Posted on 01/11/2008 6:37:14 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Bump for later reading.
I’ve known some amish and worked with them briefly. I do know that in many cases they pay SS, but refuse to draw upon it for disability or at an age when they can drawn from it.
We all have a lot to learn from the Amish... We are the English in their vocabulary.
ping
Here’s one for you.
amishnews.com is this a joke?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
I'm not sure I could live it; even so, no matter how much I looked amish, they, like the mennonites and hutterites, never quite accept you unless you are born into the family.
This is very upsetting. I’m glad it turned out OK in the end, but look how much grief that Amish guy had to go through just to avoid getting “assistance” from the government. I would be willing to sign any document the government put in front of me stating I won’t accept any social security in exchange for letting me keep it and invest it myself. Even if I wind up with nothing. But that would never happen because even if I put the same amount in a simple savings account I’d retire quite well off.
Not sure which Amish you describe. Around here, we get along very nicely. Why, we have even eaten together in the same kitchen.
I've spent time amongst both segments and even thought about becoming mennonite, but as kind as they are, I could sense that I would never fully be one of them because I was no born amongst them.
WHy did I sense this?
Various reasons, but the largest reason was I watched other families that had become mennonite, and had been for some time, and it was subtle, but obvious that they were not fully mennonite.
Nice series, it’s great to read of the good guys who stood up to the IRS and won.
Thanks for posting this. I take great pride in my Amish ancestry even though my family broke away from their settlements several generations ago.
I went to college with a lot of Mennonites. (Amish, religiously are just uber-conservative Mennonites, and don’t go to college). As a student of church history....I understand their history, and I understand their separatism and their pacifism. And I respect their sincerity.
However, I think they are simply wrong, and ultimately, though nice, kind, Christian people, ultimately, they are parasites. They rely on the security—gained by force of arms, by others dirty work essentially—for their freedom and peace.
The exceptions they demand—from military service, (some) from paying a portion of taxes (that go to the military) from even having safety reflectors on their buggies, from all kinds of things—just bug the heck out of me. I really don’t wonder why they were hounded out of Europe, and from the very beginning, Mennonite pacifists were very unpopular generally.
Again, personally very nice people. The Amish reaction last year to the shootings was utterly amazing. However, this is a group which is irresponsible, since they choose (and of course they must choose) to live in a country defended by that which they consider unalterably immoral.
FDR needed to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution when he established his New Deal federal spending programs. But instead of rallying the states to amend the Constitution to essentially add Social Security and other New Deal programs to Sec. 8 of Article I in compliance with the 10th A., FDR basically talked the Supreme Court into buying his politically correct interpretation of the vaguely worded general welfare clause while ignoring the 10th A. protected powers of the states.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare (emphasis added) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;It's almost as if FDR did not understand the Founder's requirements for constitutionally enumerated federal powers, the Founder's way of limiting federal spending.10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In fact, regardless of the Court's overall acceptance of FDR's politically wide interpretation of the general welfare clause which helped to push many of his constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs through the Court, the following extract from Jefferson's writings shows that good intentions read into the general welfare clause are no substitute for federal spending justified by the reasonable interpretation of constitutionally enumerated federal powers.
"1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.In fact, FDR probably wouldn't have been able to establish many of his constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs, Social Security for example, if it weren't for the swing votes of mixed up justices like Owen Roberts, a Hoover-nominated RINO. The extracts below give an idea why 10th A. protected state powers never had a chance when the 10th A. was weighed against FDR's politically correct interpretation of the general welfare clause by justices like Roberts.It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
--Thomas Jefferson concerning the constitutionality of establishing a national bank, 1791 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/bank-tj.htm
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87cThe problem with Justice Roberts' profound, 10th A.-ignoring "insight" into 14th Amendment is that he outrageously misrepresented the intentions of John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment. This is because Bingham had clarified, both before and after the ratification of the 14th A., that the 14th A. was not intended to take away any state's rights. See for yourself.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5dSo the 10th A. protected powers of the states were seriously weakened because FDR sympathizers like Justice Roberts based their votes to give the green light to New Deal programs like Social Security partly on FDR's politically correct license to ignore the 10th Amendment. Indeed, note that the 10th A. is not referenced in the Cantwell opinion, nor in most other post-FDR era state power related USSC case opinions; corrections welcome."No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n
The bottom line is that the people need to wise up to very serious problem of widespread federal government corruption, particularly where the 10th A. protected power of the states are being ignored in the name of constitutionally unauthorized federal spending, a tradition established by FDR era politics. The people need to quit sitting on their hands and petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.
It was St. Franklin who mollycoddled Alger Hiss but told Whittaker Chambers (vicariously, through Adolf Berle) to go #*&@! himself. Meanwhile he offered fawning propaganda stateside for his bosom buddy and fellow president-for-life Iosif Vissarionovich and trivially handed him half of Europe. He is a hero to Demmunists because he built the infrastructure through which they now buy the loyalty of all voters whose price is low enough.
“They rely on the security—gained by force of arms, by others dirty work essentially—for their freedom and peace.”
.....yep, there’s old Englishman farmers in south central PA that would agree with you....during WWII it was their sons that went off to fight and die while the Amish farms prospered because they kept their sons out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.