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”
Category: racism
League of the South Members Behind the Constitution Course Allowed by Ohio School District
Yesterday, I wrote about a summer course on the Constitution offered by the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC) and advertised to the public by the Springboro School District. According to media reports, the school district plans to evaluate the course for possible inclusion in their schools. See yesterday’s post for a flyer describing the course.
The Institute on the Constitution was founded and is directed by Michael Peroutka. Peroutka was the 2004 presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. According to the website of the IOTC, their Constitution course is taught by Peroutka and Pastor David Whitney. In Springboro, the course is facilitated by Ricki Pepin but includes materials from the IOTC, David Barton and John Eidsmoe.
In 2012 and 2013, Michael Peroutka spoke at the League of the South’s annual convention (John Eidsmoe was there as well) and gave his enthusiastic support to the organization. Fellow Constitution course instructor David Whitney is the Chaplain of the Maryland chapter of the League of the South. The League of the South appears to believe in white supremacy and promotes the secession of the Southern states from the nation. From their website:
Q: Where, when, and why was The League of the South (LS) formed?
A: The LS was formed in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, in June 1994, to organise the Southern people so that they might effectively pursue independence and self-government.
Q: Does the LS favour political secession as a legitimate option for Southern (and other) states?
A: Yes, but we realise that secession is not a practicable alternative at present. When enough people come to realise the futility of attempting to reform the present corrupt system, however, it will be practicable.Q: Whence the name: “The League of the South”?
A: Our name comes from two different sources:(1) Lega Nord (Northern League), a very successful populist movement in northern Italy, to which the LS has personal ties, and (2) the League of United Southerners, organised by Edmund Ruffin and William Lowndes Yancey in 1858 to shape Southern public opinion.
Q: What is the LS position regarding blacks in the South?
A: The LS disavows a spirit of malice and extends an offer of good will and cooperation to Southern blacks in areas where we can work together as Christians to make life better for all people in the South. We affirm that, while historically the interests of Southern blacks and whites have been in part antagonistic, true Constitutional government would provide protection to all law-abiding citizens — not just to government-sponsored victim groups.Q:Why does the LS seek to protect the Anglo-Celtic core population and culture of the historic South?
A: The Anglo-Celtic peoples settled the South and gave it its dominate culture and civilisation. We believe that the advancement of Anglo-Celtic culture and civilisation is vital in order to preserve our region as we know it. Should this core be destroyed or displaced the South would be made over in an alien image — unfamiliar and inhospitable to our children and grandchildren. We, as Anglo-Celtic Southerners, have a duty to protect that which our ancestors bequeathed to us. If we do not promote our interests then no one will do it for us.
Shockingly, the group ties itself to the League of United Southerners, “organised by Edmund Ruffin and William Lowndes Yancey in 1858 to shape Southern public opinion.” Both Ruffin and Yancey were pro-slavery “fire-eaters” and the League of United Southerners was designed to promote secession. The alignment of the League of the South with a blatantly pro-slavery, white supremacist group makes a deeply troubling statement.
Michael Peroutka at the League of the South convention, 2012. Note which flags are flying and which are not.
As it stands, the Springboro School District is offering to the public a course in the Constitution developed by members of an organization who desire to promote the dominance of the Anglo-Celtic people, the secession of Southern states from the nation, and align themselves with the pro-slavery fire-eaters of the Confederate South.
It is quite possible that the Springboro board members were unaware of these matters when the course was approved. Messages left for the board on these points have not yet been answered.
Additional information:
The relationship between the League of the South and the IOTC goes back a few years. A LS newsletter advertised the IOTC Constitution course as being compatible with the LS.
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.
The LS President Michael Hill leaves no doubt where he stands on race in this essay: Our Survival as a People. From the essay:
Because Christian liberty has been the product of Western civilization, should the white stock of Europe and American disappear through racial amalgamation or outright genocide, then both liberty and civilization as we have come to know them will cease to exist. As whites have lost the will to defend their inheritance, there has been a corresponding increase in the willingness of the colored races to destroy Western Christian civilization and replace it with their own vision of the “good society.” That vision, or nightmare, as it were, will have no truck with the rule of law, equity, or fairness. It will be predicated on the “intimidation factor”–the employment of brute force by the strong against the weak. In short, it will be “payback time” for the alleged mistreatment that minorities-cum-majorities have suffered at the hands of the White Devils.
UPDATE: July 3, 2013, 11:35pm – The Springboro School Board has canceled the classes mentioned in this post. Watch the blog for more information.
Bryan Fischer and the Cultural Unity of the United States
As noted on Wednesday, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer said recently that European immigrants have been a benefit to the nation because they share “our values.” However, Hispanics are problematic because they are by nature socialists, and because they do not demonstrate the “Protestant work ethic.”
Fischer declared his stereotypes in the context of criticizing Sean Hannity and Charles Krauthammer over what Fischer believes is capitulation to calls within the Republican party to support some form of amnesty for illegal immigrants. However, in opposing the policy of amnesty, Fischer gave the world a look into his thinking about Hispanics and non-protestants. Largely ignored by Republican and evangelical leaders, Fischer’s stance has been lauded by at least one white nationalist group – the Virginia Dare Foundation.
The VDARE Foundation runs a website which is a one-stop shopping opportunity for those who want to know how white nationalists think (e.g., read this piece on the virtues of white nationalism). Last night, VDARE’s Allan Wall blasted Hannity for his evolution to amnesty, but then he held up Fischer for praise:
Here though is another talk show host who isn’t promoting amnesty. It’s Bryan Fischer , Director of Issue Analysis of the AFA, the American Family Association. The AFA is a conservative values Christian organization. Unlike Focus on the Family, AFA has not jumped on the amnesty bandwagon. In a recent discussion of the “Hispanic vote”, Fischer spoke forcefully against Hispandering.
Wall then cited Fischer’s offensive views on race and immigration.
Last night’s post was not the first time VDARE admired Fischer’s work. Back in 2008, when Fischer ran the Idaho Values Alliance, he opposed the establishment of a Mexican consulate in Idaho. At the time, Allan Wall wrote approvingly of Fischer’s claims of doom if the Mexican consulate was located in Boise. In a 2008 op-ed, Fischer exposed his concerns about the consulate. Note that he isn’t just worried about “the rule of law”:
All Idahoans who care about the rule of law and the preservation of the cultural unity of the United States have valid reasons for concern as the Mexican government proceeds with its plan to open a Mexican consulate in the state capitol. (emphasis added)
Just what is the “cultural unity of the United States?” Isn’t this just another way of saying white Protestant? As white nationalist Jared Taylor pointed out on the VDARE website, coded language is necessary to avoid sounding racist. Taylor wrote:
As for point 1, there would be no disagreement from the 60 to 80 percent of Americans who want less immigration, including me. Stopping mass immigration should be the number one priority for American whites.
…
Nevertheless, Mr. Sailer is probably right to argue that an open appeal to the interests of whites may not be the most successful way to sell immigration control. His point 2 is correct: White consciousness has been so thoroughly demonized that although whites do not want to live with blacks or Mexicans, they dare not admit it in public. No congressman would say we must guard the border because whites have the right to a country in which they are the majority.
Of course, there are plenty of good ways to oppose immigration and not sound “racist”: The country is crowded; we already import too much oil; immigrants commit crime, push down wages, burdenschools, spread disease, go on welfare refuse to learn English, gather in indigestible clumps, etc. etc.
Or one could say that one wants to preserve the “cultural unity of the United States” or that Hispanics are by nature socialists and plunderers, or that only European Protestants are honest, hard workers. Whatever code words are used, the message is clear.
Evangelicals and other conservatives who want to be taken seriously in the immigration debates need to recognize that words have power. It remains to be seen whether or not Catholic and Protestant leaders will stand clearly and forcefully again blatant stereotyping and xenophobia at the American Family Association.
Apparently, Fischer is glad VDARE cited him favorably:
Website gives tips on how to influence Sean Hannity, me, & Rush Limbaugh on the immigration question. vdare.com/posts/sean-han…
— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) November 16, 2012
Bryan Fischer: Hispanics are socialists by nature
Is there a non-white group that Bryan Fischer hasn’t stereotyped? If not, just give him time.
Fred Clark at Slacktivist says Evangelicals Have a Bryan Fischer Problem, and he sure is correct.
Here is the Focal Point program where Fischer goes off on Hispanics. Check him out at 2:21 where he rants that Hispanics are socialist by nature.
Remember socialist is not a compliment coming from Fischer. It gets worse. He claims that Hispanics want to plunder the U.S. and that “goodies” from government is all they want. Before we go on, with two minutes of thinking about Fischer’s stereotype of Mexico, we can dismiss his rant. If Mexico was giving out so many goodies and that is all Mexicans wanted, then why come here and work?
At 7:30, Fischer distinguishes between good immigrants and bad ones. Europeans are good and Hispanics are bad. The Europeans share American values and Hispanics don’t, according to Fischer. Fischer is barely able to conceal his stereotypes and it becomes obvious that, for him, white protestant is good and non-white, non-protestant is not (see especially after minute 8, if you can stand it).
Fischer reinforces many of the stereotypes about Hispanics that bigoted whites believe. It is amazing that he continues to have such a high profile with an organization that many Republicans and evangelicals support.
In his blog post, Fred Clark sets out a significant problem for evangelicals that is posed by Fischer and the AFA:
Just as everything Bryan Fischer has to say about “biblical values” gets outweighed by everything he has to say about people who aren’t white, so too everything mainstream evangelicals have to say about “biblical values” gets outweighed by everything they haven’t said about people like Bryan Fischer.
Or, put more directly: Until mainstream evangelicals denounce racists and bigots like Bryan Fischer — clearly and unambiguously — they will lack the moral credibility that might make anyone care what they have to say about any other moral issues.
In my view, Fred is correct, evangelicals have a problem and I see little effort being made to address it. In fact, those who say something are often dismissed as liberals. Note to any Christian leader who is reading: Do you agree with Fischer? If so, remain silent. If not, issue a press release expressing your disagreement.
Perhaps this group should lead the way.
Bryan Fischer finds a gay he can like
Bryan Fischer is out for vindication. He was dismissed from a CNN broadcast by Carol Costello after ranting away at gays and failing to discuss the SPLC Mix It Up Day honestly. Now he has found himself a gay person who Fischer believes speaks the truth and thinks like he thinks. And as if to shout, “I told you so!” he presents this gay man as an authority in his most recent column. Fischer cites Johann Hari who penned what Hari portrays as an expose of sorts for Huffington Post on the subject of gay fascists. No matter that most gays aren’t fascists, or that most neo-Nazis, especially in the U.S., hate gays or that Johann Hari is just one gay person. Hari says some things Fischer can agree with, so Hari is an authority.
The problem for Fischer is that the consensus among historians is that the idea that gays are always at the center of fascism is inaccurate. In Fischer’s world, the majority has been co-opted by the gays whereas the few people who see a vital link between homosexuality and fascism are seeing the gospel truth. All it takes is one person, expert or not, saying what Fischer says and voilà, the man is a genius.
I think Hari fails to make any case other than gays as well as straights can be fascists. However, in his piece he makes some other points that Fischer leaves out. Hari suggests that extreme homophobia on the right may be a defense against latent homosexual urges. He writes:
At first glance, our Nazis seem militantly straight. They have tried to disrupt gay parades, describe gay people as “evil”, and BNP leader Nick Griffin reacted charmingly to the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub in 1999 with a column saying, “The TV footage of gay demonstrators [outside the scene of carnage] flaunting their perversion in front of the world’s journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures repulsive.”
But scratch to homophobic surface and there’s a spandex swastika underneath.
Describe gay people as evil? People think gays are repulsive? Who says stuff like that? Mr. Fischer overlooked that theory from his new authority on the relationship between the negativity toward gays and homosexuality. Wonder why.
In the end, Hari presents a mish mash of theories, vignettes and fractured history that confuses more than it enlightens. He criticizes The Pink Swatiska but fails to recognize that he has used the same kind of hyperbole in his own piece. In the service of being sensational, he has played into the hands of the historical revisionists he criticizes.
Honestly, some gays are racial bigots. Some Christians are too. Does that make all Christians racial bigots? Or does the fact that some Christians are neo-Nazis mean that Christianity is the breeding ground of fascism? In his zeal to get vindication, Fischer throws logic out of the window and opens himself to the same charge he levels.
For more on The Pink Swastika by Scott Lively, see The Pink Swastika.