

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
President Bill Clinton once summed up the public service of Jim and Sarah Brady this way: "If it hadn't been for them, we would not have passed the Brady Law, and then the ban on assault weapons, and on cop-killer bullets...How many people are alive today because of Jim and Sarah Brady?" the President asked, and then answered, "Countless."
The Bradys' life-saving legacy, however, has its roots in the terror-laden seconds 30 years ago today when a mentally-ill man armed with a .22-caliber handgun shot President Ronald Reagan, a Secret Service agent, a police officer and Jim Brady. Just 69 days earlier, Jim had achieved his long-held dream of becoming White House Press Secretary. Of the four wounded, Jim's injury was the most severe -- a gunshot to the head that left him partially paralyzed for life.
Today the Bradys have come to our nation's capitol to mark that tragic event with a petition to the world's most powerful leaders. In a news conference at the Russell Senate Building, Room 485, the Bradys were joined by Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke, Senators Frank Lautenberg and Dianne Feinstein, and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, as they pressed members of Congress to work for the passage of sensible new gun laws that will continue and enhance the life-saving tradition of the Brady Law.
Since its enactment in1994, the Brady law has blocked an estimated 2 million prohibited gun purchases, including more than 800,000 felons. After the law was adopted, murders dropped 30 percent. Nearly three-quarters of the drop in murders was accounted for by the sharp decline in gun murders. This historic drop in murders has been sustained, with murders in the most recent year available (2009), at their lowest level since 1970.
"Jim and Sarah Brady know a lot about challenges," said Brady President Paul Helmke. "But where others see obstacles, the Bradys, with their indomitable spirits, see opportunities. After all of these years, it is an honor to be a part of their legacy and to see them still fighting to protect the American people from the dangers of guns. We need more public servants like the Bradys."
The Bradys called, particularly, on Republicans, most of whom have been silent about the need for new laws to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous and irresponsible people, to do what is in the nation's best interest.
"We've come to Washington and Capitol Hill at a time when the tragedy in Tucson is still fresh in American minds," said Sarah Brady, wife of Jim and Chair of the Brady Campaign. "We've come at a time when a record number of police officers have been shot and killed, and we've come when there are sensible proposals in Congress that could limit this bloodshed and save more lives."
Specifically, Sarah and Jim Brady, called for support of the passage of House Bill 308 and Senate Bill 32, introduced respectively by Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Lautenberg, which would ban large-capacity assault clips, like the one used by the Tucson shooter to kill six people and wound 13, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, on January 8. The Bradys also stressed the need to strengthen the Brady Law by requiring background checks on all gun sales, not just those by federally licensed dealers.
The Brady bill received a tremendous amount of bi-partisan support on Capitol Hill and it was backed strongly by former President Ronald Reagan. Fifty-six Republicans in the House voted to pass the Brady Bill in 1993. Eight of them remain. Fifteen Senate Republicans voted for the Brady Bill. Three are in the Senate today.
"Presidents Reagan and Clinton understood that the problem of gun violence is an American problem and that it deserves bi-partisan American solutions," said Jim Brady. "They were not cowardly lions when it came to what needed to be done to protect Americans from dangerous people."
Senator Lautenberg agreed more of his colleagues in Congress need to join in support of new laws.
"Thirty years ago today, we saw that no one in our country is safe from gun violence, not even the President and his staff," Sen. Lautenberg said. "Jim and Sarah Brady have made our country safer, but we still have more work to do. We have to bring back the ban on oversized ammunition magazines that turn handguns into weapons of mass destruction and require background checks for every gun sale. These are common-sense reforms that can protect Americans from needless violence and make our communities safer."
Said Congresswoman McCarthy: "Jim and Sarah Brady are living proof that gun violence can strike anywhere anytime, and efforts to reduce it are not limited to Democrats and law enforcement. The Bradys' support for banning high-capacity magazines and strengthening background checks are the most poignant reminder yet that we must do everything we can to reduce injuries and save lives in our nation."
The eight Republicans who voted for the Brady Law and are still serving in the House of Representatives are: Gus Bilirakis (FL-9), Elton Gallegly (CA-24), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-16), Chris Smith (NJ-4), Cliff Stearns (FL-6), Fred Upton (MI-6), Frank Wolf (VA-10), and Bill Young (FL-10) The Senate Republicans who voted for the Brady Law and are serving in the Senate today are: Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX), Dan Coats (IN), and Richard Lugar (IN).
Brady United formerly known as The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and its legislative and grassroots affiliate, the Brady Campaign and its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, is the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence. We are devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."