Hillary Clinton’s Record On Defending Women’s Rights

image: Getty Images

There is no such a thing as the Clinton’s fight for women’s rights. The closest thing to the Clinton’s dealing with women’s rights is their desire to sell out to dictatorships who smash women’s right in exchange for donations channeled to their foundation.

(The Real Agenda News) Hillary Clinton’s record on women’s rights is clear: She has spoken a lot about it; she has even publicly criticized those who abuse women’s rights, yet in practice, she has done nothing of significance to further women’s rights anywhere in the world other than using the Clinton name to channel money to her husband’s foundation.

During a week when Mrs. Clinton is supposed to celebrate yet another anniversary of her 1995 speech against China’s poor record on women’s rights, the Democratic candidate is having to defend her record as a supposed advocate for women’s rights.

Mrs. Clinton’s rhetoric has been full of statements that seem to advance women and gender equality, which she says, has been her main concern since she became a public figure several years ago. In practice, however, she has very little to show for when it comes to championing women’s issues. In fact, Clinton has only two things that can be highlighted:

1. Her desire to use her gender to gain political advantage
2. Her thirst for money and power while using women’s rights as a launching pad for her multiple ambitious agendas that have nothing to do with advancing gender equality.

Mrs. Clinton’s hunger for power and money has come as far as to claim that people should elect her president for the simple fact that she is a woman. The same opinion was echoed by Madeleine Albright, who during a speech said there was a place in hell for people who did not support Clinton in the primaries and the general election.

The clearest example of Hillary’s contempt for women and women’s rights is the fact that the Clinton Foundation, a supposed philanthropic organization that alleges to fight for women’s rights worldwide, has received millions of dollars from nations that are well-known for oppressing women.

As reported by the New York Times, the Clinton Foundation has received donations “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.” According to the Times, many of these donations were provided before and during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.

The US’s Department of State recognizes Saudi Arabia as one of the strongest offenders of women’s rights for its “lack of equal rights for women and children… violence against women, human trafficking and gender discrimination, among other abuses,” that are all too common in te country.

Despite Saudi Arabia’s recognized violations of women’s rights, the Clinton Foundation has accepted around $10 million in Saudi donations since 2001.

What does former president, Bill Clinton, have to say about it? Not much.

“Do we agree with everything they do? No. You’ve got to decide when you do this work whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country,”

But the Clinton’s double standards on women’s issues is not limited to Saudi donations. While occupying the position of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton approved the sale of billions in weapons to regimes such as Saudi Arabia and other Arab states that are well-known offenders of women’s rights.

The sale of weapons made by Boeing to the Saudi Kingdom was a personal project of Mrs. Clinton, according to her former Assistant Secretary of State, Andrew Shapiro, who, according to the International Business Times, explained that the sale of weapons had been a trop priority for Mrs. Clinton.

But money flowing to the Clinton Foundation did not only come from dictatorial regimes in the Middle East; it also came from weapons manufacturers. According to IBT, Boeing ‘donated’ $900,000 to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton’s State Department “approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State,” explains IBT.

“The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration,” the article explains.

Donations to the Clinton Foundation did not stop with Boeing. Mrs. Clinton’s husband received millions in fees paid to him for delivering speeches. Before there is any doubt about a connection between a speech and donations made afterward, it is important to know that along with Boeing, other weapons manufacturers and their subsidiaries were awarded $163 billion in arms deals that received the blessing from candidate Clinton.

In addition to Saudi Arabia, countries like Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar are in the list of nations that gave money to the Clinton Foundation. These regimes also gained permission from the State Department to purchase other American-made weapons, even though the very same DoS that found these countries to be grave offenders of women’s rights.

While “Clinton complained of an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority” in practice she was advancing her Foundation’s funding goals from the very same governments she accused of violating women’s rights.

All of a sudden, Bernie Sanders’ comments on Clinton’s lack of good judgment do not seem so far-fetched. Even if Mrs. Clinton ‘unknowingly’ channeled all that money into her Foundation’s coffers, publicly she would not be exempted from dealing with dictatorships and approving weapons sales while receiving millions in donations.

Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, it was her husband who signed a directive to make the State Department responsible for reviewing and approving licenses for foreign governments who seek to purchase American-made weapons, so it was Mrs. Clinton’s job to make sure those weapons did not make it into the hands of any of the countries cited above.

IN 2010, “the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and its lobbyists met with the State Department officials who oversee enforcement of human rights policies. Clinton’s State Department the next year approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country,” reports the International Business Times.

The same situation took place with the government of Qatar, whose allowance for purchasing American-made weapons increased 14 times thanks to Clinton’s State Department authorizations. Companies that benefited from the sales of weapons to Qatar later donated handsomely to the Clinton Foundation. Those companies include United Technologies, Lockheed Martin and General Electric. Incidentally, Chelsea Clinton was hired as a correspondent by NBC, whose parent company is GE.

Despite Hillary Clinton’s claims during her confirmation hearings that she and her husband would do anything possible to avoid conflicts of interest, Mr. Clinton did receive over $600,000 in speaking fees from some of the companies that were favored by Hillary’s State Department.

Bill Clinton’s sponsors include Lockheed Martin, Goldman Sachs, Kuwait-America and Boeing. Some of the monies paid to Clinton were channeled through his Foundation, while the rest was paid to the Clinton Global Initiative.

The information cited above proves that Hillary and Bill Clinton, while claiming that they advocate for women’s issues, have used their name political influence and the cause of women’s rights to channel money into their Foundation.

Hillary’s poor record on fighting for women’s rights, as shown above, is even poorer if one takes into account her complacency with her husband’s abuse of women, as explained by the victims themselves.