How Western Europe is Copying Communist China’s Policies: MEP Cristian Terhes

[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW]”How is it possible that the churches, or many churches, decided to close their doors exactly during those times when they were supposed to have their doors open?”

Cristian Terhes is a Romanian-Greek Catholic priest and a Member of the European Parliament, representing Romania as a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group. Growing up under communism made him vigilant against creeping totalitarianism.

“You will have unelected officials, bureaucrats, often unknown bureaucrats, deciding on behalf of your state. And if they decide that something is wrong for the people, they will not be accountable because you don’t even know who those people are,” says MEP Terhes.

In this episode, he shares a warning about the consolidation of power he sees in international bodies like the European Union and the World Health Organization.

“We are witnessing the ‘Chinafication’ of Europe. And I gave the example of the digital COVID certificate, but it did not stop there,” says MEP Terhes.

We discuss the cultural and political transformation of Europe since the start of the COVID pandemic, from radical gender policy to the erosion of national constitutions.

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:
Cristian Terhes, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Cristian Terhes:
Thanks for having me.

Mr. Jekielek:
Many people know that you have stood up against Covid mandates and forced protocols, but they don’t know that you are an American. Please tell us about your background.

Mr. Terhes:
I was born in 1978 during the ugliest times in communist Romania. I was 11-years-old when communism collapsed in Romania. We were persecuted for the religious position that my family had. I’m part of the Romanian Greek Catholic community, which was the only church abolished by communists in 1948 in Romania for its anti-communist positions. But we were also persecuted for political reasons.

Members of my family were part of a national conservative party before 1946. For that reason, they were persecuted by the communists as well. On top of that, in 1969, an uncle of mine, the brother of my grandfather, fled Romania. He swam over the Danube River to Yugoslavia. From Yugoslavia, he went to Austria, then to Germany, and then from Germany to the United States.

Therefore, my family was constantly watched by the Securitate, the equivalent of the KGB in the USSR. This is how I grew up. After the fall of communism in 1989, we tried to do whatever we considered to be appropriate. After I finished high school, I went to the seminary.

Then in 2002, I immigrated to the United States and got married here. My wife, who is Romanian-American, had already been in the States since 1997. I was in the U.S. for 17 years until I got elected to the European Parliament in 2019. In 2006, I went back to Romania, was ordained a priest, and then came back to the States. I opened a church in Tustin, California, and served my community there until I left for the European Parliament.

In the meantime, I worked as a programmer for a medical company. That was the job that I had while I was doing all of the church side. I was also heavily involved in the civic advocacy for human rights and religious freedom in Romania. With this background, I stepped into the European Parliament in 2019.

I have to tell you that I was a Christian. Initially, I was kind of concerned and thought, “My God, this is a new job. I have to learn so much stuff; how to read the budget and how to do this and that. At the end of 2019, the Covid pandemic had started. Then I realized that talking about basic fundamental rights was something that nobody else was talking about.

Early on, I was listening to many of the conservative commentators in the States. Rush Limbaugh was the commentator that helped me understand American society and all its current challenges. Everything that I had experienced under Communism helped me understand what is going on in the U.S. and to clearly know what is right and what is wrong. When I had the chance to take a stand and defend what is right, I was not afraid to do it.

Mr. Jekielek:
How were you elected out of the United States into the European Parliament? Please clarify that for us.

Mr. Terhes:
That’s something that many people have asked me. As I mentioned earlier, I was very involved in issues related to human rights and religious freedom, defending democracy, and rule of law in Romania. Because of this, I was very well known in Romania. In 2019, one of the parties in Romania, in order to get more votes and get more seats in the parliament, ran a survey to see who exactly they could have on their list outside of their party base to bring in more votes. I was that person.

The social democratic party offered me the fourth position on their list. I had never been a social democrat ever. I had to talk to the church because it’s difficult for an active priest in the Catholic Church to also be involved in politics. I had to talk to my church to relieve me of my duties while I’m in the public square.

The bishop said, “I will give you a waiver.” I said, “No, I don’t want that.” Because I’m elected by everybody and I’m in that office. At the end of the day, I serve my people regardless of their religious denomination. When I preach at the altar, when I serve my mass, I do it for my constituency.

But when I am in the European Parliament, I do it for everybody.
I don’t want the Romanians who are not sharing my faith to be offended by me being an active priest, so we got to that agreement. The discussion I had with the party was, “Look, I will stay in your party for a year .” Because in the European Parliament, it’s a system where based on how many members you have, you get certain administrative positions in the Parliament. Then after a year, I will join the conservative group, which I did.

I’m currently in Romania, and the president of the National Romanian Conservative Party, which is a very young party that we just started. We are working to explain to the Romanians the importance of conservative values. We already have a lot of people who are joining our party. Watching what I’ve done in the European Parliament for the past three years, they say, “We trust you. We trust your values. We want to join your party.” This is where we are right now.

Mr. Jekielek:
Fascinating. When did you first realize with the pandemic that something was off?

Mr. Terhes:
I had some friends who told me that in November of 2019,
the Taiwanese authorities notified the WHO about a presumably deadly virus that was in China. I knew about that in December of 2019. The mainstream media started to talk about it, and then I started asking around. I was not so much aware of what the WHO was and what the WHO was doing. Out of the blue, everybody was talking about the WHO.

Obviously, I started looking into this. I always asked the question, “Why did the WHO not say anything? I remember in the month of January, 2020, I found out that the current general director of the WHO, Tedros, was part of a Marxist organization and was supported by the USSR during the Cold War. In January, 2020, he did not say anything about this.

In the U.S., President Trump was calling it the Chinese virus. He was trying to calm down people, telling them it was not a deadly virus. Out of the blue in March of 2020, the narrative changed. From a non-deadly virus, it became the deadliest virus in the world, and everybody had to be locked down. Then they said, “The solution is the vaccine.”

The government was going to sign contracts with these pharmaceutical companies to purchase the vaccines. At that time, we did not know the amount of vaccines they would purchase. You would be getting these vaccines for free. If you didn’t take these vaccines, then you would not be able to exercise certain fundamental rights.” This actually happened in Europe with the right to travel and the right to go to work.

Then I said, “Hold on, something is wrong here.” Ronald Reagan used to say that the worst words that you will hear is, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” That’s the kind of words that we heard like, “We are from the government. We just purchased some very good vaccines for you. If you don’t take them, we will force them into your body.”

Considering my background and my strong faith in individual liberty and national sovereignty, when I saw what was happening, I could understand that the end goal was to suppress people’s rights and liberties and the national sovereignty of the European member states. This is the reason I slowly started speaking up. Then I talked to my colleagues.

We had three other colleagues that started this movement in the parliament. They said, “We have to talk to the media.” That’s when we had the first press conference and we exposed many of these facts. Everything started in December, 2019, when I found out that the Taiwanese authorities notified the WHO about this virus and they did not do anything about it. Looking at how the saga was unfolding, I realized something was really wrong, and we had to look into this.

Mr. Jekielek:
You realized that something was very wrong with the whole picture.

Mr. Terhes:
Yes, it didn’t make any sense. On top of that, as an elected official, I have to vote on certain things that are affecting people’s lives for generations, even after we are no longer in office. How can you vote on these things without knowing all the facts and that there might be so many risks? I tried raising these questions, even in private discussions. They said, “Yes, we agree with you.” I said, “Take a stand.” Many of them said, “The media is going to crucify us. I said, “That doesn’t matter. You cannot play with people’s lives.”

I was one of the very few members of the European Parliament who refused to play with people’s lives. At the end of the day, if they want to be vaccinated and get the vaccine, I didn’t have anything against it. But as the Oviedo Convention says, and as the European Charter of Fundamental Rights states, such a decision should be based on free and informed consent.

Mr. Jekielek:
There was a point when this digital certificate and all these coercive measures were being adopted. You had to deal with that directly and you had to vote on them. Please tell us about your experience.

Mr. Terhes:
I think it was April of 2021. At that time, many of us were working from home. We were told not to come to Brussels and we were voting online.
Then we got this message that we had to go to Brussels and talk about this urgent procedure that has to be adopted in order to adopt the Covid digital certificate.

I started asking questions. “What is an urgent procedure? How is this done?” Because it had never happened before, at least in my mind. They said, “We don’t have time to debate. The legislation has to be voted on quickly.” I said, “Hold on a second. What do you mean we cannot debate this?”

When we read the draft, I realized that people will not be able to exercise certain rights unless they are tested or show proof of vaccination. All of this will be done in an electronic system. You will have a QR code on your phone, and with this you will be able to open certain doors. If you don’t have it, then you will not be able to do that.

When we had that initial meeting, someone from the European Commission came and tried to persuade us to vote in favor of this piece of legislation. I asked the person if someone can die after being injected with this so-called vaccine. Because as it happens, usually with the medical products, you might have contraindications, as they call them.

Mr. Jekielek:
Every product has them, exactly.

Mr. Terhes:
You cannot pass a law to force everybody to take a medicine. It just doesn’t make any sense because probably someone will have a side effect. We cannot play the game. We cannot play with people’s lives like that.

I asked them, “Can someone die after being injected with this medical product?” The person said, “Yes, but how many people can we save?” I said, “That was not the question. Can someone die after being injected with this medical product?” They said, “They also can die after taking Advil.” I said, “Maybe that is true. But we are not voting on a piece of legislation in which we are forced to get Advil in order to travel via plane or to cross the border. I asked them again, “Can someone die? They said, “Probably they can die because you can have an adverse effect.

I said, “In that case, I’m against this. I will vote against it and I will be speaking up against it.” They said, “Why?” I said, “Because we are not God here. Being in an elected office, we cannot play God and play Russian roulette with people’s lives. If you think that this product is so good, then persuade people to take it, but do not force them to take it.”

“It’s absurd for us as elected officials to vote on prescriptions for different illnesses. It’s absurd. Then why should we have doctors, if we have to agree in a political parliament on the kind of medical treatment people should take against an illness? It’s absolutely absurd.”

At that point, I was in the minority. This group that I represented was in the minority. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, we were proved right. Right now in the European Union, countries with the highest vaccination rate have the highest mortality rate.

Five years before the pandemic, they came up with an average of deaths per month. Then they compared the average of deaths per month before the pandemic to the average of deaths per month after the pandemic. In many Western European countries, more people are dying now than they died during the pandemic. Countries with the highest vaccination rate have the highest mortality rate. Countries with the lowest vaccination rate, like Romania, have the lowest mortality rate. Who can explain this?

Mr. Jekielek:
Why does Romania have such a low vaccination rate?

Mr. Terhes:
First of all, the main reason was that people did not trust the government. We’ve been through a totalitarian regime. When the government says, “I have this wonderful treatment for you. Take it and you will be saved,” there is apprehension among the people. What I was doing in the European parliament, at the same time, my political partners from the Romanian parliament, the AUR, were doing it in the Romanian parliament. We were constantly using different procedures to find out what was going on. In the Romanian parliament, they used all the loopholes in the rules of procedure just to postpone the piece of legislation that was mandating the people to be vaccinated.

We took it to the streets. When we got there, we took it to the streets. Then people started calling in and said, “Look, if you vote for this, I will never vote for you or your party again.” They realized that the majority of the population was against it, and they refused to pass that piece of legislation.

For that reason, we did not have a mandate in Romania. It was one of the few European Union countries that didn’t have a mandate. Whoever wanted to be vaccinated, they had the option to do it. We had like 30-some percent of the people being vaccinated in Romania. But the reality right now is that the data is showing that the countries with the highest vaccination rate have the highest mortality rate, and the countries with the lowest vaccination rate have the lowest mortality rate.

Mr. Jekielek:
What was the reaction of fellow EU parliament members to your position?

Mr. Terhes:
It depends. Members of the parliament from the Western European countries looked at us and said, “You guys are unbelievable. You are against science. You are risking people’s lives. Are you telling us that our governments want to kill us?”

I remember I talked to someone from Finland. For them and Sweden it was inconceivable that the government could pass something that would jeopardize the life of their own citizens. They haven’t been through a totalitarian regime. But Romanians have been through that, which is the reason we were more cautious.

There were four people that started the first press conference. I was from Romania, Eastern Europe. Ivan Sinčić was from Croatia, Eastern Europe. Christine Anderson was from Germany, but she originally came from East Germany. Then we had Francesca Donato from Italy, who was a former judge. She had the proper values when it came to human rights, so we started this.

Now, many of our colleagues are approaching us and telling us that we were right because they have had adverse effects. I told them, “You should go public and tell everybody about it.” They replied, “It’s going to look bad at the European Parliament. Anyway, we can go to any private hospital and get whatever treatment we want and the European Parliament will pay for it.” I said, “The majority of the people do not have the coverage that you have. At least use your experience and tell them, especially the women, to go and test themselves.

Mr. Jekielek:
Most Western European countries have basic medical coverage, guaranteed by the government. You’re saying that members of the European Parliament get extra coverage.

Mr. Terhes:
Yes.

Mr. Jekielek:
Please tell us about that.

Mr. Terhes:
Their extra coverage will cover everything. When you have a socialized medical system that everybody can use for free, there ends up not being enough for everybody. If you give away everything for free, everybody will take it. But when you really need it, there’s not enough for you. That is what is happening in many European countries, including Romania.

This is the reason why people with money prefer to go to private hospitals and clinics. In this case, the European Parliament is paying the extra coverage for that. This is one of the problems that many people have, even in Romania. Many of the hospitals were built under the communist regime. Many of them are not built according to modern standards. Many politicians go to Western European countries to get better care. They don’t get medical treatments in Romania, while the regular people go to those bad hospitals.

Mr. Jekielek:
Let’s talk about the media. People have said, “I’m not going to speak up because the media is going to crucify me for it.” This is an important theme here. This is not just in Romania and not just in the European Parliament, obviously. Please tell us about this.

Mr. Terhes:
The role of the media, especially in democracy, is to properly inform the people. It is a watchdog for the people, not against them. It’s not a PR company for the government. The media is supposed to watch what is happening in the government and properly inform the population.

During the pandemic, the media did exactly the opposite of what the media is supposed to do in a democracy. I emphasize—in a democracy. Because in countries like China, North Korea, Russia, and communist Romania, we also had the media. But the media was not doing what it does in a democracy.

The media was indoctrinating people. The media was lying to people. The media was misleading people. The media was crucifying people if they said anything against the government.

The media in a democracy and the media in a totalitarian regime have these two different roles. For me, coming from a former communist country, seeing that the media in the West was behaving exactly like the media in a totalitarian regime was inconceivable. Not only that, they were passive when they should have been asking questions. But they were very active in hammering people who were asking the right questions.

Maybe the questions were not right, but that doesn’t matter. In a free society, we have the right to ask whatever questions we want to. On top of that, they were hammering people and raising serious concerns. When I found out about the first edition of the International Covid Summit in Rome, I talked to my colleague Ivan Sincic. Then we said, “Let’s bring those people to the European Parliament. Let’s give them a stage where they can present their findings.”

Again, I’m not a medical expert. If anybody looks at my statements at the beginning of the pandemic, I never mentioned anything about how bad the vaccine was or how bad or good the vaccine was or what was in the vaccine, because I didn’t know at the time. I was relying strictly on legal arguments and logical arguments. That was my strength. For that reason, nobody could criticize me and claim that I’m an anti-vaxxer, because I never said people should not be injected with that medical product. But I wanted to hear what all these experts had to say.

We had the International Covid Summit number three in the European Parliament in Brussels. Talking to them and talking to my colleagues from the Romanian Parliament, the decision was made to have the fourth edition in Bucharest inside of the Romanian Parliament. It was important to have it in Parliament because that’s where the legislative body is. Then in Bucharest, the decision was made to have the fifth edition, now called the International Crisis Summit [ICS], here in Washington, D.C.

At the beginning of the pandemic, when they talked about these vaccines, they said, “You get one shot and you will have immunity. Then you’re safe.” So many people believed that narrative and they got one shot, but then they got ill again and infected again. Then they got the second shot. Then they said, “You need the booster.” Then it was the second booster, the third booster, and the fourth booster. Out of the blue, they changed the narrative. They no longer said that these injections are providing you with immunity. They said that they are providing you with protection. That’s a totally different thing.

In the U.S., the CDC changed the definition of the vaccine providing you with immunity to providing you with protection. Overnight, the entire mainstream media of the world, when referring to these medical products, they all said, “They provide you with protection.” A journalist that is supposed to be seeking the truth and exposing the truth, how come out of the blue they just change that narrative and embrace the narrative without explaining why and hammering people who are asking the question, “Why?” I would not say that all of them were like bought off. But clearly the majority of the mainstream media, especially media outlets or the leadership or the people who own them, had an interest in promoting this narrative.

We now find out that different NGOs like the one that Bill and Melinda Gates or Soros have actually paid many of these media outlets. It was more convenient for many of them just to copy and paste and repeat the same narrative, instead of actually doing their job of seeking the truth and exposing the truth and nothing but the truth.

Mr. Jekielek:
It seems to me like something has changed. Even the top journalism schools in America teach what is called activist journalism.

Mr. Terhes:
Yes.

Mr. Jekielek:
Some people would describe that as propaganda creation. But there is also a profound lack of curiosity.

Mr. Terhes:
You would think that journalists would wonder about things. But they turned a blind eye to everything that happened. This is what we need to understand in a democratic society. We need to go back to the basics. We need to understand the importance of freedom, period. This freedom has multiple ramifications. There is freedom of thought, freedom of movement, and freedom of worship.

I’m talking right now from the perspective of a priest. How is it possible that many churches decided to close their doors exactly during those times when they were supposed to have their doors open? I saw what happened in Italy.

I was in Northern Italy on behalf of this Covid committee from the European Parliament. We were over there in an official capacity to see what happened and how the pandemic started and stopped. My colleague Christine Anderson and I were not allowed to enter the hospital because we were not vaccinated. We are talking here about the beginning of 2023.

We could not enter a hospital in Italy in an official capacity to talk to those doctors about what happened at the beginning of the pandemic, because we were not vaccinated. We wanted to learn because it was very interesting what happened there. I asked the security guard, “If a patient comes and is not vaccinated, then what do you do?” He said, “They have to be vaccinated.” I don’t accept this kind of society to be imposed on me for as long as I am in that office, I will fight for freedom for all and for the restoration of democracy and liberty in Europe.

Mr. Jekielek:
You said something very interesting at one point. You described what was happening in Europe broadly as Chinafication. Another way to describe it would be Europe with Chinese characteristics.

Mr. Terhes:
Exactly.

Mr. Jekielek:
Which is to use the language of the Chinese communists. Please tell us about this.

Mr. Terhes:
The current leadership of the European Union is led by Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission. Since she has been in office since 2019, she is pushing for all these policies that were pretty much copied and pasted from Chinese society. I was the first one in the European Parliament to say that under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, we are witnessing the Chinafication of Europe. I gave the example of the Covid digital certificate, but it did not stop there.

In 2019, when she ran to be elected as president of the European Commission in the European Parliament in Strasbourg she said the following, “Carbon emissions must have a price that will change our behavior.” I was a newly elected member in the Parliament. When she said that, I remember what happened in California with all of these laws by the Left that pretty much destroyed The Golden State. This is the reason why I did not vote for her to be president of the European Commission.

Since then, I have kept an eye on all of these policies and regulations that were proposed by the European Commission under the pretext of fighting carbon emissions. In 2019 she said that the objective of all of these policies is not to save the planet, but to change our behavior, so it’s a social construct. It has nothing to do with ecology or with saving the planet. It’s referring to a system that will fully control the population and domesticate people in a certain way.

We saw that happening during the pandemic. I’ll give you the example of Italy which has many islands. When Draghi was the prime minister of Italy, he passed legislation that said if you don’t have the Covid digital certificate, you cannot use mass public transportation. For those living inland, mass public transportation means either a train or a bus. For those people on the islands, the mass public transportation was the ferry boat that was taking them from the island to the mainland. They could not use that. They could not go anywhere, so they were trapped.

We have many Romanians working in Italy. I had Romanian families from Italy calling me and crying that they had to make a decision one night at the dinner table which one of the parents should be vaccinated in order to be able to get out and go to work. I don’t want that kind of situation in Europe. It’s inconceivable. What do you mean that you cannot work if you don’t inject something in your body?

That’s the reason why in Europe we have the so-called Nuremberg Code. Then you have the Oviedo Convention, which clearly stipulates that no one should be given a medical treatment unless there is free and informed consent by the patient. Then we have this provision mentioned in the European Charter of Basic Fundamental Rights. We have legal guarantees. But during the pandemic, it was the total reverse of those guarantees.

One by one, down the line, the European Union is copying these policies from China. In China, there is a social credit system where you cannot do certain things. You cannot use your bank account if you write something online against the government. In Europe, if you criticize the government, there are people who already are having problems. Their social media accounts are shut down. Their videos are deleted from the internet. We can see all of this happening.

Mr. Jekielek:
You are opposed to the WHO pandemic treaty and the international health regulations that are now being considered, which are very concerning to people here in the U.S. and Canada. Why is this all happening?

Mr. Terhes:
I was very reluctant about all these theories about the World Economic Forum [WEF], which some people call conspiracy theories. When the pandemic started and I was talking about what was going on, I received many private messages from people that said, “Hey, stop criticizing.” This was mentioned a few years ago at the WEF summit.

Then I started looking and realized that in the European Parliament in the years of 2020, 2021, 2022, there are regulations proposed by the European Commission that are copied from the WEF a few years before. One case is a coincidence, but when you have too many, then you’re raising your eyebrows.

Going back to what was going on during that period, I looked into the WHO as an institution. That’s when they came up with this proposal for a treaty. It’s not ratified yet, but it is in the early stages. It will force the countries ratifying it to move a lot of the decision-making process from their national agencies to the WHO. When the WHO is declaring a pandemic, they can exercise authority over that country.

You will have unelected, unknown bureaucrats deciding on behalf of your country. If they decide to do something wrong for the people, they will not be held accountable, because we don’t even know who those people are. In Europe right now, they are imposing a new vision for a European treaty where there is no supremacy of the national constitution.

In the United States, when you want to become a U.S. citizen, you have to learn 100 questions. One of the questions is, “What is the Constitution?” The answer is, “The supreme law of the land.” In Europe, the new vision of the European Commission is that the Constitution of a country is not the supreme law of the land. There is the European law, which is above that Constitution.

You cannot have anything above the Constitution. Even an international treaty or an international convention, when you ratify it, that convention cannot be against your Constitution. For example, you have an NGO with certain bylaws, and without those bylaws the NGO cannot operate. It’s the same thing with the Constitution of any country.

Now, we see the transfer of these powers that the national governments have to these international institutions that are controlled by people we don’t even know. In the case of WHO, for example, the majority of the budget is not coming from the countries. It’s coming from private entities, including Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Why in the world would someone accept something like that?

This is something that has to be constantly exposed. I’m sure that the more people will hear about it, the more they will educate themselves. I hope they will take a stand and ask their electoral officials in different parliaments or congress to vote against the ratification of such a treaty.

Mr. Jekielek:
What do you think is going on?

Mr. Terhes:
I’m looking at what Klaus Schwab said. They are all talking about a global government and a unique government. We live right now in a post-WWII world order that started with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which states that all men are created equal in dignity and human rights. They want to change this world order that we used to live in, where the individual is more important than the government and the bureaucrats, into a new world where the government and the unelected bureaucrats are more important than the people. This is exactly the Marxist ideology.

Every time the U.S. went through a crisis, you will hear many commentators asking, “What was the idea of the Founding Fathers? What was the vision of the Founding Fathers?” The Western world needs to do that. Everyone talks about these futuristic plans, “We want this world. We want that world.”

But okay, hold on a second. Where are we heading? Because if you have a flower, you cut the flower, and you give it to a woman, it’s not going to last for long, only a day or two, and then it’s going to die. It’s the same with a tree. You need deep roots in order for that tree to survive any kind of storm.

Right now, they are cutting these roots. The next generation is not even realizing who they are, because they don’t know who they were. In order for them to control the future, it’s not necessary to control the present, but it is necessary to cut the connection with the past. For us in the West, it’s very important that every generation will be reminded about the importance of individual freedom, national sovereignty, respect for fundamental rights, and supremacy of a national Constitution.

Mr. Jekielek:
Any final thoughts as we finish?

Mr. Terhes:
Freedom is not free. Freedom is just one generation away from extinction. It’s the job, the duty, the call, and the obligation of our generation to fight for freedom, not only for our generation, but for the next generations.

Mr. Jekielek:
Cristian Terhes, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Mr. Terhes:
Thank you so much for having me.

Mr. Jekielek:
Thank you all for joining Member of European Parliament, Cristian Terhes, and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.