High profile Wisconsin Republicans speak at GOP meeting in front of anti-government flag
Category: News & Politics
Via: john-russell • 2 years ago • 53 commentsBy: Henry Redman, Wisconsin Examiner (Raw Story - Celebrating Years of Independent Journalism)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A number of Wisconsin Republicans running for office this year spoke in front of the flag of an anti-government ideology that advocates for the violent overthrow of American democracy at a meeting of the Winnebago County Republican Party this weekend.
Gubernatorial candidates Rebecca Kleefisch and Kevin Nicholson, attorney general candidates Adam Jarchow and Eric Toney, lieutenant governor candidate and state Sen. Patrick Testin and U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman all spoke at the meeting on Saturday in front of the flag of the Three Percenters.
Photos of the event posted to the party's Facebook page have since been deleted.
Toney, the current Fond du Lac County District Attorney, said he didn't see the flag when he was speaking but has since asked that it be taken down.
"As a lifetime NRA member I"m committed to defending our Second Amendment rights but I do not support the Three Percenters," Toney said. "The flag has no business being in a Republican party HQ and I've asked that it be replaced. I didn't see it when I was at the event as I was focused on the attendees not the decor."
The Three Percenters are an anti-government ideology and subsection of the militia movement that had adherents involved in the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. A few of the ideology's followers were involved in a 2020 kidnapping plot against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
The name Three Percenters comes from followers' unfounded belief that only 3% of colonial Americans fought in the Revolutionary War and that therefore only a small group of people would be required to overthrow our current government.
The flag at the Winnebago County GOP meeting shows the group's Roman numeral "III" logo replacing the stars on the American flag. The flag is also inscribed with two quotes.
"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined," the flag states within the white stripes of the flag. "But they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
The flag attributes this quote to George Washington, even though he never said that . The flag includes another quote that is commonly used by anti-government groups and Jan. 6 insurrectionists.
"When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty," the flag states.
The Three Percenters is not an official group but its logo and related beliefs have become common in extremist right-wing circles.
In photos from the event, the Three Percenters flag is hanging on the wall behind the dais alongside two Trump 2024 flags and the pro-police Blue Lives Matter flag. The actual American flag and Wisconsin state flag are set aside in the corner near a cardboard cutout of former President Donald Trump.
This is not the first time the Winnebago County Republican Party has been criticized for expressing extremist views. Last summer, the organization shared a Facebook post that shows a photo of a white man along with the message, "Know the warning signs of WHITE SUPREMACY: 1. Full time employment 2. Literacy 3. Professional or technical degree 4. Regular church/temple attendance 5. Auto insurance 6. Good credit rating 7. No criminal record."
Kleefisch, Nicholson, Jarchow, Testin, Grothman and the Winnebago County Republican Party did not return requests for comment.
Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com. Follow Wisconsin Examiner on Facebook and Twitter.
IN OTHER NEWS: 'Something foul happened': Legal experts aren't buying fake Trump elector's claims of innocence
'Something foul happened': Legal experts aren't buying fake Trump elector's claims of innocence www.youtube.com
SmartNews
Tags
Who is online
353 visitors
Simply put, they are traitors.
[deleted]
No amount of spin is going to save the Democrats from the mid term beatings they so richly deserve. They have earned every last lost vote, and seat goes with it.
To Wisconsin - maybe. Hell, in NM, we don't give a futch 'bout them.
Your point? NT has more members from other states John.
Ridiculous nonsense.
What acts have ANY of those people you are complaining about led you to your erroneous conclusion?
Well....due to the rampant and prolific posting of sheer batshittery posted by a few NT members, I have exhausted my supply of my eyerolls. Replacements are on backorder due to supply chain issues.
Luckily, I do have quite a few "oh for fuck's sakes" left, so I should be able to manage.
Oh for fuck's sake.
They are just a bunch of wedge heads.
And yet, no one can explain how these politicians are traitors for giving campaign speeches.
I, for one, remain unsurprised when people claim something and then are unable or unwilling to support their wild-assed claims.
This is just a good example of it.
Is the Winnebago County Republican Party an official part of the federal government? Is the Republican Party itself an official part of the federal government?
Or is it, like the Democratic Party, a privately held organization? So please explain how they were traitors simply for speaking at an event where they had no control over the display.
It's too bad the article didn't include any pictures of the stage so that we could see how the flag was draped. But simple question, when you are a speaker at an event and you are coming onstage, are you paying attention to the crowd out front or are you looking around to see how the decorations are set up? This article IMO is just partisan bullshit to attack the other side.
It is not very credible that a speaker at an event would not be fully aware of the surrounding circumstances. And, if they're not, that's on them.
No, it did not include any pictures, but it described the situation: "In photos from the event, the Three Percenters flag is hanging on the wall behind the dais... " It sounds like it was hard to miss.
I've spoken at public events. For myself I was more concerned with what I was about to say and trying to see the stage and audience while a spotlight is shining in my eyes. I can state I was not concerned with what was hanging on walls, etc behind me as I was walking in. So from my experience I would say it can be quite credible that they would not be looking at a flag. Additionally as the 3percenter flag does have the red/white stripes on it, if it was hanging from a pole like most flags at these events are done it may not have been really noticable what flag it was and a quick glance could have been 'yep, red/white stripes hanging down, moving on'. Hanging from the wall, how? fully spread out? what? That's why I said it would be nice if the article had a picture attached to it. But without the picture people can make their own assumptions based on their bias which may be more what the writers of the article wanted to have happen.
As I said initially, this is more a partisan piece used to attack the other side than any real problem. I am more concerned with what people do than what they say, and I am more concerned with what they say than what is hanging behind them.
I believe they spoke about second amendment solutions. They knew where they were.
You could believe the moon is made of cheese, but it won't make it true.
On what do you base your belief on, because I see nothing in the seeded article to support such a belief?
Why do you believe it without evidence?
Here is the traitor flag, very prominently behind the speaker (under the red arrow I drew) . Of course they knew it was there.
Lets see, there are two Trump flags, the blue lives matter flag , and the traitor three percenter flag displayed prominently on the stage. Meanwhile, the American flag is off inauspiciously in the corner next to a cardboard statue of Donald Trump.
So did the placement of the flags displayed there (and the flags themselves) lead you to assume they talked about Second Amendment solutions?
Draped smaphed. It should not have been there to begin with.
Thank you, finally a picture to show how the flags were displayed. Not seeing to the right, I don't know if they came from the right side onto the stage or what. But the lighting is clear enough that they should have seen the flag, I can give you that. They may not have been looking at the flags, unlike others I don't assume to know what was on their minds. I can agree that the 3 percenters flag probably should not be there, but as the Republican Party is really a private organization and not part of the government I guess they can hang anything on the walls they really want to. It's not illegal to hang the flag, but in poor taste.
But in the very first post you called them traitors. As the term traitor is clearly defined, please explain on how you determine the speakers are traitors.
In my opinion, no one in the United States is so aggrieved by the government that should be talking about taking the government down.
Three Percenters - Wikipedia
The Three Percenters, also styled 3 Percenters, 3%ers and III%ers, are an American and Canadian far-right anti-government militia. The group advocates gun ownership rights and resistance to the U.S. federal government.
Is it a serious organization attempting to harm the government, or they just clowning around? Either way it is un American.
OMG, you mean they support the gun rights in the U.S. Constitution?
Why, those dirty bastards, we ought to hang them for supporting that!!
Seems like the 3%ers broke up.
This is a non-story for most folks not enamored with wild conspiracy theories or looking for minuscule things to whine about.
Still waiting for your proof of anyone being a traitor for making a campaign speech, but I know it will never, ever, ever come.
Call it a well considered opinion.
By the way, when are you going to "prove" any of the nonsense you spout here every day ?
That would be lying to myself, and I can't bring myself to do that.
You asked something similar the other day, and I asked you what I needed to prove to you specifically, and you ghosted.
WHAT do I need to prove to you? Be specific.
Here is something for you:
I wrote that. Here is the proof---from your very own source (Wiki), so I don't want to hear any shit about the source.
Now, what else can I prove you wrong about?
The three percenter flag represents a concept, not a nation. The concept has not been dissolved, which is obviously why the flag is still flying, as of a couple days ago, at this Republican organization in Wisconsin.
Well, gee, who in the hell is arguing otherwise???????????????
What else do I need to prove to you--you claimed I don't so tell me what I can prove to you now.
A Republican candidate for governor of Wisconsin made a campaign speech standing three feet from a flag that represents anti-government beliefs.
If you think that is ok that is your problem.
If you have a problem with the speech, seems like it is your little problem.
I refuse to go off half-cocked over some flag which represents some tiny fraction of folks spread out all over the U.S..
Why is this such a big deal to you personally?
And again, what else do you want me to prove to you? Don't ghost me again.
Their percentage is the same as their IQ's.
Seems like the 3%ers broke up.
Where does it say that in the article or comments?
You still haven't answered my question. This seed is about some Republican politicians who spoke at an event and were in front of among other things a 3 percenter flag. In the very first post you called them traitors and I asked you to explain how you determined the speakers were traitors.
JR gave a link to Wiki, which is where the part quoted comes from.
Post 2.1.9
You will never get a straight answer to that because the whole premise is fucking ridiculous.
They are all traitor flags.
Well, duh.......
They MUST be traitors because they are (gasp!!) Republicans. That MUST be it, because we certainly haven't seen any other explanation for it.
If there was any legitimacy to the wild-assed claim, it would be presented by now, so it is safe to assume that there is no evidence to support the claim.
Don't be shocked.
It doesn't.
2.1.14 for one place and this little tidbit should put the denial to rest........................
My mistake, so they say they've broken up.
And folks believe them!
How is that relevant Duck?
I for one can think of at least 2 organizations that are long defunct, yet their flags are still a strong expression of supporting an ideology.
ok thx
Very good. I showed where it came from. Never claimed it came from anywhere else.
I don't see why there is a problem with me posting facts.
Do some people not like those facts?
We have a couple of NT members from WI perhaps they could answer those questions for you.
The GoP in WI think they are untouchable. The next 2 or 3 election cycles are going to tell a lot about the future of the state. Even though much of the state is conservative, I'm pretty confident saying most of us don't want to be associated with supremacists, anarchists or insurrectionists.
Much ado about nothing.
True that Texan.
Remember though, they have to try to do all they can to distract us from Bidens incompetence and to them, the fact that they are failing miserably is irrelavent.
I trust the midterms will show that that is a losing strategy for them.
We're not the ones failing miserably arkie.
Flags and whatever. Putin is watching all of this crap.
I bet Putin is just glued to his TV, anxiously monitoring a governor's race in a US state.
probably doesn't have anything better to do.
Why do you defend him?
What on earth are you talking about?
What have you read that would lead you to such a bizarre conclusion?
Please quote what convinced you that your comment made sense.
Why do you defend him? Why?
Please ask me a coherent question---one based on what I have actually written, not on what you may or may not have imagined I wrote.
I do take special note that you responded without answering my questions or providing a scintilla of evidence that "led' you to ask inane questions.