The New York Times is raising concerns about Hillary Clinton money in relation to women’s rights. But the gifts of money raise other problems.
So, as the liberal knives continue to be drawn and aimed at Hillary Clinton, the New York Times makes a contribution: “Hillary Clinton Faces Test of Record as Women’s Advocate.”
It was supposed to be a carefully planned anniversary to mark one of the most important and widely praised moments in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s political career — and to remind the country, ahead of a likely 2016 presidential campaign, about her long record as a champion for the rights of women and girls.
Instead, as Mrs. Clinton commemorates her 1995 women’s rights speech in Beijing in back-to-back events in New York, she finds herself under attack for her family foundation’s acceptance of millions of dollars in donations from Middle Eastern countries known for violence against women and for denying them many basic freedoms.
This was not how she intended to reintroduce herself to American voters.
But the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei — all of which the State Department has faulted over their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues.
The department’s 2011 human rights report on Saudi Arabia, the last such yearly review prepared during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, tersely faulted the kingdom for “a lack of equal rights for women and children,” and said violence against women, human trafficking and gender discrimination, among other abuses, were all “common” there.
Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor to the Clinton Foundation, giving at least $10 million since 2001, according to foundation disclosures. At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, co-founded by a Saudi prince.
First of all, there is a whole corruption angle, related to the illegal use of a private email server, that should be discussed. Perhaps I’ll devote a post about it in the near future.
What I want to ask here is how this piece of hypocrisy on the part of Hillary Clinton can be isolated from all the other hypocritical actions that we have seen, not only from Hillary, but from the entire administration.
The Obama White House, after pretending to be against homosexual marriage, and then pretending to have a change of heart on the issue, is now pushing acceptance of homosexual marriage as a requirement for the New World Order. Thus, even before Ukraine, Barack Obama worked hard to restart a cold war with Russia over homosexual rights. So we had the spectacle of Russia being publicly criticized while we remained steadfast and rather quiet allies with Saudi Arabia—a country where homosexuals are executed.
Whatever personal corruption is involved in receiving donations from the Saudis, at a public level it is pretty much analogous to how our own foreign policy is completely beholden to the Saudis. How can we claim to be fighting for human rights in the name of a family dynasty that has a horrible human rights record?
But another issue here has been the religious elephant in the room: Islam. How can we pretend that we support Islam, and insist that terrorists are not really Islamic, while at the same time criticizing Hillary for getting support from Islamic regimes? The truth is that Islam as a cultural force is the reason why these nations tend to oppress women. Everyone knows this, and yet everyone pretends the connection doesn’t exist.
And finally, of course, is the hypocrisy of claiming to fight ISIS even while our allies, the same people who have donated to Hillary Clinton, were responsible for creating ISIS (with our aid and approval, truth be told).