1. Arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. The government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. A state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
Online etymology (word origins) also uses the term, "master," to describe tyranny.
So when a government imposes a law, that the majority of the citizens oppose, then proposes to tax those same citizens to support that law, (as England tried to do when America revolted), then applies that law to a select few, does that also define tyranny? I believe it does! Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the health care law, as passed by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reed.
Even thought the majority of America objected to this legislation, through a despotic abuse of authority, and an unrestrained exercise of power, they passed it and signed it into legislation. They also approved a tax, or a fine, depending on who's asking them, for those who lack the mandated healthcare coverage they imposed.
But here's the real kicker... We live in America, where all men are created equal, and deserve equal justice under the law, so when a law is enacted, shouldn't it apply to everyone equally? There used to be a defense used by lawyers, where they'd call a police officer to the stand and ask them if they had ever let someone go for a speeding offense. As soon as they admitted they had, they would ask for dismissal of the charges on the grounds of selective enforcement. Not unlike the Obama administration allowing for businesses to apply, or should I say beg, for a waiver excluding them from this legislation. First of all, whenever you have to plead for an exemption from a law imposed upon you, your the victim of tyranny. This is directly contrary to everything this country was founded upon. Secondly if a law is worthy of enactment, it should apply to everyone equally, or don't pass it! How is it justice when one person or entity is allowed freedom from a law, when another is not? That fails the smell test for equal justice under the law, and opens the door for the government to apply favoritism.
On that topic, the administration is also withholding the list of whom was granted this favoritism, and who was denied. Does anyone else have a problem with that? The media should and will file a freedom of information act to attain this information, and since it's not in the interest of national security to withhold it, they'll have to release it. This needs the cleansing of the light of day, if your trying to conceal something, your doing something unethical; but then isn't the whole premise of selective enforcement unethical?
The kingdom of the Obama administration is trying to operate a tyrannical regime, directly violating the principles and the ideology defined in the Constitution. No one in this country should have to beg for exemption from the tyranny of an unjust law, not in America!