League of the South Defends Man Who Inspired Charleston Church Killer Dylann Roof

Unbelievable. Michael Hill posted the following in light of evidence that a League member named Kyle Rogers had an influence on Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof:

The League of the South supports our friend and compatriot, Kyle Rogers, of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), who is being lambasted by the left-wing media for turning Dylann Roof, the young man arrested for the Charleston church shooting, into a “white nationalist.”
From our point of view, all Mr. Rogers has done is diligently catalog the facts about the epidemic of black-on-white violent crime in America. We see this as a service that the mainstream US media refuses to provide to the public, thereby endangering the lives of many innocent people.
The fact that young Mr. Roof chose to act on this information is no fault of Mr. Rogers or anyone else who tells the hard truths about race that the leftist media regularly sweeps under the rug.
To attempt to blame Mr. Rogers, the CofCC, the Confederate battle flag, Southern culture, or the Easter Bunny for causing this murder is the sort of repulsive ideological persecution one used to find commonplace in the old USSR. It is, in a word, shameful.
Michael Hill

He is not alone. Brad Griffin (AKA Hunter Wallace) tweeted:

 

The Institute on the Constitution Posts Another Incorrect Quote Attribution – This Time They Get Thomas Paine Wrong

The Institute on the Constitution claims to be an educational outreach of Michael Peroutka’s law firm. Miseducational outreach would be a better term. They claim to teach about the founders but they often are sloppy and attribute things to the founders they didn’t say.
Once, they claimed Jefferson said something he didn’t say and then they botched George Washington as well.  Now, the target of false quotation is Thomas Paine.
Paine IOTC False Quote
Paine never said it; it most likely originated with Edward Abbey.
Note that it has been shared 1600 times. That’s a lot of ignorance for which IOTC is responsible.
For those keeping track, IOTC’s senior instructor is still listed as chaplain of the Maryland/Virginia chapter of the League of the South, a white supremacist organization.
Whitney MD chapter of LOS
How many churches who host IOTC courses know they are involved with an organization which is run by a former board member of a white supremacist group and which promotes the teaching of a current chaplain of a state chapter of that same white supremacist group?
 

Charleston Shooter Targeted Blacks During Prayer Meeting (UPDATED – Wanted to Start Race War)

There are many bizarre and horrid aspects to the Charleston massacre of eight black church members. This post brings together some of the coverage of the tragedy with links to the poisonous words of white supremacists by the alleged shooter, Dylann Roof.
Roof sat in the prayer meeting for about an hour before he began shooting.
According to a CNN report, Roof said he was at the church “to shoot black people” and he wanted to start a “race war.”
White supremacists are worried this makes them look bad.
They should be worried given the rhetoric their leaders engage in.  Here is the League of the South’s president Michael Hill opining on an American race war (chilling in light of Roof’s purpose of starting a race war).  Hill claims desegregation has been a failed policy and calls for re-segregration.  Hill calls for his followers to fight and die for the Southern nationalist cause.

But it is not natural for us Southerners to sit idle against threats. We are fighting men. We are not comfortable claiming victimhood and begging that some human right be created for us. Instead, we are bound up in a long community of blood, and that blood has often been shed in defense of itself. 

A commenter at Occidental Dissent said this in reaction to the shootings:

I don’t believe in a lot of things. You’re going to have to be more specific when you talk about murder and which people truly are considered innocent. The anti-White establishment gives itself an extremely wide berth when it factors in the collateral damage caused by its policies and rhetoric. To them, most of us [White people] are expendable. Were Spartans deterred from defending their families and territories because the Persian army consisted of many slaves, mercenaries and those forced to fight? You’d have to be batshit crazy to lose sleep over people losing their lives while playing at least some kind of role in your demise. Not that I condone that type of killing, I just don’t give a shit about the lives of those who don’t give a shit about me.
I would also assume you don’t believe in handing over the keys to your survival and the survival of your family to a growing number of brown and black people who have an insatiable desire to “murder” White society. How confident are you that you are doing something adequate enough to counter their agendas? What if they are “Christian” black people? Are you okey dokey with them spreading their social experiments into your neck of the woods then? You sure as hell can’t vote your way out of this predicament, so what’s left?

 

Maryland Investigating Robocalls Made in Support of Michael Peroutka's Campaign for County Council

Who made the potentially illegal robocalls? Watch this investigative report by WUSA:

Another interesting aspect of this report is Michael Peroutka’s spokesperson: Peter Waldron.

“Councilman Peroutka’s policy is not to comment on ongoing investigations,” said Peroutka spokesman Peter Waldron in an email to WUSA9.

Could this be the same Peter Waldron that worked for Michele Bachmann’s failed run for the Republican nomination for president in 2012?
 

League of the South Plans April Celebration of Lincoln's Assassination

As I reported recently, the League of the South president Michael Hill announced their plan to celebrate the life of Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth. Plans are apparently coming together for an April celebration in Maryland. According to Hunter Wallace:

We’ve been getting a lot of publicity from the media for announcing that we are going to hold a public celebration of Lincoln’s assassination, but it is something that many of us have done privately for years now.
Note: This event will be held in Baltimore on April 11th. It is pretty much our equivalent of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Contact me for details.

Maryland is home to the Institute on the Constitution and former League of the South board member Michael Peroutka. In addition, IOTC senior instructor David Whitney is chaplain of the Maryland/Virginia branch of the League. I wonder if Rev. Whitney will offer prayers at the event.
Michael Peroutka once said the Institute on the Constitution led him to involvement in the League of the South.  Perhaps the IOTC could offer a session on the constitutional basis for assassination.
 
 
 

Institute on the Constitution's Jake MacAulay to Share Stage with Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Rick Santorum at SC Tea Party Event

This weekend, the theocratic Institute on the Constitution will have a representative on the program at the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention. IOTC’s Jake MacAulay will share the stage with Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, possible presidential candidate Ben Carson, former Senator Rick Santorum, along with other elected officials.

It is sad that the conference will spill over to Martin Luther King Day on the 19th with IOTC as a part of it. The IOTC teaches that civil rights legislation should never have been passed, and that King, Jr. was not a champion of civil rights. They also host an article on their website which justifies discrimination based on race, nationality, and religion. The founder of IOTC is a former board member of the segregationist League of the South, and senior instructor David Whitney is the chaplain of the Maryland-Virginia state branch of the League.
Originally, a speaker from the white nationalist group Council of Conservative Citizens was scheduled to speak but has been scrubbed from the program. I asked the Coalition if they are aware about the IOTC’s teachings, but have not received a reply as yet.
Conservative executive at the Family Research Council Gen, Jerry Boykin cancelled an event with the IOTC when he learned about their views. However, it appears that the IOTC is making headway among religious right conservatives.
 

National Religious Broadcasters Network Again Broadcasts Controversial Institute on the Constitution Course

In 2012, the National Religious Broadcasters Network aired the Institute on the Constitution’s 12 part course on the Constitution. The NRB took some heat over that choice, including the threat of a boycott from a group of pastors in the Cincinnati Ohio area. The same group of pastors threatened a boycott of publisher Thomas Nelson over David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies.
Near the end of the series, the NRB sent a mixed message about the future of the IOTC on the network. I honestly thought the NRB might not rebroadcast the series based on the controversy and the serious errors in the series. However, the twelve-part series is being broadcast currently on Thursday nights at 9am, Session 10 is slated to run this Thursday.
 
IOTConNRB2015
 
The Cincinnati pastors were unaware that the series was being rebroadcast and, although disappointed, at this late date do not plan any action. Given the errors and theocratic aims of the IOTC, I too am disappointed that NRB’s viewers will be misled. I contacted the NRB representatives a week ago with no reply.
To review the problems with the IOTC’s teachings, see the following posts:
Institute on the Constitution Doubles Down on Exploitation of Martin Luther King, Jr. (1/5/2015)
Institute on the Constitution Rep Argues Against the Constitution on Religious Test Clause (12/12/2014)
Institute on the Constitution Uses Spurious George Washington Quote to Mislead Followers (12/8/2014)
Michael Peroutka: “I Wish I Was in Dixie” is the National Anthem (7/26/2014)
The Institute on the Constitution’s Imaginary Constitution (7/14/2014)
Michael Peroutka: Civil Rights Laws Should Never Have Been Passed (11/7/2013)

Institute on the Constitution: Notes on Session 10 – War Between the States and Women’s Suffrage Dilutes the Franchise (9/13/2013)

Michael Peroutka’s Martin Luther King Remix (9/12/2013)

Institute on the Constitution Uses Fake George Washington Quote on Second Amendment (9/6/2013)

Institute on the Constitution: Post-Civil War Amendments Helped Undo The Bill Of Rights (9/5/2013)

Institute on the Constitution: There Is No Reason Why Men Should Not Discriminate On Grounds of Religion, Race, or Nationality (9/4/2013)

Institute on the Constitution: Confederate Troops Fought For “Government Of The People, By The People, For The People” (8/29/2013)

Institute on the Constitution: R. L. Dabney on Civil Government and Civil Rights (8/29/2013)

 

Response to IOTC – Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech: Our God is Marching On

On Monday,  I wrote about the Institute on the Constitution’s distortion of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s work and mission. The IOTC accuses those who cast King, Jr. as a civil rights champion of revising history. I addressed the basic problems in their arguments yesterday. Each day this week, I will post a link to another speech or article from King, Jr. which makes his position clear. Yesterday, I posted segments of his speech titled “Give Us the Ballot.” Today, I am posting a speech delivered in Montgomery, AL on March 25, 1965 titled “Our God is Marching On.”
King marched for racial equality but he did not believe such an outcome would happen with laws requiring equal treatment alone. He also asked the federal government for assistance with housing, jobs and income. King Jr. did not limit his mission to “God-given rights.” Agree or disagree, the IOTC assertion that King, Jr. sought only God-given rights (by their definition) is betrayed by his frequent calls for government intervention in housing, and poverty.
King, Jr. said:

Let us therefore continue our triumphant march (Uh huh) to the realization of the American dream. (Yes, sir) Let us march on segregated housing (Yes, sir) until every ghetto or social and economic depression dissolves, and Negroes and whites live side by side in decent, safe, and sanitary housing. (Yes, sir) Let us march on segregated schools (Let us march, Tell it) until every vestige of segregated and inferior education becomes a thing of the past, and Negroes and whites study side-by-side in the socially-healing context of the classroom.

Let us march on poverty (Let us march) until no American parent has to skip a meal so that their children may eat. (Yes, sir) March on poverty (Let us march) until no starved man walks the streets of our cities and towns (Yes, sir) in search of jobs that do not exist. (Yes, sir) Let us march on poverty (Let us march) until wrinkled stomachs in Mississippi are filled, (That’s right) and the idle industries of Appalachia are realized and revitalized, and broken lives in sweltering ghettos are mended and remolded.

That King was a champion of civil rights is beyond dispute.

Now it is not an accident that one of the great marches of American history should terminate in Montgomery, Alabama. (Yes, sir) Just ten years ago, in this very city, a new philosophy was born of the Negro struggle. Montgomery was the first city in the South in which the entire Negro community united and squarely faced its age-old oppressors. (Yes, sir. Well) Out of this struggle, more than bus [de]segregation was won; a new idea, more powerful than guns or clubs was born. Negroes took it and carried it across the South in epic battles (Yes, sir. Speak) that electrified the nation (Well) and the world.
Yet, strangely, the climactic conflicts always were fought and won on Alabama soil. After Montgomery’s, heroic confrontations loomed up in Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, and elsewhere. But not until the colossus of segregation was challenged in Birmingham did the conscience of America begin to bleed. White America was profoundly aroused by Birmingham because it witnessed the whole community of Negroes facing terror and brutality with majestic scorn and heroic courage. And from the wells of this democratic spirit, the nation finally forced Congress (Well) to write legislation (Yes, sir) in the hope that it would eradicate the stain of Birmingham. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave Negroes some part of their rightful dignity, (Speak, sir) but without the vote it was dignity without strength.

Others knew him as a “civil rights agitator:”

My people, my people, listen. (Yes, sir) The battle is in our hands. (Yes, sir) The battle is in our hands in Mississippi and Alabama and all over the United States. (Yes, sir) I know there is a cry today in Alabama, (Uh huh) we see it in numerous editorials: “When will Martin Luther King, SCLC, SNCC, and all of these civil rights agitators and all of the white clergymen and labor leaders and students and others get out of our community and let Alabama return to normalcy?”

Read the entire speech here.

Institute on the Constitution Doubles Down on Exploitation of Martin Luther King, Jr.

MartinLuther King picIn the Fall of 2013, the founder and director of the Institute on the Constitution Michael Peroutka made some outrageous claims regarding Martin Luther King, Jr. First, on the Steve Deace Show, Peroutka said King did not call for civil rights for blacks in his “I Have a Dream” speech. At the time, I demonstrated that the claim was false.  Then, Peroutka produced a video which repeated the same false claims. Then, Peroutka followed up by asserting that civil rights laws should not have been passed and that the government should not define discrimination for private employers.
Despite Peroutka’s false telling of King’s work and his rejection of civil rights statutes, the IOTC claims to truly understand King’s work. Recently, Jake MacAuley rewrote Peroutka’s 2013 article on King and made the same false claims.  MacAuley claims that the riots and unrest surrounding Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson demonstrates the failure of civil rights. He then lifts, word for word, from Peroutka’s 2013 article:

But it was not, as many have falsely claimed, a call for “civil” rights. In fact, in my view Dr. King was not a champion of “civil” rights. He was a champion of God-given rights.

MacAuley added his own spin to the false claims:

Unlike many modern day welfare state proponents, Dr. King’s demands were right because they were based on a righteous pretense (sic).
It appears to me that this concept of “civil rights” was a gross distortion of his work. This bastardized version of truth would actually only serve to compound power into the already corrupted task master, the human heart, or more specifically stated the human occupied civil government institutions.

As I pointed out in 2013, King’s writings contradict Peroutka’s claims.  And now I want to add to the rebuttal by citing again King’s own words every day this week. With help from Grove City College colleague Todd Allen, I have identified several of King’s writings which address King’s views of civil rights and his self-identification as a leader in the civil rights movement.
If MacAuley’s point was that King would have rejected violent protest, he would have been correct. However, MacAuley moves in a different direction. He makes a case for theocracy.

It appears to me that this concept of “civil rights” was a gross distortion of his work. This bastardized version of truth would actually only serve to compound power into the already corrupted task master, the human heart, or more specifically stated the human occupied civil government institutions.
At one time in our history, we looked to God’s Word to determine what was right and wrong. This was a fixed and certain standard.
Having jettisoned this fixed, objective standard, government tramples our God-given rights and now pretends to issue what it calls “civil rights”.
But “civil rights” are make-believe. Real rights come from the Creator.
In Ferguson, Missouri we have witnessed the folly and the futility of make-believe “civil rights”.

While King believed that human nature was tainted by sin, he also looked to non-violent protest to help move the “human occupied civil government” to guarantee by statute equal treatment before the law for all citizens.
As indicated by his statements here, MacAuley and the IOTC want a theocracy where the Bible (as they understand it) is the governing document. While many founders believed the government’s respect for the natural rights of all citizens was consistent with the Bible, they did not enshrine the Bible as the “fixed, objective standard” from which all civil rights are derived. In the real America, the foundational governing document is the Constitution.
What kind of rights could people expect under a biblical government as envisioned by the IOTC? According MacAuley’s employer, Michael Peroutka, civil rights legislation should never have been passed. Peroutka told Steve Deace:

The civil government has no authority to tell any private employer what kind of employees to hire and fire, or what constitutes discrimination. And obviously, I do mean and I would include the so-called civil rights laws are not law, they never should’ve been passed, they’re not law now, they weren’t law then, they aren’t law now because there is no such thing as a civil right.

On the point of discrimination, Peroutka’s website hosts an article consistent with his statements to Deace. On the website, a 1956 essay by Calvinist writer Frederick Nymeyer describes discrimination which is permitted within a society:

The word discriminate has in late years acquired a bad flavor. There are three kinds of discrimination which are under special attack: discrimination on the basis of religion, discrimination on the basis of race, and discrimination on the basis of nationality. We wish to challenge the validity of objections to these discriminations. We see no reason why men should not discriminate on grounds of religion, race, or nationality, if they wish. We wish to present the case for the right of any and all discriminations except discriminations which involve injustice (violation of Second Table of the Law).

The second table of the law involves prohibitions against theft, murder and coveting after one’s neighbor. According to Nymeyer, one may discriminate against a neighbor based on his race, as long as one doesn’t use that freedom to discriminate as a basis for killing, stealing or coveting. 

But the moral crux of the problem of discrimination is the discrimination against unalterable characteristics. Is it moral to discriminate against unalterable characteristics regarding which a man is helpless? Here is where the race problem becomes so sensitive. A man with a white skin cannot do anything about it; a man with a black skin cannot do anything about it. Why discriminate against (choose against) a man for that for which he has no remedy, for an unalterable trait that is unattractive to you and maybe others? Here is where cruel injustice appears immorally to intrude itself into the situation. But is it injustice?

If the writer has made an earnest effort to carry a tune and keep time (which he has) but is unable (which happens to be the fact), is an injustice done h i [him] because he is “discriminated” against by a choral society which discriminates against a trait he had which is unalterable for h i [him]? Of course not. Justice does not consist in denying reality or the facts of life; injustice is not identical with recognizing reality (that I cannot sing).

And so we hold – in the name of happiness, and in the name of liberty, and in the name of the right to discriminate – that there is no more “injustice” in discriminating against an unalterable trait than against an alterable trait; neither is an injustice. For us, every discrimination is valid except a discrimination involving injustice.

Peroutka’s declaration that the government has no right to tell an employer what constitutes discrimination is consistent with this article on his website but flies directly in the face of Martin Luther King Jr.’s work. King fought for the very civil rights laws that Peroutka condemns. 
Channeling Peroutka, MacAuley ends his article by saying:

In both private and public policy, we must remember that God created only one race – the human race. Therefore, all elevation or denigration of individuals or groups based on skin color is immoral and shameful because it violates the Law of Nature and of Nature’s God!

This sounds nice, but I wonder what it means. Peroutka told Steve Deace that the government has no authority to enforce discrimination laws and Peroutka’s website includes a justification for discrimination based on race. I can’t make any sense of these contradictions.
In contrast to IOTC’s claims about King, Jr.are his own words. Consider this segment of the “I Have a Dream” speech:

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”. (my emphasis)

Peroutka’s website justifies discrimination based on race. Peroutka told Steve Deace that the government shouldn’t define discrimination for employers. Clearly, King Jr.’s eloquent teaching about the indignity of discrimination contradicts Peroutka.
In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, King Jr. mentioned white ministers who believed in God but did nothing to help gain civil rights. King, Jr. wrote:

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?”

Religious voices were mixed with some silent but others opposing equality. In the face of religious confusion, King reminded his readers that civil and legal remedies were required:

My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights.

Here King, Jr. refers to the rights he sought as being “constitutional” and “God given.” While King, Jr. believed that equality of the races was a natural right, he also believed, in contrast to Peroutka, that civil rights must be gained through government and civil action. Since the privileged Southern segregationists and the oppressed civil rights advocates differed on what God wanted, the government had to guarantee those rights or else they would never come. It is fine in the abstract to say government exists to guarantee God given rights, but the devil is in the details. There are many views of who God is and what He wills. Thus, “determined legal and non-violent pressure” was necessary to make civil rights gains over the objections of those who thought God didn’t approve of racial equality.

As an antidote to the wild IOTC misrepresentation of King, I urge you to read the entire Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

My intention is to feature something from King, Jr. each day this week to address the IOTC distortion of his work.

Minnesota State Rep Cindy Pugh Plugs Institute on the Constitution

Readers in Minnesota’s state House district 33B (Saint Paul), your representative, Cindy Pugh, is plugging the theocratic Institute on the Constitution.

Among other assignments, Pugh sits on the Higher Education and Finance committee. The IOTC course is riddled with errors and so it is disappointing to see it get a high profile endorsement.