Don’t fall for Russia’s Tucker Carlson conspiracy theory

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

I wrote last week about what I would be watching for in Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin and how I would deal with Putin had I been in Tucker’s seat. I warned that people on the right are looking for an American dictator to swoop in and save them from all the problems created by the elites. On the left, they’re already imposing a kind of dictatorship through the administrative state.

I also warned you about Aleksandr Dugin, often called “Putin’s brain,” and how he would push Putin to talk about our immorality, transgenderism, and loss of faith. I said Tucker could maybe let Putin get away with it one time, but then he would need to cut him off and say, “This isn't about America and her people. If you want to talk about the American war machine, the president, or Congress, go ahead, and we’ll listen.” I was expecting Putin to spin the conversation toward that angle, but he didn’t. I think part of that is because Tucker Carlson did a really good job.

Putin didn’t say anything new. Maybe to some people he did, but I have been describing what Putin was talking about for years: the fact that we created this Ukrainian problem. I outlined it on my giant chalkboard about Ukraine during President Trump’s first impeachment. What Putin said about Russia’s historical claims are true. I don’t like it, but we need to recognize it as true so that we don't get wrapped up in yet another war.

At least we know the truth of why we’re probably in this war. That doesn't make Putin correct on the war.

What does concern me is how Tucker Carlson’s interview is being spun in Russia, particularly by Dugin, and I’m afraid that many Americans will fall for it.

Dugin last week published an essay titled, “Tucker, Putin, and the Apocalypse.” At first, it sounds benign. But read on, and it gets worse and worse and worse.

Dugin begins by describing Carlson’s interview as “pivotal for both the West and Russia.” I would agree, but not for the same reasons as Dugin. He says “Tucker Carlson is becoming a focal point of two polar opposites within the Russian society" whom he calls the “ideological patriots and elite Westernizers.” Dugin is describing the dynamic in Russia between those who think, “Let’s just become part of the West,” and those who say, “No, we’re Russian.”

If I were Tucker Carlson, I would respond to Dugin immediately.

"For patriots,” Dugin asserts, “Tucker Carlson is simply ‘one of us.’ He’s a traditionalist.” I’ve warned my audience in the past about “traditionalism.” It means something different when people like Dugin invoke it.

Dugin also says that Carlson is “a right-wing conservative, a staunch opponent to liberalism.” Well, yes, he is, but not in the way that Dugin means.

Dugin is for the end of all modernity. Understand what that means. The end of all modernity. He believes the world should be pushed back to the way it was before the Enlightenment. I don't think Tucker Carlson is for that.

I encourage you to read the entire essay. It will give you valuable insight into the Russian perspective and the narrative Dugin is spinning about Tucker’s interview. However, I want to draw your attention to the part of the op-ed where Dugin describes something deeply troubling that is always dismissed. I urge you to dismiss him at your own peril. Dismiss him just like you've dismissed the leadership of Iran at your own peril.

Here’s what he has to say:

Tucker Carlson conducts a reality check: Does the West understand what it is doing, pushing the world towards the apocalypse? ... Look what the globalists have done and how close we are to it!

It is not about the content of the interview with Putin. It is the fact that a person like Tucker Carlson is visiting a country like Russia to meet a political figure like Putin at such a critical time. Tucker Carlson’s trip to Moscow might be the last chance to stop the disappearance of humanity. The world can only be saved by stopping right now.

The world can only be saved by stopping now. For that, America must choose Trump. And Tucker Carlson. And Elon Musk. And [Texas Governor Greg] Abbott. Then we get a chance to pause on the brink of the abyss. Compared to this, everything else is secondary. Liberalism and its agenda have led humanity to a dead end. Now the choice is this: either liberals or humanity. Tucker Carlson chooses humanity, which is why he came to Moscow to meet Putin. The whole world understood why he came and how important it is.

I would not want Dugin writing something like that about me, and I doubt Tucker Carlson did anything to deserve that. Remember, when Dugin says “we’re fighting liberalism,” he means something very different from what comes into our American minds.

I am a classical liberal. That means that I am for the Bill of Rights. I want a small government. I believe I should answer for my own actions and that you should answer for your own actions. That’s classic liberalism in a nutshell. When Dugin refers to the West’s “liberalism,” that’s what he actually means. He doesn't mean “leftists” when he talks about liberals like we do. He’s an enemy of classical liberalism. He’s against freedom of choice. He’s against individual liberty.

What is Dugin for? He is a doomsday prophet who believes that the apocalypse must come to wash the world in blood. He also is the man who opened the door to the key relationship between the Iranian Twelvers and Russia. They have one thing in common: They both believe chaos leads to the rebirth of the world. One thinks the 12th Imam will call it forth. The other, Dugin, believes it is Christ who will bring it about.

When Dugin says, “We’re fighting liberalism,” he means something very different from what comes into our American minds.

Dugin believes that is the way that Russia will control: through bringing about its end. That's the kind of man we're dealing with here. He's very dangerous, and he's no friend of America and the principles that you and I hold dear.

If I were Tucker Carlson, I would respond to Dugin immediately. Don’t be fooled by Dugin’s attempt to lure Tucker Carlson and, consequently, you and me into becoming his allies. We are no allies of Dugin. And Dugin is no friend of the principles of freedom and liberty that we cherish.

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison) 

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?