Image Courtesy: Project Veritas
WASHINGTON– Dr. Anthony Fauci was chastised online on Sunday after critics discovered that the retired NIAID director, who was once the highest-paid federal U.S. government employee, is charging up to $100,000 for speaking engagements.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis‘ rapid response director Christina Pushaw on Sunday tweeted a screenshot from the Leading Motivational Speaker’s Agency’s website, which lists Fauci as a “motivational” and “health care” keynote speaker with a price tag that ranges from $50,000 to $100,000.
The website describes Fauci as someone “who’s career warrants execution under immense pressure that can alter the course of human existence. His work on domestic as well as global health issues has saved millions of lives. This high level of research, discovery and execution is amazing given the grave challenges he faces on a daily basis,” the agency writes.
Outraged Fauci critics pounced on the former White House coronavirus task force member, accusing him of inflating his self-worth while emphasizing his role as one of the most controversial figures of the pandemic.
“Follow The Science Starting at 50k an hour,” Substack writer Jordan Schachtel wrote.
“Gotta replace the 400K federal salary…,” NewsBusters’ Tim Graham replied.
“The grift that keeps on gifting,” Kingsley Cortes, a conservative influencer and Trump 2020 campaign staffer, quipped.
Bitcoin and finance expert Saifedean Ammous tweeted, “Motivational? WTF is he motivating them to do? Triple mask? Gain of function?”
“The audacity of this man,” Latina conservative influencer Jennifer Barreto-Leyva tweeted.
Fauci is slated to give the 2023 Yale Medical School commencement speech in May. Last year alone, Fauci reportedly delivered keynote speeches at the commencement ceremonies for University of Maryland, Roger Williams University in Rhode Island and The City College of New York.
The chief Biden medical adviser was once considered the highest-paid employee of the U.S. government – surpassing even the president, a Freedom of Information Act request revealed. In 2019, Fauci pulled in $417,608.00 – his largest haul ever—and in the previous two years earned $384,625.00. Forbes reported that from 2010 to 2019, Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, earned $3.6 million.
The Faucis saw their net worth expand from $7.5 million in 2019 to $12.6 million at the end of 2021, watchdog group OpenTheBooks discovered and shared with Fox News Digital. The increase came from the likes of investment gains, awards, compensation and royalties.
Fauci has been embraced by many in the media and Hollywood who portrayed him as a calming presence during a tumultuous Trump administration. But he also has his share of detractors who say he was inconsistent with his messaging at the beginning of the pandemic and see him as a career bureaucrat relishing in his newfound stardom.
FOX Business’ Edmund DeMarche contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON (The Epoch Times)– The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, may protect abortion as a federal right, a federal judge said on Feb. 6 in an ongoing prosecution of pro-life activists charged with conspiracy to block access to an abortion clinic.
The statement could open up a new line of attack that pro-choice activists could use to advance their cause after the Supreme Court overturned the 49-year-old precedent Roe v. Wade, holding that the Constitution does not protect abortion as a right.
The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, handed down in June 2022, opened the door to a flurry of lawsuits and new state-level restrictions on abortion.
Roe itself held that a right to abortion was part of a right to privacy that emanates from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Its companion precedent, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which was also overturned, held that states could not impose significant restrictions on abortion before a fetus became viable for life outside the womb. Casey was based on the idea that obtaining an abortion was a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The comment came in a ruling issued by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Lauren Handy and nine other defendants were indicted (pdf) last year for conspiring to obstruct access to an abortion clinic in October 2020, a violation of federal law. Handy moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction, quoting the Dobbs ruling, which states that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.”
Handy is the director of activism for Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, which describes its mission as mobilizing “grassroots anti-abortion activists for direct action and [to] educate on the exploitative influence of the Abortion Industrial Complex through an anti-capitalist lens.”
After being released from jail in July 2022 on a separate charge, Handy said: “As a Catholic and Progressive myself, I am compelled by my deeply held beliefs (religious and political) to put my body between the oppressed and the oppressor.”
But Handy’s “constitutional argument is predicated on the false legal premise” that the federal statute she is challenging “only regulates access to abortion,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her new order (pdf). In fact, the law “regulates a broad category of ‘reproductive health services,’ including, among other things, ‘counselling or referral services.’”
Handy is seeking to resolve the charges against her by citing a constitutional holding, so Kollar-Kotelly directed defense counsel and prosecutors to further brief the court.
Although Dobbs has been interpreted to mean that “the Supreme Court held that no provision of the Constitution extends any right to reproductive health services … the Court is uncertain that this is the case,” the judge wrote.
Both the majority and dissenting opinions in Dobbs focused only on the Fourteenth Amendment and the unratified Equal Rights Amendment, so “it is entirely possible that the Court might have held in Dobbs that some other provision of the Constitution provided a right to access reproductive services had that issue been raised. However, it was not raised.”
Scholars and one federal appeals court decision suggest the Thirteenth Amendment in particular “might contain some right to access to such services,” she wrote.
The judge ordered prosecutors to file a brief by March 3 and defense counsel to file a reply brief by March 17 on whether the Dobbs ruling is limited to Fourteenth Amendment grounds.
Kollar-Kotelly is no stranger to controversy.
In October 2017, the Clinton appointee issued a preliminary injunction blocking then-President Donald Trump’s memorandum extending a ban on transgender persons joining the military and directing the military to discharge currently serving transgender service members, according to Ballotpedia.
Matthew Vadum of The Epoch Times contributed to the contents of this report.
WASHINGTON (New York Post) — A cancer charity started by Joe Biden gave out no money to research, and spent most of its contributions on staff salaries, federal filings show.
The Biden Cancer Initiative was founded in 2017 by the former vice president and his wife, Jill Biden, to “develop and drive implementation of solutions to accelerate progress in cancer prevention, detection, diagnosis, research and care and to reduce disparities in cancer outcomes,” according to its IRS mission statement. But it gave out no grants in its first two years, and spent millions on the salaries of former Washington, DC, aides it hired.
The charity took in $4,809,619 in contributions in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, and spent $3,070,301 on payroll in those two years. The group’s president, Gregory Simon, raked in $429,850 in fiscal 2018 (July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019), according to the charity’s most recent federal tax filings.
Simon, a former Pfizer executive and longtime health care lobbyist who headed up the White House’s cancer task force in President Barack Obama’s administration, saw his salary nearly double from the $224,539 he made in fiscal 2017, tax filings show.
Danielle Carnival, former chief of staff for Obama’s cancer initiative, the Cancer Moonshot Task Force, took home $258,207 in 2018.
The charity spent $56,738 on conferences and $59,356 on travel that year. The following year, the travel expenditure swelled to $97,149, and the nonprofit spent $742,953 on conferences, tax filings show.
But under grants distributed, it listed zero.
Simon had said the main point of the charity was not to give out grants, and that its goal was to find ways to accelerate treatment for all, regardless of their economic or cultural backgrounds.
Biden headed up the Cancer Moonshot Task Force when he was veep after his son Beau died of a brain tumor in 2015. After he left office, the Biden Cancer Initiative sought to continue such efforts to provide “urgent” solutions to treating cancer, according to a 2017 press statement announcing its launch.
The Bidens stacked the board with leading oncologists and celebrity cancer survivors, including musician Jimmy Gomez from the Black Eyed Peas.
After only two years, the charity “paused” its operations when Joe Biden and his wife stepped down for his presidential run.
Although the organization is still officially active, according to the IRS, Simon said in a 2019 interview that without the Bidens at the helm, the charity lost its edge.
“We tried to power through but it became increasingly difficult to get the traction we needed to complete our mission,” he told the AP in July 2019.
Neither Simon nor Biden could be reached for comment.
The New York Post’s Isabel Vincent contributed to the contents of this report.
AUSTIN (Brownstone Institute) — The WHO recently announced plans for an international pandemic treaty tied to a digital passport and digital ID system. Meeting in December 2021 in a special session for only the second time since the WHO’s founding in 1948, the Health Assembly of the WHO adopted a single decision titled, “The World Together.”
The WHO plans to finalize the treaty by 2024. It will aim to shift governing authority now reserved to sovereign states to the WHO during a pandemic by legally binding member states to the WHO’s revised International Health Regulations.
In January of 2022 the United States submitted proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations, which bind all 194 UN member states, which the WHO director general accepted and forwarded to other member states. In contrast to amendments to our own constitution, these amendments will not require a two-thirds vote of our Senate, but a simple majority of the member states.
Most of the public is wholly unaware of these changes, which will impact the national sovereignty of member states.
The proposed amendments include, among others, the following. Among the changes the WHO will no longer need to consult with the state or attempt to obtain verification from the state where a reported event of concern (e.g., a new outbreak) is allegedly occurring before taking action on the basis of such reports (Article 9.1).
In addition to the authority to make the determination of a public health emergency of international concern under Article 12, the WHO will be granted additional powers to determine a public health emergency of regional concern, as well as a category referred to as an intermediate health alert.
The relevant state no longer needs to agree with the WHO Director General’s determination that an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern. A new Emergency Committee will be constituted at the WHO, which the Director-General will consult in lieu of the state within whose territory the public health emergency of international concern has occurred, to declare the emergency over.
The amendments will also give “regional directors” within the WHO, rather than elected representatives of the relevant states, the legal authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern.
Also, when an event does not meet criteria for a public health emergency of international concern but the WHO Director-General determines it requires heightened awareness and a potential international public health response, he may determine at any time to issue an “intermediate public health alert” to states and consult the WHO’s Emergency Committee. The criteria for this category are simple fiat: “the Director-General has determined it requires heightened international awareness and a potential international public health response.”
Through these amendments, the WHO, with the support of the U.S., appears to be responding to roadblocks that China erected in the early days of covid. This is a legitimate concern. But the net effect of the proposed amendments is a shift of power away from sovereign states, ours included, to unelected bureaucrats at the WHO. The thrust of every one of the changes is toward increased powers and centralized powers delegated to the WHO and away from member states.
Leslyn Lewis, a member of the Canadian parliament and lawyer with international experience, has warned that the treaty would also allow the WHO unilaterally to determine what constitutes a pandemic and declare when a pandemic is occurring. “We would end up with a one-size-fits-all approach for the entire world,” she cautioned. Under the proposed WHO plan, pandemics need not be limited to infectious diseases and could include, for example, a declared obesity crisis.
As part of this plan, the WHO has contracted German-based Deutsche Telekom subsidiary T-Systems to develop a global vaccine passport system, with plans to link every person on the planet to a QR code digital ID. “Vaccination certificates that are tamper-proof and digitally verifiable build trust. WHO is therefore supporting member states in building national and regional trust networks and verification technology,” explained Garret Mehl, head of the WHO’s Department of Digital Health and Innovation. “The WHO’s gateway service also serves as a bridge between regional systems. It can also be used as part of future vaccination campaigns and home-based records.”
This system will be universal, mandatory, trans-national, and operated by unelected bureaucrats in a captured NGO who already bungled the covid pandemic response.
Aaron Kheriaty of the Brownstone Institute Contributed to the Contents of This Report.
WASHINGTON (Breitbart)– Senate Democrats on Wednesday failed to pass legislation that would prohibit local, state, and federal governments from preventing abortions.
The Senate attempted to invoke cloture and end debate on S. 4132, the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022. The motion failed 49-51, as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) opposed the motion, and it required 60 votes to invoke cloture. The legislation would prohibit government restrictions on access to abortions. Specifically, the legislation states that governments may not limit a healthcare provider’s ability to:
- Prescribe certain drugs
- Offer abortion services via telemedicine
- Immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient’s health
The legislation, according to Congress.gov, stipulates:
In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient’s life or health.
The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill’s specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.
The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.
The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill’s enactment.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) sponsored the legislation after Politico leaked a draft Supreme Court opinion that would strike down Roe v. Wade. The Senate Democrats proposed the legislation to attempt to enshrine many of the pro-abortion protections enabled by the landmark Supreme Court ruling.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said in a statement after the vote:
Today’s vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act is a continuation of the left’s mission to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and prop up their abortion-on-demand agenda. This bill would force states to legalize late-term abortions, remove informed consent laws, and prevent restrictions on gruesome fetal dismemberment procedures. Today, I stood up to the woke mob and voted to protect women and their unborn children.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who voted against the bill, said that the bill “would disenfranchise every voter in Missouri, overturn our state laws – and give the power to DC Democrats.”
Sean Moran of Breitbart contributed to the contents of this report.
WASHINGTON– In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.
Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion below.