Preps and Solutions
(Sponsored Ads)
Block Cubed - Cryptocurrency and Blockchain News
  • “This News Is Massive” Unikoin Gold (UKG) CEO Responds To Supreme Court Ruling That Legalizes Sports Betting
  • Blockchain Smart Contracts
  • Understanding the Difference Between Proof of Work vs. Proof of Stake
  • Silver
    Strategic Relocation
    Recently Posted Articles and Videos
    Ready Nutrition - Homesteading and Preparedness
    Ready Gardens - A Ready Nutrition Company
    The Daily Sheeple
    The Prepper Website
    SGT Report
    The Daily Coin
    top Prepper Web Sites
    Featured Destinations
    The Liberty Mill
    Web Destinations

    Clarocet for Kids
    Silver

    Dr. Taylor Haynes: Wyoming’s Gubernatorial Candidate Is A TRUE Constitutionalist

    Mac Slavo
    February 12th, 2018
    SHTFplan.com
    Comments (9)
    Read by 1,252 people

    dr-haynes

    If ever there was a list of gubernatorial candidates who would strictly adhere to the Constitution, the list would be small. But joining Dr. Ron Paul is Dr. Taylor Haynes, who would like to see Wyoming succeed by giving people liberty.

    Dr. Taylor Haynes is intelligent and well-spoken, like Dr. Ron Paul, and seeks to limit government to its roles laid out in the Constitution.  Dr. Haynes said he would like to see the 16th amendment removed from the Constitution, but it needs to be done without using a Convention of the States.  He says this opens up the Constitution and the government would surely and immediately take away free speech and gun rights. This amendment is not a part of the Bill of Rights but was added so the federal government could disingenuously steal money from the American people.

    On his website, Haynes is quoted as saying:

    I am the first person running for office to promote Wyoming’s sovereignty and the absolute need to establish a “constitutional” relationship with the Federal Government. The vision I have shared with Wyoming voters for a prosperous and free Wyoming, has shown signs of coming to life. –Dr. Taylor Haynes

    Not even two weeks ago, Dr. Haynes did an interview with Glenn Woods from KGAB radio in Cheyenne, in which he said:

    The Constitution was weighing heavily and being lost and when I could see how the primary was going…I really wanted to keep that particular message out there. Because over the years starting in the late ’80’s pushing back on people like Bill Clinton…I could see that state sovereignty was an issue. If we were under the Constitution, we wouldn’t have some of the problems we’re facing in this very day.

     

    Haynes admits that some of his ideas involving liberty and freedom come across as “scary” to some.  But that’s likely due to the fact that oppression and tyranny of the federal government has taken such a firm hold on many Americans, they don’t actually feel oppressed through complacency. When Haynes was asked if he was interested in raising taxes he replied:

    In the interest of fiscal responsibility and balance between chaos and order, I would just hold the line. I would not raise any taxes and I’d hold the line on spending. The spending problem we have, and we have one, and the revenue problem we have, obviously, they are related. But what we’re doing…is only working with 49% of our [Wyoming state’s] mineral wealth.  We should have 100% of our mineral wealth…I’m not saying we should be ‘drunken sailors.’ I’m saying IF we were under the Constitution IF we ran the state in a fiscally responsible constitution-based manner, we wouldn’t have budget problems.

    Haynes also says that we [Wyoming] don’t NEED the feds involved in education. We need to get away from, for example, math teachers teaching social engineering.  Math teachers should teach math, not “engineer” our children.

    Listening to Dr. Haynes speak was a breath of fresh air. He will be one man to watch. Haynes will attempt to bring the free market, wealth, and freedom back to Wyoming, making the state what America used to be: the land of freedom and opportunity.

    Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.
    The Most Trusted Tactical Gas Mask In The World
    Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

    Author: Mac Slavo
    Views: Read by 1,252 people
    Date: February 12th, 2018
    Website: www.SHTFplan.com

    Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

    9 Comments...

    Vote: Click here to vote for SHTF Plan as a Top Prepper Web Site
    1. Heartless says:

      Any man (or woman) who understands that it is immoral and should be illegal to tax the labor of any man or any man’s business has my vote. If the government needs to tax its citizens it should be as originally by apportionment and levied based on the overall census of both the country as a whole and/or the States census tallies. We are either equal or we are not. I don’t understand just how anyone can believe it is right to claim a portion of income as somehow beholden to the Federal government. There was no such tax until 1913 in this nation’s history. Hmmm, does the creation of the Federal Reserve date ring any bells? Yeppers – 1913.

      • roger says:

        and if the IRS applied the law (IRC) as written, they couldn’t tax the people the way they do now.

        26 USC 3401
        Definitions.
        (a) Wages. For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remunerations paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid –
        26 USC 3401
        This definition states that wages are defined by the relationship between an employee and his employer.

        This fact brings out the importance of knowing just WHO is an employee, and WHO is the employer referred to within these laws. The legal definition of “employer” states:
        26 USC 3401
        Definitions.

        (d) Employer. For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, …
        BUT, before one can possibly positively identify the identity of the “employer”, one must first pinpoint the identity of the “employee”.
        Employee:
        26 USC Section 3401
        Definitions.

        (c) Employee. For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.
        Here is a classic example of how it is easy to be misled by the Code. Though it first appears that the definition of “wages” includes the earnings of every person, a closer look shows that the actual legal definition of the term employee does not include persons working outside of the U.S. government. (Certain corporations that were originally set up by the federal government and that are run by the federal government have appointed corporate officers, such officers are included in this legislation. But not the officers of any private corporations incorporated under the laws of one of the fifty states).
        Did you notice that under the law only individuals who work for the Federal government are “employees”. That of course means that the only “employer” addressed by the laws in Chapter 24 of Title 26 is the Federal government. This is because under the Constitution, the Federal government does not possess the territorial jurisdiction to dictate, alter, or attach to work agreements under private contracts. Under the law, no one else can be an “employer”, by mandate, except the federal government, and only those people working for the Federal government can be “employees”, have “employment”, and possess “wages”.
        DISCUSSION
        The term “wages” is defined here in Title 26 in Section 3401(a) where it controls the withholding of income tax on “wages” under Section 3402, under Chapter 24. “Wages” are “covered earnings”. Covered earnings are earnings that are taxed, at your request and Allowance if you are a citizen, and by lawful requirement if you are a foreigner, for the purpose of accumulating “credits” to be used in calculating future Social Security benefit payments.
        If you have voluntarily given a Social Security number to your “employer” on a W-4 Withholding Allowance Certificate, you have “wages”, and you are an “employee” and your work is called “employment”. If you do not participate in Social Security then you are NOT an “employee”, and you just have earnings, NOT “wages”, and you just have a job, not “employment”, and you have a boss, not an “employer”. Your employer became an “employer”, when he voluntarily applied for an EIN (employment identification number) to participate in the Social Security system as a withholder of employment taxes (employer) under subtitle C.
        That of course means that your employer (in the private sector) cannot claim any legal authority at all to withhold tax from you under Chapter 24 provisions, unless you voluntarily request it by submitting a W-4. Forcing you to provide a W-4 in order to work is unlawful coercion, unless you work for the federal government, and doing so effectively makes you nothing more than a federal peon for as long as you hold that job. Now what section did your employer cite as his authority to TAKE your money, wasn’t it 26 USC 3402(a)? Isn’t that in Chapter 24 ?
        You see the only “employer” required in the Code is the Federal government. A private company is not required by law to participate, but may do so by making an application to participate. Under the Constitution, Congress has no jurisdictional authority over private contracts between Citizens and the private companies that they work for in the fifty states. So by law, in recognition of that fact, the only employer required by law to participate is the government.
        In Title 20 WAGES are DEFINED as:
        20 CFR 404.1041 Wages.
        (a) the term “wages” means remuneration paid to you as an employee for employment unless specifically excluded….
        (b) if you are paid wages it is not important what they are called. Salaries, fees, bonuses and commissions on sales or on insurance premiums are wages if they are paid for employment…..
        20 CFR 404.1003 Employment.
        Employment means, generally any service covered by social security perfromed by an employee for his or her employer…
        20 CFR 404.1004 What work is covered as employment.
        (a) General requirements of employment. Unless otherwise excluded…, the work you perform as an employee for your employer is covered as employment under social security if one of the following situations applies:
        (1) You perform the work within the United States…
        (2) You perform the work outside the United States and you are a citizen or resident…
        I’m sorry, isn’t this where we started with wages. Don’t you just love circular legal definitions that define themselves with references to variations of themselves ? I mean, I hope you don’t just think I’m making this up on my own. I couldn’t dream this up, ever.
        These definitions (descriptive paragraphs) are in Title 20 – Education, because just like public schooling, Social Security is VOLUNTARY for citizens, not mandatory (one can choose a private school, and one can choose a private retirement program, if he wishes). If you have been forced to sign a W-4 in order to “be allowed” to work, you have been enslaved, and are now a federal peon.

        • Mountain Trekker says:

          First off, I was really surprised to see an article on Dr.Taylor Haynes on SHTF. I can speak with first hand knowledge about Dr.Taylor Haynes, I have heard him speak on several occasions and have talked to him personally, he is a Constitutionalist through and through. He is also the only Politician that I have ever seen openly wear a gun on his hip. He ran for Governor four years ago and I Helped put up Billboards and distribute yard signs for Dr Haynes and will again this year. And last but not least let me say, I fly a Confederate battle flag in my front yard as well as one on my truck, so don’t call me a racist, I look at their heart not their color. Trekker Out.

    2. Buckhed says:

      Hmmm….have to call my buddies in Wyoming and see what they think. Last May I was at a function in Hulett,Wyoming. The governor was there…seemed like a nice gent. We spoke for a few minutes about turkey hunting. Wyoming has a different state on mind when it comes to the “Outside World ” .

      • Heartless says:

        Buckhed, my Mother was born and raised in Casper. She when young helped plant the trees now grown along the south side of the North Platte River – today’s Wells Park. A 4-H girl. You couldn’t be more right. Wyoming folk are of a whole different mind-set. They think like a sniper – they look way down the line to the future.

    3. hammerhead says:

      Sounds like a good guy .
      Hope he can stay that way if he gets to Washingtom .

    4. The Deplorable Braveheart says:

      He sounds like a real winner. I wish we had some candidates like that in TN.

    5. Buckhed says:

      Heartless….when I retire in 8 years I hope to live somewhere out West during the summer. Hulett is a great little area as Custer,South Dakota. I’m looking forward to wearing my cowboy hats a lot .

     

    Web Design and Content Copyright 2007 - 2015 SHTF Plan - When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You - All Rights Reserved

    Our Supercharged Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4 Octo-Core Dual Servers are Powered By Liquid Web

    Dedicated IP Address: 69.167.174.108

    The content on this site is provided as general information only. The ideas expressed on this site are solely the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions of sponsors or firms affiliated with the author(s). The author may or may not have a financial interest in any company or advertiser referenced. Any action taken as a result of information, analysis, or advertisement on this site is ultimately the responsibility of the reader.

    SHTFplan is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.