Leaked Fauci Financials Expose How Millionaire Doctor Profited From Pandemic

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/leaked-fauci-financials-expose-how-millionaire-doctor-profited-from-pandemic/

Matt Agorist January 17, 2022

Finally, after a handful of organizations tried suing Dr. Anthony Fauci in order to have them released, the good doctor’s financials – along with those of his wife, who is the NIH’s top bioethicist – have been disclosed in detail. And they were leaked by the same Senator who Fauci called a “moron” last week during a hot-mic moment.

We already knew that Dr. Fauci is the highest-paid federal government employee, earning an annual salary of more than $400K. His wife, Christine Grady, earns $176K as Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the NIH.

The records, published by Republican Roger Marshall, himself a doctor and also the junior US senator from Kansas, showed that the Faucis’ have a combined net worth of more than $10MM.

As the Daily Mail explains, Fauci, 80, has led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and, if he continues until the end of Biden’s term in 2024, will have made roughly $2.5MM as the president’s chief medical advisor. When he retires, Fauci’s pension will be the largest in US history, exceeding $350,000 per year.

As a reminder, Dr. Fauci lied to Congress yet again by insisting that his financials were public, when they very much weren’t (before being leaked by the Senator from Kansas, that is).

While the doctor has insisted he hasn’t profited from the pandemic, his paperwork showed that he and his wife were paid $14,000 to “virtually” attend a series of galas directly related to his position as the nation’s de facto COVID czar.

Perhaps the most entertaining disclosure from Dr. Fauci’s financials is the revelation that the couple owns a restaurant in tony San Francisco. It’s called Jackson Fillmore Trattoria. Unfortunately for them, the restaurant didn’t make any money last year.

Sen. Marshall clashed with the 80-year-old doctor on Tuesday when Marshall wanted to see Fauci’s financial information. Fauci replied that the documents were public, and appeared to take umbrage at even being asked. “Yes or no, would you be willing to submit to Congress and the public a financial disclosure that includes your past and current investments?” Marshall asked. “Our office cannot find them.” Fauci replied: “I don’t understand why you’re asking me that question…my financial disclosure is public knowledge and has been so for the last 37 years or so.”

According to the Center for Public Integrity, Fauci’s financial statements were indeed publicly available, however, obtaining them was a lengthy procedure: they requested the document in May 2020 didn’t receive it until three months later.

All told, Dr. Fauci has three accounts with Charles Schwab that have a total of $8,337,940.90. He has a contributory IRA with $638,519.70 in it, and a brokerage trust account with $2,403,522.28. Finally, the most valuable of the three disclosed was a Schwab One Trust containing $5,295,898.92.

Most of Dr. Fauci’s wealth comes from his government salary, but he has also made a substantial portion from books and appearances. Sen. Marshall is pushing for a new law called the “FAUCI Act” that would require unelected bureaucrats like Dr. Fauci to produce more thorough financial disclosures so that they can be appropriately scrutinized by the American public.

MOAR:

https://t.co/KdRbedRTX5

https://www.marshall.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/breaking-sen-marshall-proves-fauci-lied-by-obtaining-previously-unpublished-financial-records/

>>15412024

He's trying - give him/her a break

https://insidesources.com/70-years-later-its-still-1984/

Posted to Politics June 07, 2019 by Matthew Feeney

In October 1947 Eric Blair, known today by his pen name George Orwell, wrote a letter to the co-owner of the Secker & Warburg publishing house. In that letter, Orwell noted that he was in the “last lap” of the rough draft of a novel, describing it as “a most dreadful mess.”

Orwell had sequestered himself on the Scottish island of Jura in order to finish the novel. He completed it the following year, having transformed his “most dreadful mess” into “1984,” one of the 20th century’s most important novels. Published in 1949, the novel turns 70 this year. The anniversary provides an opportunity to reflect on the novel’s significance and its most valuable but sometimes overlooked lesson.

The main lesson of “1984” is not “Persistent Surveillance is Bad” or “Authoritarian Governments Are Dangerous.” These are true statements, but not the most important message. “1984” is at its core a novel about language; how it can be used by governments to subjugate and obfuscate and by citizens to resist oppression.

Orwell was a master of the English language and his legacy lives on through some of the words he created. Even those who haven’t read “1984” know some of its “Newspeak.” “1984” provides English speakers with a vocabulary to discuss surveillance, police states and authoritarianism, which includes terms such as “Big Brother,” “Thought Police,” “Unperson” and “Doublethink,” to name a few.

The authoritarian government of Orwell’s Oceania doesn’t merely severely punish dissent — it seeks to make even thinking about dissent impossible. When Inner Party member O’Brien tortures “1984’s” protagonist, Winston Smith, he holds up his hand with four fingers extended and asks Smith how many fingers he sees. When Smith replies, “Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!” O’Brien inflicts excruciating pain. After Smith finally claims to see five fingers, O’Brien emphasizes that saying “Five” is not enough; “’No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four.”

Orwell’s own name inspired an adjective, “Orwellian,” which is widely used in modern political rhetoric, albeit often inappropriately. It’s usually our enemies who are acting Orwellian, and it’s a testament to Orwell’s talents that everyone seems to think “1984” is about their political opponents. The political left sees plenty of Orwellian tendencies in the White House and the criminal justice system. The political right bemoans “Thought Police” on college campuses and social media companies turning users into “Unpersons.”

But politicians can lie without being Orwellian, and a private company closing a social media account is nothing like a state murdering someone and eliminating them from history. Likewise, perceived academic conformity might be potentially stifling, but it’s hardly comparable to a conformity enforced by a police state that eliminates entire words from society.

Yet when U.S. government officials use terms such as “enhanced interrogation,” “alternative facts,” “collateral damage,” or “extremists” they understand that what they’re describing is actually “torture,” “lies,” “innocent civilian deaths” and “political dissidents.” They prefer it if others, especially the press, used and believed in Orwellian language that dehumanizes enemies of the government and makes their horrific violence sound tolerable or even justified.

We see far more nefarious and barbaric distortions of language abroad. According to reports by activists and researchers, the Chinese state has put about 1 million people including many Uyghurs — a majority-Muslim ethnic group — in “re-education” camps. Reports reveal that the camps are hardly schools. They’re brutal indoctrination sites, with inmates forced to recite Communist Party propaganda and renounce Islam.

MOAR:

https://insidesources.com/70-years-later-its-still-1984/