cliff-montgomery

[cliff-montgomery]

I published this article to my website, The American Spark, back on Apr. 29th. If you like it, please check out my site for more.

Musk Has Slashed U.S. Government Of Its Effectiveness

By Cliff Montgomery - May 14th, 2025

After assuming the presidency for the second time, Donald Trump brought on Elon Musk to slash the federal government to nothing but its bare bones. And Musk has happily used his position as de facto head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in order to do it.

But the duo has failed to realize that without adequate flesh, muscle and sinew to perform even basic activities, bare bones are useless.

The essential problem? Elon Musk has never before served a day in any kind of public office. He is therefore trying to right-size federal business, without knowing a single thing about that business.

And federal business is simply a very different beast than a private concern.

Federal business works to serve the essential needs of millions of stakeholders - which calls for a robust maintenance of the country’s massive infrastructure, waterworks, schools and libraries, public health and a plethora of other matters, and treating all stakeholders as essentially the same - while private concerns aim only to satisfy the profit motive driving a handful of top shareholders.

Besides the immediate needs of the people, federal officials must also maintain the environment upon which the very lives of their citizens depend.

All of this demands a long-term approach and engagement, routinely spanning decades.

By comparison, private business puts its emphasis on comparatively short-term concerns. U.S businesses usually consider the fiscal year as their primary period of consideration.

But even when Musk stays in the private sphere, his proven tendency is to cut too deeply into both an entity’s workforce and its basic business costs, ultimately depriving it of the very lifeblood it needs to remain competitive. He doesn’t right-size it; he bleeds it to death.

If one wants to see what happens when Musk gets involved in a business about which he knows nothing, one only has to look at the mess he made of X (formerly Twitter).

Of course, with the inevitable comparison between his actions at X and his activities at DOGE, one can see what a mess he’s sure to make of the U.S. federal government.

The moment any thinking person knew Elon Musk was out of his depth was when he fired numerous inspectors general. Musk claims they were fired to make the federal government more efficient.

But what is the job of the inspectors general? To oversee the agencies at which they work, as a separate and independent investigator who makes sure that that the agency follows essential government laws, follows efficient practices and that the money bestowed on them by Congress is well-spent.

In short, they make sure that the government agency they oversee is run efficiently, day in and day out, year after year.

Now, if Musk is serious about creating an efficient government, why would he get rid of the people who make sure that each government agency follows legal and efficient practices, day after day?

Some think the reason for this apparently bizarre action is to curtail investigations into Musk’s companies, as numerous attorneys general who were sacked were looking into his often questionable business practices.

But its just as possible that the billionaire didn’t want to share his new-found authority with people who have the same authority - and who also have a superior understanding of government business. Specifically, they know that practices which may conceivably be “efficient” for a private business routinely create inefficiency when they’re applied to government concerns.

The bottom line? Musk isn’t creating a stream-lined government order - he’s simply creating a glaring, spectacular mess.

Think of the massive lay-offs at the U.S. Forestry Service - and the equally massive increase in forest fires burning out of control, in great part, because of them. The number of fires the U.S. has experienced so far in 2025 is, on average, much higher than in previous years.

This obvious “cause and effect” has elegantly exposed the level of inefficiency created by these personnel cuts.

The numbers are stunningly clear: In 2025, a full 21,194 fires have burned 973,830 acres. How do those numbers compare to recent years?

- In 2020, only 11,052 fires materialized, burning 216,699 acres.

- In 2019, 9,557 fires materialized, burning 220,465 acres.

- In 2018, there were 16,708 fires burning 993,147 acres.

- In 2017, there were 18,017 fires, which burned 2,350,965 acres.

And, thanks to Musk’s wild-eyed cutting of necessary personnel across U.S. government agencies, a new concern will soon be upon us: “DOGE cuts will ‘in all probability’ increase the U.S. deficit — by a lot,” for a very straightforward reason: “Among the most massive costs will be the huge reduction in workers at the Internal Revenue Service,” stated an article published last month by the Independent, a British online news source, “who are worth their weight in gold because of the taxes they collect, the key source of income for the country.”

“Treasury Department and IRS officials are predicting a decrease of more than 10 percent in tax receipts by the April 15 deadline” if compared to the same activity performed in 2024, according to the Washington Post, quoting “three people with knowledge of tax projections.”

The under-collection of tax dollars is projected to “amount to more than $500 billion in lost federal revenue; the IRS collected $5.1 trillion last year,” the Post added.

“For context, the U.S. government spent $825 billion on the Defense Department in fiscal 2024,” continued the Post.

Such “losses would swamp any DOGE savings to date,” pointed out the Independent.

“Musk is also carving critical holes in the government that will have to be filled at some point before implosion by private companies,” continued the Independent,” adding that if those private companies weren’t Musk’s they would just belong to some other wealthy concern, “with personnel likely paid far more than government workers.”

How do they know this? Because “some of Musk’s team of DOGE are reportedly making six-figure salaries, while veteran workers are getting the ax,” pointed out the U.K. news source.

“Musk’s SpaceX is already taking over key tasks in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),” added the Independent, “and FAA staffers have been told if they stand in the way, they risk being fired.”

On Feb. 27, 1,000 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) employees were given layoff notices, House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Jared Huffman (D-CA) told ABC News in February. The NOAA analyzes weather and climate data, and tracks such extreme weather events as tornadoes and hurricanes.

The bottom line is that Musk has done little more than to mimic the disaster he created at Twitter: He takes control of something he can’t begin to understand, smashes it with no real answer as to how - or even, if - he can ever put it back together again, and almost certainly has engaged in activities that will only make the government’s fiscal standing worse, not better.

In a few days, we’ll take a look at what Musk claims is a spectacular financial turnaround at X (formerly Twitter). Short note? A good amount of evidence suggests that the “turnaround” may be due more to a burst of creative accounting, using earnings figures that at least one source has said were “wildly adjusted,” and an aggressive restructuring of debt that allowed Musk to claim $12 billon as assets. Stay tuned.

[cliff-montgomery]

I published this article to my website, The American Spark, back in March. If you like it, please check out my site for more.

How Necessary Climate Laws Are Killed These Days

By Cliff Montgomery - May 14th, 2025

Suppose for a moment that a few people in DC - pointedly, not millionaires or billionaires - started selling food products to such individuals as Donald Trump, members of Congress and other well-placed, wealthy individuals. Then it’s discovered that those products are naturally unsafe. One ingredient or another is causing serious health problems as these well-connected, well-to-do individuals fall violently ill. A few may even die after ingesting these products.

I think we know what would be the response. The president and Congress would compete to see how many bills, executive orders, etc. they could pass to punish similar people selling them badly defective items that are ruining their health. There would be a push to see what laws, if any, are already on the books that would allow the punishment of those terrible individuals who would put into danger the lives of such gentlemen and ladies as themselves.

Examples would have to be made of such dangerous animals. And under no circumstances would any of them wring their hands about “putting an economic burden” on the people poisoning them. Again, examples would have to be made.

But if the people poisoning others are multi-millionaires and billionaires, and the people they’re poisoning are not rich, then we hear from these - ahem, “representatives” - that we must not “punish the hard labor and innovation” of those wealthy job creators …

Behind the double standard is a cold truth: Lawmakers generally only fight to protect the people or things they care about - and all too often, that just doesn’t include the lives of most of their constituents.

Let’s look at how such an attitude works these days in practice, and how the current powers that be work to reverse a necessary, popular law that punishes wealthy lawbreakers.

“On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed H.R. 5376 (P.L. 117-169), a budget reconciliation measure commonly referred to as the ‘Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA),’ ” declared a recent study from the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

“Among other provisions, IRA includes a charge on methane emissions from selected entities in the oil and gas sector.

“IRA amended the Clean Air Act (CAA) by adding Section 136. Section 136 directs EPA to impose and collect a ‘Waste Emissions Charge’ (WEC). The charge applies only to methane emissions from specific types of facilities that are required to report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program (GHGRP). The charge starts at $900 per metric ton of methane, increasing to $1,500 after two years. These values equate to $36 and $60 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent, respectively. The charge first applies to methane emissions reported in 2024.

“This charge is the first time the federal government has directly imposed a charge, fee, or tax on GHG emissions,” continued the CRS study.

“EPA proposed a rule-making to implement the WEC on January 26, 2024. EPA issued a final rulemaking on November 18, 2024. Under EPA’s final rule, fees from methane emissions subject to the final rule would be due to EPA by September 2, 2025 (based on methane emissions released in 2024).”

U.S. Representative August Pfluger (R - TX) is supposed to work for all of us - or, at least all Texans - but it’s pretty clear he’s bought and owned by Big Oil and Big Gas. The oil and gas interests bought Rep. Pfluger for $767,984.

The Texas representative earns more bribes - ahem, we mean, “donations” - from Big Oil and Big Gas than any other member of the U.S. House. Among politicians of all stripes, he comes in fifth - behind only Donald Trump himself ($2.1 million), 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris ($1.3 million) and two well-heeled Republican senators.

And he’s all-in with Big Oil and Gas. Not only do those business interests give him more generous “donations” than any other U.S. house member, but his top donor - BC Operating, which donated $52,800 to Rep. Pfluger - just happens to be “an independent oil and natural gas (i.e., essentially methane) company.”

Now, reining in methane emissions is an action that simply needs to be done.

“Methane (CH4) is a hydrocarbon that is a primary component of natural gas. Methane is also a greenhouse gas (GHG), so its presence in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature and climate system,” admits the Trump Administration EPA.

“Methane is emitted from a variety of anthropogenic (human-influenced) and natural sources. Anthropogenic emission sources include landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial processes,” the EPA further explains.

“Methane is the second most abundant anthropogenic GHG after carbon dioxide (CO2), accounting for about 11 percent of global emissions.” continued the EPA, adding that “Methane is more than 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.”

“Over the last two centuries, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled, largely due to human-related activities. Because methane is both a powerful greenhouse gas and short-lived compared to carbon dioxide, achieving significant reductions would have a rapid and significant effect on atmospheric warming potential,” declared the EPA.

So, Trump’s own EPA freely admits that climate change and its attendant global warming are real concerns. But that doesn’t mean that the modern GOP has the integrity or the guts to do anything about it.

In short order, Rep. Pfluger pushed legislation based on a little-known procedure called the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

“This act created a legislative process that allows Congress to overturn—under specific conditions—certain federal agency actions,” stated the CRS report.

“In February 2025, both the (Republican-run) House and the (Republican-run) Senate passed a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 35, introduced by Oil and Gas property Rep. Pfluger) disapproving of EPA’s WEC rule.”

Both the House and Senate votes were partisan affairs.

In the House, 214 GOP members were joined by only 6 Democrats in voting for the measure; only one Republican had the integrity to vote against it. One Democratic lawmaker simply stated “present” when asked for their vote; and 3 Republicans were joined by 3 Democrats in deciding not to vote on the bill at all.

The Senate was even more partisan: 52 Republicans voted for the measure, while not one Democrat agreed to join them. Every Democrat in the Senate - 47 of them - voted against it. Only one GOP senator did not play the partisan game and vote for the measure: that person simply did not vote.

The measure then moved on to Trump, with a predictable outcome.

“President Trump [who, as we’ve seen, currently takes more “donations” from Big Oil and Big Gas than any other current federal politician] signed the measure on March 14, 2025, enacting the resolution (P.L. 119-2). Therefore, EPA’s final rule [which stated that ‘fees from methane emissions … would be due to EPA by September 2, 2025’] will not take effect,” according to the CRS study.

But that’s not all Rep. Pfluger’s legislation puts into play.

According to the CRS, “a rule subject to an enacted joint resolution of disapproval under the CRA ‘may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same … may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution.’

“It is uncertain what effect the enacted joint resolution will have on the implementation of the WEC. The CRA disapproval does not [officially] alter CAA Section 136, which directs EPA to implement the WEC. Accordingly, EPA may have to determine how to comply with Section 136 without adopting a rule that is substantially the same as the disapproved rule,” according to the CRS study.

Of course, we all know that the Trump Administration - as well as Republican members of Congress - will simply argue that no meaningful rule can be adopted, since any new rule must, in substance at least, be essentially the same as the stricken rule.

That’s how you kill a necessary, popular piece of legislation these days. Put it in a legal netherworld, insist your interpretation of law is the correct one and hope people allow you to get away with the legal fraud.

[cliff-montgomery]

I published this article to my website, The American Spark, back in January. If you like it, please check out my site for more.

Trump Dead Wrong on Socialism

By Cliff Montgomery - Mar. 18th, 2025

“This election will decide whether we save the American Dream or whether we allow a socialist agenda to demolish our cherished destiny.” - Donald Trump, in 2020

Well, you can’t expect a man who’s filed for business bankruptcy six times to know much about the economy…

Perhaps the best way to answer Trump on this silly charge is to offer concrete examples of socialism that every American knows, and to just let citizens use their own working knowledge of these examples. Decide for yourselves whether these examples of socialism are destroying your dreams.

Medicare is a socialist program, owned and funded by every American. U.S. citizens own the program as equal stakeholders in an economic partnership, and run it by voting in elections, choosing candidates who promise to run the nationalized insurance program as the people wish. Your grandmother’s Medicare account? That’s her personal share of the partnership she has with every other American paying into the program. Medicare is not tyrannizing your grandmother, or wrecking her dreams.

Social Security is a socialist program, likewise owned and funded by every American. In short, it is a nationalized pension plan, just as Medicare is a nationalized health insurance program for the aged. It empowers your grandfather, it does not tyrannize him.

Nor is any American tyrannized by a well-funded public infrastructure, public libraries, public parks …

Here’s a fun little truth: In the U.S., politicians and corporate journalists use the word “public” when referring to such enterprises, so they don’t have to use the more descriptive word, “socialist.” That way, many Americans remain ignorant of the fact that - their whole lives long - they’ve worked with socialist forms of self-government and often personally enjoy the benefits that comes with being one of the owners of these enterprises.

Then when they do hear the word, “socialist,” they’re driven to think of something foreign, and usually involving Joseph Stalin. It’s a play on supermarket labels. A similar tactic would constantly refer to banana republics in South America as “centers of capitalism.” It’s technically true, but most would agree that the level of brutality and human rights violations one sees in such places is a rarity in a typical “capitalist” nation.

And then there is the modern myth of the U.S. itself being a capitalist country…

Like every other modern nation, the U.S. possesses a “mixed” economy - that is to say, it is a mixture of capitalist and socialist enterprises. It has been so since the time of the Founding Fathers, who decided that it was in the interests of the people to own their own roads, rather than continually having to pay numerous tolls to the wealthy people who owned the streets leading in and out of every town and village.

Therefore, socialism in the U.S. goes back at least to the early 19th Century.

According to Google’s AI Assistant, “[President James] Madison believed that roads, canals, and bridges would help democracy by improving communication and political representation across the country.

“He also believed that the federal government should take on a role in building these infrastructure projects,” the Assistant continued.

“In his 1815 annual [presidential] address to Congress, Madison called for public investment in national roads and canals,” making the citizens the equal owners of the roads and canals by nationalizing these projects…an unmistakable mark of socialism.

So our economy has been mixed with some form of socialism almost from the beginning of the republic…Yet Founding Fathers like Madison aren’t normally seen as Murderers of the American Dream either.

The modern mixed economies we know really came into their own after the outbreak of the Great Depression almost 100 years ago. That’s when many of the socialist policies, programs and activities that now are staples of our modern world were needed to save former capitalist economies that no longer worked - this included the U.S. economy, the capitalist country whose hubris created the worldwide economic meltdown.

Now, every modern economy is a mixed economy. True capitalist economies are a thing of the past, for one excellent reason: They simply do not work.

Things like the economic collapse of the U.S. economy in the late 1980s and the Great Recession of 2007-2008 - which each occurred after socialist elements of the U.S. economy were reduced and rolled back - have only underlined and proved anew the need for a strong element of Socialism in any functional modern economy.

The Nordic model - enjoyed by countries like Sweden and Denmark - goes much farther, utilizing a form of mixed economy that could best be deemed market socialism. It employs strong elements of anarchism - an anti-state socialism which sees socialism as a personal moral force for the citizens of society, and demands that workers be seen and treated as equals in the business process - and syndicalism, another anti-state form of socialism in which unions act as the catalyst for socialist change.

This has resulted in “ the Nordic countries [having] the highest union density in the world,” as of 2019, according to nordics.info, and forcing companies to place elected union representatives on their board of directors, thus creating “ ‘Co-determination’ – direct union influence on corporate decision-making.”

A lack of government rules and activity does not mean a lack of socialist activity in an economy. So no, U.S. conservatives, the Nordic model does not depend on your so-called “free market” for its high standard of living or the greater freedoms those societies enjoy. Bernie Sanders essentially was right about the Nordic Model serving as a living example of a successful socialist model all along.

A quick aside here, meant as an added emphasis: With the singular exception of the U.S., every other powerful democratic nation enjoys at least one strong socialist political party of some kind. Canada and Britain have the Labour Party. France has numerous socialist parties. All the countries of Western Europe, New Zealand and Australia have powerful socialist parties. And they are practically all considered free nations.

Only the U.S. lacks such a party. But in the 1930s, liberal democrats ushered in a strong mixed economy here to combat and correct the excesses which led to the Great Depression. That mixed economy has been the economy we Americans - including Donald Trump - have known for nearly a hundred years now. And most Americans would consider the U.S. a fairly free nation.

In fact, another - more familiar term for a socialist enterprise of any kind - is cooperative, a term and a form of business organization that is a clear staple in the American way of life.

There is only one final question to ask regarding these socialist enterprises, these cooperatives: If properly funded and run well by the owners themselves - the people who actually work there, or the people who are the actual customers of the business - can their business model compete with capitalism?

To say it truthfully, Capitalism is based on the feudal notion of society, which employs the “Great Person” theory of history. The presumption assumes that the unwashed masses simply are too ignorant to run business concerns without the leadership of the “Great Ones” who rightfully command all the power, all the money, and all the respect due human beings.

We only need the example of one business to destroy that most central of myths Capitalism employs to justify its continued existence: Mondragon.

The Mondragon Corporation is a business and federation of worker cooperatives centered in Spain’s Basque region. Its revenue, in 2015, was €12.110 billion ($13.2 billion, U.S.). In 2014, its total assets stood at €24.725 billion (just over $27 billion, U.S.). In 2024, it has over 70,000 owners, or business partners.

The owners are the workers. There’s no Donald Trump, no Elon Musk. All of the owners count as great people, and run a tremendous business partnership.

The cooperative has four primary divisions: Industry, Retail, Finance and Knowledge.

It was created in 1956 by Father José María Arizmendiarrieta and a number of his students at a technical college he established, in the small town of Mondragón. The company began by selling paraffin heaters.

Its company asset turnover - in short, the efficiency of its asset use in producing sales income or sales revenue to the business - is the seventh-largest in Spain. It is the leading business entity in the Basque Country. In 2016, it empowered and enriched 74,117 business partners in almost 260 groups and companies.

Mondragon cooperatives follow the standards found in the Statement on the Co-operative Identity, a proclamation upheld by the International Co-operative Alliance.

So one suspects that Trump’s notion of freedom is a bit off the mark. It probably follows the notion of freedom that British philosopher Bertrand Russell spoke of when speaking of pure capitalists like Trump:

“Advocates of capitalism like to appeal to the sacred principles of ‘liberty’, which [to them] are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.”

To spoiled, wealthy people like Trump, the economic tyranny he and his wealthy friends like Elon Musk enjoy is the most sacred liberty of all.

But cooperatives like Mondragon, and socialist entities like Medicare, Social Security, public schools and national parks are the best antidote to their economic tyranny. Bone fide socialism enriches and empowers the people who do the work, and is purposely run on democratic principles. What could be more free - and more American - than that?

[cliff-montgomery]

From The American Spark:

U.S. Constitution States That President Is Not Above The Law

By Cliff Montgomery - Mar. 10th, 2025

Does Trump seem especially power-mad during the early days of his second term? Don’t care for how he has openly referred to himself as a “king” on his social media site? A Supreme Court ruling from last year is almost certainly the reason for it all, since that decision appears to give him a king’s power.

“On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump, or any other president,” explained Newsweek in a Feb. article, “has absolute immunity for core presidential actions and presumptive immunity for non-core presidential acts.”

But according to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the president is “liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law” if he is found to have committed illegal, impeachable offenses while performing his duties as president. There is no mention of any exception to this rule.

Impeachment itself is not a legal punishment - it only removes someone from office if they break U.S. laws roughly defined as “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But that official - even if he or she is the U.S. president - can still face prosecution for criminal actions performed while working at their job, according to the Constitution.

All of this is vitally important, since Trump understandably takes the Supreme Court overreach as a green light to assume absolute power.

But the Court cannot edit the Constitution. It cannot re-write it, either. It can only interpret what’s there - and it clearly states that the U.S. president is subject to a number of laws, and can suffer the full range of legal punishments if he breaks those laws.

Here’s what’s in that document regarding the limits of presidential power:

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 -- “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law (emphasis added).”

“An impeachment and removal does not activate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment,” states Cornell Law School. “The ex-officer may face criminal indictments and trials for the same conduct that led to their impeachment and removal from office.”

There is no double jeopardy since “the purpose of impeachment is [simply] to protect the public interest, rather than [to] impose a punitive measure on an individual,” according to the federal website Constitution Annotated.

One other important matter: Congress does not need to impeach a president, or any other civil officer, before that officer may be tried and punished by a court of law.

“The text of the Constitution does not address the sequencing of impeachment and other legal proceedings,” declares an Overview of Impeachment Judgments, which is found on the federal website Constitution Annotated.

In fact, “generally speaking, historical practice has been to impeach individuals after the conclusion of any related criminal proceedings, although this might simply reflect practical convenience as such proceedings can alert Congress of improper behavior that may warrant impeachment. Nonetheless, nothing in the Constitution demands this order of events,” states the federal website.

Constitution Annotated adds that “ individuals who have already been convicted of crimes may be impeached for the same underlying behavior later. A number of federal judges, in fact, have been indicted and convicted for conduct which has formed the basis for a subsequent impeachment proceeding.”

Such legal precedents further establish that all civil officers - including U.S. presidents - have a constitutional responsibility to follow the laws of the land. If they don’t, they may face all the criminal penalties everyone else faces when they break those laws. No impeachment is necessary.

If all this is so, then last year’s questionable Supreme Court decision would have to be considered null and void. That, in turn, would mean that Trump almost certainly has been overstepping his Constitutionally-mandated powers. Let the legal and political fallout begin …

[cliff-montgomery]

I’ve been gone a while …

I’m back after a four-month (!) hiatus on here. Where have I been? Working on my updated website, The American Spark (the-americanspark.com). Feel free to check out its much-improved look and features.

I’ll re-publish a few of the articles I’ve placed on the website for the last few months, to give everyone a taste of what I’ve been working on while I was away. Cheers! Tell me what you think!

Cliff Montgomery, Editor and Publisher of The American Spark

[cliff-montgomery]

Trump Is To Blame For Attempts On Trump’s Life

By Cliff Montgomery - Nov. 5th, 2024

Elon Musk was confused. When a few individuals with political ties to Donald Trump or conservative movements tried to assassinate his friend Donald Trump, he posted - then deleted - a post asking why “no one is even trying to assassinate” either President Joe Biden or the Democratic presidential candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris.

The reason no one has tried to assassinate Kamala Harris or Joe Biden - or any other presidential candidate - is that they do not go out of their way to attract unstable people with a penchant for violence.

If you attract a wild animal, you can’t be terribly surprised if that animal suddenly attacks you - it is by its nature unpredictable. Working to attract angry, sometimes unstable people with a love of violent activity is a sure way to be attacked by that unpredictable penchant for assault.

Trump has spent his entire political career appealing to the outsider - that’s one of his few good political qualities. The problem is that his shamelessness encourages him to appeal to individuals who see violence as a happy solution to all of life’s problems.

Such people easily turn on their friends, their lovers … their politicians.

All they need is an impetus, something that politician does or says that they cannot accept … and the fuse is set. Take Ryan Wesley Routh, a former Trump supporter who turned against him over Trump’s stance on Russia’s war in Ukraine. Routh was arrested after committing what the FBI has called an assassination attempt on Trump’s life.

So if Donald Trump doesn’t want to be attacked, he shouldn’t call for attacks on others. If he doesn’t want to be assaulted, he shouldn’t call for assaults on others.

And if he doesn’t want to be burned, then he shouldn’t continually light fires that might burn down his own home.

Vote your conscience. But consider that bit of inherent instability in Donald Trump as a human being, consider who he sometimes goes out of his way to attract as potential supporters, and then honestly ask yourself whether he can actually serve as a president in a functioning democracy.

[cliff-montgomery]

US Jury Finds Chiquita Guilty Of Funding Right-Wing Terrorist Group In Columbia

By Cliff Montgomery - July 2nd, 2024

The U.S. court system has been making some very poor decisions lately. So it’s nice to see that - on occasion - a court in this country may still do the right thing.

Just ask those who took note of the jury decision a few weeks ago against the Chiquita fruit company, which held it to task for its deplorable actions in the Latin American nation of Columbia.

“A court in the United States has found multinational fruit company Chiquita Brands International liable for financing a Colombian paramilitary group,” according to BBC News in an article published on June 11th.

“The group, the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC), was designated by the US as a terrorist organisation at the time,” added BBC.

“Following a civil case brought by eight Colombian families whose relatives were killed by the AUC,” continued the news source, “Chiquita has been ordered to pay $38.3m (£30m) in damages to the families.”

Indeed, the jury serving a federal court of Florida ruled that “Chiquita knowingly provided substantial assistance to the AUC to a degree sufficient to create a foreseeable risk of harm to others,” stated an article quietly published by CNN on June 12th.

Of course, “Chiquita said in a statement that … [there was] ‘no legal basis for the claims,’ ” stated BBC News. The fruit giant added that “it intended to appeal against the jury’s verdict.”

“The AUC engaged in widespread human rights abuses in Colombia,” pointed out BBC, “including murdering people it suspected of links with left-wing rebels.”

“The victims ranged from trade unionists to banana workers,” added the news source.

“At its height, [the AUC] had an estimated 30,000 members who engaged in intimidation, drug trafficking, extortion, forced displacement and killings,” declared the BBC News article.

“It also launched brutal attacks on villagers they suspected of supporting left-wing rebels,” added the news source.

Though “the group demobilised in 2006 after reaching a peace deal with the government,” BBC News stated that “some of its members went on to form new splinter groups which continue to be active.”

“The case was brought by the families after Chiquita pleaded guilty in 2007 to making payments to the AUC,” stated BBC News.

“In [that year], Chiquita pleaded guilty to making over 100 payments to the AUC totaling over $1.7 million,” added CNN, “despite the group being designated a terrorist organization.”

“Chiquita recorded the AUC payments as ‘security services,’ ” pointed out CNN, “though the company never received any actual services from these payments, according to a US Justice Department press release from the time.”

Apparently caught red-handed, the fruit company “agreed to pay the US government a $25 million fine, the [Justice Department] said in its release,” according to CNN.

It seems “an unnamed company executive had told the Justice Department that the payments had been made under the threat of violence,” CNN said in reference to a section of the federal press release.

But that excuse didn’t work for the Florida jury, which answered that the Chiquita company did not “act as a reasonable businessperson would have acted under the circumstances,” according to CNN.

“The class-action lawsuit against Chiquita … focused on nine cases, which were chosen out of hundreds of claims against the banana company,” according to BBC News.

“The jury found that the AUC was responsible for eight of the nine murders examined as part of the lawsuit,” declared BBC, and that the jury further “ruled that Chiquita had knowingly provided substantial assistance to the AUC, to a degree sufficient to create a foreseeable risk of harm.”

Agnieszka Fryszman, one of the chief lawyers for the victims, declared that “the verdict does not bring back the husbands and sons who were killed,” but that it does set “the record straight and places accountability for funding terrorism where it belongs: at Chiquita's doorstep,” according to BBC News.

In a stinging social media post, the president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, simply asked why such a ruling against these oppressors had not been made in his country.

“Why could US justice determine in judicial truth that Chiquita Brands financed paramilitarism in Urabá? Why couldn’t Colombian justice?” he wondered in a post he placed on X [formerly Twitter].

Another case against Chiquita - comprising a second group of plaintiffs - is set to begin on July 15th.

[cliff-montgomery]

Israelis Are Also Furious With War On Palestinian People

By Cliff Montgomery - May 26th, 2024

A common lie perpetrated by the U.S. corporate media implies that the pro-Palestinian protests seen in this nation is somehow the result of “hatred against Jews.”

It’s a strange argument to make. When the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan following the events of Sept. 11th, 2001, the constant corporate refrain was that we weren’t going to war in that country because we “hated Muslims” - we simply went after the terrorists and murderers who attacked us. We went to war with that small cabal running the country because of who those few individuals were, not what they were.

Our corporate media - and the few wealthy individuals who own those sources - might do well to treat the current matter in Israel with the same even-handedness they employed when discussing Afghanistan over 20 years ago. At least that would be consistent. It would certainly be honest.

But there’s an even greater problem with painting as “Jew haters” all those who protest the genocide that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is perpetrating in Gaza: The massive protests the Israeli people themselves have waged against Netanyahu’s activities.

It certainly isn’t being discussed by the U.S. corporate media, but the protests may be rocking Israel to its core.

“Thousands of demonstrators have gathered outside government buildings throughout Israel, nearly six months into the war on Gaza,” declared Al Jazeera in early April, adding that the conflict “has killed more than 32,000 Palestinians.

“Protesters are calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to resign among other things,” the news source stated.

“Israeli police have attempted to disperse the crowds in Jerusalem with water cannon while also physically pushing back protesters in both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv,” Al Jazeera continued.

On March 31st of this year, “tens of thousands of people gathered outside the Knesset in Jerusalem, where a four-day protest was called.” Al Jazeera declared that the massive protest was “believed to be the largest anti-government demonstration” against Netanyahu’s war up to that time.

“Protests also grew in other cities in Israel,” the news source stated, adding that “demonstrations were also reported in Haifa, Be’er Sheva and Caesarea among other cities.”

“The protesters have been demanding that the government secure a Gaza ceasefire deal immediately,” stated Al Jazeera, “to allow for the return of captives taken by Hamas from Israel, early elections and the resignation of Netanyahu.”

“Hamas took more than 200 captives during its attack on army outposts and surrounding villages in southern Israel on October 7,” stated the news source. “Nearly half were released during a temporary pause in fighting in November in exchange for several Palestinians held prisoner by Israel,” it added.

In fact, it’s clear that Netanyahu is every bit as unpopular with the Israeli people as he is with U.S. college students these days.

“In January, a survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute” revealed “that only 15 percent of Israelis want Netanyahu to keep his job after the war on Gaza,” pointed out Al Jazeera.

“Twenty-three percent of respondents said they would prefer former defence minister and war cabinet member Benny Gantz to become prime minister,” added the news source.

And the protests are still going on in Israel.

“Scuffles between Israeli police and protesters erupted in Tel Aviv on Saturday after thousands gathered to demonstrate against the government,” Associated Press (AP) stated on May 25th.

“Some [protesters] held banners reading ‘Stop the war’ and ‘Help,’ continued AP. The news source also stated that the Israeli protesters “called on the government to reach a deal to release the dozens of hostages still in captivity.”

“The protesters also called for the resignation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and demanded new elections,” AP pointed out.

Protester Snir Dahan, an uncle of Palestinian hostage Carmel Gat, told AP that “Basically they are not doing enough in order for the hostages to come back,” and added this included “military force, with (a) hostages’ deal, negotiating. Nothing is being done.”

“Netanyahu’s government has faced increasing pressure,” stated AP, “both at home and abroad, to stop the war and allow humanitarian aid into the enclave that is home to 2.3 million Palestinians.”

“Almost 80% of [the Palestinian people] … have been displaced,” added the news source.

And “more than 35,000 Palestinians have been killed in the war, according to the [Gaza] Health Ministry, which doesn’t distinguish between combatants and civilians,” declared AP.

And that’s not all.

“Also this week, three European countries announced they would recognize a Palestinian state,” pointed out the news source, “and the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court requested arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, along with Hamas officials.”

And “on Friday the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to end its military offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah,” continued AP, “and to open the nearby border crossing for crucial humanitarian aid.”

“The top United Nations court also said Israel must give war crimes investigators access to Gaza,” stated the news source yesterday.

So please corporate mouthpieces, let’s not pretend that the pro-Palestinian, anti-genocide protesters on our college campuses are confused, out-of-touch and out-of-step with the real world. The real world agrees with them.

The only one who is confused and out-of-touch is you.

[cliff-montgomery]

Fukushima Nuclear Plant Has History Of Crisis Management Failures

By Cliff Montgomery - Apr. 17th, 2024

It doesn’t appear to have been much discussed in the U.S., but in February the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant mistakenly leaked “about 5.5 tons of water containing radioactive materials” into the Pacific Ocean, according to the Xinhua News Agency, the state-owned news service of the People's Republic of China.

“It is estimated that 22 billion becquerels of radioactive materials such as cesium and strontium are contained in the leaked water,” stated the Chinese news source.

A becquerel refers to “one of three units used to measure radioactivity,” according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Simply put, it “refers to the amount of ionizing radiation released when an element (such as uranium) spontaneously emits energy,” thanks to “the radioactive decay (or disintegration) of an unstable atom.”

The release of 22 billion units of such stuff sounds like quite a lot … Xinhua certainly thinks so.

“The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), claimed on [Feb. 7th] that [the] monitoring of a nearby drainage channel did not show any significant radiation level changes,” noted the news service.

But, asked Xinhua, “this begs the question: What constitutes a ‘significant’ level?”

The Fukushima nuclear power plant has had its series of disasters. On March 11th, 2011, the plant experienced the severe blows of the now-infamous magnitude 9.1 earthquake and subsequent tsunami that struck Japan. That one-two punch destroyed a number of its reactors, allowing radiation leaks to contaminate the surrounding area. The plant is being decommissioned.

But “nearly 13 years after the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami,” pointed out the Chinese news service, “recurring leaking incidents still hint at the utility’s mismanagement and the Japanese government’s inadequacy in overseeing it.”

“The leak on [Feb. 7th] stemmed from a valve left open during cleaning operations,” stated Xinhua, while “on Oct. 26, 2023 … two men were hospitalized after being accidentally splashed with radioactive liquid at the plant.”

“The deficiencies in the fundamental equipment raise questions about the potential for similar occurrences,” stated the news service, “and whether TEPCO [the firm that owns the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant] conducts regular inspections of its equipment.”

“While TEPCO this time claimed that there is no risk to the public and that the surrounding environment remains unaffected by the leak,” Xinhua deftly pointed out that “its history of cover-ups and opacity has eroded public trust.”

“For instance,” continued the Chinese new service, “it took TEPCO over two years after the 2011 tsunami to acknowledge that radioactive tritium had leaked into the Pacific Ocean,” an admission that contradicted “its initial assertions that the toxic water had been contained within the plant’s premises.”

“Also, in February 2015, TEPCO admitted that since April 2014,” Xinhua continued, “it had been aware of radioactive substances from a rainwater drainage ditch linked to one of its buildings” leaking into the Pacific Ocean every time it rained.

A quick review of the Fukushima plant’s history reveals that such carelessness has been a hallmark of the facility from the very beginning.

“The worst nuclear disaster since the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown never should have happened, according to a … [scientific] study,” declared the University of Southern California (USC) news service USC Today back in 2015.

The study, spear-headed by researchers from the USC Viterbi School of Engineering and the Middle East Technical University in Turkey, found that “ ‘arrogance and ignorance,’ design flaws, regulatory failures and improper hazard analyses doomed the coastal nuclear power plant even before the tsunami hit.”

You would think U.S. citizens might be interested in learning about all this, if they were ever given the chance to read or hear about it. Such a media omission is America’s corporate press in a nutshell - working hard to protect its corporate friends by maintaining a convenient silence.

[cliff-montgomery]

Laws Tightened For ‘Firearms Dealers Engaged In The Business’

By Cliff Montgomery - Mar. 14th, 2024

On February 9th, two short reviews on current federal gun laws were released by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The CRS refers to itself as a “ non-partisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress.” In short, it prepares concise, easy-to understand reports on matters of the moment to members of the U.S. and their affiliated staff members.

We are covering those two short studies for our readers. Last time, we reviewed the CRS study Gun Control: Straw Purchase and Gun Trafficking Provisions in Public Law 117-159, better known as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

Tonight, we look at the second review, Firearm Dealers Engaged In The Business.

Below, we offer readers most of the central statements found in the second CRS report:

Firearms Dealers Engaged in the Business

“On June 25, 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA; P.L. 117-159). Section 12002 of P.L. 117-159 amends definitions related to firearms dealer licensure in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA, 18 U.S.C. §§921 et seq.). Under the GCA, the definition of engaged in the business undergirds provisions that require persons buying and selling firearms at the wholesale or retail level to be federally licensed as firearms dealers.

“Section 12002 of P.L. 117-159 amends a subparagraph of the GCA definition of engaged in the business as it pertains to federally licensed firearms dealers by striking the language ‘with the principal objective of livelihood and profit,’ and replacing it with ‘to predominantly earn a profit.’

“As amended, the definition at 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(21)(C) reads as follows:

[Engaged in the business,] as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), [means] a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his collection of firearms. […]

GCA Record-keeping and Background Checks

“To deter unlawful firearms commerce and gun trafficking, the GCA generally prohibits anyone who is not licensed as an FFL from acquiring a firearm from an out-of-state source, requiring that such transfers be facilitated through an FFL in the state where the transferee resides.

“The GCA requires FFLs to maintain records on all commercial firearms transactions.

“The act also requires an FFL to initiate a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (NICS) on any unlicensed person who seeks to acquire a firearm from the FFL through a sale, trade, or redemption of firearms exchanged for collateral (18 U.S.C. §922(t)).

“In the case of a NICS system ‘proceed’ response, the FFL may complete the transfer. In the case of a system ‘delayed’ response, the FFL is permitted to proceed with the transfer at their discretion after three business days have elapsed if the FFL has not received a final NICS eligibility determination.

“Intra-state private transfers between unlicensed persons not engaged in the business of dealing in firearms ‘to predominantly earn a profit’ are not covered by the record-keeping or the background check provisions of the GCA, as amended by P.L. 117-159.

“However, such transfers and other matters such as possession, registration, and the issuance of licenses to firearms owners may be covered by state laws or local ordinances. Some gun control advocates refer to intra-state private firearm transfers as the gun show loophole and call for comprehensive/universal background checks. Related legislation has been introduced in the 118th Congress (see H.R. 3122).

Shift in Focus from Livelihood to Profit

“Amendments to P.L. 117-159 shift the focus of the GCA dealer licensing requirement onto an intent to seek a profit by eliminating the ‘principal objective of livelihood’ as a condition for licensure. For federally licensed firearms and ammunition manufacturers and importers, the ‘principal objective of livelihood and profit’ remains a central condition requiring licensure. For federally licensed gun dealers, ‘to predominantly earn a profit’ is now the central condition requiring licensure.

“The amendments to P.L. 117-159 are intended to require persons who buy and resell firearms repetitively for profit to be licensed federally as gun dealers, even if they do not do so with ‘the principal objective of livelihood.’ As a result, the definitional changes in P.L. 117-159 could make some, but not all, intra-state private firearm transfers subject to GCA record-keeping and background check requirements, if those transfers are made by profit-oriented, repetitive firearms buyers and sellers.

“Arguably, such transfers were not covered under previous law, if the firearms transfers in question were not also made for the ‘principal objective’ of one’s ‘livelihood.’ According to the sponsors of P.L. 117-159, there was confusion about the GCA’s definition of engaged in the business [italics added] as it pertained to individuals who bought and resold firearms repetitively for profit, but possibly not as the principal source of their livelihood.

“They maintain that these changes clarify who should be licensed, eliminating a gray area in the law, ensuring that one aspect of firearms commerce is more adequately regulated.”

[cliff-montgomery]

The Thorny Problem of Straw Purchases in U.S. Gun Law

by Cliff Montgomery - Feb. 15th, 2024

Yesterday’s mass shooting at a parade intended to celebrate the Kansas City Chiefs’ recent Super Bowl victory over the San Francisco 49s once again reminds us of the need for serious gun laws and gun law reform.

On February 9th, two short reviews on current federal gun laws were released by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The CRS refers to itself as a “ non-partisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress.” In short, it prepares concise, easy-to understand reports on matters of the moment to members of the U.S. and their affiliated staff members.

We will cover those two short studies for our readers. Tonight, we look at the report Gun Control: Straw Purchase and Gun Trafficking Provisions in Public Law 117-159, better known as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

Straw purchases are defined by the study as “illegal firearms transactions in which a person serves as a middleman by posing as the transferee, but is actually acquiring the firearm for another person.”

Below, we offer readers most of the central statements found in the CRS report:

“On June 25, 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA; S. 2938; P.L. 117-159). This law includes the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, provisions of which amend the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA, 18 U.S.C. §§921 et seq.) to more explicitly prohibit straw purchases and illegal gun trafficking. Related provisions expand federal law enforcement investigative authorities.

Federal Firearms Law

“The GCA is the principal statute regulating interstate firearms commerce in the United States. The purpose of the GCA is to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement in ongoing efforts to reduce violent crime.

“Congress constructed the GCA to allow state and local governments to regulate firearms more strictly within their own borders, so long as state law does not conflict with federal law or violate constitutional provisions.

“Hence, one condition of a federal firearms license for gun dealers, which permits the holder to engage in interstate firearms commerce, is that the licensee must comply with both federal and state law.

“Also, under the GCA there are several classes of persons prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition (e.g., convicted felons, fugitives, unlawful drug users). It was and remains unlawful under the GCA for any person to transfer knowingly a firearm or ammunition to a prohibited person (18 U.S.C. §922(d)). Violations are punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is the principal agency that administers and enforces the GCA, as well as the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA, 26 U.S.C. §§5801 et seq.).

“The NFA further regulates certain firearms deemed to be especially dangerous (e.g., machine guns, short-barreled shotguns) by taxing all aspects of the making and transfer of such weapons and requiring their registration with the Attorney General.

Straw Purchase Provision

“Straw purchases are illegal firearms transactions in which a person serves as a middleman by posing as the transferee, but is actually acquiring the firearm for another person.

“As discussed below, straw purchases are unlawful under two existing laws. Prosecutions under those provisions have been characterized by some as mere paperwork violations and, hence, inadequate in terms of deterring unlawful gun trafficking.

“P.L. 117-159 amends the GCA with a new provision, 18 U.S.C. §932, to prohibit any person from knowingly purchasing or conspiring to purchase any firearm for, on behalf of, or at the request or demand of any other persons if the purchaser knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the actual buyer

is a person prohibited from being transferred a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §922(d);

plans to use, carry, possess, or sell (dispose of) the firearm(s) in furtherance of a felony, federal crime of terrorism, or drug trafficking crime; or

plans to sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm(s) to a person who would meet any of the conditions described above.

“Violations are punishable by a fine and up to 15 years’ imprisonment. Violations made by a person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that any firearm involved will be used to commit a felony, federal crime of terrorism, or drug trafficking crime are punishable by a fine and up to 25 years’ imprisonment.

Gun Trafficking Provision

“Gun trafficking entails the movement or diversion of firearms from legal to illegal channels of commerce in violation of the GCA. P.L. 117-159 amends the GCA with a new provision, 18 U.S.C. §933, to prohibit any person from shipping, transporting, causing to be shipped or transported, or otherwise disposing of any firearm to another person with the knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the transferee’s use, carrying, or possession would constitute a felony.

“It would also prohibit the receipt of such firearm if the transferee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that receiving it would constitute a felony. Attempts and conspiracies to violate these provisions are proscribed as well. Violations are punishable by a fine and up to 15 years’ imprisonment. […]

GCA Interstate Transfer Prohibitions

“The GCA generally prohibits anyone who is not a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) from acquiring a firearm from an out-of-state source. [But] Interstate transfers among unlicensed persons may be facilitated through an FFL in the state where the transferee resides. […]

GCA Record-keeping and Straw Purchases

“Under the GCA (18 U.S.C. §926), Congress authorized a decentralized system of record-keeping allowing ATF to trace a firearm’s chain of commerce, from manufacturer or importer to dealer, and to the first retail purchaser of record. FFLs must maintain certain records, including ATF Forms 4473, on transfers to non-FFLs as well as a parallel acquisition/disposition log.

“As part of a firearms transaction, both the FFL and purchaser must truthfully fill out and sign the ATF Form 4473. The FFL must verify the purchaser’s name, date of birth, and other information by examining government-issued identification (e.g., driver’s license). The purchaser attests on Form 4473 that he or she is not a prohibited person and is the actual transferee/buyer. […]

“[However,] straw purchases are not easily detected because they only become apparent when the straw purchase is revealed by a subsequent transfer to a prohibited person.

Other GCA Gun Trafficking Prohibitions

“According to ATF, gun trafficking often entails an unlawful flow of firearms from jurisdictions with less restrictive firearms laws to jurisdictions with more restrictive firearms laws, both domestically and internationally.

“Such unlawful activities can include, but are not limited to, the following:

straw purchasers or straw purchasing rings in violation of the provisions described above;

persons engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(1)(A), punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment;

corrupt FFLs dealing off-the-books in an attempt to escape federal regulation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(b)(5), punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment; and

trafficking in stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(j), punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

“Under current law, offenders could potentially be charged with multiple offenses under both the preexisting GCA provisions such as those discussed above and 18 U.S.C. §§932 and 933.

“Since P.L. 117-159 went into effect on October 31, 2023, 250 defendants have been charged with gun trafficking, including 80 charged with violating the law’s straw purchase provision.

“In January 2024, the National Shooting Sports Foundation—an industry trade group for the firearms industry—noted that the ATF has yet to implement two parts of P.L. 117-159: ‘Firearm Handler Background Checks’ (FHCs) and instant point-of-sale background checks when an FFL buys from a private individual.

“The former would allow FFLs to use the NICS to background check FFL employees and has been in regulatory review since September 26, 2023. The latter would allow FFLs to instantly identify if a weapon is stolen at the point of sale by authorizing importers, manufacturers, and dealers of firearms to access records of stolen firearms in the National Crime Information Center; it has been in the interim final rule stage since May 17, 2023.”

[cliff-montgomery]

FDA Plans To Help Trace Source Of Outbreaks Remain Unfinished

By Cliff Montgomery - Jan. 23rd, 2024

“Although the U.S. food supply is generally considered safe, food-borne illness remains a common and costly public health problem in the U.S.,” according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study released last week.

“For example, from 2014 through 2021,” declares the report, “food-borne disease outbreaks linked to leafy greens were associated with a total of 2,028 illnesses, 477 hospitalizations, and 18 deaths, according to CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention].”

“The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), signed into law in January 2011, expanded and overhauled U.S. food safety law,” stated the GAO study.

Among other things, “it included requirements for FDA to establish additional record-keeping requirements for facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold [such] foods” as “fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, ready-made deli salads, and nut butters,” according to the GAO report.

Below, I’ve quoted the one-page “Highlights” introduction to the report:

Why GAO Did This Study

“Food-borne illness remains a common and costly public health problem in the U.S. Being able to efficiently trace products linked to a food-borne illness outbreak can help government agencies and those who produce and sell food identify the source of the outbreak.

“FDA, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is responsible for developing and implementing several rules required by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, enacted in 2011. These include the food traceability rule.

“The act also included a provision for GAO to report on the traceability rule. This report, among other things, (1) describes FDA’s and selected stakeholders’ views on the rule’s recordkeeping requirements and (2) examines FDA’s actions to implement the rule and challenges FDA and stakeholders may face in achieving compliance.

“GAO reviewed FDA documentation and interviewed FDA officials and 20 selected stakeholders representing industry associations, consumer advocacy groups, and non-federal regulators.

What GAO Found

“In November 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) promulgated a final rule on food traceability to help identify the source of outbreaks of food-borne illness. In developing the rule, the FDA established a list of certain foods for which enhanced record-keeping is required, and set a compliance date of January 20, 2026.

“Entities handling an item on the list must maintain specific records, including a traceability plan, at certain points in the item’s supply chain.

“To identify foods for the list, FDA used an approach that incorporates statutorily mandated criteria, such as the history and severity of prior outbreaks involving the item.

“Several stakeholders GAO interviewed said FDA’s methodology for identifying foods for the list was appropriate. Several other stakeholders disagreed with this assessment, stating that FDA’s approach resulted in an overly inclusive list. In response to similar comments on the draft rule, FDA provided its rationale for considering foods at the commodity - or category - level, stating that foods in these groups had similar risk characteristics and associated hazards.

“FDA has taken some steps to help industry and non-federal regulators prepare for compliance with and enforcement of the rule. Also, in late 2022, FDA began an iterative planning process for implementing the rule.

“However, as of October 2023, FDA had not finalized or documented an implementation plan, according to FDA officials.

“Components of such a plan could help address challenges stakeholders identified in preparing for the compliance deadline. For example, the plan could include additional information on non-federal regulators’ roles in the inspection process and FDA’s enforcement strategy and needed resources. It also could identify additional guidance, training, and tools for stakeholders.

“By finalizing and documenting an implementation plan, FDA will have better assurance it is well positioned to make progress toward its regulatory goals and address the various challenges that stakeholders identified to achieving compliance by the deadline.

What GAO Recommends

“GAO recommends that FDA finalize and document an implementation plan for the traceability rule. HHS agreed with this recommendation.”

[cliff-montgomery]

U.S. Workers Owed Over $163 Million In Back Pay

By Cliff Montgomery - Jan. 13th, 2024

Over 208,000 U.S. workers deserve an extra $163.3 million in pay from businesses that violated wage laws, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

In an apparent response to such crises, the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division has created Workers Owed Wages (WOW). It is a website that allows a person to determine if a company for which they have worked is one of the businesses that owes their employees back pay - that is, the difference between what the worker was rightfully owed and the amount they were paid.

If a worker finds that a company for which they worked is listed on WOW, he or she may then use the site to determine if they are one of the workers owed money. The Labor Department has collected this money from the companies, and will pay these workers what they are rightfully owed.

Many times, the companies claim that they wished to pay their workers, but were not able to find the often former employees to whom the money is owed.

Last year, WOW helped workers claim over $26.9 million of their hard-earned cash, which benefitted almost 4,000 workers.

But thousands of others who are owed these wages have not utilized the Labor Dept. website. That’s an issue, as Labor only retains the funds for three years - after that, the unclaimed funds become the property of the U.S. Treasury.

Why can’t the companies just send the wages to the workers who earned them? The simple truth is that many of these workers are at or near the bottom of the wage totem pole. So, as one might expect, “representatives from the Wage and Hour Division [have] said many of the employees who are owed wages come from under-served populations,” according to a recent article on the matter published by USA Today.

The workers include “such [people] as young workers, migrant workers and those earning near minimum wage,” the article added.

And such workers will frequently change matters in their lives like addresses or jobs, making it especially hard to track them down, according to federal sources.

“One of our top priorities is to ensure that the back wages we recover are swiftly paid to the workers who earned them,” recently stated Labor Department wage and hour administrator Jessica Looman to USA Today.

“Yet, a portion of that money remains unclaimed because some of the workers due back wages cannot be located,” she added.

“They may have changed jobs or changed addresses and cannot be notified of the money owed to them,” continued Looman.

Knowing which workers are often underpaid, there perhaps is little surprise that the construction, food service and health care industries are the most common culprits in failing to pay their workers all they have actually earned, according to Labor Department data.

For instance, “a total of 36,534 people employed by the food service industry are owed back wages that have already been paid out by [i.e., collected from] their previous employer,” stated USA Today.

Pennsylvania companies appear to have been the chief culprits in this matter, failing to pay their workers more than $19 million. The wages remain unclaimed, according to USA Today.

Companies in California, Texas, Massachusetts and Virginia have fared almost as poorly, often failing to properly pay workers the full wages they have earned.

In short, companies in these five states failed to properly pay $74 million to the workers who need it most.

And of course, companies in these states are not the only culprits. In Florida alone, more than 10,000 workers are owed over $6.17 million, according to Labor Department data.

There may be more questionable reasons for the failure of these companies to pay their workers what they actually earned.

Lissette Vargas, who serves as the Labor Department’s acting district director of its wage and hour division, informed South Florida’s WTVJ-TV that these companies may well have violated numerous federal laws, from overtime and minimum wage violations, to the Family and Medical Leave Act or laws regulating child labor.

It should be added that “those who believe they may have experienced wage theft [should be informed that] the Labor Department provides resources and information on worker’s rights,” as stated by USA Today.

[cliff-montgomery]

Can We Now Finally Admit That Trump Is A Fascist?

By Cliff Montgomery - Jan. 2nd, 2024

This is a reprint of an article I wrote for The American Spark in early 2021, about Donald Trump’s tendency to embrace fascist activities to grab and to maintain power. That truth was perhaps most clearly displayed by his supporters’ failed insurrection on Jan. 6th of that year. With several states now removing Trump from their presidential ballots because of his ties to the insurrectionists, the article seems just as fresh as when it was written. Enjoy …

The march had been planned for a while.

Those who made up the march to the nation’s capital sometimes were fueled by hatred of anyone different from themselves. In part, their movement seemed to be based on racial, ethnic and religious animosity.

The marchers often saw their own ethnic and religious group as being made up of the “pure ones” - the people who really built the country, who made it a great and wonderful nation - and saw perceived ‘others’ who were living there as nothing more than a drain on the country’s traditions and economic stability.

But the underlying factors that most motivated the crowd to march on their capital were:

The failure of the conservative and liberal parties to create an economic platform that benefitted all, or even most, of the country’s people. Capitalism was doing little more than making the rich richer and the poor, ever more poor and desperate;

The rise of socialism among many who were suffering and demanding a better life. The marchers often possessed an innate fear of new ideas, and were therefore terrified of the sweeping changes to the country that would be made by a potentially successful socialist movement.

Such matters drove them to follow their leader, who was well-known for his deliberately overblown rhetoric and his bombastic manner. Many observers found the man loud, uncouth and a little ridiculous. But those very qualities were what won the hearts and captured the minds of his rabid followers.

He seemed to be one of them. He didn’t invent their grievances, their fury or their fears. But he gave a focus to those feelings, he provided a face and a voice to them. And so they would follow him to Hell, if he called on them to march there.

But that day he was calling on them to march on the nation’s capital, to end what their leader often called ‘the weak sham of liberal democracy’ and to strangle socialism in its cradle. They would use their numbers and display their fury. They would force the timid, soft politicians to hand over the government to their leader - by sheer terror if necessary. Their strength and purity would make the country great again.

Their great leader was the only one good enough, strong enough and pure enough by both blood and faith to rule absolutely. And they would continue using terror to keep him in power.

We have just discussed the 1922 March on Rome, perpetrated by Italy’s National Fascist Party. Their ‘great leader’ was Benito Mussolini.

As the Encyclopedia Britannica puts it:

“Widespread social discontent, aggravated by middle-class fear of a socialist revolution and by disappointment over Italy’s meagre gains from the peace settlement after World War I,” states Britannica, “created an atmosphere favourable for Mussolini’s rise to power.”

“On October 24, 1922, the fascist party leaders planned an insurrection to take place on October 28,” continues the encyclopedia, “consisting of a march on Rome by the fascist armed squads known as Blackshirts and the capture of strategic local places throughout Italy.”

“Waiting in Milan for the outcome of events, Mussolini left the work of organization to his subordinates,” adds Britannica.

“On October 28, to meet the threat posed by the bands of fascist [groups] now gathering outside Rome,” states the encyclopedia, “the government of Prime Minister Luigi Facta … ordered a state of siege for Rome. King Victor Emmanuel III, however, refused to sign the order.

“This meant that the army, which might have stopped Mussolini, was not called on to oppose the fascists,” adds the encyclopedia.

Britannica then points out that the fascist destruction of democracy in Italy was achieved via “a transfer [of power] made possible by the surrender of public authorities in the face of fascist intimidation.”

Thoughtful readers will remember that in June of last year (2020), Trump declared that he was calling to the nation’s capital “thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers” to stop riots over the questionable murders of black Americans by U.S. police officers. Then, Trump had openly considered invoking the 213-year-old Insurrection Act - a move that would have allowed him to employ standard military troops against U.S. citizens, according to NBC News.

“If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,”Trump said at that time.

Yet on Jan. 6th of this year - when his own rabid supporters were engaged in an open insurrection to overthrow democracy, before the entire world - Trump conveniently ‘forgot’ all about his declared duty to stop large-scale violent activities. In fact, “Trump had to be convinced to deploy the National Guard” to end the insurrection, NBC News has stated.

Britannica published a brilliant article on fascism which directly discusses Trump’s connections to the movement. Almost certainly written before Trump’s failed coup attempt on Jan. 6th, the encyclopedia declares that many “scholars … agreed that Trump himself was not a fascist or neo-fascist.”

“Yet Trump was arguably a borderline fascist, insofar as his behaviour and attitudes resembled those of historical fascist leaders in some respects,” adds Britannica.

“Those similarities included contempt for democratic values and the rule of law, demagoguery, appeals to racism, incitements to mob violence,” continues the encyclopedia, “attacks on the legitimacy of the press and of established institutions of government, and the exploitation of scapegoats.”

In short, Trump’s resume didn’t include something as blatantly fascist as a march of violent, rabid followers on the nation’s capital … until now.

In his book The Anatomy Of Fascism, historian Robert Paxton tellingly wrote that a country’s classic path to fascism tends to involve “a spectacular ‘march’ on some capital to take root.”

But, he adds, the drive to fascist tyranny can be stopped.

“Further fascist advances toward power depend … largely upon human choices, especially the choices of those holding economic, social and political power,” Paxton declared.

So can we now, at long last, just admit that Donald Trump is a full-blown fascist? The future of American democracy depends on it.

[cliff-montgomery]

Getting Back to Business …

Dec. 30th, 2023

I’m Cliff Montgomery, well-known independent journalist and both owner and publisher of the website The American Spark.

For the time being, I’m going to publish my independent articles here and at some other social media sites - at least until the Spark is again in full, working order.

A number of issues have slowed down my output to a crawl. Among other matters, for about two years I became the principal caregiver to my father until he passed in May of this year; and I have had quite a struggle with the frankly atrocious service of the Web host Turbify (formerly Yahoo! Web Publishing, until it was bought by Verizon). If you don't believe me, take special note of the current, poor state of the website Turbify has generously ‘provided’ for me …

Such happenings have taken quite a toll on me, my family and my career.

I have no choice but to move my large, 1000-or-so page website, The American Spark, to a new host. I’ve never moved a website before, so wish me luck.

I’m also getting back into sending out my articles to the regular news sources - The Nation, The Atlantic, etc. - in an effort to bring in new revenue streams and get my name and abilities back out before the public …

For those readers who are not familiar with me, let me introduce myself: I am Cliff Montgomery, an award-winning journalist with more than 23 years of experience under my belt. I am also the editor, publisher and the main reporter behind the independent website The American Spark.

I began work in "hard news" after a short stint in the late 1990's as a media consultant for the Sierra Club in Charlotte, NC. I’ve written for numerous publications, including Alternet, The Washington Spectator, In These Times and Working For Change. I also worked as social/political correspondent for 3 A.M. Magazine and its subsidiaries from 2000 to 2007.

My May 2003 article for Alternet was perhaps the first to reveal the breadth of falsehood behind the second Iraq War, showing conclusively that the Defense Department knew years in advance that Iraq's WMD production had ceased by the early 1990's, and that any remaining chemical weapons were so "badly deteriorated" as to be completely useless.

Among other recognitions and awards which I have received, my biography currently appears in Marquis' prestigious Who's Who in America, as well as its sister publication Who's Who in the World, which cites me as one of "the most accomplished men…from around the globe and across all fields of endeavor."

[cliff-montgomery]

The DNC, Protests and Charlotte Streets

Since I'm currently based in Charlotte, NC, I clearly must cover every day of the Democratic National Convention (DNC). But I feel the most important matter may well be the series of planned protests outside the convention hall. Why? Because such protests seem to constitute some of the only vital activity going on in America's political spectrum these days...

Below is the most recent post on the Charlotte protests that I've published on my website, The American Spark. Published on Aug. 30th, it's intended to give readers a preliminary of possible activity on Charlotte streets during the convention:

Soon September will be upon us, and with it will come the Democratic National Convention (DNC) being held in Charlotte, NC from Sept. 4th-6th.

Now let’s be honest: These days the Conventions are little more than poor entertainment for the faithful. But it’s possible that a real story will be found outside on Charlotte streets, among those who attempt to engage in acts of free protest or assembly.

In recent years, this city of the Deep South has had little practical experience with acts of genuine protest. And it’s beginning to appear that city leaders would like to keep it that way.

Some months ago Charlotte’s City Council amended the city code, declaring the move to be a part of its preparation for the DNC. The amendment gave the city manager the power to declare virtually any happening in the town an “extraordinary event.”

In fact, it really gave the city manager the ability to grant extraordinary powers to the Charlotte police force.

Once an “extraordinary event” has been declared, city police are granted sweeping powers to search, detain and arrest anyone within the stated ‘event zone’. In one part, the new law states, “it shall be unlawful for any person...to willfully or intentionally possess, carry, control, or have immediate access” to such ordinary items as scarves, satchels, backpacks, duffel bags and coolers.

One can’t help but notice that this is a group of items which is most often used by protesters.

The law already has been utilized by city officials. In May, police were granted extra powers during a large-scale protest held at Bank of America corporate headquarters; the assembly was put together by Occupy Charlotte.

So there’s reason to believe that the law was passed simply to squash acts of protest in a banking metropolis only beginning to form a voice of dissent.

In fact, the “extraordinary event” amendment appears to be simply one in a series of recent controversial decisions made by Charlotte leaders to make acts of free speech in the area as burdensome as possible.

Last year, the city denied Occupy Charlotte’s attempts to obtain portable toilet facilities for its initial long-term occupations of public land.

Then authorities began refusing protesters access to the public restrooms at nearby city-owned facilities. Soon Occupy Charlotte’s only Internet portal and power source was cut off.

Then in Jan. 2012, the City Council passed its ordinance regarding any ‘camping on public property.’ The ordinance seemed to allow Occupy protesters to continue their long-term protest, though in a modified form; at least this was the publicly declared judgment of Charlotte’s city attorney.

But top police brass interpreted the ordinance differently, and had its rank-and-file forcibly break up the free assembly. Though asked repeatedly by this reporter, police spokespeople refused to state who in the department had made that decision.

And finally there is the city manager’s new power to declare “extraordinary events.” How this law is employed in September by Charlotte’s elite may prove to be the real story of the 2012 DNC.

Regardless, protesters preparing for the Convention appear ready to make their voices heard.

Edward Childs serves as a chief steward for hundreds of food service workers at Boston’s Harvard University. He came to Charlotte around the end of July, and plans to remain through the Convention. The Unite Here representative acknowledged to The Washington Post that he finds it “frightening” to be in a so-called ‘right-to-work’ state like North Carolina.

Childs also told the Post of the beleaguered state of mind he’s discovered among workers in the Deep South city, pointing to the sometimes “fearful” reaction he receives from hotel and city employees during his talks to them on union strategy and tactics.

That oppressive atmosphere is precisely why labor unions have stated a strong disapproval of Democratic Party leaders’ decision to hold the convention in NC.

But some city residents are hoping to change this mindset. Michael Zytkow is one of the more visible Occupy Charlotte protesters. Often seen or quoted in the local press, Zytkow told the Post he hopes to help “normalize protest culture in Charlotte.”

The Occupier pointed out to the Post that North Carolina wasn’t always so timid, recalling “the long history of protest culture in the South,” which of course includes the famous marches, boycotts and sit-ins which took place during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ‘60s.

“We want to make sure we don’t squander this time,” Zytkow told the Post.