Rep. Allen West, R-Fort Lauderdale (Photo: Facebook/Debra Todd)

Democratic members of the U.S. House have introduced a resolution condemning remarks made last week by Rep. Allen West, R-Fort Lauderdale.

It was reported late last week that West told reporters the Democratic Party messaging would impress Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Politico reported that West said, “If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat Party because they have an incredible propaganda machine.”

“I think that you have, and let’s be honest, you know, some of the people in the media are complicit in this, in enabling them to get that type of message out,” West told reporters.

Almost immediately, groups such as the Anti-Defamation League were denouncing his remarks.

Today, however, The Palm Beach Post reports that House Dems have filed a resolution in response.

The Post reports:

On what may be the final day of House business in 2011, U.S. Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., has introduced a resolution condemning U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Plantation, for saying last week that Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels would be “very proud” of Democratic efforts to blame congressional dysfunction on the GOP.

It’s not immediately clear when or whether the resolution will come up for a vote.

…

Reading from the resolution on the House floor this afternoon, Edwards said: “Such outrageous Holocaust analogies have no place in our political dialogue. They are offensive, they trivialize real historical events and they diminish the memory of the 6 million Jews and millions of others who perished in the Holocaust.”

The proposed resolution calls West’s conduct “repugnant” and says the House “disapproves of the behavior of the Representative of Florida, Mr. West, for bringing discredit to the House by offending the memory of those who died during the Holocaust.”

West has been known for making incendiary comments aimed at Democrats in the passed. He is currently gearing up for a competitive reelection campaign as the state of Florida finalizes its redistricting plans.

Thousands of uninsured D.C. residents await free medical care. (Annie Lowrey)

Long before 11 a.m., when the Washington Convention Center opened its doors to local uninsured people, families and individuals filed into the halls and waited outside. By the end of the day, hundreds would pass through to receive medical evaluations and medical care, for free.

Today, the National Association of Free Clinics hosted its first one-day, free event in Washington, D.C. — the seventh in a series, but the first of its kind ever in Washington. The city does not seem the most logical choice: It has a lower unemployment rate than the vast majority of states, and nearly 90 percent of residents are covered. Still, the city has 57,200 residents without insurance — and millions of uninsured neighbors in Maryland and Virginia.

So, after hosting similar events serving tens of thousands of people across the country, NAFC set its sights on D.C. “Although this has been a historic year with the passage of federal health care reform legislation, uninsured people throughout the country still need free medical resources now,” Nicole Lamoreux, NAFC’s executive director, said. “This free clinic is not just for the sick but also for anyone who is uninsured and not seen a doctor recently.”

And hundreds came to the cavernous concrete room in the belly of the Washington Convention Center: everyone from grandparents to children, from joggers to curious homeless persons to men wearing suits and ties. The uninsured received dozens of services in 76 examining rooms, aided by 800 doctors, nurses and support staff, as well as hundreds more volunteers. They received EKGs, cholesterol and pregnancy tests, and dental evaluations. Medical workers encouraged participants to receive HIV/AIDS tests, as well, since Washington’s death rate from the disease is 10 times the national average.

The location being Washington, and the event coming just months after President Obama signed into law a bill making health coverage nearly universal, NAFC extended invitations to every member of Congress and their staffs, asking them to come speak with doctors and people receiving care. Just one, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) accepted. “I think I’m the only member who ever came!” she said, after greeting a long row of patients one by one.

“I feel strongly about the new law,” she said, referring to health care reform. “These clinics, being held across the country, they’re gap-fillers. But the system is still sorely broken. Most people I’ve spoken with today work, and some held two or three jobs.” Still, they did not have insurance.

Edwards also said health-care reform “missed the opportunity to provide federal support” for clinics, necessary “even in a system where we’re trying to get everyone health care insurance.”

And until health care reform is fully enacted — a process that will take years — 30 million remain without insurance. The sour economy and sky-high unemployment rate have not helped. Between 2008 and 2009, the number of people receiving free care at clinics doubled to more than 8 million people, though donations declined.

Damon Murphy of Fortsville, Md., came because he is an asthmatic, but has not had regular health insurance for more than a decade. Murphy lost his job detailing cars a year ago, and with no insurance and no job, had not seen a doctor “in a long time, a very long time.” Instead, when he had the occasional asthma attack, he went to the emergency room. At the NAFC clinic, a doctor prescribed Murphy preventive medication, and gave him some pointed wellness advice. To boot, the doctor performed an eye exam and got Murphy a prescription for new glasses.

After visitors received evaluations and care, they spoke with volunteers who informed them about other available services — Medicaid programs they might not know they qualify for, clinics in the area, benefits like Women, Infants and Children (WIC).

Staffers at the event touted the educational portion as the most important. Dave Kraly, a program director at the Medical Care Mission in Abilene, Texas, described it as “necessary.” He noted that the clinic included additional, related services — job referrals and instructions to help people find the best place to get their prescriptions, for instance. “If we can prevent people from having no insurance, or needing to head to the emergency room,” the clinic has worked, he said.

“The ruling reached by the Roberts’ Court [sic] overturned decades of legal precedent by allowing corporations unfettered spending in our political campaigns,” Edwards said in a statement. “Another law will not rectify this disastrous decision.  A Constitutional Amendment is necessary to undo what this Court has done.”

It’s not only House leaders eyeing that option. Testifying before the Senate Rules Committee this morning, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) also promoted that idea.

“We need a constitutional amendment to make it clear once and for all that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals,” Kerry said.

For campaign finance reform supporters, it’s exactly the right move.

“The court’s overreach is so shocking, and the certain consequences so damaging, that we must have a constitutional corrective,” Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said in a statement. ”The First Amendment was never intended to protect the likes of ExxonMobil, Pfizer or Goldman Sachs, nor should it.”

“Obama’s ascendance represents a turning point in America’s approach to the region, especially to Israel,” he wrote in the letter. “The new administration believes that in order to fight terror, guarantee stability and withdraw from Iraq, a new diplomatic slant is needed involving drastic steps to pacify the Muslim world and the adoption of a more balanced approach to Israel, including intensive pressure to stop building in settlements, remove outposts and advance the formation of a Palestinian state.”

This, for instance, won’t go over well:

Peled recommends intervening in American congressional races to weaken Obama and asking American Jewish donors not to contribute to Democratic congressional candidates. He predicted that this would result in Democratic candidates pressuring Obama to become more pro-Israel.

Peled called for the formation of a new body intended to influence American public opinion. The groups he suggests courting include Hispanic Americans and Labor unions in industries that benefit from Israeli military acquisitions.

Now, people who don’t obsessively follow Israeli politics will probably read Peled’s description of Obama’s positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict and ask what’s so controversial about asking Israel to “stop building in settlements, remove outposts and advance the formation of a Palestinian state,” all of which are either longstanding international obligations or principles that previous Israeli governments have accepted in writing. And they’ll probably really not like to read that a foreign government and ally believes it should intervene in U.S. elections in order to weaken the popular president so he won’t compel that ally to act on such longstanding international obligations. As for American Jews, about 77 percent of us voted for Obama. And when a Politico story suggested that Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) might face a conservative-Jewish-sponsored primary challenger because of her outspoken views on peace, the progressive Jewish lobby group J Street raised $15,000 for her in four hours.

Farley, in patient terms, outlines why Israel has so much more to lose from this than the United States does, which is so obvious that it means Peled is shouting into the wind here. Netanyahu isn’t foolish enough to act on this memo, since his longtime closeness with the America means he understands that Israel’s indispensable diplomatic asset is its U.S. ally.

So there’s only the slimmest mathematical possibility that anything Peled suggests here going to become reality. The question is why he would allow a letter so damaging to U.S.-Israeli relations to become public. If Netanyahu’s trying to play an inside-outside game, he may want to think twice about the consequences for Israel of causing needless U.S. acrimony.

Five House Democrats were arrested Monday during a protest at the Sudanese embassy in Washington. The lawmakers — Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Donna Edwards (D-Md.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and John Lewis (D-Ga.) — were demonstrating against the recent expulsion of 16 aid groups from the war-torn Darfur region, when they crossed a police line and were arrested. The Hill has a bit more:

The Secret Service had established a perimeter around the embassy. The lawmakers and protest organizers deliberately crossed the line and refused three warnings to leave, a spokesman for Edwards said. [...]

Dan Weber, the Edwards spokesman, said the lawmakers are in the process of posting bail and should be out of jail this afternoon. They had hired defense attorney Laura Rhodes in advance of their arrests.