All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
33:50
Dr. Birx 'Confesses' In Self-Serving New Book

Dr. Deborah Birx was the real power behind President Trump's disastrous Covid policy. She was the lockdown fanatic who admits in a new book that she subverted the hapless Trump Admin and pushed falsehoods to get what she wanted. Millions of lives were ruined. Also today: Washington freaks out as Ukrainian-born US Rep accuses "Saint" Zelensky of corruption...

|

Time Text
Trump's Chief of Staff Exposed 00:14:23
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing well, thank you.
Yes.
We have a couple items to go over.
We've got to get back to work.
Yes.
We've been just reading and studying and working hard all weekend, so now we get to talk about it.
Yeah.
But the deciders on whether we read the right stuff or sound the right thing, right there.
They're paying attention.
They've got the power.
But the story is very similar because we talk a lot about foreign policy.
We have some foreign policy things to talk about.
And believe it or not, we're back to corona stuff.
And also a new corona and preparation.
So some interesting stuff there.
So when we express some optimism where we think people are changing their mind and attuning and waking up, I think we have evidence of that.
But we also have it that they never give up.
The other side that wants to have a perpetual struggle on these vaccines.
So the vaccines are still around.
But our friend at Brownstone Institute, Jeff Tucker, somebody I've worked with for a long time, has reviewed a book by Dr. Borks, and he did a very good job.
It's a long book.
And she is summarizing, you know, in less than an objective fact fashion what her role was in the battle to save the country from a runaway epidemic.
She took one epidemic that was false from my viewpoint and turned it into an epidemic of lockdown, you know, and an attack on civil liberties.
But she was instrumental.
She has came, she's been around a long time, but she's been a government planner.
But she was in the Trump administration, and that's when the whole coronavirus thing started.
And she was the coronavirus response coordinator for Trump.
So this is revealing about her, and Jeff does that.
And I think the thing that probably aggravated me, it will aggravate a lot of our viewers, is to show the hypocrisy of it.
You know, I've always maintained that disagreements is no big deal if you have, because we have, we've worked with a lot of people who have disagreement on economic policy, but they agree on civil liberties and we do work with them.
But the revelation here, and Jeff does a good job, I think he called her a hypocrite.
Could you imagine a hypocrite being in government?
So that's really the theme of all this, on how she was orchestrating this, and she behind the scenes, and she was very much in the scenes when she was working with Trump.
But that didn't last a long time, but I think her influence did.
She didn't go quietly away, and she was a real professional.
And I see her as somebody who really enjoyed power.
But the power that she wanted was to arbitrarily regulate other people.
But at the same time, she thought it was perfectly all right to not pay any attention to her in her personal life.
I think that's really the big message here.
But it's an interesting book.
And maybe after we talk a little bit about it, maybe people will be interested in reading her book.
But what you really need to do is read Jeff's article because Jeff summarizes it so well, Jeff Tucker.
What she reveals in her book, inadvertently, of course, because it's a book, it's 520-some pages of patting herself on the back.
But as Jeff Tucker points out, it's all a big lie.
She's admitting in the book, in her own words, that she subverted the president, she subverted the administration, she lied, she cheated, she stole, right?
She did all of those things.
She's a nice person.
And she's happy about it.
She was the force behind the throne pushing for lockdowns.
That's what she wanted.
But she didn't dare call it that.
And she was determined to call it something else, but to actually get a lockdown.
Let's put up that first clip because this is important.
This is Peter McCullough, who you remember, Dr. Paul, is a real hero.
And he's the person who was a victim of people like Burks.
He was telling the truth all along.
And here's what he tweets about Burks.
She reworked reports to fuel the false narrative of asymptomatic spread.
Sounds like she really believed this was the first illness in the history of medicine that spread between two perfectly healthy persons.
Distorted, unlawful, worked to hurt so many Americans.
And let's do the next one because this is a good headline.
It says a lot.
Sabotage, Dr. Burks admits to revising and hiding info from Trump's COVID team while altering CDC guidelines without approval.
This is pretty heavy stuff that she's admitting.
She's saying, well, I'm a hero in doing all these things, but the reality is she destroyed a lot of lives, many more lives than were destroyed by the COVID virus itself.
One thing Jeff described in here is how she was thinking through these difficult problems and what her position ought to be.
And it exposes them for where they're coming from.
It was her difficulty in making a decision about lockdown and how many people could be in a room together.
And she had to balance it out.
Nothing about civil liberties, nothing about viruses, you know, and natural immunity.
Nothing of importance, but lockdown, what she was obsessed with, never a debate on good or bad.
It's just, how do you do it?
And how do you fool the people?
But here's one statement.
There was a big argument or a discussion going on.
Well, should we allow more than 10 people in a room or 50?
And then this was a big deal.
And of course, we happen to have heard stories about groups getting together, hundreds, and even sometimes thousands of people got together and said, this is crazy.
And no direct ramifications from it.
But she said she had settled on 10, that is 10 people in a room.
that even that was too many.
But I figured that 10 would be at least be palatable for most Americans, high enough to allow for, so she was against the 50.
Yeah.
But 10 was okay.
And this is the level of debate that goes on.
I mean, it really should turn off everybody about bureaucracy.
Per se, bureaucracy per se.
Mises has a whole book.
Of course, he talks about it in human action.
But he has a whole book on bureaucracy and how wicked it is.
And this tells you how low level it is, too.
And Tucker points out in his piece that, you know, basically her only experience really was with the AIDS problem.
And so she approached this, which is a respiratory virus.
She approached it as She approached AIDS, two very, very different types of illness.
And let's put up the next one because the one thing that drove her insane, and by the way, actually, before we put that up, I should mention before I forget, and Tucker points it out very well, she never talks in her book about why she quit.
And she quit because, as you say, her hypocrisy was exposed.
She told everyone else, don't you dare have family over for Thanksgiving.
And then she went to, I think, somewhere on the East Coast and had a big family Thanksgiving, and her hypocrisy was exposed.
She didn't write about that part.
But what infuriated her was when Trump brought in Scott Atlas from Stanford, who the first thing he did was he wanted to issue new guidelines.
Basically, you shouldn't get tested constantly if you're well, you know, and that freaked her out.
Let's put this up.
And she actually admits, she uses the word, she said this wasn't the only bit of subterfuge I had to engage in.
Subterfuge means that she was directly insubordinate to her bosses, including the president.
Immediately after the Atlas-influenced revised CDC testing guidance went up in August, I contacted Bob Redfield.
He was then head of the CDC.
I confirmed my suspicions.
He disagreed with the guidance, but he felt pressured by HHS and the White House to post it.
Well, that was his boss, their boss.
Also, and many of his staff in Atlanta were still uncomfortable prioritizing symptomatic individuals.
Again, there you have it with the asymptomatic.
Here's the part.
Recognizing the damage to public health, the Scott Atlas-driven testing guidance could do and was doing with testing rates dropping across the country.
Bob and I agreed to quietly rewrite the guidance and post it to the CDC website.
We would not seek approval because we were both quite busy.
It might take a week or two, but we were committed to subverting the dangerous message that limited testing was the right to do.
And remember, we talked so long about the case demic driven by testing with an imprecise test, the PCR test, so many false positives.
And here she was desperate to keep that testing because she wanted to keep those numbers going high.
That's right.
The hypocrisy is a big issue.
And fortunately, it's been exposed.
Hopefully, it helps.
And we will talk a little bit about people still wanting to do the same thing they did back then.
But another real great crime that was being committed by those who were devising this policy was the anti-science, anti-medicine.
And because they could punish, well, no, the police didn't come and arrest you and throw you in jail, but sometimes it was worse.
They destroyed your life.
You know, doctors lost their jobs and position and their reputation.
And it was so insulting to me to think these doctors would sell out.
They didn't all change their mind and say all of a sudden there is no such thing as natural immunity.
So this is the whole thing.
But the other thing that really is annoying under these circumstances is, you know, they were the people that were really promoting anti-science when it came to immunity and vaccines.
At the same time, they were able to, in many ways, flip it around.
And the people who took a disagreement, and we knew there's many doctors there were, they were the ones that got blamed for being anti-science.
That's starting to shift.
But for two years, they were just lambasted for not following anti-science.
I've had some notes in telling me, why, Ron, would you do this?
And you're anti-science.
You should know better.
And it's just terrible.
But I think right now the dust is settling and some people are waking up, but the opposition is still hot there, so we want to keep people alert.
The problem is there still hasn't been any justice, you know, and it's hard to suppress this feeling of anger for what these monsters did to not just the U.S., but to the world for two years.
And they really deserved, there deserves to be some justice in this life, especially, but maybe ultimately in the next.
But the other thing that we talked about before the show is that Trump deserves a lot of blame for this.
Once again, he allowed himself to be steamrollered.
And you knew that he wasn't in favor of this lockdown stuff, but he allowed himself to be steamrollered.
He allowed himself to be manipulated by people that he hired.
One of the other things in a different article that I read that was interesting is one of the reasons why Burks was able to get in there and manipulate and do many, so many evil things is that Trump's campaign official, Matt Mowers, spent two years as her chief of staff.
So she was his boss for two years.
So basically, he was her eyes and ears in the administration, so she could go around and doing a lot of the evil stuff that she did.
That is tragic.
It explains the difficulty that Trump has had.
But it's such a pity that that can be done that way.
And somebody who is as forceful as that is as willing to go out, shift gears like this.
He did it with the military.
Look how often, I mean, he was really strong military.
There's nothing wrong with having a strong national defense, a defense, you know.
But he was influenced to the point where he was fighting with all the generals.
But that is the absence of a concise position on foreign policy and civil liberties and all.
So because he was president, it seems proper to be able to analyze that.
But quite frankly, there are so many people like him that they'll change their minds and flip around.
You can see why a businessman would be willing to enforce the laws that the government passes down through social media.
And what about the military-industrial complex?
They'll say and do good on television or do whatever they want if there's a motive for it.
So that is a deeper type of hypocrisy, which is designed mostly to feather your own nest and make a lot of money doing it.
Admissions Crisis Ignored 00:03:28
And you can be sure that they did.
Well, the next one is a bit of a good news story, and we probably need it after that because I'm steaming just thinking of Brooke.
She's a monster.
But Los Angeles County, well, they want to ramp COVID back up again.
And I should have gotten a picture of her, but Barbara Ferrer is the health director of LA County, and she's an absolute ghoul.
Her name with health next to it, it's pretty anathema.
But she wants to go ahead, she's put it the highest level of COVID transmission, and she wants to bring back masks.
But she's getting some pushback from an encouraging sector of society, Dr. Paul, and that is medical doctors.
They say, is she nuts?
You know, she is nuts.
You know, I can't say all the words, but what's this saying about fool me once?
Yeah, you know, fool me twice.
It looks like people, they're trying to get fooled again, but there's not quite as many.
Because here, even though the official health protectors from LA, and it's a big system, you know, they're back to the same old nonsense.
But the hospitals, you see some of the statistics, there's nobody really sick compared to what it was like before.
And even before, with a lot sicker people, it was still overblown.
And of course the lockdown didn't make any sense.
But this is unfortunate as far as I can see that there's essentially nobody being admitted to the hospitals.
It was the hospital personnel because they were overwhelmed.
And yet I think what they see and remember, and they can't say too loudly, is that so many of the admissions turned out they really shouldn't have been, and maybe the admissions caused more harm.
And now the evidence is coming out that the vaccines and the boosters weren't exactly scientific.
And it was like all vaccines are perfect and you use them.
Not looking at it more objectively and saying, well, you know, smallpox vaccine, some good.
But no, right now, every vaccines, if you're not, you're an evil person.
But at least there's a little contest here.
They're speaking out.
That's the best part of this story.
And the people that are speaking out against Farrer are, one of them is Brad Spielberg.
He's the chief medical officer of LA County and University of Southern California Medical Center and also epidemiologist Paul Holton.
And we can actually put that next clip up.
They came out and they responded to her going full COVID again and they said, only 10% of our COVID-positive admissions are admitted due to COVID.
Virtually none of them go to the ICU.
And when they do go to the ICU, it's not for pneumonia.
They are not intubated.
We have not seen one of those since February.
Since February, they have not seen severe COVID in the hospitals.
Yet she's trying to push people back in the masks in the full COVID lockdown.
Hopefully L.A. County, and I don't have a lot of hope, there are some good people there, but hopefully there's some serious pushback.
She should probably be in jail, I would think.
See, they have to build the fear, and that's where they're running into a roadblock.
The people aren't quite buying into it this time because they just went through all that.
Ukraine's War and Misinformation 00:15:49
You mean you're going to start all this over again?
But there are a lot of people that would.
I think they are so bold to think they can do it because it's so unscientific.
It has so much bad politics, the whole works of a violation of civil liberties, on down.
Where did it ever get to the point where a couple bureaucrats in Washington, like Fauci and others, can run the whole medical system, you know, with all these regulations and all, and accomplish less and cause more harm than if they would have just allowed the doctor-patient relationship to work out.
Because there would have been, and there were some very good doctors out there, but they couldn't get the medicines at the time.
Remember how they prohibited you from having any alternative care?
They didn't allow the doctor to practice medicine and use their brain, you know.
So this is good that there's a resistance.
Yeah, and hopefully it keeps building.
A little bit of foreign policy here, and this is a really fascinating story.
We're both thinking about it without coordinating this morning.
But this is a U.S. Representative Republican from Indiana, I believe, but she's born in Ukraine.
And now she has got the Republican Party and probably the Democrats having absolute panic attacks in D.C.
And you say, well, what is it?
Does she have a Putin poster up on her wall?
No, in fact, she was an early supporter of the war, i.e. the U.S. being involved on Ukraine's side.
She was a big supporter of that policy, and she remains a big supporter of that policy.
She's not pro-Putin, she's pro-Ukraine, but she's saying some uncomfortable things in D.C.
Well, what is she saying?
She's saying that we are sending billions of dollars to Ukraine with no oversight and that the government of Ukraine, specifically President Zelensky, is corrupt and that corruption is endemic and we need to deal with that.
Instead of saying, you know what, we should probably look into this because we are spending billions of dollars when Americans are suffering with inflation.
They're saying, shut up.
We don't want to hear this.
Shut up.
It's fascinating.
You know, I think it was during the Civil War that if you were a whistleblower or you disagreed with the president about the Civil War, you could end up in prison and get into big trouble.
But in this case, and we know what happens to whistleblowers now if they're in a low level, if they're a bureaucrat or somebody that works there or a journalist, and look how we've treated our whistleblower.
But I see her as a whistleblower.
She has credibility now.
And Graham saw, oh boy, she's really going to reveal all this good stuff.
And now he's a little bit shocked.
She's actually coming across with, you'd have to say, I don't think the dust has settled.
We can't say exactly what she said or didn't say or not.
But she is suggesting that there's a different scenario than what the warmongers are saying or the military industrial complex are saying.
And she comes across for many people very objective.
But how do they, they're already in the Congress is investigating her.
You know, they're having secret meetings.
What are we going to do with her?
I can't think of anything more tragic if they punish her.
And even, yeah, if they do that, because I see her as a whistleblower giving people at least her opinion.
She's giving her opinion, and she's unique.
How many people from a country like that, how many Russians are out there defending their position?
I mean, they probably wouldn't even be allowed in the country.
But this to me is really fascinating that she's speaking out like this.
And hopefully we'll get more truth out than usual.
But I'm going to be watching carefully exactly how they treat her because if she gets more attention and she's very credible, they will, there'll be bad stuff dug up.
They're going to find some bad stuff on her.
They're going to almost be pressured into discrediting her.
And they've already started that.
They'll find some things.
And the thing is, again, she's not anti-war.
She's not non-interventionist.
She's in favor of us helping Ukraine win.
That's why she's so dangerous to them because she's exposing really the corruption, the big corruption, not only there, but by default in Washington as well.
Because all of these numbskulls in Washington went all in, falling all over each other, give more money to Ukraine.
And if she steps up and says, you guys, you fools, you wasted all this money.
It's gone in bank accounts somewhere, that exposes them as being bad.
And they can't take that.
What you've just said is the reason she's credible.
This is where her credibility comes from.
And I just think that getting the truth out is the most important thing.
And this is a bit of truth because, you know, it's been back and forth.
You know, people read these stories and think, oh, the Russians are 100% at fault.
Then all of a sudden, you know, oh, you mean there was a coup?
Yeah, oh, yeah, but we don't accept the coup.
You know, we don't accept Russia's claims, you know, of what happened in 2014 or what happened a couple hundred years ago or how long was Russia really in the Ukraine, you know, in the Crimea.
So they don't do that.
But right now, I think it's, I think it's really wonderful that some of this stuff is coming out.
And she'll be around for a while.
I wonder if they'll put her on the Sunday morning, Sunday morning shows.
And again, she has credibility, not because she's against the policy.
She's in favor of the policy.
She wants to send more money.
Let's put up a couple of these clips because this is the correspondent, the congressional reporter from Politico, and he puts this up.
I found this kind of chilling, Dr. Paul.
He says, House GOP aghast at one of their own, Ukraine-born rep Victoria Spartz, for her attacks on Zelensky and his inner circle, fearing that she's fueling the MAGA wings, Ukraine skepticism.
And then look at this.
I highlighted this next sentence.
The U.S. intelligence community is now getting involved.
Well, what business do they have getting involved in this, telling her to shut up?
Let's do the next one.
This is Byron York, a right-wing journalist.
He writes in International Review, Sparts was initially all in for the war, but in recent months she's begun to raise concerns about corruption in the Ukrainian government and push for more oversight of U.S. aid.
And let's do the next one if we can, because this is from Byron's article.
And he talks about, and this is the real problem, Dr. Paul, from Washington's perspective.
Sparta's senior counterparts have grown worried about her criticisms that her criticisms, quote, could portend future cracks in U.S. support for Ukraine.
So they don't care if she's right or she's wrong.
They don't care if he's corrupt or not corrupt.
They only care that they won't be able to continue the pipeline of money going into Ukraine.
That says everything.
It's a big deal.
And of course, Zelensky's arguing for more and more and more.
More and more and more.
You know, you mentioned the intelligence community getting involved.
And that should be a shock shock.
How could it be involved?
You know, how would the CIA get so much involved?
Well, I think the CIA is very, very powerful.
Matter of fact, I use the word coup carefully enough, but I think they're in charge of a whole lot.
When you think of our recent history, especially since the 1960s, they've been very much involved.
But if you look at the power and control and the influence of the Intel community, they know everything about what the politicians are doing.
And what about the social media?
The Intel community, they have close ties to the social media.
That's where they get a lot of information.
So that's a big scandal there that hopefully gets a little exposure.
Well, the last thing we want to talk a little bit about, and we're a little short on time, but we both noticed Dave DeCamp's piece in anti-war.com, which is pretty frightening, and people should really pause for a second because the U.S. is supposedly sending these high Mars multiple rocket launch systems to Ukraine with a longer range.
I think Ukraine wants a 300-kilometer range.
Over the weekend, a senior member of Ukraine's intelligence community said outright, we will use these rockets to attack Crimea.
That's going to be a big deal.
That's no joke, because Russia obviously considers it part of Russia now that they've had a referendum and it's rejoined Russia.
Ukraine doesn't see it that way, and neither does the U.S.
So when the U.S. says you can't use these rockets against Russia, but wink wink, Crimea is not Russia, if these rockets start hitting Crimea, it's going to start getting very warm in a lot of places in Europe and maybe in the U.S.
See, that takes us back to 2014 because most people who have gotten all their news off the mainstream media aren't aware of exactly the change of power from an elected leader that happens to be a little more sympathetic to Russia and wanting to get along with Russia.
And a lot of people in Ukraine happen to be Russian, speak Russian, and they don't understand it.
This is such a perfect example on why non-intervention is a better position.
Even if people say, no, you have to take a position, this is a moral issue.
You just can't let this go and countries gobble up other countries.
But the thing of it is, if we didn't have NATO, I mean, we don't have the Warsaw Pact.
They're not the ones that moved into Europe.
We have NATO that got bigger and bigger.
And it's a reaction to that.
So if we didn't create, we basically created NATO and we finance NATO and it keeps growing and we want it to even get bigger.
And now we want a country, Finland, right along the border between Finland.
And I thought Pat Buchanan had a neat article the other day on that about saying, you know, no matter what happens, if the Russians come over that border, we've committed our kids to go to war.
You know, it's nutty.
That is why this kind of stuff just made me so convinced, you know, about non-intervention.
And people saying, oh, you're just weak on defense.
Well, maybe standing up to this nonsense is a sign of strength and a positive attitude rather than saying that, oh, it's weak on defense.
If we're to have a policy where we're less likely to go to war, what if we could have had our way, even though you and I weren't in a position when the Vietnam War started?
That's what I started thinking about it, though.
If we had it and we could prevent it, oh, that's a sign of weakness.
There's going to be a domino effect.
And if we don't stop the communist surge in Vietnam, it'll turn communist, it'll turn the whole region.
Everybody's going to be communist.
And my statement has always been, do you know, after we lost that war and ran off with the tail between our legs, we had a lot more peace and getting along with Vietnam than we did in war.
I mean, it's just such a powerful idea of non-intervention, this nonsense that's a position of weakness.
It's a position of strength if you're defending liberty and defending national sovereignty.
Absolutely.
Well, I'm going to do a Monday reminder, and let's put up this next clip.
We've got about a week and a half, I guess, left until the end of the month.
And that's the deadline to apply for the 2022 Ron Paul Scholars Seminar.
I think it's the 30th of this month.
So there's just over a week to go.
It's a short application.
If you're an upper division undergrad or grad student, click on this link.
Go to RonPaulInstitute.org, click on this link, put in your application.
It's going to be a great event.
I mentioned, I think, on Thursday, Dr. Paul, that I talked to Jacob Hornberger, and he's going to give Non-Interventionism 101 as the opening lecture.
I can't think of anyone better to give that lecture than our good friend Jacob Hornberger.
So you're going to want to go.
You're going to want to visit with Mr. Hornberger and others.
It's going to be a great event.
A lot of other good speakers.
Click on there and go to it.
And if we can go to that last clip as well, we've got a little uptick.
It's kind of the slow region because people aren't sure if they can go.
But Anatomy of a Police State, there's a couple of weeks left to get your discounted tickets.
Save a couple of bucks.
Everyone needs to save some money right now.
September 3rd, 2022, Weston Washington Dolus Airport.
Our good friend Jeff Dice is going to join us.
Some other great speakers are going to be there, who we will announce this week, a few of the other ones.
It's going to be a great event.
Get your tickets before they sell out, and we will see you in September.
And thanks for watching the show today.
Very good, Daniel.
You know, one thing that we talked about today I think that needs reiterated, and that is the idea and what we're doing is sending more super weapons, you know, to the Ukraine.
Weapons that are big, they're going to be on the borders, you know, where they can reach.
These weapons will be able to reach Crimea.
And this to me is so much more dangerous because Putin did not mince words about this.
And if nothing else, disagree, agree, or whatever, about, I think most people should believe what Putin says.
That if you launch these things and you believe that the Crimea is really a part of Ukraine, you have another thought coming.
That's a different argument, but that's his position.
And it happens to be he's in the driver's seat.
He's in the driver's seat for what could happen.
So that is so dangerous.
Once again, the position of non-intervention.
Quit selling these weapons.
We're the biggest weapons manufacturers in the world.
And we're in so many countries.
And it's a time bomb for what I see because there's going to be an accident, maybe.
There's going to be an unintended consequence.
There could be a red flag.
Something happens.
Somebody does something to just stir up trouble.
So that's the kind of thing that we should be aware of.
Selling and pushing those weapons, excessive weapons that now can easily reach Crimea.
Believe me, that's a dangerous sign.
And I would say what we need is a change in the administration and having another foreign policy.
The sad part is the foreign policy probably wouldn't change.
It would still be aggressive.
So that's the reason why we need a little bit of independent thinking and a little bit of concern about principles of liberty, principles of civil liberties, principles of non-intervention's foreign policy.
A Course for Peace and Prosperity 00:00:08
That would set us on a course of looking for peace and prosperity.
And that's what we try to do here at the Ron Paul Liberty Report.
Export Selection