PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT -- March 2000
How Clinton Betrays Americans
The Anthrax Vaccine Scandals
It wasn't just idle words when Bill Clinton said he "loathed" the
military. He has damaged U.S. Armed Services in so many ways
that it's no wonder morale, recruitment and retention levels are at
all-time lows.
Clinton has used the military to indulge in social experimentation to
appease the feminists and gays, and in interventionist
experimentation to please his globalist friends. He has also ordered
medical experimentation through compulsory anthrax vaccination.
It adds up to a shocking betrayal of the men and women in the U.S.
Armed Services. Since the Pentagon is in denial and coverup, we
can thank CBS 60 Minutes for its February 6th exposé of the case of
Major Sonnie Bates and thank Rep. Christopher Shays' (R-CT)
Subcommittee on National Security of the House Government Reform
Committee for its scathing report on the vaccine released February
17th. (www.house.gov/reform/ns/ and reported in New York
Times, 2-18-00)
Clinton responded to Congressional hearings by issuing Executive
Order 13139 on September 30, 1999. It denies servicemen the right
to refuse experimental vaccines that are "not yet approved by the
FDA for its intended use," language that obviously covers the anthrax
vaccine.
The 60 Minutes segment was a sympathetic portrayal of Major
Bates, a 14-year decorated pilot and the highest ranking of some 300
servicemen who have been punished for refusing the vaccine, with
penalties from prison to bad-conduct discharge to "correctional
custody." The Pentagon then reduced the threat to court-martial
Bates to a lesser punishment.
More than 1,000 servicemen with exemplary records are awaiting trial
on a felony charge of refusing to take the anthrax shot. Hundreds
more, including dozens of pilots described as "the cream of the
crop," have left the services. Congressional testimony indicated that,
for every one who reported vaccine reactions, three others did not
report them because they feared that would be a career killer.
The lengthy report of the Shays Subcommittee concludes that the
anthrax policy "lacks an essential element in a medical program:
trust." The Pentagon's "absolutist declarations, heavy-handed
propaganda, and ad hominem attacks" against those who question
the policy are seen as another chapter in a long history of "military
medical malfeasance" that includes lies about nuclear testing, Agent
Orange, and Gulf War drugs and vaccines.
The long-term effects of the anthrax vaccine have never been studied,
but the immediate reactions include autoimmune disorders, lesions,
rashes, memory lapses, thyroid problems, blurred vision, inability to
drive or read, crippling bone-joint pain, loss of concentration and
chronic fatigue. The military has reacted by calling those affected
liars, whiners, hypochondriacs, malingerers, hysterical, depressed,
or in need of counseling.
The Shays report states that the anthrax vaccine is based on old
(1950s-era) medical technology, a "dangerously narrow scientific and
medical foundation." Currently, the "safety of the vaccine is not being
monitored adequately." A newly built anthrax vaccine plant failed its
FDA safety inspection on December 13, 1999. (Washington Post,
12-14-99)
According to the Shays report, even the "efficacy of the vaccine
against biological warfare is uncertain. The vaccine was approved for
protection against cutaneous (under the skin) infection in an
occupational setting, not for use as mass protection against
weaponized, aerosolized anthrax," which is how any enemy would
use anthrax.
The sole and exclusive manufacturer of the anthrax vaccine, BioPort
of Lansing, Michigan, has been cited repeatedly by the FDA for
quality deficiencies. It not only has a checkered safety record, but
also a checkered financial history.
The anthrax vaccine was originally produced by Michigan Biologics
Products Institute. It was taken over in September 1998 by BioPort
Corporation, a new company created by Intervac L.L.C., in which
former Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral William J. Crowe owned 22.5
percent of the stock even though he hadn't invested a penny.
(ABCNEWS.com, 3-12-99)
The very next month, BioPort was awarded a Department of Defense
(DOD) contract valued at $25.7 million to produce anthrax vaccine.
Crowe will be remembered as the former Joint Chiefs Chairman who
endorsed Bill Clinton for President in 1992 and gave Clinton "cover"
when his draft record was under attack.
On August 5, 1999, DOD agreed to pay BioPort nearly double the
price specified in the contract: $49.8 million instead of $25.7 million,
including advance payments of $18.7 million. DOD also indemnified
MBPI/BioPort against all liability from adverse reactions because,
according to Army Secretary Louis Caldera, the vaccine involves
"unusually hazardous risks associated with the potential for adverse
reactions in some recipients and the possibility that the desired
immunological effect will not be obtained by all recipients."
It is particularly dangerous to require all service women to receive the
anthrax shots since the Centers for Disease Control has warned that
pregnant women should not be vaccinated "because it is not known
whether the anthrax vaccine can cause fetal harm."
(www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/anthrax_g.htm) Most military
women are of childbearing age and at least 10% are pregnant at any
one time.
The mandatory anthrax vaccination of 2.4 million members of the
Armed Services should be terminated immediately. And all those
who have had the courage to speak out against this policy, which
doesn't pass the common-sense test, should be restored to duty and
their convictions and punishment expunged from their records.
U.S. Servicemen at Risk Overseas
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a major part of the "web" of
United Nations treaties into which Bill Clinton has been trying to lock
Americans. The ICC has the potential to put all members of the U.S.
Armed Services stationed overseas at risk of being arrested and tried
in a foreign court on frivolous or politically motivated charges.
Although Clinton had been promoting the ICC for the last five years,
he didn't sign it at its final negotiating session in Rome in 1998
because of vigorous opposition from the Pentagon. Now we discover
that, even though the United States didn't sign it, Americans can be
tried by this court anyway! According to the treaty's text, all nations,
whether signatories or not, will be subject to the ICC's jurisdiction.
The court will insist that Americans comply with its demands for
information, evidence, witnesses and suspects.
The Clinton Administration says it is trying to insert new language
into the treaty to make it "unlikely" that U.S. troops would ever be
called before the court. The Europeans reply that it is "out of the
question" to renegotiate any portion of the treaty because any
language exempting U.S. troops would also shield Saddam Hussein
and other bad guys from prosecution.
The treaty will go into effect at the Hague with an 18-member court
as soon as 60 nations ratify the treaty. All members of the European
Union (EU) are enthusiastic supporters of the treaty and UN chief
Kofi Annan is lobbying for speedy ratification.
The ICC is modeled after the war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and
Yugoslavia. It would be empowered to try individuals, in contrast to
the long-existing World Court which can only adjudicate disputes
among nations. The ICC plans to prosecute charges of war crimes,
genocide and other "crimes against humanity" whose definition is still
evolving, without direct authorization of the UN Security Council. That
means our U.S. Security Council veto will be irrelevant.
The European Union has promised financial and legal assistance to
get the court started, and it is expected that the court's costs
thereafter will be paid by the UN's regular budget. That means the
United States, which didn't sign or ratify the treaty, will be paying a
fourth of its costs for the privilege of subjecting American citizens to
trial.
The International Criminal Court is so contrary to American
constitutional law that one wonders how the Clinton Administration
dared to participate in its drafting. The U.S. Constitution does not
permit our government to delegate its judicial authority to an
institution that is not a U.S. court.
The ICC treaty purports to legalize hauling up U.S. citizens before the
court and trying them without our Bill of Rights guarantees such as a
grand-jury indictment and a public trial by an impartial jury in the
place where the crime was committed.
The ICC would not respect our due process guarantees such as the
privileges against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, ex post facto
laws, and the writ of habeas corpus. ICC trials would take place
before judges who are not appointed by the United States and not
even Americans, who would be enforcing laws that are not yet
written.
Americans should wake up and realize that the ICC is part of a
powerful push by our erstwhile allies to lock America into a European
political, judicial and military structure in which the United States
would have only one vote. The International Criminal Court would
sacrifice American citizens on the altar of Bill Clinton's global "web of
institutions and arrangements" which he promised the United Nations
on September 22, 1997 and hopes will be his legacy. The price of his
global web would be our freedom and our constitutional rights.
ICC Dangers and Double Standards
The British arrest of General Augusto Pinochet in 1988 shows why it
is dangerous for the United States to join the International Criminal
Court. Traveling to London on a diplomatic passport to have surgery,
the 83-year-old Chilean Senator Pinochet was grabbed by the British
because of an extradition request by a maverick judge in Spain,
Baltazar Garzon, who has a penchant for high-profile cases.
The Pinochet case proves that international trials of individuals are
political, not legal, proceedings, and certainly a far cry from what we
in America understand as constitutional due process. The same
week that Spain's headline-grabbing judge demanded that the British
arrest Pinochet, Spain's Prime Minister was hosting Fidel Castro with
full diplomatic honors.
The left hates Pinochet because he overthrew the Communist regime
of Salvador Allende in Chile. Yet, Pinochet voluntarily held a free
election in 1990 and gave up power to a democratic government, after
which the Chileans made him Senator for Life; and Chile has
remained free and prosperous ever since.
Political double standards, not equal protection of the laws, would be
the rule under any international tribunal such as the ICC. Call the roll
of the murderous thugs and current and former Communist dictators
who stay in power by force or retire in luxury without fear of being
arrested, extradited, or tried.
Uganda's Idi Amin, who is estimated to have killed 300,000 of his
political opponents, is living in Saudi Arabia. Jean-Claude "Baby Doc"
Duvalier of Haiti lives in a chateau in southern France. Mikhail
Gorbachev, who presided over the Gulag and the bloody invasion of
Afghanistan, heads a prestigious think-tank in San Francisco and
enjoys top-dollar honoraria for speeches promoting world government.
Poland's last Communist boss, Wojciech Jaruzelski, who murdered
anti-Communist activists, was given a lifetime pension by his
country. Yasser Arafat and former dictators from India, Cambodia,
the Congo, and elsewhere travel freely around the world.
Could former President George Bush be arrested on an extradition
request from Iraq and charged with the war crime of killing civilians
during the Gulf War? Could Henry Kissinger be grabbed and tried for
bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam War? Could Argentina
demand the extradition of Margaret Thatcher for sinking its ships
during her war over the Falklands? How about arresting Queen
Elizabeth II for past British crimes against the Irish?
Could Bill Clinton be arrested and charged with "intentionally
launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause
incidental loss of life or injury to civilians . . . clearly excessive in
relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage
anticipated"? That's one of the "war crimes" listed in the ICC Statute,
and it's a fair description of his attack on Sudan's pharmaceutical
factory in 1998.
The ICC should be soundly rejected because it would interfere with
constitutional rights guaranteed to every American and threaten the
ability of the United States to defend our national security.
Selling Out to Global Governance
The December 1999 demonstrations in Seattle woke up Americans
to the fact of our membership in the World Trade Organization
(WTO). The United States was put into this global group by a
Clinton-Dole-Gingrich deal in the 1994 lame-duck session of
Congress, after the landmark Republican victory on November 8 but
before the new members took office in January. Almost a third of
those who voted for the WTO had already been rejected by their
constituents.
The WTO is a 14-page charter that was surreptitiously added, without
debate or publicity, to the 22,000-page revision of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). WTO is not a trade
agreement at all but a stealth treaty inserted into GATT in order to
evade the constitutional requirement that treaties need a two-thirds
Senate majority.
WTO's origin grew out of the Bretton Woods Conference at the end of
World War II, when a three-legged plan was proposed to control the
global economy. The World Bank, which makes loans to developing
nations, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which makes
loans for foreign reconstruction and development projects, were born
in December 1945 and have been bleeding the U.S. taxpayers ever
since.
The third leg, then called the International Trade Organization (ITO),
was blocked by U.S. Senators because it would diminish U.S.
sovereignty and interfere with U.S. laws. GATT, which is simply a
contractual relationship among sovereign nations, then became the
basic multilateral agreement on global trade and has been
negotiating rounds of tariff reductions ever since. When the final
Uruguay Round of GATT Multilateral Trade Negotiations was signed
in Morocco on April 15, 1994, the globalists returned to their 1947
plan of creating an actual organization with the power to control world
trade. The WTO charter was then slipped into the GATT document
that Congress passed.
The WTO is a supra-national body in Geneva that sets, administers,
and enforces the rules of global trade. It includes a legislature, called
the Ministerial Conference, consisting of 135 nations each with one
vote; an executive branch consisting of a Director-General and an
unelected multinational bureaucracy with a secretariat, committees,
councils and review bodies; and a supreme court of trade called the
Dispute Settlement Board that decides trade disputes and whose
rulings cannot be vetoed by any nation.
The WTO is based on the one-country-one-vote pattern. The United
States has only one vote out of 135, the same vote as Somalia, Haiti,
Cuba or Rwanda. We have no veto. Most of the 135 are dictatorships
and not our friends. They look upon international organizations as
vehicles to finance their socialist economies and ruling classes out of
U.S. wealth and technology.
The WTO's procedures are dramatically different from those used in
prior years by GATT. GATT required a consensus decision to impose
a penalty recommended by a dispute panel, and the United States
could reject rulings that intruded on our interests. Under the WTO,
unilateral action is forbidden. The United States must abide by the
judgments of WTO's Dispute Settlement Board, which deliberates
and votes in secret.
WTO is a direct attack on our sovereignty because it can force us to
change our laws to comply with WTO rulings. Article XVI, paragraph
4, states: "Each Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws,
regulations, and administrative procedures with its obligations." The
WTO has the final say about whether U.S. laws meet WTO
requirements. The WTO can impose financial penalties and
sanctions if WTO decides that our laws don't fully obey its dictates.
Free-Trade and Global-Economy Myths
The WTO is touted as the road to free trade and cutting tariffs. But
the WTO is completely unnecessary for that. Free trade is not a
truthful label for trade that is controlled by a bureaucracy in Geneva.
Relinquishing our right to control our own trade policies to a bunch of
foreign bureaucrats in Geneva, accountable to no one, is a
prescription for international mischief. No secret global organization
should be controlling U.S. trade, investment or technology, or making
decisions about our jobs, production, labor standards, environment,
or security.
The multinational corporations like what WTO does and the way it
does it behind closed doors. WTO makes it safe for them to shift
their operations anywhere in the world, where there are no U.S.-style
labor or environmental regulations and 50 workers can be hired for the
wage of one American, and then enjoy duty-free access back into the
United States.
China has been Exhibit A of those who believe that a global economy
should be our primary goal and that trade with China's new
"entrepreneurial class" will lead that Communist country toward
capitalism and democracy. Ten years of trade have produced no
such evidence.
A book published in Hong Kong in 1998, China's Pitfall by Shanghai
economist He Qinglian, exposes what really happened as the
tremendous investment of U.S. money poured into China. Communist
totalitarianism simply shifted into an oligarchy run by a clique of
gangsters hostile to the United States. This book "resoundingly"
vindicates the skeptics, according to the New York Review of Books.
(Oct. 8, 1998)
He Qinglian proves that the so-called "reform" initiated by Deng
Ziaoping was "a process in which power-holders and their hangers-on
plundered public wealth." The Communist bosses used their political
power to transfer to themselves the state property that had been
accumulated during 40 years of the people's sweat under Mao
Tse-tung.
Deng issued a call for everyone to go into business and get rich,
"even more boldly" and "even faster." His message led virtually every
Party official to join the racket, using "sordid methods," bribes,
kickbacks, and ignoring contracts and debts. Friends or children of
powerful officials took control of the most productive sections of state
enterprises. One process was popularly called "official turnaround,"
whereby officials would buy raw materials or commodities at fixed
prices and then "turn around" to reap large illicit profits by selling on
the private market.
Public funds were used for speculation in real estate or stocks. If
they made profits, the officials would keep it; if not, they would pass
along the losses to state accounts. Joint enterprises with foreign
businesses allowed the preferred officials to deposit their profits in
overseas accounts (which was illegal for others). He Qinglian
calculates that this outflow of capital to private foreign accounts
amounted to about half as much as the total foreign investment
coming into China. He Qinglian writes that a current popular saying
is: "In the 90s we slaughter whoever we see." The word "slaughter"
(zai) corresponds to the American expression "rip off."
The large foreign investment that, in the mid-1990s, ranged between
30 and 40 billion U.S. dollars a year, created the illusion that China
was producing new wealth. This illusion was augmented by the fact
that China's state banks took the personal savings of ordinary
citizens (the equivalent of U.S. $240 billion), and used the money to
support state enterprises propped up with "loans" that could never be
repaid.
The underworld economy, including drug trafficking, smuggling, sale
of human beings, counterfeiting, prostitution and pornography, has
merged with the legitimate economy. In parts of China, underworld
gangsters have either assumed political power or made alliances with
Communist officials to form a force that "treats farmers almost like
slaves."
While the world is told that China is progressing toward a
Western-style economic system, Communist bosses have kept their
socially and financially privileged positions. It's not "reform" at all; He
Qinglian calls it a "government-underworld alliance." Whatever you
call it, it's certainly not capitalism or democracy.
Meanwhile, China is pocketing over $5 billion per month (by selling
us $6 billion of their goods and buying only $1 billion in U.S. goods)
and using this unprecedented profit to build up its military-industrial
complex.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Read this report online:
http://eagleforum.org/psr/2000/mar00/psrmar2000.html
Subscribe to the Phyllis Schlafly Report for only $20 per year.
Send check or money order to:
Eagle Forum http://www.eagleforum.org
PO Box 618 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415
Fax: 618-462-8909
or visit our on-line store at:
http://www.eagleforum.org/order
------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to Eagle E-mail
please e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
To unsubscribe, please send a message with
UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
-----------------------------------------------------
