Sorry, Charlie. I don’t think so…
9 October 2007UPDATE 2 – Chuck has felt your heat and, yet again, taken down a post he was proud of until he wasn’t proud of it. Nevermind… Google has cached it.
As far as I’m concerned, these kids got what was coming to them. I’m just sorry that the young man that did this, had to die after a shootout with the Police. He should have just surrendered to the Police. With the Liberal society we live in, if he had surrendered, He would have just gotten life in prison. and being a police officer, he would have been well taken care off and kept away from the general prison population.
Of course, the disrespectful punk kids, will be painted as the “poor victims of a senseless crime.†You know the routine, How the liberal media only wants to report the shooting and victims, not why they were shot, or what they did to provoke the shooting. CNN will run a special and paint the victims as martyrs. They won’t tell why this poor young man snapped.
In his retraction he states that he now knows, “That true free speech is not appreciated in America, unless it fits into someone’s Political Ideology. You know, it’s funny, Right wing gas bag [sic], Ann Coulter & Bill O’Reilly can say stuff like this, and nobody cares.”
Too bad, Charlie. What you should have learned is that in a truly free society, speech does not occur in a vacuum. When you voice an opinion in a free society, prepare to defend it from those who oppose it. With words. From what planet did he descend to earth that he can say with a straight face that “nobody cares” what Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly says?
I’ve never seen Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly run away from an opinion, so his comparison of himself to either of them is laughable.
And does Chuck see at all the irony of complaining about the absence of speech freedom in this country while he defends a cop for shooting a room full of kids over an alleged verbal insult? What of their freedom of speech? What of the 14 year-old ex-girlfriend’s right to say “no” to her ADULT ex-boyfriend? He could have chosen to turn the other cheek and prove he wasn’t a disgusting pig, but instead he shot them proving he was just another punk with a grudge.
Chuck, I’m going to set aside for the moment that you accept at face value the death-bed confession of the killer that these children taunted him before he shot them. You seem to believe that there was this chorus of voices shouting “disgusting pig,” and so be it. Six of them aren’t alive to dispute his claims to his friend.
Defend for us, on your blog, the position that verbal insults should be returned with violence from a Christian worldview. If you can convince me that Jesus would have this person in authority kill everyone in the room who was present when he was called a “disgusting pig,” I’ll delete this post and replace it with an apology to you. If you can’t, repent of your mistake, seek forgiveness and learn from this.
Thanks!
/UPDATE
UPDATE – Chuck responds to my characterization that his heartlessness toward the Wisconsin victims is evil:
Update: I’m so Evil, Because I’m not some sniveling Liberal twit who views these people who were shot as victims. Gimmie a Break! I don’t say what this guy did was justified, at all. however, the blame lies directly on these kids. It is because of they’re blatant disrespect of Law Enforcement Officers, is why they’re dead, had they respected Him, they’d still be alive. and that’s a damn fact that nobody can argue. That’s right folks, it was their actions that drove that fine young man to murder. I think some people just need to wake up and face reality.
Okay, let me try to forget for the moment that Chuck professes to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, who stated without qualification that insults are to returned with prayer and blessings for the one who offended you (see Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:28-29). Law enforcement serves to protect the people, not their own egos. To hold this off-duty officer up as some example of what all police should strive to be is an insult to the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to uphold their duties to the public. Shame, shame, shame on you, Chuck Adkins! It may be too late and too much to ask that you apologize for what you said about these kids, but you ought to seriously think about apologizing the men and women you slander with such lowly expectations of our police!
/UPDATE
Chuck “these kids got what was coming to them” Adkins decides to make himself the arbiter of who is and is not a journalist, publishes the address, phone number and aerial photo of Michelle Malkin’s house, along with creepy predictions that she will be harmed – all because she dares to question the motives of the family the Democrats exploited to sell SCHIP. He then has the temerity to delete the post because he claims that a blogger from firedoglake contacted him to tell him that she is writing a strawman attack (my words, not Adkins’) on Malkin and doesn’t want Malkin to be seen as a human being sympathetic.
Using twisted logic, Malkin is, according to Adkins, not a “real” reporter but Christy Hardin Smith is. I would say they are both not reporters, but Malkin is a syndicated columnist with at least three published books. What has Smith done that is “real” in comparison? At any rate, does Adkins really think he can just hit a delete key and make his violent rhetoric go away?
Well he can’t. And once you click below to see his disgusting behavior on display, click on the story above where he says the Wisconsin kids got what was coming to them. Evil, thy name is Chuck Adkins.
Like Bluto, I, too, have found Charlie’s address, phone number and an aerial view of his home which matches down to the antenna a photo of him in his backyard. And like Bluto, I won’t be publishing it. Neener, neener, neener.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
15 Responses to “Sorry, Charlie. I don’t think so…”
October 9th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
[...] I’m so Evil Because I’m not some sniveling Liberal twit who views these people who were shot as victims. [...]
October 10th, 2007 at 2:31 am
[...] servitude of the MSM, it goes bananas when we fill the vacuum. Moonbat bloggers have taken to posting my personal home information again in [...]
October 10th, 2007 at 5:31 am
[...] what the anonyous Freeper ‘icwhatudo’ did to the 12 year old kid’s family, and what somebody else tried to do to Michelle Malkin, cyberstalking them? “I went up to Baltimore and interviewed a tenant at health-care poster [...]
October 10th, 2007 at 6:27 am
[...] is a blogger, also, so it’s probably not the NYT guy. Not Her Real Name at Free Speech has some thoughts on Chuck “Screw ‘Em” Adkins, defender of children, as well. Posted by Dan Collins @ 5:20 am | Trackback Share [...]
October 10th, 2007 at 7:15 am
[...] is so accustomed to the stenographic servitude of the MSM, it goes bananas when we fill the vacuum. Moonbat bloggers have taken to posting my personal home information again in “retaliation.†Why? Because they want to make an example: Challenge their narratives and you will [...]
October 13th, 2007 at 11:26 am
[...] us back before he untracked us back because of all the attention he was getting over two issues: publishing Michelle Malkins home address, phone number and aerial photo of her home; bearing false witness against the children who were [...]
October 13th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I can’t believe I come anywhere CLOSE to agreeing with ‘kids deserve to die’ Chuckie, and will need a hard scrubbing now, BUT….
Michelle Malkin’s didn’t just dare to question the motives of the family, she was stalking a 12 year-old boy. A press pass is not a licenses to harass a child or trespass on private property.
If the Republican opposition to SCHIP could stand on it’s own merits, they would not need to resort to such disgusting tactics.
October 13th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Please do not minimize real stalking by calling what Malkin did “stalking.” It is ridiculous that her fact-checking is being characterized by people who just don’t like her or her politics as stalking.
If the Democratic support to vastly expand sCHIP could stand on its own merits, they would not need to resort to hyperbole about what Michelle Malkin did nor would they have to lie about Bush’s veto of the program.
The Democrats use children to refute President Bush because they are too cowardly to debate the merits of classifying children as 25-year old adults and working poor as people who make over $85,000/year. The Democrats exploited this child and his underachieving parents and had him lie to the country. “Families like” his would not be losing their sCHIP benefits with the Bush veto. I’m not saying Graeme Frost lied, but the vile people who fed him those lines sure did.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
LOL
OK, yes, ’stalking’ might have been too much of a hyperbole but let us remember we are talking about 12 year-old. Our society wisely grants more protections to children than to adults. So I’ll correct myself and call Ms. Malkin did ‘harrasment’. And trespassing, which is still illegal, even if you have published a couple books.
What about Bush’s ’snowflake’ babies? No one on the left when after them. Of course, they didn’t get to speak. Their job was to stand there and look adorable.
I can’t say I fully support classifying 25yr-olds as ‘children’ but I DO support health care for every American. Also, the $85,000/year limit was ONLY in New York. Not including this fact is a lie of omission.
As for the “Underachieving parents” comment.
Suppose they are ‘underachievers’ should Graeme have died, or faced a lifetime of crippling disabilities because his dad isn’t Donny Trump? It has always really disgusted me that conservatives, even Christians say that anyone who doesn’t have the particular skill set to rake in the big bucks are ‘underachievers’. What would Jesus say about that? Oh, now I remember.
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)
October 14th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Where to start…
Snowflake babies… I assume you are referring to Bush’s opposition to funding fetal stem cell research. How is this in any way similar to the Frost situation? Furthermore, there is no blocking of privately funded fetal stem cell research and the Bush administration opposes funding it. What’s the big deal? If you want to take your own money and put it into fetal stem cell research, no one is stopping you.
It doesn’t matter where you live, if you earn over $85,000 and are not paying for your own insurance coverage, one of the most important expense you have, your priorities are screwed. Furthermore it is income only and not assets which are considered. Therefore if you have substantial money tied up in mutual funds or other investment vehicles you can still qualify for this program if your salary or wages is below the cap.
As for omitting information… the story of the rich young man is a story of someone who came to Jesus bragging that his entire life he kept the commandments and wanted to know what else he could do to insure his salvation. Jesus told him to give up his wealth and follow Him. The man wouldn’t do it.
Jesus’ ministry depended on wealthy people to support it. Not by force of law, but by bending ones’ will to that of God’s. Jesus used the power of persuasion to convince people that his ministry deserved support. He didn’t ask the Roman tax collectors to come by and confiscate their wealth nor audit them to insure they had given “their fair share.” I invite you to not only read Matthew 19 to discover the truth of the story of the rich young man, but I also invite you to read some other parts of the New Testament. You will be shocked to discover that Jesus not only warned that those who didn’t work would starve, but that those who do work should be compelled by their love of the Lord, not the threat of imprisonment, to help the poor. Perhaps you too will begin to see the corruption of a system that relies on coercion to fund it’s social programs instead of true compassion. Impersonal bureaucracies are not compassion.
Again, you resort to hyperbole by setting up this false dilemma. It is simply not a choice between taxpayer funded healthcare and dying on the street. There are many well-equipped and generous charitable hospitals and foundations set up to be real safety nets for people unable to pay for medical services. I have personal experience with Shriner’s Hospitals who funded over $1,000,000 of burn treatments for a relative of mine. Additionally, this isn’t about eliminating Schip. It’s about opposing its expansion to people who are quite capable of funding their own healthcare. The true goal of the democrats isn’t to insure poor people. Its to eliminate private funding altogether and put us all on a single-payer system in which the government rations care and gets to decide who is worthy of it.
October 14th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Ok…where to start…
GWB didn’t just veto the stem-cell research in the Oval Office. He did it surrounded by those Snowflake babies. That’s how it’s similar to the Frost situation. As I said before, I know he didn’t them talk, he did the talking for them.
So, you think that all poor people should just move out of New York? Fine, then who’s gonna cook the food, mop the floors etc? Now, yes, it is true that assets are not looked at and someone could, in theory, have a million in the bank and no job and qualify for sCHIP. How many people like this do you think there are?
You are correct about the rich man who would not give up his wealth. So, do you think Matt 19:24 applies only to him? You go on to say that the ministry of Jesus was funded by rich people, but fail to site a single example, and I have never encounter this ‘fact’ myself. I do recall Jesus kicking ass on the money-changers in the Temple. Yes, I am fully aware that Jesus advocated charity. So why not look at supporting sChip as charity administered through the government? Jesus also said to ‘render on to Caesar what is Caesar’s, referring specifically to paying taxes.
Finally, I never said people would die in the streets, even though lack of good preventive health care DOES shorten lives. And yes, know all about the Shriner’s. Great guys. But why should they be necessary?
You talk of hyperbole but then you go on to state that “The true goal of the democrats isn’t to insure poor people. Its to eliminate private funding altogether and put us all on a single-payer system in which the government rations care and gets to decide who is worthy of it.” Really? So you think that the dems just want to establish a system where they can let people they don’t like die in the street. What makes you think such a thing? Where else has this happened? Canada? the UK? Italy? Australia? Do you think that every one of out most important allies are horribly corrupted? What about the corruption of an HMO that denies care which a doctor has deemed medically necessary? I am well aware that poor people can go to an ER for free if their condition reaches a critical point, but when they can’t pay, the rest of us have to, and preventive care is far less expensive than ER care.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
[...] This guy is the gift that keeps on giving. BitsBlog does the screen capture this time before he, yet again, deleted something that reveals what a duplicitous little wretch he is. Posted in Uncategorized | [...]
October 19th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
[...] again obscure blogger Chuck Adkins prays for the violent end of someone he doesn’t like. Man, [...]
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
[...] are you sure that’s a box you wanna open, there, [...]
December 13th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
[...] using his pseudo-anonymity ( a bit more pseudo then he seemed to know) as a shield behind which to lash out at anyone who rubs him the wrong way. I also decided not to call the cops on him after all, since I was quite confident [...]