On Women’s Rights, Hillary Clinton’s Career Defined by Inaction

Zoraida Diaz/REUTERS
Zoraida Diaz/REUTERS

Former Madam Secretary, Senator, and First Lady Hillary Clinton has used the issue of women’s rights—and the desire of many Americans to see a woman in the top job—to realize her ambition for more and more power. But what has she actually done for women, locally or globally?

Unfortunately, not much; not enough to make a difference.

Clinton gained sympathy when her husband publicly humiliated her and when she was attacked in sexist ways, but she turned right around and attacked Monica Lewinsky in sexist ways, too.

Clinton also raised high hopes when she began talking the feminist talk.

In 1995, First Lady Hillary Clinton delivered a speech in Beijing at the United Nation’s Fourth World Conference on Women. It was full of lines guaranteed to draw steady applause. But, in reality, it is a speech full of platitudes and empty “calls to action.” She noted that “rape has been used as an instrument of armed conflict” and claimed that rape, female genital mutilation, and sex slavery are “violations of human rights.” She was right.

But she also claimed that “there is far more that unites us than divides us [as women].” Here, she is dead wrong. I doubt I have much in common with the female supporters of ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, or Al-Qaeda—or with the women who collaborate in the honor killing of their daughters and female relatives.

This is the speech that is famous because Clinton—a public figure—finally declared what most of the early American feminist leaders had declared in the late 1960’s: namely, that “women’s rights” are “human rights.”

Has Madam Secretary ever risked anything to save women’s lives?

There is an anecdote about her talking to women in the Congo in a refugee camp once while ignoring concerns about her security. She has also been credited with backing—merely backing—the U.N.’s adoption of a resolution—merely a resolution—that set out guidelines—merely guidelines—“for the international response to sexual assault in war-torn areas.”

Given the U.N.’s track record– including the rape and sexual harassment of U.N. employees and, according to Save The Children, the sexual exploitation and abuse of war-zone victims, including children, by U.N. peacekeeping troops—  of being unable to prevent genocide coupled with its inability to compel member nations to obey resolutions and conventions, what does it mean to appear there, however grandly?

And that is precisely where, on March 9th, Madam Secretary unofficially launched her bid for the American Presidency.

Granted, the venue provides a good photo opportunity. But has Secretary of State Clinton introduced and passed legislation that changed the lives of women and girls abroad? Has she risked her super-lucrative ties to wealthy Muslim countries in order to rescue girls and women?

I fear not.

On her watch, the most surreal misogynist and Islamist barbarism has arisen. This means that girls have been forcibly genitally mutilated, married as children to men old enough to be their fathers and grandfathers, and forcibly face- and body-veiled. They have been disfigured with acid, lashed, or murdered for violating this dress-code or wanting an education. They have been honor killed by their relatives for any reason and for no reason at all, beaten to death, driven into sex-slavery, and stoned to death for alleged adultery. They have been imprisoned, lashed, fired, or executed by the state for having been gang-raped or for daring to drive or to go out without a male chaperone.

The Clinton Foundation has received a veritable mountain of money from Saudi Arabia, where such gross human rights violations are normative. The Foundation has also received monies from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Brunei, and Algeria.

Brunei has imposed the phasing in of harsh sharia laws. Most recently, the Sultan banned Christmas. His younger brother, Prince Jefri Boliah, is exempt and can drink and host a harem of concubines and prostitutes.

The government of Qatar has funded Al-Jazeera, an anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Israel propaganda machine.

Islamist gender apartheid and misogynist violence against women also takes place in the United States.

Senator Clinton introduced or sponsored 417 bills—far too many to analyze quickly. However, of 40 bills that she introduced or sponsored, only two could be said to be related to women’s rights: “The Paycheck Fairness Act” (2009) and the “Elimination of the Single Parent Tax Act of 2008.” Neither bill was enacted.

Despite her many rousing speeches abroad, including her 1995 speech in Beijing, Ms. Clinton has sat on numerous corporate boards such as Walmart—who allegedly discriminated against its female employees. (A lawsuit was brought and lost).

Ms. Clinton has raised many millions—perhaps even billions—of dollars for the Clinton Foundation, demanded $300,000.00 as her lecture fee (with many other First Lady-like perks), and received an alleged book advance of fourteen million dollars.

She does not lead the life of most women.

In addition, our possibly first female president is surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood intimates. For 21 years, her intern, and now long-term right hand woman, has been Huma Abedin, a woman who grew up in Saudi Arabia, where her mother was an influential Muslim Brotherhood Sharia activist.

According to Andrew McCarthy in National Review, while interning for First Lady Clinton, Huma Abedin was, herself, a member of the Muslim Student Association at Georgetown which “has a vast network of chapters at universities across North America and is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States.” Huma herself was an editor on the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA).

We also know that Huma Abedin’s mother, Saleha, “has, for example, published a book called Women in Islam that claims man-made laws enslave women. It reportedly provides sharia justifications for such practices as female-genital mutilation, the death penalty for apostates from Islam, the legal subordination of women, and the participation of women in violent jihad.”

Tariq Ramadan, whose grandfather founded the Muslim Brotherhood, was not allowed to speak in the United States. Hillary Clinton changed all that when she “personally intervened to reverse a Bush-administration ruling that barred him from entering the United States.”

Ramadan—a figure glamorized by the European and American Left–remains coy about his position on the stoning to death of alleged adulteresses. He called for a moratorium on the discussion.

On Obama/Clinton’s watch, our Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was murdered together with three other Americans. Obama/Clinton did not provide security when Stevens asked for it. When the White House cover-up (“it was an American anti-Muslim video that caused the riot”) blew up in their faces (it was a carefully planned Islamist attack), Clinton, under oath, was asked whether the American people had been misled about the cause of the attack. She finally and famously said: “What difference does it make?

Yes, I would like to see a qualified woman run for and win the presidency. I fear that Hillary Clinton is not that woman.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.