|
|
|
| Home
Charter to be published soon
Phone: (757) 850-1245 P.O. Box 4096
Web Master
INTERNET SERVICES
|
David Alan Carmichael – February 2, 2004 It seems that a growing number of people have a conviction that they are prohibited from identifying themselves with a unique government generated tracking number. Some also have convictions that they cannot use biometrics as a means to verify their identity. These convictions are many times religious, and often based upon a patriotic sense of obligation to preserve the liberties of free Americans. Those who take a stand to forsake the universal identification number are ostracized, disenfranchised, and oppressed by government agents and commercial entities. Though such tyranny is consistent with Biblical prophecy, it is contrary to fundamental American law. What do people who cannot identify with the universal tracking number face in opposition? Most are told that they cannot drive, vote, own realty or titled personalty, bank, get insurance, fish, hunt, marry, start a business, bear arms, get medical treatment, take their baby home from the hospital, among many other things, unless they identify themselves with a Social Security Number. Most of the opposition is prompted by misapplication of the laws that touch on the subject. None-the-less, the broad array of obstacles can be quite daunting, if not debilitating. What means and methods do people use to overcome the hurdles of “life without a number” (using the phrase coined by Neil McIver)? Some take the beast head-on alone. They take every opportunity to exercise their right to engage in livelihood and recreation without being thwarted by number-demanding serfs. When thwarted, they take their opposition to civil court, or bait an enforcer to drag them off to a magistrate. Those champions sometimes prevail if they find someone in their chain of appeal who has a moral conscience and a desire to rightly apply the law. Otherwise, they suffer unjust imprisonment, loss of property, denial of opportunity, undue poverty, and alienation from society. Very often, they argue the merits of the law properly, only to find that their argument falls on deaf ears. Judges spurn them when they cite legitimate jurisprudence without having ABA accreditation. Rather than being seen as a friend of American liberty and justice, many judges despise them and look down upon them as rabble-rousers. Justice, again, is increasingly sacrificed at the altar of economy. Some who want to live without the number try to do it quietly. They abstain from rendering it whenever the opposition is willing to capitulate. They wish they could stand stronger, but their realism wars against such idealism. They ask themselves, “What good is it to stand if you have to lose your life to do it?” They certainly cheer their champion in the combat of their mutual foe. When they realize the plight of their children, they admit that action needs to be taken quickly. They would come alongside the champion if only they had aptitude to render viable assistance. They would hire a mercenary to fight on their behalf but their subsistence is meager. Both poles might adjust their approach if there was someone who would stand by their side. King Solomon said, “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor. For if they fall, one will lift up his companion. But woe to him who is alone when he falls, for he has no one to help him up. Again, if two lie down together, they will keep warm; but how can one be warm alone? Though one may be overpowered by another, two can withstand him. And a threefold cord is not quickly broken.” ( Ecclesiates 4:9-12) The champion certainly has the fortitude to take on the battle, but he is not given the opportunity for a fair fight. His legal legs are figuratively pulled out from under him. His endurance cannot be sustained without encouragement and sober counsel. The one cheering from the sidelines will consider joining the fray if he only had the means. Both are limited by their autonomy. A third character in this epic is the licensed practitioner of law. Once considered the advocate of the common man and stalwart defender of liberty, he is increasingly considered as a narcissistic parasite. Many believe that the professional lawyer can no longer be relied upon to speak the truth for justice sake. At the cost of a client’s liberty and property, some attorneys forego the truth if it offends a judge’s desire for efficiency. Therefore, the champion will not risk someone entering the ring with him, who, on a whim, might stab him in the back. The by-stander also cannot afford an advocate who has divided interests. If his neck stretches across the block, he needs to know that his watchman will not stray from his protective duties. Are they without hope? There are lawyers who have not bowed the knee. Some have come to knowledge of the fixed and timeless precepts of law only well after receiving their Harvard Law School diploma and ABA accreditation. There are those who are committed to upholding the law of the land at great personal sacrifice. There are those who believe their mission is not only to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, but to train judges. They see their office as a means to restore the knowledge of fundamental law to our halls of justice. They are keenly aware of their obligation to remind the magistrate that the end of government is to secure our liberties. However, the litigator who is pure in heart is limited as well. He needs a damaged party who is willing to call him alongside. Otherwise, the court will not entertain his action nor declare his adversary at fault. Like our champion and by-stander, he and his family need to be sustained while he wields the sword. Yet, if he is not trusted to litigate for the oppressed according to His conscience before God, than he is also frustrated in his fight against the mutual foe. The civil fight for individual liberty is comparable to a military contest. In any military campaign, there are soldiers on the front lines, strategist in the front office and logisticians in rear support. Not every service member is trained to, or suited for, every office. Each has different gifts according to their purpose. Yet, if each member does not fulfill their finite role, the aggregate body is crippled. If there is dissention among the ranks, and the masses cannot work as one unit, the divided house will fall. As Benjamin Franklin said, “If we do not stand together, we shall surely all hang separately.” I want to find people who are willing to work together to restore and secure our right to live without first - participating in Social Security, confessing it’s number, and presenting biometric identification. Am I alone? |