But he is a demagogue and what he knows he acquired from personal hit men.

I prefer the more permanent hit style, but that is just me. Personal assassination, is of course, more effective in the long term simply because it is more deniable and isn’t so extreme as killing, thus allowing for a veneer of justification.

But I consider those two things just simply tools in the same toolbox. You have an enemy, you eliminate that enemy. And it doesn’t particularly matter what consequences occur to their families or to their careers. They are your enemies and that’s the fate of enemies, which is just too bad but that is how it is.

The Left understands this very well, because everyone who has alternative viewpoints in comparison to their own are termed ideological enemies that must be outed or eliminated.

As for Ed here, he is prototypical of the modern day publishing venues where pride is taken in the fact that their careers are symmetrically the same as their published names. This is hubris of an ungodly sort. Not even the manipulative Greek gods thought of mortals as having the same views in the same circumstances, beholden to the same standards, as the Olympian gods. The Christian and the Muslim gods also do not deem their followers as equals in power or in wisdom.

Re: Exposing an Irresponsible Anonymous Blogger

Ed’s title exposes his inner perspective. He sees himself as the whistle blower or responsible media journalist exposing illegitimate behavior in his venue of choice, public writing. This makes him no different than the Main Sewer Media editors and reporters; it makes him no better than the propagandists at Media Matters, paid by George Soros to enact anti-American agendas destructive to the public body and health. They believe, that because they are part of the published world, that they have the right to declare Holy War on those that don’t meet their standards. They believe they have this right because they believe they have a line to Holy Wisdom, to Divine Inspiration because they are “responsible”. Or in the case of Axelrod and Obama, they believe they have the power, which gives them the right to destroy the Lives of Others.

The British used to tell the Colonists that sniping from the tree lines was dishonorable and cowardly. They ignored the nature of war, which is not to appease the sensibilities of one side or another. Wars fought for the benefit of Princes can be fought by rules, for it doesn’t truly matter which side wins or not. Wars fought for ideologies will be fought to the death, or until one side gets tired of the dying or runs out of bodies.

And if war is that important, how much more important is the open public debate that molds and determines the policies that will lead or not lead to war? On what justification do writers, conservative or fake liberal, have to restrict a segment of the population’s views by enacting Draconian and personal assassination methods designed predominantly by the Totalitarian Left to silence opposing views? These are tools in the toolbox, but you don’t open the toolbox against allies or those of the opposing side in a democracy. Cause when you do, all the other tools become acceptable then. If you are not willing to kill a man or a woman and their families, then you have no position to stand upon in calling others cowards while you get to restrict yourself to the tactics of personal destruction from afar and from a position of nominal safety.

So far we have seen accredited writers and reporters and publishers destroy the fundamental nature of American free speech with their alliance with government thieves, crooks, plutocrats, and megalomaniacs. Their open names served as no restriction on their unbridled lust for cruelty, lies, and the deception of the common man. They have no right, no authority, to tell the regular citizens of America, of whatever political stripe, that “their way” is the responsible way. Their way has been discredited. Their way has led us to Obama. Their way is for the shits. And they don’t even realize it.

Consider that the less informed might be learning more than you.

The less informed, when they listen to Obama, becomes less informed. What they become more about is that they become more misinformed.

Why compare Obama to Wiesel? What do you or your readers gain from that?

The human mind is supposed to make comparisons and then make decisions upon the comparative advantage. Only the fanatic and the ideological make decisions from a priori premises only.

Your Mom doesn’t understand the psychology of torture or of torturers. Which is how it should be. Only specialized people tend to research such subjects in depth to get to the truth, because only specialized individuals have the desire and motivation to reach into asocial behaviors or other darker human behaviors.

The rest of the human sheep live in fences, as they should. It is when they start thinking they have the wisdom or strength to tell the shepherd and the guard dogs what to do and where to go, that problems ensue. That is, ultimately, the one great flaw of democracy, which Plato saw first hand. And we will see it once more, regardless of how hard the Founding Fathers tried to avoid it.

Charles…that’s no taqqiyah!

Assassination is always a good tool in the toolbox.

Thoughts and their accompaning words, whether by named individuals or anonymous, should be able to stand on their own merit.

I think many of the founding fathers understood this simple concept and that’s why so many publications back then were published under pseudonyms.

Charles Martel – Honky U. – now that’s funny!

Anti-Syrian leaders Assassinated in Lebanon:

Rafik Hariri -February 14, 2005
Samir Kassir -June 2, 2005
George Hawi -June 21, 2005
May Chidiac (attempted assassination) -September 25, 2005
Gebran Ghassan Tueni -December 12, 2005
Pierre Amin Gemayel -November 21, 2006
Walid Eido -June 13, 2007
Antoine Ghanem- September 19, 2007
Francois al-Hajj -December 12, 2007

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/votes-counted-in-lebanon-election.html

King attended churches that preached Christianity, not hatred and racism like Rev. Wright’s “church.” (Bear in mind that the Rev. Wright, a “former” Nation of Islam member, can be said to be practicing the Muslim form of Allah-sanctioned deception called taqqiyah—that is, if we are to take the foam-at-the mouth tenor of his writing and speeches at face value.)

Also, I’m not sure what a “white university” is. How does what one learns at a “white” university differ from what one learns at a black university? I mean, aside from the odds that Honky U will have more courses in victimology and critical race theory than Black U?

Maybe there’s a chance for us on this side of the pond.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090608/ap_on_re_eu/european_elections

As for the church influence, you may be right, but he’s not in church any more. He’s the leader of America, not someone standing in the pews.