in the depths of his heart,
There is no fear of God
before his eyes.
He so flatters himself in his mind
that he knows not his guilt.
In his mouth are mischief and deceit.
All wisdom is gone.
He plot the defeat of goodness
as he lies on his bed.
He has set his foot on evil ways,
he cling to what is evil.
To wit: Why Bill Barr's DOJ replaced Catholic Charities with Hookers for Jesus.
Plus much, much more.......
I do not mean to single out only AG Barr; there are others!
Isn't Barr Opus Dei or something? I have a poor opinion of Opus Dei, but Barr doesn't at all fit the picture I have in mind of them. I picture them being very traditional Catholic, rather intellectual, though not about anything that happened after the Council of Trent. However, someone who would be capable of acting professional. Joaquin Navarro-Valls is someone who comes to mind. Maybe I am stereotyping. But Barr doesn't fit that mold at all. He just seems like a gangster syncophant serving the Mob Boss.
ReplyDeleteAll the more reason why Trump needs to be voted out of office.
Yeah, Psalm 36 fits the situation.
Actually it turns out that Barr is not a member of Opus Dei. They have issued a statement saying that he is not and never has been. Wonder how the rumor got started.
DeleteI was troubled by of Milbank's article, which leaves the reader with the notion that the JoD is transferring money from nuns to whores for political reasons.
ReplyDeleteHe says only that Hookers and others are "lower rated groups."
So here's a deeper dive:
Hookers for Jesus is a 15-year-old street-level organization started by a former sex worker evangelical that offers a safe house in Law Vegas to prostitutes who want to get out of the life. There are also efforts to fight sex trafficking of underage girls. A large part of the effort seems to involve befriending women with gift bags and prayers.
Hooters has 501c3 status. Donations go help run the house, provide gift cards for necessities for residents, and purchase Bibles and religious study materials. There are no board members listed, no affiliated clergy, and no physicians, nurses, or mental health professionals listed on staff or as advisors. There are no stats about number of women helped by the program.
Founder Annie Robert does a lot of fundraising on evangelical television (Joyce Meyer and Jim Bakker), and has her own cable show in Law Vegas, Pink Chair. She also has sells her book through her Website and Facebook page.
No annual report is available from the group's Web site.
https://www.hookersforjesus.net
I am uncomfortable with public money going to faith-based groups, and I am not high on everything Catholic Charities does. But I assume it is "higher rated" because of the scope of services and transparency. Annual reports are readily available from the Web site's search engine.
So, yes, this is a troubling development, but I wish Milbank had bothered to be more thoughtful about explaining why.
Apologies for typos, esp. the unfortunate auto-correct "Law Vegas" and "Hooters" for "Hookers."
DeleteI was wondering how Hooters entered into this story ...
DeleteI can't read both the WaPo and the NY Times, but I pursued this story to the original Reuters scoop. Odd that my local paper hasn't had what has been in the WaPo, Miami News and Newsweek, but the explanation seems to be the usual one: Catholic Charities has dummied up to avoid offending the powers that be.
ReplyDeleteThe Psalmist speaketh truth.
The C5a bearing the The Don's motorcade landed as I was coming home within the hour. Apparently it has to go back to Washington to pick up the Marine 1 helicopter, which The Don won't use. Business Insider, in a story unrelated to The Don, listed the hourly cost of flying a C5a as $100,941. That is six digits, no decimal. Someone was able to winkle out that The Don's Organization has charged the Secret Service $630 a night to protect him at Mar-a-Lago. Your tax dollars at work.
How does this stack up with protection for other presidents? I don't begrudge them security, just making money off said security.
DeleteWell, for instance, Obama played his golf at military golf courses in the Washington area, a short helicopter flight away from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. His entourage slept in their own bed, not one of Obama's overpriced "properties." He didn't need the C5a, nor did he need a six-car motorcade of bulletproof SUVs. Nor did he need the service of dozens of local police to keep motorists from getting near his motorcade, because he didn't have one.
DeleteThe Secret Service is required by law to report on the cost of protecting the president ever six months. It has reported twice in The Don's three years, and neither report filled in the lines for expenses paid to Trump for use of his "properties."
It costs only $24,400 an hour, or $48,800 for the two F-15s that are kept in the air to scare off civilian planes that wander into a no-fly zone while The Don is here. A man needs quiet to play golf poorly.
Remember how many times we heard about Bill Clinton's $250 haircut at the Los Angeles Airport? It brought commercial airlines to a halt, we heard. Except it didn't.
Tom, thanks for the hint to find the Reuters story. A link to it is here:
Deletehttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-justice-grants-exclusive/exclusive-justice-department-anti-human-trafficking-grants-prompt-whistleblower-complaint-idUSKBN20425G
I'm not entirely sure what to think. It's difficult to see how Catholic Charities in Palm Beach and a group in Phoenix can help human trafficking victims in Nevada and South Carolina respectively.
Hookers for Jesus certainly has a colorful name, although in and of itself that shouldn't disqualify them from consideration for a federal contract. Some of their religious requirements for residents may violate federal regulations - there may be some valid objections there. On the other hand, some folks think Catholic Charities is a religious organization - and in some important ways, it surely is, although it doesn't require the clients it serves to believe in the Real Presence or to be pro-life.
The two groups that were passed over seem to have strong Democratic connections, whereas one of the new awardees seems to have at least an indirect GOP connection, while the other group, which seems to have a strong Evangelical identity, could reasonably be expected to favor Republican policies. Should those factors be taken into account when awarding government contracts? I dunno. Everyone has a right to be politically active. And one's personal political activities shouldn't have a bearing on whether the organization one owns or represents is eligible for federal contracts.
The whistleblower in this case is a labor union, which can reasonably be assumed to be hostile to a Republican administration, so I'd tend to discount it somewhat.
My admittedly conservative take on this story is that, if nothing else, it illustrates how problematic it can be to award public money - or, to reduce it to a political slogan, to pick winners and losers.
"The two groups that were passed over seem to have strong Democratic connections..." How many Republicans, as opposed to Democrats, would you expect to find on the ground in Catholic Charities (except, of course, for boards of directors where business genius is genuflected to)?
DeleteTom - re: Catholic Charities: yes, no doubt there are a lot of people who do work for them who vote Democratic. But the work they do, and the way the org presents itself, is pretty much apolitical. A lot of their work, around here anyway, is serving as the government's hands and feet for government-funded social service programs. This human trafficking program is pretty typical in that respect.
DeleteWhen I was more active with them than I am now, they'd invite state representatives and senators from the local communities to help out for an evening at soup kitchen-style dinners. (Local media also was invited.) Democrats and Republicans alike were invited, and came. Catholic Charities will work with anyone in state government who can help them win contracts and (crucially in Illinois) get paid.
I suppose both Republicans and Democrats can find reasons to dislike Catholic Charities: Trumpista Republicans because Catholic Charities advocates for immigrant human rights; Democrats because some Catholic Charities orgs have exited the adoption biz rather than adopt children to same sex couples. I haven't heard that the Trump Administration has put a target on the back of Catholic Charities. I think that would be counterproductive during an election season. Trump needs religious voters. And as I say, I think Catholic Charities is perceived as a mostly apolitical organization.
I hasten to point out that legitimate non-profits are prohibited from political activity. People who work for them are not, though as with CWL (when I was editor) the distinction was made. I have never seen Catholic Charities flout that rule; and I presume they have to file New York State reports on their non-profit status (unless religious groups exempted?). The benefit of a non-profit designation is that the organization does not have to pay federal or state taxes on any income.
DeleteJean's description of "Hookers" suggests lite observance of the non-profit rules and customs: board of directors, listing of staff, annual reports, etc.
Tom, thank you for clarifying re security.
DeleteHookers's association with ministries that were investigated by my friend Chuck Grassley some years ago for abusing their tax-exempt status on religious grounds (Bakker and Meyer, for example) sets off red flags for me.
TV ministries have always been cuddly with conservative politicians, but most of them are greasy enough to know how not to get caught in active proselytizing. They can get close to politicians and leverage influence in the guise of spiritual direction.
Speaking of human trafficking, it is not widely known, but the United States of America has a T Visa that it used to issue to people freed from trafficking situations. It still, theoretically, does. I know about it because our county sheriff's deputies know of it and use it. The visa allows a victim to stay here long enough to testify against the trafficker and get his/her life in order, and, finally, to apply for citizenship as an asylum seeker. In the past, the T Visa was issued and a church group, typically, took over, and the victim was not harassed and lived somewhat happily ever after.
ReplyDeleteTwo years ago, the Trump administration announced that people denied a T Visa will be deported forthwith. This is keeping people from accepting the possibility of applying. In some of these cases, the victim would be deported back to a village where he or more likely she had been sold to the trafficker in the first place, making his or her presence unpleasant for the people who sold her and the angry trafficker. In any case, if the sheriff or police chief says "this person was trafficked,"on what theory would the T Visa be denied? Keeping election promises?
What all y'all should do is sign up for https://www.sistersagainsttrafficking.org/stop-trafficking-newsletter/
which will enable you to keep up with the how the USA is "praying that the cries of our migrant brothers and sisters, victims of criminal trafficking, may be heard and considered," to quote Pope Francis's Morning Offering attention for the month.