Members of the AAF III% militia do security during the Pro-Freedom rally at the Indiana Statehouse during the during the third day of the National Rifle Association convention being held nearby. Photo by Jeremy Hogan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
The Three Percenters offered to be the ARMED BODYGUARDS of elected Oregon Lawmakers – and they accept. This is before their Man, Donald Trump, DECLARED the election was stolen with no proof – to this very day – the day after Omar got sprayed by a Trump Lover. What if Omar had a six shooter strapped to her leg, like the woman did that I talked to at a Percenter rally in Eugene. What if she hired a BLACL BODYGUARD who stook with a shotgun behind Omar. How would that look? Would words like “Race and Civil War’ come to mind?
John Presco
““Our current inability to get upstream of this violence before it starts leaves us vulnerable to organized criminal elements who enter into a protest environment with the express intention of escalating the situation into an assault or arson or a riot,” Schmidt said.”
EXTRA! The FBI just raided a voting office looking for proof…the enemy DID steal the election. Tump pardoned some Pecenters, Will they want revenge like they did on Jan, 6th, where a gallows was brought to our Capitol with these words above it…
“HANG MIKE PENCE!”
Far-right influencers and MAGA provocateurs are currently flooding social media with baseless allegations that the attack on Ilhan Omar during a town hall event on Tuesday night was “staged” by the Minnesota lawmaker, calling it a “Somali False Flag Scam” and “Jussie Smollett 2.0.”
“Nobody cares about your staged victim propaganda,” self-appointed Trump “loyalty enforcer” and “proud Islamophobe” Laura Loomer exclaimed at Omar. “Please go back to Somalia. We are getting really tired of people like you taking up space in our country.”
Conservative YouTuber Anthony B. Logan, meanwhile, tweeted that the whole thing was “staged” because “Omar looked directly at the guy and nodded before he sprayed that stuff on her.”
A Black Panther Party member brings a shotgun into the state Capitol, May 2, 1967. He was one of two dozen armed Panthers who entered the building. (Photo: Walt Zeboski/Associated Press)
by CHUCK MCFADDEN posted 04.26.2017
It’s largely forgotten now, but 50 years ago, it created a national sensation. It even caused the National Rifle Association and Ronald Reagan to back a gun-control bill authored by a Republican.
Tuesday is the 50th anniversary of the May 2, 1967 “invasion” of the state Capitol by two dozen gun-toting Black Panthers. Carrying rifles, pistols and shotguns, and wearing dark glasses, leather jackets and berets, they marched up the front steps and into the Capitol to demonstrate their opposition to an anti-gun bill by Oakland Republican Don Mulford (1915-2000).
About 45 Capitol riot defendants are charged with destruction or “depredation” of federal property, which carries a maximum 10-year prison term. | Brent Stirton/Getty Images
By Josh Gerstein01/04/2022 04:30 AM EST
The storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6 has been denounced by the White House, the FBI and the Justice Department as an act of domestic terrorism, but one year after the insurrection, prosecutors have yet to ask judges to impose the harsher sentences federal law recommends for defendants motivated by politics.
Here’s what you need to know about the Three Percenters, the militia group protecting GOP lawmakers in Oregon
By Nicole Einbinder Follow
New Follow authors and never miss a story!
Follow Nicole Einbinder
Every time Nicole publishes a story, you’ll get an alert straight to your inbox!
Enter your emailSign up
By clicking “Sign up”, you agree to receive emails from Business Insider. In addition, you accept Insider’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Jun 25, 2019, 3:18 AM PTShare
SaveSaved
- Hundreds of members of the militia group the Three Percenters mobilized over the weekend to defend the Republican senators in Oregon who fled the capitol last week to block climate change legislation.
- The movement centers on the myth that only three percent of colonists fought during the Revolutionary War.
- Here’s what you need to know about the group.
- Visit INSIDER’s homepage for more stories.
Hundreds of members of alleged militia groups mobilized over the weekend to protect Republican senators in Oregon who fled the capitol last week in an attempt to block the passage of landmark climate change legislation.
As INSIDER previously reported, upwards of 600 people were expected to mobilize on Saturday, consisting of 21 Oregon III% county groups, five Idaho III% groups, the statewide Nevada III% group, and six independent militias across the state, according to a source with Oregon’s Three Percenters.
Prior to this recent stand-off, the militia group was also involved in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge takeover in 2016, in which armed protesters took over the refuge headquarters in Oregon.
The source told INSIDER that he doesn’t anticipate violence among Three Percenters, but did acknowledge that “I would not be surprised if every member of the group is armed,” adding that members are willing to “go to any lengths required” to protect the senators.
But, who exactly are the Three Percenters?
Inside Businessnew
Unpacking the biggest stories in business.Sign up
Created in response to the Obama presidency
The militia movement formed in 2008, according to the Anti-Defamation League, with its name originating from the myth that only 3% of colonists fought during the Revolutionary War. Members view themselves as “modern day versions of those revolutionaries, fighting against a tyrannical US government rather than the British.”
On its website, the movement claims that it’s not a militia group, but rather a “national organization made up of patriotic citizens who love their country, their freedoms, and their liberty.”
The group insists they are not anti-government, but rather “very pro-government, so long as the government abides by the Constitution, doesn’t overstep its bounds, and remains ‘for the people and by the people.’ “
The movement was founded by Michael Brian Vanderboegh, a veteran of the 1990s militia movement and longtime leader of the anti-government “Patriot” movement, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It was formed in response to Barack Obama winning the 2008 presidential election and mobilized around anti-government and anti-gun regulation issues.
Members are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment, willing to do whatever it takes to defend the Constitution and what they view as federal tyranny, according to Mother Jones. The publication noted that some members view themselves as the unofficial armed wing of the Trump revolution.
As noted by Reveal, the movement gained notoriety after self-identified members provided security during alt-right rallies, including during the violent 2017 “United the Right” rally in Charlottesville. Following that incident, the movement instructed members to distance themselves from white supremacist groups.
“We strongly reject and denounce anyone who calls themselves a patriot or a Three Percenter that has attended or is planning on attending any type of protest or counter protest related to these white supremacist and Nazi groups,” the statement read.
The source from the Oregon Three Percenters explained to INSIDER that every county group in the movement is completely autonomous.
“They share the same mission statement but beyond that there is no state leadership, no one in charge at the state level, we don’t go by military titles, we are all individual county groups,” the source said.
“We are more of a family than anything.”
- Read more:
- One of the last decisions for the acting Defense Secretary was to hang up Jim Mattis’ official portrait in the Pentagon
- ‘This is a dark moment for our country’: Lawmakers condemn federal border patrol stations over reports of inadequate conditions for migrant children
- White nationalists and the alt-right are disillusioned with Trump — and some are joining the Yang Gang
This article is more than 2 years old
Oregon, a hotbed of extremism, seeks to curb paramilitaries
This article is more than 2 years old
As incidents increase, state lawmakers seek to allow civil suits against paramilitaries – but critics say rights will be infringed on
Associated PressFri 17 Feb 2023 17.18 ESTShare
An armed takeover of a federal wildlife refuge. Over 100 straight days of racial justice protests that turned downtown Portland into a battleground. A violent breach of the state capitol. Clashes between gun-toting rightwingers and leftist militants.
Over the past decade, Oregon experienced the sixth-highest number of extremist incidents in the nation, despite being 27th in population, according to an Oregon secretary of state report. Now, the state legislature is considering a bill that, experts say, would create the nation’s most comprehensive law against paramilitary activity.
It would provide citizens and the state attorney general with civil remedies in court if armed members of a private paramilitary group interfere with, or intimidate, another person who is engaging in an activity they have a legal right to do, such as voting. A court could block paramilitary members from pursuing an activity if the state attorney general believed it would be illegal conduct.
All 50 states prohibit private paramilitary organizations or paramilitary activity, but no other law creates civil remedies, said Mary McCord, an expert on terrorism and domestic extremism who helped craft the bill. The Oregon bill is also unique because it would allow people injured by private, unauthorized paramilitary activity to sue, she said.
Opponents say the law would infringe on rights to freely associate and to bear arms.
The bill’s sponsor, state representative Dacia Grayber, a Democrat from suburban Portland, said the proposed reforms “would make it harder for private paramilitaries to operate with impunity throughout Oregon, regardless of their ideology”.
But dozens of conservative Oregonians, in written testimony, have expressed suspicion that the Democrat-controlled legislature aims to pass a bill restricting the right to assemble and that the legislation would target rightwing armed groups like the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer, but not black-clad anarchists who have vandalized downtown Portland and battled police.
“This bill would clearly put restrictions on who could gather in a group and for what reasons they choose to,” wrote Matthew Holman, a resident of Coos Bay, a town on Oregon’s south-west coast.
The pioneering measure raises a host of issues, which Oregon lawmakers tried to parse in a house judiciary committee hearing last week:
If residents are afraid to go to a park with their children while an armed militia group is present, could they later sue the group? What constitutes a paramilitary group? What is defined as being armed?
Oregon department of justice attorney Carson Whitehead said the proposed law would not sanction a person for openly carrying firearms, which is constitutionally permissible. But if members of a paramilitary group went to a park knowing their presence would be intimidating, anyone afraid of also going to the park could sue for damages, Whitehead said.
“This particular bill is not directed at individuals open-carrying. This is directed at armed, coordinated paramilitary activity,” added McCord, who is the executive director of Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.
On the other side of the country in Vermont, a bill making it a crime to operate a paramilitary training camp got final approval from the state senate on Friday. The measure, which senators earlier approved by a 29-1 vote, also allows prosecutors to seek an injunction to close such a facility.
“This bill gives the state the authority it needs to protect Vermonters from fringe actors looking to create civil disorder,” said state senator Philip Baruth, a Democrat and Progressive from Burlington.
Baruth introduced the measure in response to a firearms training facility built without permits in the town of Pawlet. Neighbors frequently complained about gunfire coming from the Slate Ridge facility, calling it a menace. Baruth’s bill now goes to the Vermont house.
Under the proposed Oregon law, a paramilitary group could range from groups whose members wear uniforms and insignia, like the Three Percenters, to a handful of people who act in a coordinated way with a command structure to engage in violence, McCord added.
State representative Rick Lewis, a Republican from Silverton, asked pointedly during the committee hearing whether rocks and frozen water bottles, which Portland police said had been thrown at them during demonstrations in 2021, would fall under the proposed law.
A frozen water bottle and rocks could cause serious injury or death, so they would be considered dangerous weapons under Oregon law, responded Kimberly McCullough, attorney general Ellen Rosenblum’s legislative director.
Multnomah county district attorney Mike Schmidt, whose jurisdiction encompasses Portland, testified in favor of the bill, expressing frustration that police often can’t single out violent actors lurking among peaceful protesters.
“Our current inability to get upstream of this violence before it starts leaves us vulnerable to organized criminal elements who enter into a protest environment with the express intention of escalating the situation into an assault or arson or a riot,” Schmidt said.
McCord, the terrorism expert, said the measure would mark a milestone in the US, where the FBI has warned of a rapidly growing threat of homegrown violent extremism.
“This bill as amended would be the most comprehensive statute to address unauthorized paramilitary activity that threatens civil rights,” she said.
The tactic of enabling private residents to file lawsuits against paramilitary groups may be a novel one, but it has been used in other arenas.
Environmental groups, for example, can sue businesses accused of violating federal pollution permits. In Texas, a 2021 law authorizes lawsuits against anyone who performs or aids in an abortion. In Missouri, a law allows citizens to sue local law enforcement officers who enforce federal gun laws.
But the Oregon bill differs from these laws because only people who are injured by unlawful paramilitary activity could sue, McCord said. The Oregon bill also opens a path for a government enforcement mechanism, since it allows the state attorney general to seek a court injunction to prevent a planned paramilitary activity, she said.
Whether the bill will pass is unclear. It needs a simple majority in both the Oregon house and senate before it can be sent to the Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, for her approval or veto. Kotek’s spokesperson, Elisabeth Shepard, said the governor generally doesn’t comment on pending legislation.
Congratulation
Rosamond Press 
Leave a comment