Yesterday I posted a link on my personal Facebook page, announcing the paperback release of my friend's book Resistance to Tyrants: Romans 13 and The Christian Duty to Resist Wicked Rulers. By that evening I had a message in my inbox from a respected friend and minister. Among other things, he took issue with the use of the word "tyranny" in regards to our current political establishment.

He wrote:

I also did some research about the word tyranny...and as unhappy, as revolted and angry as I am with the condition of the American society, we are far-far from being under a tyrannical government.

Though taken aback by this statement, I've run into it before. I've seen in comment threads on various social media outlets how some get bent out of shape if someone uses the word tyranny or tyrant in the context of the United States. It's as if the word tyrant is a dirty word. Unless his name is Mao Zedong, Joe Stalin or Adolph Hitler, you can't call a political figure a tyrant, or call his policies tyrannical.

The online Free Dictionary defines a tyrant as:

tyrant [ˈtaɪrənt]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who governs oppressively, unjustly, and arbitrarily; despot
2. any person who exercises authority in a tyrannical manner
3. anything that exercises tyrannical influence
4. (Historical Terms) (esp in ancient Greece) a ruler whose authority lacked the sanction of law or custom; usurper.

For those who think the use of the word tyrant is a bit much within our current political context, I would like you to focus on the 4th usage in the above definition. This fits perfectly given our current situation. At all levels of government, we have elected usurpers who believe they're a law unto themselves.

The Founders declared that governments were instituted among men to secure their God given rights. For a very long time, U.S. politicians have thought it is their job to take those rights away. As I read the Bill of Rights, I see a document that forbids Congress from making certain laws and infringing on the rights of the People. Now Congress does as it darn well pleases, and far too few get very bothered by it.

As regular readers of this blog well know, the Federal government now has given itself the power to detain any citizen indefinitely without a hearing in violation of the Constitution. The President can now assassinate an American citizen for the mere accusation of being a terrorist, no need for due process. They tax, regulate, and propose bans on things in which the Constitution grants them no authority. Of course, all of this usurpation is done in the name of "common sense," -as if people who can't balance a budget are gifted in that area!

The Federal government doesn't have a monopoly on tyranny: As I noted previously, at the State level, dairy farmers are not allowed to sell their raw products to people who desire it, this in the name of food safety. At local levels, cities are even fining people for parking on their own lawns! People are now being arrested for public gospel preaching and for having Bible studies in their private residences! These are just a few of myriad examples that can be cited.

Yet, some see none of this is tyrannical in nature. What, pray tell, is the threshold of tyranny then?  As long as they don't don armbands with swastikas, there's no tyranny? Perhaps the agents assaulting our liberties simply have the wrong surnames.

The Founders said this about King George III in the Declaration of Independence:

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

As  Dr. Gary North notes:

The colonists had a sweet deal in 1775. Great Britain was the second freest nation on earth. Switzerland was probably the most free nation, but I would be hard-pressed to identify any other nation in 1775 that was ahead of Great Britain. And in Great Britain's Empire, the colonists were by far the freest.

I will say it, loud and clear: the freest society on earth in 1775 was British North America, with the exception of the slave system. Anyone who was not a slave had incomparable freedom.

I think Dr. North has a good point. Considering what followed the founding of our nation and the situation in which we find ourselves today, the Colonist had a much better deal. Yet, in spite of that, these men still saw the encroachments of the Crown as an unacceptable usurpation of power and declared the King a tyrant. If that was tyranny in their eyes, how would they see our situation?

Let's not wait until the DHS starts rounding people up using their massive stockpiles of ammo and armored assault vehicles before we realize what it is we're dealing with in this land.

Don't like the word tyrant? Fine. Call them what you will. But it's time for Americans to wake up and see the writing on the wall.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.