters will also. But as Donald Trump said last week, “I want everyone to stop dying.” And that’s my view, too. Thank you.
Rogue Prosecutors
Tom Fitton
President, Judicial Watch
Mike Davis
Founder & President, Article III Project (A3P)
Fitton: I asked Mike to join me on stage today, because as you know from prior meetings and generally what I’ve been yelling about, there’s this urgency I think we need to bring to bear on the rule of law crisis here in Washington, DC. There is a storm raging from Georgia through DC to New York of leftist Democrat prosecutors trying to jail President Trump. They think Trump is such a terrible candidate that they want to be sure he’s in jail during the campaign. Tells you something.
But on top of that, you have, in addition to the targeting of Trump directly by the leftist Democrat in Fulton County, Georgia over the election disputes there, the targeting up here in Washington, DC over the fake records dispute that Judicial Watch knows is fake, because they told us the complete opposite several years ago. They’re also targeting him on January 6th. They’re targeting Republican fundraising. They’re targeting state legislators. They’re targeting state electors. It’s a broad-based attack on the Republican Party through this grand jury process. And, of course, we have the unprecedented and reckless prosecution up in New York City. So, you’ve got Trump and you’ve got a whole bunch of others being targeted in a way that could cripple the United States’ ability to function to the extent that the federal agencies have become just a mere political tool to jail political opponents. Now, that’s happened in the past. Let’s be clear. Politics intrudes upon prosecutions by politicians and their appointees now and again. But never before has it been so brazen and embraced and condoned by our establishment, both in the media, certainly in the federal agencies, the presidency, and in Congress. If the FBI and the DOJ become brazen tools for political prosecutions with no check, that’s how the Republic ends.
Mike Davis is one of the few commentators out there that seem to understand this urgency. Because I don’t think Congress is doing enough. I don’t think much of the conservative commentariat understands the threat to the Republic from these abuses of power. As Mike will further explain, because he’s had personal experience in the judicial selection process and the operations of the Supreme Court, it’s not just Trump. It’s every institution that protects our liberty that’s been set up by our Constitution. That also means the courts. This is a dangerous time for our Republic. With that, let’s get started.
Davis: Yeah, I appreciate that, Tom. This is absolutely organized lawfare by the Democrats against their political enemies. And it’s so much bigger than Donald Trump. I know there are probably many Trump supporters here. I know there are probably many people who are tired of him. Regardless of where you stand, this is so much bigger than Donald Trump, because what we’re dealing with is a politicized and weaponized justice system to take out political enemies in the pursuit of power. As Tom said, it’s not just the presidential election where they’re trying keep Biden in power or whoever they’re going to prop up after Biden. It’s so much bigger than this. Now they’re going after the Supreme Court. And it’s not just the three most conservative justices. It’s all six of the Republican-appointed supreme court justices, even including Chief Justice John Roberts, not exactly a conservative fire-breather.
It started off on four different fronts. The criminal lawfare against Trump—it’s Alvin Bragg, the George Soros-funded Manhattan D.A.—he is pursuing Trump for the non-crime of settling a nuisance lawsuit. There was a nuisance lawsuit that Trump settled from allegations from 2005. Trump settled this in 2016. This is routine for businesspeople to settle these nuisance lawsuits just to make them go away. The Democrats have tried to turn this into a felony campaign finance violation even though the Federal Election Commission previously declined to pursue a claim against Trump. The Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to bring charges. The prior Manhattan D.A. declined to bring charges. The current Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg declined to bring charges. Then, a couple of prosecutors on his team quit in protest, wrote a book, and raised political hell. So then, Alvin Bragg brought this unprecedented indictment against the former President of the United States. The first time ever based upon this bogus legal theory. That’s the first part of this.
They’re also looking at—and I think they’re going to do this next—indicting Trump down in Fulton County, Georgia for the non-crime of objecting to a presidential election. It is not a crime to object to a presidential election. It’s not a crime to twist arms to object to a presidential election. This is permitted by the Electoral Count Act of 1887. It’s also permitted by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It’s only a crime to object to presidential elections in third world, Marxist hell holes, which is what the Democrats want America to become. Democrats objected to Republican presidential wins in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017. So, if it’s a crime to object to a presidential election, they would be in jail for those.
You also have Jack Smith, Garland’s hand-picked Special Counsel, who’s looking at the objections to the presidential election, along with this completely bogus criminal investigation into a former president having his presidential records in the office of the former president which is federally funded by Congress and guarded by the Secret Service. They have federally funded staff with security clearances, and secure office space called SCIFs. So, it is not a crime to have your presidential records as a former president. It is specifically allowed by the Presidential Records Act. They didn’t even cite the Presidential Records Act from the Garland Justice Department when they went to a biased magistrate judge down in Florida who had just recused from President Trump’s civil lawsuit against Hillary six weeks prior because this magistrate, Judge Bruce Reinhardt, had a clear judicial bias. He had put posts on Facebook criticizing President Trump, so he had to recuse. Somehow this judicial bias goes away, and they order this unprecedented home raid. This is lawfare to take out Trump.
Fitton: Let me intervene there. What was it, 10-12 years ago, we found out that Clinton had tape recordings he kept in his sock drawer that were taken back when he was president, including conversations he had with foreign leaders and members of congress. And we took the position that the Justice Department is taking now: “Oh, well these are presidential records, let’s get the government to go get them so we can look at them.” They came to us, the National Archives, the Justice Department, and one of the most leftist court judges on the court in a seemingly persuasive opinion said, “The Presidential Records Act doesn’t allow you to do any of this. The Archives, once the presidency is over, has no business asking the president for anything. They can ask, but there is no judicial process, and the president has ultimate discretion as to what is personal and government.” And the Justice Department told the court in the case: “Well, we presume if he has records after he leaves office, they’re personal.”
So, when it came out that the president had turned over 15 boxes of records last year because the archives demanded them and they were presidential, I’m like what the heck is going on here? This is 180-degree difference from what they had previously told Judicial Watch when they were protecting Bill Clinton. And they changed their position, ignored court precedent, and their own prior policy, to justify a raid on President Trump. And we complained about that vociferously. That’s my long way of saying, because we were highlighting the Biden Justice Department corruption, I get a knock on the door and the FBI giving me a subpoena to come in and testify to their Grand Jury jihad against Trump over what I was saying about these records. So, not only are they abusing Trump, but they’re also targeting people who are defending the rule of law and highlighting their corruption. The head of the largest, and dare I say it, most successful government transparency watchdog group in the world, and they’re holding me before a Grand Jury on this garbage.
I’m not the only one who’s been targeted by this Justice Department. They want to destroy our movement, chill our speech, make it clear that if 2024 is disputed that we don’t do anything that gets in their way. We can just wait for 2024 to happen and wonder why it is an election got stolen again or wonder why the President is in jail. Hopefully, we won’t be in a position where he’s in jail, and we look back to this discussion and nothing was ever done about it. I guess that goes to the heart of this. The President is likely—and I think the plan is—to be jailed during this campaign. What are we to do about this? How are we going to stop this abuse? And are there plans afoot to stop the abuse that are effective? What’s happening?
Davis: Well, let’s just look at another example—January 6th. We have people who showed up to object to the presidential election on January 6th. That is permitted by the Electoral Count Act of 1887. They had a permit from the National Parks Service to have their protest. Right? They had a First Amendment right to be there. That protest got out of control, and it turned into a riot. We have seen plenty of riots from Democrats, from BLM, from Antifa where they were mostly peaceful but fiery. They attacked the White House. They attacked St. John’s Church. They attacked Senator Rand Paul as he’s leaving the White House. They destroyed the Portland Federal Courthouse on a nightly basis. That was all forgotten. That was all forgiven because those were mostly peaceful.
When Trump supporters did this on January 6th, it got out of control and turned into a riot. There should have been three categories of people. The people who were there—even if you think they’re wrong or crazy—they had an absolute First Amendment right to be there peacefully protesting. Then you have the people who trespassed into the Capitol. Those people should be charged with trespassing. The people who were violent should be charged more harshly. What the Biden Justice Department did is they lumped them all together as one group, and they called it an insurrection and lumped them all together like they’re all just as evil as the other. How many insurrectionists do you know in human history get to a Senate floor in a nation’s capital and they don’t burn the damn place down? They take selfies, and they walk around with horned man, and they walk out of the building, right?
Fitton: I read about an insurrection earlier this week. It was the Durham Report. What’s going on there?
Davis: That’s a very interesting insurrection. What we saw with the Hillary Clinton insurrection is presidential candidate Hillary Clinton colluded with President Obama, Vice President Biden, Obama’s Attorney General, Obama’s CIA Director and many others, the FBI, and they cooked up the Russian Collusion hoax. The Crossfire Hurricane Investigation because Hillary Clinton got caught with her illegal home server from when she was Secretary of State. It was almost certainly hacked by foreign governments, this highly classified material, and it almost certainly showed evidence that the Clinton Foundation was in a pay-for-play scheme while she was the Secretary of State. Real foreign bribery. So, what did the Democrats do? President Obama and his team cook up “Crossfire Hurricane” to go after Trump, and they made up, essentially, that Trump was committing treason with Russia. And they did this before the 2016 election to distract from Hillary’s troubles, and to try to throw the election to Hillary Clinton. It backfired but that’s what they did. This is what John Durham’s report shows. And what’s the reaction from the press? Frankly, what’s the reaction from Republicans in Congress? I mean…
Fitton: I mean, I feel bad because I’m the only one criticizing him for not prosecuting Obama. Or Hillary. Or Strzok. Or Paige. Or Brennan. Or Comey. Or one person.
Davis: And remember, Tom, they didn’t just do this in 2016…they did it again in 2020 when they had clear evidence at the FBI and the IRS that the Bidens were corruptly taking Ukrainian, Chinese, and Romanian—probably other—money. They had evidence. Senator Chuck Grassley, my former boss, has whistleblower evidence from the FBI that then-Vice President Joe Biden took a foreign bribe and changed American policy. The FBI had this evidence. They did nothing about this. The FBI sat on this evidence through 2020, obstructed justice, didn’t do anything about it. They tried to rig the 2016 election and they failed. They rigged the 2020 election. Now they’re trying to rig the 2024 election with the Mar-A-Lago raid. Guess what? Here’s my theory—why do you think they went to Mar-A-Lago? Why do you think they care so much about records and the office of former President that’s heavily guarded? I think they’re trying to get Trump’s declassified copy that he declassified via executive order the day before he left office—the Crossfire Hurricane records—the Russia Collusion records. I think he had his copy down in Mar-A-Lago. Remember, it was the Justice Department who dragged their feet and said we have to make sure there aren’t privacy act violations. Trump said, “Okay, I’m declassifying it. Scrub it for the Privacy Act and get it out.” Well, guess what!? The Biden Administration never got it out. Trump had his copy…
Fitton: We just sued for it, and they said we’re declassifying a lot of it again.
Davis: Reclassifying it.
Fitton: Reclassifying it. Excuse me. My joke is they weren’t looking to see what Trump had, they were looking to see what Trump had on them. That’s for sure. I want to highlight the issue of what can be done about it. Is there a way to stop this? I think there’s a way. I think we should be demanding Republicans refer for prosecution, impeach, I would submit. I see why politically it might be a challenge, but I think there are some things you just have to do given the gravity of the situation. And fire and defund.
Davis: Well, first of all, I agree with you. Trump needs to win back the White House because I think he’s going to go in with a vengeance. I always joke that I’m going to be the Acting Attorney General for three weeks. During my three-week reign of terror, I’m going to indict anyone who is in Trump’s way. I’m too crazy to get confirmed, as you can all see, but I can be acting. Maybe. But, anyway, no, he’s right. House Republicans need to be issuing subpoenas now. They need to be impeaching now. And guess what!? Make the process the punishment. Even if you’re not going to get the result you want in the Senate, make their lives hell. Give them a healthy dose of their own medicine. The Republican State AGs, the Republican DAs around this country, you know what, there are real crimes by the Bidens. There are real crimes by the Clintons, there are real crimes by Democrats. Democrats have their prosecutors indicting Trump, Trump supporters, Trump’s top aides, going after Republicans for non-crimes, for fake crimes. Let’s start going after Democrats for real crimes. Give them a healthy dose of their own medicine.
Fitton: The other crisis I think is worth talking about—you know, we were celebrating the overturning of Roe v. Wade this morning, Mike, I don’t know if you were there, but—Justice Alito said that leak of the Dobbs decision draft made us targets of potential assassinations. And, of course, Justice Kavanaugh—the media won’t talk to you about this—but there’s a guy facing attempted murder charges for showing up outside of his house where he lives with his family. The Justice Department and Biden not only refuse to prosecute those who violate the law against intimidating justices at their homes and elsewhere, but they’ve actually condoned and encouraged further intimidation that could get people killed. What is the thinking that this isn’t an urgent matter?
Davis: I agree and it’s even worse than that. Not only did Jen Psaki encourage these illegal obstruction of justice campaigns outside the supreme court justices’ homes, but they actually handed the Biden Justice Department a stand-down order where the U.S. Marshals could not arrest people who were violating 18 U.S.C. 1507. And what that almost certainly led to was that they could not tail Justice Cavanaugh’s would-be assassin, and he went behind the house. He came a lot closer to killing Justice Cavanaugh than people understand.
Fitton: I will just add that the security of our senior public officials in Washington, D.C., despite all the noise you hear about the Secret Service, the Capitol Police, and Marshals that protect the Supreme Court—they’re professional, they’ll lay down their lives for them—but it’s always going to be a close-run thing if push comes to shove. So, we just can’t ignore this. On any given day it’s dangerous. But the idea that we would encourage threats against sitting Supreme Court justices to me is an abomination.
We talked a little about what to do next, and the wonderful thing about CNP is that this is the beginning of the conversation. We’re going to have an Action Session including Mike and other excellent participants to talk about how to approach this. But my advice to you all is to make this a priority. I don’t know about you, but if they cut our taxes but we’re all in jail, we don’t have to worry about income tax then.
Davis: Less food in jail.
Fitton: We can talk about getting out the vote. You know, it’s hard to get people out to vote if you’re campaigning from a jail cell. That’s not a joke. So, this to me ought to be a priority for all of you in your communications with members of Congress. Believe me, I’ve communicated with members of Congress about this, and the response is a slack-jawed, “Uh, yeah, we agree—we’re going to deal with it in the appropriations process.” I’ve heard that before and to me it doesn’t address the urgency—the life-or-death urgency for lives and also for our Republic—that we’re facing now.
So, with that, Mike Davis, Article III Project thank you very much.
Davis: Thank you very much, Tom.
Frank Gaffney
Founder and Executive Chairman
Center for Security Policy
Thank you for allowing me to make a very brief presentation. I have ten minutes to talk about two tremendously important subjects. I’ll talk fast.
The first is the subject of this book: The Indictment: Prosecuting the Chinese Communist Party & Friends for Crimes Against America, China, and the World. The essence of this book is very simple. The existential threat to freedom of our time, as Ronald Reagan would have called it— actually the greatest existential threat to freedom in the history of the world—is the Chinese Communist Party. It has been relentlessly waging war against us for decades. In 1999, they actually acknowledged it in the publication of their own book Unrestricted Warfare in which they laid out two dozen or so specific lines of attack that would be used against us to weaken us, and if possible, defeat us, without the use of military force, because they weren’t strong enough at the time to have that option.
This book draws on about 70 different hour-long webinars that our Committee on the Present Danger: China has done over the past 11 months or so, designed to address two things: What is unrestricted warfare? What has it been doing to us— the devastation that it has caused? Secondly, what kind of help have the Chinese communists been getting from their friends in America? We name names, we talk through the techniques, we give a very, I think, accurate assessment of how much damage has been done and how we are now set up, unfortunately, for the next step.
During the course of those 20 years or so, maybe a little longer, China has built up their military, and they now believe they have the option to use a shooting war as the further instrument for taking down the United States. Why do they want to do that? Because they want to be the global hegemon, and we are the impediment to realizing that. Their friends are prepared to help them do it, I think in the false expectation that they will somehow benefit from that. But, in any event, they are enabling it.
The theory of the book is basically this. In nine charges, starting with one sweeping one, about the crimes against humanity that the Chinese communists have done to their own people— having killed a hundred million of them, and that’s without counting the four hundred, perhaps five hundred million that they’ve murdered in the womb—there’s never been anything as barbaric as this in human history. Then there are eight different charges of how they have prosecuted this unrestricted warfare against us. Again, to our great detriment. We offer not only those indictments and the facts that back them up for the prosecution, at the minimum in the court of public opinion, but also 20 specific recommendations for we must do to push back, to challenge, and to ultimately defeat this mortal threat to our country. I really commend this to you and, especially this one point, that we must root out all of the elites that have been captured as arguably the single most devastating line of attack in that unrestricted warfare: the masters of the universe on Wall Street who have transferred, by some estimates, three to six trillion dollars to the Chinese communists, enabling all of the other bad things that they’ve been doing; the other business leaders; the academics; the media mavens, the Hollywood elites and, of course not least, our political elites, starting with the Commander in Chief of the United States Military Joe Biden. They must be rooted out, they may be impeached if they’re in office, they should be prosecuted, I believe, for treason. You need to know what’s in this book, and I hope you will bring it to the attention of the people who represent you, who are in a position to do something along the lines of what we believe is required.
Quickly, let me turn to one of the other lines of attack that the Chinese Communists are using that has largely gone unnoticed. In fact, it really came to my attention after we went to press. My colleague, Reggie Littlejohn, and others here have been working with us to raise the alarm about the use the Chinese Communist Party is making of international organizations to advance its takedown of our country. It has the advantage of packaging it as “global governance” and getting the buy-in of a lot of others for what they ultimately seek to do, which is, of course, to run the world. The World Health Organization is one of the platforms they are using for this purpose. Perhaps, as early as next week, the World Health Organization’s World Health Assembly may vote itself vastly expanded powers — despite the fact that the WHO did incalculable harm to this country as part of the response to their masters in Beijing and the biological warfare attack they launched on us under the guise of the Wuhan virus.
You heard from my friend, Naomi Wolf, who I’m so glad is here, about the damage done not just by the virus but by the vaccines— the so-called “vaccines”—made in China, by the way. The point being that if we don’t stop what they’re doing they will do incalculably more harm. And, frankly, the only way we can stop them at least with respect to the WHO’s bearing on us, is to withdraw from the World Health Organization.
The alternative, ladies and gentlemen, is the destruction of our Constitutional Republic, make no mistake about it. If we allow Tedros Ghebreyesus, a communist terrorist from Ethiopia, hand-picked by the Chinese Communist Party to run the World Health Organization, to have any say over anything, not just the kind of advisory say that he had during what I call Pandemic 1.0, but the compulsory authority to tell us what is a “public health emergency of international concern” —by the way, not just pandemics but whatever he thinks is a public health emergency of international concern—and to tell us what we must do in response to it, well, you basically can kiss your national and personal sovereignty goodbye.
There is a further fillip to this which we just did a marvelous press conference on yesterday on Capitol Hill. Some of you were in the Gold Circle event last night, and we had a number of Members of Congress there, including Ralph Norman, who pulled this thing together and is leading the charge at the moment with Andy Biggs, Chip Roy, and others to try to get us out of the World Health Organization. There’s something they’re calling the One Health Agenda. That means that the World Health Organization, with these new powers if it gets them, would be able to dictate to us not only human health policy but those involving animal health and plant health. You know that old song about “He’s got the whole world in His hands?” Well, that’s what we’re talking about—having the Chinese Communist Party’s stooge, the Director General of the World Health Organization, holding the whole world in his hands. That will not be a world in which there is a place for America as we have known and loved it.
I want to thank you for helping us counter what’s going on here and ensuring our future sovereignty. Thank you.