Tag Archives: anti-gun protesters

Here Are Emails & Flyers Showing Portland, Oregon Teachers & Administrators Organized ‘Student’ Anti-Gun Walk Outs & Why Parents Are Now Suing in Federal Court.

The Portland Public Schools and Superintendent Guadalupe Guerrero are being sued in federal court for using tax money to orchestrate a mass anti-gun mass walk-out by students.

The civil rights lawsuit, brought by two sets of Portland parents, allege that Portland Public Schools went to great lengths to produce the 2018 demonstrations which saw thousands of students leave classrooms and take pictures of themselves with anti Second Amendment, anti NRA and anti-gun signs.

View this post on Instagram

The picture is blurry but the message is clear. #walkout2018

A post shared by Megan Haenni (@your.argument.is.invalid) on

Oregon Firearms Federation
Screenshot/Willamette Week

The parents’ attorney, James Buchal, a civil rights attorney and head of the Multnomah County Republican Party, said the lawsuit “demonstrates the extraordinary degree to which PPS officials have misused scarce educational resources for narrowly partisan and political objectives.”

The 31-page complaint included emails and photos demonstrating what Buchal said was collusion between administrators and school officials to work with anti-gun groups to “groom” students into ‘leading’ the walk outs.

The complaint reads in part:

“A continuous disinformation effort was made by defendants to portray demonstration efforts as student-led. For example, an Assistant Principal at Laurelhurst School reported on February 27th: “We just got off the phone with our Sr. Director and his guidance was to keep this as student centered as possible.” He suggested that teachers identify useful studentproxies so that he and another school official could have lunch with them for event planning, though phrasing his request as “see[ing] what they want to do” (See Exhibit 26). Offering young students who took one side of a controversial political issue private lunches with senior school officials is and was intended to be seductive, to groom, recruit and motivate students to the political cause favored by defendants, in order to reinforce and achieve the political goals of the defendants. Upon information and belief, no PPS administrator or teacher invited pro-Second- Amendment students to have lunch with them to see what they wanted to do, and PPS offered no school resources to pro-gun students similar to those PPS provided to anti-gun students.”

Such efforts at the very least defied the District’s own policies.

In fact, the lawsuit shows memos, flyers, emails (using official PPS email system and contacts) and other examples of teachers and administrators plotting to, not only organize the advertised “student led” walk outs, but providing helpful maps on walk out map routes around schools, lesson plans, and the official color students should wear:

A teacher provided students with how to write and lobby elected officials for gun control:

The lawsuit also alleges that developmentally disabled students were used by organizers to hold signs even though they couldn’t understand them:

“Even younger, or developmentally disabled students, incapable of reasoned choice as to participation, were pressed into service as pawns and props by defendants. Oneparent complained: “Our special needs 5th grader doesn’t understand why he had to wear a sign around his neck and march around the school….” (Exhibit 29) (Nextdoor posting)).”

It was so obviously a school-led event that parents had to opt out their children or they’d be required to participate in the walk out.



Schools changed their bell schedules to add an extra period so students breaking the district’s own policies wouldn’t be marked absent.

The walk outs were an orchestrated commemoration of the 17 students murdered at the Majory Stoneman High School in Parkland, Florida in 2017 by a mentally deranged gunman and former student.

The shooting was horrible enough of course, but Buchal provided proof that students were “emotionally manipulat[ed]” by “misleading propaganda” to “create political theater designed to manipulate public opinion and pressure elected officials to ban guns.”

Buchal says there was never mention of the Parkland school’s own complicity in the violence, beginning with the PROMISE program that refused to arrest and treat the mentally ill student, to the armed school resource officer who cowered outside while students were being shot inside the school.

Buchal, a Harvard educated and Yale trained lawyer, argues that by forcing parents to subsidize the political activities of teachers and administrators, it “… violates their First Amendment rights, and that the pervasive climate of indoctrination and intimidation within the Portland schools also unconstitutionally interferes with the free speech rights of students.  The suit also seeks to compel PPS to complete its long-overdue response to the Public Records Act request, pointing out that the Multnomah County District Attorney previously ordered PPS to complete the production by December 6th

I would have posted this last Thursday when I heard about it, but family commitments prevented it. However, the later timing allowed me to see the ‘coverage’ this important story got.

Willamette Week headlined its story “Multnomah County GOP Chairman Sues Portland Public Schools Over Gun Control Protests,” intentionally leaving the impression that it was the GOP bringing the lawsuit. Nothing wrong with that if it were the truth, but it’s not.

It was also amusing to see the AP story about it, which included a quote from the District spokesman calling the lawsuit “baseless.”

Former Oregonian political-writer-turned “director of strategic communications and outreach” for PPS, Harry Esteve, sees it as “baseless” I suppose because to see it otherwise might encourage citizens to look at Buchal’s legal exhibits revealing Esteve’s latent and overt fingerprints all over this manufactured event.

Starbucks CEO’s Letter to Gun Owners: “Appreciate” Us Without the Guns.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz listens to anti gun activists, asks legal gun owners to stop “Appreciation Days.

guns and coffee
Starbucks CEO gives win to anti gun protesters, asking gun owners to leave the pieces either at home or concealed.

The CEO of the ubiquitous Starbucks Coffee chain has taken out full page ads in major U.S. newspapers to placate anti gun activists who Howard Schultz claims have been hassling his workers and customers over the issue of guns in the shops.

In an open letter (see it below) to customers which begins, “My Fellow Americans,” Schultz asks gun enthusiasts to stop appreciating Starbucks so much because it’s ticking off the anti gun folks.

“That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.”

The Starbucks CEO has kept an open mind about open carry: if it’s legal to openly carry a gun in a state, Starbucks allows guns in their stores. And gun rights enthusiasts have thanked Starbucks by holding what they call, “Starbucks Appreciation Days” across the nation. They’ve shown their appreciation in a tangible way, giving Starbucks lots of business and on a bumper sticker. See it nearby.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores.

Read that again,

…become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening

Who’s doing the threatening? We find out in the next sentence,

Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

Schultz’s letter attempts a nuanced stance: could you appreciate us WITHOUT the guns?! But the intent is unmistakable: gun enthusiasts are “disingenuous” about Starbucks’ motives while anti-gun enthusiasts are “threatening.” Who’s being asked to leave their rights at the curb? Gun owners.

I’m not going to vouch for every gun enthusiast who may run his mouth off at a protester, but I’m sure as heck not going to vouch for the usual rent-a-mobs we often see hassling, yelling, chanting and screaming at their political detractors. I’ve seen this movie too often. Anti fur protesters screaming mere inches from customers and committing acts of vandalism, phony fast food workers on ‘strike,’ SEIU thugs beating a (black) conservative guy selling T shirts and racist and homophobic epithets hurled at conservatives (including blacks and gays) gathering for a meeting. 

Howard Schultz’s employees have seen them too. Does his letter ask those anti gun people to stop their collective hissy fits at his stores? No. He undoubtedly doesn’t want to spark a debate about first amendment rights. He is willing to ask second amendment enthusiasts to keep their guns at home, however.

Schultz said yesterday that the guns make his customers feel “uncomfortable.”
He forgot that gun owners are also his customers.

But with his public disavowal of gun owners openly carrying, he has given anti gun activists what they want, showing once again that a few loud voices can eclipse actual civil rights. 

 

Here’s the full text of Howard Schultz’s letter:
Dear Fellow Americans,
Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.
From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.
We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.
Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement — not by Starbucks and our store partners.
Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.
For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas — even in states where “open carry” is permitted — unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.
I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request — and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.
I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors,
Sincerely,
Howard Schultz
Compare and contrast. People smiling and drinking coffee juxtaposed to picketers.

And picketing Starbucks is what’s making Schultz concerned,