The First Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights ensures the following:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

During this Presidential Race, the First Amendment has been repeatedly violated. Somewhat surprising is the lack of concern over this fact. To compare, any time the Second Amendment – “the right to keep and bear arms” – has been even remotely threatened, there has been immediate and widespread outrage. Does anyone even care about the First Amendment?

Last week, headlines across America announced calls for Senator Hillary Clinton to back out of this race. Her own Democratic Party has seemingly set up roadblocks to prevent her from winning the nomination, going as far as discounting the votes of over two million party members. In a race that remains too close to call, the media has concocted the notion that by continuing to run for the Democratic Leadership, Senator Clinton is doing her party a disservice. Is she really?

Does it make sense for this proven champion of Universal Healthcare, a Democratic cornerstone, to back down? Within the first week of becoming the First Lady, over a dozen years ago, Hillary Clinton began the arduous process of obtaining quality and affordable healthcare for every single American citizen – and has never ceased to deviate from this goal. Her rival, Senator Barack Obama, speaks highly of this potential paradigm shift in American healthcare, however, has absolutely no credentials to support his claim of eventually reforming the current, and fatally wounded, system.

Does it make sense for the partner of the only Democratic President of the United States in recent memory to accomplish completing his two consecutive terms with a budgetary surplus, to back down now? It is not a mere coincidence that Senator Clinton’s vicarious experience, as the most over qualified First Lady in American history, enabled her to draft the first and most comprehensive approach, to be revealed during this Presidential race, to reversing the worst recession in over a half century.

Senator Clinton’s rivals are violating her own – as well as that of her supporters – right to petition the Government with repeated attempts to run her off the road to the Whitehouse. How does it serve the best interests of the American people to only have a single choice to lead them out of darkness? Why even bother having an election? The spirit of the First Amendment ensures that America is lead by a government created by the people, for the people. When Barack Obama’s campaign encourages the forgery of delegates to boost his numbers during caucuses, any American with an opposing point of view has had their First Amendment violated. Is “freedom of speech” a broad sweeping concept that protects a person’s right to lie, cheat, and steal – or what Senator Obama refers to as “borrow”?

There is nothing noble or intelligent about laying out one’s own plan only after a rival has put forth their own. The top three issues in the current election are 1) The Economy, 2) Healthcare, 3) The Iraq War. Senator Obama put forth his position on each of these ONLY AFTER Senator Clinton laid out her approach. Deceptively, his political stance on each issue has been a product of adjusting the details that were most criticized in Senator Clinton’s work and then calling the revised version his own. Somehow, I doubt plagiarism is the variety of “free speech” that the First Amendment protects.

Misinterpreting the right to “free speech” demeans the other important points laid out in the Bill of Rights, thereby jeopardizing the liberties of every American. We have observed that it is acceptable for an individual or group to verbally assault another for having a differing point of view when it comes to governing this country. However, it is this “free speech” which is attempting to eliminate free choice in this election. What if a Republican does not like John McCain? Similarly, by calculatingly shortening the ballot for the Democratic Leadership – or outright abandoning the votes of an entire state – we are evaporating the fundamental right of every American to grieve the current government. One aspect of the First Amendment is abusing the other.

The Amendment that is most frequently invoked is the Second Amendment – America’s favorite child. Perhaps it is time to revisit the remaining items in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps it is also time to bring those words to life because they are more than mere notions or historical details, they are the bricks that America was built with. Until this happens, keep away from the Kool-Aid because it is spiked with GHB (the date rape drug).

A Canadian Physician’s Experience of the Current Healthcare System in America

I am near the end of another busy shift in a major Canadian emergency department. The nurse in charge asks me to see two women in the minor care area – a daughter and her elderly mother. Both of them are in tears and pale with fear. I go into the room that they are in and immediately observe the elderly mother is holding her acutely swollen wrist. I am not surprised that she is crying; however, her daughter’s tears take me aback. The first words out of her daughter’s mouth are that they are American and do not have insurance. They were visiting our city and her mother slipped on the water front pier, badly injuring her wrist.

In Canada, we have the “Canada Health Act” which requires that all residents of a province or territory [Canada] be accepted for health coverage. This means that every Canadian, regardless of the amount of money they have, receives quality healthcare that is within their financial means. Everyone is covered. If someone genuinely cannot afford healthcare, they are covered by the province’s social assistance program.

Not fully grasping the extent of what not having health insurance in America means, I begin assessing the mother. Immediately, I offer her something for pain before she heads off for an x-ray. Her response again puzzles me: “How much will that cost”?

I have no idea. I just show up for work and do that best job that I can. I, like many of my colleagues, are oblivious to the costs because cost is not an issue for Canadian patients. Before the patient allows me to do anything, she insists that I find out what she will be charged. In this particular emergency department, foreign patients who visit the hospital are charged up front. In this case, I manage to waive all costs because the thought of contributing to someone’s financial ruin in the name of compassionate healthcare is too disturbing for me to comprehend.

I assured the injured mother that our priority in the emergency department is to take care of her – not get paid for rendering emergency care. After accepting medication for pain, I review the x-ray. Fortunately, all this patient will require is a cast. There is no need for surgery or bone setting. Recognizing that the supplies for taking care of her cast and medication are out of financial reach, I provide her with everything that she needs, free of charge. The two women leave the department extremely relieved. When I go home that night, I still feel nauseated by what I observed.

America, “the land of the free”, has millions more people similar to the two that I took care of. I remember when I was training in the U.S. during a couple of months of elective time, I witnessed events that continue to disturb me to this day. I witnessed critically ill patients being seen by someone from the hospital’s administration before being assessed by a nurse or physician. If the patient did not have the “correct” insurance plan, they would be shipped over to the “community hospital” before receiving any medical care.

I witnessed patients who were too sick to be transferred denied surgery or advanced care because the hospital would not get reimbursed. In another major U.S. hospital, I saw first hand how the administration makes up for patients who cannot pay. If a homeless person gets shot, they are well taken care of. Then, when someone with a sizable insurance plan comes to the hospital, they are over charged in an effort to compensate for the loss of earnings from the previous patient. I was told that sometimes the insurance company pays everything asked of them, while other times they question the extra costs and the bill is subsequently adjusted.

Our healthcare system in Canada is not perfect either. Emergency department over crowding is a major issue. There are waiting lists in several parts of Canada for what are termed “elective” surgeries. Such procedures include hip replacements, knee replacements, back surgery, and certain cancer related surgeries. Having money does not bump anyone to the front of the line. However, people who do have money often opt to go to the U.S., or elsewhere, to have their procedure. Our system is getting better due to Canadians demanding, en mass, for improvements. Emergency department overcrowding was a major national issue during the last national elections.

This begs the question: Why aren’t Americans demanding affordable and compassionate quality healthcare for everyone?

The only candidate in the 2008 Presidential Election who has significant experience and expertise in reforming America’s healthcare system is Senator Hillary Clinton. Keep in mind that I am a Canadian physician. I have nothing to gain by endorsing anyone. I am writing this here because I never want to see a patient like the elderly woman who broke her wrist in tears because of fear, and not pain, again. No one should be denied quality healthcare. Becoming ill or injured should not become a point of financial sacrifice or ruin.

Instead of advocating for amending the Constitution of the United States to conform to “God’s standards” (whatever that means), Americans and their government should demand to amend their Constitution to conform to human rights standards. The only candidate who has shown an ability to do this, again, is Senator Clinton. She has already demonstrated the ability to pass legislation, which provides free healthcare to anyone who became ill or injured as a result of helping at Ground Zero of the World Trade Center, following the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Her critics fault her for not making significant gains in reforming the healthcare system during the 1990’s. However, every major system over haul, every great invention, takes trial and error. Thomas Edison did not achieve light with his very first prototype. However, thank goodness he did not stop trying. Senator Clinton is a fighter and will not stop either – that we can all be certain of.

In conclusion, Americans must ask themselves what their priority issues are. Nebulous concepts such as “change” or “unity” don’t pay the healthcare bills. However, a well laid out healthcare plan, which covers everyone, will!

This song by The Who is not just the theme song for the television series “CSI”; or one of the greatest songs in music history. This song is the anthem of the 2008 Presidential Race.

The chorus of “Won’t Get Fooled Again” goes as follows:

“I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again”.

Will America be fooled again? Will the infamous words of George W. Bush: “I am uniter, not a divider” fool us again but this time from the self-professed “uniter” Barack Obama?

This week we learned that Barack Obama told an audience in Ohio that he would consider scrapping NAFTA if necessary as President of the United States. However, we learned that a month before the debate, his campaign contacted the Canadian Government to assure them not to worry because “the words are just rhetoric”. This reveals that he plans to keep the peace by lying to both sides. The only way this unites Canada and America is by sharing the commonality of both being lied to.

Senator Obama maintains that he was always against the Iraq War. Is he oblivious to the documented comments of him praising George W. Bush on the efforts in his speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004? Does he really expect the people to believe that he would not have gone with the grain had he actually had a role of responsibility in the months after the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks? Would he have used the excuse “I pressed the wrong button” when called to task for his discrepancies? Or would he have voted “present” and never committed himself to anything – much the same way he has over a hundred times, thereby leaving himself free to adjust his response to the most popular opinion.

The Obama campaign is claiming that he has the judgment of a president. Which one? More importantly, I might have great judgment when it comes to baseball. However, I would never consider applying for a job coaching the New York Yankees or any other professional baseball team. My experience playing baseball is limited to local recreational leagues. To my credit, I have one hell of a throwing arm. However, this would hardly qualify me to even consider applying.

However, a lack of qualifications has not stopped Barack Obama. He has next to no experience handling roles of major responsibility in government. He should stick to his own gut instinct from 2004 when he answered a reporter who asked him if he would be on the 2008 Presidential ticket: “I don’t have enough experience”.

How safe will America be with Barack Obama at the helm? How soundly will Americans sleep knowing that Barack Obama will be answering the phone at 3:00am? Will he continue to lose important documents because of his self confessed inability to keep track of papers? Will he neglect important responsibilities in the same way he has ignored Afghanistan as a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations?

Will Americans be satisfied with his answer should another Al Qaeda attack occur? “I was busy running for the Presidency”. “Good judgment” means nothing without the ability to stay organized and to multi-task. Good judgment also means nothing without the experience to support it.

Might the difference between “lying to the people” and “uniting the people” be as trivial as “denounce” and “reject” in this ambitious hypocrites mind? Might the difference between voting “for” and voting “present” be one of the same to Barack Obama? When he tells government leaders of major foreign countries to “not worry” because his words are just ‘political rhetoric”, what other lies is he telling the millions of people who send him money to propagate his mirage?

Americans, if you find yourself humming to the catchy tunes of the Obama campaign, stop for a minute and listen to the words. Then, go one step further and learn what the words, or “rhetoric”, really mean. The song sounds really good but the words don’t make any sense. Unlike “Won’t Get Fooled Again”.

Hopefully millions of Obama supporters will stop merely humming along and realize that they are being fooled again. Because, if Barack Obama becomes the next President of the United States, the final line in The Who’s anthem will hold true: “Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss”.

I was reflecting on something Oprah Winfrey said about Barack Obama at a rally in California:

“Being free means you get to think for yourself and you get to decide for yourself”.

One does not have to search very hard to realize the 2008 American Presidential Elections are far from free. Information regarding each of the candidates has been meticulously filtered and “purified” by the news media and celebrity pundits. We are seeing and hearing only what the media wants us to. Given the mainstream media is controlled by Republican interests, making an informed decision is difficult at best. Asking people to “vote with their heart” is as misleading as the emotionally manipulative information bombarding the undecided American who just wants to make a sound decision.

Freedom of thought and choice disintegrates when manipulated information is presented as fact. Expecting voters to make an informed and free decision requires unfiltered and unmanaged reporting. The word for what we have experienced, particularly in the last two months, is “manipulation”. One does not have to be a media expert to recognize the clear slant towards Barack Obama and against Hillary Clinton.

For several months, the administration controlling the mainstream news and analytical programming, as well as the televised debates, have worked assiduously to doctor reality with the goal of influencing voters. The 2008 Elections have become a shell game. At first glance, it may seem easy to turn over the correct shell and discover the right choice. However, in these elections, the “con-artist” running the shell game is no better than the establishment creating the illusion of impartial and professional journalism. Just as a pedestrian may be conned into believing they can pick the shell covering the money-winning ball, the media deceives. Instead of objective and factual based information, the media has wielded their own informal, though more powerful, campaign promoting Barack Obama as the “people’s” choice and censoring anything to the contrary.

The First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights gives people the freedom of speech. However, openly expressing one’s views, only to later suffer a barrage of insults and, in several cases, death threats – for example Tavis Smiley – hardly upholds this constitutional right. This reaction to independent thought is more reminiscent of the staged elections that have been held by Saddam Hussein and like-minded dictatorial leaders. The people under those regimes have the right to pick whom ever they want as long as their choice is the “right” choice. Nothing else is permitted. This is not freedom. The American people have been manipulated, coerced, and even threatened, to make the “right” choice in this 2008 election: Barack Obama.

In closing, this year is not the first time I have been alarmed by Oprah Winfrey’s over indulgent influence on American well-being. I first worried about her delusional grandeur when she came to New York to speak to Americans in the days following the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. She was one of the keynote speakers, along with President Bush, and the former Mayor Giuliani, at a rally with the sole purpose of healing and lifting the American people. A media personality lifted to national leadership? Now we see her exploiting her role by anointing a candidate in a blatant, oversized attempt to influence instead of inform. What free choice exists here? Are we to accept her benediction as the correct selection? Is it not enough that Oprah Winfrey tells the people what books to read; now she feels at liberty to tell everyone who to vote for?

The American voters have been fed mostly positives about Barack Obama and negatives about Hillary Clinton. By every method possible, Americans have been unconsciously raped of their ability to think and choose freely by those who have abused their national trust and social positions. Americans should demand to receive professional, ethical, and unbiased journalism now. The media shell game must be truthfully declared what it actually has become – a most elaborate scam. Freedom of Choice is not a game. While Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional Right, in the United States, Freedom of Choice is not. This unacceptable omission cannot undermine the existence of a free election. American voters deserve better.

The following is an open letter to Senator Hillary Clinton, a woman who I consider an American Hero.  I composed this letter with the hope that it might help undecided voters reach a decision. As outlined in the letter, I am Canadian and, therefore, have no personal gain from supporting Senator Clinton in the primaries in America.  But, readers will note that meeting Senator Clinton at Ground Zero provided me with much comfort during a terrifying time.  

I hope that all who read this letter will give it thought as you decide who you will support in this election:

Dear Senator Clinton:

I have been watching the primaries with great interest and am writing this letter in hopes that it might help your campaign. To introduce myself, I am a Canadian physician who has no voting ability when it comes to American elections. I have absolutely nothing to gain by testifying about your natural ability to lead the U.S. out of darkness.

I met you at Ground Zero on September 12th, 2001. In fact, my medical team of five Canadians literally bumped into you in our haste to make it to Stuyvesant High School where the casualties of the WTC terrorist attacks were accumulating. When I caught my balance amidst the crowd of people, I realized that it was you standing in front of me. I will never forget that moment. You were very composed with only a single secret service agent beside you, completely camouflaged as an ordinary citizen. When my group realized who you were, we stood still. I was speechless and already overwhelmed by the chaos around us. The only words that I could manage to form were: _We are Canadians. We came from Canada to help.

You shook each of our hands and thanked us. The momentum and courage that your simple gesture gave us was very much appreciated.

When I reflect on that week, a flood of memories returns to me. First, unlike any other of your political colleagues at the time, you were walking about, without any lights or cameras, reassuring the people that you represent that you were there to help. You were vulnerable, ready and willing to have anyone approach you in person _ unlike President Bush.

In fact, because the current president is so afraid of getting assassinated _ that is what the police told us on September 15th, 2001 – the medical triage had to shut down for _security reasons_ in preparation for his arrival on Friday, and might I add three whole days after the attacks. At the time, our triage was taking care of between 50 to 70 patients an hour. We had over 200 medical volunteers working around the clock to help. As far as we know, all of our patients were injured volunteers. We would patch up whomever we could and help them get back to the fevered search for potential life.

The stories of injured fire fighters and other rescue workers obsessed about getting stitched up, or having their eyes flushed from the acidic smoke, as quickly as possible in order to continue looking for a loved one, are too numerous to recount. However, when President Bush came to Ground Zero, the Triage was closed down and we all were forced home.

Six years later, you helped me again – though this time not in person. Somehow, I still remain ashamed that I ever got sick after helping. My lungs have never been the same as when I crossed the finish line at the Ironman Canada ultra distance triathlon on August 26th. 2001. Because of you, Senator Clinton, thousands of WTC volunteers have free medical care for their rescue related illnesses. I was absolutely astonished when American volunteers that I still keep in touch with told me that I could also get help despite being a Canadian. To be honest, I refused any assistance for several years. For one, I am not bitter and choose not to define my life by September 11th. Even if I knew that I would get as sick as I have, I would help again. My quality of life compared to many of the great people that I met during that dark week six years ago is actually pretty awesome. I remain grateful for what I have and not bitter about what I do not.

Regardless, from the moment that I met you in person, and from the many moments I have been grateful for your continuing to stand up for the thousands who later became sick and injured from Ground Zero, I have thought of you as a true hero.

California may have the “Terminator,” America has you.

In closing, although the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make me sick with despair, after what you saw first hand on September 11th, 2001, I don’t blame you for taking the greatest measure available at the time to keep America safe. You did the best you could, with what you had, at the time.

Senator Obama, or any of your rivals for that matter, were never at Ground Zero. How can they truly second-guess your decision?

I look forward to cheering for you all the way to the finish line – when you are sworn in officially as President of the United States.

Sincerely,

Dr. Carolyn, BA, MD, CCFP, FRCPC(EM)