• Mandatory Vaccination Laws Without Exemptions Violate Human and Civil Rights

    Right now, there are only two laws that require American citizens to risk their lives. The first is a federal law, the military draft, which requires all healthy male adults to risk their lives in a war declared by the government to protect national security. The federal government allows adults conscripted for military service, who object to killing other people for reasons of conscience or religious beliefs, to obtain a conscientious objection exemption and perform alternative civil service. The second law is a state law requiring all healthy children to risk their lives in a war on microbes that doctors declared two centuries ago. However, unlike adults who are not segregated and denied a school education or medical care for following their conscience and religious beliefs, parents can be punished for following their conscience and refusing to risk their children’s lives in a perpetual war on microbes that, today, the federal government has expanded from the concept of protecting the public health to a more military concept of protecting national “security.” The military draft in times of war and vaccine mandates are two different laws that legally require healthy Americans to risk injury or death: one law temporarily conscripts healthy adults in what the government clearly defines as an emergency military action; and the other law perpetually conscripts healthy children in a mandatory vaccination program that the government does not define as an emergency military action, but is certainly operated like one. In the 21st century, the biggest threat to individual and public health is not measles or pertussis or influenza. The biggest threat to our health is the increasingly unlimited authority that doctors exercise over the human right to autonomy and protection of bodily integrity.

    Read full story...

  • Mandatory Vaccination Laws Without Exemptions Violate Human and Civil Rights

    The cover for obligatory vaccines is "public health". Obligatory vaccine legislation is a civil rights issue under public health cover. The rationale for legislation rests upon "compelling state interest" (CSI) or "strict scrutiny" in Constitutional discourse (1). This was stipulated to in the hearings of California's SB 277 in 2015 (2). Testimony in support of CSI came from SB 277 co-author attorney and State Senator Ben Allen (D- Santa Monica). Review of Allen's testimony is covered in part in the body of this article. The fundamental question remains: Can there be a "compelling state interest" when there is no specific end-point or resolution? Can the casus belli for a "compelling state interest" rest upon a theory, such as race or "herd immunity"?

    Rather than addressing these questions, Allen recites Jacobson et.seq. and adds to that California's Constitutional Right to a public education. While Jacobson is precedent, it is not on-point because by his own admission, Allen refers back to the Disneyland "outbreak". Moreover, there is no discussion of "least onerous means" as a less oppressive remedy contrasted to ubiquitous compulsory vaccination.

    Obligatory legislation absent a non-ambiguous, specific resolution end-point amounts to a de facto abolition of Rights. One way to abolish an unalienable, individual Rights? Suspend it ...into perpetuity without any resolution. So right "off-the-bat", no CSI is possible without such a resolution. In the instant matter, the inferred (obita dicta) resolution is achievement of "herd immunity", a theory. In other words, there is no resolution at which point mandates stop. They continue ..into perpetuity which translates into an abolition of Rights, such as but not limited to: private property Rights, religious practice Rights; due process Rights. Addressing the latter, due process, the so-called "vaccine court" is not a trial court. The "trier of fact" are trial courts -- not star-chamber, administrative courts such that NO FACTS are established nor possible. Without trial courts, there are no "facts" because one side and ONLY ONE side controls the narrative. (3)

    Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during Civil War 1.0. He did not abolish it. It was restored upon RESOLUTION of that conflict (casus belli) (4). FDR interned Japanese Americans during World War II. (5). Their Rights were restored upon RESOLUTION of that conflict. But in the instant matter, what, if any resolution endpoint is there to rely upon? The answer? The theory of herd immunity. Since there is no way to unring the vaccine bell rhetorically speaking ..no way to "unvaccinate" a person once vaccinated, the least onerous means test must apply here which includes but not limited to: isolation/quarantine; curfew and other specific means as opposed to abolishing or infringing upon the Rights of a population in the aggregate.

    Obligatory legislation is like interning Japanese Americans during World War II ...but instead of releasing them upon the RESOLUTION of that conflict, they are kept in confinement AFTER the War on the theory that a future war with Japan might break out and by keeping them confined, their prospective security risk is abated. A similar argument can be made with the abolition of habeas corpus as well.

    Finally, from Allen's own testimony (2), the remedy that preserves ALL party's Rights would compel California to provide a public education for BOTH vaccinated and vaccine-free students -- NOT to compel one side to vaccinate.

    Without trial courts, no objective facts are possible in re: vaccine facts. This is a clear violation of due process Rights. The ends (herd immunity) does not justify the means. The Constitution & Bill of Rights are shields -- not swords to be "weaponized".


    1. Strict Scrutiny, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

    2. Compelling State Interest Short; Testimony from California SB 277 hearings

    Sacramento 2015;

    3. Trier of Fact; Cornell Law; https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trier_of_fact

    4. Lincoln Suspends Habeas Corpus; https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/presid...

    5. FDR and Japanese American Interment; http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/pdfs/int...



  • Mandatory Vaccination Laws Without Exemptions Violate Human and Civil Rights

    As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I firmly believe in the Bible's admonition of abstaining from blood. Jehovah's Witnesses are well known for their refusal of blood transfusions. But, there are some of us who also believe that since blood and blood products are used in the manufacturing of vaccines that this qualifies as good reason to refuse vaccines. Also, many if not most vaccines today, also use aborted fetal tissue in their manufacturing and Jehovah's Witnesses regard abortion as murder and the use or cannibalization of human remains, is abominable. In my own case, all of this applies, but I also have suffered from several autoimmune issues for over 50 years; Hashimotos, Celiac, IBS and Dermatitis Herpetiformis, which precludes that vaccines would not be in my best interest. In fact, I can look back over 55 years and ascertain the beginning of my health issues stemming from a reaction to the oral polio vaccine at age 13.