Candidates for Maryland County Council Get Blessing of League of the South's President

Institute on the Constitution’s Owner/Director Michael Peroutka and Senior Instructor David Whitney will face voters Tuesday in the Republican and Democratic primaries respectively for the chance to face each other in the election for Anne Arundel County Council.  The Baltimore Sun profiled them on Saturday and shed some light on their relationship with the white separatist group League of the South.
Last June, Peroutka joined the board of the League of the South and Whitney is the chaplain of the MD/VA chapter of the League. When Peroutka joined the board, he told the League that he would dedicate the work of the Institute on the Constitution as well as his family’s resources to the League. When Peroutka’s name recently  disappeared from the League board roster, I asked League president Michael Hill via Twitter why Peroutka was no longer a board member. I received no answer and so I have been curious about the change. With Peroutka moving into politics again, I thought perhaps they had decided to go separate ways toward their mutual goals. Now we read in the Baltimore Sun article that League president Michael Hill is pleased that Peroutka and Whitney are running for office. Although Hill’s group has endorsed Peroutka before for elective office (when Peroutka ran for president as the representative of the Constitution Party in 2004), the League often shies away from election politics. However, according to the Sun article:

Hill won’t say how many members the League of the South has but said that about half a dozen members are running for elective office this year. He praised Peroutka and Whitney for their leadership in running for office and publicly discussing their beliefs.

Hill has condemned modern America as corrupt so why would he be pleased that his members are running to be a part of the system? The Sun article provides information on that point.

The league advocates for Southern secession to create a new governance for Southern states, including Maryland. Hill said the group first must get candidates elected to local offices before formally pursuing secession.

There you go Marylanders. Elect League of the South members if you want to set the stage for Southern secession.
Hill complains about being called a neo-Confederate group. Perhaps if they didn’t wave the Confederate flag all over the place and lionize Confederate heroes and seek to turn the government back to the Confederate constitution (see the Grey Book), then they wouldn’t get the label. I call them white separatist because Hill’s group advocates solely for white Southerners.

Anne Arundel County Council Candidate David Whitney's Questionable Defense of State Militias

David Whitney is an instructor in Michael Peroutka’s Institute on the Constitution and is also chaplain of the MD/VA branch of the white separatist League of the South. He is also seeking the Democratic nomination to run for Anne Arundel County Council.
Whitney is a minister who believes the Bible supports no restrictions on the Second Amendment. As a part of a recent newspaper interview, Whitney says he was asked about his view of state militias. He claims a Constitutional mandate but even more basic than that, he says opponents of militias are the enemies of God. As I will demonstrate below, his appeal to the Bible is highly questionable. Whitney writes:

So the opponents of the Militia are really opponents of God’s Law. For example, you simply need to obey what Jesus said in Luke 22:36 (KJV) “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Therefore it would be lawless to amend away the Second Amendment. So those who oppose Constitutional Militia not only reject the Founders of our Country, they reject and violate the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitutions and more importantly they reject and violate the Law of God; the command of Jesus which is the Supreme Law of the Universe. They are the truly lawless ones in America and not those who believe Constitutional Militias must be reestablished in our land.

Ok, let’s look at Luke 22:36 in context:

35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.

Jesus and the disciples had just completed the Passover meal and Jesus was about to go out and pray. However, before He went out, He specifically referred to a prophecy that He would fulfill by being numbered among transgressors. Certainly, armed men would be considered subversives. Jesus did not stop talking at verse 36 as if he was encouraging the arming of a militia. If this was His teaching, then His militia would be pretty weak. They only had two swords and Jesus said in verse 38 that two was enough. Surely, the two swords were not enough to arm the disciples, but they would have been enough to number Jesus among the transgressors. Note that Jesus does not advise any more sales of purses, bags or sandals.
Even more evidence against Whitney’s interpretation is the fact that Jesus didn’t encourage the use of the weapons. According to John 18, Peter carried one of the two swords and when Jesus was confronted by the Roman soldiers later, Peter lopped off the ear of the high priest’s servant. The Luke 22 passage also records the scene without mentioning Peter.

47 While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus asked him,“Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”
49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns.”

Understandably, the disciples were a little confused. They had swords but asked if they should use them. After Peter started carving up the opposition, Jesus strongly told him to stop and healed the servant. It seems pretty clear that Jesus had another thing in mind for the swords. They had served their purpose and it wasn’t to resist an unjust authority.
Whitney should worry more about bearing false witness than bearing arms. He is running as a Democrat with no intention to represent the people as a member of the Democratic party.

American Clubs Bring Neo-Confederate Institute on the Constitution to Public Schools; Liberty Counsel to Assist

The neo-Confederate Institute on the Constitution wants to come to a school near you.
The IOTC is actively pushing “American Clubs” with materials on their website designed to help students get a club started. Late last year, IOTC was featured at an American Club meeting at Spanish River High School in FL. In the photo to the left, IOTC founder and former board member of the white separatist group the League of the South Michael Peroutka speaks to high school students at Spanish River about the “biblical view” and “pagan view” of government.
And there may be money in high school clubs. Even though the IOTC is not a non-profit, Peroutka asks for donations to support the clubs.
One important organizational skill being taught to students is how to minimize truly controversial subjects. In this letter to the editor of a local paper, a student minimizes the sponsor of the American club by saying that liberals have spoken to the club members. The fact is that the people behind these clubs are members (Michael Peroutka, frequent conference speaker and former board member) and officers (David Whitney, chaplain of the MD/VA branch) in the League of the South a white separatist organization.
The American Club materials claim patriotism, but the views of the IOTC sponsors are frightening and anti-American. For instance, IOTC senior instructor David Whitney recently said citizenship should be restricted to Christians (presumably of his persuasion). On the website, Freedom Outpost, Whitney said:

Loving thy neighbor means protecting their God given rights as Exodus 12:49 commands. That means preserving the structure of civil government from all who would pervert the civil government into an agency of legalized plunder, whereby the God given rights of no one would be safe and secure. This means, as we have seen in the commands of Scripture that we restrict citizenship to those who, because they are committed to the Covenant of Disciples of Jesus Christ, are willing to submit themselves to serve in the roles of responsibility in choosing leaders who will preserve God ordained order.

Catch the double-speak? According to Whitney, we love our neighbors by taking away their citizenship rights. We have to preserve civil government from the unwashed masses who are incapable of participation because they aren’t Christians. Rather, we need Whitney’s elite Christian aristocracy to “preserve God ordained order.” These are truly chilling words and even more so when you understand that IOTC wants to bring this approach to your schools.
In his article, Whitney focuses on his dominionist dreams. Peroutka has expressed wishes for a Confederate past. In addition to his service to the segregationist League of the South, in his article about the Fourth of July, Peroutka laments that the wrong side won the Civil War. He calls the Confederate army “American soldiers” and says the Confederates were fighting to “defend and preserve an American way of life.”
Peroutka and Whitney should just be honest and call their clubs Confederate Clubs.
Given that Peroutka and Whitney want to discuss the Constitution and their peculiar view of the American founding, it might be possible for a school to refuse an application because the subject matter of the club is well within the school’s curriculum. I don’t see how this club could be considered a non-curricular club.
However, schools might be reluctant to refuse an application because Liberty Counsel has stepped up to support the IOTC effort to spread the Confederate view and Christian reconstructionism in our schools. What a team.
 
 
 

The Political Shenanigans of Michael Peroutka and David Whitney in Maryland

Our old friends Michael Peroutka and David Whitney are up to some shenanigans in Maryland.
Since we last looked in on the Christian reconstructionist, Constitution-bending duo, Institute on the Constitution founder Peroutka apparently was evicted from or quit the board of the League of the South. The League isn’t saying and Peroutka doesn’t respond to emails so we may never know what happened. Lead IOTC teacher David Whitney is still chaplain of the MD branch of the League so the lost cause lives at the IOTC.
In addition, Michael Peroutka is running as a Republican for Anne Arundel County (MD) Council and David Whitney is running for the same office as a Democrat. Whitney is also seeking a seat on the Democratic Party’s Central Committee while Peroutka wants to be on the GOP committee. A neo-Confederate, Whitney apparently wants to take the Democrats back to their Civil War positions. Who knows what Peroutka is thinking.
Peroutka didn’t even make it a year on the League board. At the 2013 League conference, he dedicated the work of the IOTC to the League and pledged his personal resources as well.
Of course, these guys aren’t serious candidates. They may be hoping to fool enough voters to get past the June 24 primary, but I doubt they will succeed. I imagine Peroutka could make a case that he aligns with certain elements within the GOP (tea party) but Whitney is another story. Whitney, a minister, appears to be bearing false witness in an obvious manner. There just isn’t a neo-Confederate, anarchist wing of the Democratic party.
Some Republicans are speaking out against Peroutka. Red State Maryland did an extensive backgrounder on Peroutka and the IOTC which quoted the Cato Institute’s Walter Olson.
Click the links for all articles on the Institute on the Constitution and Michael Peroutka.
 

Institute on the Constitution: Notes on Session 10 – War Between the States and Women's Suffrage Dilutes the Franchise

I have been watching the Institute on the Constitution course on the National Religious Broadcasters network on Thursday nights. Last night was session 10 and covered amendments 11 through 27.  I have raised numerous issues with the course over the first nine sessions, and session 10 only added to my negative reaction.
At this point, I am just going to supply some observations about the course from memory. I may do a more detailed follow up next week.
Discussing the 13th Amendment, Peroutka disparaged the Emancipation Proclamation as a political ploy on Lincoln’s part. In his discussion of the 13th Amendment, Peroutka correctly said that the amendment freed the slaves but then added that subsequent actions made us all slaves. He compared the military draft and income tax to the enslavement of blacks. To me, this comparison crudely minimizes the awfulness of slavery.
He had little good to say about the 14th Amendment. Consistent with his status of board member of the League of the South, he make the Confederate case that the amendment was never legally ratified.
Throughout his discussion of the Reconstruction amendments (13-15), Peroutka referred to the Civil War as “The War Between the States.” When David Whitney came forward to discuss his view that the 16th Amendment did not actually authorize a federal income tax, he called the Civil War, “The War for Southern Independence.” These designations are consistent with Peroutka’s view that the wrong side won the Civil War.
Probably the oddest position taken was opposition to the 19th Amendment. Peroutka complained that a woman’s right to vote “dilutes the franchise.” He said he often gets strong reaction to his position (I wonder why) but he explained that a married female voting may cancel out the vote of her husband.  He painted a picture of the family being represented at the voting booth by the husband. If a woman has no husband then she could vote, but otherwise he believes women should be represented by their husbands at the polls.
How about that ladies?
There were other things that raised my eyebrows but I need to do a bit more research before I write about them.