Letter to the editor: How does that grab you?
Social Security’s Trust Fund should currently have $2.5 trillion in surplus. Economics professor Dr. Allen Smith’s been reporting on the theft of Social Security funds for years. He summarized that the government’s $2.5 trillion debt to Social Security is the real reason so many politicians want to cut benefits. They’re trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted money since much of the surplus revenue from the 1983 payroll tax hike ended up in the pockets of the super rich (hmmm … “your” representatives?). The government used revenue from the Social Security payroll tax hike to fund tax cuts for the rich because that was where the money was.
Numerous sources indicate the Trump Foundation received zero donations from Russia and the Clinton Foundation received over $145 million and that the Clintons received large sums of money directly and indirectly from Russian officials while Hillary was Secretary of State. Bill Clinton was paid a meager $500,000 (well above his normal fee) for a speech in Moscow in 2010. Who would be motivated to push for an endless media storm of “collusion accusations” to deflect from exposing their own dealings?
There’s an April 23, 2015, article on NPR’s site titled “Clinton Foundation Linked To Russian Effort To Buy Uranium Company.” In the article, NPR’s Robert Siegel spoke about Russia’s foray into the U.S. uranium market and how the Clinton Foundation may have facilitated and benefited from it. Also, National Review’s website has an interesting article on the matter citing, “While visiting Moscow on March 24, 2010, Hillary Clinton explained the Reset’s purpose: “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.” It doesn’t take much research to find that President Trump’s been tougher on Russia in two years than Obama was in eight years.
You can find many differing sources stating that in 2014 the Clinton Foundation took in $91.3 million of which their IRS filing showed that only 5.7 percent of that money made it to actual charities while 94.3 percent went to “salaries and benefits,” and “other costs.” “Snopes” tried to debunk this, but a 2009 FactCheck.org exposed Snopes.com as an extremely liberal propaganda site with an agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative, noting further that Snopes has no employees, its owner has zero investigative research experience, yet Facebook hired him to fact check the news on their site. How’s that grab you?