White Nationalist Radio Host to Teach Institute on the Constitution Course

From the white nationalist forum Stormfront and on the program website:

ATTENTION: Memphis area listeners of The Political Cesspool Radio Program
If you have ever wanted to know more about Law, Liberty and Government, then consider joining a group of like minded individuals as they study the Constitution of the United States.
Political Cesspool co-host Eddie “The Bombardier” Miller will be teaching a 12 week course put together by the Institute on the Constitution. There will be a nominal fee for the main textbook, but otherwise no charge for the course, which will be open to the public and held on the campus of Macon Road Baptist Church in Arlington, Tennessee.

Stormfront describes itself as

We are a community of racial realists and idealists. We are White Nationalists who support true diversity and a homeland for all peoples. Thousands of organizations promote the interests, values and heritage of non-White minorities. We promote ours. We are the voice of the new, embattled White minority!

The Political Cesspool radio program describes itself as

The Political Cesspool Radio Program stands for the The Dispossessed Majority. We represent a philosophy that is pro-White and are against political centralization.

Two of the goals of those involved in the radio program are

to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races.
Secession is a right of all people and individuals. It was successful in 1776 and this show honors those who tried to make it successful from 1861 – 1865.

Institute on the Constitution founder and director Michael Peroutka has appeared on the Political Cesspool.
I wonder if the Macon Road Baptist Church folks know what they are hosting.

Texas Church Says Institute on the Constitution Speaker Doesn't "Reflect Their Values"

In a column out today, Bud Kennedy at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram focuses on the Founding Faith conference which Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin backed out of last week. According to Kennedy, the church where the conference was to be held decided against it in part because the views of Institute on the Constitution teacher (and MD chapter of the League of the South chaplain) David Whitney “‘do not reflect the values’ of High Point Church.”
The conference appears to be canceled. The website is password protected and the promoter’s website does not list it as an upcoming event.
Kennedy’s column places an emphasis on the secession aims of the League. I suspect what also rankled the High Point Church folks was the League’s white Southern nationalism.

Institute on the Constitution: The American View or the Confederate View?

The website for the Institute on the Constitution is called The American View. As a result of taking his Constitution course, director Michael Peroutka claims that

students will become familiar with “The American View of Law and Government”:

  • There is a God, the God of the Bible

  • Our rights come from Him

  • The purpose of civil government is to secure our God-given rights

Ed Sebesta at Anti-Neo-Confederate reminds us that the National Religious Broadcasters are offering IOTC’s Constitution course via their website and network (Liberty University also).  He also asserts that the IOTC takes more of a Confederate view than an American one.
Some Christians may resonate with the IOTC declaration that the American view is that the founders deliberately sought to create a Biblical foundation for law and government. However, one must ignore many events and statements during the early days of the nation to hold that belief. For instance, theologically orthodox president of Yale, Timothy Dwight, certainly did not describe the Constitution in Peroutka’s terms when he spoke to Yale students in 1812.

Notwithstanding the prevalence of Religion, which I have described, the irreligion, and the wickedness, of our land are such, as to furnish a most painful and melancholy prospect to a serious mind. We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgment of God ; without any recognition of his mercies to us, as a people, of his government, or even of his existence. The Convention, by which it was formed, never asked, even once, his direction, or his blessing upon their labours. Thus we commenced our national existence under the present system, without God. I wish I could say, that a disposition to render him the reverence, due to his great Name, and the gratitude, demanded by his innumerable mercies, had been more public, visible, uniform, and fervent.

In his treatment of the founders’ religious beliefs during the IOTC course, Peroutka cherry picks quotes from founders to make them all sound orthodox. Like David Barton, Peroutka portrays the founders as orthodox in order to tie the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to “the God of the Bible.” Most founders were theistic, but that doesn’t mean they all believed in “the God of the Bible” in the evangelical sense or that they deliberately set out to create a Biblical government. What is remarkable is how infrequently religion is mentioned in the founding documents.
Historical problems aside, Peroutka espouses positions that are more acceptable at the League of the South than in a course on “the American view.” For instance, his position on nullification and interposition is much more in line with the Confederate view than the American view. Various defenders of slavery (e.g., John C. Calhoun) and segregation (e.g., Ross Barnett) tried the nullification argument and eventually failed.
Peroutka’s organization, the League of the South (he is a board member and has pledged the resources of the constitution course to the League), is the embodiment of the Confederate view. They can’t stand Abraham Lincoln and disparage Martin Luther King, Jr. They (from the LoS blog) disdain the United States, calling it the “USSA” and the “Evil Empire.” (see also “doomed evil empire” and an “organized criminal enterprise“), and don’t consider themselves American. They promote Southern secession in order to form an “Anglo-celtic” (i.e., white) Christian nation with a constitution that looks like the Constitution of 1788 (sans slavery amendments) and the Confederate Constitution of 1861. They don’t fly the American flag at their conferences, preferring instead the Confederate battle flag. At their upcoming anti-immigration reform rally in Uvalda, GA, the League plans to fly “The Georgia Secession Flag (left) and the Southern Nationalist Activism Flag (right) will be flown by participants at the upcoming demonstration.”
LoSprotestflags
In June of this year, Peroutka told those in attendance at the League of the South conference that the League taught him most of what he knows. At 4:00 minutes into the video, Peroutka told the crowd:

Thank you for your kindness. I always have the difficulty when it comes to the League of the South since I actually learned most of what I know from y’all. There’s always the difficulty of what I’m going to tell you that you don’t already know.

Does it seem likely that the League of the South would teach Peroutka an American view? Does it seem likely that the League would endorse something called the American View if the leaders did not think it was friendly to the Confederate view? At one League conference, Peroutka urged the League to use his course as compatible with League goals, and at least one state branch has done so:

Former Presidential candidate Michael Peroutka co-founded the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC), the program that will run at the Middle Georgia Chapter’s Hedge School in April (see right). According to Chapter Chairman Ben Davis, it is an excellent resource which lends itself very easily to the League message. Davis encourages fellow chapter leaders to host IOTC in their localities. For more information, go to www.iotconline.com.

In my opinion, when the League says a resource “lends itself very easily to the League message,” I suspect they mean it. Which view does it appear they endorse?
 

Is Sheriff D'Agostini Interposing or Following the Law?

I say he is just following the law; at least when it comes to his relationship with the Forest Service.
Institute on the Constitution and League of the South board member Michael Peroutka’s commentary today claims El Dorado County Sheriff John D’Agostini is following the principle of interposition by suspending the powers of the United States Forest Service in his county. Peroutka wrote:

Fed up with the repeated harassment his constituents were experiencing in the national forest within his county, Sheriff D’Agostini informed the feds patrolling the forest that their powers there were suspended.

Peroutka holds the view that local officials may take jurisdiction over federal agents when those federal agents seek to enforce a law the local authorities deem unconstitutional. At least that is what he told the League of the South.
According to this report, D’Agostini has removed enforced power from USFS personnel because they were not conducting themselves in line with his expectations.

 
It may sound like he is overruling the feds, but he is not because, as the professor on the clip said, he actually has authority under California law to do so. CA code 830.8(a) provides authority for federal agents in CA under certain circumstances. However, certain federal personnel are exempt and only have authority if given by the local sheriff. Note those who require local consent:

This subdivision does not apply to federal officers of the Bureau of Land Management or the United States Forest Service. These officers have no authority to enforce California statutes without the written consent of the sheriff or the chief of police in whose jurisdiction they are assigned.

According to CA law, the local sheriff can deputize USFS personnel but can also revoke that authority. On this talk show, D’Agostini clarifies that he is acting consistently with CA state law. He also notes on the talk show (at 16:53) that the USFS has federal authority to enforce forest service travel rules. While D’Agostini may or may not like those rules, he is clear that the forest service will continue to enforce them.
Thus, speaking of the suspension of federal powers is not accurate. Prior to D’Agostini’s actions, the USFS only had powers granted by the sheriff pursuant to state law. Any actual federal powers remain as before.

League of the South Gives Award Commemorating KKK Grand Wizard to Members for Street Fighting

At their conference in June, the League of the South gave the Nathan Bedford Forrest Award to Mathew Heimbach and Shane Long for their confrontation of May Day marchers in Washington, DC on May 1, 2013.  Nathan Bedford Forrest was the first Imperial Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and is an inspiring historical figure for the League.
Watch the first three minutes of the following video where League of the South president Michael Hill gives the Forest awards to Heimbach and Long for the confrontation on May Day.  Watch:

Before giving the awards, Hill said:

Earlier, during the awards ceremony, there were two young gentlemen who were set to get an award who were not here and I wanted to wait until they got here and give them the awards. As you’re going to learn from my next speaker, Shane Long, a group of our League folks, six young men and two young ladies, if I’m not mistaken, this past May the first, staged a little counter, uh, attack. I wouldn’t call it a protest. They really didn’t attack anybody, they were just holding our flags and carrying our message. And they faced off against, how many, 400? Four hundred communists, in the streets of Washington, D.C., and they held their ground, like good Southerners ought, and they turned that march of 400 communists on May Day around. Now that’s the kind of bravery and courage, and fortitude, and duty that I like to reward. So I’ve got two awards here and they read, the Forrest, as in Nathan Bedford, First with the Most Award, for active and aggressive, I like those terms, promotion of the cause of Southern independence.

On May 1, the International Workers of the World sponsored a May Day march in Washington D.C. The march was marked by sporadic violence and was winding down to a raucous end in front of the White House when the marchers were confronted by eight members of the League of the South.
Watch this Russia Today video of the confrontation (caution – profanity):

There are no good guys here, so my point is not to assign blame or credit. However, I think it is worth pointing out what the League of the South rewards. For those unclear, the marchers are the socialists and the those standing with the Confederate battle flag are the League members. Someone appears to be injured at the end of this video, but is not identified. It may have been Shane Long who is identified in this account as being in police custody, being uninjured but separated from the brawl.
Heimbach gained fame by founding a “white student union” at Towson State University.  Started in 2012 (with white nationalist Jared Taylor as first guest speaker), the organization made news through 2013 as in this CNN report:

Not only does the League identify with those who engaged in street fighting (“our folks”) but rewards them. And they do so with an award which commemorates the first KKK Grand Wizard.
Next year, awards might really be flying since they plan to go back the May Day protest, 2014.
Perhaps actions like these are why some people have reconsidered associations with the League of the South.
Related Links:
The Radicalization of the League of the South
League of the South President Says Immigration Reform Could Spark True Civil War
Institute on the Constitution Supports Controversial PA Police Chief’s Actions to Nullify Gun Control Legislation
Does the Church Have a League of the South Problem?
Michael Peroutka Pledges Resources of Institute on the Constitution to League of the South
League of the South: GOP No Longer Stands for White Southerners
Institute on the Constitution Founder Michael Peroutka on Southern Secession and His Course on the Constitution

Lt. General Jerry Boykin Backs Out of Conference Sponsored by Institute on the Constitution (UPDATED – IOTC Appears to be Out)

UPDATE (8/9/13) – Alex Seitz-Wald also wrote about this situation and added some detail, including the fact that Glenn Beck had been promoting this conference.
See additional update following the post…
Yesterday, in my post on the radicalization of the League of the South, I linked to a conference sponsored by the Institute on the Constitution. I noted that

…several  mainstream evangelicals are speaking in September at a conference sponsored by IOTC and held at a major mega church in Texas.

If you click the links you will go to something called the Founding Faith Conference 2013 (now unavailable without a password). Until earlier today, Lt. General Jerry Boykin was slated to be a key speaker at the conference. However, I learned earlier this afternoon via a source at the Family Research Council (where Boykin is an executive vice-president) that Lt. General Boykin recently became aware of ties between the Institute on the Constitution and the League of the South and, as a result, has backed out of the conference.
For sure those ties are real. Founding Faith Conference speaker David Whitney is the chaplain of the Maryland chapter of the League of the South. At the 2013 conference of the League of the South, IOTC founder and director Michael Peroutka’s was selected to join the League’s board of directors. Then, at the end of his speech, Peroutka, pledged the resources of the IOTC to the efforts of the League.  Watch:

 
UPDATE (8/8/13) – IOTC is now missing from the sponsor page on the conference website (screen cap earlier today) and David Whitney is no longer listed as a speaker (screen cap earlier today). At this time, I don’t know what that means for the other speakers, except to note that they are still listed.
At the end of the Salon piece, Margaret Andrews supplied a statement about her response to Boykin’s departure. I can add that I contacted her on 8/6 before I wrote anything about the conference. She did not make any obvious changes until the afternoon of 8/8, after Boykin disclosed his intention to exit.
 

The Radicalization of the League of the South

There is a kind of feud breaking out between white nationalists and what white nationalists call “rainbow Confederates” over the movement of the League of the South into the white nationalist camp.
In a Monday column on her blog, Connie Chastain, who describes herself as a “Southern nationalist,” lamented the “radicalization” of the League of the South. In the post, she complains:

In early summer of 2012, the League’s radical new direction was brought home to me personally when I was removed without notice from the League’s Facebook group following my initiating a discussion that, apparently, was not politically correct. Since then, I have watched from a distance as the League has continued to radicalize, to accept the influence of white nationalists masquerading as Southern nationalists and to slowly develop an indifference to Southern tradition and Christianity.

and…

Basically, what you have here [in the League] is people who claim to love the South and its people and want to see them free — or preserved, depending on who’s talkin’. But what they really love is whiteness, which includes a built-in aversion to non-whiteness …  and any Southerners who don’t share their dedication to whiteness are heaped with scorn and derision.

According to Chastain, she has been a defender of the League and sympathizes with their secessionist aims.  She does not, however, support the changes she sees.
Chastain’s lament does not sit well with white nationalist Hunter Wallace at Occidental Dissent. He agrees with Chastain but sees the League’s movement into white nationalism as a good thing. Wallace proclaims:

It’s true that we are dedicated to “whiteness.”
We are pro-Southern, pro-Christian, pro-White, and pro-independence. Your suggestion that blacks are our people would have been considered outrageous to previous generations. We are a proud European people.

Wallace calls Chastain a “Rainbow Confederate” which he defines as:

A “Rainbow Confederate” is someone who 1.) claims to venerate and wants to preserve Southern heritage, usually in the form of flags, symbols, and monuments 2.) while simultaneously rejecting and abhoring the racial beliefs of previous generations, particularly with regards to slavery and segregation, which are deemed illegitimate, and 3.) who subscribes to a utopian fantasy of an integrated, multiracial South, in spite of the disastrous results of that Yankee experiment, and 4.) who usually, but not necessarily, projects post-1980 racial attitudes back on the historical Confederacy.

In contrast to “Rainbow Confederates,” Hunter believes:

Experience has shown time and again that segregation and white supremacy are necessary to preserve White majorities in a multiracial environment. The people who denounced segregation and white supremacy as illegitimate undermined the cultural foundation that preserved the White majority.

According to League member Wallace, the segregationists are the ones now joining the League:

By “radicalizing,” Connie means that lots of young people are joining the League of the South who have little patience for the Rainbow Confederate nonsense of the Baby Boomer generation.

Those who continue to harbor the notion that today’s League of the South is just about cultural heritage should read these two articles by these neo-Confederate insiders.
While I don’t have data on this, I suspect most evangelicals reject white supremacy and segregation and would not want to be associated with these ideas. My suspicion is the basis for my puzzlement over the emergence of the Institute on the Constitution among evangelicals. As I have noted previously, the IOTC’s founder, director and teacher Michael Peroutka is a board member of the League and has pledged IOTC’s resources to the aims of the League. Senior teacher David Whitney is chaplain of the MD chapter of the League.
In addition to the course offered in many evangelical churches, the IOTC course is featured on the National Religious Broadcasters network, Liberty University’s television network, Bradlee Dean’s the Sons of Liberty offers the course, and several  mainstream evangelicals are speaking in September at a conference sponsored by IOTC and held at a major mega church in Texas.
It remains to be seen whether or not the IOTC will continue to emerge as a respected organization among evangelicals. Given the radicalization of the League that critics and supporters now acknowledge and the relationship of the League to IOTC, it seems to me that it is troubling for churches and evangelical groups to trust IOTC to teach them about the Constitution.
 
 

Rand Paul Wants to Talk About Rand Paul Except the Part About Rand Paul's Choice of Staff

In an interview with John Harwood on NPR, Rand Paul reacted with frustration to continued questions about his choice of Jack Hunter to be his director of new media. Hunter resigned in July amid criticism of his former membership in the neo-Confederate group, the League of the South, and his radio persona, the Southern Avenger.
When Harwood asked Paul about Hunter, Paul cut him off and among other things said:

Why don’t we talk about Rand Paul, I’m the one doing the interview. You can go ahead and beat up on an ex-employee of mine, but why don’t we talk about Rand Paul and what I’m trying to do to grow the party, and then we might have an intelligent discussion.

To me, this seems like a typical political dodge. The interviewer wanted to talk about the Rand Paul who hired the Southern Avenger with ties to the neo-Confederate movement. Is hiring a League of the South member part of those efforts to “grow the party?” If so, what kind of growth are you seeking?
The interviewer made an effort to stay with the topic but was eventually shouted down by Paul. In listening to the interview, my impression is that Paul is going to have a hard on the presidential campaign trail if he can’t handle questions about his decision making regarding important staff.
Paul said Jack Hunter wrote a lot of stupid stuff but none of it was racist as if the absence of racism is the only measure of a good staff selection. It doesn’t commend Paul’s management style to say he hired a guy with a resume full of stupid stuff.
I suppose racism is in the eye of the beholder, but I think many would wonder about the racial attitudes of a guy who wore a Confederate flag as a mask. Whether one could call Hunter’s views on white persecution racist or paranoid is a matter for discussion. My point here is not to call Hunter or Paul a racist, but it is to say that Paul’s lack of discernment is a major concern and one that is only heightened by his defensive response to questions about his judgment.
 
 
 

Will the Real Institute on the Constitution Please Stand Up?

Last week, a representative of the Institute on the Constitution, John Lofton, touted a  new initiative to alert elected officials that they must administer God’s law rather than make their own laws. Called the God and Government project, Lofton wants followers to go to town council, school board and other local government meetings with 2-3 minutes speeches promoting the IOTC view of civil government.  You can read all of them at the link, but I will cite the first one.

Suggested Statement for Those Going Alone
(The greeting you are most comfortable with but one that is respectful)
My name is __________________. And I wanted to come here this evening to tell about what God says is the duty of those holding the public office you hold.
In the 13th chapter of the book of Romans in the New Testament, God’s says that those who govern us, such as this (yourselves, this Council, whatever) are ministers of God — that actual word “minister” is used. And that you are a minister of God to us for good, for good, as defined by God’s Word. And that you are, conversely, to bring wrath on those who are evil — evil as defined by God’s Word.
Thus, your job is ministerial and not legislative. Your job is to administer and apply God’s Law. And this means it is not the role of government to house or feed or clothe or give health care or education or welfare to anyone.  There is no Biblical authority for that kind of thing. The provision of those things is the job of Christ’s Church.
Romans 13 also tells us that a law is just or unjust depending on whether it is in accord with what God says or whether it is at odds with God’s Law. That is the teaching of the Bible, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, the British jurist William Blackstone and Martin Luther King in his “Letter From The Birmingham Jail.”
In that “Letter,” Dr. King said, and I quote: “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God….An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law,” unquote. King said, and again I quote him directly: “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’.” The word legal in this letter is in direct quotes, King’s point being that what Hitler did in Nazi Germany was not  legal because it was against the Laws of God.
Thank you very much. And may God bless us all as we obey Him.

There is a lot wrong here, but I want to focus on the surprising citation of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Let’s review: The IOTC’s founder and director is Michael Peroutka who is a board member of the neo-Confederate, Southern secessionist League of the South. Peroutka pledged the resources of the IOTC to the League and even told a League audience that he acquired what he knows about government from the League. What does the League think of Martin Luther King, Jr.?
One could start with this review of a book on Martin Luther King, Jr., by John Lofton. After reviewing recitations of allegations about King’s character and morality, Lofton concludes:

In a nutshell,’ what Mr. Garrow’s book demonstrates is that King was one of the most grossly immoral hypocrites in American history.

and then

Well, indeed, Martin Luther King was not a saint, to put it charitably. And thanks to the scholarship of David Garrow, we now know that he was “perhaps worse” than even Buchanan imagined. But to think that this man is honored with a national holiday, and for as much as a week at a time he is honored as a saint in thousands of our public schools. What a disgrace! 

If he is such immoral person, then why quote him Mr. Lofton?
Then, in a press release in 2005 from the League of the South on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day we learn the League’s view. Written by Peroutka’s fellow board member and League president Michael Hill, the release leaves no doubt about the League’s position on King:

In a day when every facet of traditional Anglo-Celtic Southern heritage is called evil—including the thoughts and actions of Lee and Jackson—I am in no mood to mince words. The “Reverend” “Dr.” Martin Luther King, Jr., far from being the saint of recent liberal myth, was nothing but a philandering, plagiarizing, left-wing agitator. Conversely, Lee and Jackson were paragons of Christian manhood, though not without fault. But this year, as always, King is the object of veneration by liberals of every color and stripe, while Lee and Jackson are held in utter disdain. Even some so-called “conservatives” sing MLK’s praises, choosing to keep silent about Lee and Jackson, in hopes that they will not be called “racists” by the left-wing media.

and…

Only a sick and reprobate society would elevate Martin Luther King, Jr., and demonize Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The former sought to manipulate white guilt and use the power of national government for the ends of black racial advancement; the latter risked their lives on the field of battle to preserve the true principles of Constitutional government and the integrity of their homeland. To King and his ilk (both then and now), the U.S. Constitution and the Bible are nothing more than words to be twisted in service of the liberal vision of the good life. To Lee and Jackson, and those who honor them, they are the wellsprings of Christian liberty and prosperity.

There can be no compromise between the worldviews of those who follow MLK and those who salute Lee and Jackson. Moreover, there is no way that a man can, in good conscience, pay homage to both sides at the same time. 

At present, the IOTC appears to pay homage to both sides. On one hand, Michael Peroutka writes for League publications, speaks at League meetings, gladly joined the League’s board of directors and pledged the resources of the IOTC to the League. On the other hand, his organization favorably cites Martin Luther King, Jr. What a hypocritical ploy this is.

King’s letter from the Birmingham jail was addressed to clergy who opposed his non-violent resistance approach to inequality. The League of the South has no sympathy for African-Americans who suffered under Jim Crow laws and worse. In fact, Michael Hill defended Jim Crow laws. In a League essay, Hill said:

Whereas whites and blacks in the antebellum South had lived and worked together in close proximity, once the situation changed at the end of the war (especially with the passage of the Reconstruction amendments) some new arrangement became necessary if whites were to preserve their society. Few Southerners of the late nineteenth century believed that whites and blacks could live together in a state of equality without serious social consequences for both races. Therefore, postbellum Southern blacks were disenfranchised and “Jim Crow” laws resulted in a segregated South (today “Jim Crow” has been replaced by what might be called “Jim Snow” policies that discriminate against whites). Through these measures white Southerners were able to exert some control over a still primitive black population. Nonetheless, the “black community” of the late nineteenth century began to experience problems largely absent prior to 1865: black-on-black crime, illegitimacy, abject poverty, disease, and family disintegration, among others. Despite trillions spent on welfare and other programs, these problems–and many others–still plague the “black community” in the present day. Clearly there is an ever-present problem here that emancipation and money did not solve. 

In another essay (see also this one), Hill decried the civil rights movement led by King:

Sadly, our true interests were compromised and sold for a mess of pottage by our so-called leaders a long time ago. For instance, if the South had had real leaders of the people there would have been no second reconstruction known as the civil rights movement. 

Either the IOTC has betrayed the League or there is an effort to obscure the sentiment of the League to which the IOTC has been pledged.  If the IOTC really wants to celebrate civil rights and the legacy of King, publicly and decisively step away from the League of the South.