I recently was in a pub having a burger and fries. CNN was on the big-screen TV and two correspondents were discussing one of CNN’s favorite all-time topics – Hillary Clinton – and whether she will seek the presidency in 2016.
Wolf Blitzer and Candy Crowley were implying that Hillary certainly could be The Greatest American President of All Time and that if she really wanted the White House that she surely could have it.
But Crowley suggested that Hillary may see the White House as just too small an office for her global ambitions and that Clinton may want to work internationally to help “women”.
Crowley then mentioned the subject of ‘micro loans’ in nations like India. And Crowley said that ‘micro lending’ is something that Hillary is very much interested in in order to help “women”.
Micro loans are very small loans that are made by private banks (only to women, according to the media template) in poor nations for people to start their own businesses. Micro loans have proven to be very effective in raising living standards person by person.
Why are these loans successful?
Because they represent capitalism, that’s why. By inspiring the individual initiative that we capitalists are always talking about, they cultivate economic success.
And that is why it is so bizarre for CNN to be talking about Hillary Clinton in relation to micro loans. Because Hillary is a Yale-educated socialist to the core.
One of the pioneers of the micro-loan concept was Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India who in the early 1990s, as that nation’s finance minister, started India on the road to a capitalistic economy. This came after decades in which a heavily socialistic economy based on the Soviet model had created a world-class bureaucracy and widespread poverty.
Since Singh’s reforms were implemented as many as 300 million Indians have entered the middle class. Just like we capitalists said they would. Because capitalism always improves living standards over socialism. Always.
Even the Nobel Prize was awarded in 2006 to Mohammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh for promoting micro loans. Thus for one rare moment in its recent history the Nobel Prize committee recognized capitalism, although it never was touted as such.
Now look at The Mighty Hillary’s actions as US secretary of state. She has been mediocre. She does only one thing: She runs around the world reacting to various crises with stern statements that read like political boilerplate.
Big deal. She has affected nothing. She has not changed one single crisis situation for the better. She’s all talk and no action. Except that she supported the idea of using air strikes in Libya to force out Ghaddafi.
So now watch what happens in Libya. That situation is far from over. And it is not going to be positive. Despite Ghaddafi’s terrible record, he kept Libya stable and secular. But Libya now is most likely going to be taken over by Muslim radicals and it may become unstable as factions vie for power.
In fact in another of Hillary’s worst moments – and there are many – she praised the so-called Arab Spring protests of 2011. Yet those protests are going to result in strident Islamic governments in places like Egypt and Libya, governments which are going to implement Muslim sharia law which is very, very discriminatory against women.
Gee, that’s not very feminist is it Mr. Blitzer and Ms. Crowley?
By the way, the Arab Spring also is going to usher in a new age of what is being called Islamic Socialism, or extreme religious governments coupled to strict government control of the economy.
And rest assured that Islamic Socialism is going to bode poorly for capitalist lending like micro loans. Thus it sure looks like the things that Hillary has been touting as secretary of state are not going to be very good for “women”.
But we conservatives have been explaining for decades that the elite feminists at the top like Hillary are living in a separate world and do not understand, or care, how their political policies really affect “women” except conceptually.
PS: Don’t think that Hillary and her feminism are not one of the forces behind our continued presence in the Afghanistan war. Because one of the ongoing commentaries coming out of Afghanistan is that “girls are going to school for the first time ever”…
OK, so as I watched the CNN discussion in the pub I started to think: Why is CNN on the air anyway? Why not Fox?
Answer: Because no matter how left-wing CNN or MSNBC become they will always be seen as acceptable over Fox.
This is a result of the Media Left/Democrat War on Fox. Because then if Fox is shown in a public place then a liberal can go crying and demand to have the station changed because Fox is “too conservative”.
For instance I did an unscientific survey one day when I was in the airport and saw many CNNs and even some far-left MSNBCs on the TVs but no Fox in sight. Why?
Because of the War on Fox. And one of the primary goals of the war is this: You can still watch Fox in your home, but not in public places.
Only problem is that Fox is not even conservative anyway. Here’s the truth about Fox which nikitas3.com wrote about in 2011:
Below is a summary, which is occasionally posted on the drudgereport.com, which shows the total top viewership for Fox, MSNBC and CNN in prime-time for Thursday, January 20, 2011, an average winter weekday evening for news viewing:
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,918,000; FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,079,000; FOXNEWS BAIER 1,940,000; FOXNEWS SHEP 1,786,000; FOXNEWS BECK 1,780,000; FOXNEWS GRETA 1,460,000; MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,106,000; CNN PIERS 1,025,000; MSNBC MADDOW 976,000; MSNBC O'DONNELL 855,000; MSNBC SCHULTZ 760,000; CNN COOPER 740,000; MSNBC HARDBALL 700,000
So if you add up all the Fox viewers it is 10.183 million. Then add up all the viewers from the MSNBC and CNN shows and it is 6.162 million.
OK, so Fox has about 40% more viewers. It is still only 10.183 million viewers out of 310 million Americans or 3.3% of the population. And remember that not all Fox viewers are conservatives by any stretch. It is a known fact that many liberals and centrists watch Fox, while those who watch CNN/MSNBC are generally only very liberal.
Then remember that FoxNews Shep and FoxNews Baier (3.736 million viewers combined) are just basic news (Baier) and 'info-tainment' (Shep), not the right-wing bogeymen that they are made out to be.
Even Fox's O’Reilly is often criticized by conservatives as too “moderate”. And still O’Reilly had only 2.918 million viewers that night out of 310 million Americans, less than 1% of the population, and including liberals and centrists. That is not exactly a propaganda net over the nation like the left makes it out to be.
Then remember that these CNN/MSNBC shows (with the exception of Piers Morgan, the new replacement for Larry King) have a hard, relentless liberal slant.
So if you add up the viewers for the hard-left shows (Maddow, Schultz, Olbermann, Hardball, Cooper and O’Donnell) it is 5.137 million, while the viewers for the so-called ‘conservatives’ on Fox (Beck and Hannity; Greta is hardly 'conservative') was only 3.859 million and you have MORE lefty viewers. This shows how false the claim against Fox is.