Are We There Yet?

tyranny (ˈtɪrənɪ  ) 

Definitions

noun

(plural) -nies

1. government by a tyrant or tyrants; despotism
2. similarly oppressive and unjust government by more than one person
2. arbitrary, unreasonable, or despotic behaviour or use of authority ⇒ the teacher's tyranny
3. any harsh discipline or oppression ⇒ the tyranny of the clock
4. a political unit ruled by a tyrant
5. (esp in ancient Greece) government by a usurper
6. a tyrannical act
   
   
   

   

Wikipedia defines the word “Tyrant” as the derivative from Tyranny and explains it's historical roots with Plato and Aristotle as this...

A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is a ruler of a cruel and oppressive character[1] who is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, and/or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty. (emphasis is mine) The original Greek term, however, merely meant an authoritarian sovereign without reference to character,[2] bearing no pejorative connotation during the Archaic and early Classical periods, though it was clearly a bad word to Plato, and on account of the decisive influence of political philosophy its negative connotations only increased down into the Hellenistic period, becoming synonymous with "Authenteo" - another term which carried authoritarian connotations around the turn of the first century A.D.[citation needed]
Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics—against his own people as well as others" (emphasis mine) .[3] During the seventh and sixth centuries BC, tyranny was often looked upon as an intermediate stage between narrow oligarchy and more democratic forms of polity. However, in the late fifth and fourth centuries, a new kind of tyrant, the military dictator, arose, specifically in Sicily.
  
America is loading up their cars this weekend  with kids, picnic baskets, camping gear, fishing rods, hitting the road for family fun on this holiday to honor those that have fallen in consummation of their oath to defend our Constitution from all enemies. In light of the State of our Union and current events, I ask the age old question likely uttered by children for thousands of years within the first ten minutes of an eight hour trip. Likewise America is now a little over half way into our 8 year trip with President Obama. In light of recent revelations and abuses of power, and given the Webster and Wikipedia definitions;  my question for America begs an answer in regard to tyranny....

 “Are we there yet?"

Michael R. Bednarz

  











google015480951ea39027.html

Why Obama's Second Term Will Look More Like a Romney First, Than Obama's First

 The Election of 2012 is over. The dust has settled. The euphoria of  the Victorious and the disappointment of the Vanquished fades hour by hour in equal measure into a post-election political hangover. This hangover shared by both the Left and the Right is soon to be eradicated by the sobering reality of the fiscal State of the Union, the agony of our jobless, and the financial consequences of a grim and disastrous near and long-term future for ourselves, our children, and even our grandchildren; if we do not act together as a nation right now.

So, It's now November 8th, 2012 just two days after the Election with the smoke cleared. Where are we?  Right where we were on November 6th, 2012. The House is still in GOP control. The Senate is still in Democratic control.  Obama still occupies The White House. America voted inexplicably for the status quo. Democrats and Liberalism did not receive a mandate in the close 2012 election.

Electoral Map 2012 Election- County by County- Red are Romney won Counties- Blue are Obama won Counties, Color Alaska as Red.

The nation is clearly divided. In fact, the reality for the Liberals and Obama is that we are three days in and have essentially begun Obama's Lame-Duck second term. That's right Obama is a Lame Duck President for a minimum of two years and likely four unless Obama finds leadership ability and skills he has yet to exhibit and leads his party to compromise. I know that may be a shocking take on the events of election day 2012 and flies in the face of the conventional wisdom by the mainstream media's political talking heads, Democratic leaders like Reid, and the pundits on the Left advancing the notion and mistaken analysis that this was a mandate worthy of Conservative and GOP change. They would like us to roll over and simply accept their failed agenda by the fiat "to the victor goes the spoils."  Nothing I believe could be further from the truth. Not only are we where we were on November 5th, 2012, we are also right where we were in November of 2010 after the mid-term elections swept the GOP to victory. Why would America vote for no change in 2012 when they voted for Hope and Change in 2008 and then again for massive change in 2010? A friend of mine admitted to me the morning after the election that he voted Obama for a second time.  I was dumbfounded. I asked him why he voted for Obama? Now this is a very smart man, he owns a successful business, is a Vietnam Veteran who served as a Huey gunship pilot with five "emergency" landings in service of our nation.  I have the utmost respect for this man as an intelligent, thoughtful human being and dear friend. His answer? "Well Obama has his nest formed, I think now he can really get comfortable and do things." I had no answer or reply for that one at that moment, politely offering that I had never heard that as a reason to support Obama before. But if I have to chalk that one up to category of response, I would call it ambivalence; he didn't cite one single first term Obama accomplishment, achievement, or one single new initiative or program as a reason to vote him in for a second term. I thought about what he said hours later and it got me to thinking. Americans lost an opportunity to vote for real change with Romney and they didn't do it. Why not? I think they didn't in part because they are still waiting for the change that they were promised and never got four years ago. This is what I think my friend was saying in his own way.  Voters in 2012 hoped for and desired the undelivered change that Obama promised four years ago. Promises like the end of divisiveness and partisanship. Promises like putting Americans needs and interests ahead of special interests (Well Obama was obviously inferring Corporate and Wall Street interests and lobbyists;  not Unions, NOW, NEA, Labor, or Environmental Lobbyists). I think they wanted to give him more time to make good on those promises. In some ways it was similar to returning George W. Bush to a second term over Kerry because though he was unpopular, voters wanted to give him more time to finish the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan. This may explain the sentiments revealed by my friend as giving Obama more time to finish and follow through on some of his promises. Conversely, I think they kept the status quo with Congress in a sense as a challenge to President Obama, Speaker Boehner, and Harry Reid that here is the hand that 'we the people' have dealt you, now you have to work together and figure out how to solve America's problems together for the next two to four years. Now go get it done.


So here we are three days into the post-election future with everyone wondering what the future will look like and how the results of the election will unfold. I believe the Liberal left wing of the Democratic party is in for a rude awakening; the future will look like 1995, and how 2011 should have looked following the midterm 2010 election, but will now. It will look that way because Obama's campaign rhetoric and policies he ran on won't solve the country's problems and Obama knows it. He knew it even as he was spewing it as raw undigested red meat to his rabid left wing base to secure them for a second term. The next Obama term will be shaped more by the 2010 election, than the 2012. I predict Obama's second term and Presidency will be more like Romney's first would have been, than Obama's first was. Or if you prefer I also believe that Obama's second term will look more like Clinton's presidency after he lost the House in 1994.

Obama will lower the Corporate tax rate. Obama will extend all the Bush tax cuts, even for the "wealthiest" Americans earning $200k or more. Obama will adopt many of the budget ideas and reforms put forward by Paul Ryan and the House Budget. Obama will expand domestic energy production and relax or repeal executive orders and regulation put in place previously that hampered our domestic energy independence. Obama will change face and approve the Keystone Oil Pipeline. Obama will support the Coal Exporting terminals in Washington State. Obama will end his war on Coal in America before the war in Afghanistan is over. Obama will cut spending and entitlement growth. Obama I believe will even rethink some aspects of Obamacare and allow modification of it. Surprised? Think its impossible?  I think it is far more probable than impossible, read on. These are policies adjustments overdue by Obama following the 2010 midterm elections; they were only put off to secure his second term lest he lose his left-wing base. I think Obama has Clinton's road map from 1995 to follow and he would be wise to do so. Up to now Obama has perfected the rhetoric of promising bipartisanship and has gulled and duped the American people for over four years into thinking the Republicans have been blocking his initiatives and they were unwilling to work with him. He has ridden that old pony ragged for four years (I know the GOP has only controlled the House since 2011 but the truth has never been important to Obama) it's time to put that haggard old pony down.  The truth is Obama's last two years budgets received not one single vote from any Democrat or Republican, in either the House and the Senate. If he does not now embrace the same pragmatism he should have embraced after losing the House in 2010 to GOP control as Bill Clinton did when he lost the House to the GOP in 1994, Obama will be a Lame Duck President; starting now. He will ensure an agenda and history of failure. Obama's legacy will be remembered as a Presidency of mediocrity. He likely would also preside over and be blamed as the agent of destruction for the United States of America as it collapses under the weight of fiscal crisis and economic failure. Therefore, I predict that Obama will finally embrace compromise, and he will not impose his campaign agenda as ineffectual solutions for what ails us because he knows they haven't, and won't work. I believe President Obama loves America and it's citizens, and if for nothing other than his own ego,  his own personal legacy;  he can't let that happen. He must duplicate the example of Bill Clinton who took the hand of cooperation offered by Gingrich, and with political humility born of necessity, Bill Clinton executed Gingrich's "Contract with America" playbook like it was his own. Clinton did so to the adoration of the Left, and most Americans who ignorantly and mistakenly credited him with what in reality,  was Gingrich's genius. Gingrich and the GOP were fine with that all that really counted was a thriving nation. Should Obama do the same, Conservatives will be fine with that again, take the credit and adoration, all we care about are the good results.  To date, Obama has so far rejected the extended GOP hand of cooperation since taking office in 2008. Even after the 2010 mid-term elections once again the victorious GOP offered their hand of bipartisanship after taking the House in a political Tsunami. Obama's response? He did absolutely nothing except double-down on divisiveness, class warfare, laying the groundwork for his reelection on that basis in launching a reelection campaign of unprecedented vitriol and personal destruction that made this the ugliest campaign in my memory. Obama is freed now from election constraints. I believe he will shock his own base and Conservatives as he adopts more ideas and solutions championed by Mitt Romney and Conservatives, rather than regurgitating his failed policies form his first term. In eerie similarity he could say almost the same words to Boehner, about being relieved of elective constraints and pressure, that he did to Russian President Medvedev famously caught under an open mic."This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."  Will Obama use this flexibility to harm America and it's  National Security and prosperity, or will he use it to help  America? He must chose wisely.

Obama holds the GOP.gov blueprint at GOP Leadership Conference just prior to the 2010 midterms. Obama was dismissive then, but now?... Now he needs to take Boehner and the GOP leadership up on their standing offer to work together.

 Obama is now free of all reelection constraints upon him to now to make good on his 2012 slogan "Forward."  By contrast, the GOP House has to continue do the job they were elected to do in 2010 and now again in 2012. GOP Representatives were elected in 2010 and 2012 to stop the reckless out of control spending, tax increases, and policies that don't advance America's recovery and success. The election of 2012 didn't change that;  it reinforced it. GOP Representatives have a commitment to uphold to their constituents and voters. That commitment is secured by the fact that their future is renewable every two years and they are without term limits. This in reality gives the cards for a better hand and leverage to Boehner and the GOP going forward. Does that mean that we won't compromise or work with Obama and Democrats? No, but it means that we will be in a better position to dictate the compromise in a more principled way consistent with our sincere convictions.  Obama is limited by term limits, he's gone as far as he can go in politics this is it for him. Consequentially abandoning the Left and the principles Obama has espoused and run on is not a problem. Clinton did it when he embraced compromise with Speaker Gingrich and the GOP's Contract with America, and to this day the former fondler-in-chief is more popular and beloved than ever. Obama's is a history of politics of convenience.. If it's good for him, that's all that matters. If someone, a position, or an issue is no longer of value or doesn't serve a purpose that Obama requires, you are discarded. Obama's political trail to the top is littered with discarded former supporters. Just ask all the Democratic former House members that reluctantly staked their political careers to make Obamacare law. Ask the poor forgotten souls that Obama used and leveraged in the housing projects of Chicago like Grov Parc. Abandoned in rat and roach infested slums, replaced by the campaign cash of their slumlord Valerie Jarrett who now serves as Obama senior adviser, Ms. Valerie Jarrett. Take the money, forget them and  move forward. Just ask Steven Rodgers, an early supporter of Obama's political career that helped fund and raise campaign money for him when Obama begged him for support and friendship. After he was elected, Rodgers a professor at Northwestern University School of  Management, called Obama asking him to come fulfill his donation promise following his election to the US Senate to come speak to his students. Obama refused to honor that promise Obama replied. 'Come on, man, you should know better when politicians make promises.' Abandoning his principles, supporters, and patrons will come easy for Obama, it always has.



The way forward? In a sense now on day three of his new term, Obama has reached a fork in the road. As I write this I see a story on the wire that Obama while meeting with Congressional leaders about a path forward,  has stated "a tax increase on the wealthiest of Americans is a must" (over $200k per year income and up) let us hope that this is only residual campaign hubris and negotiating posturing for the sake of his supporters. Should he go left as his hard core supporters expect, towards the demagoguery and rhetoric of his last election that he knows deep down only served to elect him and will not serve to secure America's future nor move it forward, he will be he lamest Duck in history and secure his place in history as a failure. Or go down the right path at the fork, toward compromise by adopting more of the GOP sponsored common-sense economic policies and solutions that Mitt and GOP leaders proposed to prevent a looming debt crisis, create jobs, and secure American prosperity as we approach the tipping point for our national survival.  Obama must choose and follow Clinton's example, go to the right even at the risk of looking Romneyesque. Just as Clinton risked being hitched to Gingrich. All the rancor against the Rich, attacking  Businesses large and small, Wall Street, Corporations, Big Oil,  plus his pandering to, and support of Big Labor, Environmentalist and other special interests of political necessity, is now null and void. America's survival and Obama's legacy are at stake. Be magnanimous Mr. President, I offer my sincere prayers for you that you take the right path  securing our future and that you will seize your destiny.



Michael R. Bednarz






With  google015480951ea39027.html

McCain needs to stay on the Conservative path to the White House

What is John McCain thinking by pandering to these Eco-Commies?

As a Ronald Reagan Conservative I have had severe reservations in supporting John McCain but was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and following the Super-Tuesday clinching asked other like-minded and disappointed Conservatives to buck up as Republicans united and do the same. But, with his recent comments and expressed views on Global Warming I can almost see no difference between him and the Eco-Commies trying to push their Global Warming Alarmist agenda down our throats in their zeal to blow up our economy and global human progress with their folly. Only this week the Eco-Commie intelligentsia had to back pedal and admit that global warming is stopped and now is static. They point out that the Earths ocean currents are adjusting to stabilize the climate change. WHAT!? Mother nature fixing and correcting itself? How could this be? The science that global warming is human caused is not settled and the so-called "consensus" is a myth.

Given all this John McCain has found it necessary to pander to these Eco-commies and their pro- Mommy Earth, anti-human and human progress stagnating agenda. John McCain, listen to me please......THEY WILL NEVER VOTE FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE "GREEN" ON GLOBAL WARMING AS AN ISSUE. They are so far left on most every other issue besides it, that you are wasting your time, treasure and life-force for them and worse yet you are driving Conservatives like me away from the kind of enthusiastic support, financial aid, and maybe even the November votes you must have. PLEASE STOP IT. We Conservatives are much more important than a couple of rag-wool sock wearing lib's from Seattle! You will lose at least 1000 Conservative voters for every Global Warming vote you pull in with this ill-advised positioning and pandering. You started the same thing last week on comments toward Immigration policy, please learn your lesson. Don't pander for the audience of the moment or the Zip code.

About the only thing John said in his comments that I agree is correct policy was about increasing our Nuclear Energy production.

John, you need to be bold and come out in favor of ANWR drilling, and off-shore domestic oil production done in an environmentally responsible manner off California, and Florida's Gulf Coast. Cuba has recently contracted with Chinese oil producers to drill and extract oil offshore and right against our international border with them in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida. They will be tapping into reserves that run under our territory and will be extracting it in a partnership for the communist Castro regime. What the hell is going on here? We would rather pay $4.00, 5.00, or even $6.00++ a gallon for gas and diesel by not tapping that resource, but allow some Communist Chinese oil company with an unknown and probably non-existent track record for environmentally safe and responsible offshore drilling to extract oil that is arguably ours? Why would we Americans allow this Congress or any future president in this Energy market to drain oil out from our own available reserves instead of having our American Oil Companies with their knowledge, skill, and environmental expertise do it for we Americans? This is where the Eco-Commies and the Democratic leadership are leading us, away from the light of common sense in energy independence and into the darkness of our "environmentally enlightened" ruin.

These Democrats and Eco-Commies with their Anti-Oil, anti-drilling, anti-refinery policies (they have effectively used environmental impact and stifling regulations to prevent the building of any new refineries or capacity in over 30 years in the U.S.) are responsible for our current energy crisis and lack of energy independence. We must reverse this trend, and fast.

Don't buy their non-sense about Arctic refuge oil making only a few cents per gallon difference in the price of gasoline we pay at the pump. These are the same people that tell you that they will solve the problem with Ethanol and Solar panels. I see hundreds of cars, trucks and SUV's going by me all day long that have "FlexFuel" or "Ethanol" badges on them. I have NEVER EVER seen a pump or station anywhere in my travels where I could fill my car up with ethanol, have you?

We all agree that Hybrid vehicles and new emerging technologies like wind, solar and hydrogen fuel cells are extremely promising for our energy independence and for the environmental good. We can all stand united in support of that. These technologies show great promise for our future, but they are going to take time to replace our current and crucial demand for fossil fuels. While we perfect these, we must protect our economic vitality by providing stable and affordable oil for our domestic consumption, to do that we must find our own domestic supplies of known, proven, and conventional energy sources as we wean ourselves over to these newly perfected technologies and sources.

Beware that sometimes in our zeal to save mommy earth we can do more harm than good. Our rush toward Ethanol and Bio-Fuel is a perfect example of that. When this stampede for bio-fuel, primarily Ethanol, began several years ago I recall asking myself out loud... What will this do to food resources and prices? Certainly Archer-Daniels Midland wasn't asking this as they pressed their new friends in Congress to support their legislation promoting Ethanol (this industry is granted an exemption from fuel taxes, granting them huge advantages in pricing/profit against petro-fuels). These liberal lackeys so quick to criticize big oil gave away the store to Agri-Fuel conglomerates in a stampede to save mommy earth. These liberal eco-commies and Democrats in the "new uber-ethical Congress" with their newly swollen campaign coffers swoon and bask in their "Green is Good" cloak of absolution with their most honorable quest to save Mommy Earth; but now the worlds poor may starve. I guess they will worry about "solving" that problem later.

In our efforts to grow energy instead of food in our fields we have inflated the cost of food and thereby reduced the available arable land for food production. Further, these increased costs for grain and basic food commodities are impacting citizens greatly in nations even with great wealth like ours; but catastrophic consequences are beginning to emerge in the poor nations and economies of the third world. Grain prices and commodities like Wheat, Corn, Rice and Soy are skyrocketing and with these prices rising so goes the costs for the feed needed for Poultry, Pork, and Beef producers; not to mention the increasing fuel expense for their tractors, machinery, and transportation. It's a vicious circle and in the short term we must increase our supply of domestically produced oil, gas, coal and other fossil fuel and also we need to invest into building up the refining capacity necessary to perfect the crude into finished fuels. We can do this as we provide great incentives to expedite the emerging technologies to ensure our future energy needs.

We need leadership in the tradition of Ronald Reagan that clearly identifies the obvious problem and addresses that problem in a clear, concise, and simple manner with determined resolve and action. Such is the case with our current energy crisis. More supply from domestic sources. Most of America will vote for the candidate that delivers that message.

John McCain will not win by appealing to Liberal anti-carbon, and anti-oil, liberal elitist Eco-Commies that have adopted the religion and concept of "Mommy earth forever and people.....whatever?" McCain will win by leading America to it's inherently conservative nature and love of common-sense "here's what we gotta do to git 'er done" problem solving.

John McCain, you are straying from the Conservative path. Here is your wake-up call. Please don't ignore it.

Michael R. Bednarz

He's In!

Fred Thompson has announced his candidacy for President of the United States of America. (Click this link for his Video announcement)

Fred Thompson is the common-sense Conservative that will have the best opportunity to move America forward in the tradition of Ronald Reagan. Fred has responded to his supporters grass-roots campaign to draft him into service for this great nation. He has answered the call by concerned and hopeful Americans for a candidate that is consistent on the principled issues so important to this country. Fred seeks this position as a result of this demand; not as one who has set out on this path for selfish personal ambition.

He will be the leader to break through the current quagmire of divisiveness and partisanship that has hobbled America of late on every challenge and issue facing it; be it the War on Terror, Homeland Security, Economic prosperity and Border Security/Illegal Immigration reform. Fred will strive to end the accompanying political animus and discord that has led to a cynical and divided American public.

From our unified stand against Terrorism following the worst attack ever launched against America in it's history only 6 years ago we have now hit a new low in the public perception and approval of our leaders. Even before the sea of American flags and our mourning for the victims of 9/11 waned, America's left and the Democrat party started with the incessant and banal vitriol that has been launched against George Bush, America, and his policies. The result is that our President has an approval rating of 32.6%. Curiously, it seems the left-wing liberals attacks on Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rove, Rumsfeld, Gen. Pace, Gen. Petraeus, and even our troops in the field have succeeded in giving their new Congress an approval rating of over 10% points less than Bush at only 22.2% approval.

For what purpose has this strategy of personal attack, political character assassination and subversion of our national unity served the Democrats? It has filled their coffers with MoveOn.org funds of course, but in the end it is exactly as I have said about these Democrat tactics for years: If you take a giant vat of excrement and throw it around, you are bound to get some on you. It seems that now with a 10-point lower approval rating for Congress than President Bush the Dems have been more than a little soiled by their fervent activity; it seems they have fallen right into that very vat-- joining one former Sen. Tom Daschle.

Suppose that their rhetoric does work and we find them with Hillary or Obama in power in 2009? What success do they think they will have with a weary and cynical public thirsting for leadership, vision, new ideas, victory in the War on Terror, and clarity of purpose/conviction? They will set out with all the organs of power to re-make America in the image of George Soros, the DailyKos and MoveOn.org. They will destroy the greatest health care system in the world, raise taxes in the face of the economic prosperity gained by the Presidents tax cuts, bankrupt Social Security, eviscerate the Military and thereby our safety at home, bomb our allies and have us sit down for tea to negotiate with our enemies only to create more and greater challenges abroad as a result. They would maintain that our borders should remain super-highways with exit ramps to their Sanctuary Cities where anyone wanting access can follow the bilingual signs to the free public services that are theirs for the asking. This very real scenario should frighten us all into action.

If the current dysfunction of their leadership in Congress is any indication, America can't afford to hand them the keys to the White House for more of the same; especially with someone in the White House to rubber-stamp everything they want.

Fred Thompson is the anti-venom. Fred will work to bring us back together with common sense policies and the unity we need on so many issues to get beyond the political rancor designed to further partisan advantage; at the expense of our national security and greater common good.

Check out his website and his inspiring announcement video message right here, right now! If you agree as I do that he is the person to lead America, please donate at this link, he's got a big mountain to climb, and he's a little fashionably late to the party so he needs your help now financially and also by spreading the word!

Michael R. Bednarz