WND's Dream Of Impeaching Obama Still Lives, Never Mind That He's No Longer President Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has always had a fixation on trying to impeach Barack Obama. In 2010, for example, it teamed with the right-wing (and Joseph Farah-founded) Western Journalism Center to publish a ridiculous "Case for Impeachment" rife with bias and factual errors. WND also demanded the impeachment of Hillary Clinton a year and a half before the 2016 election -- then unironically complained of alleged efforts to impeach Trump before he was "even inaugurated into office."
That lack of irony continues in a May 21 WND article by Art Moore, who pushes the idea -- with the help of right-wing legal group Judicial Watch -- that Obama can and should be impeached even though he's been out of the presidency for more than a year:
If Congress is considering impeachment charges related to the 2016 election, they should center not on President Trump but on former President Obama “and his Nixonian use of various agencies to target candidate Trump,” contends Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
“If there is anyone who needs to be on the dock, it would be President Obama,” he said in an interview Monday with WND.
Fitton’s organization, with 30 lawsuits already in motion, has relentlessly pursued documents and communications related to the Obama administration’s investigation of alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign through Freedom of Information Act requests.
Fitton explained that his tweet Sunday, saying “Obama, btw, can still be impeached,” was to generate discussion about holding Obama accountable, not to suggest that impeachment necessarily would be the best course of action if evidence warranted prosecution. He wanted to emphasize, amid all the impeachment talk by Democrats on Capitol Hill, that if anybody should be impeached, the evidence indicates it should be Obama. William Murphy, a professor of American history at State University of New York at Oswego, confirmed that Congress could impeach a former president, noting the penalties of conviction including a ban from holding future office.
Moore waited until the final few paragraphs to include the more rational view that impeaching someone who's no longer in office may be legally permissible but also a waste of time, and that any actual alleged crimes would be better off being pursued through the legal system.
Still, it's comforting to know that WND's Obama Derangement Syndrome continues unabated.
NEW ARTICLE: Another Member of CNS' Trump Stenography Brigade Topic: CNSNews.com
Melanie Arter is too busy dutifully transcribing what comes out of the White House press office to be concerned about things like fact-checking. Read more >>
WND Columnist Gets It Wrong On Effectiveness of Waterboarding Topic: WorldNetDaily
Patrick Brady's May 15 WorldNetDaily column is all about how he's "fed up"with John McCain: "I am sick of his hero stuff and McCain being the gold standard of torture and those who demonize Gina Haspel in his name. The moral preening of those questioning Haspel on the fact that she obeyed the law is nauseating, as is McCain’s slandering of this good woman. Elect these people, and watch the swamp turn into a sewer." Brady goes on to write:
As for torture, it works. Ask a POW. But we don’t torture.
Waterboarding is part of the training for some of our troops; perhaps some members of SEAL Team Six endured it. Would we torture our own troops? Torture is often in the eye of the victim (being locked up and forced to listen to today’s music would make me cave immediately), but pain is indispensable. I am told waterboarding doesn’t involve pain but induces panic and may be the most effective non-torture method of interrogation. It got us Osama bin Laden.
I am with Bud [Day], who said, “Hurrah for the guy who poured the water.”
In fact, waterboarding did not get us Osama bin Laden. A Senate investigation found that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods provided no key evidence in the hunt for bin Laden; the key piece of evidence 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided came only months after he had been waterboarded 183 times.
Fox News afternoon anchor Shepard Smith boasted to Time magazine a few weeks ago “I think we have to make the wall between news and opinion as high and as thick and as impenetrable as possible. And I try to do that.”
Then he goes on television daily and makes a mockery of his own pledge not to spew opinions.
On Wednesday, the Internet lit up when Smith accused his own network of a conspiracy to put a group of voices on television counseling President Trump to avoid an interview with special counsel Robert Mueller, now that potential Mueller questions to the president were leaked to the newspapers.
Graham doesn't mention that there is truth to Smith's claim -- Fox News host Sean Hannity, for one, has denounced the questions as "crap,"and Fox News as a whole is all but begging Trump to fire Mueller and shut down the investigation (therefore precluding an interview).
Instead, Graham huffed that "Smith isn't relaying facts on a Fox News Channel. Like the other cable 'news' operations, he's sitting in a political playground he could call the Fox Imagination Channel. " Of course, if Graham doesn't think Fox's hosts are trying to influence Trump's behavior regarding the Mueller investigation, he's the one living in fantasy land.
Fox News anchor Bret Baier appeared on ABC's The View on Thursday to promote his new book Three Days in Moscow about Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. But the ABC crew peppered him with questions about their favorite topic -- the White House aide who insulted John McCain -- and whether Fox News is the "administration's mouthpiece," since it's reported Sean Hannity talks to the president nightly after his show. Baier replied "There may be opinion shows that have a direct relationship with the president, and Sean is not calling me and giving me a download of the call."
But then Sunny Hostin, who routinely reminds viewers of her days as a legal analyst at CNN, threw shade at Fox, as CNN people do: "People do see Fox News as the administration’s mouthpiece. I don’t know if it helped that it’s been reported that your colleague Sean Hannity talks to the president nightly before bed, about the day’s musings. Do you think that’s appropriate? I understand Sean is on the opinion side of the network. But as a representative of the network, that Sean is, is that appropriate?”
“First of all, the network overall is not a mouthpiece,” Baier responded. “There may be opinion shows that have a direct relationship with the president, and Sean is not calling me and giving me a download of the call.”
He added “I was on his show the other night, and he said to me, how much problem do I cause the news division, scale of one to 10? And I said, you know, a solid six. But it depends on the day.” He said he tries to do it straight: "I have horse blinders on from six to seven."
Graham ignored another salient fact -- that in reality, blinders really aren't Baier's thing. Certainly he remembers the bogus story Baier reported -- and the MRC heravily promoted -- before the 2016 election claiming that Hillary Clinton's indictment was imminent. Baier had to retract that story a few days later, but Graham and the rest of the MRC never told their readers that, despite Brent Boizell declaring that "We will report developments on this continuing cover-up every hour from here on out." Apparently, the fact that the story was fake news wasn't a development worth reporting.
And then there's that book Baier was on "The View" to promote. Judging by the promotion for it on Baier's personal website, it's on the hagiographic side, touting how the book "reveals as never before President Ronald Reagan’s battle to end the Cold War" and lovingly recounts how "In 1980, Reagan represented a new spirit of optimism—a remedy for the sense of malaise the nation was experiencing."
Does this sound like a guy who's wearing ideological blinders? To Graham, it does, apparently.
To sum up: Graham is gashing the straight-news Fox guy for saying something he can't be bothered to disprove, and he defends the Fox guy who's on record as promoting fake news. That's the way things work at the MRC these days.
An anonymously written May 16 WND article reports that the Department of Justice won't release records related to Rich's death, as requested by an attorney named Ty Clevenger. As we noted the last time WND touted Clevenger's exploits, he appears to be little more than a gadfly lawyer motivated more by his hatred of the Clintons than by any alleged sense of justice.
The article then goes on to rehash the conspiracy theories, claiming that "The Metropolitan Police Department and Washington Mayor Muriel Bowers [sic] insist Rich was randomly killed during a “botched robbery.” But others are doubtful because he was found with his wallet, credit cards and other valuables" and that "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has hinted that Rich, and not Russian agents, may have been the source of the Democratic National Committee emails he published online."
Assange's continued insistence on being coy about Rich fuels those conspiracy theories, despite his strategy of creating "maximum ambiguity" and not telling the truth.
We'd complain about WND continuing its irresponsible ways, but Joseph Farah never promised to fix WND's faulty brand of journalism, let alone admitted there is a problem in the first place.
O'Reilly Not Helping His Credibility By Promoting Corsi's Book Topic: Newsmax
We've noted how Newsmax has been courting disgraced former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly for months, in conjunction with an image rehab operation it's doing for him by giving him a platform on Newsmax TV and shoving all those sexual harassment claims against him down the memory hole. Indeed, rumors of O'Reilly hooking up with Newsmax have been heating up again of late.
Another sign of a possible O'Reilly-Newsmax hookup: O'Reilly is shilling for Newsmax's products -- and a particularly substandard one at that. A May 9 Newsmax article touts:
Bill O’Reilly says “Killing the Deep State” is “a book that the left doesn’t like.”
In fact, the left, and their allies in the big media hate Jerome Corsi’s sensational new book.
So much so, they have placed a virtual ban on Corsi across all the major networks — CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC . . . and even Fox News.
But Bill O’Reilly is not afraid and recently featured Corsi on his popular BillOReilly.com podcast.
Holding the book up for viewers, O’Reilly declared: “There’s a new book out — and it’s an homage to me — called 'Killing the Deep State' by Dr. Jerome Corsi,” referring to his own hugely successful series of “Killing” books.
“It’s a bestseller, it’s a bestseller,” O’Reilly emphasized, noting that the book reveals detailed evidence about the deep state war on Trump.
Corsi told O’Reilly he thinks Trump still beats the deep state.
“Trump always manages in the last act to pull it out and win,” Corsi said
“This is the biggest challenge of his life,” O’Reilly responded, before urging his viewers to check out the book.
Of course, as we noted, the real reason nobody will have Corsi on TV to promote his book -- published by Newsmax's book division, Humanix, something this article failed dto disclose -- is because he's an utterly discredited, conspiracy-mongering author whose main employment was formerly with WorldNetDaily and is currently with paranoid Alex Jones' Infowars.
Putting his now-meager promotional weight behind anything written by Corsi is not a good way for O'Reilly to rebuild his credibility, even if it might help him land a steady gig at Newsmax.
How Is CNS' Managing Editor Hating Gays Now? Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman loves to use his post to indulge in gay-bashing. He does so again in a May 11 article in which he viewed with horror that major league baseball teams have LGBT nights.
"Sadly, 23 of the 30 Major League Baseball (MLB) teams are promoting homosexuality through "LGBT Pride" nights this year, reported Outsports.com," Chapman intoned, hadding with pride that "only two MLB teams -- New York Yankees and Los Angeles Angels -- have never held such 'pride' nights."
Chapman then described in a similar horror-stricken tone what happens on such nights:
At MLB's "LGBT Pride" nights, the gay rainbow flags are often unfurled, there is "raibow-themed baseball merchandise," the promotion of LGBT organizations, and homosexuals or transgenders are often invited to throw the cermonial first pitch, reported LifeSiteNews.
The stadiums, despite the presence of children, also often use the "kiss cams" to project gays kissing onto a large screen.
Oh, the horror.
Chapman also quoted MLB official Billy Bean, "an openly homosexual former player," calling the pride nights as being "in the spirit of Jackie Robinson," which caused Chapman to huff: "There is no equivalency between race and sex and it is not known whether Robinson ever supported homosexuality."
For all of this simmering outrage, Chapman never mentions that many MLB teams also offer "faith and family nights" in which players and fans get to play up their Christian faith.
WND Columnist Pushes Lies About Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood Topic: WorldNetDaily
David Ruzicka's May 17 WorldNetDaily column is dedicated ot attacking Kamala Harris for a couple of reasons. The first is calling waterboarding torture and thus immoral; Ruzicka claimed that "Her torture definition could’ve come straight from the pages of '1984'" and that "Kamala wouldn’t know morality or torture if it hit her in the face." He further huffed:
But, waterboarding as practiced by the American CIA and military is not torture. Proof? It was done on our soldiers until 2007 to teach them how to survive capture. Fox News reporter Steve Harrigan underwent waterboarding in 2009 as a demonstration of the process. Yes. Among Fox News’ many crimes against humanity, they WATERBOARD THEIR REPORTERS!
I can’t find a single instance of any leftist getting upset about a Fox News reporter or our military being tortured. Of course, they do hate Fox News more than terrorists. Silly me. Probably celebrated Harrigan’s waterboarding.
The only thing tortured here is the definition of the word, “torture.”
U.S. waterboarding isn’t torture, and it isn’t immoral. As done by the U.S. it’s a very moral way to get information from a murderous wretch to save innocent life. The terrorist isn’t physically harmed at all! That seems humane in the extreme!
So, waterboarding isn't torture when Americans do it -- which is itself a very tortured definition of it. Also, Harrigan was pretty much the only journalist who underwent waterboarding for reporting purposes who thought it wasn't torture. Oh, and a Senate committee found that waterboarding didn't work in trying to gain accurate information.
Ruzicka also attacked Harris' support for Planned Parenthood, claming that the group's "founder, Margaret Sanger, said, 'Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated'" In fact, Sanger said no such thing.
Ruzicka also claimed that Planned Parenthood "puts 79 percent of its clinics in minority neighborhoods (let that sink in) to carry out Sanger’s vision of exterminating black people." This isn't true either; as we documented, the claim -- from an anti-abortion group -- actually stated that 70 percent of clinics were "in or near" minority neighborhoods, with the exceedingly generous definition of "near" being a two-mile radius.
That's a lot of falsehoods and misleading information coming from a man who claims to be a Christian pastor.
MRC Demands Trump's 'Animal' Insult Be Put Into Context -- But It Mocked CNN Reporter for Demanding Context Of His Words Topic: Media Research Center
Following President Trump's remarks that appeared to smear at least some undocumented immigrants as "animals," the Media Research Center does what it's paid to do and rushed to Trump's defense, insisting despite his vague linking that Trump was referring only to the gang MS-13. Scott Whitlock complained Trump's words were "distorted," Nicholas Fondacaro called it "totally false," Curtis Houck bizarrely claimed that the media was defending MS-13 by merely acknowledging that they are human beings, and Fondacaro returned to claim that the media thought it was fair to allegedly take Trump out of context "given his past comments about immigrants."
The MRC might have a point if it wasn't so eager to take the peiople it despises out of context -- something, in fact, it did just a few weeks before.
In an April 24 post, Houck (pictured) insisted that CNN correspondent Jim Acosta was "attacking the intelligence of the American people" by saying that some people don't know that Trump's attacks on the media are an "act" and that "their elevators might not hit all floors."But Houck plucked those words out of context, editing out the fact that Acosta immediately said afterward that "My concern is that a journalist is going to be hurt one of these days. Somebody's going to get hurt." In other words, he was worried about the safety of himself and other journalists.
Houck merely paraphrased this important context as saying that "Acosta reiterated prior predictions that Trump’s criticism of the press will result in someone getting hurt" and hid the fact that it's directly related to the "elevator" comment. The MRC loves to dismiss how some reporters on the Trump beat feel threatened.
The next day, Houck mocked Acosta for demanding that the right-wing media put his words in context, cheering how "conservative Twitter unloaded" on Acosta for demanding context "and, in a brief moment of indulgence, it was glorious."
Houck then included a fuller quote of Acosta "since he claims he’s being unfairly attacked" (though he didn't mention that he was one of those who had previously published only a selective quoting of Acosta), then baselessly decided "there's no ambiguity there" -- again ignoring that Acosta was talking about threats to journalists.
Houck's hatred for Acosta is so personal and so unhinged (to use a favorite MRC term) that nothing he writes about Acosta should be taken as anything other than vindictiveness.
Charlie Daniels Likens Trump to Jesus As He Denies Doing So Topic: CNSNews.com
I am going to make an analogy, and I want to preface it with an iron bound disclaimer: I am in no way and am absolutely not intending to compare the people in my analogy, only the situation. In other words, I would absolutely never compare Donald Trump or any other human ever born with Jesus Christ, but the basic situations that happened two thousand years apart are, in a secular frame of thought, very similar.
The Pharisees of Jesus’ day were the absolute authorities on interpreting the written word of the prophets and had the power to excommunicate anyone they wished, in a body known as the Sanhedrin. They held power over doctrine and custom and relished their exalted place in religious society.
They loved being deferred to, given the best seats in the synagogue, the highest places of honor at social functions and being shown signs of respect on the streets and in the market places.
They kept the Jewish laws and commandments to the Nth degree, tithing even the herbs in their gardens, but they figured out a way to game the system.
If the law didn’t specifically state that you should not evict widows and orphans from their homes or some other evil, profit-making scheme, they did it all under the veil of being the most righteous men in the nation.
When Jesus came along, healing the sick and raising the dead and preaching a salvation of laws written on the conscience instead of laws written on parchment, which could be circumvented, He threatened their high standing, their lives of luxury and power.
They even made the statement that if something wasn’t done about this charismatic young Galilean, they could lose their place.
Jesus was an outsider, a Jew, but the bearer of a New Covenant, exposing lies and fallacies and shining a light in the dark places of corruption and deceit.
Now, put aside the deity and do not accuse me of the blasphemy of comparing a sinful human with the sinless Son of the Living God, because that is NOT my intention. But for a minute, stop and think of the establishment politicians as Pharisees, who, regardless of what party is in power – and they are nearly interchangeable, by the way – have had their way in this country for a century or more.
All of a sudden, as unexpectedly as a July snow, a brash outsider, who minces no words, takes no prisoners and calls ’em like he sees ’em, status be damned, is elected to the highest office in the free world, and he releases a swarm of flies into their ointment, disrespecting their traditions, and calls not only theirs, but the media’s bluff, without fear of retaliation.
MRC Complains Oliver North Accurately Labeled As 'Controversial' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been protecting Oliver North since his ascension to president of the National Rifle Association. We've already documented how the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, failed to mention North's central (and criminal) role in the Iran-contra scandal -- the one thing he's most famous -- the MRC itself complained that it was accurately reported.
A May 8 MRC post by Scott Whitlock huffed that media reports called North "controversial." Whitlock can't dispute the accuracy of that claim, so he takes a stab at whataboutism in the form of a Clinton Equivocation: "How often was Bill Clinton referred to as a 'controversial' Whitewater figure or Hillary Clinton a 'controversial' person connected to having a secret e-mail server?"
Whitlock might have a point if Bill Clinton was ever charged, let alone convicted of anything regarding Whitewater -- which he wasn't. Similarly, Hillary Clinton's email server may have been "controversial" -- though that's been mostly due to the Republican obsession over it. But despite an FBI investigation, Hillary has never been charged with criminal wrongdoing regarding it.
By contrast, North was convicted on destroying documents, obstructing Congress and taking a bribe in relation to the Iran-contra scandal, which were ultimately dismissed only because of having been granted immunity for his congressional testimony.
Whitlock also tried to dismiss the scandal as old news not worth bringing up, variously calling it a "scandal from 30 yerars ago" and "a scandal from 1987." Whitlock failed to mention that Whitewater was 25 years ago.
WND Columnist Begs For God To Do Something To America Over Abortion Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily apparently seems to think that since God purportedly intervened in American affairs to make sure Donald Trump was elected president, He should be helping right-wingers out with their political agenda.
We've already documented WND columnist Larry Nevenhoven lamenting that God wasn't helping him go gay-bashing. Now, another WND columnist is begging for divine political intervention.
In a May 15 column headlined "Is God mad at America because of abortion?" Jerry Newcombe asks, "Is America shaking its collective fist at God through the wholesale slaughter of the unborn?" After some dubious likening of abortion to slavery, Newcombe writes:
Does God sleep? Does the blood of tens of millions of aborted babies not cry out to Him?
During the Civil War, the great American author William Wadsworth Longfellow wrote a Christmas carol entitled “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day.” In this poem, he struggles with how the bells peal out “peace on earth, good will to men,” but the reality he sees is anything but.
He continues: “And in despair I bowed my head: / ‘There is no peace on earth,’ I said / ‘For hate is strong, and mocks the song / Of peace on earth, good will to men.'”
How to resolve this seeming conflict? He comes to this great conclusion: “Then pealed the bells more loud and deep: / ‘God is not dead, nor doth He sleep; / The wrong shall fail, the right prevail, / With peace on earth, good will to men.'”
Just because evil may prevail for a time, God will only allow it for a while. There will come a time of reckoning. How can America pretend that God Almighty is pleased with the blood of 60 million unborn babies on our hands? Lord, have mercy.
CNS' Arter Lets More White House Misinformation Go Unchallenged Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com reporter Melanie Arter was helping her favorite stenography client, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, out of another Trump-instigated mess -- his tweet that perhaps the government should "take away credentials" of journalists that write things he doesn't like -- in May 9 article. Arter regurgitated Sander's insistence that the White House believes in afree press, and then pretty much stay in stenography mode later in the article:
The press secretary said it’s the media’s responsibility to report accurate information and pointed to a New York Times report accusing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo of being AWOL when he was really securing the release of the three Americans from North Korea. She also pointed to a Washington Post report, which accused first lady Melania Trump of not living in the White House.
“At the same time, the press has a responsibility to put out accurate information. Just yesterday, the New York Times accused the Secretary of State for being AWOL -- AWOL -- when he was flying across the globe to bring three Americans home. That is an outrageous claim,” Sanders said.
“Just earlier this week, The Washington Post accused the first lady of not living in the White House. That outrageous claim was then repeated again in this room,” she added.
If Arter had bothered to fact-check Sanders -- something she's loath to do -- she would have found that Sanders' claims were, shall we say, less than truthful.
The word "AWOL" appears nowhere in the New York Times article Sanders is bashing. The article accurately points out that former secretary of state Rex Tillerson was "thousands of miles away" when Trump announced his intention to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and that current secretary of state Mike Pompeo, was "again thousands of miles away, this time on an unannounced visit to Pyongyang" when Trump announced "what could be the most significant diplomatic announcement of his presidency — that he would exit the Iran nuclear agreement." The Times alsoreported that such absences "left perplexed European diplomats privately complaining that they were having trouble getting answers from Washington, and created an uncertainty about what was next that spanned the Atlantic Ocean." While it was later revealed that Pompeo was trying to secure the release of three Americans imrpisoned in North Korea, that was not a done deal at the time the article first appeared.
Sanders got the Post article she attacked completely wrong. It never claimed that Melania Trump doesn't livein the White House; toward the end of the lengthy article -- which focuses on her daily routine and her unusual distance from her husband as a presidential spouse -- it notes that Melania not living in the White House has been a "persistent rumor," then immediately quotes Melania's spokeswoman and the White House social secretary denying it.
And not questioning anything Sanders says, even when it's misleading or even false, is a big part of Arter helping her do cleanup.
WND Doubles Down on Bogus Claims About Calif. Bill Banning Conversion Therapy Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've already caught WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah spreading the false claim that AB 2943, a proposed law in California that would ban anti-gay conversion therapy for commercial purposes, would also ban the Bible. WND has apparently decided to double down on misinformation about the bill.
An anonymously written May 15 WND article misleads from the get-go, falsely claiming that the bill is designed so "people with same-sex inclinations don’t hear messages challenging them." Then it quotes Mike Huckabee ranting at length about how the bill is "one of the most dramatic ideological shifts away from the First Amendment in our nation’s history" and hyperbolically claiming that "it can easily be interpreted to stop the sale goods and services that promote a biblical worldview!” and that "the sale of ANY book that states the practice of homosexuality or transgender identification as immoral actions would be illegal in California. …This could include the Bible!”
Uh, no. As we noted, the bill's sponsor says it does not ban the Bible or any other book or speech.
The article then quotes an article from the right-wing site The Federalist that appears to put the lie to the idea that conversion therapy is a legitimate thing at all; in it, the author claims it's all about demonstrating how "Christ can empower people not to engage in homosexual practice or not to identify as ‘gay’ or ‘transgender’ because such behaviors and self-identities are morally wrong" or about "efforts to persuade people of Christ’s power to transform in this area."
That's evangelism, not therapy as recognized by any mental health professional.
MRC Denounces 'Insane' Trump-Hitler Comparison, Never Questioned Sanity of Obama-Hitler Comparisons Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Julia Seymour grumbled in a May 14 post:
When a conservative says something crazy, it makes headlines. When a liberal does you can hear the crickets.
Liberal mega-donor Tom Steyer recently entertained comparisons between President Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler at one of his impeachment rallies. But his absurd conversation was not reported by the broadcast networks or major newspapers, according to Nexis. Steyer has spent or pledged at least $236 million to help liberal candidates, or oppose Republicans since the 2014 election cycle.
Only Twitchy and several conservative media outlets took Steyer to task for not pushing back enough when a rally attendee from Iowa asked him, “I just keep thinking, what’s the difference between him and Hitler?”The exchange took place at a May 10, Need to Impeach rally where Steyer was stumping against Trump and Republicans.
Rather than immediately say, WHOA! That’s going way too far, Steyer began with comparisons to Hitler — before reminding everyone of a huge difference: Hitler killed people.
Seymour's headline called the Trump-Hitler comparison "insane."
Seymour even squeezed a second post out of this two days later, claiming that Steyer "is still digging out from under his response to a question about whether President Donald Trump is like 'Hitler.'"
By comparison, when various extremists likened President Obama to Hitler, the MRC never denounced the comparison as insane -- or at all, mostly:
A 2009 post by Seton Motley was more offended that conservatives were blamed for an Obama-Hitler likening -- it was actually coming from the "leftist" and "Communist" Lyndon LaRouche -- than by the likening itself.
Another 2009 post by Motley did concede that an Obama-Hitler comparison is "a bit over the top" -- still, far short of "insane" -- then played whataboutism by complaining that a few years earlier a reporter "did not chastise the porter of the giant BusHitler cranium for being so offensively hard on the President. Quite the contrary; she obviously saw him/her/It as furthering the story she wished to tell."
Mark Finkelstein played whataboutism in a 2010 post: "Ed Schultz brags that he would have the "courage" to confront anyone putting a Hitler mustache on Barack Obama . . . So what of the innumerable occasions on which George W. was portrayed as a Nazi? Did Ed ever utter a peep of protest?" Finkelstein himself made no peep regarding the appropriateness of the the Obama-Hitler comparison.
A 2013 post by Scott Whitlock attacked MSNBC's Chris Matthews for having "indignantly objected to a North Carolina state senator comparing ObamaCare to Nazism."
And as we've documented, when conservative country singer Hank Williams Jr. appeared on "Fox & Friends" in 2011 to claim that then-Speaker of the House John Boehner's recent golf game with President Obama was "one of the biggest political mistakes ever," adding, "It's like Hitler playing golf with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu" -- Obama, of course, is the Hitler in that analogy -- the MRC raced to dismiss the comparison as nothing more than "intemperate" and a "bad joke."There was no questioning Williams' sanity as Seymour did Steyer's.