Brown vs. Coakley = Liberty vs. Tyranny

A video gone viral states in clear, unmistakable language what Tuesday’s U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts is all about: "Today our liberty is threatened by another tyrannical government."

The run-up to the 2008 presidential election and the first year of Barack Obama’s administration represent a virtual case study in how authoritarian rule begins to take root. History surely will recite a lengthy litany of freedom-restricting and/or government power-enhancing laws, regulations, actions, and statements that have come from Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their swelling ranks of apparatchiks since they assumed one-party control of the U.S. government and Congress early last year. But the Bay State’s beleaguered electorate need only focus on three dangerous developments since 2010 began to understand the overarching importance of their choice on Tuesday.

The first definition of “tyranny” at tells us that it is the “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.” All three items that follow, and so much else that has occurred in the past year, fit that primary definition to a T.

First, there’s the president’s proposed bank tax -- er, “financial responsibility fee.”

This sentence in the White House’s related “fact sheet” gives away their game (bold is mine):

It is our responsibility to ensure that the taxpayer dollars that supported these actions are reimbursed by the financial sector so that the deficit is not increased.

Note that the statement does not attempt to identify the specific people or entities in the financial sector who are supposedly responsible for the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s shortfall. No, no, no. That would be hard work; and besides, they wouldn’t like the answers. Instead, Barack Obama considers the resources of an entire industry fair game for plunder and is playing the so-called responsibility card to whip up ordinary citizens’ emotions against it. This is how tyrants think and act.