As I have said here before, I am a senior technical executive at a large bank.

As it happens, a bank that was forced at gunpoint, by the secretary of the treasury and chairman of the federal reserve, to accept TARP funds (as all the top surviving banks in the U.S were).

Let me be clear: We did not want TARP funds, or need them; but we, and all the other major banks, were told in no uncertain terms that we WOULD take them.

As obscene as that is, it is irrelevant to what follows; excepting that we did take TARP funds.

The United States House of Representatives recently passed a blatantly unconstitutional bill, placing confiscatory tax burdens on anyone making more than $250,000 and working for an institution that received more than 5 billion of TARP funds.

The bill was in theory specifically addressed at the false outrage over retention bonuses paid to AIG executives; and is targeted only to their bonuses.

In theory.

Of course, this would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder, which wouldn’t pass even the most cursory constitutional challenge; so it was re-written to be broader.

Broader of course means more people would be affected, and congress would be given more power to steal more money.

In fact, if you read into the implications of the bill; it could be used to levy a 90% tax on any income over $250,000, earned by any family making more than $250,000 per year, where either spouse is employed by an institution that received federal “bailout” funds.

It appears that the Senate, and the Obama administration are cold on the bill and that it will not pass, or be signed into law if it did.

I do not earn that much money; nor do my wife and I earn that much together (though in the next few years it is entirely possible that we will).

However, I have something important to say.

If congress should pass any such bill, and the president sign any such law, I WILL NOT OBEY IT.

I will not allow congress to tell me how much I can earn. I will not allow them to take my income because of the actions of others. If they attempt to make me do so by force, I will resist with force.

I will most likely die in the process, which I regret; but at some point a line must be drawn. The constitution must be respected, or it is meaningless.

Congress can make no law that is unconstitutional on it’s face. If such a law be passed, it is the duty of the president to repudiate it; and it must not be signed. If such a law is signed, it is the duty of the agents of the government to refuse to enforce it. If the agents of the state attempt to enforce it, then they must be resisted with force, at all costs.

Anything less is submission to tyranny, and the diminution of citizens, to subjects; or worse.

I have made clear in the past that I would resist police abuse of the constitution. I will resist congresses abuses no less. I will resist the presidents abuses no less.

Agents of the state cannot exceed the legitimate authority of the state. When they do so, they are criminals, and they must be resisted as criminals.

Normally I do not advertise where my lines are; but congress is now in the midst of a tantrum of self indulgence, overconfidence, and hubris not seen since reconstruction.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama, are pushing our nation headlong into tyranny and ruin; and decrying those who resist as racists, or reactionaries; simply for not wanting to be serfs.

I would suggest that we petition for the impeachment and prosecution (for conspiracy to deprive every resident of the United States of their civil rights) of any congressman who voted for such a bill; but I know it would do no good.

Government must be made to understand, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE SUCH ABUSE.

We will resist.

We will revolt.

We will not be made subjects, serfs, or slaves.

I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

  • Windy Ess

    This is very moving. You are right on all counts of course….and the thought that we may need to step up to give our lives to protect this country is scary…….and yet is also awe-inspiring.

    For now, I think I will just start by flying my American flag in front of my house every day. I noticed that a few of my conservative neighbors are doing this. I think that flag flying is getting to be a trend for the first time since our last attack, which of course happened on 9-11. And now I believe that my neighbors are flying their flags in silent protest against those who have no use for what has made our country great.

  • http://doublethinkblog.blogspot.com Jono

    I fear that the socialists from both parties will just sneer at these remarks, as if you are being hysterical over a triviality like income tax.

    And I also fear that this attitude, as bold and moral as it is, comes too late, for a society that has tolerated the taxation of income for many decades.

  • http://www.no-treason.com Joshua Holmes


  • TerryP

    Should not this bill also cover all the congresscritters as they receive all their money from the government. Shouldn’t all the money/benefits they receive from the gov’t as well as outside income above $250,000 be consificated as well at a 90% rate.

    If it would be pushed in this manner I am sure that this bill would go by the wayside very quickly. Hit them where it hurts (their personal wallet) and finally Congress may grow a pair and stand up for what is right.

    While I don’t agree with AIG giving the bonuses, that just leads to another reason of why we should have left them go bankrupt and this would have never happened. The only reason they are getting these bonuses is because the federal gov’t stepped in and kept them afloat. If they would have been allowed to go into bankruptcy court this would not have happened and the taxpayer would not be on the hook for billions of dollars to prop up a mismanaged and failing business and would not have been required to give our hard earned money to people that helped get us into this position.

    This bill sounds a lot like what FDR/Hoover tried to do except they just went to all high income earners and tried to put in a extremely high punitive income tax rate. It didn’t work as they brought in less money then before. This bill actually will take us down that road as well, it will just be done more incrementally. At some point they will have to pay these bills they are racking up and for many the so-called “rich” are easy pickings and they will just raise the income tax rate on anyone making more than say $250,000 or so. This will likely not bring in any more income but they will sure feel good about passing the law. Soon they will have to bring the level down lower and lower until it reaches many in the middle class or they will let monetary inflation take care of this as more and more people move above the “so-called rich” level. We will likely have a bit of a revolt at that time and tax rates will come down. The problem, unlike in the 30’s is that we will have an enormous debt to be paid and have huge entitlement bills sitting out there as well that will need to be paid. We will be unable to lower our tax rates without cutting spending. Will we have the will to do so?

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/ Brad Warbiany

    I think that perhaps some of the “Going Galt” and “Tea Party” folks should read this — might put their own “protests” into perspective.

    Sadly, Chris, whether this particular event crosses your line, I have a distinct feeling that government behavior in the next 1-2 decades will cross too many lines for their own good.

  • Merf

    I have many, many, many things to say about this, but this tax makes me so upset that I can’t even form coherent sentences for long before I want to break down into a scream!

    One thing I must point out, Chris, is that you said “Agents of the state cannot exceed the legitimate authority of the state.”

    I understand why you said this, Chris, and how you came to this conclusion, but the IRS has been exceeding their authority for years, up to and including directly disobeying judicial orders by seizing property to satisfy a debt even after a judge has determined that no such debt exist in the first place.

    As for Going Galt, Brad — don’t you think some of us are Going Galt because we have seen this coming for a long time now?

    Sorry if I sound sarcastic or rude, I do not intend to, but the House passed the Dodd Amendment because Dodd’s wife is one of the people who has received one of these bonuses, but the Media branch of the DNC doesn’t want to talk about it.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/ Brad Warbiany


    As for Going Galt, Brad — don’t you think some of us are Going Galt because we have seen this coming for a long time now?

    As my co-contributor Doug has pointed out in several posts (both here and at his personal blog), I don’t think most people who claim they’re “Going Galt” are really doing so.

    You may be doing so. If you’re illegally hiding your income from the state to avoid taxation, good for you. I wish I could do so. Or, if you’re actually dropping out (going the agorist route) and completely exiting the overground economy, then you’re really going Galt.

    But if you’re just talking about cutting back on overtime or not expanding a business as much as you would otherwise in order to slightly reduce your tax burden, that’s a long way from what Chris is suggesting, which is opposing the state and its illegitimate activity completely.

  • Brittancus

    We are not going to release Sen.Harry Reid(D-NV),House Speaker Nancy Pelosi(D-CA) from their responsibility to the American Worker. E-verify is not going– away, although they connived to dismiss it secretly from the Stimulus/Omnibus package, with 48 other Democrats.

    They have shown their allegiance is– not–to THE PEOPLE of these United States, but to the US Chamber of Commerce, UCLA, subversive foreign entities and of course the 40 million illegal aliens calculated by the Heritage Foundation.

    The 1986 Immigration Rule of Law is the law of our land and cannot be violated. The Simpson/Mazzoli bill that was passed by legislators has been abused, even though it was drafted on behalf of the US electorate.

    E-Verify is a simple, accessible system that an identify illegal labor in the workplace. Businesses who ignore the computer friendly e-verify data base and hire foreign nationals, have no excuses in federal court. They are traitors to America and should be dealt with severely. E-Verify is funded till September and must be extended forever.

    We are being–HEARD– in Washington, but we must not stop the roar of outrage. 202-224-3121 To locate your Senator http://www.senate.gov/ For your Congressman http://www.house.gov/ President Obama: Switchboard: 202-456-1414 Comments: 202-456-1111 FAX: 202-456-2461

  • Merf

    I have mentioned that I am a veteran, so I cannot completely drop below the radar, even though I am unlikely to have to go back in.

    BTW, if I wanted to completely drop below the radar, I’d have to fake my death — that’s not gonna happen.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/author/tarran/ tarran

    Mr Brittancus(sic)

    I am a free man. I will do business with whomever I want. If that bothers you so much, you can go emigrate to Cuba and live with your idealogical compadres.

    Call me a traitor? Hah! I am not the ones betraying the principles of freedom written into the Declaration of Independence.

  • Merf

    Brittancus, the term “traitor” is a very strong word with a very exact meaning. You need to use that word as it was intended, “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”

    By your definition, sir, any person that breaks a law is hurting the country, and thus, a traitor.

    If you wish to use the word “selfish”, the definition fits in with the meaning you are trying to convey, though there is room to disagree with you.