The real American fascists

WSJ Lance Morrow on Fascism in America

Mr Morrow doesn’t like Trump, or Biden, but he is spot on about fascism in America.

105 thoughts on “The real American fascists

  1. Karl Rove’s Strategy #3. Again. Accuse your opponent of your own weakness.

    We now effectively have three parties in this country – Democrats, Republicans, and MAGA-Republicans. We saw that clearly in the Alaska Congressional election last week and in the several laughable Senate candidates on offer.

    MAGA-Republicans have ALL the trappings of fascism that was captured decades ago . . . “When Fascism Comes to America, It Will Be Wrapped in the Flag and Carrying a Cross.” Add to that their adulation of and obeisance to a single charismatic leader and their total disregard for objective truth and you have a Fascist party. And it comes complete its own versions of the Brown Shirts.

    And like fascists have always done, they do not want government to restrain corporate power. As your author puts it . . . “They want the state to stand aside, to impose the least possible interference and allow market forces and entrepreneurial energies to work.” Fascism is always wrapped in pretty words. And has always been financed by the uber-wealthy behind the curtains.

    The true well-spring of this commentary is clearly seen when the author equates “shockingly augmented” staffing of the IRS to FINALLY collect the taxes due as Democrats yearning for “authoritarian order.” Give me a break.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. “This is a simple, historical fact and yet — whenever it has been mentioned here — someone has disputed it.”

        And I will dispute it again.

        You are confusing propaganda with reality. At a time when economies and society itself were in collapse in Europe being “socialist” was seen as a good thing. So the label was adopted by fascists such as Hitler. Mussolini may have started as a socialist in his youth but he denounced socialism and the “class struggle” in 1914 in favor of nationalism.

        In both Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy being a actual socialist would get you imprisoned, tortured, and killed. And, in both countries the real power behind the rise of the new dictators were the uber-wealthy and their corporate enterprises.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. History refutes the implication you people are always pushing that somehow “fascism” (which we do have) and “socialism” (which we don’t have) are somehow the same thing. They are not.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The schism between fascists and socialists(and communists) was not over the power of the state or economics, it was that the socialists were ‘one-worlders’ and the fascists were nationalists.


          3. “The schism between fascists and socialists . . .”

            The inherent difference that matters is that “Fascists” would use the government to protect the strong from the weak. It is an inherently anti-democratic ideology. “Socialists,” on the other hand, would use the government to protect the weak from the strong. It is an inherently democratic ideology.

            Other than a few sputtering and failed attempts in post-WW2 Europe, socialism has never been the organizing principle of any major country. The self-styled “socialist” regimes of history such as the USSR, Mao’s China, and of modern China have been de facto anti-democratic fascist dictatorships no matter what they may have called themselves.

            I know you love to call Democrats “fascists” but your doing so is ahistorical nonsense that is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your tongue out.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “Democrats favor the collective…”

            No, they favor empowering Americans by providing decent infrastructure, health care, education, child care, etc., so there is real freedom of choice in a free market economy. A shovel and a strong back are no longer enough.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. “Democrats favor the collective, in the person of the state, over the individual, ergo, fascists.”

            Ergo, you are a joke.

            Democrats favor real liberty for everyone, real opportunity for every child, and economic safety for everyone. That is the polar opposite of fascism. But, plain English and historic truth is not going to stop you from sticking out your tongue at a majority of your fellow citizens. So carry on. It seems to be the peak of your intellectual abilities since you do it so often.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. So, in your mind, real liberty is the ability to send surrogates to steal what you want from those who have earned it.

            You have a bizarre concept of liberty.


          7. RE: “History refutes the implication you people are always pushing that somehow ‘fascism’ (which we do have) and “socialism” (which we don’t have) are somehow the same thing.”

            There you go again, making an issue of implications and inferences. You assume too much.


    1. Strategy #3 is exactly what you are guilty of in all of these wild screams of denial of your party’s fascist aspirations.


      1. “Even so, the Jan 6 protestors were there to OPPOSE an authoritarian takeover by the Deep State”

        A new level of bizarre! (Kindest word I can think of.)

        What you do not get to sweep under the rug is your hatred of democracy and your violent attempts to subvert it. Now that’s FACISM.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. “Supporting our Constitutional republic requires hating both fascism and (real)democracy.”

            That is nonsense. Within the framework of our “Constitutional republic” there are many ways to make it more democratic. We can start tomorrow by eliminating the Senate filibuster. We can address Gerrymandering. We can rationalize and standardize voting regulations and absentee procedures. We can make Election day a holiday and/or conduct elections over several days.

            And, lest we forget, we can severely punish people who incite and particpate in violence to overturn elections.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Wow! You mean trying to overturn the election through violence on orders from Trump was secondary?

        I disagree with this new excuse for attacking Congress and looking for Pence to hang.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I didn’t say their belief was correct, but they were not trying to install an authoritarian regime. By their lights, the Democrats, with the support of the Deep State were trying to establish one party rule and had been doing so since the 2016 election.

          Agree with their assessment or not, they were there to defend the republic.


          1. Defend the Republic? By following the orders of a cult figure who promised them …what?

            Your logic would mean that the man who shot the store owner was just trying to feed his family. The Republic was fine. A full and fair election analyzed to exhaustion, brought about what would have been the will of the people to get rid of Trump yet empower Republicans down the ballot. A peaceful transfer of power per 250 years of unmatched history.

            Who convinced the attackers of anything else? Just Trump, period. 7 million more voters wanted Trump out.

            You are trying Invoke patriotism for the violence. There was nothing patriotic about a mob following a charismatic leader to trash our Congress because he said to do it.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. And the murderer of the 7/11 clerk was just trying to feed is family.

            Before 2020, who even thought Italian satellites, bamboo slivers, millions of dead people, Dominion machines were rigged, vote boxes were suitcases trucked in, illegal immigrants were bussed in from Maine…

            Nobody. Who made all that up and convinced enough folks? Who told them the VP could pick and choose among electors? Or was that “common knowledge” for years before?

            And who told them it would be patriotic to attack based on those lies? “1776” moment according to one 1/6 speaker.

            Your excusing the attackers is either simplistic on your part, or disrespectful of the intellect on theirs.

            Liked by 2 people

      3. I take a long weekend away and you lose all sense of credibility.

        Explain, if you can, how protesters wee opposing an authoritarian takeover? More people voted for Biden than Trump. More Electoral Votes were won by Biden than Trump. That is how elections work in this country. You don’t get to attack the legislature for doing the will of the people as exercised through the ballot box and claim some “takeover” was occuring.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. So anyone can commit acts of violence so long as their beliefs are sincere? Does that excuse apply to all protests that may escalate to violence?

            Would you call Tim McVeigh’s beliefs sincere? The 9/11 terrorists? The fellow who shot up a pizza place looking for children? The synagogue mass shooter in Pittsburgh? Waco Walmart? Lynchings?

            They all paid a price, their lives or freedom, but the responsibility was still theirs no matter what they were told or believed.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Let’s not forget the only one murdered on Jan 6 was Asli Babbitt

            But certainly acts of violence must be punished. But the vast majority at the rally were not there to hurt anyone, just to let their voices be heard.

            But Biden is painting all 75 million Trump supporters as fascist(there is no such thing as near fascist) when at most a few dozen might have considered real violence.

            And even then, they were not there to install a fascist, they were there to defend the integrity of the election, at least as they saw it.

            What they believed to be true very much matters. They might have been misguided patriots, but patriots all the same.

            BTW, do you remember what McVeigh was motivated by? It was the mass murder at Waco at the hands of the BATF and FBI. That does not justify what McVeigh did, but remember that the FBI has a long history of exactly the kind of things you accuse Trump supporters of intending.


          3. The vicious attackers on 1/6 we’re not patriots by any definition. “Misguided” is not an excuse.

            You are also excusing McVeigh who slaughtered children. You excoriated the slave revolutionary because he killed children. Yet McVeigh’s “motivation” was good enough for you.

            Babbitt was trying to crash through the very last line of defense to Congress. The violent mob that pushed her forward are the murderers.

            So the 82 million or so who did not vote for Trump are to be ignored to accommodate Trump supporters tantrums.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. There were very few “vicious attackers” even of those who entered the capitol, most just took selfies and left.

            I did not excuse McVeigh, I just pointed out that it was mass murder by the BATF and FBI that angered him. But blowing up innocents who had no part, including children is not justified by that anger.

            When Babbit was shot, she was the only one on the front of the door, was unarmed and not making an aggressive move toward the cop.

            If shooting her was justified, then shooting thousands of BLM and Antifa protestors was every bit as justified.

            Murder and violence by the police is a lot worse than murder by others.


          5. There was enough violence by the attackers to send 125 officers to the hospital.

            About 2000 breached the Capitol. It was only by incredible restraint that more attackers were not shot. Cops beaten to the ground then dragged down concrete steps. Don’t you think they would have been justified to shoot?

            I guess the officer who shot Babbitt should have waited until he was immobilized or injured and then left to the mercy of the savages led by her. I am sure that is what you would have done.

            Shoot, you said it was OK for police to shoot a man in the back because he might have had a weapon in the car. He didn’t stop and obey.

            Neither did the mob or Babbitt. How did he know she, or any one else, wasn’t armed? Wait until a gun shot him first?

            We now know that there were attackers armed with guns through investigations and testimonies.

            Here is the thing, however. You know all this but refuse to accept reality.


            Liked by 1 person

          6. You seem to “know” a lot for which you produce no evidence.

            None of those arrested had a gun.

            When Babbitt was shot, she was the only one on his side of the door, and her hands were in plain sight. She was not charging him

            Had a BLM protestor been shot in the same circumstances you would want the cop hung, but there wasn’t even an investigation before the Capitol guard was “cleared.”

            125 officers hospitalized? Cite?


          7. Your cites establish that no one who entered the capitol was arrested with a firearm.

            What kind of revolver holds 3 shotgun shells and 2 hollow points?

            In any case, I see no evidence that officers were injured seriously enough to be hospitalized.

            Of course, they should not have been injured at all. But it was a riot.


          8. Believe what you will.

            Just don’t call the idiots and gang members who attacked misguided patriots. That denigrates those Americans who are real patriots.

            And read up more other than just quotes from Ron Johnson and his fellow jerks.

            Plenty were seriously injured, and hospitalized.

            And some were armed with guns.

            Research it yourself.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Mr. Morrow is exactly right, and I am glad to see a mainstream paper giving space for his observations. The event gives credibility to a number of similar points we have debated many times over the years here in the Forum.

    For example, he notes: “People forget, if they ever knew it, that both Hitler and Mussolini began as socialists.” This is a simple, historical fact and yet — whenever it has been mentioned here — someone has disputed it.

    I gave up hope long ago that any of our contemporary liberals might begin to notice the evident fascism of their tribe. But maybe Joe Biden’s Hellish speech the other night and sober essays like Mr. Morrow’s have created an opening.


    1. “…that both Hitler and Mussolini began as socialists.”

      So, what they were selling themselves a decade earlier means little. Trump was pro choice and pro gun control, too. And he favored illegal immigrant labor at his developments and clubs. (Even as president until he was exposed.) He opted for the support that anti-immigrant, pro gun and anti-abortion positions that he deemed more appealing to his future base.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “So, what they were selling themselves a decade earlier means little.”

        It means that the transition from socialist thinking to authoritarian thinking is a natural one, which was the point.


        1. No it does not mean that. A dictator is a dictator. If you get your privates wrapped in copper wire and plugged into the wall does it make any difference?

          All this bs about socialism because the left favors affordable healthcare, education and childcare as framework for a healthy, competitive capitalist economy.

          And yet, we are supposed to look favorably at the issue of forced pregnancies no matter the circumstance. Or banning books and forcing prayer in schools.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. No, like forcing 10% of the people to pay for roads for everyone while 90% use them free(not the actual case as we have user fees.)

            But in Europe, health care and child care and such goodies are paid for mostly by flat payroll and VAT taxes. Not a grossly progressive system like ours where fewer than half have skin in the game.


          2. You don’t pay gas tax? Everyone else does.

            BTW child care and other “goodies” are not free in Sweden. The fees are affordable, but there are fees nonetheless.

            Socialism is control of services and manufacturing by the state. We are not even close to that. (Excepting Trump’s failed trade wars that forced companies to pay more for imports and the subsidizing them.)

            Health care, education, child care and the like are really the modern infrastructure for industrial nations. Each one eases the burdens on both the companies and the employees so they can focus on business.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. I pointed out that we have user fees for roads.

            But the subsidies for Obamacare and the cost of Medicaid here are paid for by 10% of the population, while in Europe everyone pays their share.

            The same programs that in Europe amount to a shared purchase here are plunder.


          4. “ But the subsidies for Obamacare and the cost of Medicaid here are paid for by 10% of the population…”

            A while ago you said half of us pay taxes. Now it’s 10%?

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Half the country pays no income tax.

            Most of those who do pay just about enough to pay for their share of the military and infrastructure.

            All of the goodies are paid for by the top 10%


          6. “All of the goodies are paid for by the top 10%”

            Goodies? What a “conservative” you are! Food, shelter and basic medical care are not “goodies.” They are the bare essentials for physical survival. Those 10% your heart is bleeding for enjoy 70% of the nation’s wealth. NONE of them is suffering in any meaningful way because of our very low rates of income tax. Meanwhile, thanks to the GOP killing the child tax credit, about 4 million children slipped below the poverty line. Let you heart bleed for them.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “Stealing from rich people is still stealing.”

            The wealth of those rich people is 100% dependent on there being a stable, functioning society. Programs to keep that alive are not “stealing.” Your characterization is incredibly childish. We are all in this together.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. “So stealing is OK if it suits your politics.”

            I know you are a little slow and your mind is constipated but, here, let me put it in as simple language is possible . . . “Stealing” is the UNLAWFUL taking of someone else’s property. Taxing you to finance programs you do not like is therefore not “stealing.” Taxes are lawful. Try real hard and maybe you will figure this out? Or not.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. No, stealing is the WRONGFUL taking of another’s property.

            Anything that is wrong for you to do as an individual is wrong done through government. Legal stealing is still stealing.

            Slavery was legal, but it was wrong.

            Don’t confuse legal with right

            But your difficulty with the concept of right and wrong is duly noted.


          10. “No, stealing is the WRONGFUL taking of another’s property.”

            Well, you can make any claim you want based on undefined words. There is a pretty clear and agreed meaning to the word “lawful.” “Wrongful?” Not so much.

            You do not get to accuse me of advocating “stealing” based on your solipsistic definition of “wrongful.” I have my own ideas of what is right and wrong. I will add that your social Darwinist view of society is of a society that cannot survive in the modern world.

            Liked by 2 people

          11. “I have my own ideas of what is right and wrong. ”

            Not really. you know taking what rightfully belongs to a person is wrong, you just don’t care.


          12. Per Reagan, “there you go again.”

            I know you would prefer to pick and choose where your tax money goes, but when you belong to an organization, company or nation, that is often not possible.

            So you get to voice your opinion, then vote your preferences as is your right and your duty, but then you must follow the law as you agreed to as a member or citizen.

            When you do vote, you agree to accept the results whether you like them or not. (Trump is the aberration, and you are not him, and he is the thief when he cheats on taxes.)

            In your opinion, tax monies that do fund expenditures you disagree with is stealing. And you also insist that because of that labeling, you now have the moral high ground.

            In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

            Our gun laws are a joke and the results are 10’s of thousands of deaths a year. And yet you oppose any modicum of controls. I disagree with that as the fantasy of insurrection against the government has caused more deaths over the decades than our wars.

            Does your stance make you a murderer? Or you just don’t care.

            I lived in a condo for a decade or so. There were many expenditures that I disagreed with. Yet, I also understood I had signed a contract, and that the expenditures were probably tangentially favorable to me because the value of my unit might be protected.

            Our nation is more than just an economic experiment, or engine for that matter. We are a huge community.

            Liked by 2 people

          13. My contract is the Constitution strictly applied. Expenditures not covered by Article I section 8 as ratified are funded by theft.

            It is not a matter subject to majority rule, the Constitution authorizes taxes to be collected for limited, enumerated purposes, and until such time as the Constitution is amended otherwise, those limits apply.


          14. Your contract is not yours to interpret other than as an opinion. You voted in all elections, so you participated. That means you accept the laws and their interpretations.

            Now you can protest, curse, cheat on taxes or not pay them at all. Or you can work to change the laws.

            Again, a nation is a community first with an economic system to ease the flow of wealth as a free market can ensure.

            I have no choice but to accept the warped interpretations of the 2nd. You supported those, but are you an accessory to murder?

            Liked by 2 people

          15. True, SCOTUS has made some bad decisions, but what does that have to do with taxes?

            (Was Brown overturned? Maybe thinking of Plessey?)

            “Properly applied”? That is your interpretation. Remember we have countless SCOTUS decisions on the meaning and application of the Constitution. Lots of interpretation on a document that was often vague.

            Liked by 2 people

          16. You are correct re Plessy, Broen overturned it.

            I pay my taxes but that does not require me to accept that they are proper.

            I would thing about 80% of what the Federal Government does is the result of a distorted application of the commerce and general welfare clauses. Honestly applied, much would revert to the states or the private sector.


          17. Hey, most of us pay our taxes and are not
            terribly excited about it either.

            A tenant of mine who was a very wealthy investor and banker was quite conservative. A mutual acquaintance was crying about taxes he had to pay after selling property he bought cheaply and made 1/2 million profit with. My tenant said he “enjoyed” paying a lot of taxes. That meant he made a lot of money.

            He was being a bit facetious, but also realistic. There is no free lunch in a major industrial nation.

            As a Libertarian you want just police, courts and defense. (You are stuck with the post office since it is hardwired in the Constitution.) That is your opinion.

            Liked by 2 people

          18. …”health care and child care”…

            Your classification of those items as “goodies” is loony. Those “goodies” help to amke the population stronger together. You and your “tribe” want to tear it apart.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. “Of course, socialism can only be implemented by force . . .”

            What the fuck are you talking about? Socialism was implemented by democratic parliamentary decision in a few European countries after WW2. Within a few years it had reverted to capitalism – again by democratic parliamentary action. Nor “force” going in or coming out.

            Your mind is so absorbed with guns and violence that you imagine “force” everywhere.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “. . . . the transition from socialist thinking to authoritarian thinking is a natural one.

          It is not in the least a natural progression. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum. You have been sold – and eagerly bought – a lot of bullshit on this subject. What IS natural is for demagogues to say whatever they think will help them get the power they crave. Look at all the 180s Trump had gone through in his sorry career.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “A socialist state that did not become authoritarian.”

            Well, if y0u know your history you know that the closest thing ever to a significant socialist state was probably the United Kingdom in the aftermath of WW2. Maybe France, Denmark, and Sweden. None of them have become an authoritarian states. Cuba became an authoritarian state after the revolution and then adopted socialism.

            If you are referring to the USSR or to China, neither was ever a socialist state.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “It is not in the least a natural progression.”

            You, too, should read Animal Farm sometime.


          3. Animal Farm?

            I studied it in college.

            Animal Farm was written as an allegory of Soviet fascism by the Socialist, George Orwell. It was about how power hungry demagogues hold out false promises and ultimately betray the people.

            “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.” – George Orwell (1946)

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “Animal Farm was written as an allegory of Soviet fascism by the Socialist, George Orwell.”

            Then you should understand how Orwell understood the transformation of socialism into fascism occurs.


          5. The Soviet state was never a socialist state. Promises of socialism by a wannabe fascist tyrant on the make has nothing to do with the transformation of socialism into fascism. The Socialist Orwell did not write an attack on socialism. He wrote an attack on totalitarianism.

            Actual democratic socialist countries in the aftermath of WW2 did not transform into authoritarian states. That is reality.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. RE: “The Soviet state was never a socialist state.”

            Not the point. The animal farm was conceived as a socialist state — those were its ideals — but it degenerated into a fascist state. Remember, “All animals are equal” became, in time, “Some animals are more equal than others.”

            It’s all well and good to know that Animal Farm was an allegory of Soviet Russia, but the horror that makes the story powerful is the process by which good becomes evil.


          7. RE: “It wasn’t good in the first place. It wasn’t their farm.”

            Admittedly, Farmer Jones was a bad man, but can a fish own a lake? Orwell’s insight is that utopianism is no cure for the unpleasantness of the natural order.


        1. Uh, the point was that the dictators were socialist at one time in their careers. Their regimes were anything but.

          CPAC invited the latest fascist, Orban from Hungary, to their convention. The biggest cheers were for his speech in which he said, essentially, it was his way or the highway (if lucky).

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Baby tigers are cute too. But as they mature..

            There just isn’t any way that socialist regimes do not become authoritarian.

            And that happens faster in our tax environment.

            Don’t forget that the European semi-socialist regimes have a relatively flat tax structure to pay for their carrots. In our system fewer than half pay significant taxes.


          2. Significant taxes. 15% is not insignificant if you are in the lower quintiles. Toss in unemployment insurance and the cut of wages can be pretty hefty.

            This would be more than hedge fund managers pay.

            And we still have to fork over 20K per year for health insurance for a family of four out of the wages.

            And we still have millions of Americans, most working, in states like MS who have no health insurance at all.

            Liked by 2 people

        2. The only “drift into facism” is the kind you BELEIVE is happening based on your warped ideas of right and wrong.

          The actual MOVE toward facism is coming form the extremist Trump supporters and yes men.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. There is no move toward fascism involved in supporting the Constitution.

            Mistakenly believing the election was illegitimate is gullible, but it has nothing to do with fascism.

            Calling anything you don’t like fascist is intellectually weak. Fascism has a meaning.


          2. “There is no move toward fascism involved in supporting the Constitution.”

            TFG was not supportive of the Consitution unless it suited his business dealings. For you to ignore who and what he is shows how delusional your thought processes have become.


          3. Actually we ARE talking about trump. HE is the leader of what was once a decent, while misguided party, that i snow in favor of facism led by HIM.

            He ran for office twice and LOST THE POPULAR VOTE BOTH TIMES.

            His actions since 2012, when he first called for a revolution when Romney lost by 5 million votes (and did not carry enough states to win the EC) has become the greatest evil of our time in this country. A few judges here, a couple of reduced regulations there, three Supreme Court justices and several federal judges scattered THICKLY throughout the country, and now to you and the rest of the drooling cult members (Not all supporters are, but a lot of them, well….) and you believe him to be some sort of savior. If you actually put aside the things he did that you approve of and look at the actual political and Constitutional damage he has done to this country, you might realize that what you believed to be a “lesser evil” is actually the big badqwolf in sheep’s clothing. And you bought it ALL.


          4. You clearly think you have superior knowledge over anyone that disagrees with you.

            You are like the people who automatically equate Social Democracy with socialism and communism.

            Don’t lecture me about fascism. I lost family members to two of the worst fascists in the history of the world; Stalin and Hitler.


          5. And yet you do not know what it is.

            Here is a hint. The advocates of small government and free markets are NOT the fascists. The fascists are the ones who seek to subjugate the individual to the collective, in the form of an all powerful state.


          6. “The advocates of small government and free markets are NOT the fascists. ”

            Even the pre-Trump GOP was moving towards a more involved government. The current SCOTUS decisions show that to be true .. IF you are willing to look.

            Those “conservative” values died with Trumpism and it is Trump’s sword driven through the heart of old school conservatism that did it.

            I suppose a better phrase for Trump would be autocrat. But his ability to rile the gullible is akin to cultism. Drink the kool-aid or pay the price.

            AS far as you consistent equating of social democratic programs and governments with fascism, it is your “go-to” argument. I disagree.


          7. Among the major parties, there is no advocacy for smaller government and free markets in the utopian sense. Conservatives want to control every aspect of your private life. Borrowing and spending is the mantra.


  3. “…hardened into absolute faith that any party or political belief system except their own is illegitimate—impermissible, inhuman, monstrous and (a nice touch) a threat to democracy.”

    Morrow seems to overlook which party censors and tries to “excommunicate” anyone who even remotely disagrees with the leadership. Just disagreeing on the the Big Lie is enough to get the boot. Or worse, not willing to rig the election results will bring the wrath of Trump and his minions.

    Toss in Morrow’s scary 87,000 IRS employees to add salt to his ramblings. That is over a decade, and includes just 6500 agents, again over 10 years. Eventually this will bring the staffing to mid-nineties levels. Maybe customer service will actually be available for the first time in decades.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s