The Constitution, Nazis, and the Corpse Man

Obama, like most Progressives, seems to have a problem identifying the U.S. Constitution

By Jim O'Neill Saturday, February 6, 2010

Recently I’ve noticed several things that the Progressives are having trouble with. Well, actually a LOT of things, but this article will focus on just a few of them.

First of all, Obama, like most Progressives, seems to have a problem identifying the U.S. Constitution.

In his State of the Union address, Obama stated that “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal….”

Darn near made me want to stand up and salute, (something our POTUS could use some lessons in, by the way). There’s a problem here, however. It turns out that “the notion that we are all created equal” is not “enshrined in our Constitution”—it’s from the Declaration of Independence.

Doesn’t say much for Obama’s grasp of the Constitution, when he confuses the U.S. Constitution, with the Declaration of Independence

This mistaken attribution is an understandable faux pas for your average “Joe six-pack,” but Obama’s supposed to be a Harvard-trained Constitutional lawyer. It doesn’t say much for Harvard Law School, or Obama’s grasp of the Constitution, when he confuses the U.S. Constitution, with the Declaration of Independence.

(Note to the White House (and Harvard Law School): they are two totally different documents, with different wording, and different purposes. They are not interchangeable. I know—bummer).

One can imagine Obama’s final exam on Constitutional Law:

Harvard Law professor: “Mister Obama, what are the opening words of the U.S. Constitution?”

Obama: “Uh, ‘When in the course of human events….’”

Harvard Law professor: “Close enough! You pass!”

No wonder these folks have so much trouble following the Constitution.

If I may, let me make a suggestion to the Progressives (and Harvard). The Cato Institute sells a small book that contains a copy of both the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. It’s inexpensive, so there’s really no excuse for you not to have one—as a handy reference, you know.

No need to thank me, it’s what I do.

Next, I would like to discuss the Nazis—again.

The Progressives, and their Islamic buddies, are still showing a fondness for equating conservatives with Nazis. It has been repeatedly pointed out to them, that conservatives are not Nazis—that if anyone’s a Nazi, it’s them. All to no avail.

Disparaging a conservative, by calling them a Nazi, is no doubt insulting, but it’s also misleading, misguided, and nonsensical. Nazis are a Far Left phenomena all the way, but this obvious point is simply not registering with the left-wing.

So once more unto the breech, dear friends. I will write this slowly so our Progressive friends can follow along, and hopefully, finally see the light. (It’s worth a try, right?)

To understand the roots of Nazism is simplicity itself. NAZI is an acronym (in German) for Adolph Hitler’s political party, the “National Socialist German Workers Party.” Take out the words “National,” and “German,” and you’re left with the “Socialist Workers Party.”

The “Socialist Workers Party.” Hello? That is unequivocally NOT a conservative outfit, folks—that’s as Far Left as you can get. I can easily picture a “Socialist Workers Party” being a voting bloc at a Democratic convention—but at a Republican convention? Puh-leeze.

Adding the concepts “National” and “German,” is what makes Nazism a fascist, as opposed to a communist, variation of Marxism. The German Nazis (like Mussolini’s fascists) practiced a National brand of Marxism, as opposed to the Russian communists, who practiced a Global brand of Marxism.

It’s illustrative to look at the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. The Iran-Iraq war was not between different theologies, but between differing interpretations of the same theology, (Sunni Muslims, versus Shi’ite Muslims).

In much the same way, the war between Hitler and Stalin, was basically a turf war between two differing interpretations of the same ideology.

Fascism and Communism are closely related, and Progressivism has links to them both.

So you Progressives can take back your swastikas, Hitler moustaches, and “Sieg heils.” They’re yours, and always have been. Here—don’t forget your arm-bands.

The inextricable link between the Nazis and Progressives, helps to explain the Progressive’s fondness for abortion, euthanasia, and population control. It’s nothing more than the “same old, same old.” The same old Nazi song and dance, hidden behind new names, new “clothes,” and the passage of time.

It is no coincidence that George Soros, the most visible of the puppet masters behind the modern Progressive movement, and founder of “Project Death in America,” was once a Nazi collaborator.

The Progressive’s link with the Nazis also helps to explain their ever-increasing anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist stance

The Progressive’s link with the Nazis also helps to explain their ever-increasing anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist stance.

If you doubt that anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism is rampant, and growing, in Progressive Europe, then you haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on in “Eurabia” these days. I strongly suggest that any Jews who consider Progressives to be the best thing since sliced matzah, reconsider their position. Excepting those with a taste for masochism and suicide, of course.

Study some history—preferably from a history book not written by a Western civilization hating, Judeo/Christian-culture despising, capitalism deploring, left-wing Progressive academic. You’ll have to search far and wide for such a book, but it’s well worth the search.

In closing, there’s one last thing I’d like to touch on.

The other day Obama repeatedly referred to a U.S. military corpsman, as a “corpse-man.” The use of such a misnomer needs to be nipped in the bud, before it catches on.

Yelling out “Hey, I need a corpse-man over here!” in the thick of battle, would not only prove unnecessarily alarming to any wounded, but would be detrimental to troop morale as a whole. Someone needs to inform the POTUS that corpsman is pronounced “core-man”—with the “p” and “s” being silent.

In all seriousness, Navy corpsmen (and Army/Air Force medics) have historically been among some of the bravest people in the U.S. military; often putting their lives on the line in order to help others, and at times paying the ultimate price for doing so. Many vets, and serving personnel, are alive today only because of some corpsman’s heroic and timely efforts.

The POTUS would do well to read up on some of the many corpsmen who have won the Medal of Honor over the years. At the very least, the CIC (Commander in Chief) should learn how to pronounce the honorable name of “corpsman,” properly.

Laus Deo

Jim O'Neill Most recent columns

Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two. A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student, O’Neill won “First Place” in the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award.” The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with the money she won from successfully suing the National Enquirer for libel.

Jim can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com

President Obama's troops break ranks on health care

By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 12/17/09 8:42 PM EST

The foot soldiers of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, organized to go into action when key elements of his agenda are at stake, aren't universally enthusiastic about fighting for the health care compromise now before the Senate. Photo: AP

The foot soldiers of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, organized to go into action when key elements of his agenda are at stake, aren’t universally enthusiastic about fighting for the health care compromise now before the Senate.

On Wednesday morning, Organizing for America, as Obama’s reconstituted campaign organization is now known, e-mailed its list of 13 million Obama supporters asking them to “call your senators now and help us ‘ring in reform.’”

The campaign yielded 150,000 calls — less than half the number of a similar effort in October — and it prompted a backlash among online and local activists who had logged countless volunteer supporting Obama’s campaign and legislative agenda, but who felt betrayed by recent Democratic concessions in the health-care reform fight.

To be sure, the October effort targeted members of the House and Senate, while Wednesday’s calls only targeted senators. Keeping any political organization together after the enthusiasm of a campaign is difficult, and it’s hard to gauge how widespread the unhappiness is.

But there’s plenty of unhappiness. One leading OFA volunteer in Florida blasted an e-mail to a statewide listserv urging activists to “just say no” to the phone-banking effort — uncorking a torrent of frustration from Florida Democrats — while some OFA subscribers replied directly to the call-to-action e-mail with angry messages and others asked to be removed from the list entirely.

Still others said they would indeed call their senators — but would urge them to oppose the bill. And the liberal blogosphere registered its dissatisfaction with the call to action, with one prominent blogger on MyDD predicting that “Organizing for America will get a rude awakening when they try to round up canvassers and phone bankers.”

After the October plea, which yielded 315,000 calls, a White House-allied outside group blasted out a Huffington Post report indicating that an overwhelming majority of calls specifically supported the so-called public option then being pushed aggressively by congressional liberals.

Since then, the public option has been all but dropped from consideration, and this week a proposed Medicare expansion that replaced it was removed to placate Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

The Democratic National Committee, which houses the OFA, pointed out there had been a total of 1 million calls since the health-care phone-call campaign launched in August and professed to be happy with the number of calls Wednesday, but also conceded that not all subscribers were on board.

“Of our hundreds of thousands of volunteers, there are certainly some who at any given time may disagree with a tactic here or a policy there,” said DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan. “However, as we've seen throughout this process, the vast majority of our supporters remain engaged because they recognize that after a century of fighting for reform, that we are closer than ever and that this is the best chance we may ever have to ensure affordable, reliable health care is available to every American.”

The plan as currently construed won’t achieve those goals, said Nancy Jacobson, an Orlando Democrat who has volunteered for OFA.

“I will call my senators, but I will be asking them to vote against the bill without the public option or Medicare buy-in,” she said.

Dave Hearn, a Fort Dodge, Iowa, optician who helped organize Obama’s campaign in Webster County and has volunteered for OFA by sending e-mails and organizing a local health care “vigil,” said Obama “is taking for granted that the volunteers who worked so hard for him were going to buy in to whatever strategy he chose to pass his major legislative initiative.”

Though he said he’s “still a great believer in Obama,” he said he didn’t participate in the OFA phone banking and won’t be volunteering for future health-care-related efforts. “What am I going to say: ‘I hate this bill, but we’re Obama people, so let’s do it?’” he said.

Amy Slattery, an OFA volunteer who organized a health-care phone bank in New York last month to lean on Lieberman, said she plans to remain engaged in the group’s reform advocacy, despite being “frustrated with aspects of the bill (and certainly with Lieberman).”

She explained, “I certainly understand the unease that a lot of people have been feeling, but I remain hopeful that the process will achieve some type of positive health care reform.”

But Tanya Keith, a small business owner from Des Moines who was a precinct captain for Obama’s Iowa campaign, replied to the OFA e-mail, writing “Why should I devote my valuable time to volunteer for a bill that has no teeth left in it? We've sold our souls to 4 Senators instead of sitting down and convincing them that a public option or at the very LEAST medicare is included in the bill.”

Joe Trippi, a Democratic operative who ran former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean’s unsuccessful bid for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, said OFA didn’t effectively “do the groundwork to get their on-ground supporters to buy in” to the reform plan before asking them to advocate for it.

“If you don’t do that pre-work,” said Trippi, who left Dean’s operation before it transitioned into a group called Democracy for America that is similar to OFA, “there’s a real danger in causing people to disengage and getting them to hit that ‘unsubscribe’ button and saying ‘don’t bother me any more.’”

That’s what Susan Smith, an OFA activist from Tampa, did. She also fired off an e-mail urging members of the Florida Progressives listserv to “say NO if (OFA staffers) ask you to participate” in the phone banking.

“If this bill passes, it will be because Joe Lieberman threw a hissy fit and was allowed to control what went into the bill,” she wrote. “That means that in the end, he had more power with President Obama and Senator Reid than we do. If he is rewarded, this tactic will be used over and over again to kill the progressive agenda.” She also urged members not to donate to the DNC or the Party’s congressional campaign committees.

In an interview, Smith said her listserv message prompted an outpouring of similar sentiments.

“People are frustrated because we have done our part,” she said. “We put these people in the position to make change and they’re not doing it.”

That kind of disappointment has already diminished the power of OFA, asserted Adam Green, a former official with the liberal online juggernaut MoveOn.org, who now helps run the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which supports the public option.

In September, the group collected signatures from more than 100,000 former Obama campaign staffers, volunteers and donors on a letter urging him to support the public option.

“We heard story after story from current Organizing for America volunteers about how they were getting disillusioned with Obama because he wasn’t fighting for the public option,” Green said. “Obama’s e-mail list may soon become a hollow shell if he does not fight Joe Lieberman and insist that there be a public option.”