The “Journalist” Interview of Putin Wasn’t Just Bad—It Was Propaganda

You can accuse mainstream outlets like MSNBC of being “state-run” all you want, but the proof is in the pudding.

In WW2 A newspaper owned by a U.S. President would be bad, but a newspaper owned by Hitler would be worse.

Tucker Carlson has always been and always will be an opportunist who has no problem capitulating to a dictator rather than engaging in journalism that serves We the People.

And men like Putin know that he would only be useful until he needs to have them executed, because men like Carlson will always go wherever the wind blows them.

The popularity of such a “news” personality should concern you greatly. If Russia ever successfully invaded the U.S., Tucker Carlson would be among those who would gladly shake hands with a dictator and volunteer to be his personal spokesperson. Because he already has.

So if he’s bad for our country, and we want to be a healthy democracy, our solution is to refuse to watch him, and address the serious problem of those who do watch him. That is why one should never apologize for ridiculing, mocking, and exposing fans of his material. This isn’t about opinion or taste in television. It’s about duty to your fellow man.

As to John Stewart, John Oliver, or Stephen Colbert, whether you like them or not, they excel at reminding us the emperor has no clothes.

Men like Tucker Carlson will bend over backwards to tell a naked king, “what fine threads you have.”

Das Vidanya, Ethical Leadership

Last week, Fox News analyst Ralph Peters said goodbye to his news network. In a scalding hot letter of intent, Col. Peters, after a decade of working with Fox, came out as ashamed of the network for having “degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration.Continue reading

My Response to Jim DeMint’s Response to Putin: On American Exceptionalism

DeMint’s letter to Putin can be found here.

DeMint would need to provided evidence that America is dedicated to the universal principle of human liberty. Given recent events, as well as the conditions of the African American and American Indian during the early years of The United States, this principle is not clearly held, and if one were to prove that it is and was, one would bear the burden of proof. Perhaps DeMint will provide such proof in his sequel letter?
Continue reading