RC: The following guest article is the fourth 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 , Part II , and Part III were published previously.)
Why Lyin’ Carl Gallups may be the worst birther in the world.
Capt. Charles Tuttle, MD, US Army (Ret)
Part IV-Carl’s Hatred
I promise you that I will get to Lyin’ Carl’s birther practices in more detail in the next article. But as I write about Carl, I remember even more of what a despicable human being he is. I have had an issue with fundamental, evangelical, preachers since I was in my teens. They prey on the gullible, weak minded and scared in exactly the same way religious cults do. In particular, I have a special distaste for people who combine religion and politics as a means to deprive other people of their rights under the Constitution. I freely admit that I believe that if hell exits, there is a special place reserved for such people. I have no doubt whatsoever that if hell exists, Carl is going there regardless of his subjective belief that he has been “saved”.
The United States is a secular nation. Period. End of Story. It is not subject to debate. Religion has no place in government and this is documented well by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If there is one thing that liberals, conservatives, moderates and libertarians should agree on is all citizens of this country are, or should be, entitled to equal rights under the law. This is a very simple concept and one that is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, the religious right, whether you call them the Tea Party, the John Birch Society, the Moral Majority or the right wing nut jobs are dead set against that simple concept. Although they give lip service to the idea of limiting government intrusion into people’s lives, this is true only to the extent that it affects them and people who are like them. This is the logical extension of Carl’s perverted version of the Golden Rule (Love thy neighbors if they neighbors are like thyself). It is also consistent with people treating the Constitution just as they treat the Bible—picking and choosing only those portions of that are important to them or support their position.
Gallups very vocally espouses his contempt for homosexuals. Recently, I heard him refer to them as Sodomites. As this is America, he has the right to his opinions and his words, no matter how contemptible they may be. But Gallups goes further and seeks to interject himself into the political discourse and wants to deny his fellow citizens the rights he enjoys based on their sexual orientation on religious bases. This is directly contrary to the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. But perhaps more importantly, this appears to be an evil attempt to maintain the position that homosexual practices are sinful.
As most people who study the Bible are aware, every condemnation of homosexuality is in the Old Testament. Although Gallups, and other like minded people, want to profess that this is the worst “sin in the world” (after all it was called an abomination in the Old Testament). In fact, people who cross these people in chat rooms, blogs, Facebook, etc., are likely to be called names that are related to their manhood. Apparently, this is the worst thing that they can say about anyone, at least in their opinion. Personally, even accepting the Bible at face value, god may perceive homosexual conduct as sinful but apparently not bad enough to be included in the Ten Commandments. In fact, based on biblical text, it is no worse than eating lobster.
In fact, there are many things that are considered sinful in the Old Testament that were condoned by the New Testament. I have heard people even say that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, apparently because they did not want to be put to death for watching Notre Dame play football. Of course, they are picking and choosing those portions of the Bible that allow them to act as they see fit and condemn anyone who does not agree with them or live life in a manner consistent with their world views. But even there, Gallups is worse because he is scared to death that if same sex marriages are legal, he loses certain arguments.
According to the Bible, all sex outside of the confines of a marriage is sinful. Therefore, if two people of the same sex are allowed to marry, the sex between them is not sinful. Ergo, Gallups works to inject his religious views into the political arena or lose his biblical argument. All them he would be left with hatred that cannot be justified by the Bible.
And when Gallups says that marriage has always been defined as between one man and one woman, he is lying to you. There are many cultures that have practiced polygamy for centuries and is mentioned prominently in the Bible without condemnation. See Genesis 4:19, Genesis 26:34; Genesis 28:6-9, Genesis 16:3, Genesis 21:1-13, Genesis 25:1, Genesis 25:6, Exodus 2:21; Exodus 18:1-6, Numbers 12:1 among others. I am not saying that the Bible condones homosexual marriage, but I am saying that Gallups is lying about the definition of marriage. But as will be seen in the next part, Gallups lies about just about everything. And while sex between those of the same sex may not break the Ten Commandments, bearing false witness does.
END OF PART IV
RC Radio Blog 
The crazy right-wing nut jobs will never be able to understand all of that. Regardless, this is an awesome and well written article. Well done.
Re: “awesome and….. Well done”
It reminds me of this guy in the video. His work was considered awesome & well done. He also needed a rabies shot:
“Religion has no place in politics and this is documented well by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Mmmm, no: what the Constitution says is that religion has no place in _government_. And vice-versa.
“Politics” is the process by which we choose who will represent us in government, and, to some extent, how they act when doing so. And there _is_ a place for religion there, in that it gives us some clues about the (potential) representative’s philosophy and likely actions.
For example, I would never vote for a Wahabbi Muslim or a Restorationist (I think that’s the right term) Christian for any legislative or executive office, because of their strong dedication to instituting theocracy. Nor would I vote for someone whose religion made him an extreme pacifist for President because, sadly, it’ll almost certainly be necessary for him to give the orders to do violence while in office. But I might choose such a person for Congress, because it’s important to have such a contrary voice in the debate when making life-and-death decisions. And I wouldn’t hesitate to vote for someone deeply, even conservatively, religious if I were confident that he/she understood that such beliefs are not to be “established” in government.
Candidates’ philosophies, _and_ the factors that motivate them, definitely do belong in the political process. And they should all be out in the open, so voters can make informed choices.
Will you show where the Constitution says religion has no place in _government_. And vice-versa?
Ran
I agree with your thoughts. Politics and religion are intertwined and will probably always be so. It is one of the factors that we use in judging for whom we vote. I cannot imagine myself voting for a Dominionist Christian for example. I would not have voted for Mitt Romney anyway but I would have to be honest and say the fact that he was a Mormon figured in to my decision. Romney of course has every right to choose his religion as do I.
I will not speak for Mr. Tuttle but I think the point he was trying to make is that there is no state religion in the US. We are not a “Christian” country even though polls might show a majority of the population might profess to be Christian. The authors of the Constitution chose to entirely omit the word “god” and the only mention of religion was in the Bill of Rights to say that there shall be no state religion and that the government should not interfere with the practice of any religion (within reasonable norms of civil behavior). In particular the Christian religion is not specifically mentioned nor is any other faith or denomination. The recent trend among fundamentalists to try to portray the founding fathers as more religious than they really were is revisionist history.
Moreover, Government should not be seen as favoring one religion over another as a matter of pragmatic choice. The variety of divergent beliefs the Government could make the “official” religion among Christian sects is scary: Catholics or Protestants? then, if the latter: Baptists? Lutherans? Adventists? Quakers? Mormons? etc. etc.
Government couldn’t safely and fairly even adopt “Christianity” much less anything else. Then you’ve got Judaism: Jews have contributed mightily to this nation. Should we be fostering Christian bullies telling a Jew: “Well, the Government believes I’m right and you’re a godless heathen.”?
Atheists have bled and died in uniform for America. So have Muslims and Jews. And Pagans. And Sikhs. And Rastafarians. And Pastafarians (maybe). And Hindus and Buddhists. Not to mention gay and lesbian Americans.
So here’s the point: Nobody, least of all the Government, should make these heroes’ families and friends and loved ones feel unwelcome in America. Their sacrifices have earned them a place in our nation. It is their America too. Period.
In the vast realm of belief, Government simply cannot play favorites.
On the other hand, if a district elects a devout Christian, and he or she votes and behaves according to his or her beliefs, that’s fine. Fine, that is, in every arena except how other religions should be treated by Government. That’s a settled feature of America, and a good thing too.
So if you don’t understand that, ramboike, then you should be rounded up and put in a camp, branded, tortured, and deported or killed.
Oh, wait… that’s what a rabid right-wing troglodyte would say to anyone who disagrees with him or her. Strike that. I meant:
So if you don’t understand that, ramboike, then you should have a good long talk with yourself and read some more about the separation of church and state debates during the writing of the Constitution.
There. That’s better. That’s the way Progressives talk.
Sheesh, all those cold pricklies for only asking a question?
Have you found the “Separation of Church & State” in the Constitution? I’ve been looking for years because some liberal told me it was there, but I can’t find it.
If you understand the Establishment Clause, you understand where the separation comes from.
Did you ever notice the words of the final sentence of Article VII of the Constitution? Those were written prior to the founders signing. It was based on unamimous opinion without debate.
Why did the founders cite the Bible more than any other source during the founding period?
I agree with you there was a limit on Christianity. Jefferson said he was a Christian only so far as he was a disciple of the teachings of Jesus Christ. And Ben Franklin voiced similar thoughts finishing instead with “the Jesus of Nazareth”. Both are alleged to have been deists.
Because sermons generally contain Biblical references. Now if you exclude published sermons, originally given during church services, then there are hardly any Biblical references at all, particularly during the Constitutional Convention.
Here you’ve screwed the pooch, and before Michael Moore sings I want to give ya a chance to prove yourself before destroying you. Bring some evidence to back up what you’re spewing.
You don’t understand what the minds of the vast majority of the founders were steeped in. As an Obot you might call it brainwashing. They started out life with Bibles in their homes, schools, and places of worship. Studying the Bible was a way of life for them. In their formative years they understood Judean-Christian Principles.
We’ll start with this:
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
The following is from a blog post describing the Donald Lutz study that you are referencing:
Disclaimer: I have from time to time written guest posts for this blog.
Ron, I think that Capt. Tuttle probably meant government and not politics because are absolutely correct.
I edited the original text in the article to reflect that correction.
W. Kevin Vicklund
Are you that dishonest? I said during the founding period. That’s approximately 45 years. You’re condensing it down to less than 2 years (1787 & 1788) then eliminating, in your words: “newspaper articles, pamphlets, letters to and from other people, and, interestingly, sermons”. All that has to be included to understand the political thoughts of the founders. Are you pitting all secular sources vs the Bible? Possibly, not sure, but I don’t think all of them together beats the Bible. You brought in Lutz’s Chart which is political literature written by the founders. Had Lutz not held the sermons down to 10% it would been a blowout for the Bible. Secular sources is a combination of Enlightenment Reasoning influenced by biblical principles and Classical Thought from the Greco-Roman period.
Separation of Church & State? When did it happen? Revolutionary Congress (government) orders bibles from another european country because of the war with England, Confederation Congress (government) in 1782 gives approval to Robert Aitkin to start producing an American Bible, church services are held in government buildings during the Jefferson presidency and continued on for decades, and Congress still opens each session with prayer.
There is a difference between the period in which the Constitution was argued and ratified and subsequent attempts by some to introduce religion into government. Separation of Church and State started with the Founding Document, although over time it has seen variations as to how well the Government complied with it.
Prayer can be non-denominational or by someone such as the Dalai Lama. In other words, it does not provide any given religion with advantages. Same with the Bible, which in present day would have been extended to include many other documents that would be made available.
You also may want to check out the facts and not rely on Glenn Beck or other similar sources
Huffington Post
The facts are different
Surprised RamboIke? You have been lied to… Feeling a bit foolish now?
Library of Congress: period 1774 to 1789
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
2nd paragraph: “Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians.”
That would have to be the Aitkin Bible.
Further down in that Congressional record under ‘Aitken’s Bible Endorsed by Congress’: “The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from “Scotland, Holland or elsewhere.””
It’s possible the bibles were never imported, but I’ve always taken that as they were.
I don’t feel a bit foolish. As opposed to the way Obots operate I look to find the truth.
But not very hard. Perhaps you should also research the Aitkin Bible before you let yourself be fooled again.
Sorry my friend but nothing shows support that you look to find the truth… Perhaps if you were to check out the original sources and not rely on sources that have been shown to be quite unreliable?
and
Don’t blame others for your own laziness and do not accuse unnamed others of sins shown by yourself. And people may take you a bit more seriously.
Library of Congress is now unreliable? How do we know that? Because NBC says so.
Even though the congressional records shows Congress sponsored the publication of the Bible? Yep, NBC says it’s not true.
Shouldn’t NBC provide the congressional record that refutes it? Yep, but he won’t
You are confusing congressional records with a web page.
I provided you with exactly that. So do not pretend otherwise. Educate yourself rather that let yourself be embarrassed by poor research. And you may want to try to understand the difference between congressional records and a web page.
Just saying…
It’s you that’s confused and screwed the pooch on this one. I should of leveled with ya from the start instead of letting make a complete fool of yourself. I’ve been down this road before with the secularists & atheists.
You’re trying to debunk the congressional journals with a bias reporter (i’m keeping it civil) from the progressive-Left Huffington Post. There are parts in Rodda’s article she left out, and if she claims to being thorough then it was deliberate, which means you opened and swallow her lies.
Rodda gets the original committee letter (9/1/1782) to the chaplains right, and she gets the chaplains’s report back (9/10/1782) to the committee right, but she leaves out the correct title for the chaplains: Chaplains of the United States in Congress assembled. (Any wonder why she did that?) Then she leaves out the committees final resolution: “Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.”
Even the left-leaning Wikipedia acknowledges most of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aitken_(Bible_Publisher)
That is hilarious, that is exactly what you did. Remember you made the claims and I showed that they were wrong by quoting the facts, not the fiction that had been presented to you.
One other point to clarify. It’s immaterial whether the Bibles were imported or not. The proof that government instructed (sanctioned) its Committee of Commerce to import Bibles, as well as sanctioning the Aitken Bible shows the government did indeed endorse Christianity.
It is material to your claims, which I showed to be without merit. All it shows is that the Committee considered pursuing facilitating the import of bibles but never took that action. As to the Aitken Bible it shows how Congress approved of the accuracy of the Bible but denied Atkins explicit requests.
You should have done your homework my friend.
Why do you continue to insult the intelligence of the people who come here to read RC’s blog? They can go to the Wikipedia article and click on the Library of Congress links provided and see you are a bold-face liar. The point I’ve made for years is it’s the same mode of operation you display on the birther issues. ~grin~ Eventually they’re going to catch on to what you’ve been doing.
As always,
Rambo Ike {riding roughshod over Obot ignorance & deceit]
I have provided my links and your claims are disproven by direct reference to the actions. You are confusing an appeal to authority (Wikipedia or Library of Congress) with original sources.
You have failed to address the facts as presented.
And speaking of lying? If you use the term this sloppily then surely you would consider yourself a liar for misrepresenting that Congress actually had ordered the bibles?
Come on RamboIke, at least pretend that you are trying to defend yourself.
The Library of Congress page does not even mention the Aitkin bible by name and as I have shown, the resolution merely approves of the accuracy of the Bible, but refused to grant the many requests by Aitkin to have Congress adopt the bible.
Sorry my friend, you have been exposed as that which you claim to object to. Oh the irony.
Let me remind RamboIke of the facts
Hope you will find some time to more properly educate yourself in these matters, as your ignorance of facts sort of undermines your ability to argue convincingly.
Knock, knock, Mcfly! Anybody Home?
What is it about the 232 year old “original” (not a phoney copy like Obama’s) congressional record you can’t comprehend? Wikipedia even modernized the spelling for the slow folks.
Journals of Congress for September 1782 records on page 469: “Resolved. That the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitkin……….and being satisfied from the above report (by the congressional chaplains), they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation.”
And what was the undertaking of Mr. Aitkin that the Congress was approving? Who was satisfied by the chaplains’s report and recommended the Aitkin Bible? Who authorized Mr. Aitkin to publish their recommendation? Hello McFly! (knock knock) Think McFly!
Chris Rodda cast her line and you swallowed the bait, hook, line, and sinker. She left out page 469.
Have you the original congressional record for what was said on importing Bibles? Your words from above: “..although this motion passed, it was not a final vote to import the Bibles. It was a merely a vote on replacing the original plan of importing the type and paper with the committee’s proposal of importing already printed Bibles.” In other words there was a vote to import Bibles though it wasn’t final?
Remember that Aitkin had asked for much more than this, all he got was an approval of Congress with the accuracy of the Aitkin bible.
Why is it so hard for you to do your proper research here?
Tell us what Aitkin wanted versus what he really got and we can see what Congress did NOT do.
Remember RamboIke’s original claim
You can keep spinning it until the cows come home on the Aitkin Bible and it won’t do you any good. The original record sealed your fate. Congress approved it, recommended it, and authorized the recommendation be published. Game over – Checkmate
On importing it’s a different story at this point. Everytime I’ve come across that it’s always worded “Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles”. But now that I think about it I’ve never seen one where it said the Bibles were imported. Here’s another just on Bibles. Scroll down to 3rd from bottom:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/bibles/other-bibles.html
Possibly the Library of Congress has alot of scrubbing to do.
I’m not an Obot, I’m interested in finding the truth.
The Aitkin bible was already being published with limited success and Aitkin tried to get Congress to support his publishing efforts. The Congress did noting more than helping out the domestic printing industry but refused to support Aitkin’s other requests.
If you were an obot at least you would really be interested in finding the truth my friend.
I turned off nested comments. With the increase in the number of comments lately it made sense to change. Some of the older replies might lose a bit of context. I will try this and see if you all like it. As of now I am sorting them from older to newer at the bottom.
We need to get honest. Everyone, including me, has made errors and/or done some spinning in this thread. Clearing up some of them:
1- Ran Talbott: “Religion has no place in politics and this is documented well by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Mmmm, no: what the Constitution says is that religion has no place in _government_. And vice-versa.
ike- There is no such thing as Separation of Church & State in the Constitution. I think you all know that and don’t want to fall out of lockstep with Leftist/Progressive/Liberal/Obot dogma.
~~~~~~~~~~
2- NBC: You are confusing congressional records with a web page.
ike- The journals are the congressional records. Someone that was present each day Congress was in session was recording it in the 3rd person older spelling english to be later published and added to the records. I’ve always had the congressional records. What I don’t have is the journal of Daniel Roberdeau who recorded the minutes of the debate on importing Bibles.
~~~~~~~~~~
3- Importing Bibles: Journals of the Continental Congress –THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1777, Pages 733, 734, 735: “Whereupon, the Congress was moved, to order the Committee of Commerce to import twenty thousand copies of the Bible; The question being put, the house was divided: So it was resolved in the affirmative.” (That is government endorsement of the Bible)
ike- The vote passed to have the Committee of Commerce import Bibles, but then it was tabled for further debate. The reason it was tabled is not clear. Roddy speculates at this point, I can speculate too. I find no proof the Bibles were ever imported.
~~~~~~~~~~
4- Aitkin Bible: Journals of the Continental Congress –THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1782, pages 572, 573, 574: “Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.”
ike- Recorded in the 3rd person. Congress is approving of Mr Aitkin printing the Bible. The pronoun “they” refers to Congress. (That is government endorsement of the Bible)
Case closed
I see ramboike is still extolling the virtues of a government the founders decided needed to be completely replaced a mere 13 years after it was instituted. Then again, he probably feels the same way about the Tax and Spend Clause as he does the Establishment Clause.
RamboIke was caught spreading non-truths and it was helpful to expose his ignorance of these matters. he appears to have done some of his homework. The government did not really endorse the bible as much as approved of its accuracy.
It was a polite way to tell Aitkin, who wanted Congress to adopt his Bible, to get lost.
Vicklund, as usual, makes no sense. How does moving from a constitution of a confederation of states to a more centralized constitution in a republic make the federal government any more or less virtuous?
NBC, thankfully I researched that on importing the Bibles which I now believe were never imported. By straightening that out I keep my integrity intact. Too bad the same can’t be said of you who continues to tell a bold-face lie on the Aitkin Bible. I wonder how many people reading RC’s blog are shaking their heads at your deceit.
Because we are experiencing, during this Age of Obama, such a high level of national deceit that has never been seen before in America’s history, ol’ Ike’s Truth Machine has become a revolutionary act.
Looks like the good fishing has ended. It was great while it lasted. I’d no more than cast my line and they’d start biting. Mudcats, carp, and suckerfish – I couldn’t reel them in fast enough. Oh well.
Are you bailing out of here Rambo? I have been too busy reading Hermitians few hundred comments on the other thread.
I am sorry I missed the conversation where you tried to claim that when Congress (years before the Constitution was even written) gave someone a pat on the back for printing Bibles that was proof we were a “Christian nation”. I assumed it was actually a joke you were making but it appears you were serious.
Did you think up that little spin on your own to cover for NBC, because everyone reading this thread knows he lacks the necessary equipment to admit when he is wrong? I expect he’ll continue like the others here to keep to keep making excuses. Nothing new, just Obots being Obots.
The real problem here is Obots have shown a lack of knowledge of our American history, and have went to war against the Congressional Records. Good luck with that.
Says the person who claimed that the bibles actually were ordered when in fact, it was left in committee.
Understanding the reality helps place your attempts at ‘history’ in proper perspective.
I did not go to war against the Congressional Records, I actually used a source who looked at all the records.
Keep up the good effort of trying
Poor Ike is accusing others of what he has been guilty of: A failure to familiarize oneself with the actual history.
He is so cute… Not as funny as Hermitian but still so enjoyable and predictable.
Let’s remind Ike of what he said
No bibles were ordered by the Revolutionary Congress and the 1782 government does not give approval to Aitkin to start, since Aitkin had started the production earlier but could not really sell the bible because of fierce competition. While Aitkin wanted the Congress to do much more, all they did was to point out the accuracy of the Bible, in an effort to stimulate the printing industry.
Oh how embarrassing when the facts destroy our friend’s ‘claims’. These claims have long since be exposed as mythical and poor scholarship:
Keep up the good work Mr Ike.
Aitken:
The Aitken bible never was a big success
All from Chris Rodda’s Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History.
As to the ‘import of Bibles that never happened’
Congress realized that the Bible was an important book and that price gougers were driving up the price. They considered a loan to import the paper but then decided to import the bibles themselves, expecting fully to be paid back. The Congress was interested in addressing the price gouging and understood that the Bible had become an often read book. To conclude from this that Congress somehow endorsed Christianity is, well, a little speculative at best.
Congress was really not that concerned…
As to prayer in Congress, Madison wrote
Read more here
At least the ‘prayers’ have become more inclusive in today’s Congress, reflecting the importance of the many religions in our Nation.
Rambo Ike is renewing his losing argument about the Aitken Bible at Doctor Conspiracy’s parody blog called “Gerbil Report“. He claimed in a comment there that NBC was caught lying here and ran off. I think it is pretty clear who was caught, who cut, and who ran. It wasn’t NBC.
Clearly this shows that Ike was the one who cut and run like the coward he is.
Now he is weaseling out of the claim by saying NBC cut and run but had to “cover himself” first. 😆
This was a comment left at Doc’s “Gerbil Report” blog:
http://www.gerbilreport.com/2015/04/explosive-arpaio-admits-awful-accusation.html#IDComment982055946
I’ve just read some snippets and it seemed to me that Zullo did admit now, that
the results of the CCP before 2013 were not so much or even wrong or at least
insufficient and that the Xerox thing which they didn’t find and then dismissed
or marked as irrelevant or wrong, is no longer debated (?)
Is that correct ?
Zullo claims however that they have some new, unrelated stuff now, which they
can’t reveal because of legal hurdles.
But do the legal hurdles -according to Zullo et.al. – also apply to the earlier stuff ?
(Xerox,Hawaii,Vogt,Irey,Corsi,Gillar,Monckton,Zebest and that)
I think, he could give an update on those things , without legal problems-
and clarify to which of them they still
stand and which they no longer pursue or even admit of being (partially) wrong.
referrence:
Zullo ” Couldn’t quite hear her question on this end, Karl, but I can tell you this,
that document is a fake. Not for any reasons that we have announced for
several years now, but for heretofore COMPLETELY UNANTICIPATED NEW
reasons that we have yet to specify, based on irrefutable evidence which we
have yet to discover [discover?, maybe he meant disclose]
and Trump ! Now that he’s really running for president, did he ever clarify where he erred
on the BC investigation and where he stands now ?
Did he ever reveal, what his investigation showed and on what parts he agreed with the
CCP/Vogt/ etc. investigations and what the update is now ?
I’d somehow expect that from a presidential candidate.
You can make errors, but when you recognize it, you should admit.
It’s essential for international trust with nuclear overkill capacities
and his animosity towards China and Mexico.
No, he meant discover. Zullo is known for his Freudian slips, like the time he referred to evidence the CCP had “created.” Not uncovered. Created. D’oh!
New, earth-shattering, 100% reliable, irrefutable evidence that… no one can see. It’s almost like these guys are latter-day Joseph Smiths. What is it about the deserts out there? Some sort of dry-heat madness?