Wait, What Really DID Happen to Charlie Sheen?

I was surfing YouTube the other night and - for whatever reason - I stumbled upon a documentary about a number of high-profile Hollywood people who were publicly questioning the events of 9/11 (watch the documentary HERE). These people (like Mark Ruffalo, Daniel Sunjata, Rosie O'Donnell etc.) are so-called "truthers" who believe that there's a lot of information regarding the events that the government isn't telling us. They point out several of the day's anomalies that raise major eyebrows. For example, why were the black boxes from the hijacked airplanes never found (black boxes are indestructible and are supposedly always found at airplane crash sites)? Why did firemen and other people in the towers hear multiple explosions before and after the planes hit, explosions that came from areas of the building that weren't hit by the planes? Why did building-number-seven fall as though it were a carefully-executed demolition (as expert engineers have claimed)? And if they did decide to "pull it", as the lease-holder of the WTC complex - real-estate developer Larry Silverstein - claimed in an interview, how were they able to set up the demolition so quickly (the building came down around 5:20pm that same afternoon)? Why did the BBC announce Building-Seven's collapse before it even occurred (as seen in this video, the building is still standing in the background while the reporter announces that it has collapsed)? How were nineteen amateur hijackers able to take over four commercial airliners and fly them into such precise targets (many pilots claim that such maneuvering of aircraft is nearly impossible to accomplish)? How did airplane passenger cell phones work at altitudes where there shouldn't have been any cell-phone service? Why did nobody see an actual plane hit the Pentagon? Why was no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon? Why did they confiscate all the surveillance cameras that would have been able to show the plane hitting the Pentagon? These are just SOME of the anomalies. The questions go on and on...

Anyway, between the years 2003 and 2009 Charlie Sheen was one of the most high-profile Hollywood figures leading the 9/11 truth movement. And when I was watching the YouTube documentary the other night (followed by other clips of him speaking on various talk and radio shows), I couldn't believe how rational, intelligent, coherent and - yes - SANE Sheen sounded. He was so cool, smart and charismatic, and he was genuinely concerned/disturbed by what happened on 9/11. Until the other night, I hadn’t even known that Sheen was so active in revealing the truth behind the September attacks. He even went so far as to make a "video message" (watch this video HERE), pleading with President Obama to launch a new, more thorough investigation of what actually happened (the 9/11 Commission overlooked virtually every anomaly of the events). So if Charlie Sheen was so damn intelligent and sound in the mind THEN...what happened to his mind in early 2011? Was he really just partying too much, doing too many drugs, smoking too much crack? Perhaps. Or was it something more???

A very calm, intelligent Charlie Sheen, before the meltdown (watch the Jimmy Kimmel interview at 4:35).

Charlie Sheen's February 2011 "meltdown" was perhaps the most public and sensationalized of all the various celebrity breakdowns we have witnessed over the years. He was all over the TV and Internet, looking twisted out of his mind, spouting such bizarre catchphrases as "winning", "I'm a rock star from Mars", "I've got tiger-blood and Adonis DNA" and "I'm on a drug called Charlie Sheen". Any words of wisdom he had about 9/11 or anything else was immediately discredited. Who would take this "rock-star from Mars" seriously? It would have been very difficult to do so. I mean, people all over the place were making fun of him - practically every late-night talk show host (Jimmy Fallon did a memorable impression that poked fun at him); tabloid news shows; Good Morning America...the View....every media figure was drooling and masturbating at the sight of Charlie's meltdown. He was such an easy target for cheap-shots and exploitation.

But was it just a coincidence that the most vocal, high-profile 9/11 'truther' just so happened to have the most publicized and sensationalized celebrity meltdown in history? Well, allow me to speak hypothetically for a moment. Let's just say you were an elite member of our government trying to cover up a black-op "false flag operation" like what may - just may - have happened on 9/11. Wouldn't the public meltdown of a very vocal, high-profile 'truther' like Charlie Sheen be mighty, mighty convenient for you? Perhaps a little too convenient?

Looking back on the meltdown, it was as if Charlie changed into a completely different person somewhere between 2009 and 2011. He went from such a calm and cool and smart and rational individual (especially when he was pleading with Obama to investigate 9/11 more thoroughly) to such a complete scramble-egg-brained wacko in the winter of 2011. In fact, the more I watched video clips of Sheen speaking so intelligently about 9/11 previous to 2009, the more it suddenly occurred to me that the highest paid television star in Hollywood may have been the victim of some kind of government mind-control operation, one that would essentially turn him into a wacko and discredit him to the point where nobody would ever take him seriously again, especially when it came to such topics as 9/11 truth.

Now, I know what you may be thinking: "MIND CONTROL?! That's the stuff of fiction!" Well, that's what I used to think. But, actually, it's not at all fictitious and its origins go all the way back to the 1950s when the CIA started a program called MKUltra (read about this program HERE). This program was an intensive effort to study ways in which an individual's mind could be altered and controlled by outside forces. Our government was mainly interested in doing this to counter mind-control techniques that the Russians/North Koreans/Chinese were supposedly doing on their own people. They also wanted to use it as an interrogation technique, hoping that there was a drug or some kind of psychological method that could be used to extract pure truth from a Russian spy or other detainee. But they also wanted to see if it was possible to turn a man into a pawn or robot, one who could then be used to assassinate enemies without remembering their actions afterwards. A man like this later came to be referred to as a "Manchurian Candidate", which we all know as a book and a movie but those works of fiction were actually based on some element of truth. 

Most of the CIA's mind-altering was accomplished through drugs like LSD or temazepam or mescalin. But there was also experimentation with hypnosis and torture-tactics like sleep deprivation, food deprivation, water-boarding etc., basically for the purpose of breaking down a man's mind and therefore making it easier to control. There was also talk of using sub-aural frequency blasts to erase the mind or alter its chemical balance in some way. And, later, there was talk of using microwaves for similar purposes.

The MKUltra program was supposedly halted in the 1970s but many believe that this was just a cover so that the CIA could continue to develop its mind-control techniques without the public crying about how unethical it was. The government knew that mind-control - however dangerous it may seem to be - could be extremely useful to them for a variety of reasons. Heck, it was the ultimate form of control over others. What more power do you need over people when you're able to control their minds, especially when these people are getting in your way, throwing a monkey wrench into your plans, like that pesky Charlie Sheen?

Of course, I'm not making any definite claims here but I think it's a strong possibility that Sheen's mind may have been altered by something more than just his own use of recreational drugs. And I'm not the only person to suspect this either. All you have to do is type the words "Charlie Sheen mind control" into the Google search engine and you'll find a good number of articles talking about the same possibility. The whole meltdown seemed way too fishy to so many people. How ironic it was that the most outspoken high-profile 9/11 "truther" just so happened to go bonkers in front of the entire world, exploited like some sort of freak for America's entertainment. It was all too convenient.

Charlie Sheen post-meltdown. Notice the change in overall demeanor and the look in his eyes.

Incidentally, Sheen isn't the first high-profile whistleblower that suspiciously suffered a meltdown immediately after causing the government problems. David Shayler - a former MI5 agent - blew the whistle on a botched attempt by the British government to assassinate Muammar al-Gaddafi in 1996 (they accidentally killed innocent civilians instead). Later, Shayler also spoke out about 9/11 being an inside job, a false-flag operation that the U.S. needed to stage in order to justify going into Iraq and Afghanistan and, ultimately, Iran and Syria. Not long after Shayler started being vocal about these events he gradually began to display very odd behavior, calling himself a messiah and deciding to become a transvestite (for more on Shayler's story, go to this article). Was the bizarre meltdown a coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe not...

But if Charlie Sheen really was the victim of mind-control, how was it done to him? Was he kidnapped and hypnotized? Slipped drugs somehow? Or perhaps it's more likely that microwaves were used to alter his mind. According to many sources, there is a field of antennas in Alaska that was created by the government somewhere around 1990. It's called HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program) and the antennas are suspected to possess the ability to pump silent frequencies into precise geographical locations and can alter people's emotional state, as well as transfer ideas and information. If you don't believe me, just Google "HAARP mind control" or watch Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory episode on HAARP or, even better, his newer episode entitled "Brain-Invaders".

I know all this sounds very far-fetched, but it may only be far-fetched because the MKUltra program has been kept hidden from us for so many years. Again, I wouldn't go so far as to make a definitive claim, but I would urge people to consider the possibility that mind-control was behind Charlie Sheen's public meltdown. I would also urge people to consider and be aware of MKUltra and mind-control techniques in general, which - in fact - may shed light on more mysteries than just the notorious Sheen meltdown. In fact, mind control may actually be a key piece of the 9/11 puzzle itself. Allow me to explain...

When people think about the possibility of 9/11 being an "inside job", they think about how difficult it would be to pull something so well-orchestrated off. The operation would have to involve a bunch of different people in several different professions. The hijackers would have to be "in on it". Demolition teams who rigged the buildings would have to be "in on it". Whoever confiscated the black boxes would have to be "in on it". So how could so many people be in on it and not say a peep afterwards? Even if they were paid outrageous amounts of money to keep their mouths shut, somebody's conscience - especially after ten years - would have to start eating away at them; somebody would most likely give into the guilt and start talking. But this hasn't happened. Nobody has come forward and said that they were somehow involved with this operation. So there's no way this could have been an inside job. Could it have??

Well, once we acknowledge the fact that programs like MKUltra exist and mind-control is a very real possibility, it's a little easier to believe that anybody who was "in on" the 9/11 events could have had their mind altered in a way so that they were unaware of their involvement. Whether it was demolition workers or the hijackers themselves, they could have simply just carried out their duties like robots and either died (in the case of the hijackers) or simply not remembered what they did afterwards (like in the case of demolition workers). Yes, I realize this all sounds fantastical, but if you're still skeptical about mind-control, watch another one of Jesse Ventura's episodes of Conspiracy Theory (entitled "Manchurian Candidate") where he talks about this very subject in even greater detail (watch it HERE). You will see a mind-control hypnosis demonstration and actually see an interview with a real life "super-soldier", a soldier used by the CIA to perform a number of missions while under hypnosis (none of which he fully remembers). Ventura also discusses the possibility of Sirhan Sirhan and Mark Chapman being Manchurian candidates under the influence of government mind-control (Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy and Chapman killed John Lennon). In fact, I don’t think it would be far-fetched of an idea to suggest that Aurora Colorado shooter James Holmes could have been under the influence of mind-control (read my previous blog “An Argument for the Second Amendment” to learn about the government's potential motive in orchestrating the Colorado attacks themselves). We all saw how drugged out Holmes was when he was first arraigned in court. His mind looked completely fried. And it's strange that he never had a police record or hurt a fly before he shot up that movie theater. But perhaps what's more eerie is that Holmes actually worked on writing mind-control programs as an intern at Salk Institute of Biological studies (read about this HERE). Mind-control was his field of study!

Once again, I know all this mind-control stuff seems very fantastic but I do feel it's something that the public needs to acknowledge and there also has to be some sort of public initiative to get the government to a) admit MKUltra is still alive and well and b) declassify its information about it. Putting Charlie Sheen's meltdown aside, I feel that mind-control could potentially be the last missing piece of the 9/11 puzzle, something "truthers" need to take a hard look at in order to get one step closer to figuring out what really happened on that fateful September day.

The Argument for the 2nd Amendment

As all of you know, there has been much debate over the past few days over whether there should be changes to the Second Amendment, which states that any American citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. This debate has mainly been sparked by the recent Colorado "Batman Movie Massacre" (thank Inside Edition for such a flashy title) where 24-year-old James Holmes walked into a movie theater armed to the teeth with guns and killed 12 people while injuring dozens of others.

Immediately after the massacre, I sided with those who believed changes should, indeed, be made to the second amendment. I thought the right to "bear arms" was an antiquated right more relevant in the late 1700s where people essentially couldn't possess anything much more powerful than a musket. I could see where our forefathers were coming from when they made the amendment. I mean, why should the government have arms while ordinary citizens couldn't? It wouldn't be fair. Everybody was equal. That's what the new America was all about. And if anybody ever snapped, that person would only be able to do so much harm. If, for example, a madman like James Holmes went into a theater where a play was being performed and started shooting people up, he would probably only be able to get one shot off from his musket before somebody was able to tackle him.

Today, of course, things are a little different. Muskets have been replaced with all sorts of powerful automatic weapons that can kill masses of people within seconds. And clearly this has become a problem...in Columbine, Virgina State, Aurora etc. So, up until recently, I thought that, yes, of course changes needed to be made. The 2nd Amendment needed to be tailored, if not abolished completely. This was the only way to prevent another mass shooting!

But before I made up my mind completely, I wanted to listen to the people who, despite the recent Colorado incident, were still adamant about protecting the 2nd amendment. And these people weren't just gun-toting NRA members who run Charlton Heston fan clubs. They were actually very intelligent, rationally-minded people. One of these persons was an alternative media radio host named Alex Jones.

Yes, I said 'Alex Jones'. Please don't stop reading. Many people quickly dismiss Alex Jones as an eccentric conspiracy theorist and I agree that he's extremely eccentric and oftentimes needlessly intense. However, I always try and hear him out before I completely ignore the guy. As far as the movie massacre goes, Jones is ninety-five-percent certain that the shooting was what-is-referred-to-as a government "false flag operation". This means that high-level government officials carefully orchestrated this attack and used James Holmes as a Patsy, the fall guy. Helping to support this theory is the fact that there were multiple witnesses who claim more than one person was involved in the shooting. One witness, for example, claimed he saw a second man let the shooter into the theater (how else would Holmes have entered through the emergency exit?) and another witness claimed the gas bombs were being shot into the crowd from several different directions, indicating that there must have been at least one other person involved. (View the interviews of these witnesses HERE and HERE).

But why would the government want to stage something so very horrific? According to Jones, they have a very specific agenda. There is currently a UN Arms Treaty being circulated around Washington that is expected to be voted on within the upcoming weeks. This treaty will essentially create a global weapons registry; all privately-owned firearms will have to be registered in a way so that all of these weapons will be accounted for and easy for the government to locate. Jones argues that the purpose of this registry is to make it easier for the government to disarm the public further down the road. If all weapons are registered, it's easier to locate and collect them.

Now, is it only a coincidence that the horrific Colorado movie massacre occurred at the same time that this arms treaty was going around Washington? In Jones' eyes, it wasn't. The movie massacre was staged by a high order of government officials in order to rally the public and politicians into supporting this treaty that will result in better gun control.

Of course, Jones' theory seems very fantastical at first, but when you look at certain details, it begins to make some possible sense. "False-flag operations" are not anything new...every government leader over the course of history (from Nero to Hitler) has used these tactics in order to rally public support for something. As evil as they may seem, in the government's eyes, the end justifies the means. Twelve people killed in a movie theater is a small price to pay for the long-term consequences of disarming the American public and (in their eyes) creating a more peaceful world.

But would disarmament actually create a more peaceful world? If you ask Alex Jones this question, he would be quick to cite a quote from our forefather James Mason, the co-author of the second amendment:

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

Yes, Mason's quote comes off as being, perhaps, a tad paranoid, but one important example to look at in history is Hitler and the Holocaust. As soon as Hitler came into power in 1933 he immediately started making laws that called for weapon registries and those laws subsequently mutated into laws that gradually disarmed the Jewish people. His efforts culminated in the 1938 Weapons Law where Jews were forced to surrender all their firearms lest they be sentenced to a concentration camp for 20 years (of course, the Jews were going to end up in concentration camps anyway, though they didn't know it at the time). All historians agree that Hitler never would have been able to murder the 21 million people he murdered if he didn't disarm them first. It just wouldn't have been possible.

Of course, most people think the Holocaust is ancient history and nothing like that could ever happen again. But how do we know for sure? A crazy dictator like Hitler has risen to power time and time again during the course of World History. If we lose our right to bear arms, who's to say - several years down the road - that a Hitler-like leader won't rise to power in America? What if (for example) some nut-job came into power and decided that the solution to overpopulation (which, of course, is a major issue in today's world) is mass genocide? We would be sitting ducks. We wouldn't be able to do anything about it. They could come to our houses, methodically herd us into buses and ship us off to camps without having to deal with any kind of fight, just like the Jews in Germany. So we at least need to reserve the right to arm ourselves with weapons if only for the sake of deterring psychopathic leaders like Hitler.

Don't get me wrong: in an ideal world, weapons wouldn't exist at all, across the board. EVERYBODY would be disarmed - both the common Joe and members of the government and, of course, there would be no armed army. But this is not an ideal world and citizens become way too vulnerable when they allow themselves to limit their access to arms while the ruling government allows itself to be armed to the teeth.

But let me get back to the UN Arms Treaty circulating Washington right now. As I mentioned before, this treaty would create a global gun registry. The government will know who has weapons and who doesn't. Although supporters of the treaty believe gun registry won't infringe upon the second amendment, it actually does if looked at from the perspective of a potentially armed populace being a deterrent against a corrupt government. If (for example) a psychopathic leader like Hitler ever came into power with depopulation on his mind and he knows who has weapons and who doesn't, it will be all the easier for him to exterminate those who are unarmed or, if he goes the next step, collect the weapons from those who ARE armed. The key word is control. If there is actual gun "control", then a potentially armed public ceases to act as a deterrent against a corrupt government or leader. The thing that deters a leader like Hitler is the LACK of control, not knowing who has weapons - what kind and how much.

In summary, the UN Arms Treaty has the appearance of meaning well, but it is - in fact - a bad idea. Global registry of arms is the first step necessary in order to ultimately disarm the public entirely. Once a government knows who has weapons, it makes it easier to collect them when/if it wants to (and if, down the road, the government becomes as corrupt as Germany in the 1930s, it WILL probably want to).

So with the Colorado movie massacre conveniently taking place at the very same time this UN Arms Treaty is circulating Washington, there is all the more pressure for politicians and the public to give the treaty support. But I feel like we can't make any rash decisions, even after such a horrific incident like what happened in Aurora. Whether the massacre was a staged false-flag operation or not, we really need to take our time, look at the long-term effects of gun control and see if it's such a good idea to permanently limit our access to arms. And the important word there is permanently. Once we waive our right to bear arms, it's gone for good, and we will be in big trouble if - down the road - our government turns corrupt on us, which isn't a far-fetched idea if you look at the course of world history.