Why Lyin’ Carl Gallups may be the worst birther in the world–Part III

RC: The following guest article is the third in a series of articles written by Captain Charles Tuttle, US Army (Retired) the owner of The Many Lies of Mike Zullo and Carl Gallups Facebook page: (Part I and Part II were published previously.)

Why Lyin’ Carl Gallups may be the worst birther in the world.

Capt. Charles Tuttle, MD, US Army (Ret)

Part III-How Carl’s “Biblical World View” affects the way he sees everything

I have often heard Lyin’ Carl say that he comes from a “Biblical World View”. Based on everything that I have heard him say, I believe he means that he accepts the bible both as being historically accurate and the literal word of God. This shapes, or more accurately distorts, his views and opinions on everything. I will not debate the existence of God nor whether the Bible was written with divine inspiration. I will leave that to minds that are far greater than mine. However, Carl’s “Biblical World View” can be disproven in a matter of a few minutes and with a just a few passages from the King James Version of the Bible.

If one accepts the premise of an all knowing deity, then one must also accept the premise that everything God knows is correct. Such a God can never be wrong. If God can never be wrong and the Bible is the literal word of God then you would not expect to find any mistakes in it. But you do.

There are several passages in the Bible that refer to “the four corners of the world”. According to those passages, the world is both flat and four sided. As the earth is a sphere, either the bible is not the literal word of God or God made a mistake. Which one is more likely?

The reality is that the stories in the Bible were orally passed from generation to generation long before any pen was ever put to paper. One only has to recall the childhood game of “whisper down the lane” (sometimes called “telephone”), where one person says something to the next person in line, who then repeats to the next person in line, who repeats it to the next person in line, and so on, until it gets to the last person in line. By the time it gets to the last person the statement had changed significantly. Why would we expect that stories that are passed through time in the same manner would remain faithful to the original version of the story?

Of course, when the Bible was then put down on paper it was not written in English. In actuality, the Bible has been translated and then translated from the translations. It has also been edited to exclude certain ancient stories from the Bible. The History Channel aired a documentary dedicated to the religious stories left out of the bible. It can be seen here. In fact, there is a movement today among some conservatives to “rewrite” the bible, to take out “liberal bias”. From my perspective, accepting the Bible as being historically accurate and the literal word of God is just silly.

I am not presenting this information to trash the Bible in any way. Rather, I am trying to show that the base view of the world that Carl has is fundamentally flawed and, more importantly, how that view lays the foundation for Carl’s birtherism, among other things.

First time I ever head Carl speak was in a video of his appearance at Rudy Davis’ Birtherpalooza in Texas. If you do nothing else, I suggest that you watch that video in its entirety because the one hour presentation will confirm most of what is written in this series of articles.

In the very beginning of that presentation Gallups talks about his supposed training and experience as a law enforcement officer (another thing that there is no evidence to support). According to him, he is trained to think analytically, in other words, to think like a detective. I call BS because that is directly contrary to having a “Biblical World View”. It is the difference between using inductive and deductive reasoning. It is also the difference between birthers and birther debunkers.

Inductive reasoning starts with a desired conclusion and the search for evidence that supports the conclusion. Deductive reasoning starts with a question and the search for evidence to provide the answer to the question. For a great comparison of the two, see the recent “debate” between Bill Nye and Ken Hamm concerning evolution. Bill Nye took a scientific approach to origins of man and the earth by asking a question and looking for evidence to find the answer. On the other hand Ken Hamm took a “Biblical World View” and started with the conclusion that the Bible was literal and accurate and then looked for evidence to support that conclusion. It is not a coincidence that many birthers are also self-Identified fundamental Christians who have a likeminded “Biblical World Views”. Birthers START with the premise that President Obama is not eligible and then grab onto everything that they believe supports their conclusion and reject everything that shows that they are wrong. Carl is an expert at this, both in religion and birtherism. It is what shapes his view of everything. It is the source of his hatred. It is the source of the ugliness that permeates every aspect of his life.



About Reality Check

I have been following politics since my teens a very long time ago. I began debunking the Birther myths since late 2008. I commented an Birther sites and also fine sites like Obama Conspiracy Theories and Politijab. In 2009 I noticed that even though there were probably a dozen Birther run radio programs not a single anti-Birther program existed. Therefore I started "Land of the Obots" on Blog Talk Radio. I later changed the name to Reality Check Radio. The program ran weekly until sometime around 2016. This blog was originally begun to provide a place to discuss the radio show, my guests, and topics covered on the show.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Birthers and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Why Lyin’ Carl Gallups may be the worst birther in the world–Part III

  1. surelochomes says:

    Doctors who enlist in the Army start out as a Capt. and twenty years later at retirement, retire as a Lt. Col. If you were not promoted in your career, you are a loser and should not pass judgment on anyone.

    • If you knew Captain Tuttle’s real life story you wouldn’t be saying that.

      • ramboike says:

        RC, why not display for your readers some intellectual honesty? You’re long overdue.

        You know your lapdog Tuttle gave it away in his “Part 1 – Introduction”. He’s a leftist and outed himself with Keith Oberdouche and 5 Republicans/conservatives. He is no different than any other Obot kneeling in worship of Dear Leader at the Altar of Marxist-Obamaism.

        No original records released to provide conclusive proof for Obama’s claimed life story. The actions of Obama’s loyal Obots reminds me of the movie Planet of the Apes II. The mutant Obots have scared people with their false illusions, but eventually the Americans people caught on that the Obama worshippers have nothing.

  2. rambo, the people who Capt. Tuttle named are horrible people. Even you should be able to admit that. I know the good Capt. well. He is not a leftist, but a centrist. He also despises Gloria Allred and other icons of the left. He chose the people he did because he knows that Olberman is far to the left and each of these people is worse on the right than Gallups is. Get it yet?

    • ramboike says:

      No I don’t get it. Each one of them people he named have their ideological beliefs & political positions.. Except for Allred & Oberdouche, all are close to mine.

      Tuttle gave himself away. He is a hack residing quite a distance away from the center in the looney world of Leftism.

  3. Pingback: Why Lyin’ Carl Gallups may be the worst birther in the world – Part IV | RC Radio Blog

  4. Rambo, if calling someone a Marxist liberal is the best argument you’ve got then your argument is as feeble as the mind that built it. Also if you knew what Marxist socialism was you’d know Obama is not a Marxist.

  5. ramboike says:

    Sean Faulkner,
    He definitely is a marxist. You don’t want to consider how conniving Obama and the people (some communists & socialists) he has surrounded himself with have to be to get that fundamental change to happen. He is operating in a large system that automatically repels their change. The task in front of them is huge, though they do have the benefit of the ’60s radicals & revolutionaries who have been fertilizing the ground for Obama & his cronies to plant the seeds.

    To use an analogy: Think of an Iman who all his life studied the Qur’an and is well schooled in Islam being appointed to run the affairs of a Christian church with a large congregation. The task the Iman is facing to make changes is huge but not insurmountable especially when given carte blanche to add like minded people to assist him.

    Your 1st question might be: What christian church in their right mind would appoint someone completely indoctrinated in Islam to run its affairs? Exactly the kinds of questions I had in the beginning. Then I realized there were alot of Leftys in the church (people like Arduini, RC, NBC, Dr Con, and Foggy) who wanted the congregation to show the world they were not bigots no matter how assinine or ignorant they might look.

    In theory: marxist socialism is supposed to be the seeding & watering stage for the Left’s communist utopia to blossom from, but the many lessons from history has shown that the final product always turns out to be totalitarian.

  6. Jason Swenson says:

    One again Rambo shows his ignorance about everything

  7. One again Rambo shows his ignorance about everything

    … including grammar.

  8. ramboike says:

    RC: OK now you crossed the line by calling other folks liars when it was in fact you who were wrong. Either you issue an apology or you are done.

  9. Let’s make this simple for Rambo and James:

    The question before the court in the case of Wong Kim Ark was whether he was a citizen. The government was trying to deport Wong. The government through its Xenophobic hired gun George Collins had tried to make the same argument that Rambo is essentially making here. That is, since WKA was of Chinese descent he could not be a citizen (under the Geary Act that prohibited Chinese immigrants to naturalize that was in effect when the case was brought.) The Supreme Court had to go through a chain of logic to determine whether Wong was a citizen or not. That is how courts arrive at decisions.

    Gray determined that there were two paths to citizenship: citizenship by birth (the natural born citizens) and citizenship by naturalization. Gray agreed that naturalization was ruled out for WKA because Congress had forbidden that path for people of Chinese descent. Whether bad law or good law Congress could do that.

    Then Gray turned to the second path to citizenship. Under the Fourteenth Amendment anyone (with narrow exceptions) who was born on US soil was a citizen at birth. Gray went beyond that and said that the Fourteenth Amendment clause was only restating what was already the case under the Constitution and common law that people born in the country were naturally citizens because our citizenship definition had evolved down from English common law. The Fourteenth Amendment was written to right the wrong done to blacks (Negroes). Here are Justice Gray’s own words on the Fourteenth Amendment:

    [It] “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

    “the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.” Hence it is “declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed.”

    “Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”

    So the court ruled WKA was a citizen but to rule he was a citizen they had settle the question of who were the natural born citizens. Remember, the court didn’t say Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen either but they said she was from a class of citizens who clearly were natural born citizens.

    So your arguments come down to this. Was WKA a natural born citizen? To say no you must claim that the court invented a third broad class of citizenship that had never existed before and that no serious legal scholar of the Constitution recognizes to this day. If the court was doing that then why didn’t it say so? Was the court in Minor inventing a new class of citizenship when it commented in passing that Virginia Minor was a citizen? Instead Gray discussed at length who were natural born subjects under English common law and who were natural born citizens under the Constitution. Since the Constitution didn’t provide a definition for natural born citizen the court turned to common law.

    Everyone involved understood that WKA was a natural born citizen. Gray did, the government did, legal scholars at the time did. No one wrote “hey, the court just invented a third class of citizenship for the Chinese guy”.

    The courts have recently come to the same conclusion. Remember that long string of case cites I listed? I won’t repeat it but here is the link. Birther Cases with Decisions Recognizing that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen (See Part I).

    So I am not accusing Rambo and James of lying but they are wrong and clearly wrong. I suspect Rambo really knows the truth but is playing games just as Hermitian was playing games. I am not here to play games. It is my decision whether someone is being intellectually honest or not. John Woodman pegged Rambo very well and decided he was not at all interested in the truth so I am not alone in that conclusion.

  10. It appears poor, sensitive Rambo got his feelings hurt because I gave him a time out for calling people liars when they weren’t lying and for generally being a juvenile. I remind him that I let tens of his posts go through here. However, when people start using the “L” word they better be able to back it up.

  11. Northland10 says:

    Aw, you big meany. You hurt poor Rambo’s feeling because you deprived him of being able to troll around and try to get people to engage in his games. So much for his showdown.

  12. Rambo of course is asking the wrong question. If we are talking about eliminating a large group of citizens’ right to serve as president of the country the question would be: When has the Supreme Court ever said that all citizens at birth are not natural born and therefore ineligible to serve. The answer of course is never. As a matter of fact the court has interchangeably used the terms “native born” and “natural-born” over the years.

  13. Hektor says:

    But RC, don’t you see that Rambo has already won? I mean (not that we can do this here any longer) did you hear (from him) the number of times he has bested us obots? Against such an indefatigable opponent, one can’t help but wonder why the President hasn’t been frogmarched out of the Oval office.

  14. Hektor says:

    Rambo of course is asking the wrong question. If we are talking about eliminating a large group of citizens’ right to serve as president of the country the question would be: When has the Supreme Court ever said that all citizens at birth are not natural born and therefore ineligible to serve. The answer of course is never. As a matter of fact the court has interchangeably used the terms “native born” and “natural-born” over the years.

    Well, yes. But that’s the thing RC, Rambo isn’t asking that question. He’s starting from the premise that the President isn’t eligible (or that two citizens parents are needed to be NBC) and rationalizing everything in order to justify that premise. Of course, even that rationalization is rather faulty. If two citizen parents are necessary and Barack Obama is an ebil forger, you’d think he would have forged Frank Marshall Davis as his father and not written a best-selling book admitting his father was a Kenyan national.

  15. Yes, it is a miracle President Obama still holds the office with all the victories that Apuzzo and Rambo have chalked up (in their own minds).

  16. Rambo can’t even get it right in his “victory” speech over at Lucas Smith’s blog:

    He said:

    My claim was based on reading a number of reliable sites who gave opinions (as I’ve told RC more than once) on the WongKimArk case. Here’s just 1 of them

    “..whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.”

    That isn’t true. They ruled in the case of Kwock Jan Fat v. White that the son of two Chinese immigrants was a natural born citizen. This is from the “What’s Your Evidence?” blog:

    Context: Case involved a person who claimed to be born in America to Chinese parents – but whom Immigration Officials believed was actually another person, who had moved to the US as a child. Although Immigration pre-approved citizenship status before Jan Fat took a trip to China, they revoked that decision while he was gone, and he was denied reentry as a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Laws. Their decision was upheld in the courts, until the Supreme Court reversed the decision because the immigration officials failed to properly record alleged testimony from witnesses disputing his identity.


    “It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee [Chinese] and his wife, Tom Ying Shee [also Chinese], he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived, and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909 as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, California.
    For failure to preserve such a record for the information not less of the Commissioner of Immigration and of the Secretary of Labor than for the courts, the judgment in this case must be reversed. It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.”

    Note: Here, again, the Court clearly equates a “born US citizen” with a “natural born American citizen,” and notes that it is undisputed, pursuant to Wong Kim Ark, that a child born in the US – even if to Chinese subjects – is a natural born citizen.

    I think Rambo should rethink what he considers to be a “reliable site”.

  17. Rambo (who is still banned) points out that Kwock’s father was a native born born citizen (and women were nonpersons in 1915 who carried the citizenship of the husband as long as they remained married). Tesibra doesn’t mention that in her writeup and I didn’t read the entire case. It is my fault and I admit my honest mistakes unlike Rambo and other birthers. I will not present the case for what it is not.

    However, reading the decision in this it is clear that the Supreme Court saw no distinction among native born citizens no matter whether their parents were citizens or not. In the very deciding paragraph the court says that Kwock Jan Fat is a natural born citizen because of the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision. The court has never made any distinction in between citizens born on US soil now matter parentage since the Wong Kim decision.

    Now if Rambo will man up and admit that fact he can post here again. The court has never made any distinction among native born (natural born) citizens since WKA.

    What the Birthers want to do but will not admit it is return to the days of Dred Scott.

  18. NBC says:

    However, reading the decision in this it is clear that the Supreme Court saw no distinction among native born citizens no matter whether their parents were citizens or not. In the very deciding paragraph the court says that Kwock Jan Fat is a natural born citizen because of the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision. The court has never made any distinction in between citizens born on US soil now matter parentage since the Wong Kim decision

    I find it fascinating why people still have a hard time understanding the WKA ruling, even the dissenting Judge realized that under the findings of the majority, WKA could run for the office of president.
    Even the appealing attorney general of the US understood that the lower court had effectively declared WKA to be a natural born citizen.

  19. I know NBC. I am with you. It is 5th grade logic here. The incontrovertible facts are that the SCOTUS has never differentiated native born from natural born citizens who were born in the US and we have had two presidents and one or more VP’s who did not meet the Birther fantasy definition of NBC.

    This is settled law. The only question that might be open for discussion is the Ted Cruz class of citizen.

    They can talk it to death but the question is settled for the current President.

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s