Editorial #5

Bill O'Reilly: Paging Doctor Kildare

Summary: A recent survey by the Medicus Firm shows that if Obamacare is to pass in Congress, about 30 percent of primary care physicians will consider leaving their medical profession. Doctors, as smart people, can see that with universal health care, the cost of care for all the new people will increase dramatically while their salaries may even decline. O'Reilly points to the federalized health care systems of Canada and Great Britain as proof that there will be a shortage of doctors if Obamacare passes: in these two countries, it is almost impossible to see an actual doctor. O'Reilly concludes by saying that these doctors are simply reflecting the opinion of the American public about healthcare. Many Americans are simply sick of the federal bureaucracy's attempt to get involved in health care, and nothing can change that.

Opinion: I find it hard to believe that doctors will actually leave their jobs of Obamacare passes. Sure, they might disagree with federalizing health care, but I do not think they would leave their steady paying jobs over an ideological disagreement. I do, however, agree that most Americans do not want their health care to be run by the government, and Congress is simply not listening to them. President Obama was recently quoted as saying in relation to health care, "[The American people] are waiting for us to lead...they don't want us reading polls". While it is never good to make decisions solely to bolster popularity in response to polls as a president, if polls are showing that the majority of Americans (the people that the President and Congress represent) do not want a piece of legislation passed, lawmakers need to respond to the will of the people they represent, not their own ideological agendas.

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2010/03/20/paging_doctor_kildare?page=2

Editorial #4

Christopher Merola: The Separation of Church and State Debate

Summary: Last Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (considered to be one of the most liberal courts in the history of the United States) denied an atheist challenge to the words "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" on our nation's currency and pledge. Christopher Merola uses this ruling to show that progress is being made in protecting our First Amendment rights, but there is still a long way to go. He says that in today's ultra-politically correct society, what is defined as tolerance is in fact intolerance. Ordering a teacher to take down a patriotic banner that has Christian references like "In God We Trust" on it so as to be tolerant of those non-Christians in the class is in actuality intolerant of the teacher's right to religious speech. Merola says that as long as the state does not force citizens to practice any religion, the right to display religious paraphernalia should and must be protected.

Opinion: I am happy to see that such a liberal court as the Ninth Court of Appeals came out supporting God in our national pledge and currency. But I agree with Merola: there is a long way to go. Many people in this country have grossly misinterpreted what they call "separation of church and state". Those words are never found in our Constitution; there is in fact no guaranteed exclusion of religion from our government. All that is guaranteed by the Constitution is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The place of the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance and on our currency does not force people to believe in god, nor does it prohibit them from practicing other religious beliefs. It simply reflects the ideals and values of the majority of our country, and, more importantly from a judicial standpoint, preserves the large part that religion, specifically Christianity, has played in shaping this nation throughout history.

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/ChristopherMerola/2010/03/12/the_separation_of_church_and_state_debate?page=2

Editorial #3

Kevin McCullough: Why the Left Despises Personal Responsibility

Summary: Kevin McCullough writes about how liberals in America have turned away from personal responsibility and instead wait for the giant collective to take care of them. McCullough argues that this shift being implemented by liberals (with President Obama at the forefront) is a fundamental change from the decades of tradition of personal responsibility in this country. He cites the Founder's efforts to ensure individual rights an evidence that our nation was designed to be one where an individual succeeded or failed based on his actions alone, not the state's. Liberals, he says, do not understand that when the collective cares for the individual instead of the individual caring for himself, it is really a small powerful few that hold the powerful (not the collective).

Opinion: While much of McCullough's editorial seemed to be personal digs at President Obama (which I did not think were appropriate), I do think that his general argument is well-founded. Too many people in this country have forgotten that it is their responsibility to provide for themselves and their family. When the state begins to meddle in social and economic affairs too much, a small few (not the collective) will gain power over those aspects of life, which leads to laziness: people will stop working hard because they feel that they are entitled to a good life and job. The whole idea behind the American dream is that those who work hard and are responsible are rewarded with success, while those who are irresponsible and lazy pay the price for their failure. The nanny state that many liberals in this country want simply rewards laziness.

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2010/03/07/why_the_left_despises_personal_responsibility?page=2