He is an intellectual, and like most of us tend to unleash his passion … even let his anger run to self-destruction. And for that I grieve that FP.com would lose such a cerebral rarity.

     Whenever I am invited to speak in a funeral or perform an eulogy for the dead, I normally begin my delivery with a sign of the cross, but this time I was not invited, and I did the sign of the cross out of shock when I read Ernest Hancock’s  “Well ... I guess we won\'t have Mr. Adkins to kick around anymore” [see this at http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/054082-2009-07-25-well-i-guess-we-wont-have-mr-adkins-to-kick.htm, 07-25-1009].

      When we write down our opinions on hot issues of the day, Adkins and I would cross swords more often than not.  He is an intellectual, and like most of us tend to unleash his passion … even let his anger run to self-destruction. And for that I grieve that FP.com would lose such a cerebral rarity.

       I read all those 45 comments or so.  Those were unkind remarks, especially when directed against a man who just died in FP.com.  I don’t think it is even ethical to kick a man when he is down and just fading away.  To relish on this kind of animalistic aggression does not make anyone who kicks Adkins’ butt any better than Adkins himself who many of his critics believed deserved to be kicked in the ass because he turned himself into a bad guy … a pistol poet in Victor Gischler’s novel, author of Gun Monkeys, similar to a Dreadnaut holding FP.com hostage with a threat to call the FBI if his works are not published in the front page!  Think how distortedly inconsequential it is!

      It could either be just a trivial folly shown in public or an exciting thick plot for a James Bond thriller where the bad guys want to rule the world. But if you ask me, this is a sad day for Adkins and FP.com.  In my opinion – and here I am just voicing an opinion – both protagonists embarrassed themselves in the eyes of our millions of readers. 

       I think FP.com’s policy of allowing writers to get published for their anti-Libertarian opinions so that they can be ridiculed and kicked around for the enjoyment of the Staff and other Libertarian “revolutionaries”, should be changed.

      My reason for this suggestion is simply this:  FP.com is growing even beyond the imagination of the publisher and his imaginative and smart editors like Gammill and Tyger – and let me express my sincere appreciation that they are around, and my congratulations for their success for being there with Ernie always –  unfortunately such sadistic “pure enjoyment” policy seems to me too short-sighted if not played past bedtime and should be laid to rest.  FP.com’s expansion is breaking out in the seam both in importance and size, and it no longer deserve this kid-stuff attitudinal behavior of allowing contrary opinions to get published for no other purpose than to kick the author in the butt for the pure enjoyment of those who want to hurt others for pleasure or just to embarrass a writer to gain a personal self-gratification.

      The bottomline is, FP.com has not only grown so large in popularity as a venue of free expression but also this website is no longer an “exclusive” publication of parochial Libertarian freedom fighters … it has become the “darling” of millions of freedom lovers nationwide and even of all the sentinels and soldiers of free speech if not here, the world over.

     Again in my opinion, this childish rationale of kick-the-butt of “enemy writers” mistakenly described as “trolls” that strayed into this website … well-intentioned contributors “abused” by dirty name-calling for the pure enjoyment of it, should be changed to a better declaration of editorial principle that explains why published dissents are allowed to see print in this exceptional freedom site.

      This change for the better that I suggest, is so easy to justify [it reminds me years back then, of my editorial stewardship of a family co-owned newspaper with declared principles that among others guide contributors the way to how their writings get published in my rightful domain, my opinion to the contrary notwithstanding].

       Even when written opinions on issues of national importance severely criticize the publication and slander the opposite stand the newspaper has taken, they still get published for the simplest of all reasons learned in the study of journalism that [a] a free Media is a medium of public information, and [b] the writer presents proofs about the truth of what was written about.  At least these two guiding principles speak well of what FP.com to this day is all about.

      This certain media lighthouse that guides contributors, especially writers who stray, does not conflict with the exercise of Media ownership. Judgment as to what is inappropriately written belongs to the media owner. The right to deny publication of voluntarily submitted opinions based on the publisher’s judgment is not legally assailable. It does not matter if the reason for denial is personal. On the contrary, it is even stronger if the reason for rejection is personal because the publisher, based on his personal conviction, has also a public duty to protect his readers from filth and abuse by authors who write without decency or protect the public from criminally insane writers whose intention is to harm others.

      Also the right to headline a story is the publisher’s editorial domain – this right does not belong to the contributor.  This is how Adkins hanged himself by the neck when he exploded with accusations that his story doesn’t get bannered in the front page because of editorial bias or due to the publisher’s personal animosity towards his beliefs if not his person.  Even if these accusations are true, Adkins cannot step into the owner’s shoes to prove that he is being personally discriminated against. His feet do not fit into the owner’s shoes … to put it bluntly.

      In this website, I wrote several editorials in favor of the U.S. Federal Reserve. Notice that FP.com is the home of Libertarians who want to abolish the Fed.  I didn’t expect that FP.com would publish them.  But I wasn’t surprise either when Ernie, the publisher, allowed them to get through – in the front page!  As expected, I was inundated with a tsunami of invectives from angry Libertarians who enjoyed immensely over my injury as a result of nasty name-calling that I have to sustain because I wanted to write the truth about the United States Federal Reserve.  The idea is to get them enlightened, which at least would dilute the intensity of their anger. The price I pay for this noble idea is high.  To me to be angry like them and do an Adkins is unthinkable!

       But here’s the other point I want to convey: I did not believe that these Fed editorials I wrote were allowed in print because the publisher and the editors enjoyed the flaks I received for writing them.  Editor Gammill himself wrote to remind those mudslingers that I am entitled to my opinion – everyone is -- and that’s normally refreshing for me to think about, especially when I witnessed this wise intervention coming from the editorial staff itself.  But I also believed that Ernie published them because the written pro-Fed editorials revealed the truth that the Federal Reserve of the United States is a public institution, not a “private” entity run by “thieves”. 

       I did not declare this documented truth about the Fed – the high courts did.  I only wrote about it. I know for a fact that Ernie and I are firm believers of freedom of expression, and in journalism where our paths crossed, freedom at the expense of truth is not freedom.  He is not saying it, but I think Ernie wants his fuming colleagues in the Libertarian fold to understand the Fed editorials I wrote even more meaningfully to be able to launch not a tinseled but an expressive and more telling “revolution”.

       And it is partly for this reason that I regret Adkins has to go. Adkins has also the courage to write about the truth that Ernie allows to get through at FP.com. Just very recently, I wrote this humorous editorial at FP.com: Headless Chicken For Dinner: Is “Torture” Of Terrorists Approved By Congress “Illegal”?  [http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?Info=0062883]

        It was a tribute to Adkins attraction to truthful writing because for the first time our views happened to be identical in defending military “torture” of captured mass-murdering Islamic terrorists, that saved millions of American lives.  Adkins had published “Colbert: ‘It’s not a perfect world’ so we can’t probe torture …”  http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/053899-2009-07-22-colbert-its-not-a-perfect-world-so-we-cant-probe.htm.  We had it both in the same line … that “enhanced interrogation technique” by the military had saved millions of American lives.

       Like headless chicken, impassioned advocates of terrorist “right” against military “torture” defended Abu Zubaydah, also named Abu Zubaidah, Abu Zubeida, Zein al-Abideen Mohamed Hussein. A senior terrorist in the Al Qaeda hierarchy, Abu Zubaydah sang like a canary, thus exposing to our military intelligence operatives almost all the murderous plots and those in the woodworks that would destroy millions of lives not only here but also abroad.  It was through Abu Zubaydah’s confession that the 911 mastermind Khalid Sheik was captured.  Without the “waterboarding” confession of Zubaydah, it was impossible to catch Khalid because of his multiple nom de guerre: Ashraf Refaat Nabith Henin, Khalid Adbul Wadood, Salem Ali, Fahd Bin Adballah Bin Khalid, Abdulrahman A.A. Alghamdi, and Mukhtar.  He could be Ali Baba, the driver you just hired a week ago who is driving your children to school.

       When Khalid was “waterboarded” by the military, Homeland Security was able to thwart the terrorists’ on-going plan to attack densely populated Los Angeles that would have killed millions of Americans.

       Headless chicken whined that Abu Zubaydah was “waterboarded” 86 times, and Khalid Sheik several times.  Hello, Virginia – these are terrorists that would have killed you and I had the military did not put their balls in a lemon crasher to squeeze to the last drop, the evil juice out of their system to kill and destroy!  And you are defending their “right” against “torture”?  How about the right of innocent Americans to live they killed? And like Eric Holder, Obama’s hatchet man, you also want to incarcerate millions of men and women in uniform for following the “order” of the Commander-In-Chief to go after these terrorists?  Isn’t that foolishly hilarious?

    Your other terrorist-coddler buddy is asking for proof “millions” of American lives saved by the use of “enhanced interrogation technique”. If he wants he can count millions of Americans that are alive today, starting from himself.  Since “waterboarding” was started, the angels of death were disabled in their plot to kill and destroy, and could no longer launch their elaborately planned attacks that were exposed, aborted and prevented.

       Hang Bush and millions of soldiers who followed his order as Commander-In-Chief would make you and Holder the last comics standing. And yet, your other headless chicken colleague complained that he didn’t see the humor in it … ?#!

       This is precisely the reason why I lament the demise of Chuck Adkins in FP.com. He would no longer be able to enlighten you … a bunch of humorless terrorist defenders who are drifting too far to the left in the name of freedom. #