The vicious slanders issuing from the Left

My Democratic cousin sent me a link to the recent column written by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, entitled The Singular Danger of Trump, adding:

Although not uttered aloud, if you listen to the resonating sounds of "Sieg Heil!, Heil Trump!! and combine it with a coincidental cry of "America First" it is so reminiscent of "Deutschland Uber Alles!!!" This 1930's Social Darwinian era has returned. Emotions are once again "trumping" wisdom!!

Maybe Cousin should have used a few more exclamation points to emphasize the dangers of a Trump presidency.

I am no supporter of Donald Trump and will not vote for him in November (nor will I vote for Hillary Clinton). But the portrayal of him as a second Hitler is unfair (to say the least) and tarnishes the reputation of those who make such a comparison instead of revealing any truth about Donald Trump's character.

I find that my friends on the Left go to further and further extremes to slander those who disagree with them: everyone who finds fault with Obama's policies (for example, the obviously flawed and failing Obamacare) is a racist; everyone who thinks we need to do a better job of staunching the flow of illegal aliens into our country is a bigot; everyone who thinks that it is not unreasonable to worry about the dangers posed by Islamic extremism is a second Hitler.

Dana Milbank writes that Trump "hesitated to disavow David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan," while he conveniently forgets to mention Hillary Clinton's eulogy of Robert Byrd, the Senate Democrat Majority Leader who was a former member of and recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan.

Note: I find a column that labels the reference to Hillary's eulogy as a "canard." The column does not contain any refutation of the fact that Byrd was a member of a racist organization at one time in his life or that Hillary praised him as a "mentor" (these facts are irrefutable), but rather merely devotes itself to energetically impugning the character or Republicans for having had the temerity to point out the obvious comparison.

Furthermore, if anyone should be compared to Hitler, Hillary Clinton is probably the more suitable candidate, inasmuch as she has made no secret of her "enormous admiration" for Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, whose eugenicist ideology was carried out by the Nazis when they exterminated millions of people whom they judged to be undesirables.

Milbank writes: "If Marco Rubio or John Kasich were the Republican nominee, I suspect we would now be writing Clinton’s political obituary." Stop, please! If Rubio or Kasich were running, Milbank would be slandering them just as viciously and "creatively" as Democrats slandered the milquetoast Mitt Romney in 2008, of whom we were told that he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years (a bold-faced lie from then Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which the Washington Post awarded, albeit belatedly, 4 Pinocchios).

It is unfortunate that we must choose between two utterly unpalatable candidates this election. If this is the best we can do, then America is in deep trouble. But, the vicious lies and slanders that issue from the Democratic side serve only to deepen the alienation between the two parties at a time when it is incumbent on them to work together to solve the very serious problems this country faces, for example, our ever mounting debt and unfunded liabilities, which former US Comptroller General David Walker estimated at $56 trillion dollars in 2009 and which have grown inexorably since under Obama. If we are desperately worried about the rising seas overwhelming us (to the point where some on the Left advocate criminal charges against any who express even the slightest doubt about climate change), then, why are we not likewise desperately worried about our rising debts?

Democrats seem to think that they can say the most vile things about their brethren on the right, and then, sit down with them later at the negotiating table and receive their cheerful cooperation.

The ongoing war of progressives against high tech

I've written about the liberal war on Silicon Valley numerous times before (for example, here and here and here and here). As Noah Smith on Bloomberg reports, the war continues:

Unlike progressives in New York City, who are often big supporters of density, San Francisco progressives have decided to focus on kicking the tech industry out of the city. Booting tech back to wherever it came from seems like a natural way of restoring the old equilibrium. Sadly, efforts to push tech employees out will fail, and will end up hurting the city's low-income residents even more.

For example, activists have proposed levying a 1.5 percent payroll tax on tech companies only. The initiative will probably not become law, but it clearly indicates that tech-bashing is the order of the day.

When is the Republican Party going to wake up to the fact that high-tech workers in Silicon Valley and San Francisco are ripe for the picking due to the anti-high-tech policies of California's out-of-control, radical, liberal Democrats?