John Klar: The truth about mandatory vaccines

Vermonters who wish to understand the constitutional laws that apply to vaccine mandates need not hire an attorney — they can seek truth themselves. One place to seek truth is in the recent commentary of a so-called attorney named Rick Hubbard who has distorted the law to propose implementing fascism in America. Fortunately, it is only a small percentage of uninformed fear-mongers who seek to endanger the liberties of the rest of us.

John Klar

Hubbard’s hit piece on our liberties is titled “A Small Percentage of Us is Endangering a Big Percentage of Us.” This is true, but Hubbard has it upside-down, like everything else in his demonstrably silly screed — the majority of us understand our Constitution, and must shield it against perverse rationalizations to illegally discriminate against “noncompliant” citizens who don’t take Rick Hubbard’s vaccination du jour.

Hubbard wants to mandate that all people get vaccinated, but he has not explained the standard he would employ to determine which vaccinations he would have government inflict. In fact, nowhere in his ranting fantasy about China policy does he ever recite a single law — he lies instead: “But let’s remember, our Constitution provides those rights to us all. And each right is balanced by an appropriate level of responsibility.”

Hubbard cites a New York Times opinion piece as support for this non-existent, even preposterously untrue assertion. There is no such thing. “Each right is balanced by a responsibility?” No, the Constitution restrains the federal and state governments; the sole responsibility of each citizen is to uphold it, even when we don’t like it personally. Hubbard exposes himself as a person incapable of complying with that single prescription necessary to preserve our republic: “if you can keep it.” The rest of us have to “keep it” from people like Hubbard, who dare call it their own while trying to dismantle it.

For the government to restrict any fundamental right, it has the burden of proving a compelling governmental interest, accomplished by the least restrictive means. Hubbard just ignores that existing law entirely. He laments that America is so free, and wants to make it more like China.

He writes:

Most of us would not be happy with China’s authoritarian “zero tolerance, strict lockdowns” approach to limit Covid’s spread. But even allowing for plenty of error in the data, it appears our nation’s biggest competitor has been extremely effective in holding down the spread of Covid. … But let’s be clear. Most current laws of Vermont, states and our nation fail to enact measures to require Covid noncompliers and the rest of us to responsibly exercise our rights. This speeds Covid to many more of us. This failure to act results in large additional numbers of avoidable sicknesses and deaths. It doesn’t have to be this way.  We can find middle ground between policies we now have and China’s more draconian approach.

Hubbard extolls China as example apparently ignorant or unconcerned about the Uyghur genocide there, or the fact that China is cleaning up the virus it created and unleashed — and we are supposed to follow suit. He who would trade liberty for security deserves neither — there is no “middle ground.” But Hubbard’s right about one thing: most of us wouldn’t want to live under authoritarian Chinese rule.

Hubbard skips over the facts he would have to prove for government to do this — he presumes people are dying because of the unvaccinated, a claim stupendously unprovable because profoundly untrue. The vaccinated still get sick, and spread the disease. It’s as if Hubbard wants to target “noncompliant” Vermonters (even if they have natural immunity and are thus exponentially better protected even than him) for the vaccine’s failures rather than complain to the almighty pharmaceutical companies who promised effectiveness and rescue.

Hubbard’s proposal gets even more bizarre. He complains that there must be a federal uniformity to his new tyranny, which sounds like martial law:

These measures must require what most of us already do. All medically eligible Americans must follow best public health advice to be vaccinated, properly mask up, and social distance when in close contact with others in enclosed spaces. Most important of all, our elected leaders must impose disincentives strong enough to make noncompliers likely to comply. If we want to work in buildings with others, we must be in compliance or be furloughed without pay. If we want to shop for groceries, or other goods, or to enter any other buildings (except medical facilities) in public for whatever reason, we must be in compliance.

First of all, how does this attorney propose to enforce federal martial masking laws? Will he fill up the prisons, forcibly strap masks to faces, incarcerate noncompliers in tight spaces? Next, he wants to starve people from shopping for food, even though the vaccinated can still spread and contract the disease — try explaining that to a judge. As to hospitals, they are already refusing people medical care if unmasked, so Hubbard gets more than what he wishes for — fickle, unbridled power.

Hubbard’s hellish fantasy will never come true: He writes naively:

In part, When the stakes are high enough, evidence shows most noncompliers will change their behavior. High compliance benefits the personal and economic well-being of us all.

Actually, history shows that Americans and Vermonters rebel against tyranny — that we are profoundly noncompliant when Nazi-types demand our papers for dining or grocery shopping. The American colonists were exemplary noncompliers. We Vermonters are educated to resist the sweet-sounding lies of constitutionally-noncompliant ignoramuses. When the stakes are high enough, Vermonters will extinguish the virus that threatens their liberties and their children’s health and safety. Hubbard’s effort to overthrow the Constitution — a far more deadly and enduring virus than COVID — is a totalitarian infection against which the Constitution has already inoculated us.

If we were to examine the laws that Hubbard ignores, we’d find the Jacobson case, which allowed mandatory vaccines for smallpox — a very deadly disease. But refusal attracted a fine, not black-booted, Chinese-style military from Homeland Security watching surveillance cameras to ensure no one picks up a gallon of milk at the town general store without proof of a vaccination that protects no one. Jacobson was later used to justify eugenics and forced sterilization — which sacrificed a “small percentage of Americans” for the benefit of the whole.

Jacobson acknowledged that government held a burden to overcome before jabbing — it had to prove there was a disease sufficiently dangerous, and that the vaccines work. Hubbard would skip both of these factual analyses, just as he skips the law.

Says Hubbard:

For those who are still unconvinced, step back. Ask yourself, how many more hundreds of avoidable Vermont deaths, plus hundreds of thousands of deaths nationally, we should accept by having noncompliers bear little responsibility for their actions?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, many more Vermonters die each year of heart disease and cancer than COVID. Is COVID killing hundreds of people because of the unvaccinated? Is there any scientific proof of this laughably absurd conclusion that Hubbard fabricates? How the victims of vaccines be compensated?

Hubbard would mandate vaccines for children. How many healthy children have died from COVID in Vermont, and what standard of law would Mr. Hubbard concoct for application of his plan? In his imagined world — the “in between world” of wonderful China which is protecting its citizens from the vaccine it created for them — what is Hubbard’s standard? Would he have government inject all healthy children despite the clear evidence they are not at significant risk from COVID, while compelling complete trust in the technology?

Yes, he would. Hubbard says courts “should emphasize the responsibilities required when each of us exercises these rights.” There is no such thing, which is why courts “have increasingly emphasized our rights.” The Constitution exists to shield rights, and Hubbard seeks it as a source of the exact opposite — expanded government power in the name of imposing corollary duties — in this case, to get vaccinated. No lawyer worth his or her salt would walk into any courtroom with such balderdash, but Hubbard is nakedly proclaiming it.

Fortunately, Vermonters can easily see the folly of this thug effort, and have yet another good argument (from Hubbard) why not to get vaccinated. We are free as humans to imagine dystopian horror shows that we would try to inflict on humanity, though one must question the character and even sanity of those who hold such fantasies. But as to Constitutional law, Hubbard’s embarrassing effort to make America more like China recalls the observation of some British lads who understood the basic concepts that have evaded attorney Hubbard:

You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We’d all love to change your head …
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow.

Too bad Hubbard didn’t study The Beatles in law school. The rest of the courses appear to have been skipped.

John Klar is an attorney and farmer residing in Brookfield. © Copyright True North Reports 2022. All rights reserved.

Image courtesy of Public domain
Spread the love

23 thoughts on “John Klar: The truth about mandatory vaccines

  1. “We Vermonters are educated to resist the sweet-sounding lies of constitutionally-noncompliant ignoramuses. When the stakes are high enough, Vermonters will extinguish the virus that threatens their liberties and their children’s health and safety. ”
    Really? I love you John Klar and I read everything you write here on True North, but I do not believe for a hot minute that Vermonters will strike back Vermonters are the most highly vaccinated, they got it voluntarily. Not me. I won’t. But this is a state that hit the point of no return some time ago, there are not enough Vermonters to stand up against anything that the Gubnah and the legislature inflict on us. I don’t see it happening EVER. I love living here as this is such a beautiful state, but the Leftists have overrun it and they will never give it back and there are not enough free thinkers here anymore to take it back. Sad. I will leave as soon as my husband’s job is over – maybe before then if the GWSA actually gets implemented because we won’t be able to sell our house in 2030 with the plans they have in place. I could go on. . .

  2. The Constitution was written when nobody had a stroke. They were all smitten by a vengeful God. There were Founding Fathers who were opposed to Washington’s insistence that his troops be given cowpox vaccinations. The last of them died 25 years before Pasteur proposed germ theory and a hundred years before that theory was generally accepted by the American medical establishment. It was written when doctors diagnosed tuberculosis as fourteen different ailments. It was written 140 years before a public health nurse in New York City convinced Tammany Hall they could save thousands of their voters by spending money on public health measures and when those same PH doctors and nurses saved hundreds of lives by tracking down and isolating for the rest of her life a woman who loved her freedom as much as any of us– Typhoid Mary.

    Had the King of England sent smallpox-infected blankets to Boston to extirpate the source of the American Revolution, you can bet the Declaration of Independence would have included that violation of the rights due them as free men. Had the creators of this country that time the knowledge of disease that we now have, they not only would have inveighed against George III for the crime, they would also have declared that all men were entitled to good health.

    You know, if a few of you dealt with people who lost very beloved friends, relatives and infants, you might decide that somebody’s been feeding you a line of bs—- and you might start wondering WHY they do that. I’ve heard that Tucker Carlson does it for $14 million a year. But hey, so would I for that dough!

    • Perhaps Pfizer’s adjusted 2021 earnings of $7.7 billion, up 133% from a year earlier, on revenue of $24.1 billion, up 134%, explains the other line of ‘bs’ we’re being fed. Never mind the $42 Billion in taxpayer funded medical research grants awarded by Fauci’s NIH each year – some of which making it to the now infamous Wuhan Lab. ‘But hey, …….’

      BTW: it was King George’s folks who allegedly perpetrated the one-time smallpox blanket caper in 1763, more than a decade before the Declaration of Independence was drafted.

    • cgregory, you keep harping on the fact that 800,000 Americans have died of Covid, but is that really true? When the vast majority of those who died with Covid had underlying medical conditions and were in their 70s and 80s, then is it really true that Covid killed them? Isn’t more accurate to say that being in their 70s and 80s killed them? Not to be callous, but let’s be honest and realize that everyone dies, and the elderly especially. There’s also substantial evidence that hospitals have been incentivized to put “Covid” on death certificates– what is it, an extra $1300 for a Covid death as opposed to a cancer death? What’s that about?

      But regardless, you claim that someone has been feeding us BS, Tucker Carlson being one of them. You’re right that someone has been feeding us BS, but it’s the opposite of what you think: there’s been a concerted effort to subvert public health, for the end of installing vaccine passports and thus a system of tracking and tracing the population for compliance with what globalists have decided is best for all: their own version of the “greatest good.”

      I think you’re operating under the assumption that things are the same as they ever were, only now we have a global pandemic and we’re trying to fight it. But things are not the same as they ever were. We’ve had dramatic changes in the past two years, and we can trust Klaus Schwab when he tells us that further changes will come on us “like a tsunami”: we won’t know what hit us. The primary change is this: absolutely massive censorship of honest, scientifically-based public health that aims to do the least harm and protect the most vulnerable through common-sense measures such as recognizing the clear age-stratification for susceptibility to Covid-19. Despite the evidence that Covid proceeds in stages, and that we’ve discovered safe repurposed drugs whose mechanisms of action inhibit SARS-CoV-2 and thus help prevent the later, more dangerous inflammatory stages from emerging– why would we not want to do that?– a concerted effort has been made to suppress virtually all of the repurposed drugs that are for outpatient use. You dismiss these because you don’t know about them: as soon as a doctor gets on YouTube or FB and speaks about these, it’s taken down. On many forums, you can’t even mention “ivermectin”: this would be a trigger for immediate censorship.

      The antidote to all this is to stop censoring doctors and scientists. We need to institute laws on the local, state, and federal levels to prohibit the muzzling of doctors, nurses, and scientists, because what’s happening now is nothing less than political tyranny edging its way into our system of government through the back door of medical tyranny, and the primary agency for this medical tyranny is censorship. We have a compelling public interest in the ability of doctors, nurses, and scientists to speak freely without retribution, except that of having their statements refuted in a way that doesn’t rely on ad hominem attacks.

      If anyone feels that we’re being fed “misinformation” then the solution is to stand up and refute it in a public forum. It’s remarkable that people like Steve Kirsch have offered large sums of money for anyone to debate people like Dr. Malone, and no one has accepted. They don’t want debate and they don’t want rational argument; they want censorship.

      It’s not “same as it ever was,” only now we have a pandemic. These are dark times.

    • The constitution provides many freedoms …. The freedom of choice being only one ….. some of us made the sacrifice to defend that constitution along with those rights …… I served from 17-25 as USMC …… so if you think everyone should sacrifice those freedoms fir something as benign as the flu …….. then why don’t you pick up a weapon and stand a post …. Maybe you’ll figure it out ….., I will NEVER relinquish one of my freedoms for you or anyone else ….. I paid dearly for them as have far many before and after me have …. Semper Fi …..

  3. “With a Jab Jab here. And a Jab Jab there. Here a Jab. There a Jab. Everywhere a Jab Jab. Old McDonald had a farm. E-I-E-I-O.”

  4. Another epic, surgical dismantling of the leftist vision that is rotting Vermont (and America) from the inside out. Thank you John.

    And let’s hear it for VTDigger. Hip hip hooray! In removing its comments section, instead of getting to read just a few lines of dissenting comments from various and sundry, we are gifted with John Klar’s expertly researched and beautifully written 1500-word polemics.

  5. Gosh… I’m heartened by the growing awareness of the CCP’s presence and influence in our “model” State for enacting the global coup through Agenda 2030 goals, that we are infiltrated and co-opted right now by the ‘useful idiots’ like Hubbard who do the work for the CCP of promoting their death-cult policies…professing ignorance of their masters, “I was just following orders.”
    Keep in mind that everyone has to compromise to bend themselves into the pretzel logic of the CCP that killing off humanity improves humanity (see UVM’s past and current involvement in Eugenics in Vermont), and that someone like Hubbard has had to kiss the ring, as it were…and check his pockets, bank account or the coffee can under the maple tree in his back yard for the perks. Pay to play, and if they want you, you either go with them, or you don’t go anywhere, if you are a politician.
    Taking back our gov’t is the first step.
    Relying on these covidiots is literally, insanity, to lead us.

  6. Hubbard’s thinking parallels that in the 1927 decision, Buck v Bell, which has rightly been called “a quiet evil” lurking in the US Supreme Court decisions. Justice Holmes famously said that “three generations of imbeciles is enough,” thereby justifying the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck for the greater good of society, and in keeping with the eugenics ideals to which even this brave little state subscribed.

    Are we headed back to eugenics, then? That the state can force medical treatment on the population for the greater good? It’s the same thing: we think there’s a difference today with Covid, but there is not. It is the same exact thinking. Just substitute the “contamination” of society by those unvaccinated for the “contamination” of society by those who shouldn’t have children. Or, as in later times, the contamination of society by the Jews. It’s the same logic.

    The idea that the state can force medication/medical treatment on its citizens for the supposed greater good has been demonstrated to be one of the most evil doctrines in human history, and anyone who doubts that needs to review the medical atrocities of the Third Reich, a regime steeped in that idea.

    The evils of forced medication far outweigh the supposed evil of some people not doing what we want them to. I would think that this would be so obvious now that it needn’t be stated, but apparently some of us still don’t get it. Hubbard is clueless.

    And Hubbard, we have the answer to Covid. It’s called “early treatment with safe drugs to ward off the inflammatory stage.” But this solution isn’t in keeping with the real goal of the Covid-19 Great Reset (I didn’t say that: Klaus Schwab did) which is vaccine passports, digital IDs, and from there the ability to monitor and manage everyone for some “greater good” that Klaus and associates have decided for us. Just like in China. Or Nazi Germany. Only this is bigger: a transnational world order. Again, I didn’t say that; Klaus did.

    The Nazis purged the medical system of contaminants– Jews– before it ramped up its killing machine. Today we are also busy purging the medical system of contaminants: trained medical personnel who disagree with the Covid measures. Where might this be going?

    • There is no constitutional article or amendment prohibiting hubris, laziness, stupidity, and ignorance; only the guaranty that ‘we the people’ have the opportunity to choose our destiny. And in doing so, it is incumbent on each of us to understand the ramifications of our aspirations and decisions – AND articulate those thoughts to our neighbors, in what is the perpetual negotiation of our societal relationships and contracts with one another, as prescribed by our Constitution.

      “I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” Benjamin Franklin

      “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” Ronald Reagan

      Freedom and Civility can coexist. But not without empathy and negotiation. To insist on the imposition of one point of view on those who disagree with it, without negotiation and agreement, for whatever reason, reflects the despotism characterized by Franklin, inevitably resulting in the fight for freedom articulated by Reagan – as has happened throughout human history.

      “Success is not final – failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”
      Winston Churchill

      Praemonitus praemunitus. ‘Choose wisely, grasshopper.’

      • Well said, Jay.

        Supposed emergencies are now used as justification for curtailing liberties. But are these real emergencies, or fabrications? Covid-19 was never a real emergency; it was made into one through a number of avenues, one of which was the deliberate suppression of repurposed drugs to suppress the inflammatory stage of Covid-19. This happened beginning way back in March, 2020, with the concerted effort to discredit hydroxychloroquine despite that the doses required were extremely safe: there was nothing to lose.

        Ross Mittiga, in a recent essay published by Cambridge University Press, makes the same case for overturning liberties as Hubbard does:

        “Indeed, as I argue below, climate change is (or may very soon become) sufficiently grave and disruptive as to jeopardize FL [the foundational legitimacy of the government.] And herein lies the allure of authoritarian environmentalism: for if, as many now contend, liberal-democratic norms, principles, and institutions impede urgently needed climate action, then legitimacy may permit—or even require—relaxing or abandoning those constraints [and invoking CL, conditional legitimacy.] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/political-legitimacy-authoritarianism-and-climate-change/E7391723A7E02FA6D536AC168377D2DE

        So this leads me, and surely others, to suspect that catastrophic climate change has all along been part of a plan to overthrow governments based on individual autonomy. Throw enough money at a theory in the form of grants to academics and, magically, the theory acquires legitimacy and “consensus,” even if, when examined closely, it falls apart on many levels.

        Maybe they were hoping the fear of catastrophic climate change would do the job. But it didn’t, hence Covid-19, and then climate change can be once again invoked to support “necessary” measures. These measures might very well involve monitoring the population for compliance; after all, if we don’t do this, the planet will burn up. Scary. But … even close to being real?

        • While I can’t presume to know anyone’s state of mind, there are two observations that, in my humble opinion (and as previously noted), describe the human tendency to exaggerate an emergency, if not create one. The first, by T. S. Eliot, is somewhat benign and forgiving. The other, by C. S. Lewis, is more sinister.

          “Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm; but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”
          T. S. Eliot

          “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
          C.S. Lewis

          But, as witnessed in much of the TNR and VDC commentary of late, humanity is, as Churchill exclaimed, finding ‘the courage to continue’. We are fast becoming the most educated social construct in human history with our understanding of the benefits provided by self-determination in education (School Choice), economics (Free Markets), and healthcare (informed consent).

          When, for example, has the diversity of education curricula and pedagogy been more scrutinized? When has the difference between Marxist Socialism and Free Markets been so distinct? When has the dissemination of information regarding the nature of vaccines and therapeutics been better understood by the patient?

          Today, as a whole, we have a better understanding of our history, our governance, and our personal responsibilities, than ever before. The die is cast. As the benefits of liberty and freedom, autonomy and intrinsic motivation, are demonstrated in a system of governance as productive in our collective well-being, as we now enjoy, becomes evident, it should come as no surprise that those who profit from tyranny, and the fear of accepting personal responsibility for their actions, attack our system as they do.

          But ‘the jig is up’. They’ve been caught and have no defense. They’ve been discovered. And I’m confident that, as we learn more and more the benefits of our truly exceptional ‘American Experiment’, our willingness, for lack of a better phrase, to ‘do the right thing’, will prevail.

          “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Adam Smith

        • Glad to know at least ONE decent, patriotic American doesn’t believe that something that causes 800,000 deaths isn’t an emergency! Thank you!!!`

    • The greatest thing ever to happen to eugenics was Adolf Hitler. An appalled world recoiled from it for a long time.

      It didn’t start resurging for another four decades, when Charles Murray wrote “The Bell Curve.”

      In the Twenties, though, it was definitely an American tradition.

      • It’s quite amazing that you invoke Hitler yet seem not to understand that what’s happening today– medical tyranny– is exactly what happened during Nazi Germany.

        Then, they purged Jews from the medical system and gradually proceeded to enact their final solution. Now, dissenters from the dominant medical doctrine are being purged from the system, and we can expect this is so that no one in power will be left to defend individual autonomy, the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, and the right to freely informed consent to medication with no penalty for refusal.

        Why are they doing this, and why is it universal that prior infection doesn’t count as inoculation from the disease, when this is solid medical understanding? Could it be that vaccine passports are the real goal? When we all have digital IDs and digital passports, and when we then invoke the emergency of climate change to curtail our liberties even more, then there will be no escape from the monster that we’ve allowed to take hold. It’ll be a track-and-trace and social credit system exactly as in now in place in China. Just as “free speech” means virtually nothing today in America as medical dissenters are widely and viciously censored (pulling one’s medical license seems to be the preferred threat) so will our laws and protections mean nothing, as these also will be subverted and twisted in order to support “the greater good.”

        We must stop censorship and allow the free exchange of medical ideas and treatment opinions with no penalties for expressing these. But everyone is censoring: the CDC, FDA, WHO, the medical boards, the hospitals, and the liberal media. Censorship is everywhere. This is a well-known hallmark of tyranny.

  7. I’ll kick in a few bucks as well… Hubbard is stuck in the socialist “collective” and cannot see outside of the hive. I’m not even sure he understands the basic structure of our government- he seems to think we are a democracy. He certainly parrots the narrative given out, to promote fear and advance the ideals laid out by his “superiors”. Unfortunately for Mr. Hubbard, he is but a worker bee in the collective socialist hive. It is good that there are folks like John Klar to poke holes in the bee’s nest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *