Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Happened on Fox When Gingrich Mentioned Soros?
Something odd happened on Fox when former Speaker Newt Gingrich, a guest on the show Outnumbered, mentioned George Soros as one of the people funding the radical segments of our society, including BLM, the riots, etc. He was cut off by two of the panel, and an awkward pause ensued. Then they cut him off and proceeded to talk about another story.
Soros has been accused of buying the media and fueling government disruptions across the globe for decades. A critical election is seven weeks out and much of the media is biased toward the liberal agenda and beyond. Fox remains one of the few forums that offer alternative thought, including news stories that many will not touch. So what happened when Newt used the “S” word on their show? You be the judge:
Harris Faulker, who hosts the show was caught off guard and had something to say about it.
“So, we had a little incident on the show yesterday that was not smooth,” she said. “While I was leading that segment, we had interruptions, and I sat silently while all of that played out. Also not ideal. Our guest, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is beloved and needed to be allowed to speak with the openness and respect that the show was all about, was interrupted. Do we debate with fire here? Yes. But we must also give each other the space to express ourselves.”
Published in General
I trust Fox news about 10% more than I trust the rest of the MSM. although their flagship shows are balanced or even leaning conservative, there is no way the rest of their news room is stocked with conservative journalists.
Possibly relevant to that.
It’s not anti-Semitic to oppose George Soros no matter what the leftists tell you.
I don’t think it is, either, but it’s one possible reason for people to oppose (or loathe) him.
Very interesting.
When you follow Julie Kelly at American Greatness, this is basically the same thing around the organized never trump. They are all funded by Pierre Omidyar. I mean it is really bad. Those guys are complete and total prostitutes. It’s such a shame that so many Republicans fall for this crap.
Let’s try this on for size.
When people criticize an individual of a subgroup and call them racial epithets, but there are other reasons to be opposed to the person besides their race, it is a 99.9% chance the person is getting slurs thrown at them because of >other reasons<.
I would say, benefit of the doubt and grace is a better means to handle those people rather than slurring them with anti-semitism. Are their criticisms of him true? Are they earning of criticism? If you disagree, have an honest conversation instead of throwing around your own slurs.
I think they’re unhinged.
Name one anti-Conservative thing to destroy the West that Soros is accused of funding and show me proof that he (1) supports it and (2) funds it.
His secretary of state project and his attorney general / prosecutor project. He can raise a ton of hell with very little money. He gives a lot of money to organizing.
Soros’ endowment for this stuff is 14 billion. That means it throws off rock-bottom minimum 200 million a year.
The fact is, people need his money for grants and jobs and far too many need direct jobs from him or sort of socialist solutions he’s proposing.
I think he probably does a lot of underhanded things, but I think I get his worldview. He thinks a borderless world with a lot of central planning could solve a lot of problems. I have no idea if you can just leave it at that or if he’s really got some nefarious kookie beliefs.
He also did something in England that affected their monetary policy. He tanked their economy and made a fortune off doing it. It’s an old story, but the information is probably online somewhere.
A borderless world facilitated by man is, in my worldview, exact opposite of God’s plan, ergo “evil.” Since I don’t know how we define “good” and “evil” outside of that beyond what gives us warm fuzzies in hormonal responses, I’m going with that. It doesn’t matter if he is well intentioned if he aligns himself with a plan directly contrary to God’s.
Nations are useful in isolating other nations from the well intentioned bad ideas other nations might come up with. By destroying borders and setting up one world rule, we all become subject to the whims of the same error-prone humans. That is not wise, by any stretch of the imagination. So regardless of whether he is a good person by doing things that give him warm fuzzies, as long as he is doing things right in his eyes and not right in some objective sense of rightness borne of a morality that transcends the immediate here and now (and his own amygdala), he’s not on my happy list. And he has power, influence, and money (the same thing) to act on his questionable ideas, which makes him dangerous.
I think the truth about that was, England was screwing up majorly and he just tipped them over the edge. The politicians were relieved it happened so they could blame it on him. Then they started doing reforms.
I’m not an expert on him but I think this is one of his major points he makes. He thinks having separate countries, 2/3 of them run by idiots is the only reason he can make a pile of money as a speculator. If you got rid of all of that you’d have a better world. I think that’s basically the way he approaches things. He could also be a total megalomaniac. lol
Has the stigma of being antisemitic worn off? Not in the entertainment industry.
Of course being Jewish has little to do with dislike of Soros, but that doesn’t keep left wingers from making the accusation.
The Czech are second to none in terms of being oppressed and enslaved for centuries (by the Hapsburgs), but we get no credit for that. Go figure.
Does “Highland Clearances” refer to the genocide after 1750? If so I can claim victim points for that, too.
This isn’t really my thing, but if you listen to the latest Chris Buskirk podcast on American Greatness, he gets into how a Soros type NGO etc. gets so powerful. He’s interviewing two people from Europe.
Someone should write some thing about that interview.
Zafar – this might be a good time to do your own homework – there is plenty of evidence on line of Soros’ destructiveness, both verbally from the mouths of people taking his money, to manipulating stocks, to pumping cash into groups that fuel unrest. It’s been going on for a long time, so you better start now to catch up. Let us know what you learn.
Baloney. Put up or.
We can’t mention Soros on Fox News.
But… but… but Soros is a Jew! To speak against him is anti-Semitic!
George Soros is a self-promoting man who became very wealthy and has taken it upon himself, as if a hobby, to take down the United States and essentially reform the world according to his own lights.
He worked as a child with the nazis against the Jews and justified it as an adult by saying “Someone was going to do it!” why not me?
Soros does not self-identify as a Jew, celebrate Judaism, speak or write about Judaism, does not hold to the Torah, and does not attend synagogue.
To find anything relating to Soros being Jewish, or a backlash against Soros being Jewish, is to introduce a Jewishness that doesn’t have any material relationship to what Soros has being doing, and what is being discussed.
It appears that Jewishness is being introduced to avoid the real criticism of his Globalist plans. And as such is deliberately disingenuous.
We’re dealing with a Charlottesville-type issue here. There are two groups of people criticizing Soros. One are conservatives who dislike his politics. That’s what we’re seeing on Ricochet. Another group is made up of people who despise Jews and will believe any kooky, sick theory about them. Those are the people who believe in Pizzagate and think that Seth Rich’s family is being paid by Soros to conceal the facts about their son’s murder.
I reserve the right to criticize Soro’s open borders policies. I also reserve the right to scrape Nazi dimwits off the bottom of my shoe. These are not mutually exclusive.
Don’t bet on it. I saw him in a lengthy interview a few years ago where he proclaimed that he was dedicated to socialism for the entire planet. He’s dead serious, and I don’t believe for a minute that he doesn’t know just exactly where his money is going and why.
So if Soros understands that the kind of world he seems to want, would take away the riches and stuff that he enjoys now, then just save time:
Impoverish Soros NOW.
He can have what he wants, for himself, without inconveniencing anyone else.
Win-win!
This is why Soros has so much power:
https://ricochet.com/802905/should-the-us-constitution-have-eliminated-the-monetary-unit/#comment-4918126
Your last two sentences embody why the claim of anti-semite is used over 75% of the time. A person must never speak ill of the House of Rothschild, or of Henry Kissinger, or now of Soros, because of their religion.
So all the ills that have been brought about by those people’s policies are to be swept under the rug.
Nor should anyone ever discuss AIPAC. Unless they want the same smear attack to be made.
Except let’s remember, someone can be ethnically Jewish, without being religiously Jewish.
And if a person denies his Jewishness, what does his ethnicity have to do with his deeds?
There is that. But if you asked the “Palestinians” et al, I don’t think they care if the person they want to drive into the sea, is actually a religious Jew or not.
And thus the Jew-hatred by those who are both aligned with the Palestinians and who defend the communist Soros from the pseudo-anti-Semites.
George Soros sucks outright based on his behavior. That is always the way I have always thought about him. I am a total, unreserved philosemite for a variety of reasons, and I have never, ever thought of him as a Jew.