Protect and Defend

Welcome to my blog, Protect and Defend. You don’t have to understand me. You only have to agree with me. I can live with losing the good fight, but I can not live with not fighting that good fight at all. - Publius

Sunday, April 23, 2006

I thought Martin was the crazy one

In a radio interview, Charlie Sheen explained that he believes that 9-11 was a government conspiracy and that the collapse of the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition. In the same radio interview Sheen questioned whether a plane ever hit the Pentagon either (read the March 23, 2006 post, Oh Charlie, for more from a Boston Herald story).
But, as it turns out Sheen gets even weirder to the point where we have to question whether the star of the CBS show Two and a Half Men, should even be around his young co-star. We seem to forget that Sheen has been in and out of rehab and was one of the most famous names in Heidi Fleiss’s black book. And now, according to a story I watched on Fox News, Sheen’s ex-wife Denise Richards has filed a restraining order against Sheen that prevents him from being in contact with her or their two children, and has charged Sheen with threatening her life, hitting her, and for a penchant for looking at child pornography on the internet of both underage boys and girls.
Should a man who likes to look at pornographic images of little boys be allowed to work with one? Can CBS continue to promote a television show about Charlie Sheen and his relationship with an underage boy?
And, what the hell is wrong with the Sheen family? Remember Martin Sheen is a big supporter of the ACLU, an organization that has represented NAMBLA, the Northern American Man/Boy Love Association, which promotes sex with young boys.

27 Comments:

Blogger Oncorhynchus Mykiss said...

I am more than certain you had a point there Pube, but I quit reading after "And now, according to a story I watched on Fox News..."

Fox, not facts.

Mon Apr 24, 11:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

C'mon now Publius, did you think that Charlie Sheen had some kind of credibility to begin with? mykiss nails it with your mentioning Fox News...We Distort, You Comply. THey sued some guy for making up those shirts and selling them...besides the obvious infringement with their logo, I'm guessing they didn't want their real mission revealed.

Tue Apr 25, 11:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Spotz said...

That was an awfully long trip to the pancake house just to find out you were going for an ACLU slam. Jeez.
With everything that's going on, Charlie Sheen is the focus of your ire? Any other middling actors you're disappointed in?
I once heard Madonna say that women should be able to have abortions. Maybe Lindsay Lohen will be interviewed on Fox for her take on Darfour. C'mon...

Tue Apr 25, 11:48:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

Since you people seem to believe that the Fox News Channel does not report the truth let me show you this from Comcast Entertainment for Friday, April 21, 2006:
“In her filing, Richards alleged that during their reconciliation last year, she discovered that Sheen had been visiting pornography Websites, featuring "very young girls, who looked underage to me, with pigtails, braces, no pubic hair, performing oral sex with each other," as well as sites "involving gay pornography also involving very young men who also did not look like adults."
She claimed she also learned that Sheen "had a madam" and belonged to several sex search sites on which he emailed pictures of "his erect penis" to prospective female partners. When she confronted him about his various Internet activities, she said he did not deny it, but told her to "go f--k [her]self."”

Fox News, like Publius, tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I am only trying to help you all see through the lies.

Tue Apr 25, 07:38:00 PM  
Blogger Oncorhynchus Mykiss said...

In that case, yeah, that guy's a pervert.

Tue Apr 25, 07:48:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Oh, and Spotz, if you can’t see that the ACLU is a godless and evil organization then I guess I have more work to do. This is an organization that is against the Pledge of Allegiance, against Nativity Scenes, wanted terrorists detained in Gitmo to have the full rights to a trial guaranteed to Americans and prisoners of war, wanted picture from Abu Ghraib released so that they can have them published to show how “Evil America is,” and have been one of the bigger supporters of illegal immigrants.
Instead of making a long trip to the pancake house, I killed two birds with one big truthful stone.

Tue Apr 25, 07:50:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

And obviously he should not be working with children. Interesting enough, for anyone who watched Two and a Half Men last night, Sheen was not in any scene with the young boy on the show even though one of the show’s premises is the relationship between the wild bachelor and his young nephew. But, the show did mention bestiality, sex toys, masturbation, and enough discussions about sex that it would make Dr. Ruth blush.

Tue Apr 25, 07:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Spotz said...

Geez Pube, your Colbert impression is spot-on.
But is that big bird-killing truthful stone covered in truthiness?

Hmmm, making someone out to be a pervert during a divorce? I'm shocked. I mean, that kind of thing could never happens. Ever. Especially by wives wishing to generate sympathy for themselves.

Card-carrying memeber of the ACLU here, and dang glad to give them my hard-earned money. Maybe you should research your facts a little more before spouting off about what they stand for, Pube. Even your pals at NRO are glad they exist.

Wed Apr 26, 09:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No sympathy for Denise Richards who broke up her "friend's" marriage recently. Awful nice of her to do that. And I kind of like the ACLU, anyone who gets under your skin like that is okay in my book.

Wed Apr 26, 09:58:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

But, there is reason and evidence to believe that Richards is not lying about this story. Prior to their marriage, Sheen was a client of Heidi Fleiss’s and one of her biggest clients. Prior to their marriage, Sheen was in rehab. Prior to their marriage, Sheen was considered to be a womanizer. And prior to their marriage, Sheen was reported to have one of the largest collections of porn in Hollywood. Maybe Richards is hitting below the belt and possibly stretching the truth or even out right lying. But, given the character of the two, I am going to go with Richards. Stands to reason, of course with the exception of me, reason appears to be in short supply here.

Wed Apr 26, 12:49:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Ok Spotz, I did my research, here are some excerpts from aclu.org:
“The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression.”
“Today, in some industries, taking a drug test is as routine as filling out a job application. In fact, workplace drug testing is up 277 percent from 1987 - despite the fact that random drug testing is unfair, often inaccurate and unproven as a means of stopping drug use. But because there are few laws protecting our privacy in the workplace, millions of American workers are tested yearly - even though they aren't suspected of drug use. Employers have the right to expect workers not to be high or drunk on the job. But they shouldn't have the right to require employees to prove their innocence by taking a drug test. That's not how America should work.”
“The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union today released the first official U.S. government authentication of images of detainee abuse by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The Department of Defense was forced to turn over the information as well as one additional image as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU in 2003.”

The ACLU wants to protect the most disgusting and vile speech, images, and pornography imaginable because well if people don’t see it, how can they possibly top it? The ACLU is against drug testing, because heaven forbid we not want bus drivers, pilots, doctors, nurses, teachers, cops, etc to be on drugs. And I am so glad the ACLU forced the government to release the photos from Abu Ghraib, because just telling the American people abuses occurred was not enough, no we needed the photos too so that those pictures could be published to show the American people that their government and military is evil and so those pictures could be published in Muslim newspapers around the world to show non-radical Muslims that the American government and military is evil and that all Muslims need to unite to kill the infidel who would treat “innocent” Muslims in such a manner.
You are right Spotz, thank goodness for the ACLU, I feel better and safer already.

Wed Apr 26, 01:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Spotz said...

You should.

When did porn and prostitutes become synonymous with child porn and paedophelia?

I like how you say that Ms. Richards may be outright lying but you believe her. That pretty much sums it all up, eh Pub?

Wed Apr 26, 01:46:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

There is a term: credibility of the witness. In a court of law where there is no evidence and it does come down to the testimony of one witness versus another, the credibility of each is called into question. He has a reported and admitted to porn addiction and a drug problem, she is a mother of two who the judge has sided with in a custody battle. Credibility goes to her.

Wed Apr 26, 05:59:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Oh, and explain to me why I should feel better that the ACLU forced the government to release photos that showed prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib which were then used by Al Jazeera and other news organizations in the Muslim which increased the hated towards American and our troops? I am sure the soldier in Iraq are very grateful to the ACLU.

Wed Apr 26, 06:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I certainly don't think a whole lot of Charlie Sheen's chosen recreational activities, it's safe to say that his ex-wife knew what she was getting into when she married him. His problems were, as you mention, well documented before they even met. Looking at everything, they kind of deserve each other.

Thu Apr 27, 05:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Spotz said...

Why did the ACLU force the goverment to release the pictures? Freedom of information. Why were the pictures taken in the first place? I don't know, but it seems like a not very smart move to keep records of torture. And that's what it was. Americans torturing prisoners.
If you're cool with that, ok; I'm not. If that makes you proud to be an American, great. It makes me sick. I'd always been taught that America didn't torture, and we were free to say whatever disgusting thing we wanted, or think whatever pervy thoughts we wanted.
That's what you're refusing to understand. Nice speech doesn't need defending in a free society. It's the repulsive speech that you personally deplore that has to be defended. For example, I think Michelle Malkin and the group at Little Green Footballs are disgusting. But they have every right to spew whatever vendictives they see fit. And you'll never change my mind on that, my brother.

And do you really beleive that the American government sponsored torture pictures caused more bad feelings toward the troops than an occupation?

And before you go off on a Toby Keith-esque support our troops thing, I'll let you know that I've sent boxes of requested items to the troops, donated money for body armor, and donated thousands of frequent flyer miles so they can make it the rest of the way home. And no, I don't have any oversized magnetic novelty ribbons on my car.

And yeah, I do beleive that drug testing is illegal search.

I never knew that prostitutes were a gateway to perversion. They must be like smoking pot, eh?
Oh, and being a mother automatically boosts your creds? Too bad Mrs. Lay and Mrs. Skilling aren't on trial, there wouldn't be a case at all.

Honestly, before this post, I don't think I'd given the sex life of Charlie Sheen much thought. Oh, to return to those happier times...

Thu Apr 27, 07:44:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

Are there people in the Muslim world upset about American soldiers being in Iraq? Yes, but they are also upset about a cartoon that depicts Muhammad. They are upset when women don’t cover themselves. They are upset about the existence of Israel. They are upset about women having the gall to vote. They are upset that the infidel Western World exists. So what does the ACLU do, they throw gasoline on the fire.
Did we need to see the photos of torture? No. Did forcing these photos to be released end the War in Iraq? No. Did they free terrorists in Gitmo? No. Did they do anything but enrage those who might not otherwise become terrorists, enrage those who already were terrorists, or change the opinion of anyone here in the U.S.? No. But, the ACLU knew what they were doing. They knew that by forcing the photos to be released they were going to be published worldwide, and with the photos being published it was going to make our soldiers even less safe in a war zone.
And if it took torture to get information from someone in Al Qaeda to find out about a terrorist attack designed to kill thousands if not millions, is it worth it then? Yes, maybe that is the old argument going around, but it does not make it any less relevant.

Thu Apr 27, 11:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Bob H. said...

While you are busy killing the messenger, how about putting some time in investigating what he said?
Go to scholars for truth 9/11. How were 4 hijacked planes allowed to fly around our skies without one military jet leaving the ground to intercept them. How could a guy with little training and no hands on experience manage to hit the 40 foot tall facade on the pentagon and not leave any ruts in the ground or any parts of the airplane recovered? No wings, fuselage, engines, tail, passengers, luggage. The offical report is so full of holes that the only explanation points to top level coverup or assistance.
Please look at the evidence. Don't let the bastards that did this divide us and confuse us like in the Kennedy fiasco.

Fri Apr 28, 05:17:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

Bob, are you trying to say that 9/11 was all a government conspiracy? That somehow the government let over 3,000 Americans die or maybe even had a part in it? These guys were trained to fly planes, and these guys were trained terrorists, they were not trained to fail.
Are all terrorist attacks government conspiracies? What about the Madrid Train bombings or the London subway bombings?
I am sure there are things we don’t know about 9/11, and we may never know, but to believe that there is a government conspiracy is a bit too far fetched. Outside of who killed Kennedy, there is nothing we don’t know about anything anymore. Hell, we even know who Deep Throat is now and what was on the Nixon tapes. To quote my favorite line, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Fri Apr 28, 04:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Bob H. said...

Cute quote, but I don't think it makes much sense here. There is no absense of evidence. I don't assume the Madrid bombings were a government plot because I don't know anything about them. As far as the WTC bombings there is substantial evidence and very little answer to the real questions. How does a 100 plus story building fall in 10 seconds? Do the math. No resistance at all. Why did building 7 fall when it was not hit by an airplane? How did 3 steel structures fall from fire in an hour or two when there has never been a steel building fall before or since from fire in all history? How did wreckage from flight 93 end up 8 miles away from the crash scene? On the ground eye witnesses saw military jets following 93 and heard explosions before it crashed. The supposed pilot of the Pentagon plane had been reported 4-5 times to the FAA for being dangerous in a small single engine plane.
Don't take my word for it-go to scholars for truth on 9/11. These are not Charlie Sheens. Read the book Cover-up by Peter Lance. He is a 5 time Emmy-winning investigative reporter and a former correspondent for the ABC News, and 20/20. These are people who are not afraid to stick their necks out and back up their credibility.
It's not by accident that Charlie Sheen's credibility will be attacked from all angles.

Fri Apr 28, 05:57:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

I actually had not left for work yet on 9-11 and I watched live on television as the second plane hit the World Trade Center, and I can tell you the building did not collapse after 10 seconds. I do not know why building 7 fell, but I can assume that it had something to do with the millions of tons of steel and concrete that came smashing to the ground when the two buildings collapsed. The Two World Trade Center buildings were designed to withstand being hit by what at that time was the largest and most modern plane, the two planes that hit were more modern, and bigger, faster, and carried more fuel than any plane the buildings were designed to withstand. The planes were intended to fly from the east coast to the west, and on any flight, twice the fuel is on board in the event that a plane must turn around and remake the flight, so these two planes were loaded with more fuel than virtually any other plane that does not fly across the Pacific. And the explosion from the jet fuel burns at a much higher temperature than say regular gasoline or a match or any other type of flammable material that would be used to power an engine, that’s why they use jet fuel rather than say filling the plane up with coal. The WTC buildings were made of steel and steel melts, the buildings collapsed because the jet fuel got hot enough to melt the support structure and with the structural damage from the plane already hitting the building, the two buildings collapsed. No a fire does not cause a building to collapse, but if you loaded a 30 year old building steel-structure building that was over 100 stories high with as much jet fuel as was on either plane and set it to explode, the building would collapse. I wish I was more of a scientist to explain this better and the temperature at which jet fuel burns, but the reasoning is still there. And when a plane crashes, the wreckage is not in a nice neat little pile but over a huge area especially with an explosion from the fuel in the plane. If you read the reports of the plane Lynyrd Skynyrd was in when their flight went down in Mississippi, the wreckage was over an expanse of miles and that was a prop-plane not a commercial jet liner.

Fri Apr 28, 10:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Bob H. said...

I did not say the WTC fell after 10 seconds. I said that it took 10 seconds to fall when it started to fall. I'm sorry if you don't want to look at any of the concerns brought up in the website I suggested, but if you did you would see that the jet fuel melting steel is impossible. Also it doesn't explain why the evidence (remains of the steel) was immediately removed and shipped to China for recycling. Seems that the crime scene evidence of this magnitude would have been preserved for a little while, what is there nowhere in the US we can store some scrap steel?

Sat Apr 29, 03:28:00 AM  
Anonymous peod in Oregon said...

The ACLU and its affiliated tax-exempt foundation receive annual support from the Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Field, Tides, Gill, Arcus, Horizons, and other foundations. However, recently the ACLU rejected $1.5 million from both the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations because it viewed a clause in the donation agreement stipulating that "none of the money would go to underwriting terrorism or other unacceptable activities" as a threat to civil liberties. The ACLU also withdrew from a federal charity drive, losing an estimated $500,000, taking a stand against the attached condition that it would "not knowingly hire anyone on terrorism watch lists." Other key donors include Peter B. Lewis (an insurance magnate) [18].

Sun Apr 30, 01:44:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

Bob, no I haven’t read the website, but perhaps you could tell us who the conspiracy theorists say blew up the World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon, and Flight 93.

Sun Apr 30, 10:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Bob H. said...

The north and south tower were obviously hit by passenger planes, although I'm not sure if there is a video of the north tower being hit. Both towers and WTC building 7 were brought down by controlled explosives. Steel buildings don't collapse from fire, fell with no resistance and into their own footprint.
The Pentagon was hit by a small passenger plane (8-12) passenger or a missile. Entry hole too small, airliner could not hit the 40 ft. tall facade without plowing into the lawn. No identifing parts from airliner found, no engines, no wings, no fuselage.
Flight 93 was probably brought down by AF F16 missiles. Witness on ground heard 2-3 explosions before crash, engine found 8 miles away from crash site, last phone transmission from plane was a woman who said, "it looks like they are going to do it, they're regaining control of the plane."
Even if you don't believe these things, you have to ask yourself why there was no intervention from NORAD or why the Pentagon missile batteries were not deployed. Are we supposed to believe that loaded airliners can fly around for up to an hour without any defensive maneuver what so ever. Please, the competent air traffic controllers of this country and Canada managed to ground up to 5000 aircraft in 2-1/2 hours without an accident.

Mon May 01, 01:00:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

I can’t get into all of those, but explain to me why a plane shot down by the Air Force can explode and cause wreckage to be found 8 miles from the crash site, but a plane cant crash and cause wreckage to be found 8 miles from the crash site?
And am I to believe that a missile created the destruction at the Pentagon and not an airplane? I saw the destruction at the Pentagon in person, and that could not be caused by a shoulder-fired missile and it could not be caused by any type of missile that would be loaded onto a fighter plane either not to cause that extent of damage. Sure, a bomb dropped from a plane could have caused damage to that extent but not at the angle the damage occurred which was the side of the building and not the top. Had you maybe said a truck bomb, I might have given you that one as for plausibility, but there is no way the security at the Pentagon would have allowed a truck full of explosives get that close to the building considering the size the truck would have needed to be and the amount of explosives it would have had to have carried.

Mon May 01, 08:01:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Bob, I am starting this discussion at the top of this site so that more people can be involved.

Mon May 01, 08:05:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home