Archive by Author

Pence to travel to see southern border, deliver speech in Arizona: report

Former Vice President Mike Pence is traveling to see the southern border and deliver a speech in Arizona on Monday, the Arizona Republic reported.

Sheriff’s spokeswoman Carol Capas said Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels is expected to brief Pence in Sierra Vista, Ariz., at Cochise College on Monday morning, followed by a visit to a section of the border where the barrier wall ends, according to the news outlet. 

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) will be visiting the border with Pence.

The Arizona Commerce Authority will be hosting a crowd of invited attendees in Phoenix, where Pence is expected to make a speech later that day, the Republic reported.

Pence’s travel to Arizona comes as he eyes a potential bid for the White House in 2024. Earlier this year, the former vice president released a 25-point policy agenda calling for the wall along the U.S. southern border to be completed, among a number of other measures.

It also follows the first June public hearing of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, which included excerpts of recorded interviews from those in former President Trump’s orbit in addition to in-person testimony from a Capitol Police officer and documentarian who were present on the day of the attack.

The upcoming series of hearings held by the panel, previewed during Thursday’s prime-time meeting, appear set to pit Trump against Pence, who was targeted by Trump supporters storming the Capitol on Jan. 6 after he criticized the idea that he had the authority to overturn the 2020 election results.

The Hill has reached out to Ducey’s office, Pence, the Arizona Commerce Authority and the Cochise County sheriff’s office for comment. 

Source: TEST FEED1

With Russian forces set to enter Central America, how will the US respond?

A new agreement between Russia and Nicaragua to provide Russian troops for and in Nicaragua represents what Thomas Jefferson called a “fire bell in the night.” But while he was referring to the struggle over slavery, this agreement marks the first step in a series of converging and unprecedented threats to Latin American and U.S. security. 

The parties’ joint announcement of this accord, timed to coincide with the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles, signifies a joint attempt to counter and disrupt that summit, whose aim was to strengthen democratic regimes throughout the Americas. Nicaragua, run by a deeply dictatorial regime, was excluded from this summit, and undoubtedly it and Russia sought to strike back.

But the importance of this agreement goes much further. It marks the first significant appearance of Russian forces in Central America, an appearance that promises to be important because it has the potential to serve as the basis for a more enduring Russian military presence in Nicaragua and beyond. 

The agreement calls for the dispatch of Russian forces to Nicaragua for training, law enforcement and emergency response to humanitarian disasters. Russia will send forces semi-annually to Nicaragua to develop cooperation in these areas, including organized crime and drug trafficking.

Nicaragua will also allow naval and air vessels from Venezuela, Honduras, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Mexico, El Salvador and the United States to visit its ports. This last point is noteworthy. It is unlikely that Washington will avail itself of this invitation, but Cuba and Venezuela, if not the others, probably will — marking the first potential step towards a regular military association among Moscow’s clients and friends there. 

Based on Russia’s regular practice, we could also see a subsequent agreement to host Russian ships on an ongoing basis, a practice that has already led to the Russian acquisition of naval bases in Syria and Sudan. Myanmar is another example of this process by which an agreement to host vessels, as Nicaragua has already done, turns into an agreement for a base. Venezuela has already offered Moscow an air base for its bombers on the island of La Orchila.

Beyond the danger of Russian bases and forces in Latin America, the supplying of more Russian forces and trainers to local despots intensifies the authoritarian axis’s campaign against democracy in Latin America. For example, Colombia’s minister of defense recently accused Russia and Iran of providing Venezuela with military assistance that is being used to support FARC guerillas in Colombia. At the same time, Russian military penetration allows Moscow to convert Nicaragua or other similarly targeted states into intelligence-gathering centers.

We should also be skeptical that Russia is actively helping Nicaragua pursue counter-drug activities. Both Presidents Trump and now Biden have officially proclaimed Nicaragua to be a major drug producing or drug transit state. So, we should not be surprised that Russian forces and officials may be involved in the drug business. In 2020 Russian diplomats and officers in Argentina were caught using official planes to smuggle drugs from there to Russia, apparently for the use of members of the Duma and Russia’s Federation Council.

Finally, as suggested above, the pattern of Russia gaining leverage and influence with developing world governments, whether they be in Asia, Africa or Latin America, appears to be remarkably similar and replicable. 

Using energy deals, support for embattled authoritarian dictators, providing information warfare and electoral services, arms sales and trainers, not to mention private global mercenary companies like the Wagner Group, Moscow has established a strategic and multi-domain concept for power projection abroad. 

Russia has been able to forge this strategy despite its economic constraints because we have not paid sufficient attention to developments in these countries. The difficulties encountered by the Biden administration in mounting a successful Summit of the Americas, juxtaposed to the Russo-Nicaraguan deal, underscore why that deal should be a fire bell in the night. 

And the sound of that fire bell should concentrate our attention on rethinking our policies in these increasingly important and contested areas of the great power struggle.

Stephen Blank, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI). He is a former professor of Russian national security studies and national security affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College and a former MacArthur fellow at the U.S. Army War College. Blank is an independent consultant focused on the geopolitics and geostrategy of the former Soviet Union, Russia and Eurasia.

Source: TEST FEED1

What Jan. 6 and far-right billionaires have in common

As the Jan. 6 committee hearings begin in prime time, the American people will finally have the chance to learn the truth behind one of the darkest days in our nation’s history. They’ll hear the select committee make its case that former President Donald Trump and his allies — through election fraud lies and outright encouragement of violence — sought to overturn not just the results of the 2020 election, but American democracy itself.

What they likely won’t hear is that this assault on our democracy has been going on for years. Trump and his followers may have taken things to a violent extreme on Jan. 6, but their goals are consistent with over a decade of work by far-right billionaires and legislators seeking to shift America from a democracy to an outright oligarchy. 

Through the immense influence their wealth has afforded them in a political system that treats money as speech, a small number of ultra-wealthy Americans have reshaped our society and government to reflect their own personal preferences, rather than the will of the people. We saw this on Jan. 6, when a few ultra-rich donors were the ones that indirectly enabled Trump and his allies.

The “Save America” rally at the White House Ellipse was for all intents and purposes the staging ground for the attack on the Capitol. There are reports that as much as $3 million was raised to stage the rally, with most of the funding coming from a handful of dark money groups — the Rule of Law Defense Fund, the Tea Party Express, Turning Point, and Women for America First — which themselves were financed by a few ultra-wealthy donors. One of the most notable donors was Publix supermarket heiress Julie Jenkins Fancelli, who gave a whopping $650,000 to these groups just eight days before the event.

The Ellipse rally would not have happened were it not for the $3 million in funding that organizers received. The funding was necessary to pay for the robocalls that invited the thousands of “patriots” that attended the event. It was necessary to pay for the event’s elaborate staging, video and sound equipment. It was necessary to pay for VIP tents, refreshments and hotel rooms. And yes, it was even necessary to pay for port-a-potties.

The rally gave President Trump and his far-right friends an incredible platform with which to spew their election lies and hate speech. In all likelihood, the riot that erupted two miles away at the Capitol would not have happened without it. Taking things a step further, we can say that the riot would not have happened were it not for the dark money groups and ultra-wealthy donors that bankrolled the rally, almost all of whom were able to do so anonymously thanks to weak campaign finance and disclosure laws.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have only made it easier for the ultra-rich to wage successful battles against our democracy. Since the infamous 2010 Citizens United ruling, billionaire donors have poured nearly 40 times more money into federal elections — upping their spending from $31 million in 2010 to a dizzying $1.2 billion in 2020 — and the number of Super PACs and dark money groups has exploded. In fact, in 2020 nearly one in every 10 dollars spent on the election was spent by a billionaire, despite that group consisting of less than 0.01 percent of donors. More recent rulings, most notably FEC vs. Ted Cruz for Senate which made it drastically easier for wealthy individuals to (legally) bribe candidates, have only made things worse. 

Contrary to what the conservative justices on the Supreme Court would have you believe, money is not speech. Instead, money is power. All of us have the opportunity to contribute to our favored political causes and campaigns and make our voices heard, but only the rich have the financial power to really make use of that opportunity. This drowns out the speech of everyone else in America and is unfair and undemocratic. And as we saw on Jan. 6, the consequences of this unbridled power can be dire.

The Capitol assault made clear the urgent need to combat election misinformation and hate speech in America. But it also underscored the equally urgent need to reform our political system to dilute the power and influence of big money. Only then will we be able to turn the volume down on the massive megaphones that allow rich and powerful political actors like Trump to spew their venom in the first place.

Ron Guillot is the vice president of sales at HeartBeam and an investor in equities, options and direct start-ups. He is a member of the Patriotic Millionaires.

Source: TEST FEED1

The 2022 Social Security Trustees’ report is optimistic — and misleading

When the 2022 Social Security Trustees’ report was released last week, media coverage celebrated a slight improvement in the short- and long-term financial conditions of the program. The exhaustion date for the trust funds was moved back from 2034 to 2035 and the 75-year actuarial deficit was reduced from 3.54 percent of payroll to 3.42 percent.

A deeper dig into the report, however, finds these improvements are based on an unrealistically low short-term inflation forecast and an overly optimistic long-run forecast of a fertility bounce-back. More realistic estimates explained below show that the exhaustion date will instead be 2033 and the actuarial deficit is about 3.9 percent.

The trustees said that they based their 2022 assessment of improved conditions on two main factors — an improving economy affecting the short-run, and lower rates of disability affecting the medium- and long-run. In particular, the notion that the economy emerged out of recession quicker and more fully than expected last year, thereby raising employment and wages, and increasing payroll tax revenues. And that disability claims and awards continue to fall below prior projections, despite the recession and initially high unemployment.

The generous pandemic payments from the government, as well as temporarily expanded access to Medicaid, and closed Social Security field offices during the pandemic, might have been thought to explain the recent lull in disability claims, as people had other sources of support and health insurance and found the claim process more difficult. Nevertheless, the trustees decided that longer-term trends in increasing workplace accommodations and easier work conditions were sufficient causes to lower the disability assumption.

The trustees also assumed that the cost of living adjustment (COLA) for benefits, based on third quarter to third quarter changes in the consumer price index, would only be 3.8 percent next year (it was 5.9 percent this year) and 2.5 percent the year following, before returning to the assumed long-term rate of 2.4 percent. While the trustees say that their 2022 assumptions were made in mid-February, the high rate of inflation experienced in late 2021 and early 2022 can only be reconciled with a 3.8 percent annual forecast if it were thought that inflation would rapidly fall later in the year, an unreasonable forecast even at the time. In any event, the chief actuary of Social Security now says that eight percent is a better forecast for the next COLA, which will be announced in October.

Actually, at current monthly rates of inflation, 10 percent might be an even better forecast. But let’s use eight percent instead, and optimistically suppose that the Federal Reserve gets control of price inflation quickly enough to justify the following year’s 2.5 percent forecasted COLA, and assume there are no other changes in trustee assumptions.

In this situation, the increase in program expenses resulting from higher benefits would be, on average, about $45 billion a year. For context, the cost of the program was $1,145 billion in 2021. This would deplete the trust fund two years earlier than projected in the current report. While it is possible that net interest on trust fund investments will be a bit higher than projected in the report, and that wages could also come in somewhat higher, the report projects a robust 6.5 percent increase in the average wage index (AWI) next year. That’s higher than the approximate five percent rate of increase recently experienced in hourly wages. Furthermore, a 4.8 percent increase in AWI is projected for 2023, with no recession.

The assumed long-range fertility rate was surprisingly increased to 2.0 expected lifetime births per woman in the 2021 Trustees’ Report — a change from 1.95 in the 2020 Report. This increase in the overall birth rate came despite a rapid drop in the fertility rate over the last 15 years when it fell to 1.64 in 2020. The trustees have maintained their 2.0 assumption in the current report. The Congressional Budget Office however projects a 1.8 fertility rate.

Indeed, new survey evidence and analysis of the expectations for women having children over their lifetimes is consistent with an overall fertility rate closer to 1.7 or 1.8, and not just a delay in the timing of women having children. Based on my calculations from the data in the report, a 1.8 fertility rate leads to a much larger actuarial deficit, 3.9 percent of payroll, than the currently stated 3.42 percent. The impact is especially noticeable towards the end of the 75-year horizon — used by the trustees for their long-range-projections — when the deficit would be 5.8 percent instead of 4.25 percent in 2096.

It is also a shame that after six years, we still have vacancies among the public trustees who oversee the production of the reports. The American public and policymakers require a reasonable assessment of the programs’ financial status and prospects as it is clear that changes will need to be made to both programs sooner rather than later.

Mark J. Warshawsky is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He previously served as a senior official at the Social Security Administration and at the Treasury Department.

Source: TEST FEED1

7 years after Obergefell ruling LGBTQ+ equality is still in jeopardy

June is Pride Month, and there is a lot to celebrate. Seven years ago, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry under the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clause, legalizing marriage equality across the country.

The outcome of Obergefell v. Hodges was the culmination of a grassroots movement that spanned more than five decades, and it seemed to be a watershed moment for LGBTQ+ rights in America. However, as we enter Pride Month 2022, the liberties of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans still remain under significant threat.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, state legislatures passed 17 anti-LGBTQ+ laws in 2021, the most that have been passed in recent history. This year, hundreds of state bills have already been introduced across the country, and several have been passed. While these bills proliferate, the Equality Act — the federal nondiscrimination law pushed by President Biden — languishes in the U.S. Senate after being passed by the House of Representatives in February 2021.

Anti-transgender legislation on the rise

Transphobia isn’t new, but the legislative targeting of transgender Americans that has occurred over the past few years is unprecedented. In 2020, state legislatures introduced 79 separate bills barring transgender people from accessing everything from bathrooms to athletic programs to health care. That number jumped to 147 in 2021, and around 280 have already popped up in 2022.

Most of these laws are aimed at transgender youth and are touted by proponents as protections for women, parents and children. In reality, however, these bills further marginalize a population that already faces disproportionate levels of discrimination and bullying at school, work and home.

Even more alarming, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) in February directed state agencies to investigate parents who allow their transgender children to receive gender-affirming medical care. Abbott made the move after the Texas attorney general released an opinion claiming that hormone therapy and gender-transitioning surgery qualify as “child abuse” under state law. Both actions ignore the evidence-based medical advice of organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. The legality of the directive is being challenged in court.

Classifying medical treatments for transgender kids as “child abuse” denies trans youth access to needed health care, and also attempts to criminalize their parents for providing love, understanding and support.

Studies have shown that LGBTQ+ youth who are rejected by their families during their teenage years are more likely to attempt suicide, experience severe depression, use illegal drugs, engage in unprotected sex and become homeless than peers who are accepted and embraced by family members.

The Equality Act

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that sex discrimination protections listed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also forbid job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The ruling in that case upheld lower court rulings handing equality advocates another landmark victory.

Until that 6-to-3 decision, it was still legal for employers to fire employees for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer in around half the states. In 2022, Americans living in 29 states can still be denied things like housing or credit because of who they are or whom they love.

That’s why a federal nondiscrimination law is desperately needed.

The Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act to explicitly ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, education, credit, federally funded programs, public spaces and jury service. It would codify protections that could otherwise be left to interpretation by courts or agencies. The law would also expand protections for women, people of color, people with disabilities and people of faith.

Pride and justice

Progress has been made. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that nearly 60 percent of the nation’s 1 million same-sex couple households are married. Multiple polls find public support for LGBTQ+ equality is at an all-time high. Despite this, many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people must still fight for the same fundamental rights afforded to millions of other Americans under the law.

When he was president, Barack Obama frequently recited Martin Luther King, Jr.’s soaring quote on equality, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” However, in a 2016 television interview, former U.S Attorney General Eric Holder clarified that “the arc only bends toward justice because people pull it toward justice. It doesn’t happen on its own.”

It’s past time for our lawmakers to pass the Equality Act and further pull the arc toward justice for LGBTQ+ Americans

Justice Leah Ward Sears is a former chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court and has written many court decisions on related to civil rights and LGBTQ+ rights. She is currently a partner in the law firm of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP.

Source: TEST FEED1

Republicans pitch religious, family values as gun violence solution

Republicans are pushing traditional religious and family values as a solution to the epidemic of mass shootings in addition to their calls to harden schools and focus on mental health.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) pointed to a lack of school prayer when talking about gun violence.

“We had AR-15s in the 1960s. We didn’t have those mass school shootings,” Scalise said during a press conference Wednesday.

“Now, I know it’s something that some people don’t want to talk about. We actually had prayer in school during those days,” Scalise continued. “We had other things going on in our society where we took a different approach to our young kids. And let’s look at that. These are tough conversations we shouldn’t be having that we’re not having about why we’re seeing more young kids go astray.”

The main Republican response to the Uvalde, Texas, shooting centers on boosting school security. Rep. Richard Hudson (N.C.), the House Republican Conference secretary, is leading a bill to fund more school resource officers, mental health counselors and emergency preparedness training. Other proposals focus on physical security improvements.

But Scalise is not alone among Republicans in turning the focus to socially conservative values by calling for the increased presence of religion in schools in order to curb gun violence.

“Our children are suffering and we face a mental health crisis in our country because the radical left has spent decades removing God from our school and our society,” Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said during a Second Amendment Caucus press conference on Wednesday.

The focus on religion and family comes as Democratic members of Congress aim to restrict the weapons used in recent mass shootings — high-capacity semi-automatic rifles — through age limit increases, a high-capacity magazine ban, background check expansion or other measures.

“Young men need fathers at home and so do our daughters. Our country must be guided by our Judeo-Christian faith,” Miller said. “The Second Amendment Caucus will continue to fight to defend our Second Amendment rights, and we will continue to speak out about what really ails our country. We need to go back to God, people.”

Several other Republicans have pointed to absent fathers as being a connection to mass shooters.

In a speech at the National Rifle Association days after the Uvalde massacre, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pointed to “broken families, absent fathers, declining church attendance” as potential contributing factors in the massacres.

“Tragedies like the events of this week are a mirror forcing us to ask hard questions, demanding that we see where our culture is failing,” Cruz said, also mentioning “social media bullying, violent online content, desensitizing the act of murder in video games, chronic isolation, prescription drug and opioid abuse, and their collective effects on the psyche of young Americans”

In a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) wondered if “fatherlessness” is a common thread in mass shooters.

“Why is our culture suddenly producing so many young men who want to murder innocent people?” Lee said. “It raises questions like, you know, could things like fatherlessness, the breakdown of families, isolation from civil society or the glorification of violence be contributing factors?”

The father of 18-year-old Uvalde gunman Salvador Ramos told The Daily Beast that he had not been in touch with him lately. But the 18-year-old suspect in the May Buffalo, N.Y., grocery store shooting, who allegedly targeted Black people and killed 10, has parents who are still married, according to USA Today.

Republicans have also brought up more modern socially conservative stances when talking about mass shootings and mental health. 

When talking about problems with mental illness, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) appeared to reference giving gender-affirming care to transgender children.

“Let them know that they are valued, and when there are signs of mental instability not to encourage that,” Boebert said Wednesday. “If my 9-year-old suddenly tells me that he’s a mermaid, I think that we need to have at least a conversation rather than letting him live with the rest of his days and a swimming pool with his feet tied together.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Brooks hits back at Trump over Britt endorsement

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) criticized former President Trump for endorsing Alabama Republican Senate challenger Katie Britt, saying late Friday on Twitter that “Donald Trump is the only man in American politics who could get conned by Mitch McConnell twice in an Alabama Senate race.”

“This is weird: last time Donald Trump talked about Katie Britt, he said she was unqualified for the Senate,” Brooks said in a tweeted thread.

“Let’s just admit it: Trump endorses the wrong people sometimes. He endorsed Mitt Romney, he endorsed John McCain and now he’s endorsed Katie Britt, who his own son, Don Jr. called ‘Alabama’s Liz Cheney,’” he continued.

Brooks’ tweets come after Trump earlier that evening announced he would endorse Britt, who served as Sen. Richard Shelby’s (R-Ala.) former chief of staff in the Alabama Republican primary runoff. 

Neither candidate was able to initially clinch at least half of the vote, forcing Brooks and Britt into a June 21 primary runoff.

Brooks lost Trump’s endorsement earlier this year after he upset the former president for suggesting that people move on from the 2020 presidential election, an election that Trump has repeatedly claimed was rigged.

The Senate Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC with ties to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, has spent millions of dollars against the Alabama Republican.

Since Brooks lost his endorsement from Trump, he has campaigned to be re-endorsed, but Trump’s Friday announcement had effectively nixed any hope that Brooks could secure Trump’s backing again. 

“Alabama grassroots remember in 2017 when Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell got involved in a Senate primary in Alabama—and we rejected them. The people of Alabama will decide,” Brooks said Friday.

Source: TEST FEED1

Finland to send more military equipment to Ukraine amid NATO ambitions

Finland announced Friday it would be sending more military equipment to Ukraine as NATO is considering the country’s application into the alliance. 

“Finland will not forget Ukraine and the Ukrainians. We will continue to help: We will send a new package of defense material,” Minister of Defense Antti Kaikkonen said. 

Finland’s Defense Ministry said the government voted to approve sending additional defense equipment to Ukraine. However, what equipment Finland will provide, how it will be delivered and when it will be shipped to Ukraine will not be announced, according to the ministry. 

The ministry said the decision on what equipment to send was based on the needs of Ukraine and its military. 

Finland’s support for Ukraine comes while both Finland and Sweden applied to join NATO, a move that has been slammed by Russia. 

During an appearance with President Biden last month, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö said: “We are ready to contribute to the security of the whole alliance, making the commitment to mutual security guarantees that being a NATO ally entails.”

“Now that we have taken this first decisive step, it is time for NATO allies to weigh in. We hope for strong support from all allies and for swift ratification of our membership.” 

Their application came after Russia threatened the countries against applying for membership and violated Finnish and Swedish airspace with fighter jets.

The U.S. has put its full support behind Finland and Sweden’s bid for membership, with a Senate panel unanimously approving a resolution to urge NATO to accept the countries this week.

President Biden said NATO should “quickly” approve the two countries’ membership.

“While their applications for NATO membership are being considered, the United States will work with Finland and Sweden to remain vigilant against any threats to our shared security, and to deter and confront aggression or the threat of aggression,” the president said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Maher slams Hollywood for 'unbridled romanticization of gun violence' following shootings

HBO host and political commentator Bill Maher criticized what he characterized as Hollywood’s “romanticization” of gun violence following multiple, recent mass shootings that have thrust talks of gun reform back into the national spotlight. 

Maher said on his show “Real Time With Bill Maher” that Hollywood is the “wokest place on Earth in every other area of social responsibility,” using intimacy coordinators to assist with sex scenes and sensitivity readers to edit scripts. 

“But when it comes to the unbridled romanticization of gun violence, crickets,” he said. 

Maher argued that modern movies do not show bullying, fat-shaming or ethnic stereotyping because including them would give them a platform, but a “hero” can still get their anger out by killing others with guns. 

He showed a series of clips of action movies like “Top Gun: Maverick” and “Deadpool” in which the main character is shooting their enemies with motivational music playing in the background. 

Maher argued that there are four significant factors that contribute to gun violence including: mental health, easy access to firearms, social media and smartphones amplifying bullying and gun violence in movies and television. 

He added that smoking is not shown in movies anymore because of the risk that it might “look cool” and influence children to try it, but action heroes can have a similar influence on how young viewers react. 

Maher said there is a “sick similarity” between the revenge motif of action movies and the actions of school shooters. 

A 2015 study sponsored by the American Counseling Association found that 61 percent of school shooters carried out the attack to exact revenge on someone. 

“Like every school shooter, our movie heroes are grievance collectors, and when it comes to action movies, there’s one story — he was a nice guy, but they pushed him too far and now it’s on,” Maher said. 

He said he does not support censorship stopping these movies from being made based on what “crazy people might do, but don’t look me in the eye and tell me this isn’t a big part of the problem.”

The comments from the comedian come following high-profile shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., Uvalde, Texas, and Tulsa, Okla., in which gunmen killed dozens of people.

A group of bipartisan senators is currently in negotiations to reach a deal on gun violence legislation. However, its unclear if their talks will bear fruit.

Source: TEST FEED1