Uncovering the best of the web, while pointing and laughing at the worst.
February 25, 2010 1 Comment
Every year, the nation’s staunchest conservatives gather together for a conference that joyously promotes the values of old white dudes and the women who love them.
It’s called CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference. News from CPAC dominated the political wires last week, as one right-wing luminary after another held forth on our nation’s inalienable rights and the evils of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi triumvirate of doom.
November 24, 2009 1 Comment
Rumors on the Internets is an equal-opportunity critic and pest: we make an effort to out and shame anyone who acts a fool, regardless of whether we agree with them or not.
That’s why we can’t resist flaming the people who got all worked up about the death of census worker Bill Sparkman this past September.
Sparkman’s body was discovered on September 12, 2009 hanging from a tree, bound with duct tape and the word “FED” scrawled on his chest. He had been working for the US Census in rural Appalachia, an area that doesn’t cotton to Uncle Sam nosing around in their business.
Sparkman was a teacher, Scout leader and family man who was well regarded for his hard work, punctuality and other virtues. He was a cancer survivor as well. He’d been warned that census work in the hills of Kentucky could be dangerous, due to the presence of anti-government types as well as criminals who don’t want anyone inquiring into their doings.
A thoughtful instant-take by Richard M. Benjamin at the Huffington Post was typical of the reaction to the news of Sparkman’s death:
Is Bill Sparkman — the 51-year old US Census fieldworker found hanged in rural southeastern Kentucky with the word “Fed” scrawled across his chest — a victim of hate crime directed at Uncle Sam? Or the casualty of drug-related violence in a struggling pocket of America?
To date, nobody knows for certain. The FBI is intensely investigating whether Sparkman was murdered; if so, by whom (acquaintance? stranger?); and whether his death is an act of violence against the federal government.
A more heated missive from Allison Kilkenny at HuffPo noted that the death had not been officially classed a homicide, but nonetheless unleashed a rant about right-wing hysteria and the Right’s obvious complicity in the death of Bill Sparkman:
“Federal” means “Big Government,” and the word has taken on a derogatory meaning in right-wing circles where fear and paranoia reign supreme. I agree with Johnson that this seems like an apparent homicide, but it’s not “nothing else.” By utilizing the branding “Fed,” the killers were clearly trying to make a political statement, namely “Obama: Stay Out.”
The word definitely packs an ideological punch, but not only is it anti-government, it’s anti-Obama. Let’s remember that most of the fringe now screaming about the dangers of Big Brother never made a peep during eight years of Bush’s ballooning executive branch. Suddenly, big government is a big problem, and the “Feds” are to blame…Such paranoia and anger isn’t contained in the woods of Kentucky. The problem is systematic.
Rather than immediately condemn the killing, some right-wing commenters are now using the occasion of Sparkman’s death to chat about their various conspiracy theories all involving the “feds.”
A “lynching” meme began to spread throughout the mindbrain of the left, epitomized by this tweet from “Proudlib”:
As Allison Kilkenny concluded, there was clearly a causal link between the death of Bill Sparkman and the unhinged rhetoric of Fox News:
These kinds of transparent lies would be hilarious to dissect if so many people didn’t really believe them. Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, and Limbaugh not only stoke the fear and anger in the hearts and minds of their listeners, but then they also suggest their audience should then direct that anger at the flavor of the months (gays, feminists, poor people, abortion providers, or the “Feds”). And then they act surprised when a sick person acts on their fear by lashing out violently.
The surprise and indignation from the right-wing is insincere. Violent rhetoric begets violence, and no one should act surprised when a Sparkman-like killing happens again.
And so it was decided…
Bill Sparkman’s death was clearly the fault of Glenn Beck. (Or at least, as Gawker allowed, either Beck or a bunch of hillbilly meth runners.)
Unfortunately for the triumphant shriekers of the left wing, eager to brandish this heinous crime in the face of their ideological adversaries, Bill Sparkman was not lynched.
He killed himself and staged it to look like a murder, so his family could cash in on some recently-purchased insurance policies:
A Kentucky census worker found naked, bound with duct tape and hanging from a tree with “fed” scrawled on his chest killed himself but staged his death to make it look like a homicide, authorities said Tuesday.
Bill Sparkman, 51, was found Sept. 12 near a cemetery in a heavily wooded area of southeastern Kentucky. A man who found the body in the Daniel Boone National Forest has said Sparkman also was gagged and had an identification badge taped to his neck.
Authorities said Sparkman alone manipulated the scene to conceal a suicide. Police said he had talked with others about ending his life, though authorities did not say specifically who in a news release.
Sparkman had recently taken out two life insurance policies that would not pay out for suicide, authorities said. If Sparkman had been killed on the job, his family also would have been be eligible for up to $10,000 in death gratuity payments from the government.
He was not eligible for a separate life insurance policy through the government because his census work was intermittent, Census Bureau spokesman Stephen Buckner has previously said.
While Glenn Beck has yet to satisfactorily respond to the allegations that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, I think we can safely declare him innocent in the Sparkman case.
It’s tragic that this man decided he had no other choice but to end his life in this way, but it was wrong for him to try and frame phantom Census-hating hillbillies for the deed, and to have his family have to suffer through the trauma of the circumstances in which his body was found.
Ultimately, the knit-hatted Sparkman is the bad guy here, not Lou Dobbs et al.
The furor over the case is understandable, because as Simon Rosenthal writes (HuffPo again, they went nuts over this story), the 2010 Census is shaping up to be a highly controversial and dramatic process.
The right-wing revulsion to the Census has to do with the fact that it does not distinguish between illegal and legal residents, and the fact that it’s set to count noncitizens in its 2010 count:
Because the census (since at least 1980) has not distinguished citizens and permanent, legal residents from individuals here illegally, the basis for apportionment of House seats has been skewed. According to the Census Bureau’s latest American Community Survey data (2007), states with a significant net gain in population by inclusion of noncitizens include Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Texas. (There are tiny net gains for Hawaii and Massachusetts.)
This makes a real difference. Here’s why:
According to the latest American Community Survey, California has 5,622,422 noncitizens in its population of 36,264,467. Based on our round-number projection of a decade-end population in that state of 37,000,000 (including 5,750,000 noncitizens), California would have 57 members in the newly reapportioned U.S. House of Representatives.
However, with noncitizens not included for purposes of reapportionment, California would have 48 House seats (based on an estimated 308 million total population in 2010 with 283 million citizens, or 650,000 citizens per House seat). Using a similar projection, Texas would have 38 House members with noncitizens included. With only citizens counted, it would be entitled to 34 members.
In my opinion, the whole legal/illegal brouhaha is merely symbolic of the larger issue that drives outrage at the potential 2010 Census results: the coming Whiteocalypse, when whites become a minority in America (some say as soon as 2042).
Meanwhile, immigrants’ groups are no happier about the coming census than nativists are; some are advocating a boycott of the census, arguing “Legalize us before you count us.”
Indeed, both sides have a point when it comes to the Census’ decision to punt on the legal/illegal issue and decline to inquire about the citizenship status of a person being surveyed: why should significant changes in Congressional apportionment be driven without regard to the legal status of those granted “representation”? What is the point of giving additional representation to people who cannot exercise the rights of citizenship in America?
Ultimately, the issue is whether the United States is going to grant citizenship under certain conditions to the tens of millions of people living here illegally: “amnesty” or “justice” depending on your point of view.
These are all fascinating issues that were crystallized by the death of Bill Sparkman…
Unfortunately, in the grip of the 24-hour news cycle, too much emphasis was placed on a “murder” that never took place, and a cavalcade of finger-pointing obscured the real issues that we ought to be wrestling with as a nation.
Next time, pundits — more thinky, less blamey.
October 22, 2009 4 Comments
Hey, did you guys hear that rumor? The one making its way around the Internets?
Some people out there are saying that Fox News host Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990!
Not us, of course. We’re just reporting on the rumor.
But it is pretty weird how Glenn Beck hasn’t definitively denied this story. I mean…what does he have to hide, anyway? Why doesn’t he just prove these allegations false once and for all? Why hasn’t Glenn Beck issued an official response to the rumors that he’s a bloodthirsty rapacious killer?
Obviously they COULD be true…
I’m not saying they are — I’m just saying, he should prove these allegations false, is all.
And it’s just a little suspicious that he hasn’t done so.
* * *
Glenn Beck has been on our radar screen for a while.
Beck’s show has become incredibly popular, even as he outrages many and sponsors like Walmart and Best Buy refuse to advertise during his broadcast.
He’s implied that Obama is a Muslim and possibly a resident alien, and he’s outright called the President a racist.
He’s a disciple of W. Cleon Skousen, and claims that America’s creation was divinely inspired by Jesus.
He claims that a Marxist conspiracy to take over the USA must be stopped by any means necessary – by the way, this conspiracy includes the dastardly plan of net neutrality, according to Beck.
He weeps on the air as he freaks out in hysterics over the horrible state our once-great Christian nation finds itself in.
Dude’s a nutcase, and possibly a performance artist. He’s even referred to himself as a “rodeo clown.”
However, there are a lot of political commentators that fit this description; Beck is merely the most outrageous at the moment, which makes me think it’s best just to ignore him.
A legal skirmish has erupted that has now made that stance impossible.
Time for us to dive into the case of Glenn Beck vs. GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com!
Let’s begin by discussing one of the most obnoxious things about Glenn Beck: his tendency to make outrageous accusations and then act as though the target of his allegations is guilty until proven innocent.
A classic example of this is the “If Obama was born in Hawaii, why doesn’t he prove it?!” demand. The more proof that is provided, the greater the conspiracy allegations and bar of “proof” that Beck and the birthers constantly raise. There’s no way for these people to ever be satisfied, and they relentlessly imply that Obama is an interloper without ever proving that he is one.
Another example of this technique can be seen in Beck’s interview with our only Muslim congressman, Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, in which he couches a ridiculous accusation in classic “concern troll” style:
“No offense and I know Muslims, I like Muslims, I’ve been to mosques, I really don’t think Islam is a religion of evil. I think it’s being hijacked, quite frankly. With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying let’s cut and run. And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview because what I feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy. But that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.”
So — that’s Glenn Beck’s steez. It’s dishonest and rubbish, but it’s working for him.
Now: enter the Internets.
We’ve all heard of internet memes, right? Stupid, nonsensical inside jokes that spread like wildfire on the interwebs?
Well, someone made one up about Glenn Beck, and he does not like it, one bit.
It was one of those things the kids are all doing these days: a mashup of Glenn Beck’s mucksmearing techniques and a joke by Gilbert Gottfried.
Gottfried once roasted Bob Saget by making up a bunch of rumors of Saget’s murderous ways, and then vociferously denying them. To wit:
Since Glenn Beck loves reporting groundless rumors and demanding proof that they are not true, the good people at Fark.com decided to go Glenn Beck style on Glenn Beck with a little inspiration from Gottfried.
Why haven’t we had an official response to the rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?
As this meme grew, someone added a great new definition to the Urban Dictionary:
glennbeck
v. To rape and murder someone (especially a young girl in 1990)
Eventually, this meme snowballed until someone — Issac Eiland-Hall, to be precise — set up a parody website celebrating the meme in all its glory.
This website (http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com) drew the attention of Glenn Beck and his lawyers, and they promptly descended with lawsuits aplenty.
Now, Issac Eiland-Hall is just a guy like you or me. He doesn’t have Glenn Beck money, or Mercury Radio Arts-funded corporate lawyers. He’s just a dude who wanted to start a website parodying Glenn Beck’s nonsense.
To be fair, there is a case to be made that the domain name that Eiland-Hall registered is defamatory of Glenn Beck.
Ars Technica queried a sympathetic lawyer who nonetheless felt the defendant was on somewhat shaky ground:
Paul Levy of Public Citizen routinely stands up for Web users who complain about (or otherwise antagonize) deep-pocketed corporate interests, but when we asked him about the site and the defamation complaints, he was happy to stay seated in his chair.
[...]
[T]he possibility of a US defamation/libel suit against the anonymous site operator is a real one. Certainly, domain names alone “can be defamatory,” Levy says, pointing out that the first iteration of the site posed the “rape and murder” claim as a statement—not as a question.
Levy says that such a statement is only actionable if 1) it’s false (and we’re quite sure it is) and 2) it was stated with actual malice. That last bit could be tricky to prove, especially in a case involving an anonymous speaker, but Levy makes clear that the site might well be on the wrong side of a very fine line.
“I don’t think ‘Ha ha it’s a joke’ at the end gets you off,” he says; if the parodic information is defamatory, it’s risky for the defendant in such cases. That’s complicated by the fact that the original domain name made the allegedly defamatory claim against Beck—and of course no one stumbling across the site in a search engine or elsewhere would see any disclaimer. In such cases, the domain name itself is a standalone piece of content; the disclaimer may help regarding the website content, but it won’t necessarily transfer a cone of protection to the domain name as well.
Beck and his legal team would have had a fighting chance if they took on Eiland-Hall in a defamation case in a US court of law.
But that’s not what they did. Instead – they appealed to an international tribunal!
They essentially accused Eiland-Hall of cybersquatting and called on the Euros to sort it out!
Are you freaking kidding me?
Glenn Beck is calling on the international community to arbitrate a First Amendment issue between American citizens?
This is the kind of thing he routinely slams the left for on the air!
Luckily for us, Issac Eiland-Hall found himself one helluva lawyer.
I’m not saying Marc Randazza is a particularly skilled legal mind, or has gathered any legal prestige; I’ll leave those kind of judgments to our wise legal readers. All I know is, this dude is hilarious.
Randazza fired a shot across the bow of Beck’s legal battleship with this letter criticizing the decision to bring the case before the World Intellectual Property Organization:
Dear Mr. Kaplan,
As you may be aware, from reading our Response in this case, there is a split of authority in the WIPO decisions as to how criticism sites should be examined…
View 1 states: “The right to criticize does not extend to registering a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the owner’s registered trademark or conveys an association with the mark.”
View 2 states: “Irrespective of whether the domain name as such connotes criticism, the respondent has a legitimate interest in using the trademark as part of the domain name of a criticism site if the use is fair and non-commercial.”
Naturally, View 2 is the prevailing view of American panelists and panels that apply American law to UDRP proceedings. View 1 seems to be more popular with international panelists and panels that apply European law.
Unfortunately, given that UDRP decisions regularly incorporate international legal principles, this case could be assigned to a foreign panelist or to an American panelist who applies transnational principles. I personally would find it distressing if the panel were to make a decision that completely disregards the U.S. Constitution in favor of a foreign perspective that adopts View 1.
To be candid, we found the fact that Mr. Beck filed this action at all to be most puzzling. Although, it was obvious why he did not file in a U.S. court given the law surrounding nominative fair use of trademarks as fully explained in our Brief. Naturally, a defamation claim as alluded to in Mr. Beck’s complaint would be humiliatingly doomed as well in a U.S. court.
On March 30, 2009, he said on his show:
Let me tell you something. When you can’t win with the people, you bump it up to the courts. When you can’t win with the courts, you bump it up to the international level.
Of course, we levy no critique at Mr. Beck for seeking to vindicate his perceived rights in this forum. We do not share his opinion as articulated on March 30, and we respect his creativity in seeking an alternate avenue where his claims might have a chance of success.
Unfortunately, despite the general wisdom among UDRP panelists, we find that occasionally they render decisions that make First Amendment champions cringe. We are certain that despite our disagreement with Mr. Beck’s legal position, that all parties involved hold equal reverence for the First Amendment. Therefore, I have prepared a proposed stipulation that will ensure that no matter which panelist is assigned to this case, the First Amendment will illuminate these proceedings like rays of light from the Torch of Liberty.
I hate to presume anything about anyone, but I presume that Mr. Beck will agree to this stipulation. It would be an interesting day indeed if Mr. Beck preferred to risk that a panelist would apply French law to a case between two Americans over a matter of public discourse.
In reviewing the filings thus far in the case, Rob Heverly at the blog Faculty Lounge noted that when it comes to trademark infringement, Beck really doesn’t have much of a case:
Beck (through his lawyers) argues that the domain name uses his trademark, and as such, should be canceled. Some of the filing’s arguments are logically questionable.
[...]
I cannot fathom how…the domain name www.glennbeckmurderedandrapedayounggirlin1990.com [infringes upon] Beck’s trademark, “Glenn Beck.”
Yes, the disputed domain name incorporates Beck’s mark, but it does more than that. And no one, and I think it’s probably true to the absolute here, no one would think they are going to a Glenn Beck owned/operated/approved site when they click on that link or type in that URL…So when looking at the filing, I wasn’t sure exactly where the complainant was going.
In contrast, the response does a wonderful job of making the case for a critical attack on someone who is quite capable of launching his own attacks (and of using the power of technology to do it).
Paul Beck and another lawyer Ars Technica discussed this case with described Beck’s WIPO claims as “preposterous.”
Hey, it would be interesting to see the plaintiff and defendant battle this case out on First Amendment grounds. I’d be curious to hear what our legal-minded readers have to say on the subject (hint hint, comment box awaits you).
Can a domain name be defamatory?
We might never know, because Glenn Beck doesn’t have the stones to file an actual defamation case in an American court.
Instead, he went for the international runaround with a cybersquatting claim that’s simply bogus.
What a whiny bitch.
In my mind, the funniest summation of this situation was provided in one of Marc Randazza’s legal filings:
Glenn Beck is the butt of a viral joke. He may not get the joke, but this does not make the joke likely to confuse or subject the domain name to transfer under the UDRP. Glenn Beck’s failure to understand these basic principles of law does not make the joke any less humorous, and does not make him any less of the butt. The First Amendment protects Respondent’s right to make Glenn Beck the butt, and his hypocritical attempts to squelch legitimate free speech criticism do nothing to portray himself in a more flattering light.
Because his arguments do not satisfy Section 4(a) of the Policy, his request should be denied.
Because he has attempted to silence a critic by circumventing (and thereby devaluing) the First Amendment — which he publicly (and in this proceeding) claims to love — he should be deeply ashamed.
So there you have it.
Glenn Beck: hypocritical, rumor-mongering, Constitution-disrespecting, race-baiting, international-courts-loving BUTT.
UPDATE: Marc Randazza for the win! Case dismissed!
October 8, 2009 3 Comments
ROTI always stands ready to bring the greatest achievements of the art world to your attention. Like the time we braved a buggy Google Earth interface to demonstrate the wonders of the Museo del Prado’s online collection. Or the time we highlighted a groundbreaking poop artist in Los Angeles.
Yesterday, Nils coq au Vin sent me a link to one of the finest pieces of American art I’ve ever glimpsed.
Mother Jones’ Marian Wang does a good job of summing up this masterpiece:
For as little as $130, fellow Americans, you can take home a canvas reproduction of this beauty of a painting depicting your country’s noble roots. “One Nation Under God” is a new piece by artist Jon McNaughton of Utah, who says he got his inspiration from a vision he received during the 2008 elections.
Front and center, the painting features Jesus Christ, creator of the heavens and earth and bearer of the US Constitution. (A few online wags have already compared the likeness to that of Viggo Mortensen’s Aragorn.) At his feet on his right you have the good guys—the farmer, the Christian minister, the US Marine, the handicapped child, the black college student, the schoolteacher who vaguely resembles Sarah Palin. You also have the young white man who represents the rising generation.
On the other side—Jesus’ left side—is another set of characters, including a professor holding a copy of Darwin’s Origin of the Species, a politician, a lawyer counting his money, a liberal news reporter, and a Supreme Court Justice weeping over Roe v. Wade. Oh, and who could forget Satan lurking in the shadows.
When dudes in Utah start having visions, you never know what kind of freaky shit they’re going to come up with. This painting has every Fox News talking point embedded into it, and then some.
Not only that, but this School of Athens-style depiction of Jesus coming back to lay down a reckoning on American liberals comes complete with alt-text webpage, outlining all the delicious symbolism.
The bottom line: Republican presidents and Founding Fathers rule, Jesus hates the legislative and judicial branches, conservative interest groups are awesome, liberal interest groups are in league with Satan.
Also, Jesus is somehow involved in the Constitution.
Let’s take a look and find out more!
I thought “patriot of freedom” was a weird phrase to use here. Patriotism is love of one’s country, it doesn’t really apply to love of a specific concept.
If I’m wrong, then you can go ahead and dub me a TRUE PATRIOT OF CAKE.
I Googled it up and quickly found a link to the webpage of the American Patriot Party. Other than the fact that this is the single worst webpage design I’ve ever seen since the blink tag fell out of favor, it’s worth noting that this is a hard-line right wing party dedicated to…well, pretty much everything this painting stands for, and against.
Here are a couple of dudes that Jesus can’t STAND.
Some might say that we have three co-equal branches of government. Jesus doesn’t agree. He’s only down with the POTUSes. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, punks!
Marbury vs. Madison? Jesus intends to take a dump on that one, and every other cockamamie scheme those activist judges cooked up since. Judges’ role is to interpret the laws, not make them!
How a law that doesn’t square with the Constitution could be invalidated without the principle of judicial review, I have no idea. Maybe McNaughton will come up with the answer to than one in his next vision. Be patient.
Now for the dastardly politicians. In his lengthy dissertation on the painting’s imagery, McNaughton declares “In the background are the Federal Capitol Building and the U. S. Supreme Court Building to represent the Legislative and Judicial branches of our government. Only some of the lights are lit and some are very dim to symbolize the waning of the cause of liberty among many of our elected officials.”
Jesus doesn’t like it when you ignore liberty!
If only those two rascals were the extent of the evil plague upon America, we might be able to handle it. But the hit list goes on!!
Here’s where McNaughton really starts to tip his hand. Whereas before we’ve seen him talk about those who haven’t stood up for liberty, here he pretty much comes out and calls liberals evil.
The fricking liberal left! They believe in evolution and try to convince others that their views are correct! The nerve!
When is our beloved Christ gonna show up and kick the shit out of these pansies already?
This skeevy lawyer LOVES his money. What a dick!
We definitely need to take away his liberty to enjoy the free market profits of the demand for his services…wait, WTF am I saying? Just stone the bitch!
Hopefully. Hopefully…
But ya know. If those liberal lefties don’t cool it, we might just have to declare war on their evil states and wipe them from the face of the earth once and for all.
In the name of liberty!
This is one of my favorite parts. You know who else gives big ups to the 5000 Year Leap?
None other than the messiah of all birthers, deathers, and fringe whack jobs…Glenn Beck!
The only thing that would make that cover better is a big smiling Jesus face stamped right in the middle.
The delightful geniuses at Shortpacked.com took a liking to McNaughton’s masterwork, and have created their own version of the site with commentary interspersed.
One thing they hit on quite well was the fact that many of the Founding Fathers did not beat their chests and cry out to Jesus.
Actually, a lot of the Presidents depicted flanking JC were actually deists, who believed in a higher power but not Jesus Christ per se…
Then again, that’s probably something fed to me by the wicked professors of academe, who this painting makes VERY clear are in the pocket of Sinners who Jesus is gonna destroy!
Wait just a damn minute…these guys sound like a bunch of atheist pinkos to me!!
What kind of country IS this, anyway?!
Also…she looks exactly like Sarah Palin.
If there’s one thing I LOATHE, it’s big government passing out handouts to lazy welfare queens and good for nothing bums.
Now please pass me that pitcher of corn syrup.
What a stud!
I still prefer Baby Jesus to the grown-up edition – so much more inscrutable, yet knowing – but this is a pretty bad ass Jesus, and he loves him the Constitution.
Never mind that it never actually says ANYTHING about Jesus in the Constitution. Visions don’t lie, bro.
One thing that is great about both the original McNaughton page and the parody is that both versions feel the same way about the evillest figure in the painting — no, not Satan.
MR. HOLLYWOOD!
The Of Common Consent blog was so inspired by this work of genius, they started a haiku contest.
Here are some of my favorites:
Karen H. Says:
Founding Father Jive!
Alexander Hamilton
Dance jazzy hands dance!
Geoff J Says:
Civil war soldier
What’s up with all the crying?
The blue side won dude
And my personal favorite:
S.P. Bailey Says:
Benjamin Franklin
Gots his eyes on that cutie
With the baby bump
September 9, 2009 Leave a comment
Carlos Erwin Esteves, a/k/a Charlie Sheen, is a well-known whack job and degenerate.
This is a guy who bombed out of Santa Monica High School, accidentally shot Kelly Preston in the arm, and one time became a born-again Christian before relapsing into a life of pill popping, porno and drug abuse.
And then there’s the whores! This dude paid for the services of legendary Spitzer hoe Ashley Alexandra Dupre, among hundreds of other skanks, shelling out thousands to Heidi Fleiss and her fellow pimps.
Ex-wife Denise Richards got a restraining order against him after she alleged that Sheen posted a picture of his erect penis on his online profile.
So naturally, he was chosen by Obama for a very special one-on-one interview to discuss the events of September 11th.
The only catch was, this interview only took place in the delusional mind of Chuck Sheen.
See, Charlie Sheen is a “truther” – one of those lefty loons who thinks the government was either behind 9/11, or knew it was coming and let it happen, in order to take away civil liberties and create a pretext for war.
Some of us might call that putting the cart before the horse…the bad stuff that happened after 9/11 shouldn’t be confused with the pretext for the terrorist attack, especially given the ample background evidence that suggests it was an al-Qaeda plot led by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta…
Goddamn it, Sheen has has ENOUGH of the lies!! He’s gonna expose what REALLY happened on that fateful day…through lots of wild conjecture!
Anyway, let’s take a look at his pretend interview with Obama, which he posted to the website of his lunatic friend and fellow conspiracy theorist Alex Jones:
CS – Sir, in the very near future we will be experiencing our first 9/11 anniversary with you as Commander in Chief.
PBO – Yes. A very solemn day for our Nation. A day of reflection and yet a day of historical consciousness as well.
CS – Very much so sir, very much so indeed…. Now; In researching your position regarding the events of 9/11 and the subsequent investigation that followed, am I correct to understand that you fully support and endorse the findings of the commission report otherwise known as the ‘official story’?
PBO – Do I have any reason not to? Given that most of us are presumably in touch with similar evidence.
CS – I really wish that were the case, sir. Are you aware, Mr. President, of the recent stunning revelations that sixty percent of the 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack?
PBO – I am aware of certain “in fighting” during the course of their very thorough and tireless investigative process.
CS – Mr. President, it’s hard to label this type of friction as “in fighting” or make the irresponsible leap to “thorough,” when the evidence I insist you examine regarding 6 of the 10 members are statements of fact.
(At this point one of Obama’s senior aides approaches the President and whispers into his ear. Obama glances quickly at his watch and nods as the aide resumes his post at the doorway, directly behind me.)
PBO – No disrespect Mr. Sheen, but I have to ask; what is it that you seem to be implying with the initial direction of this discussion?
CS – I am not implying anything Mr. President. I am here to present the facts and see what you plan to do with them.
PBO – Let me guess; your ‘facts,’ allegedly supporting these claims are in the folders you brought with you?
CS – Good guess Mr. President.
(I hand the first folder of documents to the President)
CS – Again sir, these are not my opinions or assumptions, this is all a matter of public record, reported through mainstream media, painstakingly fact checked and verified.
I think we all know what was REALLY in that folder…a lovingly assembled collection of erotic services ads cut out from the back of LA WEEKLY.
CS – Mr. President, we cannot move forward with a bottomless warren of unanswered questions surrounding that day and its aftermath.
PBO – I read the official report. Every word every page. Perhaps you should do the same.
CS – I have sir, and so have thousands of family members of the victims, and guess what; they have the same questions I do and probably a lot more. I didn’t lose a loved one on that horrific day Mr. President and neither did you. But since then I, along with millions of other Americans lost something we held true and dear for most of our lives in this great country of ours; we lost our hope.
PBO – And I’d like to believe that I am here to restore that hope. To restore confidence in your leaders, in the system that the voting public chose through a peaceful transfer of power.
(An odd moment of silence between us. Precious time ticking away).
[...]
CS – Does it bother you Mr. President that it only took FIVE HOURS for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the initial attack to recommend and endorse a full scale offensive against Iraq?
PBO – I am not aware of any such purported claim.
CS – I have the proof Mr. President, along with scores of documents and facts I’d like you to take a look at. Here.
(I hand him another file – much thicker than the first)
PBO – I see you came prepared Charlie.
CS – No other way to show up Mr. President. When in doubt over prepare I always say.
PBO – Now you sound like the First Lady.
CS – That’s quite a compliment sir.
OK, first of all, he said “bottomless warren.” Huh huh…bottomless warren.
Secondly, the fictional exchanges of small talk between Sheen and Obama are priceless. In this fantasy world he’s created for himself, Sheen has Obama saying that he TIVOs “Two and a Half Men” on Air Force One. Above, “Obama” approvingly compares Sheen to Michelle.
Put down the crack pipe, Sheen!
The best part might be when Sheen just totally goes nuts and starts blurting out one bullet point after another in support of his outlandish conspiracy theories.
But first, he builds up to it with this overwrought, dramatic passage:
CS – Interesting angle sir. Nevertheless, Vice President Cheney didn’t stop there. In early 2008, Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh and MSNBC, both reported that Cheney had proposed to the Pentagon an outrageous plan to have the U.S. Navy create fake Iranian patrol boats, to be manned by Navy Seals, who would then stage an attack on US destroyers in the Strait of Hormuz. This event was to be blamed on Iran and used as a pretext for war. Does any of this information worry you Mr. President? Should we just ignore it, until these realities can be dismissed years from now by our children, as ancient history as well?
PBO – Of course this information worries me, yet it’s not nearly as worrisome as you sitting here today suspiciously implying that 9/11 was somehow allowed to happen or even orchestrated from the inside.
CS – Mr. President I am not suspiciously implying anything. I am merely exposing the documents and asking the questions that nobody in power will even look at or acknowledge. And as I stated earlier, I voted for you, I believed in your message of hope and change. Mr. President I have come to you specifically hoping for a change. A change in the perception that our government has not yet made itself open and accountable to the people. These are your words Mr. President not mine. The lives of thousands were brutally cut short and those left behind to suffer their infinite pain are with me today Mr. President. They are with me in spirit and flesh, and the message we carry will not be silenced anymore by media fueled mantras insisting how they are supposed to feel. Deciding for them, for 8 long years, what can be thought, what can be said, what can be asked.
PBO – And I appreciate your passion, I appreciate your conviction. In spite of your concerns, in spite of what your data might or might not reveal, what you and the families must understand and accept is that we are doing everything we can to protect you.
CS – Mr. President , I realize were very short on time, so please allow me to run down a list of bullet points that might illuminate some reasons why we don’t embrace the warm hug of Federal protection.
PBO – We’ve come this far. Fire away.
CS – Please keep in mind Mr. President everything I’m about to say is documented as fact and part of the public record. The information you are holding in your hands chronicles and verifies each and every point.
I love that even in the fantasy world concocted by Sheen, Obama is still obviously exasperated by his crazy sauce. Sheen thinks he’s 9/11 Messiah, but even in his wildest dreams, Obama thinks he’s a fricking loon.
Sheen rattles off twenty reasons that he obviously considers big-time eyebrow-raisers.
Unfortunately, they’re an amalgam of conjecture and repetition…
#13 and #18 are the same: “cell phones didn’t work on planes until technology was developed in 2004!” Actually, that’s bogus. Cell phones don’t work WELL on planes, but they have always worked, especially when the plane is flying low.
#7 and #12 address that old chestnut, WTC Building 7, which truthers claim was destroyed in a controlled demolition as part of an evil plot. Sheen claims as evidence the ASTOUNDING assertion that news reporters announced the building’s collapse shortly before it happened!
There’s NO way they could have jumped the gun on an imminent collapse, as fire ravaged the entire building, after the much larger towers fell. It HAS to be a big conspiracy that involves everyone from Dick Cheney to random reporters for the BBC. They’re all in on it!!
#17: “Top Pentagon officials cancelled their scheduled flights for September 11th on September 10th. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, following a security warning, cancelled a flight into New York that was scheduled for the morning of 9/11.”
I’m sure this was the only day that government officials canceled flights! PROOF POSITIVE! And that Willie Brown tidbit is MIGHTY suspicious. I’m sure when the government decided to let thousands of our citizens perish, they said to themselves, “Let them all die so our wicked oil war can proceed. But Willie Brown must be spared! Who will lead our nation in sartorial eloquence if he is sacrificed???”
I won’t bore you with debunking the others…some of which don’t even require debunking because they prove nothing.
This is the best you got, Chuck Sheen?!
Now for the thrilling conclusion, where a cowardly Obama runs from the room rather than face the klieg light of TRUTH and JUSTICE that Sheen wields.
Eat your heart out, Glenn Beck!
PBO – Well Charlie I can’t say this hasn’t been interesting. As I said earlier you’ve showed up today focused and organized. Regardless how I feel about the material you’ve presented, I must commend your dedication and zeal. However, our time here is up.
(the President rises from his chair , I do the same).
CS – Mr. President! One more second!
(The President starts towards the door – I follow him quickly step for step).
CS – Mr. President, I implore you based on the evidence you now possess, to use your Executive Power. Prove to us all Sir, that you do, in fact, care. Create a truly comprehensive and open Congressional investigation of 9/11 and its aftermath. The families deserve the truth, the American people and the rest of the free world deserve the truth. Mr. President -
(He pauses. We shake hands).
CS – Make sure you’re on the right side of history.
(The President breaks the handshake).
PBO – I am on the right side of history. Thank you Charlie, my staff and I will be in touch.
(I watch as he strides gracefully out of the room, the truth I provided him held firmly by his side; in the hand of providence.)
Talk about yer flair for the dramatic!
Charlie Sheen says that people try to discredit his truth-spreading by bringing up his misdeeds from 20 years ago, and attacking the messenger, not the message.
The sad fact is that even today, in September 2009, Charlie Sheen is acting like a GD loon and this “interview” proves it.
I wholeheartedly agree with MIT engineering expert Thomas Eagar, who said “These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the ‘reverse scientific method.’ They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn’t fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.”
Yo 9/11 Truthers: I know that horrifying events or circumstances that make us feel powerless and afraid are the nectar that lures the honeybees of conspiracy theory. But you guys need to wrap your mind around the fact that the al-Qaeda dudes were responsible for this.
Whatever BS went down afterwards doesn’t constitute proof that it was all a secret plot or scheme. There’s no overwhelming scientific or documentary case to support your whacko claims, so give it a rest already. Maybe you can waste your time investigating Obama’s birth certificate for the next few years?
Then again, a highly scientific and no doubt peer reviewed online poll says 82 percent of Americans agree with Sheen.
Holy crap, case closed!
Recent Comments