The flap over sealing court documents, vaccines and congressional stockholders

Devvy Kidd
December 11, 2002

A virtual plethora of unconstitutional and dangerous bills have been signed into law by Mr. Bush the past six months creating one firestorm after another. The rage of the American people continues to grow exponentially each time Congress, Mr. Bush and his cabinet members take it upon themselves to strip of us of our rights.

One of the battles raging out there is the truth about vaccinations, how harmful are they, what's the government hiding and why are members of Congress voting for all these unnecessary laws that either take away our right to options or to force Americans against their will to take vaccinations?

In a recent New York Times piece titled 'Justice Department Seeks to Seal Vaccine Papers' dated November 26, 2002:

    "The Bush administration asked a federal claims court  today to seal documents relating to hundreds of claims that a mercury-based  preservative in vaccines, thimerosal, has caused autism and other  neurological disorders in children.

    "Lawyers for the Justice Department asked for the protective order on behalf  of Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, whose  department administers a government fund to compensate people injured by vaccines.

    "About 1,000 families have filed claims under the program, asserting that  their children suffered mercury poisoning from the vaccines, which until  recently included the preservative.

    "Lawyers for the families said they were outraged by today's move. They said the government was trying to prevent families from obtaining damaging  information about the preservative, which could later be used against drug  companies in civil courts.

    "We're dealing with real injury to real children in a program that is  funded by taxpayer dollars," said Michael R. Hugo, a Boston lawyer. "It is  unbelievable to me that the president of the United States, in the name of  trying to help the drug industry, would put the interests of the drug  industry over the interests of neurologically impaired sick children and  their parents."

    "Today's move comes on the heels of another controversy involving thimerosal.

 "Congressional Republicans inserted a provision into the domestic security  bill, signed into law on Monday by President Bush, that is intended to  protect Eli Lilly, thimerosal's manufacturer, from lawsuits over the  preservative. The provision would force families to seek compensation  through the vaccine court instead of civil courts."

                                                *  *  *

Funny thing about that provision inserted into the domestic security bill and signed into law by Mr. Bush to protect Eli Lilly: No one knows who put it in the bill. Imagine that in the DC beltway where everyone knows everyone else's scandal and yet no one knows how a provision gets into a major, unconstitutional piece of legislation? Why, I'm simply flabbergasted!

Perhaps excerpts from the article below will give you some insight into the corrupt politics involving Congress and the pharmaceutical industry:

Members of Congress Face Conflict of Interest When it Comes to Drug Companies

September 29, 2000

By Greg Fordon and Andrew Donohue
McClatchy Newspapers

    "WASHINGTON -- During a year when prescription drug prices and benefits are among the hottest political topics, dozens of members of Congress also have another reason to keep their eyes on pharmaceutical companies.

    "These senators, House members and their families own tens of millions of dollars in stock in drug manufacturers, whose profits could rise or fall depending on what Congress does about the soaring prices of medicine and the push for Medicare drug benefits.

    "The legislators' stock holdings are legal but create appearances that trouble some congressional watchdogs and public policy experts.

    "Rep. Robin Hayes, R-N.C., one of the wealthiest members of Congress, owned more than $11 million in drug stocks on Dec. 31, 1999, the Washington Bureau of McClatchy Newspaper found in reviewing 180 members' latest financial disclosure statements. The reports showed that 36 members or their families owned drug stocks - including a number who sit on committees with jurisdiction over the industry.

    "Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin owned shares worth $2.2 million to $7.1 million in five drug makers. He is the ranking Republican on a Judiciary subcommittee that often reviews patent legislation that can deliver windfalls to name-brand drug companies.

    "Although Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., sits on the Senate Commerce Committee that likely will have a role in shaping any Medicare drug package, his wife Teresa, a Heinz family heiress, owned shares in eight drug companies worth $2.1 million to $4.2 million.

    "The year-end pharmaceutical shareholder lists also include Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush and his family with $62,000 to $234,000 in drug stocks; his running mate, Dick Cheney ($150,000 to $350,000), and the wife of Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential nominee ($15,000 to $50,000).

    "Bush, who is pushing a prescription drug plan that the industry finds more palatable than the Democratic plan, has since put all of his stock into a blind trust. Cheney, who is "on leave" as a director of Procter & Gamble, says he will do the same if elected and also will relinquish rights to 11,000 options for P&G stock. Lieberman's spokeswoman says the 1,000 shares his wife, Hadassah, owned in Pfizer Inc. are hers alone, stemming from her days as a company employee, and Lieberman is strongly advocating Gore's government-run Medicare drug plan.

    "The presidential candidates' aides also are drawing scrutiny. Bush's senior health care adviser, Gail Wilensky, made headlines recently because she holds $10.5 million in shares and stock options in health care companies - interests that the watchdog group Public Citizen contended could benefit from Bush's approach to Medicare.

    "Since the 15 percent to 20 percent annual profit gains of the biggest drug makers have outstripped every other sector in recent years, it's no surprise that pharmaceutical stocks show up in political figures' investment portfolios. Some of the companies, such as 3M and Abbott, are widely diversified. And it violates neither laws nor congressional ethics rules for a member of Congress to own stock in any industry."

                                           *  *  *

All the above mentioned gasbags and scalawags are still in office.

Conflict of interest? Nah, these guys can put all that aside and vote for legislation that would line their pockets in a fair and even handed manner. Sure and I believe in Santy Claus.

When are the American people going to get it through to their brain that politicians are corrupt. Oh, long ago and far away we had decent people serve in office and took their constitutional duties seriously. Not anymore. The temptation to fill their pockets is too great and the American people have let them get away with it because they want something for free.

The bigger question here should be, but isn't because everyone wants something for free, is this:

Are all these prescription drug bills constitutional?

Nope. The framers of the Constitution were very specific about limiting the areas where Congress could and could not legislate. These areas are very clearly articulated in Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Remember that document, the supreme law of the land? Even the courts have ruled on this issue:

In Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S. Ct. 446 (1925), The court ruled:

    "Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the of states is beyond the power the federal government."

In U.S. v. Anthony, 15 Supp. 553, 555, (S.D. Ca., 1936) and U.S. v. Evers, 453 F. Supp. 1141, 1150 (M.D. Ala., 1978),  the court ruled:

    "...The direct control of medical practice has been left to the states."

What the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled is that health care is beyond the power of the federal government and reserved to the individual states of the Union by the 10th Amendment. Does anyone care?

Members of Congress will continue their corrupt ways until the people of this nation reject their "freebies" and stop co-enabling them to violate the supreme law of the land. Some say America has become a socialist nation. Not quite, but we're close. We the People can put a stop to this even without the help of those who have been bred to dependency:

Redress of Grievances

(No Answers, No Taxes)

by
Robert L. Schulz
Chairman, We The People Congress

Presented at

Freedom Drive 2002
The National Mall, Washington DC
November 14, 2002

Full speech at:http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/PostFD/SchulzSpeech.htm

Read that speech, absorb what Bob Schulz has said and then decide where you stand.

Freedom is not for the weak of heart or spineless.

It is for None But the Brave.

Freedom will be won by the bravehearts.