Don't shut down the Clinton Foundation; move it to a more qualified country.

Early this year,  I participated in a discussion meeting that was about what organizations and efforts were benefitting humankind the most throughout the world.  The point was raised about how much former U.S. presidents, such as  Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, did to effectuate significant benefits worldwide.

Among the discussants were a prominent theologian and a political scientist, who prefers to call himself a professor of political theory and practice.  They reviewed in some detail the kind of activities in which former presidents involved themselves, and in a prescient moment the political scientist talked about how Hillary Clinton's connection with her husband's foundation would be used to attack her integrity.  He maintained that the successful fundraising activities, which include donations  from foreign countries,  corporations,  and wealthy and powerful individuals,  would be used to fabricate accusations intended to discredit her.  The Clintons have inspired in their opponents a level of malice that seems to have no depth limits.  The theologian and political scientist predicted that the purpose of the Foundation would be ignored while the opponents would contrive conspiracies of the kind characterized by the false Benghazi claims against her,  which the GOP had to give up.

The two men said that an organization that benefits humankind as much as the Clinton Foundation should not be jeopardized by the malice that is endemic in the GOP.   They said that trying to set up and maintain a humanitarian enterprise in the U.S. has become like setting up a Salvation Army mission in Isis or Taliban lands.  They said that rather than end or curtail the mission of the Clinton Foundation,  it would serve the world better to move its base of operations to another country. They claimed that Canada and the Scandinavian countries would welcome the Foundation and support its expansion.

Most of the discussants in the meeting agreed that the political and moral climate of the United States was no longer a fitting place from which to operate humanitarian programs.  While many, perhaps a majority, support them,  their adversaries create a formidable impediment, often an obstacle, to their efficient and successful operation.

CNN has profiled the activities of the Clinton Foundation:

Health is a big focus. In more than 70 countries, according to the foundation, it helps 11.5 million people, including 800,000 children, with HIV/AIDS get their medication at 90% lower cost -- more than half the adults and three-quarters of the children getting treatment in the world today.
But it does all kinds of other work as well. For instance, it helps East African farmers get better seeds and fertilizers. It supported Nepal's reconstruction after the 2015 earthquakes. And it has connected more than 500,000 Latin Americans to job training and entrepreneurship opportunities.

...

 The Clinton Foundation does tons of work in the US, too. Some examples: It has a school program that operates in every state, affecting more than 31,000 schools and 18 million students by its count. That program is to improve physical education, child nutrition, health education and staff wellness programs. They also work on prescription drug addiction. The foundation wants to halve the number of opioid overdoses -- right now those drugs kill more Americans than car accidents.

Hillary Clinton should not agree to restrict the Foundation in such a way as to end or curtail any of those activities.  Rather,  move to a base of operations where it can continue, expand, and garner more support for the good it does, rather than satisfy the ill will of the opposition party in the U.S.

And if Donald Trump should become president,  the Foundation would be beyond the reach of the misanthropic designs of the Republican party.  The U.S. could receive what it has come to deserve,  but the rest of the world could go on trying to build up the state of humankind.