I’m going to critique a telling interview (reprint from Breitbart) with Mallory McMorrow and how and why it is way past time to re-think libel laws and how the Mass Media and Democrats in particular have used the comparison of Trump to Hitler to incite violence. I gave my genius buddy Grok an assignment to research this and his telling response (Grok doesn’t identify as any sex but my guess is that most of the programming was by males – so I see Grok as male in disposition): “In the United States, there is no specific ‘libel law for inciting violence.'” Further, “Speech advocating violence or illegal acts is generally protected by the First Amendment unless it meets the strict test from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969): The speech must be (1) directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and (2) likely to incite or produce such action. constitution.findlaw.com
Sunday on CNN’s “Inside Politics,” Michigan State Senator and U.S. Senate candidate Mallory McMorrow said there were parallels between Nazi Germany and what’s happening under the Trump administration.
Host Manu Raju said, “Why delete these 6,000 tweets? Because you did it after the New York Post had reported on it last year, and after you were a candidate in this race. I mean, there were things that you suggested there. You suggested even there are parallels between Nazi Germany and what was happening under in America, under Trump. Do you why delete these after you became a candidate? Did you think there were going to be too problematic for you in this election?”
McMorrow said, “I didn’t you know, this was a decision to delete everything prior to 2021 of my opponents of dual. I’ll say I did the same, deleting some of his more controversial views on completely defunding the police. It’s cleaning up social media, which I think is something everybody should have stopped doing that.”
Raju said, “Just to follow up on that question, do you personally see parallels between Nazi Germany and what’s happening under the Trump administration?”
McMorrow said, “Yeah, I do. It is deeply concerning that we see an authoritarian slide. And as we talked about earlier, dividing people against each other, to convince people that if you’re not doing well economically, it’s somebody else’s fault, is an incredibly dangerous place for us to be in. I don’t think that, a lot of people would argue that there are shades of authoritarianism here that we need to be deeply concerned about.”
She and the interviewer mention that she had 6000 tweets deleted once she ran for Senate – and she gave us a “cock and bull” story about having to delete material prior to 2021 “cleaning up social media”? What a load of crap! She did it because the quotes were so outrageous that her opponent would inevitably be able to use them against her. And what does this “shades of authoritarianism” mean? Any examples given? The Dems simply project what they actually do – that is Projection – on to their opposition. Alinsky Rules for Radicals 101 – accuse the opposition of what you do. Is there anywhere in America a more one party “authoritarian” state than CA and a few other blue dem states? Every elected state office and with their Gerry rigging Prop 50 – that did a way with the “independent” redistricting – 93% of all Congressional seats will go to Dems – despite the fact that 40% of CA voted for Trump.
If the left would use for example, the number of executive orders from Trump to make their case that Trump was being “authoritarian”, then they’d have to conveniently forget that both Obama and Biden issued hundreds of them as well. Each branch of government has enumerated powers. The isolationists in both parties may not like Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran to rid this death cult regime of the ability to create nuclear weapons that shouts “Death to America!” – but people with common sense sees why unlike his cowardly predecessors who kicked this dangerous can down the road – Trump decided as a pragmatist to save not just the US but the world from the disaster of a nuclear armed Iran. It is one thing to oppose war – but quite another to invoke the image of the most vile creature from the 20th Century to argue your case – and in doing so – incite mass violent protests and assassinations – and assassination attempts on the opposition.
So, the answer to the likes of this pathetic Democrat candidate?
Every person who uses a Hitler reference to Trump or any other member of the Conservative movement has blood on their hands. After 3 assassination attempts on Trump – Scalise shot – Kirk assassination – when are we going to finally show that violent insurrection “speech” – is not and should not be covered by the 1st amendment? Common sense means we should be able to provide some sort of remedy for those corrupt media types and politicians that cavalierly make outrageous comparisons to Hitler (or other hated villains) that elicit violence (by dehumanizing the political opposition).
I suggest a very hefty penalty for liable where a jury gets to decide whether the comment was untrue and libelous and provide penalties of heavy fines and jail time if it could be demonstrated that their comments led to violence. After 3 assassination attempts, an actual assassination of a Trump supporter – and continued repetition of the same dehumanization of Trump and supporters should be actionable according to a strict interpretation of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969): The speech must be (1) directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and (2) likely to incite or produce such action. It is time to put Brandenburg v Ohio to the test. The overwhelming use of Trump-Hitler comparisons – and the recent Manifesto from the last attempted assassin shows that these acts are not just some crazy people who are acting as “loners” in the traditional sense. That is, this Computer Science wiz – this last assassin – gave us a rather concise list of talking points easily found by quoting the Democrat Senator McMorrow, any number of Democrats in leadership position, or that vilest of unfunny comics Kimmel and his “expectant widow” joke. A sample list of Democrat politicians comparing Trump to Hitler:
Hillary Clinton (former Secretary of State, 2016 Democratic presidential nominee): Compared Trump’s 2022 Ohio rally to Adolf Hitler’s speeches. She also described his 2024 Madison Square Garden rally as “reenacting” the 1939 pro-Nazi rally held there, calling it no coincidence. nysenate.gov
Tim Walz (Governor of Minnesota, 2024 Democratic vice-presidential nominee): Referred to ICE under Trump as “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo” (Nazi secret police) in a 2025 speech. He also drew a “direct parallel” between Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally and the 1939 Nazi rally at the same venue. san.com
Al Gore (former Vice President, 2000 Democratic presidential nominee): In an April 2025 speech, compared the Trump administration’s approach to “create their own preferred version of reality” to Nazi Germany under Hitler’s Third Reich, while acknowledging the unique evil of the Holocaust. politico.com
Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC, former House Majority Whip): In 2019, explicitly invoked Hitler’s rise, stating, “Adolf Hitler was elected chancellor of Germany. And he went about the business of discrediting institutions,” and equated the political climate under Trump to pre-WWII Germany. wral.com
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): In a 2019 NAACP speech, repeatedly likened Trump’s rise to Hitler’s, calling him an “authoritarian anti-immigrant racist strongman” and comparing anti-Latino rhetoric to Nazi anti-Semitism. nbcnews.com
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY): In 2019, compared Trump’s immigration policies and rhetoric to Nazi Germany in response to Trump’s statements. nypost.com
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX): Referred to Trump as “Temu Hitler” (a cheap imitation) and a “wannabe Hitler.” foxnews.com
Beto O’Rourke (former U.S. Representative and 2022 Texas gubernatorial candidate): In 2019 and later statements, compared Trump’s rhetoric about Mexicans and immigrants to Nazi Germany under Hitler, arguing that being elected does not prevent someone from acting like a dictator. foxnews.com
Additional notes: Some reports also reference Joe Biden and Kamala Harris criticizing Trump’s language as echoing Hitler’s (e.g., “poisoning the blood” rhetoric), though these are often framed as comparisons to fascist-style language rather than direct “Trump = Hitler” statements.)
There has to be a limit to free speech and this media and this democrat party has gone way past that limit.