Is Hillary Clinton A Defender of Women’s Rights If She Accepts Money From Those Who Oppress Women?
“The end cannot justify the means, for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced.” – Aldous Huxley
If the end result of a series of actions is righteous, are the means taken always justified? If not, what means are acceptable—or at least reasonably justifiable—in order to achieve what one believes is a valuable end? How does one come to know the moral boundaries one must follow when pursuing a supposedly righteous end, under whose discretion are those boundaries drawn, and for whose gain? Lastly, do the boundaries change depending on the situation?
These are all legitimate questions one must ask regarding many life decisions, and ones I would like to ask regarding the foreign donations made to the Clinton Foundation.
It was recently made public that the Clinton Foundation has received millions of dollars from questionable sources. The New York Times reports:
“…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.”
In light of her likely 2016 run, and her stance on “equal rights for women” (I put that phrase in quotes because much of what the left claims falls under the notion of ‘equal rights’ is debatable), Hillary Clinton has been taken to task for her foundation accepting these donations.
If Hillary Clinton is such a defender of women’s rights, how on earth could she allow her foundation to accept donations from countries that not only restrict women’s rights, but actively oppress women? I would say that is a legitimate question, and one that demands an explanation. Well, husband-of-the-year Bill Clinton has come out swinging, defending the foreign donations.
Breitbart reports that during a speech for the Clinton Global Initiative, Bill said:
“You’ve got to decide, when you do this work whether it’ll do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country…my theory about all this is disclose everything, and then let people make their judgments. But I think there are more than 300,000 people, you should know this, who in some form or fashion have contributed money to the work we’ve done over the years, and I believe we’ve done a lot more good than harm.”
Broken down, all Bill Clinton is saying is “the ends justify the means.” But as an alleged defender of women’s rights, is Hillary Clinton justified in taking money from leaders whose records on such rights are quite honestly horrifying? A useful method by which one can tell if the media/general public is judging a situation objectively is to reverse the Party of the politician participating in the act.
If Sarah Palin were running for President in 2016, and she were running on a long-standing record of women’s rights, would the media be so uninterested in donations made to her foundation by countries that don’t allow women to drive, or touch a man? No, they would be outraged, and it would be all they could talk about. There would be demands that Palin return the money, and disavow those who contributed it. There would be press conferences, and public apologies. It would be a circus.
Understanding this reversal makes it easy to answer my opening questions regarding ends and means. Boundaries are drawn by those in control. The Clinton’s—for now—are in control, simply because they are so beloved by the media. The Clinton’s have a hold on the media that very few have, and through that hold, they can manipulate public perception. Justification becomes completely irrelevant if one doesn’t have to answer to a higher power—in this case, the American people.
We are told that Hillary Clinton is an ardent defender of women’s rights, so she is. We are told that the ends justify the means, so they do. We are told that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy targeting Hillary Clinton, so there is.
The American people have chosen to take the blue pill rather than the red, so rather than vet candidates as they should be vetted, only conservatives are to be vetted. Investigations into liberals amount to nothing more than witch hunts, and nonsense.
Is Hillary justified? It doesn’t matter.