No, Tucker Carlson is NOT 'Putin's mouthpiece'

February 09, 2024

GAVRIIL GRIGOROV / Contributor | Getty Images

CEO/Founder

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com on February 08, 2024, hours prior to the debut of Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin.

European lawmakers are calling for a travel ban on Tucker Carlson. After Tucker posted a video on X announcing he was in Moscow to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin, the former prime minister of Belgium said the European Union should consider imposing a travel ban on Tucker for serving as a “mouthpiece” for Putin.

They will always find a reason to vilify Tucker because he is one of the few, rare individuals with the courage to question the mainstream narrative.

Who doesn’t love freedom of speech and the press? EU bureaucrats obviously don’t.

This is the critical point: This donnybrook of criticism over Tucker’s interview with Putin has no base because the interview hasn't even debuted yet. They don't even know the questions Carlson asked Putin. But does it even matter what the questions are? For these people, no, it doesn’t. They will always find a reason to vilify Tucker because he is one of the few, rare individuals with the courage to question the mainstream narrative. That’s why he is the incredible journalist that he is.

How about you and me? Does it matter what questions Tucker asks Putin? Of course it does. I am hopeful he will ask some tough questions of Putin. I believe he will. But that isn't the point. As a journalist, he has the right to interview the most consequential world leaders of our time.

Apparently, Mike Wallace and Barbara Walters get a free pass to interview Putin, but now he’s off-limits to Tucker Carlson? The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Who cares about the truth?

To those jumping to conclusion about Tucker, calling for sanctions, calling him a traitor: You haven't heard the interview. You have no idea what he asked Putin. The First Amendment doesn’t have an agenda, and it certainly shouldn’t cave to your double standard.

To those of us who care about the truth, who want to judge the interview for ourselves after it airs, here's what I'm going to look for when I watch the interview.

The interview should not be about America’s domestic problems.

Putin is very good at propaganda. As a former KGB agent, he knows how to manipulate people. Tucker is smart enough to know this. And he knows there are people looking for an American dictator. This is how communists take over. They infiltrate the government and then activate grassroots movements to create chaos and cause all kinds of problems. They want the people in the middle to become so desperate that they say, "Somebody has got to stop this." That's when the chaos and upheaval become unbearable, and people look for a dictator just to make it stop. I am not one of them. I think this is the worst possible scenario.

Aleksandr Dugin, one of Putin’s top advisers, would be pushing Putin to talk about our immorality, our embrace of transgenderism, and our loss of faith. If you don't know who he is, listen to some of my old shows. His whole political philosophy is about using chaos to cause desperation so that a dictator can swoop in like a savior. Dugin is a very dangerous man, and he isn’t called “Putin’s brain” for nothing.

Tucker will have lost control of the interview if he allows Putin to go on about America’s immorality.

Tucker has got to keep this on the rails. The interview should not be about America’s domestic problems. We can talk about our problems all day long, but I don't want to hear about them from Vladimir Putin, and I certainly don't want to hear his solutions. Tucker should say, “We’re here to talk to you about the American involvement in this war with Ukraine, not our internal policy debates.”

Tucker will have lost control of the interview if he allows Putin to go on about America’s immorality more than once. You can let him remark on that once, and then you’ve got to say, “Mr. Putin, this is not about America. We have our own problems. But I don’t think it’s appropriate to talk to you about that. I'm here to talk to you about NATO, even the ‘American war machine’ if you want to call it that. I want to hear why you’re in Ukraine. Are you willing to look for peace? What would that look like?"

Look for Putin to spin this whole thing into transgenderism and what’s happening in our schools. If he begins to discuss those, then he is peddling propaganda. Those are our problems to discuss, not his. We know who Putin is. We know how he stops drugs on the streets. We know how he treats reporters who speak negatively about him. They tend to fall from their apartment windows. He doesn't care about our issues other than their use of serving his agenda.

Americans deserve an explanation

Tucker also said in his video that we’ve been lied to. I want to know about what. We know our problems with the war in Ukraine all too well. Let's hear solutions and what the truth is. Nobody has ever heard from Putin why the invasion happened in the first place. I want Tucker to ask him why he decided to invade at this time in particular.

There's nobody good in this on either side, Zelenskyy or Putin.

I think the reason Putin invaded Ukraine is that we refused to say “no” to NATO expansion. We made a promise that we would not allow Ukraine into NATO. We said that we wouldn't let Ukraine be overrun by Russia, but we also wouldn't let Ukraine into the alliance. It wasn’t written down, but we’re people of honor. That’s all Putin was asking for first, and that promise was violated. That’s just a fact. We went back on our promise, and now Russia has gone back on its promise. But I want to hear the real reason from Putin himself.

I also want Tucker to ask Putin to explain what he means specifically when he refers to Nazis in Ukraine. I did an entire chalkboard “Glenn TV Special” about the neo-Nazis funded by the Ukrainian government for border security. They exist, and they are really bad guys. If there is more to this story, I want to hear about it. There's nobody good in this on either side, Zelenskyy or Putin.

These are the things I’m looking for in Tucker’s interview with Putin. If he keeps the conversation on track like that, it will be a great interview. But to call Tucker “Putin's mouthpiece” before hearing the interview shows that these leftists doesn’t really care about the truth. They don’t care what Tucker — or Putin for that matter — actually says. They don’t care that Tucker is one of several Western journalists to interview Putin and one of many to interview controversial world leaders. All that they care about is their agenda — truth or Tucker Carlson be damned.

The dangerous rise of foreign allegiances in Congress

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Jemal Countess / Stringer | Getty Images

The rise of dual loyalties in Congress is a dangerous trend. Rep. Ramirez's allegiance to Guatemala calls into question her commitment to America’s laws and sovereignty.

When an elected official swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend the United States, that pledge should mean something. But what happens when a member of Congress chooses to place her allegiance with another country over the United States? It’s a violation of that oath, plain and simple.

Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a sitting member of Congress, openly stated in Spanish during a political event in Mexico City, "I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American."

If we don’t demand that our elected leaders place their loyalty to the United States above all else, then we risk the very foundation of this republic.

Ramirez didn’t have a casual slip of the tongue. Her statement was a declaration of her loyalty to another nation. And it’s not just her words that are troubling; her husband, according to Rolling Stone, is in the U.S. illegally. That’s a violation of our immigration laws — laws that Ramirez should be sworn to uphold.

Ramirez’s statement isn’t an isolated incident. This is part of a growing pattern where elected officials, like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), proudly identify with their country of origin before America. They claim cultural pride, but celebrating your heritage is distinctly different from putting your identity above the country that gives you the freedom and opportunity to express that identity.

Heritage vs. loyalty

I’m proud of my heritage, as many Americans are. My wife’s family is a great example. They’re Italian-Americans who are very proud of their roots. But they would never say they’re “Italian before American.” They are Americans who cherish their heritage.

This is what Theodore Roosevelt meant when he said, "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism." This is not a swipe at immigrants. This is a call for unity under one flag, one national destiny. For too long, we’ve allowed dual loyalties to take root in the very institutions that are meant to protect our sovereignty. This is how nations crumble.

George Washington warned against foreign entanglements and divided loyalties in his Farewell Address. He understood the dangers of dual allegiances. He knew the republic couldn’t survive if its leaders pledged allegiance to foreign powers instead of the Constitution.

This isn’t about whether you love your country of origin. It’s about the fundamental principle of loyalty to the United States. You can’t serve in Congress, be part of the body that governs and protects America, if you’re more loyal to another country than to the sovereignty and integrity of the U.S.

National security at risk

This issue goes beyond politics. It goes to the very heart of our national identity. The growing influence of foreign allegiance among our elected officials poses a direct threat to national security. You can’t be trusted to defend America’s borders and enforce immigration laws if you’re willing to place another country above your sworn duty.

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Congress must hold these people accountable. Ramirez must be removed from any committees related to national security or immigration. She has shown that her loyalty lies elsewhere. Her position on the Homeland Security Committee is not only a conflict of interest, it’s a violation of the trust placed in her by the American people.

Her husband’s illegal status must be investigated thoroughly. If you or I were in the same situation, we’d be facing the consequences. There’s no reason why she and her family should be above the law.

Time to act

This issue is about loyalty, integrity, and national security. If we don’t demand that our elected leaders place their loyalty to the United States above all else, then we risk the very foundation of this republic. The time to act is now.

Will Congressional lawmakers listen to the American people and choose America, or will they continue to play politics with our sovereignty? We need to know, now more than ever, whom these leaders are really serving.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Horror on Park Avenue: Is America’s mental health crisis out of control?

New York Daily News / Contributor | Getty Images

The Park Avenue shooter wanted us to study his brain. But will we study our culture?

Late Monday afternoon in Midtown Manhattan, the summer heat clung to the glass and steel of Park Avenue, usually a quiet street save for the occasional honking horn or blaring siren. But as the sun dipped behind the towering skyscrapers, violence erupted.

A 27-year-old man, whose name I won't bother mentioning, stepped out of a black BMW he had double-parked near 51st and 52nd Streets. His movements were calm, deliberate. In his hands, he carried an AR-15 rifle. His target was 345 Park Avenue, a tower of wealth and power, housing the offices of Blackstone, the National Football League, and Rudin Management. The idea of chaos here, in this building, felt foreign — until it wasn’t.

If we don’t get back to the root causes of violence, we’re doomed to continue spiraling into chaos.

The shooter made his way into the building lobby, where he shot in the back 36-year-old New York City Police Officer Didarul Islam, whose wife was about to give birth to their third child. The gunman then gunned down a woman hiding behind a pillar, her life taken in an instant.

The footage shows him moving with a chilling calm, methodical and relentless. A guard behind a desk became his next victim. Then another man, an NFL employee, was shot and is still in critical condition.

The shooter made his way to the elevators, and, strangely, as one opened, a woman stepped out. He let her pass. Why? We’ll never know. But she will likely ask herself that question for the rest of her life.

He continued to the 33rd floor, where Rudin is located. There, in the quiet hum of fluorescent lights and the soft chatter of cubicles, he began “to walk the floor, firing as he traveled.” Another victim fell, another family destroyed.

And then, in a final act, he turned the rifle on himself.

NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch confirmed that the scene was contained. But the damage was done. Four people were dead: one officer, one security guard, and two civilians. Several more were wounded.

The root issue: Mental illness

As details emerged, we learned more about the gunman’s background. He had driven cross-country from Las Vegas to New York. By trade, he was a security guard at a Las Vegas casino, and he held a concealed carry permit. Yet his history of mental illness, coupled with a backpack full of ammunition, medication, and his clear intent, painted a grim picture.

We also learned that his real target was the NFL, not Rudin. The shooter, suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a neurodegenerative disease common in high-contact sports caused by repeated head collisions, blamed the NFL for his condition.

He had played football in his youth, but never at the professional level. His note, found on his body after he shot himself, said he wanted his brain studied, to contribute to the understanding of his condition.

This wasn’t just an ordinary act of violence; it was a tragic collision of a mentally unstable man and a gun.

A growing crisis

America is in the midst of an unprecedented mental health crisis. As I walk through cities like New York, I am confronted by the increasing number of unstable individuals teetering on the brink of violence. Not long ago, my wife and I were walking through Manhattan when a man on a bike circled us, looking me directly in the eye, saying, “I’m going to kill me a white man today. Today is the day.”

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

The man was clearly unhinged. Fortunately, he noticed the armed security behind us, and he quickly rode away. But what if they hadn’t been there? What if he had been someone who wasn’t aware of the people around him?

The world we live in today is one where violence is erupting in public spaces, fueled by mental illness, societal breakdown, and a lack of accountability — and it’s becoming a national trend. This isn’t just about guns or laws — it’s about what’s happening inside the minds of those who perpetrate these acts.

A wake-up call

It’s easy for people to point fingers. To blame social media, to blame the media itself, to call for more laws. But this crisis is about much more than that. It’s about a loss of morality, family, social cohesion, transcendent purpose, genuine human connection, and so much more that comes with a society whose values are rooted in God’s truth.

I’m not a mental health expert, but surely the degeneration of these social goods and the historic rise in mental disorders, especially among young people, are not coincidental. We can’t keep turning a blind eye to such things and pretend that new laws or more regulations will fix it.

This isn’t just about changing laws; it’s about changing hearts. If we don’t, we’ll keep losing those we hold dear.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The DARK truth behind the Macrons' absurd lawsuit

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

While the media obsesses over elite scandals, Glenn is having a field day exposing the Macron lawsuit farce—and the twisted truth it tries to bury.

The era of unchecked narratives is coming to an end. We're reclaiming reality, one scandal at a time.

On his show, Glenn couldn't hide his glee over French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte suing Candace Owens for claiming she's really a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux. Glenn called Brigitte the "Jeffrey Epstein of France" for grooming a 15-year-old Emmanuel when she was his 40-year-old teacher, and speculated that she is pressuring her husband to silence the rumors. Glenn also mocked the blatant overkill, which included childhood photos, birth announcements, and a desperate proclamation that Brigitte is "a woman."

But it goes deeper: The liberal elites have long proclaimed that transitioning is "wonderful," so why sue over the insinuation? It's hypocrisy—elites demanding silence on grooming while forcing conformity. This isn't about truth; it's control, proving no one's above scrutiny.

Want to see the absurd lawsuit firsthand? Download the Macron v. Owens lawsuit PDF here and see the evidence for yourself.

Download the PDF here.

BREAKING: Top-secret 2020 House Intel report on Brennan's ICA revealed

Brooks Kraft / Contributor | Getty Images

The following oversight report from the House Intelligence Committee examines the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) rushed out by the Obama administration before leaving office in January 2017.

This report has never been released to the public. Until now.

The House Intelligence Committee’s review began in 2017, shortly after the ICA’s release, and continued through 2020, paralleling a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, which concluded in fall 2020.

Before its declassification by President Trump and public release by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, this report was among the U.S. government’s most highly classified documents. Its sensitive level of compartmentation prohibited storage on top-secret computer networks. Only five physical copies existed, all secured in safes under strict protocols. This extreme classification suggests the Obama administration sought to prevent the public from learning the extent of its alleged deception.