Archive by Author

Russian forces take control of most of Sieverodonetsk, UK says

The U.K. defense ministry said in an intelligence update on Thursday that Russia has taken over most of Sieverodonetsk, a Ukrainian city in the Luhansk region.

The ministry said that “over half of the town is likely now occupied by Russian forces, including Chechen fighters.”

“The main road into the Sieverodonetsk pocket likely remains under Ukrainian control but Russia continues to make steady local gains, enabled by a heavy concentration of artillery,” officials added, noting that “Russian forces have sustained losses in the process.”

Luhansk’s regional governor, Serhiy Haidai, also tweeted on Wednesday that Russian forces controlled about 80 percent of the area. 

Nearly 100 days into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Moscow has sought to target areas used to ferry in weapons from Ukraine’s Western allies, Reuters noted in a report on Thursday. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has also warned the West against offering their support. 

During a call with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Putin said the West’s help would cause “further destabilization of the situation and aggravation of the humanitarian crisis.”

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has announced that it would ​​send long-range rocket systems as part of a $700 million weapons package to Ukraine.

“We have moved quickly to send Ukraine a significant amount of weaponry and ammunition so it can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table,” Biden said in a guest essay for The New York Times published earlier this week.

Source: TEST FEED1

Could Russia win a public relations war against the West?

Foreign wars tend to be most popular at the outset, particularly if they are “marketed” to the American public effectively in morally unambiguous terms, but unless they end fairly quickly in decisive victory, achieved at reasonable cost, public support and policy consensus begins to erode, sometimes swiftly. This appears to be happening with the war in Ukraine.  

Not since Pearl Harbor — which burst upon American consciousness with shocking suddenness and was instantly perceived as a clear case of good versus evil, in which American national interest faced a clear existential threat — has a war so immediately galvanized near seamless public support as occurred following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s brutal February invasion of Ukraine.

Public support for a major U.S. role in Ukraine polled in the mid-60s in March, but in the latest AP-NORC survey on May 16 this only commands a 45 percent plurality. Similarly, President Biden’s “handling of U.S. relations with Russia” commanded a strong majority in March but is now “underwater,” with 45 percent approving and 51 percent disapproving.

At the same time, the New York Times, previously a strong advocate of “victory” for Ukraine and stern “punishment” for Russia, now appears to exhibit growing skepticism about the U.S. goals in the war. The Times editorial board on May 19 declared that Ukraine’s regaining all territory seized by Russia since 2014 “is not a realistic goal. … Russia remains too strong.”  Biden should make clear that there are “limits to the arms, money and political support Ukraine can expect,” the Times said. Reinforcing this viewpoint was Henry Kissinger’s speech delivered virtually to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, calling for a ceasefire with a return to “status quo ante.” Extending this dangerous conflict, Kissinger said, risks it becoming “not a war about Ukrainian freedom but a war against Russia itself.” 

Simultaneously, the heretofore skimpy and universally negative reporting of Putin’s intentions has begun to morph into a dawning perception that the Russian leader’s strategy of conquering a land bridge to Crimea and gaining a chokehold on the entire Ukrainian economy, via total control of the Black Sea coastline, is not quite as inept as previously reported.

Another element of the conventional wisdom now crumbling is the idea that the crippling sanctions imposed by the U.S. and European Union nations would soon bring the Russian economy to its knees. Instead, there is evidence that the opposite may be occurring, with sanctions doing more damage to Western economies than to Russia’s. Far from being the “rubble” predicted by President Biden, the ruble hit a two-year high in May and Russian energy and agricultural exports were producing record high revenues, in large part because Europe and much of the rest of the world can’t do without them.

Related to these phenomena is the utter unreality of the war’s foundational myth — namely that the United States has rallied almost the entire world against a nearly totally isolated Russia. In truth, of the world’s 195 countries only 65 have agreed to join the American sanctions regime — meaning that 130 have refused, including China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, most of Asia, Africa and Latin America, countries that together constitute the vast majority of the world’s population.

Consider also that the nations the U.S. currently targets with sanctions represent a powerful bloc strongly opposing what they regard as America’s economic bullying. A striking example of the rejection of U.S. assumptions of dominance was a recent meeting of the world’s leading financial nations — the G-20 Summit — when the U.S. delegation walked out on a speech by a Russian delegate and only three of the other 19 delegations followed suit. All of this tells any objective observer that it is not Russia that is the world’s most isolated superpower but perhaps the United States itself.

Not long ago, talk of victory (“In it to win”) or potential regime change (Putin “cannot remain in power”) and “Ukrainians should decide” final war aims was common parlance throughout the West. Now, the U.S. and its allies appear to be in a different posture, struggling to find an acceptable path toward a compromise to end the war. 

With nearly all Western nations in varying degrees of economic crisis, and the U.S. government on the brink of a massive political repudiation by Americans who consistently tell pollsters their highest priority is fixing their own economy and retrieving the fast-shredding American Dream, the world is changing in unexpected and profound ways. 

William Moloney is a Fellow in Conservative Thought at Colorado Christian University’s Centennial Institute who studied at Oxford and the University of London and received his doctorate from Harvard University.  He is a former Colorado Commissioner of Education.

Source: TEST FEED1

TV’s Dr. Phil backs gun reforms after Uvalde and Buffalo massacres

The TV host and celebrity psychologist Dr. Phil McGraw is wading into the gun violence debate as Congress mulls new legislation in the wake of mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas and Buffalo, N.Y.

In an on-camera interview with The Hill, McGraw blasted those who argue that modest gun control laws amount to infringements on Second Amendment rights. 

But he also contended that there was a need for a “mind shift” when it comes to spotting psychological or behavioral warning signs that hint someone may commit violent acts. Better public education around those traits would lead to more effective acts of intervention, he asserted.

McGraw, whose show “Dr. Phil” is in its 20th season, was pointed in his remarks, especially for someone who has been perceived as a largely apolitical figure during his decades in the public eye.

While saying that he understands why people are “sensitive” about the constitutional right to bear arms, he was scathing about the idea that this should preclude incremental steps such as raising the legal age to buy semiautomatic weapons.

The alleged shooter in Uvalde is reported to have bought two AR-15-style rifles to celebrate his 18th birthday.

“You can stop politicizing and pretending that this is about the Second Amendment,” McGraw said, regarding those who resist any changes in the law. “You can at least raise the limit [of] buying a weapon of war from 18 to 21. A young man’s brain isn’t even fully developed until at least 25.”

“Universal background checks? How does that in any way impair someone’s Second Amendment rights?” he added. “Cool-down periods, red-flag laws? These things don’t impinge on our Second Amendment rights. And I think that is a straw man to say that they do.”

McGraw, who has spent much of his life in Texas and was speaking to The Hill from his home in Dallas, said that when he first heard the news of the massacre in Uvalde on May 24, he thought of his grandchildren. At 10 and 12 years old, they are roughly the same age as the 19 children who were shot dead in Uvalde.

“You immediately personalize and go to what it would mean to you if this hit, in your family, with such innocent children,” McGraw said. “And you just ask yourself — what’s it going to take for us to wake up as a society, and recognize that we have to do something to get these kinds of things under control? Because if we can’t do what’s necessary to keep our children safe, we’re failing as a society.” 

The mass killing in Uvalde came just 10 days after ten people were gunned down in an apparent racist attack in Buffalo, N.Y. The suspect in the Buffalo case was charged with domestic terrorism and 10 counts of first-degree murder on Wednesday.

McGraw, most famous for his TV work and best-selling advice books, holds a doctoral degree in clinical psychology from the University of North Texas. He worked as a licensed psychologist in Texas until moving to California while pursuing his TV career.

He argued that there is a considerable body of research showing clear markers of people who might be at risk of committing violence. Those signs include traumatic experiences in childhood, experiences of rejection such as bullying or recent romantic break-ups, and mental illness more broadly.

Millions of Americans, he acknowledged, suffer those kinds of experiences without ever committing violence.

But McGraw also said that many potential shooters tell others their plans in advance — a phenomenon termed “leakage” that, he argued, reflects a conscious or unconscious desire for other people to stop them carrying out such acts.

He cited the example of the alleged shooter in Buffalo, who is reported to have boasted about a propensity for violence — including saying while still at high school that he wanted to commit a murder-suicide after graduating.

McGraw argued that such threats were not taken seriously enough because of the perception that the people who commit mass shootings are somehow ‘other,’ unlike anyone that might be encountered in day-to-day life.

While McGraw noted that mass shootings are self-evidently “monstrous,” he said of would-be perpetrators that “if you write them off just as monsters, you will miss a lot of these people who are at risk for doing this.”

The TV personality, who first came to fame as a guest on Oprah Winfrey’s show, added that there was a need for massive investment to ensure law enforcement personnel, teachers and the general public would be on the look-out for warning signs.

While supporting some curbs on gun ownership, he also cautioned that those measures alone would not be enough to stem the tide of violence — especially given that there are hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation in the United States already.

“What are we going to do to start managing the risk of those guns being in the hands of the wrong people?…You can’t make that go away. They’re already there,” he said.

McGraw expressed his own “frustration,” saying that he believes the political system has so far “failed miserably” to grapple with the problem.

“This is happening over and over and over again. And we don’t seem to be reacting to it — certainly not in a way that is bringing about any effect.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden faces pressure to help Black borrowers with heavy student debt

President Biden is reported to be closing in on a plan to cancel $10,000 in federal student debt per borrower, but some advocates are concerned about the impact it will have on Black borrowers, who data shows are likely to owe more to cover the costs of education.

Many Democrats at the helm of student loan forgiveness efforts have promoted broad-based cancellation as a way to advance racial equity, often citing data showing the disproportionate burden faced by Black borrowers, especially women.

But, as more reports surface of Biden’s plans narrowing in on a decision on some student debt forgiveness, advocates are dialing up the pressure.

“The impact that $10,000 would have would be so minor, that it wouldn’t really address the real issue for Black borrowers,” said Wisdom Cole, national director of the NAACP Youth & College Division.  

Data from The Institute for College Access and Success (TICAS) found that Black graduates, who advocates acknowledge often have less access to intergenerational wealth due to historical racial discrimination, were more likely than other racial groups in 2016 to take on student debt, and more of it. 

In the report, which cites figures from the Department of Education, 80 percent of Black bachelor’s degree recipients also were found to have graduated with an average debt of $34,000 at the time, more than their white, Hispanic, Latino, and Asian peers. 

The data also adds to research from the Brookings Institution finding Black graduates are more likely than their white peers to default, and less likely to own a home than white Americans without a high school diploma.

A number of advocates and lawmakers say the White House should go as far as possible in cancellation to address the disproportionate amount of federal student debt carried by Black borrowers, pushing for total cancellation of the debt.

The calls build upon a growing push by Democratic lawmakers calling for Biden to support more significant cancellation, including approving as high as $50,000 in loan forgiveness.

“People are drowning in debt, especially Black borrowers, 10 years after taking out these loans. Two thirds of black borrowers hold more than they did when they started, more. Twenty years out they owe 95 percent of the loan. So, it’s also a racial equity issue here,” Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) told reporters last month after a meeting with Biden on the matter.

The campaign adds pressure to Biden ahead of the pivotal midterm races in November, amid ongoing attacks from Republicans over the student loans push they say is unfair, and as some experts warn of the effects limited debt action could have on economic efforts to promote racial equity in the long run.

Despite calls to go higher, reports that have surfaced in recent weeks signal the White House is most seriously looking at providing $10,000 in cancellation for some borrowers, in keeping with a previous campaign pledge by the president.

A recent version of the plan reported on by The Washington Post involved income caps for eligibility, restricting cancellation to individuals that brought in under $150,000 in 2021, and $300,000 for couples.

With those restrictions in place, student loan expert Mary Jo Terry said the intent appears to be aimed at helping “lower to middle class individuals in this scenario, which is going to help the racial divide.”

Sandy Baum, a nonresident senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s Center on Education Data and Policy, also said last month that the proposed cancellation could make a difference for borrowers who “hold just a little bit of debt” and are struggling financially.

“About a third of the people who have student debt, hold only 4 percent of the debt, so, in other words, a third of borrowers owe less than $10,000 that all together as up to 4 percent of all the outstanding debt,” Baum said. “But at the other end of the spectrum, you have about 7 percent of borrowers who owe more than $100,000.” 

Some advocates have pushed back against applying means testing for eligibility, given fluctuations in income and economic instability during the pandemic, among other reasons.

Frederick Bell Jr., organizer at the Debt Collective, called the reported plan to attach income caps to debt forgiveness “​​a very slippery slope,” adding he often views means-testing as a way to “silence the right.”

Cole similarly expressed concerns about the reported income restrictions, arguing the impact it could have on shutting out Black women, as he said more are “continuing to seek higher education and degrees to support their families, and to support the community.” 

“Income is not the same as wealth, and it’s very important that the administration consider the debt-to-income ratio, when thinking about a solution that is going to be equitable for all,” Cole said, adding “the way your dollar may stretch doesn’t look the same, from the Black community to the white community.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Puerto Rico governor hopeful that status bill will move quickly through Congress

Puerto Rico Gov. Pedro Pierluisi (D) is hopeful that a House delegation due this weekend on the island will return to Washington, D.C., ready to quickly move a bill to update the U.S. territory’s status. 

The delegation, led by House Natural Resources Committee Chair Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), will be in Puerto Rico to get feedback on a proposed bill introduced last month that would allow Puerto Ricans to vote between becoming a state, an independent nation or an independent nation with a treaty of free association with the United States. 

Pierluisi, who favors statehood as an alternative to the current territorial status, said he believes all options in the proposed bill are democratic, unlike the current status. 

“The three options that are given to the public or the people, the residents of Puerto Rico, the American citizens of Puerto Rico, are fully democratic – I have to admit that – the three of them,” Pierluisi told The Hill. 

“I much prefer statehood than the others. I think that’s actually the logical next step for Puerto Rico, but I respect the other two and people should be able to vote for them as well.” 

The proposed bill was born out of a long negotiation process between Reps. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), Darren Soto (D-Fla.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González-Colón (R). 

The negotiations were hosted by Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and endorsed by Grijalva, whose committee has oversight over the territories. 

The negotiations were in essence a proxy debate in Washington over status, the center of gravity of Puerto Rican politics. 

On one side, Soto and González-Colón favored statehood and sought a binding plebiscite with a yes-no vote on that option. On the other side Velázquez – a longtime opponent of statehood – sought a broader convention to define status alternatives for the territory. 

But the negotiators, including Hoyer and Grijalva, all publicly agreed that the current status amounts to unacceptable U.S. colonialism. 

Pierluisi said his main concern with the upcoming fact-finding mission is that some Puerto Rican politicians will try to make the case for things to remain the same. 

“I know some of the leaders of the Popular Democratic Party do not like the fact that the territory status was left out of this plebiscite,” said Pierluisi.  

“But I hope that Chairman Grijalva and co-sponsors of this bill in the making will stand strong for the principle that we should decolonize Puerto Rico, we should get rid of the current undemocratic status of Puerto Rico and allow the people of Puerto Rico to choose among the three non-territorial status options we have available,” he added. 

Since the 1950s, two major parties have ruled over the island’s limited self government. 

The Popular Democratic Party has traditionally favored the territorial status known in English as commonwealth or in Spanish as Estado Libre Asociado, which translates to “free associated state.” 

The New Progressive Party, to which Pierluisi and González-Colón belong, is a staunch pro-statehood party. 

But the island’s political system has been shaken up, now with five parties represented in the legislature and competing for a say in the territory’s future. 

Grijalva, who will be accompanied on his fact-finding mission by Velázquez, González-Colón and Ocasio-Cortez, is due to meet leaders of all five major parties. 

If the consensus survives any additions to the bill text wrought during the trip, time will be short for Congress to move on it. 

“The plan is to drop or introduce the bill within two weeks or so, then mark it up very expeditiously at the committee of jurisdiction, the Natural Resources Committee, and then take it down to the floor for a vote as soon as the calendar allows, ideally, that that would happen before the August recess,” said Pierluisi, a former resident commissioner. 

If time allows and the consensus holds, the bill is expected to pass the House with some bipartisan support. 

But it faces long odds in a deeply divided Senate with few legislative days left in an election year. 

“The next challenge will be to get the Senate to address the matter,” said Pierluisi. “But I hope that we find a way for the Senate to take action on this matter as well.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Haunted Democrats fear gun control measures could cost them in midterms

Democrats are haunted by political fears on the issue of gun control, making the party reluctant to completely stick its neck out on moves such as banning assault weapons.  

More than 20 years after restrictions on guns were blamed in part on Al Gore’s loss in the presidential race, many Democrats still worry that being too aggressive on gun control culd hurt the party’s candidates in purple states and House districts.  

“If you’re someone like Raphael Warnock, it’s a complicated message. It’s a nuanced message at best,” one Democratic strategist said of the incumbent senator who is up for reelection this year in a competitive race against Republican Herschel Walker. “There’s a lot of history that scares a lot of people. It’s a slippery slope that Democrats don’t want to be on the wrong side of, particularly for front line Democrats.”  

Sen. Warnock (D-Ga.) and Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), who Republicans hope to unseat this fall, have both signed on as co-sponsors to legislation that would prohibit the sale, transfer, manufacture or possession of assault-style weapons. But two other vulnerable Democratic incumbents, Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.) and Mark Kelly (Ariz.), have not. 

Most Democrats want to take some kind of action on gun control after the latest mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas. But others are wary in part because of past elections lost, including Gore’s and the 2014 midterms.  

“There is this worship of the gun that still exists around the country and if you are Warnock in Georgia or Mark Kelly, how much is it worth it to stake your political fortunes on this? If the election was tomorrow maybe. But the election is in 5 months,” the Democratic strategist said.   

The gun control fight is personal for Kelly, who has dealt with gun violence firsthand after his wife, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), was shot in the head in 2011.  

“There are common-sense reforms we can pass to reduce gun violence that align with our rights and are supported across the political spectrum,” Kelly wrote on Twitter after the Texas shooting.  

Strategists say they understand the pressure facing Democrats who are up for reelection in November.  

“Democrats have been conditioned to view guns as a third rail issue that works against them politically,” said Democratic strategist Joel Payne.  “If you are a Democrat in a purple or Republican-leaning area, there is very little political incentive for you to go out on the ledge on guns.” 

Not all Democrats believe guns are a politically-sensitive area for the party.  

Polls show majorities of Americans support measures like expanded background checks and red flag laws that are currently the subject of discussions on Capitol Hill.  

“The politics of guns has really shifted dramatically in the last 20 years,” said Matt Bennett, executive vice president for public affairs at Third Way.  

“Since Sandy Hook, Democrats have not been afraid of the gun issue. They’re not talking about radical gun reforms … but the kinds of things that are on the table … Democrats are not worried about those kinds of things,” he said.  

Republicans have been the main obstacle to moving forward on gun control bills, infuriating Democrats. Republicans blocked background check legislation in 2013 that the Senate sought to move in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings in December 2012. 

A Politico/Morning Consult poll released last week found that 88 percent of Americans at least somewhat support background checks on all gun sales.  

A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in 2019 found 86 percent of Americans back implementing “red flag” provisions that allow for firearms to be temporarily taken away from individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others. 

Bennett argued that Republicans are the ones in a weak position because supporting gun measures risks alienating their base voters.  

“Republicans are the ones who are afraid of the gun issue and they’re afraid of it because they are facing primaries,” he said. 

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a longtime gun-control advocate, has been heading up a legislative response alongside Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). So far, that discussion has centered on mental health, with some focus on school safety, two issues that could appeal to Republicans.  

Murphy, who represented the district where a gunman took the lives of 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, said on Tuesday he is “sober-minded” about the chances of legislation passing.  

“My hope is that the increased number willing to talk matters,” he said.  

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday said that the House would consider a ban on assault-style weapons, which would represent the most aggressive response from Congress yet to the school shooting in Uvalde. Still, an assault weapons ban would be considered dead-on-arrival in the Senate even if it were to pass the House.

Biden has kept his distance from bipartisan negotiations on gun reform thus far but said Tuesday that he would meet with lawmakers at the right moment. He has at times expressed tepid optimism that Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) – who he branded “rational Republicans” – will come around to supporting a compromise on guns.  

On Wednesday, though, he sounded a more pessimistic note.  

“I served in Congress for 36 years. I’m never confident, totally,” Biden told reporters at the end of an event on the baby formula shortage. 

Democrats say they realize even a smaller bill won’t get very far without Republican support and they worry the GOP’s wait-it-out strategy will once again reemerge as it has during previous gun debates.  

“There is probably no issue I would love to be more wrong on,” said Democratic strategist Eddie Vale. “But I haven’t seen anything yet from any of the Republicans that indicates they’re actually going to meet Biden or Senator Murphy even 1/8th of the way.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Gun groups ready for aggressive effort against ‘red flag’ legislation

No-compromise gun rights groups are preparing to mount an aggressive campaign against any “red flag” legislation in Congress as a response to the elementary school massacre in Uvalde, Texas.

Such measures appear to be gaining some steam as a potential compromise between Democrats and Republicans, but opponents hope to use the same playbook to stop them that proved impactful in the past.

“We’re already planning our full attack plan on it,” said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights. 

Nine states currently have “red flag” laws, protection orders that allow a court to prevent an individual deemed a danger to themselves or others from possessing or obtaining firearms. Those include New York, where it did not stop a shooter from targeting black people at a grocery store in Buffalo last month. It is unclear if such a law would have stopped the shooter in Uvalde.

With the shock Uvalde elementary school massacre that left 19 students and two adults dead, a bipartisan group of senators formed in the days after the Uvalde shooting to discuss options for a modest deal on a legislative response.

Background check expansions and provisions to expand state-level red flag laws have emerged as top options. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) previously negotiated a red flag bill in 2018.

Separately, House Democratic leadership is set to bring a bill for a vote next week to nationalize red flag laws. The legislation led by Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.) would allow federal courts to issue an “extreme risk protection order” to prohibit an individual from purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition, and allows a family or household member or law enforcement officer to petition for such an order.

Gun rights activists argue that red flag laws violate due process rights, and that the system of allowing family members or law enforcement officers to petition for such an order is ripe for abuse. 

Second Amendment groups put intense pressure on House Republicans last year to oppose a red flag provision, underscoring the challenge to supporters.

A version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act that passed the House last year included a provision that would allow military courts to issue protective orders that allowed confiscation of personal firearms.

The National Association for Gun Rights and Gun Owners of America, two groups that pride themselves as being no-compromise on gun legislation, started to target Republican members on the issue through social media and email list blasts. The National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm was also against the measure, but not as aggressive in targeting Republicans about it. In that initial 316-113 vote, 135 Republicans were in favor of the bill.

After the NDAA vote, “congressional offices were sometimes bombarded with hundreds of calls each day from gun rights voters accusing them of being sellouts,” according to the former communications director for the late Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska).

Some Republican offices said in statements soon after the vote that they had been assured that the provision would not be included in the final version of the legislation – and it was not in the final bill that became law.

After the pushback, 161 House Republicans signed a Sept. 29, 2021 letter to the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees urging them to strike the section, which they described as enabling “military court gun confiscation orders.”

Aidan Johnson, director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America, called the latter “perhaps the biggest statement by Republicans” to date. 

“That is important to the debate today going on over red flag laws, because now they’re firmly on the other side,” Johnson said.

It was not always that way. Former President Trump entertained red flag laws in 2019 after mass shootings in El Pasto, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said at the time.

But the activism did not sit well with some Republicans.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), who was bombarded with messages on social media about his position, called out the Gun Owners of America by name when blasting “grifters” in the party, saying that they misrepresented his position on red flag laws. 

Crenshaw had said in 2019, around the time that Trump was advocating for red flag laws, that lawmakers should discuss red flag laws on the state level and not the federal level. He has since opposed red flag laws. 

Crenshaw over the weekend reiterated on CNN that he would not support red flag laws in wake of the Uvalde shooting. “What you’re essentially trying to do with a red flag law is enforce the law before the law has been broken,” he said. 

For the gun activists, the NDAA campaign was a win.

“This thing called a vote actually means something. And if you vote for something with that provision in it, you can’t walk that back by saying, ‘Oh, I didn’t really mean it,’” Brown said.

The NDAA situation highlights the political minefield for Republicans looking to take action on gun issues. Mass shootings often prompt Republicans to point to their support for legislation to boost school security or improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

“But on the flip side, they know their base is full of single-issue gun rights voters, so they can’t lean too far into their support for those bills, or else they’ll earn themselves a Newsmax hit piece or worse: a primary challenge,” Young’s former communications director said.

Despite the progress on getting Republicans on the record against red flag laws, the no-compromise activists aren’t taking anything for granted when it comes to the latest negotiations.

“We assume the worst, especially when you have a big tragedy and the leadership of your party, you know, talking about working out a bipartisan deal,” Brown said, noting his 29 years of lobbying on gun issues. “We expect every bit of a kind of fight we had right after Newtown, Connecticut.”

And for Republicans who vote for any red flag provisions, primary challengers supported by either of the gun groups are on the table – even if it is not this year.

“We play the long-term game. We don’t forget this stuff,” Brown said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Soccer legend Pelé tells Putin to stop 'wicked' war ahead of Ukraine World Cup qualifier

Soccer legend Pelé urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to stop his “wicked” war in Ukraine on Wednesday, just hours before a Ukrainian national soccer team beat out Scotland in the first of two qualifier rounds for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

In the letter to Putin shared on Instagram, Pelé said he wanted to use the publicity around the soccer game on Wednesday to “make a request” to the Russian leader.

“Today Ukraine tries to forget, at least for 90 minutes, the tragedy that still happens in their country,” the 81-year-old Brazilian wrote. “The World Cup is already a difficult task. And it becomes almost impossible with so many lives at stake.”

The invasion of Ukraine has now dragged on nearly 100 days. Russian forces were pushed out of the capitol region of Kyiv in April but are have taken control of areas including the port city of Mariupol during its ongoing offensive in Ukraine’s east.

Pelé is regarded as one of the best players of all time. He won three FIFA World Cups for Brazil before retiring in 1977.

According to Reuters, Pelé met Putin in 2017 during a trip to Moscow for the Confederation Cup, a pre-World Cup event.

On Wednesday, the soccer legend said when he met Putin, they had “shared a big smile accompanied by a long handshake.” He added it “was unimaginable that we could one day be as divided as we are today.”

“This conflict, like all others, is wicked, unjustifiable and brings nothing but pain, fear, terror and anguish,” he wrote in his open letter to the Russian president. “There is no reason for it to last any longer.”

FIFA, an international governing body for the sport of soccer, imposed an indefinite ban on Russia from all competitions shortly after the late February invasion. Russia had been set to play Poland in a World Cup qualifying match.

FIFA delayed Ukraine’s qualifying match for two months because of the invasion. The Ukrainian soccer team traveled to Glasgow, where they defeated Scotland in a 3-1 surprise victory on Wednesday.

Ukraine will play Wales on Sunday. If the team wins, it will move on to the World Cup in Qatar, which begins in November.

Ukrainian midfielder Oleksandr Zinchenko told ESPN the team has “one more and we need to win it — we need to take it or this won’t mean anything.”

“Everyone knows the situation back in Ukraine,” he told the sports outlet. “We need to show the best performance of our lives.”

Source: TEST FEED1