“Coercion by government, the main fear of our founding fathers, is now its most common attribute.”

an oppresive governmnet, is against all the forefathers belived in. and our constitution, tells us what to do, should such a situation arise. have we waited too long/ ?When the government fears the people, it is called liberty, when the people fear the governmnet, it is called tyranny.

We've moved beyond coercion and into attrition. The war they are waging is on our very existence.

The foundational standards law, justice and an individual sovereign's inalienable rights within the de jure representative republic (once a constitutionally defined We The People) discovered and set forth by our founding fathers have in most part, if not totally, been eradicated by a statist theocracy's coercion. The vile (IRS and income tax patrons for example) has become commonplace, institutionalizing a mind set of coercion.

Kimo and J Carlton, well said

@Kimo, Carlton, Mike, I agree.Today in the news, Sebelius has written a 136 page document of regulations to set health insurance prices. This will force insurance companies out of business and coerce the people to do something against their will, i.e. regulating their health insurance costs, and where they can get it. This is another giant step down the road to a single payer system, which is exactly what Obama said he wanted in the first place.

What rich imaginations...

'A' from Reston, could you be a little more specific, who or what is imaginary and why? I understand that slavery and otherwise being coerced like a little child, from cradle to grave, is your preference but, ? ? ?

Some of these responses, indeed, seem to support the concept of the "death of common sense" [not to mention the death of standard English spelling and punctuation]. Kimo's response is apparently a reference to the Declaration [not the Constitution] to deal with a government that has become tyrannical: "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." Yes, a good point, but that means insurrection or even civil war--is that what we have "waited too long" for? The Constitution provides for the vote as the tool to deal with elected officials we do not like. And Carlton--"the war they are waging is on our very existence"--what sort of hyperbolic nonsense is that? What does it even attempt to mean? You've been watching too much Fox News. Carol--a good point you raised is Sebelius' bloated addition to this bloated bill. But how is that really going to "force insurance companies out of business"? I certainly am against any forcing of people to buy health insurance--if they can't afford it, let them die, right? Besides, as it is now, we taxpayers will always pick up the bill for their free indigent use of health care facilities. Unless we can deny them health care in the first place, they will still get it for free and we will still pay the costs for them. Consult with anyone who works with hospital admissions and billings to give you the details. It's more complicated than just repealing the Health Care Act. We lose either way--it's a matter of how much we lose.

The United States of America is more respectable than in the time of its beginning because We The People have become more We and less me.