Is It a “Slush Fund” or “Phenomenal Life Saving Success”?

hillary slushNow that Hillary has dodges the email scandal, the focus has shifted to The Clinton Foundation.

Isn’t it amazing how the media fails to provide the truth about The Clinton Foundation?

According to one media source, The Clinton Foundation is a “slush fund”, a mega charity vehicle for the Clintons to exercise power and get richer:

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

While the liberal media outlet, Slate, paints The Clinton Foundation as a “Phenomenal Life Saving Success”:

Mostly lost in this debate, however, is what the Clinton Foundation actually does.

I suspect many Americans have fallen for the myth, tirelessly perpetuated by the Weekly Standard and other GOP water-carriers, that the foundation is “more a slush fund than a charity.” I also suspect that the authors of these traducements—as well as the editorial board writers blithely demanding that the Clintons withdraw from their own charity—have never seriously examined the foundation’s work.

That makes sense: The Clinton Foundation runs one of the most phenomenally successful AIDS relief programs of all time, and AIDS relief is simply not on most straight people’s radars. But let me provide a bit more background about the foundation’s work to provide a more complete picture of this purported “slush fund.”

The question isn’t if The Clinton Foundation is a slush fund or life-saving success.

The question is what exactly was Hillary’s involvement, has her involvement compromised our nation’s security, and how can we trust that as President she won’t put personal power and wealth above national security?

To date, she has failed to clearly answer this deadly serious question.


You may also like...