It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Wednesday, October 27, 2021
Des Moines church fights IRS over 'religious' use of hallucinogenic drug ayahuasca
Clark Kauffman, Iowa Captial Dispatch
October 27, 2021
Geometry of the Soul series two. Background design of human profile and abstract elements on the subject of spirituality, science, creativity and the mind (Shutterstock)
A Des Moines-based church that uses a hallucinogenic drug in religious ceremonies is challenging the Internal Revenue Service's decision to deny it tax-exempt status.
According to the lawsuit, filed recently in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Iowaska Church of Healing was formed in Iowa as a non-profit corporation in September 2018.
Corporate records indicate the church is run by Admir Dado Kantarevic, along with Billy Benskin and Merzuk Ramic, and its official location is Kantarevic's home, located at 4114 27th St., Des Moines. The lawsuit makes references to the church having 20 members at one point in time.
The church's teachings are built around the use of ayahuasca, which is brewed from the leaves of the shrubs and vines found in the Amazon. Elements of those plants have powerful hallucinogenic properties, which the church says can be used to awaken “the Third Eye" of its followers.
The Third Eye is described by the church on its website as “an organ that no one speaks about at school or in private" and which is “secretly protected in the geometric center of your skull."
In court filings, the church says that in January 2019 it filed an application with the IRS seeking tax-exempt status and was denied. With the assistance of U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley's office, the lawsuit alleges, the appeals process at the IRS was expedited and an appeal conference was held in April of this year.
A final determination letter denying tax-exempt status was issued in June of this year, stating that the church's use of the “Sacrament of Ayahuasca" in its religious practices was illegal, the lawsuit claims.
In court filings, the church acknowledges that under the federal Controlled Substances Act, an ingredient of ayahuasca called dimethyltryptamine or DMT, is a Schedule I drug and a hallucinogenic alkaloid, and that there is no statutory exemption allowing for its use in religious ceremonies.
According to the church, however, the IRS decision to withhold tax-exempt status “directly contradicts" a past U.S. Supreme Court ruling and also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
The case that was heard by the Supreme Court involves a different church whose members received communion by drinking ayahuasca in the form of a tea brewed from plants found in the Amazon rainforest. After U.S. Customs seized a shipment of ayahuasca that was being shipped to the church, federal authorities threatened criminal prosecution and the church filed a lawsuit for injunctive relief.
The government conceded that while the sacramental use of ayahuasca was an exercise of religion, te sacramental use of the substance was still prohibited by law. The Supreme Court ruled the government's actions violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and it affirmed a lower court's preliminary injunction in favor of the church.
According to the lawsuit, the IRS has stated the Des Moines church has been formed for an illegal purpose – the distribution of a controlled substance.
The Iowaska Church of Healing disputes that and says its mission is to help individuals “attain healing of the mind, body and spirit through the sacred Sacrament of Ayahuasca under the guidelines of North and South American indigenous traditions and cultural values."'
Church leader convicted in high-profile drug case
The lawsuit states that ayahuasca is consumed in the form of a tea during the church's religious ceremonies and that its services also “involve prayers, smudging and spiritual music." The basis of its doctrine emanates from the Ayahuasca Manifesto, a document that details the role of ayahuasca in the expansion of consciousness, the church says.
In February 2019, the church filed a request with the Drug Enforcement Administration, seeking a religious exemption from the Controlled Substance Act. To date, the church alleges, the DEA has delivered no “substantive response" to the request, despite repeated follow-up inquiries, including one sent by Grassley's office.
The IRS has yet to file a response to the lawsuit.
Court records indicate that in December 2005, Kantarevic, then a personal trainer, was convicted of possession of anabolic steroids and sentenced to one year of probation. He was charged in connection with a federal investigation into the illegal importation of steroids for bodybuilders.
In his written guilty plea, Kantarevic acknowledged having received more than 3,500 grams of anabolic steroids through the mail in Des Moines, from both Thailand and California, with the intent of keeping some of the drug and mailing the rest to others.
As part of his plea, he acknowledged that it was his understanding the drugs came from Milos Sarcev and were to be paid for by Dennis James.
At the time, Sarcev and James were internationally known, competitive bodybuilders. Sarcev was a two-time holder of the title Mr. Yugoslavia, and James was a top competitor in the 2004 Mr. Universe contest.
Both men later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess anabolic steroids.
Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com. Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on Facebook and Twitter.
Thursday, January 20, 2022
Iowa Rep. Ashley Hinson touted "game-changing" funding aiming to modernize locks and dams on the Mississippi River — even though she voted against it.
By Igor Bobic
01/19/2022
With money starting to flow in for new projects around the country thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure law Congress approved last year, more Republicans are attempting to take credit despite the fact that they opposed the legislation.
In a press release issued by her office on Wednesday, Rep. Ashley Hinson (R) touted “game-changing” funding of $829 million announced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that is aimed toward modernizing locks and dams on the Mississippi River, which borders her Eastern Iowa district.
“Over 60 percent of our nation’s grain exports travel through this lock and dam system, and it is a massive economic engine for the entire state,” Hinson, a freshman member of Congress, said in a joint statement along with a bipartisan group of lawmakers from the area who voted for the bill.
“That’s why I helped lead a bipartisan group of my colleagues in urging the Administration to prioritize funding for these essential upgrades. I’ll always fight to ensure Iowans’ taxpayer dollars are reinvested at home in Iowa,” she added.
But back in November, before the $1.2 trillion measure passed into law, Hinson called the bill “a raw deal for Iowans” and “spending at its worst.” She also objected to the fact that the bill had been linked with the passage of the Build Back Better Act, the Democratic social spending and climate legislation that has now stalled in the Senate.
“Congresswoman Hinson opposed the infrastructure package because it was tied to trillions of other spending in the House,” Sophie Seid, a spokeswoman for the congresswoman, said in a statement to HuffPost. “Since the bill was signed into law, this money was going to be spent regardless. If there’s federal money on the table she is, of course, going to do everything she can to make sure it is reinvested in Iowa.”
Only 13 House Republicans voted for the bill, which includes funding for roads, bridges, highways, railways and ports.
Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), two lawmakers who did vote to pass the bipartisan infrastructure law, joined Hinson in Wednesday’s press release touting the Army Corps of Engineers funding.
“When I voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, I was voting for exactly this type of federal support for critical infrastructure that Iowans depend on,” Grassley, the senior Iowa Republican, said in a statement.
Another Republican, Rep. Kay Granger (Texas), similarly hailed over $400 million announced by the Army Corps of Engineers on Wednesday that will go toward flood control efforts in Fort Worth ― funding that wouldn’t be possible without the bipartisan infrastructure law she voted against.
Tuesday, March 01, 2022
Most Americans who have an opinion on President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson believe that she is qualified to sit on the nation's highest court, according to a new poll.
Aila Slisco 1 hour ago
A YouGov poll conducted on Friday, the same day that Biden announced the nomination, found that 39 percent of Americans were confident that Jackson was qualified to serve on the court, while 13 percent said that she was not qualified and a 48 percent plurality were undecided. A 66 percent majority of Democrats said that she was qualified. Although most Republicans and independents were undecided, 32 percent of independents and 20 percent of Republicans agreed.
Jackson was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last year, where she succeeded current Attorney General Merrick Garland. She previously served for over eight years as a federal district court judge and also has experience as a public defender and as assistant special counsel on the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
Jackson is the first Black woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court. The poll found that a 56 percent majority of Black Americans believed Jackson was qualified to serve on the court, with 38 percent being undecided and 6 percent saying she was not qualified. Only 35 percent of white Americans agreed that she was qualified, while 50 percent said they were not decided and 15 percent said she was not qualified.
The poll also found that a 46 percent plurality said they were "not sure" whether Jackson would be confirmed to the court, with 41 percent saying she would be confirmed and 13 percent insisting she would not. A 56 percent majority of Democrats said that she would be confirmed, while Republicans were the most likely to say she would not at 16 percent.
Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine joined every member of the Democratic caucus to confirm Jackson to the Court of Appeals last year. Barring any opposition from Senate Democrats, Jackson could be confirmed to the Supreme Court without any Republican support.
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a statement to "congratulate" Jackson on her nomination last Friday, while vowing that she would "receive the most thorough and rigorous vetting."
During a Monday Fox News appearance, Grassley promised the Republicans were "going to be polite" during the confirmation process. He made the remarks while taking shots at Democrats for getting "down in the gutter" during confirmation hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Other Republicans offered immediate opposition. Graham denounced Jackson as a member of the "radical left" following the nomination, despite having voted to confirm her to the appeals court last year. The Republican National Committee (RNC) warned that Jackson was "a Democrat partisan who will put far-left special interests ahead of defending the liberties of Americans."
Weeks before the nomination was announced, a YouGov / Yahoo News poll that included details of Jackson's educational background and judicial experience found that most believed she was either "very" or "somewhat" qualified to serve on the court.
After being presented with details like Jackson graduating from Harvard Law School and her serving as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who she may replace, 69 percent of Americans agreed that she was qualified—including 57 percent of Republicans.
The most recent poll was conducted online on February 25 among 2,092 U.S. adults. No margin of error was listed. The earlier poll was conducted online among 1,625 U.S. adults between February 3 and February 7, with a 3 percent margin of error.
Newsweek reached out to the RNC for comment.
Sunday, April 19, 2020
Trump's trade policy under fire amid scramble for virus supplies
BY NIV ELIS - THE HILL 04/18/20
The shortage of key medical supplies and equipment in the coronavirus pandemic has shined a light on President Trump's trade policy, which critics say lacks a clear strategy and has exacerbated an already difficult situation.
The shortages of N95 respirator masks, gowns, sanitizer and other protective gear exposed supply chain vulnerabilities that some experts say could have been avoided.
“What we have is chaos. What we need is a plan, and it starts by just figuring out what our domestic supply and demand are,” said David Kendall, senior fellow for health and fiscal policy at Third Way.
The administration has faced criticism from both the left and the right on individual actions it’s taken regarding trade policy and medical supplies, though the lack of a clear plan has been a recurring theme.
"Every government should be considering what are the essential needs in their countries for their residents and how to try to meet them," said Lori Wallach, the director of the left-leaning Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.
"That is why it was disconcerting to learn the Department of Commerce in January and February, knowing that COVID-19 was headed our way, was actually encouraging manufacturers to export them to China," she added.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), who chairs the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, accused the Commerce Department of encouraging companies to take advantage of China's move to lower import restrictions at the time, even as the threat of coronavirus was ramping up.
When comparing exports of face masks to China this February and last February, for example, exports to China increased a staggering 2,179 percent, while imports dropped 24 percent, according to Public Citizen’s data.
Only more recently, Wallach says, did the government begin implementing export reviews based on public health needs
Wallach points to Germany as an example of how the system should function, with a national agency coordinating between public health agencies, states and manufacturers to assess and ensure supply.
"That level of supply management based on coordinating demands is how it’s done when it’s done right. That is not necessarily how it’s being done here in the U.S.," Wallach said.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has complained that states are bidding against one another and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, raising prices and hampering procurement efforts.
Just this week, the U.S. International Trade Commission said it would investigate key imported products and produce a report by April 30 at the request of Congress.
The announcement was in response to a request by House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) earlier in April.
"We are keenly aware that our challenges are being severely exacerbated by disruptions and deficiencies in our supply of equipment, inputs, and substances needed for treating and otherwise responding to the COVID-19 pandemic," Neal and Grassley wrote.
Another broader problem is that U.S. supply chains are brittle, often relying on key parts or materials from just one country.
More often than not, that country is China.
On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal reported that new export restrictions from China have hampered face masks, test kits and other medical supplies from getting to the U.S. Among them were 1.4 million test kits.
The Journal cited a State Department report saying that Chinese policies "disrupted established supply chains for medical products just as these products were most needed for the global response to Covid-19."
China said some of the restrictions and delays were meant to ensure quality control, which has also been an issue plaguing import markets with the sudden spike in demand for new products.
The same is sometimes true of medications. Even when some generic drugs are imported from a variety of countries, Wallach notes, many of them get the main ingredient in the drug from one source country.
India, another major exporter, banned a variety of exports on personal protective equipment (PPE) in late January, though it has stepped back some of its export restrictions.
When Trump took similar steps earlier this month, blocking exports of some PPE as part of the Defense Production Act, some worried that it would invite retaliation.
"It’s just a massively shortsighted policy because it provides any country out there with an excuse to stop trade," said Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
3M, the company that produces the critical N95 masks doctors need while dealing with some COVID-19 patients, raised similar concerns.
"Ceasing all export of respirators produced in the United States would likely cause other countries to retaliate and do the same, as some have already done. If that were to occur, the net number of respirators being made available to the United States would actually decrease," the company wrote in a statement following the announcement.
It also noted the humanitarian implications for countries that do not produce their own masks.
Bown noted that tariffs Trump imposed as part of his trade war with China were still in effect on some key supplies until fairly late in the game.
“Their trade war tariffs on ventilators and masks were still in place until March 17. That’s when they got a tariff exclusion,” he said. “When you talk about the incoherence of the Trump administration’s trade policy in dealing with a pandemic, you’ve got to recognize that.”
Companies that make and sell hand sanitizer, thermometers and disinfectant wipes have called for relief from tariffs.
Neither the White House nor the U.S. trade representative’s office offered comment.
But all in all, says Kendall, the combination of errant, discordant trade policies is hampering the efforts to fight the pandemic.
“We are pissing off our trading partners because we panicked over what we’re exporting, and at the same time we’re not taking care of our own folks, which we absolutely should be,” he said.
“But there’s no plan," he added. "And without that, you can’t square the corners.”
Thursday, December 15, 2022
Federal correctional officers protest in response to an Associated Press investigation that exposed how the Bureau of Prisons repeatedly promoted an official who was accused of beating several Black inmates, in front of the Bureau of Prisons' regional office, Monday, Dec. 12, 2022, in Stockton, Calif. The picket comes as members of Congress, including the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are demanding answers from the agency's director after AP's reporting on deputy regional director Thomas Ray Hinkle.
MICHAEL R. SISAK and MICHAEL BALSAMO
Mon, December 12, 2022
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he plans to question the director of the federal Bureau of Prisons this week about an Associated Press investigation that found the agency has repeatedly promoted and continues to stand by a high-ranking official who beat Black inmates in the 1990s.
“I am very concerned about the allegations in this article and whether BOP will address abuses, prioritize safety, and improve their flawed approach to misconduct investigations,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., tweeted in the wake of AP’s story chronicling Thomas Ray Hinkle’s rise to deputy western regional director.
At the same time, Durbin and a group of Senators are demanding answers from the Justice Department about the subject of another AP investigation — the federal prison system’s handling of rampant staff misconduct, including staff-on-inmate sexual abuse and whistleblower retaliation.
Durbin on Monday joined Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla, both California Democrats, in sending a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco seeking additional information and imploring the Justice Department to take immediate action to root out staff misconduct. Grassley is the Judiciary Committee's top Republican.
The Justice Department formed a working group in July to evaluate its handling of staff sexual abuse after the warden and several other workers at a federal women’s prison in Dublin, California, were arrested for sexually abusing inmates. An AP investigation revealed that the allegations stemmed from a toxic culture of abuse and coverups at the Bay Area lockup. The working group issued a report with its findings in November.
Bureau of Prisons Director Colette Peters is expected to face questions on both topics when she testifies Tuesday before the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The panel, chaired by Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., has been conducting its own investigation into sexual abuse of female inmates in federal prisons. Peters will meet with Durbin separately.
Prison workers and union officials, angered by the AP's investigation into Hinkle and the agency’s response defending him, picketed Monday outside a Bureau of Prisons Western Regional Office in Stockton, California. They called on the agency to fire Hinkle and his boss, Regional Director Melissa Rios.
Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., echoed that sentiment. She reported a hostile encounter with Hinkle in February while on a site visit to investigate staff sexual abuse at the troubled federal women’s prison in Dublin.
“The details revealed here are deeply disturbing,” Speier said in a tweet linking to the AP article. “If only half of what is reported is true, Hinkle should be terminated immediately. I will be following up with BOP for answers.”
The AP’s story, published Friday, revealed how the Bureau of Prisons repeatedly promoted Hinkle despite numerous red flags, rewarding him again and again over a three-decade career while others who assaulted inmates lost their jobs and went to prison.
Hinkle, responding to questions from the AP, acknowledged he beat inmates but said he regrets that behavior and now speaks openly about it “to teach others how to avoid making the same mistakes.”
Peters, who started as Bureau of Prisons director in August, told the AP she believes Hinkle is a changed man and a model employee. At the same time, she said, she's committed to working with the Justice Department and Congress to root out staff misconduct.
“Mr. Hinkle has openly acknowledged his past mistakes, gone through the employee discipline program, sought professional help and reframed his experiences as learning opportunities for others,” Peters said. “Today, I am confident he has grown into an effective supervisor for our agency.”
Federal prisons employees and union officials protesting Monday outside the regional office where Hinkle works said they were troubled by what they see as a two-tiered system of justice in the Bureau of Prisons.
“I’m very mad. You’re supposed to hold everybody accountable. Nobody is above the law," Dublin union president Ed Canales said. “But apparently, he can change? What about officers and staff members that were wrongfully terminated on lesser charges? Or were actually terminated on the same charges? Can they be exonerated? Can they come back?”
___
Associated Press reporter Haven Daley in Stockton, California contributed to this report.
Candace McDuffie
Tue, December 13, 2022
Federal correctional officers protest in response to an Associated Press investigation that exposed how the Bureau of Prisons repeatedly promoted Thomas Ray Hinkle who was accused of beating several Black inmates, in front of the Bureau of Prisons’ regional office, Monday, Dec. 12, 2022, in Stockton, Calif.
A new report by The Associated Press reveals disturbing information about Bureau of Prisons official Thomas Ray Hinkle. Despite having a violent past abusing Black inmates—stemming from allegations made in 1995—he has been promoted at least nine times. In June, he was selected by the Bureau of Prisons and Justice Department to become acting regional director.
“At least three inmates, all Black, have accused Hinkle of beating them while he was a correctional officer at a Florence, Colorado federal penitentiary in 1995 and 1996. The allegations were documented in court documents and formal complaints to prison officials. In recent years, colleagues say, Hinkle has talked about beating inmates while a member of a violent, racist gang of guards called ‘The Cowboys.’”
The piece about went into more detail about Hinkle’s deplorable behavior:
“One inmate said he felt terrified as Hinkle and another guard dragged him up a stairway and slammed him into walls. Another said Hinkle was among guards who threw him to a concrete floor, spat on him and used racist language toward him. A third said Hinkle slapped him and held him down while another guard sexually assaulted him.”
Even though a minimum of 11 guards affiliated with “The Cowboys” were charged with federal crimes, Hinkle wasn’t. The group beat dozens of inmates that were primarily Black. Ultimately, three were convicted and imprisoned. Four others were acquitted and an additional four pleaded guilty and said they would cooperate.
However, Hinkle was promoted twice before the criminal investigation was even over. He told AP: “With the support of my friends, family, and colleagues, and through professional help, I have made the most of my opportunity for a second chance to serve the Bureau of Prisons honorably over the past twelve years.”
Hinkle added: “I cannot speak to why some are dredging up history from so many years ago, but my distant past does not reflect who I am today. My story I share with my fellow staff has more to do with hope and change after getting help and not self-medicating with alcohol. We are all human and make mistakes. There is no shame in admitting our problems and seeking help.”
He also denied using racist language and recent allegations of misconduct (which includes silencing a whistleblower). The agency’s new director, Colette Peters, insists says the Bureau of Prisons stands by Hinkle’s leadership.
“[He] has openly acknowledged his past mistakes, gone through the employee discipline program, sought professional help and reframed his experiences as learning opportunities for others,” Peters stated. “Today, I am confident he has grown into an effective supervisor for our agency.”
Despite calls for Hinkle to be terminated immediately, Justice Department policy mandates that he must retire next May when he turns 57.
Senate Federal PrisonsJustice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz testifies during the hearing of Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Investigations, on Sexual Abuse of Female Inmates in Federal Prisons, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2022.
MICHAEL R. SISAK
Tue, December 13, 2022
WASHINGTON (AP) — The director of the federal Bureau of Prisons is defending her decision to rally behind a high-ranking agency official who climbed the ranks after beating Black inmates in the 1990s, saying Tuesday that she feels he's shown contrition and deserves a second chance.
Colette Peters, making her first comments since The Associated Press published an investigation chronicling Thomas Ray Hinkle’s sordid past and subsequent promotions, said she met with Hinkle soon after starting as director in August and came away convinced that he should keep his job.
"He openly shared some of his past and has shared with me that he’s a changed man, that he’s not the person he was 25 years ago, and that he wants to spend the remainder of his career helping people understand not to make those exact same mistakes,” Peters said.
“It’s that type of behavior change that we’re looking for in both those in our custody and who work for us. Some, they don't get a second chance. But he owned it.”
Peters spoke with the AP after testifying Tuesday before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which has spent months scrutinizing the Bureau of Prisons' inability to clamp down on rampant staff sexual misconduct.
Subcommittee Chairman Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., said the eight-month, bipartisan investigation — after the arrests of a warden and other workers at a federal women’s prison in Dublin, California — shows that the agency is “failing systemically” in its duty to protect female inmates from the “cruel and unusual punishment” of abuse at the hands of correctional workers.
The Bureau of Prisons’ inability to detect and prevent staff-on-inmate assaults has led to dozens of assaults and left some accused workers free to offend again, the subcommittee found. The findings echo common complaints about the agency's handing of sexual abuse and other staff misconduct, some of which has been detailed in AP reporting.
Among the subcommittee's other findings: Audits meant to ensure compliance with a federal prison rape prevention law have proven inadequate; inmates who report abuse often face retaliation; and the agency's internal affairs office is facing a backlog of 8,000 cases, including hundreds of sex abuse allegations. Peters said she's added 40 workers to the internal affairs office to process cases faster.
At the Dublin prison, the rape-prevention audits were being supervised by the former warden, Ray Garcia, who was convicted last week of abusing three inmates. At a prison in Coleman, Florida, where six have been accused of sexually abusing inmates since 2012, officials shipped all the female inmates away two days before they were to be interviewed by auditors.
“This situation is intolerable," Ossoff said. “Sexual abuse of inmates is a gross abuse of human and constitutional rights and cannot be tolerated by the United States Congress.”
Tuesday's hearing began with disturbing testimony from three victims of staff-on-inmate sexual abuse — women who say the Bureau of Prisons compounded their suffering by ignoring warning signs, enabling coverups and failing to equip prisons with practical tools, like functioning security cameras.
Carolyn Richardson recounted how a correctional officer at a federal lockup in New York City preyed on her visual impairment, sexually assaulting her after he brought her to medical appointments. Briane Moore, crying at times, said the prison captain who abused her had threatened to put her in solitary confinement or transfer her to another prison if she reported him.
Linda De La Rosa said the Bureau of Prisons “entirely failed” in allowing the correctional officer who attacked her and three other women in 2019 at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky, to continue working despite previous allegations of sexual abuse. The officer, Christopher Goodwin, pleaded guilty in March and is serving 11 years in prison.
“The problem is the old boys club,” De La Rosa said. “Prison staff, managers, investigators, correctional officers — they all work together for years, if not decades. No one wants to rock the boat, let alone listen to female inmates. There is no objective, independent oversight.”
The AP does not typically identify people who say they are victims of sexual assault unless they grant permission, as Richardson, Moore and De La Rosa have done. All sexual activity between a prison worker and an inmate is illegal. Correctional employees enjoy substantial power over inmates, controlling every aspect of their lives from mealtime to lights out, and there is no scenario in which an inmate can give consent.
Peters, who testified alongside Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, has vowed to change the culture that has enabled officers to sexually assault inmates. She reiterated the Bureau of Prisons' zero-tolerance policy for staff sexual misconduct and said she's urged transparency throughout the agency, so that she's not kept in the dark on any incidents that occur.
A Justice Department working group issued recommendations last month for curbing staff sexual misconduct. Among them: starting an anonymous abuse reporting process, overhauling investigations, seeking longer prison sentences for workers convicted of abuse and potentially granting early release to victimized inmates.
Peters, who visited Dublin early in her tenure, said the crisis there shows some prisons have been infected with a “culture of abuse and a culture of misconduct" and that “when it’s high-level officials engaging in these egregious criminal acts there’s clearly a culture” of abuse.
“That culture needs to be reset in order to ensure the safety and security of those in our care and custody,” Peters testified. “And I think we do have systemic changes in the works that will help us reset that culture there and throughout the federal Bureau of Prisons.”
As for Hinkle, Peters will face more questions about him this week when she meets with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin. The Illinois Democrat tweeted that he was “very concerned about the allegations” in the AP's article about Hinkle "and whether BOP will address abuses, prioritize safety, and improve their flawed approach to misconduct investigations.”
On Monday, prison workers and union officials picketed outside the agency's regional office in Stockton, California, and called on Peters to fire Hinkle and his boss, Regional Director Melissa Rios.
__
On Twitter, follow Michael Sisak at http://twitter.com/mikesisak and send confidential tips by visiting https://www.ap.org/tips/
Monday, May 18, 2020
Andrew Desiderio,
Politico•May 18, 2020
THE PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY
The State Department inspector general who was fired by President Donald Trump late Friday night was investigating the president’s effort to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia without congressional approval, according to the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The revelation adds another layer to Trump’s decision to sack Steve Linick, who was also looking into claims that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife improperly directed political appointees to run personal errands for him, including walking his dog and picking up his dry cleaning.
“[Linick’s] office was investigating — at my request — Trump’s phony declaration of an emergency so he could send weapons to Saudi Arabia,” Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said in a statement to POLITICO. “We don’t have the full picture yet, but it’s troubling that Secretary Pompeo wanted Mr. Linick pushed out before this work could be completed.”
Engel’s panel swiftly launched an investigation into Linick’s firing over the weekend alongside New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The lawmakers have demanded that the White House, the State Department, and the inspector general’s office turn over all documents related to Linick’s firing by Friday.
Trump’s decision to fire Linick immediately drew allegations from Democrats that the president was seeking to quash accountability and was continuing his purge of independent inspectors general viewed as insufficiently loyal to him.
A congressional aide said State Department officials were recently briefed about Linick’s conclusions in his investigation of the Saudi arms sales. The president came under intense scrutiny last year for declaring a national emergency in order to sell weapons to the kingdom, a move intended to sidestep approval from Capitol Hill. Current law requires the executive branch to formally notify Congress of an intent to sell weapons to a foreign country, at which point the House and Senate have 30 days to vote to halt the sale.
At the time, it was seen as highly unlikely that Congress would approve billions in new arms sales to Riyadh in the aftermath of the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which prompted lawmakers of both parties to oppose further cooperation between the two countries and to urge the Trump administration to exact strict penalties on the Saudi government.
Other lawmakers had grown wary of the U.S.-Saudi relationship amid Riyadh’s continued participation in Yemen’s devastating civil war. The U.S. has been supporting the Saudi effort, and Trump last year vetoed a War Powers resolution intended to withdraw U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition.
In his official notification to Congress on Friday night, Trump said he no longer had confidence in Linick but declined to further elaborate. Some Republican senators, including Chuck Grassley of Iowa, have called on Trump to fully comply with statutes requiring the president to give Congress a more complete explanation for the firing, arguing that a vague loss of confidence is not sufficient.
Trump took a similar path when he fired Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s inspector general, last month. Grassley and a bipartisan group of senators wrote a letter to Trump demanding a more detailed explanation, but the president has yet to respond to the lawmakers.
A White House official said over the weekend that Pompeo had requested that the president fire Linick.
Members of Linick's staff have been stunned by his abrupt firing and trying to piece things together in the days since.
Linick held a virtual town hall for his staffers on Friday morning, and there was no indication whatsoever that he knew he was about to be sidelined, one staffer said.
Nahal Toosi contributed to this story.
SAUDI ARABIA IS BETWEEN FRANCE AND RUSSIA |
Wednesday, April 13, 2022
EXPLAINER: Why Biden is allowing more ethanol in gasoline
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden said Tuesday his administration will suspend a federal rule that bars higher levels of ethanol in gasoline during the summer. The move, which Biden announced during a visit to Iowa, is intended to tamp down prices at the pump that have spiked during Russia’s war with Ukraine. Iowa is a key producer of the corn-based fuel additive.
A look at how that the decision to authorize year-round use of so-called E15 will impact gas supplies, prices and the environment.
WHAT ACTION IS BIDEN TAKING?
Most gasoline sold in the U.S. is blended with 10% ethanol. At Biden's direction, the Environmental Protection Agency will issue an emergency waiver to allow widespread sale of 15% ethanol blend that is usually prohibited between June 1 and Sept. 15 because of concerns that it adds to smog in high temperatures.
Senior Biden administration officials said the move will save drivers an average of 10 cents per gallon at 2,300 gas stations that sell E15, as the high-blend ethanol is known. Those stations are mostly in the Midwest and the South, including Texas, according to industry groups.
WHY IS BIDEN DOING THIS?
Lawmakers from both parties and ethanol advocates have urged Biden and the EPA to allow year-round sales of E15, calling it a cheaper and readily available domestic alternative to traditional gasoline. The U.S. has banned imports of Russian crude oil since the country's late February invasion of Ukraine, disrupting global markets and raising prices.
“Homegrown Iowa biofuels provide a quick and clean solution for lowering prices at the pump, and bolstering production would help us become energy independent once again,″ said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a longtime ethanol proponent. Grassley and 15 other senators sent Biden a letter last month urging him to allow year-round E15 sales.
Ethanol groups called Biden's action a major win for American drivers and U.S. energy security. "It means cleaner options at the pump and a stronger rural economy,” said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy, a biofuel trade group.
HOW WILL THIS AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT?
Biden administration official say the short-term move will have little effect on the environment and that EPA will work with states to "ensure there are no significant air quality impacts through the summer driving season.''
Environmentalists questioned that, saying ethanol production contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and soil erosion and raises prices for corn and other crops.
“The ethanol lobby will be happy and kids with asthma will be sicker,'' said Dan Becker of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group. “However well-meaning (Biden's action) might be, kids and the elderly shouldn’t pay the price with their health for slight gas savings.''
A recent report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences revealed that the federal ethanol mandate inflated corn prices by 30% from 2008 to 2016, made corn-based ethanol more carbon intensive than gasoline and increased annual fertilizer use by up to 8%, polluting waterways.
HAS EPA DONE THIS BEFORE?
The EPA has lifted seasonal restrictions on E15 in the past, including after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. The Trump administration allowed for year-round E15 sales starting in 2019, but a federal appeals court struck down the policy change in July 2021, saying the EPA overstepped its authority.
The decision dealt a significant blow to the ethanol industry and corn farmers who had anticipated increased ethanol demand through year-round sales of the higher blend.
HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM TRUMP'S ACTION?
Senior Biden administration officials said they expected the EPA waiver to survive a likely court challenge, saying that unlike the open-ended Trump rule, the action is limited to this summer and is prompted by a supply disruption caused by the war in Europe.
Greater use of E15 should "help alleviate some of the pain that we’ve seen since Russia launched this war against Ukraine,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told a Senate committee last week.
But critics said the only emergency is Biden's dropping poll numbers.
Emergency fuel waivers are reserved for acute supply disruptions, such as those resulting from a hurricane, said Chet Thompson, president & CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represents petroleum refiners.
“An additional three months of E15 sales won’t do anything to address high crude oil prices, and 98% of retail (gas) stations can’t even sell the fuel,'' Thompson said. “This is politics, not a real solution for drivers.”
WILL E15 HURT MY CAR'S ENGINE?
E15, often sold at the pump as Unleaded 88, for its octane rating, can safely be used in all cars, trucks and SUVs from 2001 on. Those model years represent more than 90% of vehicles on U.S. roads. The ethanol industry says the fuel is one of the most tested in history and has no effect on vehicle drivability. More than 20 billion miles have been driven in cars and trucks using Unleaded 88, a number continues to grow.
WHAT IS THE PRICE OF E15 GAS?
E15, or Unleaded 88, typically sells for 10 cents a gallon less than E10, the standard formulation for U.S. cars. The price difference between Unleaded 88 and conventional gasoline without ethanol is around 40 cents.
WILL I GET BETTER MILEAGE WITH E15?
There is no noticeable difference between the mileage achieved when using E15 and mileage when operating on E10.
CAN I USE E15 IN MY LAWNMOWER OR OTHER SMALL-ENGINE EQUIPMENT?
E15 has not been approved by EPA for use in non-automotive engines such as boats, motorcycles, lawn mowers and other small engines. E10, the standard ethanol formulation, is approved for small engines.
Matthew Daly, The Associated Press
President Joe Biden's plan to reduce the price of gas by allowing the sale of higher-ethanol fuel this summer may make corn farmers and their elected representatives happy. But the move also has irked environmentalists who see ethanol as a climate-change villain.
Biden made his announcement Tuesday during a trip to Iowa, where corn — and ethanol — are crucial to the state economy. He said the Environmental Protection Agency would issue an emergency waiver from the Clean Air Act that will permit the sale of gasoline that is 15 percent ethanol, 5 percent more than the typical blend, from June 1 to Sept. 15. The change will lower gas prices by about 10 cents a gallon at the 2,300 gas stations equipped to pump it, the Biden administration says.
To environmentalists, that's a small benefit compared to the damage the decision could do to efforts to reduce the country's carbon emissions.
“What the president is doing is the definition of short-term thinking,” said Carroll Muffett, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law. “The
Although ethanol was embraced more than a decade ago as a renewable fuel, its green reputation has eroded. Scientists have found evidence that increased corn production for ethanol could increase greenhouse gas emissions; a study published in February said ethanol may be worse for the climate than gasoline.
The reason Biden needs an emergency waiver is that the summertime use of gas with 15 percent ethanol, known as E15, is known to increase smog.
“This is a quick fix that will harm the planet and not do much to support consumers,” said Jim Walsh, policy director at Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit group that opposes the use of ethanol as a climate solution.
Senior Biden administration officials have told reporters that the EPA's own analysis did not indicate that the emergency waiver was likely to harm air quality. They pointed to another study, published last year, showing that ethanol's greenhouse gas emissions are decreasing with improvements in farming and production methods.
Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade association, said ethanol was "unquestionably a winner when compared to gasoline."
Biden's move also drew criticism from the oil industry. The American Petroleum Institute, a trade association for the oil and gas industries, said that the scarcity of stations equipped with E15 fuel limits the impact of the president's action.
"Americans are looking for long-term solutions, not short-term political fixes that fail to acknowledge the logistical, legal and compatibility constraints that limit the ability of E15 to influence prices at the pump today," Ron Chittim, the group's vice president of downstream policy, said in a statement.
Then-President Donald Trump tried allowing the year-round use of E15 fuel in 2019 but a federal court overruled him following a challenge from oil refiners.
Sheila Karpf, a senior policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit government watchdog group that opposes ethanol subsidies, said she expected Biden's waiver to be challenged in court as well.
"We have seen decades of corn ethanol subsidies, and the handouts to the industry continue to happen," she said.
Cooper, of the ethanol trade group, said that he too expected the oil industry to challenge Biden's expansion of E15 but that it will survive, because it involves the temporary use of emergency powers allowed by the Clean Air Act.
"If war in Ukraine and $4 gas and a shortage in the marketplace don’t warrant an emergency, I don’t know what would," he said.
Tuesday, June 23, 2020
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration is considering re-imposing tariffs on aluminum imports from Canada and an announcement could come by the end of the week, according to people familiar with the matter.
If Canada refuses to impose export restrictions on aluminum, the U.S. will announce Friday the re-imposition of 10% tariffs on aluminum from the country and implement the tariffs by July 1, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the information isn’t public.
That would be just days before the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal enters into force on July 1. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has expressed concern about recent struggles by American aluminum producers, which have seen sales drop and all-in prices sink as demand evaporated amid the global pandemic.
Lighthizer told the Senate Finance Committee in a hearing last week that recent surges in metal imports from North American neighbors are “of genuine concern to us now,” and that his office was looking at the issue.“I would say there have been surges on steel and aluminum, substantially from Canada, some from Mexico, and it is something that we’re looking at and talking to both Mexico and Canada about,” he told the panel’s top Republican, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa.
A spokesman for the USTR didn’t immediately respond to an emailed request for comment outside office hours.
Under the May 2019 agreement, which resulted in initial tariffs being lifted, Canada has to limit its retaliation to the U.S. metals sector and cannot hit American agriculture, Lighthizer told Grassley.
Ironically, the only three U.S. aluminum producers -- Alcoa Corp., Century Aluminum Co. and Magnitude 7 Metals LLC -- disagree whether tariffs should be reimposed.
The American Primary Aluminum Association, which represents Century Aluminum Co. and Magnitude 7 Metals LLC., has asked Lighthizer to reimpose a 10% tariff on imports of Canadian aluminum, saying a rise in metal coming from the country has caused the price to collapse.
The Aluminum Association of the U.S., which represents Alcoa Corp., Rio Tinto Group and dozens of other aluminum parts makers, argues that imports are virtually unchanged since 2017.
Alcoa CFO William Oplinger said at a virtual bank conference in June that China’s overcapacity subsidized by the government is the real problem, and that he supports free trade with “those who trade freely, especially the Canadians.”
Sunday, April 19, 2020
WHICH ONLY HURTS ITS EXPLOITED WORKERS
Humeyra Pamuk
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Agriculture terminated a $240,000 purchase contract with Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods that had been awarded under the Trump administration’s agricultural trade bailout program, a move taken at the company’s request, a department spokesman told Reuters on Friday.
FILE PHOTO - Some of the products of Smithfield Foods are displayed in front of at a news conference on WH Group's IPO in Hong Kong April 14, 2014. REUTERS/Bobby Yip
The move comes weeks after Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, one of the country’s biggest farm states and the biggest hog-producing state, slammed Smithfield for receiving what he said was aid from the USDA that was meant to help American farmers hurt by China’s trade tariffs.
“Smithfield requested to terminate their contract awarded under the Food Purchase and Distribution Program. USDA has agreed to the termination,” Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for the USDA, told Reuters.
Murtaugh said the transfer of funds for the food purchase contract had not yet taken place, and that Smithfield’s request to cancel the contract was received on Nov. 13.
Smithfield, owned by Chinese conglomerate WH Group (0288.HK), was not immediately available for comment. The company is the world’s largest pork processor and hog producer with $15 billion annual revenues, according to its website.
President Donald Trump in late May announced tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, prompting retaliation from top trading partners like China that has since spilled into agriculture markets.
To help offset damage to American farmers, a key constituency for Trump, the USDA rolled out a $12 billion aid package that included $1.2 billion in purchases of commodities. The program allocated around $558 million to pork purchases.
Grassley, who has represented Iowa in the U.S. Senate since 1981 and is one of the most senior Republicans in the chamber, complained in late October about Smithfield’s approval for what he said was federal aid.
“I don’t understand why Chinese owned Smithfield qualifies for USDA $$ meant to help our farmers,” he wrote on Twitter.
A spokeswoman for Smithfield at the time denied the company had applied for federal assistance, but confirmed it was a qualified vendor to take part in the food purchase program.
SEE
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=SMITHFIELD
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=TYSON
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=MEAT+PACKING
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=JBS
Wednesday, January 19, 2022
White House Weighs Support for Klobuchar’s Tech Antitrust Bill
Jennifer Jacobs and Anna Edgerton, Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- The Biden administration is exploring ways to rein in the nation’s biggest technology companies, possibly through bipartisan legislation that’s under consideration in the U.S. Senate, according to people familiar with the matter.
The White House is planning a meeting this week to discuss the topic, according to two of the people, who were granted anonymity to discuss the deliberations.
The event will include critics of the tech giants as well as representatives of smaller digital firms. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Bruce Reed and economic adviser Brian Deese have helped to organize the session and next steps, two people said.
The White House would like to help build consensus for the measure, but doesn’t intend to openly endorse the legislation at this point, according to one of the people familiar with situation.
White House communications staff didn’t immediately comment.
Lawmakers have urged the White House to help advance the measure, which is intended to curb the dominance of Apple Inc., Amazon Inc., Meta Platforms Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google.
The bill, from Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, and Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, has inspired fierce opposition from major U.S. technology companies, who warn that it would harm products that are popular with consumers. The legislation, which the Senate Judiciary Committee could consider as soon as Thursday, would prohibit dominant platforms from giving an advantage to their own products, like, say, Google Maps and Apple Music.
Apple and Google on Tuesday warned that the bill would hurt their ability to protect user security and safety and would put U.S. technology at a disadvantage against foreign competitors, who wouldn’t be subject to the new guidelines. The Biden administration is also weighing the concerns raised by the four companies that would be affected, one of the officials said.
The White House has increasingly turned to corporate executives to serve as informal advisers, policy allies and political boosters as the administration grapples with controversial issues.
The Klobuchar-Grassley bill is the tech-focused measure that is best positioned to advance in Congress, since it has a strong roster of bipartisan co-sponsors and a companion bill in the House. Democratic lawmakers have been pushing the White House to publicly support the legislation.
President Joe Biden will weigh whether to mention the anti-trust issue in his March State of the Union speech, one of the people said.
©2022 Bloomberg L.P.
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
To 'End the Absurdity' of Wasteful Military Spending, Sanders Introduces Bill to Audit the Pentagon
"If the Department of Defense cannot pass a clean audit, as required by law, there ought to be tough financial consequences,"
"The Pentagon and the military industrial complex have been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud, and financial mismanagement for decades," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "That is absolutely unacceptable."
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced the Audit the Pentagon Act of 2021, which would require the Department of Defense to do starting in 2022 something unprecedented in its history: pass a full independent audit.
"Taxpayers can't afford to keep writing blank check after blank check for the Pentagon to cash."
—Sen. Ron Wyden
"The Pentagon and the military industrial complex have been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud, and financial mismanagement for decades. That is absolutely unacceptable," the Vermont Independent said Wednesday in a statement.
"If we are serious about spending taxpayer dollars wisely and effectively, we have got to end the absurdity of the Pentagon being the only agency in the federal government that has not passed an independent audit," he added. "The time is long overdue for Congress to hold the Defense Department to the same level of accountability as the rest of the government. That is the very least we can do."
Federal agencies have been mandated by Congress to comply with annual audits by the Government Accountability Office since 1990.
Under the bill (pdf)—which is co-sponsored by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) and comes one week after Sanders led a hearing on waste and fraud at the Pentagon—each branch of the military and office of the DOD that fails an independent audit would return 1% of its annual budget to the Treasury.
That could amount to a substantial sum of money, given that the Pentagon receives hundreds of billions of dollars in funding each year despite ample evidence of its widespread accounting abuses. Last month, President Joe Biden proposed a $715 billion budget for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2021—an increase from the current $704 billion level approved by Congress under former President Donald Trump.
Since then, Biden has faced backlash from progressives who have called for reallocating a portion of those funds in order to better meet social needs rather than further pad defense contractors' bottom lines.
We pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the Pentagon EVERY SINGLE YEAR — but the military has never detailed their spending.
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) May 19, 2021
It’s long overdue that we CUT the Pentagon’s $740 billion budget and invest that savings into our communities. https://t.co/VagYCe5XzR
As Sanders' office noted, the Defense Department remains the only federal agency in the U.S. that has been unable to pass an independent audit, despite the fact that the Pentagon gobbles up more than half of the nation's discretionary budget and controls assets in excess of $3.1 trillion, or roughly 78% of the entire federal government.
The Costs of War Project recently estimated that the U.S. has spent $2.26 trillion on military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan since the 2001 U.S. invasion, which marked the beginning of a two-decade-long war that has killed at least 241,000 people.
Meanwhile, according to Sanders' office:
In 2011, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan concluded that $31-60 billion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan had been lost to fraud and waste. In 2015, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported that the Pentagon could not account for $45 billion in funding for reconstruction projects. In 2018, an audit conducted by Ernst & Young for the Defense Logistics Agency found that the Pentagon could not properly account for some $800 million in construction projects
[...]
Congress has appropriated so much money for the Defense Department that the Pentagon does not know what to do with it. According to the GAO, between 2013 and 2018 the Pentagon returned more than $80 billion in funding back to the Treasury. And, over the past two decades, virtually every major defense contractor in the U.S. has paid billions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud—all while making huge profits on those government contracts.
The U.S. spends more on its military than the next 12 countries combined, and, according to Sanders' office, "about half of the Pentagon's budget goes directly into the hands of private contractors."
Sanders' office stressed that the nation's massive military spending occurs in a context in which "half of our people are struggling paycheck to paycheck, over 40 million Americans are living in poverty, and over 500,000 Americans are homeless including roughly 40,000 veterans."
In a statement, Wyden said that "taxpayers can't afford to keep writing blank check after blank check for the Pentagon to cash."
"If the Department of Defense cannot pass a clean audit, as required by law, there ought to be tough financial consequences," he added.