{"id":11128,"date":"2011-05-18T02:00:26","date_gmt":"2011-05-18T07:00:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=11128"},"modified":"2015-06-27T19:15:22","modified_gmt":"2015-06-27T22:15:22","slug":"michael-weinstein-gets-a-pay-raise-and-religious-freedom-suffers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2011\/05\/18\/michael-weinstein-gets-a-pay-raise-and-religious-freedom-suffers\/","title":{"rendered":"Michael Weinstein Gets a Pay Raise, and Religious Freedom Suffers"},"content":{"rendered":"

In late 2009 this site noted the hypocrisy of Michael Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation over its treatment of Chaplain (LtCol) Gary Hensley.\u00a0 Weinstein’s researcher, Chris Rodda, said a sermon given by Hensley in a military chapel was “of course\u2026permissible<\/a>,” while at the same time the MRFF used video of the sermon as a fundraising prop in a list of “violations.”\u00a0 As has been demonstrated here before, it wasn’t <\/em>ironic Weinstein was raising money at the expense of the religious freedom he claims to defend.<\/p>\n

That article noted Weinstein has reaped heavily from the “non-profit” he founded and runs, allowing him to take home a paycheck of more than $250,000 in 2008 — nearly half of everything his “foundation” received\u00a0(while\u00a0Rodda simultaneously begged for donations, claiming Weinstein didn’t “even pay himself a salary”).<\/p>\n

Weinstein seemed to take umbrage at the publication of his public financial data and threatened to sue this site\u00a0for defamation<\/a>.\u00a0 He apparently thought it was damaging to his reputation for people to know 46% of his “non-profit’s” funds went directly to him\u00a0— a shocking number when compared to reputable non-profits as documented at Charity Navigator<\/a>, for example.\u00a0 The legal threat seemed to be a weak\u00a0attempt\u00a0at intimidation, as it was obvious Weinstein had no viable case and he never moved on the legal threat (though he did file a frivolous complaint with the military, and he\u00a0has repeated the open-ended threat<\/a>).\u00a0 Of course, while he dispenses vitriol with ease, Weinstein apparently wilts in the face of criticism, as he\u00a0has repeatedly\u00a0issued legal threats<\/a> against those who have the gall to point out his\u00a0hypocrisy.<\/p>\n

To the point,\u00a0Weinstein’s own public <\/em>documents showed his significant pay, the re-publication of which apparently disturbed him.<\/p>\n

It seems Weinstein didn’t learn his lesson.<\/p>\n

The very next year, Michael Weinstein, the sole-paid officer of his self-created “foundation,” paid himself a salary of $296,232.\u00a0 This represents a pay raise of more than 13% over his\u00a02008 salary.\u00a0 In the same year, his MRFF increased its intake by only 0.95%.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In 2009, Michael Weinstein’s personal compensation represented 54%<\/strong><\/span> of the revenue of his own non-profit foundation.<\/p>\n

(After two extensions, Weinstein\u00a0finally filed\u00a0his tax papers late in 2010 for the 2009 year,\u00a0making this\u00a0the most current information available.)<\/p>\n

In justifying his substantial compensation, Weinstein said the development of his pay included “studies of various other organizations and comparable services available elsewhere.”<\/p>\n

Can you name any reputable non-profits whose leaders pocket more than half of the money their organization brings in?\u00a0 Here are some comparable examples:<\/p>\n