By Mike Shoesmith
The AP recently interviewed Carl Gallups on his support for Donald Trump. When Mr Gallups "endorsed" Donald Trump last week, what he really said was "if" Donald Trump is the official candidate, he will have Carl's endorsement. Carl meant that there must be no chance that Hillary or Sanders get into the White House, period. And since it looks like Donald Trump will win the GOP nomination, Carl Gallups is endorsing Trump as the apparent nominee.
Carl has never "endorsed" a candidate in the primary race – and that includes Donald Trump. Carl has repeatedly said that if Ted Cruz is the nominee, Carl will support Cruz.
This "endorsement" stems from a prayer Carl was asked to do at the Trump rally in Pensacola Fl. In the opening prayer, Carl lifted up the name of Jesus and never once mentioned Donald Trump. There was no endorsement.
Carl Gallups is pleased with the AP interview. In my conversation with Carl, he said the interview was balanced and fair. What followed, however, is an utter disgrace: the articles which appeared in Salon.com and Media Matters.
Media Matters, funded by Obama-backer George Soros, declares "Donald Trump: 'Great Honor' To Be Endorsed By Sandy Hook Truther." Media Matters labeled Carl Gallups a Sandy Hook "truther" for simply interviewing a columnist, Barry Soetoro Esq, regarding holes in the Newtown CT "shooting" narrative. Asking questions about the alleged "biggest school shooting in US history" oddly disturbs Media Matters.
Yet those questions remain. I have interviewed folks on both sides of this issue (on PNN Radio). Both I and Carl have announced, "If you have evidence which puts this whole issue to rest then please, come on our show." To this day, no one has refuted Barry's findings on Newtown. I also interviewed Wolfgang Halbig (who is taking Sandy Hook issues to court; making FOIA requests). Halbig hits one brick wall after another. Why? If Newtown has nothing to hide, why all the secrecy? Ask yourself, what is more offensive: interviewing a man who is investigating this potential fraud – or the potential fraud itself? Through the mainstream looking-glass, the world is upside-down.
Salon.com takes things one step further, by calling Carl Gallups a "Wacko." This should offend every American. If it's true that a fraud was perpetrated on the American people by a fake school shooting, then is it "wacko" to investigate? I suppose it's a bridge too far for most Americans to think the government would brainwash folks into accepting gun control using Hollywood tactics and professional actors. But make no mistake, that is exactly what Eric Holder, Obama's former Attorney General said would happen and "must" happen.
Salon reports "Gallups is the proprietor of PNN." This is one of many non-truths reported in Salon's article which, by their own definition, is a Sandy Hook "truther" article. Simply put, Salon is "reporting" on events surrounding Sandy Hook – just like Gallups did and we at PNN are doing. Carl Gallups is not the proprietor of PNN. Founder, yes. Proprietor, no. He is a contributor and has nothing to do with the financial aspects of the network – which is what a proprietor would be doing.
As a long-time friend of Carl Gallups, I can assure you that Carl's greatest ambition in life is to find truth. The Bible is clear on this: "love rejoices in the truth." And when people contact Carl with the credibility to appear on his show – or mine – with evidence putting this Newtown controversy to rest, Carl will be first to say "Thank you... let's do it."
As I interviewed Carl today, I learned that I was second in line to the Washington Post. Carl had just been interviewed about this very issue. Apparently, Carl asked the Washington Post interviewer "Did you see the [Sandy Hook] video?" Carl was referring to the video showing side-by-side comparisons of (known actor) David Wheeler and Newtown's "Sloppy Sniper." The Washington Post reporter replied that he had seen the video. "Freaky, huh?" said Gallups. "Yes, freaky" said the reporter.
As for the alleged Trump endorsement, the AP article ends with this Carl Gallups quote, summing it up perfectly:
"I tell them, if you are not thoroughly satisfied with what you might interpret the depth of his faith might be, then the next thing we must look at is the candidate who will best preserve your First Amendment rights and allow you to express your Christian faith," Gallups said. "We're not electing a priest, a pope or a pastor. We're electing a president, a CEO, a commander in chief. I'm not perfectly happy with Donald Trump either, but I'm a realist."