by RoseAnn Salanitri, TPATH Contributor, ©2016

(Aug. 13, 2016) — The Democratic convention was filled with accolades about the accomplishments of Hillary Clinton.  In true Clinton style, every effort was made to pander to groups she believes she owns, groups who believe she cares about them and their causes when all she cares about is getting their vote. They have confused exploitation with compassion. What the convention contained was predictable, but what it didn’t contain was the proverbial elephant in the room that went unnoticed.

Among all the altruistic hoopla at the convention, not a word was said about the Clinton Foundation or any of its philanthropic endeavors.  Of course these endeavors cannot be easily traced, since the Foundation was created in Canada (although it is located in New York), and is not subject to our laws regarding transparency.  We can only speculate about what the Foundation slogan means when it says it is designed for “Creating Partnerships of Purpose.” Since any “partnerships” or “purposes” remain undefined, one can only assume that perhaps Mrs. Clinton is not proud of those accomplishments, they don’t exist, or she prefers for them to remain under the public’s radar.  Regardless, their absence on the convention stage is revealing and should be noted.

Also absent from the convention were any personal donations made by the Clintons in an effort to eradicate poverty and help those stuck in low-income scenarios. This is very strange for an organization that was created to help those in need and for someone who pretends her heart bleeds for the financially-challenged. Similarly, Mrs. Clinton did not tell us about any plans she has to donate the assets in her large portfolio to implement her policies on economic equality. She certainly is not shy about telling those locked in the poverty pit how she will take our money and give it to them, so why isn’t she telling us how she will give them her money? Shouldn’t a “leader” lead by example if they want others to follow?

Additionally absent from the list of speakers was anyone that Mr. Khan’s law office represents(ed) from the Middle East who paid large sums of money to Mr. Khan for the procurement of an EB5 immigration visa.  After all, aren’t they part of the vast number of refugees peacefully seeking asylum here in America that Mrs. Clinton is promoting? Shouldn’t one of them have been willing to tell their story? If the refugee program is about providing safety from persecution, surely there must be as many heartbreaking stories supporting that message as there are refugees. Of course we couldn’t expect the Christian parents of the many children beheaded by ISIS to tell their story because they are not part of the refugee open-door policy. So where were all of these other refugees during the convention? Where were the tragic stories of the atrocities they have endured and need to escape? And isn’t it strange that the same mainstream media that dragged Mr. Trump through the mud for suggesting Mrs. Khan stood silent due to Islamic rules and traditions didn’t once mention that Mr. Khan spoke and wrote about his support for Sharia Law, and its trumping (not sorry for the pun) Constitutional law? While Mr. Kahn excoriated Mr. Trump about his knowledge of the Constitution, wouldn’t it have been fair for the media to question Mr. Kahn about his well-documented opinions supporting Sharia Law over man-made laws, i.e., the Constitution. And since I haven’t been able to substantiate it,  I won’t even go into the allegations about the $375,000 deposit the Clinton Foundation made into Mr. Kahn’s law firm’s account on August 1st.

While the convention focused on Mrs. Clinton’s reported accomplishments on behalf of families, there wasn’t a mention of her accomplishments as Secretary of State. Nor was there any mention of her credibility as someone who would guard our national security and protect our citizens abroad, such as those who died in Benghazi.  Where were the stories attesting to Mrs. Clinton’s successes in foreign policy or the trust she should have earned in that position? In this situation, absence of evidence does mean evidence of absence – or non-existence.

Yes, there was a bump for Mrs. Clinton after the convention, but perhaps that bump would not have existed if someone in the media had paid attention to the elephant in the room.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.