Shouldn’t ‘Pro Woman’ Hillary Return the Million$ She Received From Saudi Arabia?

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton likes to tout herself as being “pro woman. In the following video, she tells the crowd at the World Summit that people must support women. She explains that “Women’s rights have come a long way, but there is still work to be done.”  She also wants women’s suffrage around the world to stop. That’s all sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?

https://youtu.be/rYehXoP0tw0

YET… Hillary Clinton, through the Clinton Foundation, has received tens of millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and other countries that are horribly oppressive toward women.

According to the New York Times:

“The Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the State Department — before, during and after Mrs. Clinton’s time as secretary — criticized for their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues. The countries include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Brunei and Algeria.

Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor. The kingdom gave between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. (Donations are typically reported in broad ranges, not specific amounts.) At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, which was co-founded by a Saudi prince.”

Saudi Arabia’s oppression of women goes way beyond its ban on driving.

As the Washington Post reports:

“Here’s the rundown: each Saudi woman has a “male guardian,” typically their father or brother or husband, who has the same sort of legal power over her that a parent has over a child. She needs his formal permission to travel, work, go to school or get medical treatment. She’s also dependent on him for everything: money, housing, and, because the driving ban means she needs a driver to go anywhere, even the ability to go to the store or visit a friend.

It’s one thing for women to depend on men to go anywhere, putting their movement under male veto power. But it’s quite another when they also must have a man’s approval to travel abroad, get a job or do just about anything that involves being outside of the home. It consigns women to second-class-citizenship, which is unfortunately common in a number of countries, but goes a step further in Saudi Arabia. Saudi women have many of their most basic rights reduced to probationary privileges, granted only if the man who is assigned as their “guardian” feels like granting them. And because women are typically forbidden to interact with men who are not family members, they’ve got little to no recourse beyond that guardian. The almost complete lack of political rights doesn’t help, either.

The restrictions go beyond the law: women are often taught from an early age to approach the world outside their male guardian’s home with fear and shame. A 1980s “educational flyer” still posted at a school in Buraydah warned against the “dangers that threaten the Muslim woman,” such as listening to music, going to a mixed-gender mall or answering the telephone. It drove home that “danger” with an image of a woman, in a full black burqa, being stabbed in the chest with a kitchen knife.”

So, if Hillary Clinton is truly “pro woman,” shouldn’t she return those millions back to Saudi Arabia? After all, why would she want money from nations that treat women like second-class citizens? Just a thought.