Thanks to a FOIA request we now know that Biden's covid czar Anthony Fauci will, when he retires, enjoy the highest pension in US history! He will be pulling in more than $350K for his 50+ years of "public service." But according to Fauci he has no plans of leaving: in a recent interview he said that him retiring now, before covid is defeated, would be like the US leaving in the middle of World War II. How's that for megalomania? Also today: lockdowns were the worst policy failure in history and even a government-funded study proves it.
Please consider a year-end, tax-deductible donation to the Ron Paul Institute to keep the Liberty Report alive in 2022: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/support/
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 today.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
Good and all set to go.
I decided we can't find too many things that people care about, but I'll tell you one thing, they always care about Fauci.
And Fauci's in the news today, and he's making me pretty jealous and pretty upset.
He's making a lot more money than I am.
And so, we want to talk about Fauci's salary, which is guess what?
The last significant pay raise came from the Republicans.
Bush did it because of National for his work in national security, bio, you know, security.
So, you can imagine what they've been up to.
So, anyway, he got a pay raise back there, but the news this week was showing how much he would have when he retires.
It's no peanuts.
I think it's a significant amount.
But it turns out, to put it in perspective, Daniel, it is said that he has the largest pension fund of anybody in the whole United States government.
Largest Pension Fund00:09:13
He's just a bureaucrat.
You know, he wasn't even elected, but he is a very important individual.
He knows how to stamp out pandemics and he knows how to reassure the people.
He knows how to develop a consistent answer and pattern to a serious problem.
So, he's always there.
So, I guess that's why they're giving him this tremendous bonus.
But $350,000, that's a lot of money to retire on, but he's not ready.
You know, he said that he had a lot more work to do.
He's not ready to retire.
And he is pretty young.
He's just 81 or 82.
So he's just a young guy.
So he's going to be around collecting his retirement benefit.
But I would think most Americans are going to say, holy man, what's going on?
But I find the thing a little bit in a way fascinating in a political and economic sense because he is a bureaucrat.
And so it's been decided monetarily, he's the most important man in America.
You know, and they point out, you know, generals and presidents, not that they're worth that much money either, but certainly in comparison, he probably, if he's liable for anything, I wonder if he'd ever be tried.
And along with the drug companies, they were liable for some of the problems created in the last two years.
He wouldn't be so rich.
But that's not going to happen.
He's protected and he's enjoying life and he loves it.
So he's going to be around.
But we should try to get this message out and get the people to really sense what's going on and how out of whack things are.
We've been complaining about the policies.
The policies have been bad and that they have failed and the evidence now is just piling up.
And yet the rewards are bigger than ever.
So what does that mean that we reward failure?
The bigger failure you are, the more money you can make.
But I don't think that's the way it is in real life when you have a market economy.
You have to produce and you have to satisfy consumers.
There's a big, big difference satisfying consumers.
But right now, they consider the consumers being the people who will listen to the propaganda, the combination of what we get from our government, what we get from the media.
And those individuals are the ones who are the consumers.
100% different than what happens in the marketplace, because the consumer either makes a business successful or it destroys the business productivity and they go out of business if they don't produce a product that the consumer wants and buys voluntarily.
So if you want to talk about the only thing that I think is democratic and worthwhile, and that is the marketplace, voting up or down on whether a businessman should succeed or not.
And we're a long way from that because the success today is measured by the inside track with the politicians and the Congress and the subsidies and all this.
Unfortunately, it's turned on its head.
But this whole deal with COVID's been turned on its head, but people are starting to wake up.
So we'd like to upright things and show people what they should be looking at because I know that this is his salary is not a reflection of doing a wonderful job.
I don't even think it's going to qualify him for a special place in history.
The special place in history is going to be the most highly paid bureaucrat ever in the United States.
Daniel.
Yeah, it's funny that you mentioned the trial, though, actually, because, you know, as Senator Paul said the other day on the program, you're looking at thousands of people who unnecessarily died because of Fauci's insistence that only a vaccine could be used, that there couldn't be treatments, and also that everyone should have their risks assessed equally.
And so a person who's not susceptible, who either has already had it, like Senator Paul said, or is in a very, very low risk age group, they're treated the same as someone in a very high risk age group.
So if you do want to talk about thousands who have died because of Fauci's wrong-headed policies, maybe at least you'll see some civil suits in the future.
Who knows how they can assess his culpability for it?
But I think you're right that history will eventually treat him differently than he wishes.
And if anyone suspects that's not correct, I would highly recommend reading Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s book on Fauci going back to the AIDS crisis and his insistence back then that only a vaccine could work against AIDS.
And of course, thousands died then because of that ridiculous assertion.
But yes, he is the, and this is Adam Andrewski.
I did a piece in Forbes.
It was yesterday, I think it was.
And he's the founder of openthebooks.com, which is a pro-transparency organization.
And they sued, they did a FOIA request, pardon me, to figure out what's up with Fauci's retirement.
And as you point out, yes, he spent, believe it or not, Dr. Paul, 50 years as a public servant.
So I guess we should all thank him.
But for that 50 years, that's going to get him, as you say, about $350,000 a year in retirement.
He was appointed, as you say, to the Ready Reserve Corps.
And so he's ready to help us and save us.
His salary was $434,000 in 2020, the highest paid employee.
But, you know, I was reading this, Dr. Paul, and thinking, you know, that's a lot of money.
I wouldn't mind having that kind of salary.
But, you know, I think that's going to be really just a drop in the bucket.
If he does retire and stays active, I think there's going to be a lot of money from a lot of very grateful pharmaceutical companies, a lot of grateful vacc manufacturers, provided that they don't come to justice first.
So, I think that's going to be basically his walking around money.
He's going to add a few zeros to that if he stays on.
You know, people will ask me frequently: well, how is this going to evolve?
What can we do?
Are we going to get him fired or lower his salary?
Not really.
And all the problems we face aren't just going to go away by electing a few more members of Congress.
But I still say there's going to be tremendous opportunities.
And you take a guy like Fauci, unfortunately, when his salary really goes down, everybody else is going to suffer.
The middle class is going to suffer more because it might take $3 million to be equivalent to the $350 million, $350,000 he's getting now.
Because when things get out of whack, the market is very powerful and it will liquidate.
It will liquidate malinvestment excesses and all the debt.
And so they're engulfed in it.
So we should always persist in trying to change it through the system and get people's attention, encourage him to retire without a pension.
But anyway, that's not likely to happen.
But you know, he had an interview the other day on ABC, Jonathan Carl.
And it's interesting, but not surprising how he was treated on this program because Fauci had this wonderful opportunity to paint himself as a very, very important, very, very dignified person saving the world.
I just want to read a little bit of an answer that he gave Jonathan Carl.
He asked him, why not retire?
Of course, we've asked that question too.
So here's the answer, Daniel.
Now we know why he's not retiring.
There's no way I'm going to walk away from this until we get this under control.
I mean, that's the purpose of what we do.
That's what our mission in life is.
In the middle of it, I'm not going to walk away.
Of course, I can add, or the world will end.
You know, we're in a war, John.
It's kind of like we're halfway through World War II.
And you decide, well, I think I've had enough of this.
I'm walking away.
You can't do that.
You've got to finish it.
And we're going to finish this and get back to normal.
And that's why he is going to stick around.
CDC's Fear-Mongering00:16:11
He's an important person.
All you need to do is ask him and he will tell you.
I mean, you listen to that quote, Dr. Paul, and he sounds like a narcissistic megalomaniac.
It's only me.
I'm the only one who can save it.
Well, everything that he said, of course, he contradicts a day later, sometimes even in the same speech.
And everything he's done hasn't worked.
All of the measures that he recommended that were adopted in blue states and were not adopted in places like Florida.
There is no difference in how they reacted.
And I mean, in how the virus reacted in those states.
So you can't really point to any success for the policies that he's outlined, but here he is thinking that if he goes, you know, after me, the deluge, and that's really the sign of a sick mind.
And it's actually becoming pretty pathetic to see.
And half the country hates his guts.
So, you know, at least half the country is right.
There you go.
So he's going to be here.
But along with this, we've complained about his operation and his successes.
And we've addressed this and we've been very, very precise that we don't endorse what he's doing.
But there was an article that came out today also that described this as the greatest, what he has been doing as the greatest policy failure in peacetime that has existed in our country.
And this is written by Robert Fellner, who quotes a Professor Allen, and it was published in the Mises Institute.
So it can be found not only on Zero Hedge, but with the Mises Institute.
But they describe, and he describes very clearly, you know, how this whole thing has failed.
And but he uses specifically how the policies he did, they looked at it carefully on what was going on in Nevada and to comparison.
And when we have done this constantly, have compared one state with another, it's sort of sinking in because there's a movement of people now in this country.
They're doing their voting and they're talking, but they're talking with their feet and they're leaving these states that have been so abusive and they're headed downward socially as well as economically, and they're going somewhere else.
And I think this is this whole point, but the description I think is very accurate.
This whole thing, one of the greatest policy failures ever.
And this is a big one.
This whole thing, when you think of what's happening, but the whole thing is, you know, it's rather dangerous.
It's still very risky if your boss tells you, you better not say that or you're out of here because they don't tell you why.
But why the real reason is that they're carrying out orders.
The governments don't enforce all this, all these regulations, or they're not against, they're not for violating freedom of speech, but they know how to put the pressure on it because everybody, it seems, have some connection with the federal government.
And mostly it's some type of monetary reimbursement that they get from the government and contracts.
And therefore, they do what the government tells them.
And that to me has, you know, allowed this thing to expand.
But once again, the failure of this whole thing will be when prices go up.
And believe me, all I hear about now when I talk to individuals, prices are already going up.
Yeah, but they're just barely starting to move from my estimation because they're going to move up a lot more, a lot faster.
And this whole thing is going to get a lot muddier before we really have the opportunity for people to pay attention to what a free society is all about.
Yeah, this is an interesting article, Dr. Paul, because Feldner cites a study that was conducted this summer by the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is kind of a quasi-government entity.
It gets money from the federal government.
So it's not about to bite the hand that feeds it unnecessarily.
And the study was called The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic and Policy Responses on Excess Mortality.
It's a fancy way of saying they took a look at lockdown policies in 43 countries and they took a look at the effects of those policies.
Were they effective or were they not effective?
And the tool they used to measure that was excess mortality versus pre-COVID excess mortality.
And a couple of key findings that are really worth thinking about.
And hopefully history will record this as the conclusion of these terrible policies.
First one, their study failed to find that countries or U.S. states that implemented early lockdowns had lower excess death than those who were slower to implement them.
So, no, you know, they always say, well, if you'd only done it earlier, we wouldn't have deaths.
They did not find that.
And the second key finding, Dr. Paul, they failed to observe differences in excess death trends before and after implementation of lockdowns based on pre-COVID-19 trends.
So did not see any difference in lockdown versus non-lockdown.
The lockdowns were not effective.
And in fact, they resulted in a higher excess mortality because of the harms they caused, the increase in suicides, drug overdoses, et cetera, et cetera.
So when the result comes in, when history is finally written on this, it will be, as Feldner and Mises says, the Misa Institute says, the greatest policy failure probably of all time.
Right.
You know, I want to go on to another announcement by the CDC.
It's amazing how we get announcements and sometimes they change.
You know, like just recently, we had the president change his mind.
He said, well, maybe the federal government's not doing so hot.
I think the states should get involved.
Well, that didn't go over very well with his staff.
So he had to reverse that.
It probably took less than 24 hours.
Of course, some of these reversals, even with Fauci, occur within his speech and his giving.
They flip-flop around.
But right now, I want to point out an article again with a Lou Rockwell site by Martin Armstrong.
And the title of this article is CDC Admits COVID Tests Are Invalid.
Well, this is written like news.
And in a way, it is that the CDC is admitting that has been known for a long, long time.
You know, I bet it's been well over a year that this was explicitly known about how these tests were run.
But then they just quit talking about it, but they kept running the same test.
But now all of a sudden, the CDDC is admitting that they are invalid and that they've withdrawn the PCR test from being used.
And they've asked for the removal of their request to use it under emergency conditions.
So that's being set aside.
And it turns out that they admit that they can't tell the difference between COVID and irregular flu.
Daniel, I'm sure you remember when we, and you probably had a chart up on it, was where the chart was where the line of COVID was sky high.
And you said, well, I wonder how much flu we had this particular year.
Do we have more flu?
And no, the flu was absent.
It was zero.
And I thought, boy, you know, that virus, maybe there's an advantage.
It gets rid of flu.
But you know what that is.
That was just politicking with a fallacious type of testing.
And I'm sure a lot of people must have known that they couldn't depend on these tests.
And that's also the reason that the drug companies are exempt from any type of litigation.
And that, of course, is a point that I constantly make.
It is that removal of that responsibility for what they're doing.
And the taxpayers always guarantees what they're doing.
That is one of the reasons because in the market, you're responsible for what you're doing and promising to say you have.
But they eliminate that and they protect these drug companies and just think of the money they make.
So that is something that is there.
And hopefully they'll wake up to it someday and we'll change it.
Yeah, and that is scheduled to phase out, I think, in January of 2022.
The CDC made the announcement several months ago that they were phasing out the PCR test for use and diagnosing.
And you could say the test is useless, but in fact, the test was very useful to the bureaucrats who wanted to justify lockdowns.
And also after the CARES Act was passed, it was very useful to hospitals that wanted to cash in on the deaths of people with COVID, not from COVID, so they could get that extra money.
I don't know, I forget what it was, 60,000 or whatever.
You get more money if you put people on ventilators.
So they put everyone on a ventilator and killed them that way.
So it's been very useful and it's also been very useful in ramping up the fear.
And in fact, it's being used now to ramp up the fear.
As I mentioned in yesterday's show, we were near Houston yesterday.
Every one of these test centers is packed.
Everyone is going in to get tested.
They're freaking out.
You know, people have joked, this is the first time in history, you got to go get a test to find out if you're sick or not.
But they've been very useful.
But, you know, it's been said before by Kerry Molis, who was the inventor.
He was a Nobel Prize-winning chemist, the inventor of the PCR test.
He essentially said that they should not be used to detect infecting viruses.
And of course, when people started saying that a few months ago, Reuters came in and fact-checked it as false.
He didn't say that.
Then a fact-checker fact-checked the fact-checkers and found out, in fact, that he may not have uttered those exact words, but that certainly was the sentiment in the interview.
And I've seen the interview where he essentially says that.
And so, but instead of admitting they're wrong, Dr. Paul, Reuters just said, well, it's misleading.
But anyway, it wasn't designed to intended to measure what they've used it to measure, but it served very, very well the people in power who were authoritarians and were grabbing that power.
You know, it always fascinates me for how they try to cross the T's and dot the I's and cover themselves.
And this is a statement that they made about withdrawing the request.
And here this comes from the CDC.
After December 31st, the CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization of the COVID test.
And that was started in 2020.
So here they do it.
I know they have to be suspicious of this all this time, but now they are removing their request like they're washing their hands of all this.
But it's sort of bureaucratic.
It comes across as typical government bureaucracy on how they do this.
Yeah.
Well, if we're about ready to close, Dr. Paul, I'll close out.
I would just close by thanking all of our viewers.
And also, there's a couple of days left only in 2021.
As rotten as a year as it was, we've done our best here at the Liberty Report and at the Ron Paul Institute to bring you the truth, to do our best to find the truth and bring it to you.
We might ask you, as you look at your year-end giving to take advantage, of course, for your IRS to starve the IRS, if you would consider making a tax-deductible contribution before midnight on the 31st of December to the Ron Paul Institute.
I will include a link in the description, but you'll get your tax benefits for this year if you do it before midnight because we are a 501c3 nonprofit charity.
So we do ask you, please, if you can, kick in and help us keep the Ron Paul Liberty Report and the Ron Paul Institute going strong in 2022.
And we will do our best on our part to bring you the truth, to bring you the real news as best we possibly can.
So thank you for your past support and thank you for your support this year.
Very good, Daniel.
I'm going to close out with a statement dealing with Tony Blair.
You know, he was a great British leader that we used to have to deal with, but he still gets in the news.
He's in the news.
And this was on his description of anybody who would be suspicious of the vaccines.
And he does not have kind words for those kind of people.
And this is Blair.
Frankly, if you're not vaccinated at the moment, at the moment, and you're eligible and you've got no health reason for not being vaccinated, you're not just irresponsible.
I mean, you're an idiot.
You know, that's pretty strong stuff.
And but you know what?
I wonder what do they think about when they health if there are any health reasons.
What if it makes you nervous because there's too many uncertainties and you care about your health?
I'd say that's a health reason that people shouldn't have to do it.
Of course, the principles of liberty would make it and make it a free choice.
So that is his attitude about this.
And unfortunately, there's still a lot of attitude like that, but I still do believe that if we keep doing our very best to look at these reports and try to understand and look at it in a scientific and a moral way,
and also in a way of dealing with problems in a political sense, of a political philosophy that guides you away from the bureaucracy, guides you away from the Fauci and the dictators and the presidents and all the money and special interests.
If you have that, then pandemics and infections and things will still exist.
But believe me, I have great confidence just by looking at history and medicine that, yes, there'll be problems, there'll be a medical problem.
But if you want to have the least amount of problems, you would do it through a market system and voluntarism.
The big thing is, if you have doctors who study and look at it, and there's a doctor-patient relationship, and there's freedom to use the medication and doctors, the government doesn't interfere with your treatment, there's a much better chance that you would get some good results.
But when you turn it over to the government and you have one or two people, in this case, one person making all the decisions, if they happen to make a mistake, it affects everybody, you know, a whole nation, millions and millions of people.
Opens Door to Better Option00:00:32
That's why people say, well, if you don't have the government taking care of us, there's going to be chaos.
No, exactly the opposite.
Just eliminating the government doesn't eliminate problems.
It just opens up the door to a voluntary system of government and a moral system of government, how you solve problems.
And believe me, when you come to that conclusion, you'll find out it's a much better option than going with the authoritarians who think they know everything.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.