Posted on

BACKFIRE: Broward County Implements ‘Solution’ For School Violence And Students Are Not Happy

On Wednesday, the superintendent of the Democrat-heavy Broward County Public Schools announced a new policy aimed at reducing school violence — and the students are not happy.

Superintendent Robert W. Runcie, a proponent of radical left-wing gun control measures, announced that students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School will only be allowed to bring clear backpacks to school after spring break and will be required to wear a new ID badge at all times.

Needless to say, the students are not happy with the decision that the Democratic officials came up with to address the issue of school violence.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

Posted on

Citibank Goes Full Anti-Gun

Citibank announced on Thursday that it would no longer do business with anyone who sells guns to any person under 21-years-old as well as anyone who sells so-called high capacity magazines.

The bank, which nearly failed in 2008 but was saved by a massive taxpayer-funded bailout and now boasts a market capitalization of over $180 billion, said it wants to prevent guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people. It said it would be implementing a new policy directed at all the businesses with which it deals.

"So [sic] our new policy centers around current firearms sales best practices that will guide those we do business with as a firm," a post on the company’s website said.

The new policy would require that any company using Citibank financial services "restrict the sale of firearms for individuals under 21 years of age" and stop selling "bump stocks or high-capacity magazines." The company did not specify what they believe constitutes a "high-capacity" magazine and did not immediately respond to multiple requests for clarification. Citibank did not immediately answer whether it feared the blanket age requirement might lead to discrimination lawsuits like those Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods are facing after implementing similar corporate policies.

The bank said its new policy would apply to all kinds of business clients.

"This policy will apply across the firm, including to small business, commercial, and institutional clients, as well as credit card partners, whether co-brand or private label," the post said.

It said, however, that those with Citibank credit cards would still be able to purchase the products the company views as being responsible for "heartbreaking losses" and by those whose age the company appears to believe makes them too dangerous to own firearms.

"It doesn’t impact the ability of consumers to use their Citi cards at merchants of their choice," it said.

The bank, which hopes to recruit other financial institutions to adopt its gun-ban policies, said its decision isn’t anti-gun or ideological.

"Today, our CEO announced Citi is instituting a new U.S. Commercial Firearms Policy," the post said. "It is not centered on an ideological mission to rid the world of firearms. That is not what we seek."

It went on to say it respects Americans’ constitutional rights to own firearms.

"There are millions of Americans who use firearms for recreational and other legitimate purposes, and we respect their Constitutional right to do so," the company said.

Citibank said, however, it will work to pressure other financial companies to adopt the same policy banning the legal sale of guns to those under 21, despite that group’s constitutional right to own firearms.

"We recognize that we don’t have all the answers and that existing technology in our industry doesn’t allow for a more targeted approach at points of sale," the bank said. "For that reason, we would like to convene those in the financial services industry and other stakeholders to tackle these challenges together and see what we can do."

Citibank said it hopes "to leverage collective action to encourage responsible practices by all who sell firearms" by forcing them not to sell to anyone under 21 or sell so-called, but undefined, high-capacity magazines.

The bank said it expected the new policy banning sales of guns to a large swath of American adults to "invite passion on both sides." However, Citibank said the ban on purchases by any adult under 21 was necessary to "keep guns out of the hands of those who wish to do harm."

The post Citibank Goes Full Anti-Gun appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com

Posted on

Dad says daughter, 12, cried over being told she is ‘maybe a boy inside’ or ‘gay’ in sex-ed class

A father of a 12-year-old girl in Washington state said his daughter came home crying after a sex-ed class last fall during which she was told she was “maybe a boy inside” or “gay,” KCPQ-TV reported.

Jason Peterson — a single parent with four other children — told the station when he first agreed to let his daughter take the class from Sequim School District, he figured the content would be along the lines of “pregnancies and STDs and all of those things that you want your kids to know about.”

Jason Peterson (Image source: KING-TV video screenshot)
Jason Peterson (Image source: KING-TV video screenshot)

Instead, Peterson told KPCQ his girl came home confused and upset over gender identity.

“They told her that if she liked skateboarding and fishing and wearing athletic gear [and] playing basketball that those were boy things,” he told the station. “And … that would mean that she was maybe a boy inside or that she was gay.”

Not that Peterson has a problem with kids who are gay or believe they are another gender — but he told KING-TV his 6th-grade girl left the class feeling as though she was being encouraged to question her identity.

“I think people should be free to be who they are,” Peterson told KCPQ. “They’re discriminating, though, against her identity. And how much of it do you have to put up with?”

“[My daughter] was very confused by it,” he told KING. “She likes playing basketball, she likes going fishing with Dad, she likes skateboarding and she likes being a girl. And I told her those weren’t boy things — they were people things. That people liked to do those things.”

More than that, Peterson KCPQ the sex-ed curriculum leaned heavily toward gender-identity issues rather than medically or scientifically based sexual health.

“The thing is … it’s front burnered,” he told KCPQ. “Twenty out of 32 pages … are generated to gender identity. It’s heavily weighted toward that. It’s biased toward that.”

What happened next?

Peterson and other parents who felt the same way aired their concerns with the principal and soon district superintendent Gary Neal, who stopped the program for the time being, KCPQ reported.

Neal added to the station that a group will be formed to discuss content standards and age-appropriateness issues for the sex-ed curriculum with the aim of completing the study prior to the start of the next school year.

What else do we know about the sex-ed program?

The district uses FLASH — i.e., Family Life and Sexual Health Curriculum, the station said, adding that the county developed it about 30 years ago.

“The information around gender identity is … medically accurate and based in science,” TJ Cosgrove, director of the Community Health Services division for King County Health, told KCPQ. “We have medical review locally, we have medical review nationally with some of the best experts to help us understand what … information we should be sharing.”

More from the station:

FLASH lessons are tested and reviewed by teachers before being published, according to King County Health officials. School districts have flexibility over how they implement FLASH – including which lessons they teach and at what grade they’re taught.

King County Public Health officials add that FLASH aligns with CDC National Health Education Standards and the National Sexuality Education Standards, which includes treating people with respect and dignity, officials said.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

Posted on

Mark Zuckerberg’s Promise: Zero Transparency, Zero Public Accountability

Mark Zuckerberg’s Promise: Zero Transparency, Zero Public Accountability

David Ramos/Getty

by Allum Bokhari22 Mar 20180



Mark Zuckerberg has just completed a non-apology tour around the media, conducting interviews with CNN, Recode, and Wired, in which he promised that Facebook would investigate itself,  four years after the company first realized it had given developers too much access to data on the friends and families of their users.

This is the same approach that Facebook adopted during the trending news scandal, when the company came under political pressure for discriminating against conservative news stories in their “trending” column. Facebook investigated itself, and (surprise!) found itself innocent.

Then they fired the entire team responsible for trending news, which is exactly what innocent companies do.

If Zuckerberg really wanted to show users that his company is changing its ways, he would promise a lot more than a Facebook-led investigation of data access.

Instead, he would promise transparency around data. In particular, he would not keep Facebook’s investigation internal. He would let users know which third-party apps had access to their data, their friends’ data, and to the data of others on the platform — and how much of it.

True, the total number of apps, even if restricted to the pre-2014 period when Facebook’s rules around data collection were weak, would number in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. But cataloging vast amounts of information is the very business of a tech company like Facebook. So why don’t they create a publicly-searchable list of every app that had access to user data prior to 2014, ranked according to how many users they collected data from?

Something tells me Cambridge Analytica wouldn’t be close to the top of the list. But Obama’s 2012 campaign might.

Users should also be able to search the database to discover which of the apps have their data. Because, remember, they might not know. Prior to 2014, an app didn’t need your permission to grab personally identifying information from your profile — they only needed permission from one of your Facebook friends.

That’s the loophole that Obama’s team exploited to harvest mass quantities of user data, and, quite possibly, win the 2012 election.

If Facebook wants to escape allegations of poisoning democracy, they also need to be transparent about their recent newsfeed changes, in particular, which sites have lost out and which have benefited. So far, the conservative media have had to highlight the fact that conservative sites, as well as Donald Trump, have been hit particularly badly by Facebook’s recent changes. Why won’t Facebook release engagement and reach rankings for all news sites that use their platform?

Probably because it would confirm what we know already: that Facebook is now boosting corporate mainstream media at the expensive of the alternative media. After promising publishers an equal playing field for years, the social network has pulled a bait-and-switch, leaving users with the same corporate-controlled information environment that the internet was supposed to liberate them from.

Kowtowing to corporations and global elites is now the order of the day at Facebook. Read between the lines of Zuckerberg’s media interviews, and you’ll see it. He did address the issue of transparency, but only around ad buys, telling CNN that he wants to let users know who is paying for ads on the platform.

But while users are unlikely to complain about this suggestion, the idea of hostile ads manipulating voters is an obsession of global elites, who think voters are idiots, not ordinary Facebook users. Ordinary Facebook users care about who has access to their data, and why they are no longer allowed to see news organizations they like on their newsfeeds. If Zuckerberg was really interested in transparency, he’d be transparent about that.

He isn’t really apologizing to users — he’s apologizing to politicians and global elites. That’s who he really considers himself accountable to — not the public.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter, Gab.ai and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to allumbokhari@protonmail.com.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

President Trump Imposes New Tariffs On China Over Continued US Intellectual Property Theft

President Trump Imposes New Tariffs On China Over Continued US Intellectual Property Theft

March 22, 2018
by Lucian Wintrich

President Trump just announced a new series of tariffs on roughly $50 billion in Chinese imports. These new tariffs are the result of a seven-month investigation into China’s continued theft of US intellectual property. “We have a tremendous intellectual property theft problem. It’s going to make us a much stronger, much richer nation,” President Trump told reporters this morning. “This has been long in the making.”

While President Trump is imposing the harsh tariffs to help correct the current trade imbalance, he remained open and confident with US-Chinese relations calling China a “friend” to the use and stating he had “tremendous respect” President Xi Jinping.

More Via The Hill Opinion:

Section 301 gives the U.S. Trade Representative broad authority to take measures against a foreign country’s unfair trade practices. The U.S. is challenging China for alleged violations of IP rights and practices of forced technology-transfers; whereby if an American company wishes to do business in certain areas in the form of joint ventures with a Chinese firm, it often has to share its IP (such as trade secrets or industrial designs). The 301 investigations have potential for broad sanctions on China such as high punitive tariffs on its exports (for examples high-tech products like semiconductors and telecommunications equipment) and restrictions on Chinese investment in the U.S. This would be detrimental to China and provoke retaliatory trade measures.

Via NPR:

Aides described the $50 billion figure as a conservative estimate of what forced technology transfer and other moves by China cost the U.S. economy. The president suggested the total value of the tariffs could go as high as $60 billion. […]

The proposed tariffs on imports from China follow the administration’s decision to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. Those tariffs, which take effect on Friday, have already been watered down. Lighthizer said that in addition to Canada and Mexico, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea and the European Union will be exempted from the steel and aluminum tariffs, at least temporarily.

Administration officials defended the crackdown on China, saying years of dialogue during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations had not produced the desired change. Dialogue continued during the opening months of the Trump administration, but the president has now decided tougher action is required.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Posted on

Florida woman deliberately crashes car into sheriff’s station, media ignore the obvious

It’s a rule of thumb for alert readers that when a politician is caught doing something embarrassing or criminal, if no political party is specified, you can safely bet that he is a Democrat.  Something similar appears to be at work with terroristic acts.  Consider the incident on Monday in which a woman named Lasandra Johnson appeared to deliberately crash her car into a Broward Sheriff’s Office in Pembroke Park, Florida, carrying accelerants that caused the car to burst into flames.  The local newspapers, the Sun-Sentinel and Miami Herald, both reported the rather dramatic incident.  The Sun-Sentinel noted:


“Lasandra Johnson drove into the South Broward district office on Monday with accelerants in her car,” said Joy Oglesby, a spokeswoman for the sheriff’s office. …



However, Johnson, 34, was hurt and burned in the crash and remained hospitalized Wednesday.


A worker who was painting inside the building when the incident happened was able to help Johnson get out of the crashed red Toyota Camry.


“She was engulfed in flames,” the worker, Ben Mendez, said on Monday.


Pretty shocking behavior, and drama aplenty.  What could be behind this?  Readers might want to know what could possibly cause a woman to do this.  Or at least see a picture of her.  But all the Sun-Sentinel would note is:


Detectives with the Violent Crimes Unit of the sheriff’s office are still trying to determine why the crash happened.


The Herald’s shorter account covered most of the same facts and left readers with a mystery:


Detectives in BSO’s Violent Crimes Unit were still investigating Wednesday to determine why Johnson drove into the building.


Neither paper mentioned facts or pictures that John Cardillo was able to discover and post to Twitter:



As Pamela Geller notes:


Deliberately ramming cars into people and buildings, and targeting police in particular, is a common jihadi pattern.  The Islamic State (ISIS) and others have called on Muslims in the U.S. to attack police, and to run them over with their cars.  If the media in Florida were worth its salt and actually interested in reporting, they would tell these facts to the public, and reveal that Lasandra Johnson is a devout Muslim.  Instead, silence.  Why?  What do they think will happen?  Do they think the jihad will go away if they ignore it?  Do they think reporting on jihad attacks will incite their ever-present bogeymen, “right-wing extremists”?  It’s madness.


Ignoring the obvious has never worked out well with any problem.


It’s a rule of thumb for alert readers that when a politician is caught doing something embarrassing or criminal, if no political party is specified, you can safely bet that he is a Democrat.  Something similar appears to be at work with terroristic acts.  Consider the incident on Monday in which a woman named Lasandra Johnson appeared to deliberately crash her car into a Broward Sheriff’s Office in Pembroke Park, Florida, carrying accelerants that caused the car to burst into flames.  The local newspapers, the Sun-Sentinel and Miami Herald, both reported the rather dramatic incident.  The Sun-Sentinel noted:


“Lasandra Johnson drove into the South Broward district office on Monday with accelerants in her car,” said Joy Oglesby, a spokeswoman for the sheriff’s office. …


However, Johnson, 34, was hurt and burned in the crash and remained hospitalized Wednesday.


A worker who was painting inside the building when the incident happened was able to help Johnson get out of the crashed red Toyota Camry.


“She was engulfed in flames,” the worker, Ben Mendez, said on Monday.


Pretty shocking behavior, and drama aplenty.  What could be behind this?  Readers might want to know what could possibly cause a woman to do this.  Or at least see a picture of her.  But all the Sun-Sentinel would note is:


Detectives with the Violent Crimes Unit of the sheriff’s office are still trying to determine why the crash happened.


The Herald’s shorter account covered most of the same facts and left readers with a mystery:


Detectives in BSO’s Violent Crimes Unit were still investigating Wednesday to determine why Johnson drove into the building.


Neither paper mentioned facts or pictures that John Cardillo was able to discover and post to Twitter:



As Pamela Geller notes:


Deliberately ramming cars into people and buildings, and targeting police in particular, is a common jihadi pattern.  The Islamic State (ISIS) and others have called on Muslims in the U.S. to attack police, and to run them over with their cars.  If the media in Florida were worth its salt and actually interested in reporting, they would tell these facts to the public, and reveal that Lasandra Johnson is a devout Muslim.  Instead, silence.  Why?  What do they think will happen?  Do they think the jihad will go away if they ignore it?  Do they think reporting on jihad attacks will incite their ever-present bogeymen, “right-wing extremists”?  It’s madness.


Ignoring the obvious has never worked out well with any problem.






via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

The anti-sanctuary movement is spreading in California

Earlier this week we looked at the California city of Los Alamitos which was considering a vote to exempt themselves from Sacramento’s decision to make the entire state into a sanctuary for illegal aliens. That anti-sanctuary vote passed, and if a follow-up vote next month also succeeds, the city will officially stand in defiance of sanctuary state policies. That’s not the end of the story, however. This act of rebellion seems to be spreading like some sort of constitutional freedom virus and other local and municipal governments are looking to Los Alamitos as a blueprint for their own rebellions. (Free Beacon)

Orange County and several other cities in California could follow the lead of Los Alamitos and opt out of the state’s controversial law that restricts local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Los Alamitos, the second smallest city in Orange County with a population of 11,500, late Monday rejected the state’s so-called sanctuary law in a vote of 4-1 of the city council.

Officials with Orange County and the cities of Aliso Viejo and Buena Park reached out to Los Alamitos officials and began publicly expressing support and intentions to take up similar anti-sanctuary language.

“We are a little city in Orange County, but we’re tired of things coming out of Sacramento that just don’t make sense, and now others are telling us they feel the same way,” said Warren Kusumoto, the Los Alamitos councilman who wrote the anti-sanctuary ordinance.

Los Alamitos may be a small city by population, but if all of Orange County follows suit, California’s illegal-loving Democrats in Sacramento have a serious problem on their hands. Orange County is the third largest county in the state with a population in excess of three million. It’s also the home to Anaheim, most famously known for the Empire of the Mouse (Disney). While nothing official has been put on the docket yet, inland cities in other counties are reportedly already discussing similar measures.

So what will the state government do about it? This is where it’s going to get really interesting. The state senate Majority Leader, Kevin de Leon, was the primary author of the original sanctuary state bill. He’s already making disparaging remarks and threats toward Los Alamitos and anyone else who follows that path, calling their choice nothing more than, “a symbolic vote in favor of President Trump’s racist immigration enforcement policies.”

Beyond that, he’s making clear threats of legal action as well.

De Leon, who is challenging Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) from the left, also threatened the city and others considering similar measures with lawsuits if they don’t back down.

“Local governments that attempt to break the law will saddle their residents with unnecessary and expensive litigation costs,” he said, according to the Ventura County Star.

So De Leon wants to take them to court? That’s going to be seriously awkward on two counts and put this battle even more firmly in the national media spotlight. First of all, the rebelling local governments are declaring their right to exempt themselves to be a constitutional duty. This means the state will have to go to court and explain why their constitutional oaths don’t actually matter.

But even more damaging in terms of optics is the question of supremacy. How will De Leon and the rest of the Democrats in Sacramento explain that the cities and counties are bound by state law, but the state isn’t bound by federal law? That should be an excellent trick to pull off. Even if the state prevails in a friendly court in California, when it’s challenged higher up the line California may find that their entire sanctuary scheme was unconstitutional to begin with. And that will be a major black eye for them if it happens.

The post The anti-sanctuary movement is spreading in California appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Posted on

Karma Just Bit Pocahontas Right In her Loincloth-Covered Ass Like NOM-NOM-NOM-NOM

Serves her right!

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

During debates years earlier under the Obama administration over the wisdom or lack thereof of fashioning the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to essentially be “answerable to no one,” Democrats and Republicans alike warned of the risks inherent in granting one agency so much power.

Yet the agency’s architect, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, brazenly ignored their concerns. Apparently, Pocahontas thought she knew best.

But she thought wrong. In fact, Pocahontas is now paying a steep price for her arrogance, according to Reason magazine:

Warren is spitting mad at Mick Mulvaney, the Office of Management and Budget director who does double duty heading up an agency whose creation Warren championed: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB’s previous director was an ideological ally of Warren. Since Mulvaney took over, Warren has ripped the agency’s decisions. Warren said Mulvaney is giving “the middle finger” to consumers, and she railed at Mulvaney’s indifferent response to the 10 (!) letters she has sent him demanding answers to more than 100 questions.

The other day she tweeted that she is giving Mulvaney “one last chance.” Yet as The Wall Street Journal points out, she has only herself to blame for her apparent impotence.

Indeed. In her endless quest for power, Warren jettisoned common sense and reason, choosing to empower the CFPB with the authority to disregard Congress’s demands.

“The bureau is funded not with an annual appropriation like the rest of the government, but by the Federal Reserve based on a request from the head of the CFPB. Congress thus can’t use its constitutional power of the purse to enforce public accountability,” the Journal notes.

“Unlike other so-called independent agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission, the CFPB also isn’t composed of a bipartisan set of commissioners. It’s a one man show whose five-year term transcends elections and thus Administrations.”

While this worked beautifully for Warren when one of her allies ran the agency, she now finds herself in an extraordinary pickle, and all because of her own doing.

Simply put, there is nothing on Earth the pretend Native American can do to stop Mulvaney from enacting his agenda, though she’s more than welcome to try performing a rain dance.

Otherwise, it appears that her only other option is to simply take it as karma eats her up like nom-nom-nom-nom, BITCH!

Personal Note: Due to an impending pay cut at Downtrend.com spurred by Adolf Zuckerberg’s war on conservative thought, I need YOUR help to keep writing here. If interested, please check out my Patreon account here. 

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com

Posted on

Omnibus Bill Includes Specific Clause Barring Funding for Donald Trump ‘Wall’

Omnibus Bill Includes Specific Clause Barring Funding for Donald Trump ‘Wall’

wall

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

by Charlie Spiering22 Mar 20180



The 2,232 page Omnibus bill includes a specific clause barring funding for a wall on the southern border that mirrors the new prototypes already there.

The bill reads:

The amounts designated in subsection (a)(2) through (a)(4) shall only be available for operationally effective designs deployed as of the date of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, (Public Law 115–31), such as currently deployed steel bollard designs, that prioritize agent safety.

The clause allows Democrats to say that the bill does not fund Trump’s wall, and allows Republicans claiming that border security funding includes funding for a “wall system.” Speaker Paul Ryan’s office issued talking points praising the funding for “95 miles of border wall system.”

The funding will be primarily used for border fencing and “bollard” fencing. 

Here is a list of what the omnibus bill plans to spend on the following border security projects:

  • $251,000,000 for approximately 14 miles of secondary fencing, all of which provides for cross- barrier visual situational awareness, on the southwest border in the San Diego Sector.
  • $445,000,000 for 25 miles of primary pedestrian levee fencing along the southwest border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.
  • $196,000,000 for primary pedestrian fencing along the southwest border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.
  • $445,000,000 for replacement of existing primary pedestrian fencing along the southwest border.

The bill also includes $196,000,000 for deployment of border security technology and $38,000,000 for border barrier planning and design.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

‘March For Our Lives’ Now Operating Under Dark Money Nonprofit Advocacy Group

March For Our Lives, a demonstration involving survivors of the Parkland school shooting that will take place Saturday in Washington, D.C., and across the country, registered a 501(c)(4) nonprofit advocacy organization that is not required to disclose its donors.

The March for Our Lives Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) "social welfare" nonprofit organization, was registered on March 8 with the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, records show. The action fund lists its business address in Encino, Calif., and its agent as CT Corporation System, a D.C.-based firm that offers agent, incorporation, and corporate business compliance services.

Jeri Rhodes, an associate executive secretary for finance and administration at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a group that "lobbies Congress and the administration to advance peace, justice, opportunity, and environmental stewardship," is also listed as the action fund’s executing officer and governor on its registration. Rhodes previously served as chief financial officer for Greenpeace.

While the organization said on its website it is "for kids and by kids" and the "March For Our Lives organizers are the kids themselves," it also said the kids "have brought in support to help ensure it is a success." A coalition of liberal advocacy groups are currently involved in organizing and planning the march. In addition to support from leading gun-control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, the Brady Campaign, and Giffords, organizers from the Women’s March, Planned Parenthood, and Move On are involved with the permitting for the event as well as promoting it.

March For Our Lives is even directing donations to Everytown, which has set up a March For Our Lives Initiative under their own 501(c)(3) operation. Donations to that fund will be tax deductible, and its donors will have to be publicly disclosed.

However, the March For Our Lives Action Fund, as a 501(c)(4) organization, will not be required to disclose its donors, and individuals who send cash to the group can remain anonymous. A 501(c)(4) designated group can be involved in political activity as long as it does not become its primary focus. The organization said on its website it chose to incorporate the group this way because it plans to lobby for new gun-control legislation even after Saturday’s march.

"March for Our Lives Action Fund is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code," it said. "Unlike section 501(c)(3) charitable organizations which have restrictions on their lobbying activities, section 501(c)(4) organizations are permitted to conduct unlimited lobbying for federal tax purposes. This form of entity gives the students maximum flexibility to conduct high-impact legislative advocacy during the Day of Action and beyond."

They said the donations being made to the group now will be used to cover expenses for the march and also future lobbying efforts.

"Donations to the March For Our Lives Action Fund will cover all expenses associated with the march taking place in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, March 24th," the site said. "The funds will also be used to fight for comprehensive gun safety legislation at the local, state, and federal level, and will also include voter education, ballot initiatives, and lobbying state legislatures and Congress to protect America’s kids."

Despite the anonymous nature of the group’s funding, there is some information on who has given money to the group thus far because a number of celebrities have announced their own donations publicly. Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, Steven Spielberg, and Jeffrey Katzenberg have each donated $500,000. The fashion company Gucci has also publicly announced their own half-million-dollar donation. Those publicly disclosed donations total $2.5 million.

The group also announced that the proceeds from the GoFundMe fundraiser, which raised $3.3 million in the immediate aftermath of the Parkland shooting, would be split between a separate fund that will help financially support the families of the victims and the March For Our Lives Action Fund. It is unclear how much money the Action Fund has raised since the GoFundMe fundraiser was ended and the group switched to raising money through The Action Network, a fundraising platform designed to assist progressive causes. The group won’t be required to file financial disclosures for several months.

Rhodes and March for Our Lives did not immediately return a request for comment.

The post ‘March For Our Lives’ Now Operating Under Dark Money Nonprofit Advocacy Group appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com