Hillary: ‘Human Rights Champion’. . . Or Just a Political Whore?

F-15s (Photo credit: USAF)

F-15s (Photo credit: USAF)

(Most of this essay paraphrases a report published by the International Business Times earlier this year.)

On May 26, 2016, David Sirota and Andrew Perez of the International Business Times published an article entitled “Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department.”  It seems a consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing wanted approval to deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite Israel’s complaint to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power.  In fact, the deal seemed to contradict the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department formally cleared the sale as being in our national interest.  Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro, longtime aide to Clinton, declared that the deal had been a “top priority” for Clinton personally.  What Shapiro did not say, however, was that in the years before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.  Nor did he mention that just two months prior to the deal being approved, Boeing (which manufactures one of the jets the Saudis were to acquire) contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Coincidence?  Not when it’s viewed in light of similar such quid pro quo transactions with other Middle East nations during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.  According to the IBT article, under Clinton’s leadership the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation.  That figure represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

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% increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.  There was an 80% increase in such sales (to nations that donated to the Clinton Foundation) to all countries during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.

Her State Department approved these deals even as many of them enhanced the  military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department!  Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and then gained clearance to buy American-made weapons, even as the State Department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

Woodrow Wilcox

ADVERTISEMENT

Hmm, Hillary doesn’t want Americans to have guns, but it seems she doesn’t mind if we provide them to foreign regimes with well-documented human rights violations.

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, jobs for Clinton cohorts, etc.  Under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions, a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national policy.  So when Hillary claimed that Russia (i.e., Putin) was trying to “influence this election” through the release of her supposedly lost emails by Wikileaks…was she serious, or had she just forgotten…again…about all those donations?  Or maybe there’s no connection between the donations and the approvals; I mean, it could just be coincidence, right?

WoodrowWilcox.com

ADVERTISEMENT

All this despite Senator Richard Lugar’s (R-Ind) urging, during her confirmation hearings, to have the Clinton Foundation “forswear” accepting contributions from governments abroad because “foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the Secretary of State.”  However, just before she became Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation did sign an agreement obligating it to disclose to the State Department increases in existing foreign contributions and any new foreign government donors.  The increases were to be reviewed by “an official at the State Department” (i.e., an employee of the Secretary of State!) and “as appropriate” by the White House counsel’s office.  Sounds like the fox “guarding” the henhouse, does it not?

Lawrence Lessig, director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics (hardly a Conservative or Republican mouthpiece) said, “Hillary Clinton’s willingness to allow those with business before the State Department to finance her foundation heightens the concerns about how she would manage such relationships as president.”  You think?!

While naturally Hillary poo-poos any such link between donations and her State Department actions, she switched from opposing an American free trade agreement with Colombia to supporting it…after a Canadian energy and mining magnate with interests in Colombia contributed to the Clinton Foundation.  Another coincidence, I’d say.  Moreover, a review of the Clintons’ annual financial disclosures revealed that 13 companies lobbying the State Department paid her husband Bill $2.5 million in speaking fees while she was head of the State Department.

Here are some other “coincidences” – Clinton’s State Department’s 2010 Human Rights Report criticized Algeria for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association,” tolerating “arbitrary killing…widespread corruption…and a lack of judicial independence.”  The report said Algeria “used security grounds to constrain freedom of expression and movement.”

That year, though, Algeria donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation.  In 2011, the Clinton State Department approved a 70% increase in military export authorizations, including authorizations of almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment.”  During her tenure, the State Department authorized at least $2.4 billion of direct military hardware and services sales to Algeria, nearly triple the authorizations over the last full fiscal years during the Bush administration.  But that’s what “human rights champions’ do, I guess.

Same thing for Qatar, similarly chastised for human rights abuses.  But then Qatar donated to the Clinton Foundation, and during her three-year tenure there was a 14-fold increase in authorizations for sales of military equipment to that nation, as compared with Bush’s second term.  And the list goes on.

During her confirmation hearings in 2009, Hillary Clinton pledged “to protect against even the appearance of a conflict of interest” between Bill’s work and the duties of the Secretary of State.  Yet Bill took $625,000 in speaking fees at events sponsored by entities that were dealing with Hillary Clinton’s State Department on weapons issues.

Guess she “forgot” that pledge, too, just as she “couldn’t recall” answers to 21 of the 25 written questions she responded to under oath.  (There’s much more in that excellent article and I suggest you look it up on-line.)

Bottom line: Hillary has spent her life pursuing the presidency, but why?  She doesn’t seem to truly believe in anything, except power.  Usually people want power in order to accomplish something, be it good or bad; but when she’s had power (as a Senator, as Secretary of State), all she’s really “achieved” is to accumulate millions with the Clinton Foundation.  She claims all manner of causes when it attracts support, but then betrays or abandons them when it’s to her benefit, so that now even her backers don’t believe her campaign rhetoric; they just want “a woman president.”

Sometimes what you see is really all there is, and all I see is a tired, old, worn-out political whore, a power junkie with no other goal than that elusive ultimate “high,” available to anyone who’ll pay the price.

While that’s not unique among career politicians who can’t do anything useful for a living, the price is too high.   We’ve just lived through that “fundamental transformation of America” that Obama threatened, and it has been disastrous economically, socially and militarily.  We can’t afford another four years of a president who despises this country and its people (you know, “stupid Democrat voters…easily manipulated” and the rest of us “deplorables”).


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Formerly a liberal and an atheist, Paul E. Scates served as a Marine in Vietnam and is a lifelong student of American history, politics and culture. A former contributor to national website TooGoodReports.com, he writes his staunchly independent Conservative and informed Christian commentary for his fellow ordinary, working Americans, the “we, the people” who are ultimately responsible for preserving our Constitutional liberties.
Paul E. Scates
View all posts by Paul E. Scates
Pauls website

Comments are closed.