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.

League of the South President Says Immigration Reform Could Spark True Civil War

Michael Hill, president of the League of the South appeared on the American Nationalist Network on Saturday (8/3). The ANN is the radio arm of a new white nationalist organization, the American Nationalist Association. It appears that the ANA leaders are Holocaust deniers/revisionists.
On the program, among other things, Hill said if the Congress passes immigration reform, there will be a secession or a civil war. At 47:40 into the interview, Hill says:

Michael Hill: You talk about a transformation in 1965? That would be a slow and gradual transformation compared to what will happen if they pass this amnesty act in 2013 or 2014. The changes there will be immediate and drastic.
Rodney Martin: Absolutely.
Hill: The South will either leave the union, or there will be another civil, a true civil war.
Martin: You know, you mention civil war, I think if they do, if they ramrod this amnesty bill through, then I think where I talked about the United States being a Soviet Union, I think overnight, we become Yugoslavia, and it becomes not a pretty picture.
Hill: It’s going to be extremely ugly.
Martin: I’m not sure that this power elite in Washington really understand how people feel about when they look out their front doors and see that their government, obviously its not our government anymore, they don’t represent us. They’re looking to replace us. They’re looking to ethnically cleanse us from our own lands.
Hill: This is genocide.
Martin: That’s exactly what it is.
Hill: This is genocide; this is anti-white genocide.

The American Nationalist Association promotes the American National (radio) Network. One of the first guests was David Duke; other early guests were leaders in the American Nazi Party. On their website, the ANA lauds Hitler and Goebbels in a section of the website titled “fundamental truths.” The Hitler quote indicates their position on Jews:

“He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.”
“Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago.
And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.”
– Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Earlier in the broadcast, Hill advertised the League of the South’s rally against demographic displacement to be held in Uvalda, GA. According to the League, Mexicans are taking jobs that he says should belong to whites (“Anglo-celtic southerners” to use his term) and so they are protesting a mayor there who supports the immigrants.  Despite his warning over civil war, Hill acknowledged that he hopes immigration or the “gun issue” leads to people being willing to consider Southern secession.
Hill was asked to name the main concern for League of the South members. Hill responded (22:54):

I tell you what the unifying issue is for people in the League: It is that we must have our independence in order to assure our survival and well being as a people. That overshadows everything, our survival, our well-being hinges on our independence as a people.

What people is Hill talking about? Earlier in the program (7:25) he identified the group.

First of all, this is about our survival as a people, white Southerners of European descent.

Some commenters on this blog and in emails have asserted that the League is interested in preserving Southern culture and less interested in matters of race. While that might have been true at one time, it appears to me that the League in recent years has moved more toward white nationalist position. He was certainly clear on this program that the League’s concerns are “blood and soil,” i.e.,  race and region.
Given the fact that Institute on the Constitution founder, director and teacher, Michael Peroutka, just joined the League board of directors and pledged the IOTC’s resources to the League, it was surprising to hear Hill say at 26:38 that the members of the League are not “constitutionalists.”

The Constitution has been a bad deal for the South; we’re anti-Federalists. We believe they should have stopped with the Articles of Confederation.

Which state seems most ripe for secession? According to Hill, South Carolina. A problem is they have a large black population. Hill later said he believes there will be a non-binding resolution for secession in SC sometime in the next two or three years. Hill said the League is always looking for a good “Leipzig-like” moment to provoke such a resolution. For Hill, as noted above, immigration reform could be that hoped-for moment.
As I was listening to this, I reminded myself that the same person who has a show on the National Religious Broadcasting network and Liberty University Network is a board member of the League and has pledged his resources to achieving the ends Michael Hill described on the broadcast.

League of the South President Says League Will Do Whatever It Takes To Gain Independence

In a message distributed to supporters recently and published on League websites, League of the South president Michael Hill says his supporters will do “whatever it takes” to gain independence. Hill proclaimed this in the context of defending armed conflict with what he called the “U.S. empire.”
Hill began his column by recounting an appearance on the Alan Colmes radio show. On the program, Colmes asked Hill if “Southerners would physically defend ourselves if we were denied our rights, including the right to self-government and self-protection.” Hill’s answer startled Colmes:

He was startled when I answer unequivocally “Yes!” “You mean,” he asked, “you Southerners would take up arms against the US government if they threatened your rights?” He simply could not believe that someone in modern America could contemplate actually defending themselves and their rights by force!

He adds:

The modern American regime seeks to destroy real manhood, especially among us Southerners, because it knows—both instinctively and historically—that it is only real men who will dare stand against tyranny. And if you know your history, you know that Southerners are “defenders of the blood.” We are mostly Anglo-Celts (or we are descended from other European ethnicities that have a martial tradition), so it should not come as a surprise to those who know our history.

In Hill’s mind, time is short, and decisive action may be needed:

When you take stock of the current position of our people and what the future likely has in store for us if things continue as they are, we will be outnumbered, dispossessed, and have no land on which to live, work, worship, and raise our families. That is unacceptable. But it will become the reality unless we stand and do something to stop it.
For nearly twenty years The League of the South has advocated for the survival, well being, and independence of the Southern people. We want our separation from the US empire to be peaceful, if possible. But when the Southern people are rallied to our cause in sufficient numbers to effect a separation, then we will do whatever it takes to secure our independence and establish our own nation based on our own self interests.

Hill seems to think there is a critical mass of Southern white males who are ready to use violence to fight the “U.S. empire” for Southern independence.  I have no idea whether or not Hill is serious, but the rhetoric is ominous.

Institute on the Constitution Supports Controversial PA Police Chief's Actions to Nullify Gun Control Legislation

UPDATE: Kessler was suspended by his city council for using borough weapons for non-borough purposes. According to local media, Kessler’s supporters showed up armed to the teeth.
……….
Mark Kessler is the Chief of Police in Gilberton Borough, PA and is making some people nervous. Today, Change.org is promoting a petition to the mayor of Gilberton in opposition to Kessler. Kessler has garnered some national attention for his efforts to nullify any gun control legislation in his borough.
Someone who isn’t nervous about Kessler is Michael Peroutka, director of the Institute on the Constitution. Peroutka thinks Kessler’s efforts to nullify all gun control laws is just what the country needs:

On January 3rd of this year, Kessler drafted a “Second Amendment Protection Resolution” for his Pennsylvania town which, when passed by city officials a few weeks later, nullified every single gun control law in the nation.
“If you want to own a firearm,” Chief Kessler said, “the Second Amendment is your concealed carry permit, period. It has nothing to do with self-defense: it has to do with freedom from tyranny.”
Police Chief Kessler went on to say: “Nullification is the key. We just have to tell them, ‘that’s it’. I drew my line in the sand back on Jan 3rd. One person can make a difference: you just need to do something about it.”
Well, Amen.
Remember, when a law enforcement officer, like Chief Kessler, refuses to enforce an unconstitutional act, he is not breaking the law, he is upholding the law.
This is because unconstitutional acts of legislatures are NOT the law.

Thus, it is up to Kessler to decide what is constitutional or not and go by his own analysis. You don’t need a permit to carry a gun, you already have one Kessler opines. Thus, he is not going to enforce any gun control laws and the IOTC is fine with that.
Peroutka recommends support for an organization of like-minded police chiefs and sheriffs which promotes nullification.

We recommend that you give your support to the Constitutional Sheriff and Police Officers Association, whose mission is to equip sheriffs, peace officers and public officials with the necessary information and public support to carry out their duties in accordance with their Oaths of Office.

Peroutka, in a speech before the neo-Confederate League of the South, extolled the virtues of nullification and interposition and says his IOTC course is helping to create a consensus around nullifying laws. At 45:49 into the video, Peroutka describes how Carroll County in MD passed an ordinance forbidding any county resources for the use of implementing a MD gun control law. The sheriff pledged not to enforce the law there. Then at 47:33, speaking about the MD law, he says:

We don’t care what the legislature passes, it’s not valid, we don’t recognize it, and it’s not going to be enforced in Carroll County. And that’s the first step of nullification. The next step and what we really need is the step of interposition. Where we need the sheriff and the police to come out and the county executive to come out and say we not only are not going to enforce that but if somebody else comes into our county and tries to enforce it, we’re going to arrest them. That’s the step we need and some counties have done that.

Peroutka then explains the actions of Kessler and Gilberton Borough as being an illustration of nullification and interposition. He added that Kessler intends to arrest anyone who attempts to enforce a gun control law of any kind.
The oath of Kessler’s “Constitutional Security Force” sounds non-violent, but his videos (note the Confederate flag in this onestrike a more confrontational tone (NSFW – profanity) .
The concepts of nullification and interposition can be traced back to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. See these two articles, first by Kevin Gutzman and the second published by the Heritage Foundation and written by Christian Fritz for conservative analyses of the concepts.
Gutzman points out that fans and opponents of nullification can use Madison as an authority because Madison took both sides at different times and for different causes. Toward the end of his life Madison noted that one state alone could not nullify federal law. Gutzman noted that at the end of his life, Madison said:

The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions, is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated. Let the open enemy to it be regarded as a Pandora with her box opened, and the disguised one as the serpent creeping with deadly wiles into Paradise.

In 1835, Madison also stated his opposition to John C. Calhoun appeals to Madison’s earlier writings on nullification. About a single state nullifying a federal law, Madison wrote the following:

But it follows from no view of the subject that a nullification of a law of the United States can, as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State as one of the parties to the Constitution, the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy cannot be imagined. 

As Fritz documents, Madison did not consider nullification, in the sense Peroutka advocates, to be constitutional. In fact, I don’t know of anyone outside of the Confederates or neo-Confederates who consider nullification to be constitutional. Perhaps my readers will help out if there are others who make a constitutional case for nullification.
It remains to be seen what will develop from these nullification impulses and actions. What does seem clear is that Peroutka hopes that teaching the IOTC course will lead to more actions which Madison called “fatal inlet[s] to anarchy.”

TX Rep. Steve Stockman Joins with League of the South Board Member on Amicus Brief

And he seems happy about it…

Stockman may not know that the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC) is essentially Michael Peroutka, board member of the League of the South. However, this brief is another indication of the emergence of the IOTC as a player among right leaning advocacy groups, and now with the assistance of a U.S. Congressman.
For more information on the brief regarding a gun rights case, click the link in the tweet.

Michael Peroutka Pledges Resources of Institute on the Constitution to League of the South

The recent cancellation of a Constitution course in the Springboro School District has placed new focus on the group behind the course, the Institute on the Constitution and another group, the League of the South.
The IOTC course brought complaints from parents about the religious nature of the course and the membership of IOTC founder, Michael Peroutka, in the League of the South. You can read more about the League here.
Last Thursday, a leader of the Springboro Tea Party and Council of Conservative Citizens, showed up at the Springboro School District and defended the course and the League of the South. He finished his talk by displaying a Confederate flag.
Another person linking the two organizations is IOTC founder Peroutka. Last month, Peroutka was appointed to be a board member of the League of the South during the annual conference. At the end of a speech, Peroutka pledges the resources of the IOTC to the aims of the League of the South. Here is the link which allows you to begin watching at the point where Peroutka makes his pledge. On the video (at 39:10) he says:

I am so pleased, and I thank you Dr. Hill and you Sara, and you Alex, and Mike Crane, and all the others on the board, and I am uh, I want to do my best, with God’s help, to be worthy of what you’re, what you do and what you are asking me to do. I’m gonna try my best. I pledge the resources of the Institute on the Constitution and the resources of the Peroutka family to that effort. God bless you.

For more on what the League of the South is about, see their FAQs. One the main objectives is the secession of the Southern states to form a white Christian nation.
Also, here is League president Michael Hill on what the League is about:

Just so there’s no chance that you’ll confuse The League with the GOP or any other “conservative” group, here’s what we stand for: The survival, well being, and independence of the Southern people. And by “the Southern people,” we mean White Southerners who are not afraid to stand for the people of their race and region.

According to the League’s Grey Bookthe League yearns for a return to America before the Civil War amendments to the Constitution and to the Confederate South.

The Grey Book is based on the following presuppositions: 1) that we who oppose on moral grounds the practises and polices of the US government have a duty to reform or remove ourselves from it; 2) that the government of the US is beyond reform, so that the only option available is removing ourselves; 3) that two or more Southern States will at some time in the future form a confederal union; and 4) that their representatives will ratify a Constitution more or less like the US Constitution of 1788 and the Confederate States Constitution of 1861.

 

Institute on the Constitution Founder Michael Peroutka on Southern Secession and His Course on the Constitution

Last week, the Springboro School Board canceled two controversial summer courses on the Constitution. Both courses were offered to the public as a way to evaluate them for possible use in the schools. However, because of concerns expressed by the public, the courses were canceled. In light of what I have learned about the courses, I commend the school board for their action.
In my write up of the situation I focused on the 12 week course offered by the Institute on the Constitution. The IOTC is an educational project of the law offices of Peroutka and Peroutka, based in Pasadena, MD. To me, a disturbing aspect of the IOTC course is the connection of IOTC founder Michael Peroutka to the League of the South. The League of the South is a neo-Confederacy organization which promotes Southern nationalism. They seek to create a political climate that supports the secession of Southern states from the rest of the country in order to form a nation which protects “the Anglo-Celtic core population (i.e., white) and culture of the historic South.” One inspiration for the League is the 1858 pro-slavery, pro-secession organization League of United Southerners.
Beyond the obvious problems with the League’s mission, I wondered why the IOTC would offer a course in the Constitution if the real aim is to separate from the nation and form a new Constitution based on the Bible. However, after watching Michael Peroutka speak at the 2012 League of the South annual conference, I got a better sense of the purpose of the course. Reform or restoration is not in view. Watch:

Here is the transcript of his remarks (after the break): Continue reading “Institute on the Constitution Founder Michael Peroutka on Southern Secession and His Course on the Constitution”