March for Our Lives Proposes ‘Green New Deal But for Guns’

H/T GunPowder Magazine.

This is a half-witted idea that will strip away our Second Amendment Rights.

The founders of March for Our Lives (MFOL), the gun control advocacy group founded in the wake of the Parkland, Florida mass shooting, just proposed a plan for even more extreme restriction of firearms in America.

The proposal is called “A Peace Plan for a Safer America,” and one of MFOL’s founders, Jaclyn Corin, described it as the “Green New Deal, but for guns.”

Fox News reports:

March for Our Lives had already called for universal background checks but the new proposal is more comprehensive than their previous list of demands.

In addition to background checks, the group is now calling for a multi-step approval process for gun ownership that includes “in-person interviews, personal references, rigorous gun safety training, and a waiting period of 10 days for each gun purchase.”

It also looks to impose much stricter limits on purchases by raising the minimum age for gun possession to 21 and limiting Americans to one firearm purchase per month. It’s unclear how the plan will be implemented as that purchase limit would seem to preclude its other goal of imposing higher fees on bulk firearm purchases.

These fees, along with annual fees for firearm licenses, would be directed toward addressing gun violence. The plan also called for a national licensing and registry system. Although an exact figure is impossible to pin down, researchers believe that there are more guns that people in the United States.

Beto O’Rourke


Following the lead of the students marching for their lives, and for all of ours, we will end this epidemic. I support their Peace Plan For A Safer America—and I call on everyone else in this race to do the same. 

March For Our Lives


To take on this crisis, we need to think big.
To take on corrupt powers that be, we have to be strategic.
To take on violence, we have to be pro-peace.
Introducing: A Peace Plan for a Safer America. Created by survivors, so you don’t have to be one. 

1,383 people are talking about this

I reported last year for GPM on the mysterious funding source and backers of MFOL:

MFOL’s website says the group was “created by, inspired by, and led by the students of Parkland,” but that doesn’t explain who has been funding the organization’s bus tour, media blitzes, and other promotional events. The group’s march in Washington, D.C. in March reportedly cost $5 million alone. itself is curiously vague on this subject. The “Info” tab directs one to a “Partners and Supporters” page, which, rather than listing partners and supporters, as one might expect, simply says,

March for Our Lives is looking to partner with organizations with a history of working on issues related to gun violence prevention in this effort. We’re also interested in hearing from organizations looking to generally support our efforts in coming on board as supporting organizations. If you’d like to partner or offer support, please reach out here:

There’s no phone number I can find by which to call the group – just contact boxes that require the media person trying to get in touch to provide his organization or affiliation, and a message warning “it may take a while for you to receive a response because of the volume of requests we are receiving.”

Secret Donors
The source of MFOL’s funding is a topic others have wondered about and investigated, and some question surrounding who exactly is funneling the money remain.

NPR reported in March the group had said its funding came from “crowdfunding and other donations — including from household name celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney,” and that the MFOL board of directors was “comprised of adults,” due to legal restrictions.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that on March 8, MFOL had “registered a 501(c)(4) nonprofit advocacy organization that is not required to disclose its donors.”

“[MFOL] decided to incorporate as a ‘social welfare’ organization, and a non-profit, but not a 501(c)(3), a designation which would have allowed those who donated to the March to claim their contributions as tax deductions, but which would have required the March itself to submit a list of their contributors to the IRS,” the Daily Wire reported at the time.

Even the notoriously liberal Huffington Post smelled a rat and “criticized the group for its lack of transparency and grassroots veneer, when structurally the March for Our Lives bears the hallmarks of professional activists,” reported.

“…There is little publicly available information about the March for Our Lives Action Fund or who’s running it,” HuffPo reported. “…As a 501(c)(4) group, March for Our Lives Action Fund is subject to few public disclosure requirements regarding donors or expenditures, meaning the Parkland students and the board aren’t obligated to be fully transparent.”

A Capital Research Center article further reported earlier this year that:

Besides coordinating the D.C. rally in conjunction with Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, Everytown for Gun Safety, as of this month, March for Our Lives now sports a 501(c)(4) lobbying nonprofit of its own—the March for Our Lives Action Fund. Filings with the D.C. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs shows registration in Delaware, with an Encino, California, business address shared by Wishnow Ross Warsavsky & Company, an accountancy. Those filings also reveal the group’s treasurer: Jeri Rhodes, former Greenpeace CFO and currently an associate executive secretary at the Friends Committee on National Legislation (a left-of-center Quaker group).

“Everytown has been criticized for using high school students to promote gun control activism under the guise of spontaneous student demonstrations,” reported. “One of these students, David Hogg, tweeted on March 10 for gun control supporters to utilize a call script produced by Everytown for Gun Safety to pressure Congressional lawmakers into passing stricter gun control laws.”

What do Bloomberg and his cronies have to hide, if they are not ashamed of their very public exploitation of children? Why the secret donors and under-the-radar behavior?

Time will tell.


Gillibrand: I Told Coal Miner Green New Deal ‘Just Bipartisan Ideas’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Senator Kristen Gillibrand(Delusional-NY)is a Damned liar the green new deal is not a bipartisan idea as no DemocRat voted for it will every Republican voted no.

‘People in Ohio don’t know who I am’


Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) said Thursday that she explained to a Pennsylvania coal miner the Green New Deal was “just bipartisan ideas” to help the economy and his state grow.

Gillibrand is on a bus tour of the Rust Belt over what she calls President Donald Trump’s broken promises to the voters who put him in the White House. NBC News reporter Shaquille Brewster noted the 2020 hopeful spoke to a longtime Democratic coal miner who voted for Trump in 2016 and had concerns about the Green New Deal.

“Well, I explained to him that the Green New Deal is just some bipartisan ideas that will actually help the economy and his state grow,” Gillibrand said. “It’s involved with infrastructure, more mass transit, more high-speed rail, more rural broadband, more efficient electric grid, all things that will help Pennsylvania. It’s about green jobs.”

The plan calls for the U.S. to reach net-zero carbon emissions in the next 10 years, a shift to 100 percent renewable energy sources, retrofitting buildings across the country, and overhauling the U.S. transportation system, to an estimated price tag of $94 trillion.

Gillibrand called it “bipartisan,” but Senate Democrats voted either “nay” or “present” when it was up for a procedural vote in March, while all 53 Republicans voted it down.

The Green New Deal resolution was rolled out this year by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), and Ocasio-Cortez’s own chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti called it a way to change the entire economy rather than specifically curb climate change.

Rep. Max Rose (D., N.Y.) called it a “massive socialist economic policy platform.” A report from the American Enterprise Institute found the Green New Deal would have “no effect” on climate due to the U.S. contributing a fraction of the globe’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Gillibrand said the bus tour was about more than getting attention and boosting her low poll numbers, which are typically between 0.5 and 1 percent. She acknowledged the voters of states like Ohio “don’t know who I am.”

“At the end of the day this is the beginning of a campaign,” she said. “We’ve only had one debate out of 10 so far, so it’s just the beginning. People in Ohio don’t know who I am. They don’t know why I’m running for president, what my background is, what I’ve accomplished in the last decade of public service. They don’t know that I come from a district a lot like their state, a 2-to-1 Republican district that has manufacturing and agriculture.”


Beto O’Rourke Unveils $5 Trillion Climate Change Plan

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

A five trillion dollar plan to fight something that does not exist.

I have a question for Robert Francis O’Rourke “Where is this money going to come from?”

Beto O’Rourke, the former congressman and failed Senate candidate jockeying for position in the crowded “straight white male” lane of the Democratic presidential primary, has finally unveiled a policy proposal. The candidate published on his campaign website Monday an ambitious plan to combat climate change—”the greatest threat we face”—to the tune of $5 trillion over the next decade.

“We have one last chance to unleash the ingenuity and political will of hundreds of millions of Americans to meet this moment before it’s too late,” O’Rourke said in a statement accompanying the plan’s release, echoing remarks he has made on the campaign trail comparing climate change to the threat the United States and the world faced from Nazi Germany and Japan during World War II.

The plan aims to achieve net-zero carbon emission in the United States by the year 2050, which O’Rourke’s campaign claims is “in line” with the ambitious goals laid out in the Green New Dealauthored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.). That is not entirely accurate. One of the first steps would involve introducing legislation in the first 100 days of O’Rourke’s administration that would establish a “legally enforceable standard” to ensure the United States gets halfway to net-zero emissions by 2030. However, a Green New Deal fact sheet published by Ocasio-Cortez’s office argued that the United States “must” fully achieve net-zero emissions by 2030 to ward off global catastrophe.

The plan would be financed via a “fully paid-for $1.5 trillion investment” generated by “structural changes to the tax code that ensure corporations and the wealthiest among us pay their fair share.” There is no explicit mention of a carbon tax, although the plan itself isn’t very explicit about anything. Nuclear energy, for example, is never mentioned. The plan simply proposes to “accelerate the scale up of nascent technologies enabling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors, through efficiency and alternatives.”

What about the remaining $3.5 trillion? That’s not entirely clear. The additional funds would be “mobilized” and “directly leveraged” by the new tax revenue, and funneled through “proven existing financial institutions” such as the Rural Utility Service, as well as “a new dedicated finance authority, which will have on its board not only the brightest minds in finance but also members of the unions that would help build this infrastructure.”

The plan’s lack of specifics with respect to its true cost is politically expedient, given that most Americans are unwilling to spend even $10 per month to combat climate change, according to a recent poll.

Through a combination of executive action and legislation, O’Rourke pledges to achieve his ambitious goal by “unlocking technological breakthroughs,” “supporting regional hubs of expertise,” “catalyzing partnerships with private and philanthropic capital,” “[boosting] the diversity of the leaders whose businesses form the supply chain for climate change solutions.”

Indeed, the text of O’Rourke’s plan is littered with the vague, snazzy jargon typically found in neoliberal think tank proposals, “woke” corporate press releases, and Silicon Valley mission statements.  This paragraph, for example:

Innovation that will lead to pioneering solutions in energy, water, agriculture, industry, and mobility and to scientific discovery that makes us more safe and secure. $250 billion in direct resources that will catalyze follow-on private investment, creation of new businesses, and discovery of new science.

Apart from a bullet point pledging to “Re-enter the Paris Agreement and lead the negotiations for an even more ambitious global plan for 2030 and beyond,” there is little explanation of how the plan would address the far more significant challenge of limiting carbon emissions outside the United States, which only accounts for about 15 percent of global emission (and falling). ​