Skip to comments.Lobbyists Running Santorum's Faith-Based Charity
Posted on 03/08/2012 4:17:05 PM PST by red flanker
Sen. Rick Santorum calls himself the Republican point man on lobbying reform in Washington.
But Santorum's reform plan doesn't deal at all with lobbyists running charities on behalf of members of Congress.
Good thing for the Senator, because Team 4 has discovered that's exactly who's in charge of his charity, Operation Good Neighbor.
Santorum has been handing out lots of checks from his charity, Operation Good Neighbor, since he formed it in 2001.
"To me, it was part of a mission that I set out, which is I'm a great believer in the non-profit sector. I strongly believe we have an obligation to try to get more money into that," Santorum said.
But Santorum's charity has also put money -- $216,000 -- into unexplained travel and meetings through 2004.
(Excerpt) Read more at wtae.com ...
Well, I was thinking of the Red Cross, in particular, but there were others.
I just googled it, and according to this site, 90.1% of donations are spent on program expenses, while only 5.9% are spent on administration:
Of course, most of that is included in “Program Expenses,” presumably getting workers to where they are needed and the like.
How much of Santorum’s charity’s travel expenses, meal expenses, etc., are devoted to similar ends—getting people where they are needed. I don’t know, and the article doesn’t say.
AMEN, and praise God.
I haven’t found a reason to believe his repentance isn’t real.
The repentant sinner is more trustworthy than the man who thinks he’s not a sinner because he’s faithful to his wife.
this is the name of a washington post article, I don’t know if I can post the link or not. Also, if you just google santorum operation good neighbor, a few of the links have some very credible links with figures, and all the expenses were for salaries, friends, lobbyists he hired in various positions.
“Santorum charity for the poor spent most of its money on management, political friends” (Washington Post article)
It’s not mere logic—I am telling you the truth.
You’re God? You’re not telling any truth. A man is not a sinner or less trustworthy because he has honored his vows to his wife. In fact, it’s a disgustingly liberal thing to say and you should be ashamed making such an argument.
Don’t put blasphemy where it isn’t.
If I tell you the truth, I honor the Lord.
We are all sinners. Faithfulness to wife is honorable, but it doesn’t equal faithfulness to God.
Faithfulness to God starts with repentance, and Newt has repented.
As for “liberal,” here you distort an already grossly distorted term which originally had to do with liberty. Get your Bible and read it!
“Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Corinthians 3:17)
You speak the language of the soul - I don’t think jwalsh understands it. This letter is a bit of a read - 10 min or so - but worth every second. If you can read it, I am sure it will touch your heart, and maybe you will be moved to pass it around:
excerpt: “One of my early mentors always told me to never trust anyone who does not walk with a limp, since their own pride will blind them to inevitable potholes and cliffs that even Jesus struggled with.
I can forgive the personal stuff easily. You see, Im not proud of decisions I made in my first marriage. Like you, one day I looked in the mirror and realized I needed to be determined to NOT be the guy that didnt keep commitments. I had never wanted to be anything else, but it takes some of us longer than others to get our will power to reign over our perceived emotional voids.
We may not be able to change the mistakes of our past, but we can absolutely control our actions going forward. And as Ive asked God to change my life, Ive seen him make me stronger in my conviction than the so called righteous ones who were never tested.”
Look pal, you make me ill hiding behind the Good Lord. A man who is faithful to his wife has nothing to repent for in that regard. It is liberal crap and having been called on it you resort to ‘we are all sinners”. Big news flash there. Of course it has nothing to do with your declarative statement but keep digging. Sooner or later you’ll get to the part about bearing false witness and go and sin no more.
It’s not for me, you or the author to forgive Newt. That’s between Newt, his wives and God. It is utter nonsensical liberal bullcrap to claim that a faithful man is an untrustworthy sinner because he is a faithful man.
I don’t hide behind God. Openly I submit myself to Him.
You’re speaking with a double tongue, and this darkens your credibility. First you accuse me of blasphemy, then you say I’m “hiding” behind God.
One cannot overstate the fact that we are all sinners, and that faith in God starts with repentance. Take this into your heart. We all have to repent, whether we obey the seventh Commandment or break it.
I am telling you the truth!
that’s not what the poster said, and I think you know that. and if it’s between Newt and God, why don’t you just stay out of it and let it go? Listen, I’ve received enough of your hate and vitriol for a lifetime, you even made me cry once, I am ashamed to admit. but no more. You are a pharisee, just like Santorum, The Perfect One, as you and he both consider him. Have at it. I know the gospel of grace, I live the gospel of grace, I spread the gospel of grace, and people like you have been substituting their whited wall persona for the efficacy of Christ’s atonement since He was still here. so have at it and hate at me away. that doesn’t change the truth of the living gospel.
Thank you for this.
I apologise for making you cry. But I don’t hate you even a little bit. Last post to you. God bless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.