Sorry to keep harping but I just have to vent a little. We've had a rough winter this year and have to watch how we spend. There was one of those big buy one get one free sales in town. We load the family up, thinking we're gonna get some good buys. A half mile from the store we get pulled over, my husband gets a $25 ticket for not wearing his seatbelt. Now, I can understand the carseat and even protecting the kids. But what is this? Please pay us $25 because you've broken the law and we just want to protect you from yourself. The policeman even wanted my husbands ss#.

What happened to our free country? I know this country is a lot better than most, but that doesn't mean we should just lie down and let our government keep passing more and more restrictive laws. I'm sick and tired of hearing, it's for your own good. You can't even build on your own property without getting permission, paying for a permit, building to certain specifications and then it being inspected. All for our own good.

We live in a hundred year old house, and have been here 4 years. Last month the tax accessor drove right up to the house, got out with his tape measure and started measuring the house. He said the tax books say our house isn't livable. I guess the guy we bought it from did some work on it without telling the tax office(heaven forbid).

I have a novel idea, what if,(I know this is too much to ask) the government leaves us alone, and we start taking responsibility for our own actions.

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), February 12, 2001

Answers

Amen!!!! I wonder just why it is (not that I don't already know), that people dont' think other people can take care of themselves? And just why do you have to have a permit for everything? Didn't these people's mothers teach them that it's not nice to be nosy, they shouldn't ask so many questions?

I know why people want to control, but why can't people learn just to let people live, leave them alone. There's a common sense line, and I really believe we could all find it, if we really wanted to.

Fear is such a terrible thing, not respect kinda fear, but scary fear. Those control freaks really know how to use.

Lena, now that you know your house in unlivable, are you moving? (she says fecitiously)

-- Cindy (SE In) (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), February 12, 2001.

I'm with you 100% on this. It's one of my major gripes. It's as if no one even thinks anymore! I didn't lie down for the census people last year. And I told them it was against my conscience to further the erosion of peoples rights and violation of privacies and refused to answer anything other than the constitution allows for. I had to repeat this to 6 different people! They finally ran out of time and quit coming back. They even climbed over my locked gate to come in here. I wish my dog had bit them! By the time it was over I was ready to bite them! LOL

-- Nancy (sonflower35@icqmail.com), February 12, 2001.

Seatbelt laws really do bite. I still hate wearing one because of an ejection accident I was in. I was wearing mine then , but luckily it broke free from the floor alowing me to be ejected through the windshield before the Camaro flipped and was crushed. The trooper that worked the wreck said if it didnt break free I would have died. I wear one now, but just to avoid our $75 fines and ea restraint has a belt cutaway/window smash tool attached by laniard to the belt at the buckle.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), February 12, 2001.

The main reason cited for intrusive seatbelt law enforcement is that people who do not wear their seatbelts and get into wrecks generally suffer signifigantly greater injuries (and a proportionally much higher rate of ending up in a state of permanent intensive care ie. vegetized) which are expensive (prohibitively) to treat and generally are relying on their insurance to cover the bills which makes all of us pay more for our insurance. I have to agree with that assessment, but perhaps folks could be allowed to go belt-less in exchange for acknowledging that they will have to pay for any subsequent medical bills related to this state of affairs themselves. Or buy a signifigantly higher priced belt-less insurance that would theoretically put the burden of extra costs back onto those who prefer not to wear them. Sounds fair to me.

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), February 12, 2001.

Cars used to be made of heavy enough materials that every little fender-bender didn't cause major injuries. The real reason for the seat belt laws are: 1) it helps protect insurance companies' profits because they have to put out less money on injuries and 2) the fines are a great fundraiser. Be glad you weren't ticketed in Texas. Here it is $100. And no, it wasn't G.W. Bush that did that. That was a little gift from our former governor, Ann Richards (Democrat). I inject this because there are about a half dozen folks on here that seem to think all the ills of Texas came about in the last 4 years, and that ain't so. We've been getting more and more restrictive laws here for 20 years.

-- (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), February 12, 2001.

Ya' know, NC is the only state that has EVER pulled me over for a sealtbelt check. Officer pulled me over on the side of I-85, said "I see you have your sealt belt on. Thank you, have a nice day" and drove off. Now, I've been in roadside checks in NY state where they stopped traffic in both directions just to check seat belts and vehicle registrations. And been caught a few times by the NJ Stormtroopers and their road side vehicle inspections...

I agree 100% with you Lena. Normally, I don't drive with a seat belt on, as I had a friend who would have died had he his on...

-- Eric in TN (eric_m_stone@yahoo.com), February 12, 2001.

I was an EMT with the local VFD/EMS for 10 years and I can tell you definitively that all the horrible things I've seen in those years have made me a believer in seat belts. BUT, I still don't like the idea that I HAVE to wear them because someone else says so. I'll wear them regardless as on average they will save my life. There are always a few cases like yours, Jay, that are not the norm, but much more often are cases like two pickup trucks that hit head on on the highway (70 mph speed limit) and the only injury was a broken ankle caused by the brake pedal flying up. Or the lady two months ago who was ejected from her car into the roadway and killed (no one knows if it was the impact that killed her or the two cars and delivery truck that ran over her) ~ her husband and 3 small children were safely buckled in and alive today with few physical scars.

Still, I gotta' agree with everything Soni said, most especially that if I chose to pay more for insurance that would cover my injuries then I should have the right to choose whether or not I want to wear a seatbelt. I don't know the laws everywhere, but here in Texas it used to be illegal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. That law lasted about a year or so because immediately opponents of it made themselves heard. Now you can go bare-headed IF you purchase insurance to cover any injuries you may get. Sounds like the same premise to me.

-- Wingnut (wingnut@moment.net), February 12, 2001.

Man you all get off easy,I think we are up to 150.00 fine plus points. I maybe wronge but I think I am close.The cops site on the freeways w/ high power camaras and take pictures before they pull you over in case you slip it on. I wear one when I am in the van,its like driving a tin can,but I do not when i am in the 1980 suburban its a tank and use to be a fire dept.ems truck,I figure its safe.The kids are always in safty seats at all times,I figure I am old enough to deceide what is safe for me.

One the tax folks...HATE THEM....showed up a few weeks ago to "look"over the sunroom. He asked what is was I said a big closet,he did not laugh he then wanted to "look"around the house to see improvements Sure I said get a warrent and you can come in. Sure I am going to let some one in I do not know in so I can pay more taxes yeh right.

-- renee oneill{md.} (oneillsr@home.com), February 12, 2001.

"Perhaps folks could be allowed to go beltless". Statements like this make me wonder about the future of America. It's the same feeling I get when people find out I homeschool and say, "They allow you to do that?" What, you mean teach my own kids instead of letting the government?

The idea of higher priced belt-less insurance is no different than making people that eat unhealthy, pay sugar and fat insurance. Where does it stop? Are people going to follow me around and get me on camera eating that twinkie? Do I have to weigh in every six months, just to be sure I haven't passed my ideal weight(which, of course is to be determined by a special government agency)? If I sound sarcastic, I'm not. When it's put in plain words, it sounds unbelievable. When it is put in government-speak it sounds plausible.

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), February 12, 2001.

Lena-

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), February 12, 2001.

Ooops I'll try again.

Lena- Don't know about the last time you purchased something like life insurance, but rates are higher for those in riskier categories like smokers. Pre -existing conditions uncovered in most physicals also make one uninsurable or raise rates to unreasonable levels. The parallel to selling auto insurance with a seatbelt free waiver is nice except for the fact that when joe braindead who didn't wear a seatbelt because it was too constricting is laying on that hospital bed someone will pay the bill. In the long run, if his loved ones don't have the money, you or I will pick up the tab one way or another. As for choosing not to wear a seatbelt, but requiring your kids to- I hope you've got someone you trust to raise them when your gone.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), February 12, 2001.

Pardon me while I rant! I do not like the Government telling, Forcing, me how to take care of myself......but I don't like paying a couple a hundred grand a year in taxes to support every brain dead rutabega out there who got his head splashed by not wearing a helmet or seatbelt.

Both of those devices are prooven life savers. I've never seen an ejection that did anybody any good. But I'm glad Jay is the exception!

I don't know where you go w/ it. I've seen countless times where the belted in ones carry the casket at the funeral. But I hate the Government intruding into every single area of our life ..............And don't even get me going about the D**n IRS!!!!

OK, I think it's time for my medicine.

-- John in S. IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), February 12, 2001.

Huh, wonder what happened? Never had a posting do that before. Shoulda took that medicine first maybe.

-- John in S. IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), February 12, 2001.

I understand what you are saying. I wear my seatbelt most of the time. My point is, I don't want the government forcing me to do it. I don't want to pay a fine because I haven't been a law abiding little subject.

My main concern is not where my children will go if I die. It is what kind of world they are growing up in. A lot of people in America are relinquishing their freedom in exchange for the governments so called protection.

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), February 12, 2001.

I drive the speed limit most of the time, also. Should I not have to pay the fine when I get caught exceeding it because I think I have the ability to drive faster? Fortunately our seatbelt law here in WI only involves a $10 fine and no points off our license. Some state patrolmen even give a seatbelt ticket in lieu of a speeding ticket, depending on circumstances.

-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

Ray, There is a difference here. I live in the mountains. Plenty of people speed and pass on the double yellow line. That is a danger to everyone on the road. Yes you should pay a fine for that. If you don't wear you seatbelt, it's not a danger to everyone on the road. Yes, we'll pay the fine. But, it shouldn't have been a law in the first place.

The law that you can't let you sewage run in the stream is wonderful. Because, that could harm many people. The law that you can't have an outhouse is stupid. That won't hurt anyone downstream.

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), February 13, 2001.

It hurts me when I have to pay the cost of the medical care for your brain dead carcass either through increased insurance premiums, taxes or hospital bills.

It all depends on how close to the surface your water table is or how close to the stream bed when the creek overflows and washes your waste onto my land or into my well water. Yes, i can trust you to make the right decisions about this, but can I trust everyone?

-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

Lena,

As you can see, we have so many of those types in government because there are so many people out there who think that its OK to intrude on YOUR rights as they dont see how it will effect THEM down the road.

All for our own good.

Dont like that one, huh? Me neither...How about this one? Its for the children! No, no, that one doesnt work well here...Hmmm...Ok, got it...

Queue something gentle in D minor...

...a few sqirts of saline...

... camera ...

...and...

Its worth it even if it will save just one life!!! BOOO Hoo hoo, PEE wee, wEE, Sob, snort, gag...

...music up...

...camera fade...

-- William in WI (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), February 13, 2001.

William- Exactly what "right" is being taken away from you by a law requiring seatbelt usage? The "right" to drive a car. The last I knew, the government( who is us , by the way) had the requirement that we have a license to legally operate a motor vehicle and that in order for that vehicle to be on the roads provided by our govt. (once again us through representative democracy) it also had to be licensed with proper safety equipment, including said seatbelts. No bleeding heart liberal, am i but if you insist on using my roads in a vehicle I license (because i vote every election and am therefore a part of our governmental process) you will follow the rules set down or pay the price of fines or possible loss of your driving priviledges. Don't like the law, work to change it. I'm not forcing you to wear a seatbelt,only enforcing the consequences of not for the general good of society. Want to build an outhouse in a flood plain. Have enough money set aside in escrow or insurance to pay the damages caused when that 100 year flood happens and your sewage contaminates my well. If you have neither, don't complain because I don't want it built and back up the laws saying you can't.

-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

You don't want to pay for my brain dead carcass. I don't want to pay for the public school system since I homeschool. How about giving me the money that the school would normally get. If no, why not?

I know there are people that really need help. There are also a lot of people milking the system. I don't want to pay welfare to women that keep having babies, with no intention of ever getting off the dole. Do you suggest we tie their tubes because I don't want to pay?

I happen to know a married couple that has major health problems due to the way they live. The woman has had both of her legs amputated. The man has had one foot amputated. Both have diabetes. The doctor told them to exercise and eat right. They ate the way they wanted. Everyone is now paying for them, the operations and disability checks. If we follow your line of thinking, it won't be long before we have the health police checking in on us, because you don't want to pay for others health problems. After all, it could have been avoided. Oh yeah, if you grease the right hand you can get a septic tank two feet away from the creek around here. I guess that's our government hard at work protecting me.

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), February 13, 2001.

I find the seatbelt laws oppressive, too, but I see the financial logic behind their existence. Playing devil's advocate, one reason these laws exist is because in the long run it saves health care costs. When a person ends up becoming permanently disabled from an injury sustained in a car accident, it ultimately ends up costing the taxpayers money. But, I suppose we should have a choice in the matter--after all we can choose to smoke, drink, eat junk food, and engage in other unhealthy habits. So, why should we be forced to wear a belt, and then pay a fine if we don't?

-- amy (acook@in4web.com), February 13, 2001.

The way I see it, you all wouldn't have to pay for my medical care if FDR and Lyndon Johnson's ""Great" Society" wouldn't have sent this country on a roller coaster ride of socialism in the first place. I say you can take it all back!!! I am an individual and the determiner of my own fate. Driver's licenses and all the crazy rules are just a way the government can come in the back door to raid our pocketbook. They are completely un-necessary! It's called tracking the citizenry folks. It's amazing how all those crazy's of the past got away without being licensed for their dangerous horse. Personally, I think most people have the bit so far in their mouth that if the government opened the pasture gate they wouldn't have the wherewithall to even try to make a life for themselves. Which just goes to show we are worse off than the animals we tend because every goat, I've ever owned would choose freedom everytime. But see the government holds onto that bucket of grain to control the masses, and just like my goats, we're more inclined to eat ourselves to death.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), February 13, 2001.

Good analogy, LBF !

-- Action Dude (theactiondude@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

Whew, there sure are a lot of opinions on this one! I think part of the problem is that people, for the most part, don't want to take responsibility for their actions (or inactions) therefore, abdicate that responsibility to the government. Hence, we have laws to protect us from ourselves cause most people won't take the responsible approach when dealing with things that they KNOW they shouldn't do. Case in point; cigarette smoking. Now I used to smoke so no one can tell me anything that I don't already know about dangers, quitting, etc. But I remember hearing the term "coffin nails" long, long before the Surgeon General ever got around to "warning the people of the dangers of smoking". We know it is bad for us, we still do it, yet when one of our loved ones dies, we sue the tobacco company. Hence putting the blame on them. Then the gov. steps in to regulate and control the very thing that we KNOW is bad for us. It relieves us of the responsibility to be accountable for our actions. It (whatever it may be) is someone else's fault. For the record, I am using the terms "We", "Us" and "them" generally speaking, it makes writing easier. I guess I am saying that if I don't want to wear a seatbelt and I get in an accident and get totally maimed, then I shouldn't sue the "car maker" or Highway Safety dept. or anyone else. It is an accountability issue that America as a whole has gotten away from. Think just for a moment about the things that are regulated or enforced. Most are due to irresponsible behavior. Most people who frequent this forum are pretty good at being accountable and taking responsibility (just judging from the amount of livestock and gardening and children raising present) - someone's doing what they oughta. But lots of people have never been taught that what they do or don't do is their responsibility.

So I guess I am maybe a minority in my views, but I wholeheartedly agree that less government is better, whether it is the tax man, the building inspector or ATF.

-- Cindy (colawson@mindspring.com), February 13, 2001.

When the government decides to stop lines of cars to "check for seatbelt usage" (EO. on seatbelt usage from King Bill, I think the # is 13083) which they ARE doing here in Austin from time to time and they are also doing in NYC, and then while they have a look at your belt, they run your license, ask for your SS#, check your insurance, registration, proper address, and ask you if you mind if they have a look in your trunk, it sure is a tic too much like asking "I haf zee need to be zeeing your papuhs, pleeze".

LBF, that is indeed a beautiful analogy. I think we strive too hard to make life safe and lose all of our freedoms in the attempt.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), February 13, 2001.

That's right Little Bit, we wouldn't have to pay for your health care. We could just let you die out in the parking lot because you don't have any insurance or money. See that in Haiti everyday. Cash money please or no medicine, no treatment, no food, no bed. Sorry trying to do the right thing is so painful for you all. It seems that was why so many of these laws got started. No one wanted to do the right thing voluntarily and people who cared got sick of seeing the devastation. Let's just throw it all away and go back to the good old days. Those people who made those "socialistic laws" you rant about were people who had seen the depression and what it brought. You act like it was a deliberate attempt to INHIBIT YOUR FREEDOM. Not so, that is has come to that is more the problem of the people who have abused it than the people who designed it. I am far from a bleeding heart liberal, and I personally think I hate the seat belt laws and a lot of other laws also, but to make the statements you made is a bit extreme to me.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

There are much better ways to take care of people who can't afford all manner of things, than to ask them to become servants of the state. In fact, the bible instituted them. Some of them are:

1)Love your neighbor as yourself 2)Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 3)Charity suffereth long and is kind

It seems to me that before 1930, people managed to help one another. They built barns together, and when they burnt down again everyone in the community chipped in to help. In fact there are programs in place today that allow people to share the cost of medical services without being enslaved to either the insurance companies or the government. These wonderful programs allow people to pay monthly into a joint savings account so that needy families can recieve care. And amazingly enough they manage to do it without a precious few managing to get rich on the misfortune of others. The point is that these people all have an equal say in how their money is spent, and can withdraw their support at any time. People don't have to bleed to death in the parking lot, and they can be free too. Imagine that! Their money also doesn't get spent on immoral activities in the process, like the killing of babies for instance. Before the government decided to be our nursemaid, many people recieved aid from their churches and synagogues(sp?). The depression was a horrible thing. No doubt about it, but was it necessary to take away the freedom of countless generations to save one? To the contrary, I have talked with countless people who lived through the depression, some of them right here in Oklahoma. As you probably know this is where the dustbowl happened. These people were gritty, pull yourself up by your bootstraps people. They certainly didn't have their hand out to the government. I asked an eighty year old couple, the other day, what their life was like during that time. They said, "Well we didn't have many things". I said, "Were you hungry?" They said, "No we had all kinds of food right there on the farm, we just didn't have any luxuries. Those were some of the happiest years of our lives." I heard the same from countless older americans. That is not to say that the depression didn't cause many to struggle, but struggle is not all bad. When we struggle, we learn that we can accomplish much more than we ever thought. The contrast to that is that when we take a hand out we learn that there's always more slop at the trough. What I would like to know is how programs that were supposed to end after the crisis was over are still in place today and shelling out trillions of dollars. I'd also like to know how I can still meet young ladies with trails of children behind her still on welfare, unmarried, and still recieving free medical care and food and money, and never having held a job for any length of time. That is the difference between community, and government. Government ignores and strips us of our dignity. Community uplifts, and if necessary cuts off. In diaries from long ago, there are many examples of people being helped by their community. There are also examples of people who were undeserving of the communities help allowed to deal with things on their own. Sometimes tragedy is the best teacher to someone who doesn't want to learn.

The government cannot protect us from all of lifes bumps and bruises. It cannot make hunger go away. Some of the hungriest people in America are children on welfare whose parent spends the money on booze and drugs, without care of their own children's welfare. The government is supposed to protect our shores, and protect our liberty. On the second it has done a pretty poor job. I am extreme. I want what my ancestors fought to give me and fought to keep. One of them said, "Give me liberty, or give me death!". Another said," Posterity-you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. " John Quincy Adams They were talking to us. Have we really made good use of our freedom, by giving it away at every turn? Have we made their sacrifice worth the cost? I don't think so. They must be rolling in their graves.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), February 13, 2001.

I also want to add that whether it was deliberate or not, matters very little the ultimate effect is the same. You can't tell me that when they decided to make these laws they didn't know that future generations would have to live with them. Of course they did. They just didn't care. Many times the laws were to line their own pocketbooks. For instance requiring permits to build a home. They said it was to protect everyone else, but what it was really for was to ensure that certain industries had a strangle hold on housing. This has happened again and again in industry after industry. Even farmers are guilty of going for the quick dollar at the expense of succeeding generations

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), February 13, 2001.

Little Bit, I really think you have a terribly unrealistic view of how things were before 1930. As far as the people from the depression you were speaking of, those on farms did manage quite well. Perhaps we should just take all the welfare people and those undeserving of help for not learning from their tragedy and put them out of their misery. I think it was done quite effectively in Germany.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

It sounds like you're saying, if people are gonna be required to stand on their own two feet we might as well kill them because we know they can't do it. I believe they can. I believe the government is slowly killing them by keeping them down. How can you equate the suggestion that we go back to a time of personal responsibility, with the annihilation of the jewish people?

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), February 14, 2001.

Diane,

I find it an interesting paradox that those who first begin casting accusations of fascism are usually those engaging in it...

Washington Times
Letters to the Editor
June 7 - Arlington, VA

During the past several months in the American press, the Democrats have frequently denounced the Republicans as Nazis due to their attempts to control runaway federal spending. How very ironic. I remember the Nazis. Let me share a little about them and recall some of their exploits.

First of all, "Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize". The Bider-Mienhoff gang gave themselves this moniker during their early struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was "The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany". Hitler and the Brownshirts advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement.

Hitler came to power by turning the working class, unemployed, and academic elite against the conservative republic. After Der Fuhrer's election ceased being a political conspiracy and was transformed into a fashionable social phenomenon, party membership was especially popular with educators, bureaucrats, and the press.

Being a Nazi was "politically correct". They called themselves "The Children of the New Age of World Order" and looked down their noses at everyone else. As Hitler acquired more power, he referred to his critics as "The Dark Forces of Anarchy and Hatred". Anyone who questioned Nazi high- handedness in the German press was branded a "Conservative Reactionary". Joseph Goebbels, minister of communications, proclaimed a "New World Order".

The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, Bohemians and Gypses who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the "New World Order" and Hitler demanded that all good people register their guns so that they wouldn't fall into the hands of "terrorists and madmen".Right-wing fanatics of the "Old Order" who protested firearms registration were arrested by the S.S. and put in jail for "fomenting hatred against the Government of the German people".

Then the Reichstag (government building) was blown up and Hitler ram-rodded an "Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act" through Parliament that gave the Gestapo extraordinary powers. The leader then declared that for the well-being of the German people, all private firearms were to be confiscated by the Gestapo and the Wermotten (federal law enforcement and military). German citizens who refused to surrender their guns when the "jack-boots" (Gestapo) came calling, were murdered in their homes. By the way, the Gestapo were the federal marshals' service of the Third Reich. The S.W.A.T. team was invented and perfected by the Gestapo to break into the homes of the enemies of the German people.

When the Policia Bewakken, or local police, refused to take away guns from townsfolk, they themselves were disarmed and dragged out into the street and shot to death by the S.A. and the S.S. Those were Nazi versions of the B.A.T.F. and the F.B.I. When several local ministers spoke out against these atrocities, they were imprisoned and never seen again.

The Gestapo began to confiscate and seize the homes, businesses, bank accounts, and personal belongings of wealthy conservative citizens who had prospered in the old Republic. Pamphleteers who urged revolt against the Nazis were shot on site by national law enforcement and the military. Gypsies and Jews were detained and sent to labor camps. Mountain roads throughout central Europe were closed to prevent the escape of fugitives into the wilderness, and to prevent the movement and concealment of partisan resistance fighters.

Public schools rewrote history and Hitler youth groups taught the children to report their parents to their teachers for anti-Nazi remarks. Such parents disappeared. Pagan animism became the state religion of the Third Reich and Christians were widely condemned as "right wing fanatics".

Millions of books were burned first and then people. Millions of them burned in huge ovens after they were first gassed to death. Unmarried women were paid large sums of money to have babies out of wedlock and then given medals for it. Evil was declared as being good, and good was condemned as being evil. World Order was coming and the German people were going to be the "peacekeepers".

Yes, indeed, I remember the Nazis and they weren't Republicans, or "right wing", or "patriots" or "militias". They were Socialist monsters.

— Thomas Colton Ruthford

-- William in WI (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), February 14, 2001.

William in wis. Good stuff! Thank you for taking the time!

-- Action Dude (theactiondude@yahoo.com), February 14, 2001.

Still haven't seen the answer to my question. What freedom, as guaranteed by the constitution, has been taken taken away from you by a seatbelt law? There are many laws I disagree with on the books. I can choose to ignore them and knowingly break them, at which point I should be willing to face the consequences of my actions. I can choose to follow them. I can choose to work to change them. Oh yeah, the essence of a free society, I can choose. All freedoms are not absolute, by the way. Go cry fire in a crowded theater and argue about the the freedom of speech. For those of you who complain about public schools. How many times have you run for school board? You may choose to use the system or to opt out of the system but the system exists for the common good. Whether you think it is working or not is irrelevant if all you do is complain privately and do nothing to work to change it publicly. For those of you who complain about neighbors breaking the laws and the powers that be looking the other way because of political connections: Why live there if it is so untenable. It's a big, wide beautiful country out there and you can choose to live wherever you want as long as you take responsibilty for that choice. You can spend all your life whining and moaning about how bad things are and do nothing to change them or you can look around and see how good they are and work to change those things you think are bad. Once again, your choice.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), February 14, 2001.

Lena, I am sorry but that was not what I intended to communicate. I guess my real point is, who actually decides who is deserving of help. Little Bit has an opinion of who is deserving, it is right? I don't know. I was not really intending to call any one group fascist, but some one group ends up "cleansed" when one group thinks they have the corner on the market for judgment of right and wrong. People romanticize the good old days, but they ignore the children who were working in the factories as little kids and all sorts of other injustice and abuse. I am not a proponent of big government and lots of laws. I have very few answers and a lot of questions. Our forefathers made a lot of mistakes. We burned "witches" and killed multitudes of native americans because we were so sure our way was the right way. What I strongly dislike is when someone is in a box and thinks it is the only box or claims they are not in a box. The people on both end of the spectrum on this forum are actually so alike it is quite frightening to me. They are living in the same box, but it is so full of brown stuff they can't see each other. We will never have anything but chaos unless we all go to a higher ground and stop railing against the past mistakes and head off some far worse ones that are looming in the not to distant future.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 14, 2001.

No society is perfect, past or present. That being said, that doesn't mean that using the poor and down trodden to take everyone's freedom is right. Yes, it was wrong for children to be slaves in factories, but is the current system where children just basically take up space and chase immorality any better? Are multitudes of unmarried teenage moms, drug and alchohol addicted teens, children shooting up schools because they all have too much time on their hands any better? I don't think so. Abuse is wrong in any age, but so is laziness. I personally don't have a problem with those who want the government to take care of their every little need. There are plenty of countries in the world that would love their servitude. What I object to is those people breaking the law of the land, and taking my freedom. That may make me seem terribly incompassionate, and cruel, but I believe it means that people need to take responsibility for themselves. In January, we had a terrible ice storm here, our heater started pumping CO into the room and almost killed us. We couldn't stay in our house anymore, so I was forced to depend on other's charity for a few days. We could have gone to a government shelter. We could have recieved money for my husband's lost wages. We chose to depend upon members of our church, whom we would gladly help at any time in a similar situation. As soon as we were on our feet, we did everything we could to return the favors so graciously granted us. I am not saying we were oh so great, what I am saying is that there are alternatives to dependence on Uncle Sam. I make no judgement about all those on welfare. I actually feel sorry for them, because they are the one's being taken advantage of. They have had their right to pursue their own happiness yanked a away at the cost of their freedom. This is truly sad. Years ago fortunes were made and lost, but they were always there to be made again. That is not so true these days. Once a man could go out and buy land and build himself a home and a life. Today the same man on welfare, must look long and hard for a business he could run without the government stopping him and requiring tremendous capital to overcome the red tape. The same man living in a government run tenement, cannot just purchase bare land and build his house either. He must jump through hoops, and pass building inspection, and cope with zoning laws, building contractors, and then and only then can he begin to give his family a place to live. But hey, that's ok, because instead he can take his monthly stipend from the government that guarantees he will never accomplish his dreams, and as long as he stays out of everyone's way all the liberal dogooders will feel they have saved him from poverty. Never mind that he now has no heart left to even strive for that business and home, he dreams about everyday. And instead of dying in a parking lot without medical care, he needs no medical care anymore, because his life ended at the end of a bottle of pills, in a run down motel. Has it happened? Yes it has, and will many times again. I use this story to illistrate a point. obviously the government is not responsible for all the ills of man, but it certainly hasn't helped lately.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), February 14, 2001.

I must really be dense here. I still don't see where helping the poor or downtrodden takes away their freedom or yours. Besides not wearing seat belts, exactly what rights do you feel you are being deprived of??? Is there something you are wanting that you are not getting??? If you don't want to participate in the Social Security system for religious reasons, and will wave all benefits, it is allowed. No one said you have to have insurance of any kind unless you have a mortgage or want to drive an auto on a public road. I have heard so much retoric from you against government, industry, farmers, and all us sheep who don't believe what ever it is that you believe,which by the way-I still haven't figured out what it is that you actually believe.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 14, 2001.

Ray, how about my question? Why not give me the money that the public schools would get for my kids? I don't want it, but I would take a tax break. My point is that we're paying for public schools that my children don't attend. If that's whining, I guess you not wanting to pay for my brain dead carcass is too. As for running for the school board, that would be moot since I homeschool.

If I moved everytime someone in government was wrong, I'd be living out of my car.

I have written letters, attended and spoke at meetings. I am working to change things. That begins with speaking out every chance I get.

It never ceases to amaze me at the hostility towards people who want to think for themselves, instead of blindly following our politically correct government.

Diane, I can only speak for myself. I want to build on my land without asking permission, and paying the government to ok it. When my children went to public school I wanted to take them on vacation without asking permission. I want to decide what vaccinations are best for my children. Do you know that if a school decides your child should be on ritilan(sp), and you disagree, you can be charged with neglect? That entails being investigated by social services. Anytime this happens, they come in your house check your pantry, check your childs room, and talk to all of your children. They then decide whether you are guilty or not. Can you imagine the damage to the children? This happened to another homeschool family, that's why they pulled their children out of public school. These are just a few of the reasons I feel that freedom in America is slowly being eroded. Could you imagine them trying to do that fifty years ago? They always say, "But we're doing it for your own good."

I'd like to thank everyone for responding. I know there's hope. William and Little Bit, I always enjoy your posts.

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), February 14, 2001.

Ray,

While the Pobble was in the water some unidentified creatures came and ate his toes off, and when he got home [Uncle Ray S.] remarked: It's a fact the whole world knows, That Pobbles are happier without their toes, which is funny because it has a meaning, and one might even say a political significance. For the whole theory of authoritarian government is summed up in the statement that Pobbles are happier without their toes.
George Orwell

Still haven't seen the answer to my question.
Well then you either havent been reading the other responses on this thread or you are being intellectually dishonest.

What freedom, as guaranteed by the constitution,
The Constitution does not guarantee rights nor is it the source of your rights, it is a restriction on the government and an effort to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of some of your rights and is not all inclusive nor is it the source of your rights.

has been taken taken away from you by a seatbelt law?
Is this a trick question?

There are many laws I disagree with on the books. I can choose to ignore them and knowingly break them, at which point I should be willing to face the consequences of my actions.
Before getting in line for the guillotine you should find out what "mala in se" and "mala in prohibita" mean and what effect that would have on your willingness to follow those laws and why others may not be willing to get in line with you.

I can choose to follow them. I can choose to work to change them. Oh yeah, the essence of a free society, I can choose.
A rat may choose to hump his treadmill but that hardly makes him free.

All freedoms are not absolute, by the way.
Yes, they are. Natural rights come from a source beyond the government and cannot be restricted in any way by government. The concept of rights restrictions were not part of what the Framers intended and did not begin to appear until we began to see activist judges on the Supreme Court.

Ill have to continue this tomorrow...

-- William in WI (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), February 14, 2001.

No one has as yet stepped forward to answer my question, but I'll try to tackle yours, Lena. Public schools are there to provide for the common good of society. We can debate seperately whether the method of educating our youth is adequate or not, but we all supposedly gain some value from an educated populace, therefor we all contribute to it. There are many roads in this great land that I will never drive on, but my tax dollars have built and maintained them. Should I get some rebate based on how many miles I drive each year. I haven't had a fire, yet my taxes help support my local fire department. If I opt out of that protection, can I get some money back? Where is it written that in order to serve on the school board you must have children in school?

If you plan to build substandard housing or engage in some non-zoned activity on property next to mine which adversely affects the value of my property, I should have legal recourse with which to stop you. If you don't like the zoning laws, change them or move to someplace that has none and work to keep it that way.

I applaud you for being involved as you say you are. You end your response by asking for personal responsibility. That is all I asked for when I said that if you choose to break a law such as the seatbelt one, you must be prepared to pay the fine. Care to answer my question, now.

-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), February 14, 2001.

OK, I think I've got it now!!! This is not an attempt to be funny, just stating facts. We have what I think amounts to a huge generational gap here. Lena, I see the glass as half full and you see it as half empty. I didn't have the "right" to homeschool my children, therefore I think we have made big progress. I have friends disabled by polio and other preventable birth defects so I thought inoculations were progress. You want the right to not vaccinate, I wanted desperately to have affordable vaccines. You don't remember what it was like before seatbelts and how hard people fought to get the auto owners to even put them in. I remember before building permits and watching a neighbors house burn down with everyone in it because of improper construction and electrical. I am not kidding when I say I remember kids coming to school with taped up shoes and very hungry and teachers bringing extra food for them. The list goes on. What I consider progress you consider a large loss of rights. We are on different pages of history. Sorry, I should have avoided this thread but I didn't.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 14, 2001.

I believe William answered more eloquently than I could hope to. The reason I started this thread was because I was sick of one new law after another. We're never safe, we need more and more laws to protect us. People never care unless they are the ones affected. When they are the ones affected, by then it will be too late.

I notice no one mentioned the case of social services. How would anyone of you feel, knowing the government had such control over your family? How would you feel if they came to your door, wanting to go through your home. Knowing they had the power to take your children, if you didn't go along with them? You don't want to let them in? They'll get a seach warrant. Just because it hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean it never will.

I have no desire to be on the school board, I'm too busy teaching my children. That is until the government works its way up to taking this right away from me. I guess since it's not spelled out in the Bill of Rights, that's not really a right either.

Everyone pays for schools through taxes. There is a certain amount of money alloted for each child, if the school doesn't get it, then it should go to the person taking the responsibility for the childs education. This is just common sense. As to you're analogy of using the roads, you have to ability to drive on any road you choose. You have to go to the school that your child is assigned. There is no choice.

I do agree with you on one point. If you don't like the laws, change them. I'll do everything I can to change them, that includes speaking out. You never know who is listening. I'll see that my children understand the process, maybe they won't be as lazy and uncaring as my generation.

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), February 14, 2001.

I see plenty of references to 'rights' not so many to 'obligations'. Oh, and by the way, if you don't like the way the PTA operates get yourself on the committee.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), February 14, 2001.

Speaking of obligations, this will be my last post on this subject as it's taking precious time away from my family. Although nothing can be said to change my mind, I will read any response to my last post. America was founded because of oppression. We should learn from mistakes of the past.

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), February 14, 2001.

Lena, I am sorry that life here has left you with such a bitter spirit that you feel oppressed. I have thought a bit about your friend's experience with the social service and I am wondering if it is a difference in our states. Here there would have to be a great deal more "red flags of abuse" before they would get involved in a home visit like you discribed. I have a very dear friend who left the field of protective service because things had to get so bad before they could do anything. They are far to busy with very real cases of neglect and abuse to concern themselves with rather a child is given ritalin or not. My home was an emergency foster home for years and I can assure you a child never came here by accident. I for one am proud of my country and it's stand against child abuse. There are still far more laws to protect the parent than there are to protect the child. It also deeply saddens me that you are determined to pass on to your children a mind set that will encourage negativity and bitterness against a country that for the most part is trying very hard to do the right thing. I believe that so many of us are overwhelmed by the speed at which things are changing and how globalization is affecting our little worlds. I know that I am. Never-the-less it is happening and we can chose to enter in and try to help direct it in a positive way or withdraw into little shells of paranoia. However you or I want to discribe them, the days of the past are past. I will pray that both you and your friend recover from your bad experience and can move into the future with a positive and loving spirit. Oh, and for the record, I got a ticket for seat belt violation last summer and was madder than a wet hen. Had traveled over a hundred miles with it on and went from the gas station to the grocery store(l block) without it and got a $40 ticket. We have a terribly tight budget and it was a hardship. Life goes on and I am much more faithful about wearing my seatbelts. Maybe it will save me a grave injury, maybe not.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 15, 2001.

From my perspective it isn't a resistance to change, but a resistance to tyranny. I do not mind laws that are necessary, but the seatbelt laws and some extrapolations thereof have been used to make serious inroads to invasions of privacy and those same laws have been tied to federal services for the state and used to help to erode states rights as well.

In California several years ago, there was a mexican man who had his five children in his car, one was very young, I believe it was 6 or 6 months old. he was struck by a vehicle and his baby was killed. They charged the man with murder for not having a car seat. This is just adding insult to injury and not the only case like it. That is flat out wrong. They did not end up convicting him of murder, but he was in jail for a long time awaiting trial, and what does that do to a family which has suffered such a loss as they had?

I believe that the government has no ability to make my life safer without taking away my freedoms in the process. As William pointed out, the Constitution isn't the guaranteur of our 10 rights as humans, it's the limiter on the federal government and it is indeed being destroyed slowly and surely. Those of us who have a real respect for the Constitution as our founding fathers, with all of their imperfections, wrote it are just frustrated beyond belief with the rationale that exchanging freedom for liberty is the cry of the day. No matter how many laws are passed, we are still mortal and we WILL die. The only exception to that is divine interference ie. the rapture, and there is a lot of unsurety about that event. Anyway, although I abhor abuse of ANYTHING, I don't see abuse of freedom by the government as being the answer to stopping it from EVER happening. The answer lies closer to home in the home and the community.

By the way, I was awarded a citation from the Great State of Texas last spring and it's $90, AND they ask for your SS# upon every routine traffic stop. There is no law requiring you to have an SS#, you know.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), February 15, 2001.

I'll make this as simple as possible: What right has been taken from you by the implementation of the seatbelt laws? You still have the "right" to choose to wear or not wear a seatbelt while driving. You just have the obligation of paying any fines or penalties should you choose not to wear one.

-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), February 15, 2001.

Maybe this should be a separate thread but here it goes. I am wondering what it really is about the original constitution that all my dear sisters are trying to return to, and what they think is tyrany in the times today. I hate to burst your bubbles about rights but if you read history, under the original constitution, as it was written, you had NO RIGHTS. Women did not vote, did not own land, were basically 2nd class citizens in a man's world. Is that what you are yearning for??? As a country we are growing and we are still evolving as a nation, and whose "view" of what the constitution intended we listen to changes from year to year. But what ever "view" you look at it from sisters, under the original you had no rights. Thank you very much young sisters, but I certainly don't want to GO BACK.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 15, 2001.

Ray, As William said, your rights are natural(you possess them with or without government}. The Constitution and Bill of Rights however put limitations upon the government, as to how far they can invade a person's life. The Bill of Rights states that neither the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, can be construed to take away other rights already in possession of the people. Therefore, if you could ride a horse without a belt or helmet in 1776, then you should be able to now, were our esteemed politicians obeying the law that is. I would be interested in seeing a complete list of all things legal 200 years ago, that are now considered illegal. Also would all the people who answered this question tell us their ages. I would like to see how age demographics have affected this subject.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), February 15, 2001.

Oops forgot to put my own age. 34. Feel free to put a range in if you're shy about your actual age.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), February 15, 2001.

OOps again with some embarrasment. I haven't been 34 for two years. I'm 36.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), February 15, 2001.

Little Bit-approaching 60 faster than I like

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 15, 2001.

Diane, I would really love to answer this question, but do you think you could post it under new question, maybe the title Women and the Constitution or something like that. If we address this here the thread will get hard to download it will be so long.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), February 15, 2001.

I understood that being a Christian included the obligation to take care of one's body? Am I wrong? If your horse had a seatbelt in the 18th century a Christian would have been obligated to wear it as not doing so would have been irresponsible in respect to caring for his/her body. So what has changed?

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), February 15, 2001.

I'll be 36 this year.

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), February 15, 2001.

Just popping in to say a couple things:

Ray,
I havent forgotten you.

Lena,
"We are at the point where polite political action is as useless as a miniskirt in a convent."-Claire Wolfe

Little Bit,
Around your age.

-- William in WI (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), February 15, 2001.

36 here. Have much to say on this, but don't have the time right now. Little Bit, Doreen, William, Lena have spoken well for me also.

Diane, I think you presume too much regarding Lena. A "bitter" spirit? You are way out of line. You can oppose something mightly without bitterness. I find that comment belittliling, and an attempt to diminish Lena's position. Not very noble.

Continue on.......

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), February 15, 2001.

So let me see if I understand this. Because there were no limitations on how I rode my horse 225 years ago, there should be no limitations on how I drive my car today? I think I'll use that arguement on the next patrol officer that pulls me over for exceeding a posted speed limit. "Really officer, there was no speed limit in the constitution, so I shouldn't have to follow one now.

42 years of age, last month.

-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), February 15, 2001.

Wendy, you are right. Sorry Lena-hope all goes well for all of you in your quest for what it is that you are looking for. From what I have seen here on this forum, I would have to say quite sincerely, I am more than baffled at how it came to this. It is my sincere desire that my Lord would call me home long before your generation is in the role of leadership in this country. God Bless and Keep you all and please, all you professing Christians, get back in your Bibles. Read the Gospels and the words of Christ.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 16, 2001.

I know I said I wouldn't respond, but this is something that has to be said. We're all different, and come from different backgrounds. I can understand other points of view. If you question my walk with the Lord, because my viewpoint is different, someone might believe that we all have to think the same to be a Christian. We shouldn't be judgemental of each other, as we are all in different walks. It doesn't matter if your republican, democrat, or libertarian. It doesn't matter if your a vegetarian or meat eater. It doesn't matter if you send your kids to public school or homeschool them. He accepts you just as you are.

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), February 16, 2001.

And, I personally will be glad when sixties hippies are through directing the paths of this nation, Diane. What a mess our society has become since then.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), February 16, 2001.

Before anyone jumps on me about my bad grammar, I see it.

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), February 16, 2001.

The 60's hippies aren't in power yet, We in-hale!

-- hillbilly (internethillbilly@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.

I don't feel that wearing a seat belt infringes on any constitutional rights, however I do think that it is a law that affects no ones safety but my own, and therefore is rediculous. I also will never use the local school system, but pay the same percentage of taxes as the local folks with 6 children. I feel this is unfair as well. I am happy to pay for roads and fire/police protection and a certain amout of local government, but beyond that leave me alone! An aside..like the comment about the school system and child neglect charges...When my MOm was dying a year ago from breast cancer at age 55, she wanted to die at home so we paid for hospice to come out. While my step dad had cared for her, the worker always asked if he was abusing her, was he feeding her, did she get her medication, etc. How outrageous!

-- Dianne (yankeeterrier@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.

Lil Bit....the sixties hippies in control of this nation?? What planet are you on? The basic values of that culture, not the hype from the media, are all but lost today. Most of em copped out, caved in and gave up; went right back to living a life based on their parents' values they fought so hard to change. My 'hippie' values are the best part of me, and I too find your generations' harsh, discompassionate politics to be apalling. I'm not worried about it, however; I know hundreds of fine, loving and passionate young people today, peers of my teenagers'; they will pick up where we left off, any perhaps do it right this time.

-- Earthmama48 (earthmama48@yahoo.com), February 18, 2001.