Posted by: Ann Corcoran | February 9, 2012

The money-man behind Rick Santorum

Follow the money! is the admonition we hear all the time.  I used to dismiss that notion—that money was always determinative in one’s behavior, especially in politics.  After all, I argued there are people who truly care about the country and are not running for office to help themselves and their cronies to the government/corporate/non-profit feeding trough.

So, when I saw this article posted today, I expected to find some shady money-bags behind Rick Santorum, some reprehensible man (or woman) with a lot of baggage (LOL! suitcases full of dirty money).

Instead I am delighted to know there are people like Foster Friess.  Although, I will probably now risk the wrath of readers who will surely dig up some dirt on Friess.

From Daily Finance:

And behind each super PAC, it seems, is at least one extremely wealthy individual, committed for his own reasons to a particular candidate. Newt Gingrich has casino mogul Sheldon Adelson; Rick Santorum, who stunned the political world Tuesday night by winning three (admittedly nonbinding) state GOP contests — in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota — has Foster S. Friess, a hugely successful investor who calls himself, rather immodestly, “the man atop the horse.”

We learn further from Daily Finance that he is a self-made man(didn’t inherit his wealth), grew up on a cattle ranch, went to a state university (not Yale or Harvard), and became a born-again Christian.  It is that last part, we are told, that attracted him to Rick Santorum.

I think as each one of us looks at the Presidential candidates we really decide which addresses our personal grievances of what we see is wrong with the country and we want to know how that candidate might address our greatest fears.  I know, I know, some people just calculate who they think can win, but I don’t.

This article reports on one aspect of Friess’ world view that especially causes me to jump for joy.  He believes in private charity.  I started a post the other day which I haven’t finished about the proliferation of non-profit groups feeding from the taxpayer troughs both at the federal and state levels.  Some promote good causes (in the eye of the beholder of course), but many promote their own political agendas having, I believe, stolen from others through government handouts.

I don’t have to tell you that CASA de Maryland is one of those “charities.”  And, frankly, after 5 years of following the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, another charity at the trough, I have no sympathy for them now that Obama has nailed them.  They took their 30 pieces of silver from government and now will reap their reward.  Do you think for a minute that if Obama blinks on the health care mandate and gives them an exemption they will have learned a lesson and back away from the trough or the teat, or however you want to put it?

I’m going on long here.  This is what we learned about Friess:

In the midst of these windfalls, the newly-minted Christian turned his attention to philanthropy. Friess cites Scripture as the inspiration for his financial altruism — specifically, Galatians 6:2 (“When we carry one another’s burdens, we fulfill the law of Christ”) and Matthew 25:35-40 (“When you do it for the least of my brethren, you do it for Me”) — but his commitment to giving is braided together with a sociopolitical conviction. Specifically, he holds a firm belief that “private individuals are called to carry others’ burdens — rather than relying on the government to do so. In support of that philosophy, Friess has gone so far as to offer a musical festival $40,000 on the condition that they refuse $11,000 in government funding. The event organizers accepted.

I love it.  And, if this is what Santorum believes —charity is a private responsibility—then that makes him more appealing.

As for those fears I mentioned above.  Because I have followed our immigration policies that have admitted hundreds of thousands of Muslims into the US and have read widely on the issue, I am looking for someone who warns of the same fears I have, Friess (and maybe Santorum) gets it:

Friess also expresses deep concern over the threat he perceives from radical Islam, which he has called “the most threatening movement in the world today,” “more powerful than Nazism or even Communism ever was.” Santorum is simpatico with Friess here….

So, again we each see the needs of the country through a prism of what we see as the big issues and our personal fears.  Two* of my greatest concerns are also those of Foster Friess—the proliferation of “charities” dipping into the taxpayer’s pockets and through them taking more of our liberties and the threat of the spread of the Islamist agenda (this is not a fear of a terror attack, so much as a fear that they are chipping away at our culture by inserting shariah law into the very fabric of America).

* LOL! I’ve got more, it’s just that two are articulated so well in this article.


Responses

  1. I’m liking Santorum more and more, especially if he understands and rightfully perceives that the Islamist/sharia threat is the same as a slow-growing, insidious CANCER in terms of its threat to our national security. It MUST be prevented and stopped at every corner, in every way, shape and form. It is indeed the number one problem facing our nation – because if it is allowed to tear the fabric of America – we won’t have to worry about the economy – THERE WON’T BE ANY ECONOMY TO WORRY ABOUT.
    I’m thinking I will look up Santorum’s donation page at this point.

  2. Have you looked to see if Rick Santorum is qualified to serve as president? — that is, is he a “natural born citizen.” I understand his parents are native of Italy – immigrated to this country. Were they naturalized before Rick was born? Otherwise, how does he qualify? Same for Marco Rubio.

    Another point, how many candidates have splendid ‘moral’ and “ethical” qualifications, but who are wrong for the position they seek? I have seen and known many who are personally quite ethical, but their candidacy is otherwise flawed, such as by holding to rigid viewpoints and being inflexible to change or admit to mistake. Beware, for example, the person who is too insecure and fearful to admit having made mistakes. It takes courage to admit to error, and I have always admired that in politicians, because there are too few.

    I remember admiring John Kennedy when he admitted responsibility for the failure of Bay of Pigs. I had the idea that he learned from that mistake. The typical politician just justifies mistakes and doesn’t learn. Herman Cain’s problem, for example, wasn’t having false accusations thrown up against him about his personal life, but his statement “I have never done anything wrong” A more moderate position, I would respect; or perhaps “It’s none of your business”

    In politics, false accusations and outright lies are just part of what happens. The person who wins is the one who handles these with grace, without returning the salvo to others. Self-restraint in these matters is very powerful, but like the truth, is not often seen as a good “selling point”

    Bottom line, we get clever, smooth liars in high office, often self-righteous and rigidly self-justifiers, because that’s the way we are – and we don’t like the truth in action as much as the comforting lies. Bad action, even well-intentioned, brings bad results. We have to look at what people have done.

    Can you see where I’m going with this?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: