Tag: David Whitney

You Find the League of the South in the Strangest Places: CNN and the Institute on the Constitution

no Confederate flagThe League of the South appears to be leading the media defense of the Confederate flag. Tonight I watched the South Carolina LoS chairman Pat Hines try to defend the Confederate flag on CNN (I’ll get video when I can).


At one point near the end, Hines wondered why another guest (a South Carolina state legislator) was working for the “cultural genocide” of the Southern people by advocating removal of the Confederate flag. The incredulous response of the guests and host Don Lemon was the same as mine. You (Hines) can’t be serious. A symbol of slavery does not represent any good thing about anyone’s culture.
It was surreal seeing a representative of the League of the South as a guest on CNN. The leader of the League of the South. Michael Hill, has warned African-Americans about a race war and wants the Southern states to secede and become a homeland for whites. He has no problem being known as a white supremacist. His most recent rant is unhinged.
On another front, it has been surreal for a couple of years to know that members of the League of the South are leaders of a self-described effort to educate students and the public about the Constitution. Regular readers know I am talking about the Institute on the Constitution. Founder and director Michael Peroutka is a former board member of the League. David Whitney, IOTC senior instructor, is currently listed as chaplain of the Maryland/Virginia branch of the League (see image below).
At a news conference prior the Peroutka’s election to the Anne Arundel County Council, Peroutka defended the League, calling it “a Christian free-market group.” Peroutka said he quit the group but his Senior Instructor (Whitney) is a leader in the state branch and Peroutka has never denounced the League. Peroutka has also said he didn’t know any racists in the League but that stretches belief.
Whitney MD chapter of LOS
 
 

Ten Years of Blogging: League of the South President Says Being a White Supremacist is Just Fine

I write about neo-Confederate groups which I describe as organizations which have members who wish the south would have won the Civil War. Most also  can be described as white supremacist or segregationist groups. Their numbers are small but they may play a role in radicalizing peripheral members of their movement (including disturbed ones like Charleston shooter Dylann Roof) to acts of violence (and acknowledged by a League of the South leader here). I have followed the League of the South most closely because of the involvement of Michael Peroutka and his Institute on the Constitution. Peroutka is a former board member of the League and current senior instructor David Whitney is the chaplain of the MD/VA state branch.
The League was mentioned briefly in the Washington Post article on the South Carolina shootings. While the group doesn’t figure in the tragedy directly, their materials are easily available on the web and they have moved toward more public demonstrations.
In one representative post, the League’s president Michael Hill reflects on how good it is to be a white supremacist:

In what is probably one of the clearest statements of the white supremacist views of the League of the South, organization president Michael Hill penned an article calling on League members to relish the white supremacist views of their Southern heroes. Anne Arundel County Council candidate and proud League of the South member Michael Peroutka told a news conference audience that he repudiated racists in the League and would pray for them. Well, he does know Michael Hill amd so he has some repudiating and praying to do. After reading the essay, I think Hill would just laugh at Peroutka’s prayers.

Hill reminds his readers that historically Confederates and their sympathizers saw the South as “white man’s country.”

“in 1928, historian Ulrich B. Phillips called the South “a white man’s country.” [“The Central Theme of Southern History,” American Historical Review 34 (October 1928), p. 31.] From the beginning of their history in the early 17th century, Southerners had taken this statement as an unchallenged fact, and the presence of an alien race in their midst drove it home with added emphasis. Few if any Southerners, or for that matter Northerners, believed in racial equality at the time of the War for Southern Independence nor in the decades to follow. That Phillips made his non-controversial (at the time) statement more than six decades after the end of that war speaks volumes about the stubbornness of what is now vilified as “white supremacy.” Thus, I think it is safe to say that our Confederate ancestors and their descendants for at least two generations would qualify as “racists” and “white supremacists” by today’s definitions of the terms.”

That is just fine with Hill, and as it should be.

It is easy to imagine an impressionable young person adopting their ideology and then figuring out how to put it all into practice.  Read the rest of the post here.

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.
 
 
 

IOTC Brings Theocratic Lessons to the Public School

The Institute on the Constitution continues their quest to bring theocratic lessons to school children. Regularly requesting non-deductible donations for their efforts, IOTC is working to start inappropriately named, “American Clubs” to public schools. IOTC’s lead teacher David Whitney teaches that only born again Christians should be citizens, the federal government has no role in commerce, and that civil government should worship God according to their reconstructionist ideas.
Unfortunately, some teachers are buying in to these ideas. Take this unidentified public school teacher (I’m guessing from Maryland or Ohio):

Post by Institute on the Constitution.

If I knew the school where this club was established, warnings could be provided to parents in that district. Unfortunately, there is little a school district can do to prevent the distortion of the Constitution to be presented by the IOTC.
If anyone recognizes this teacher, let me know.

Ken Ham Headlines Institute on the Constitution Conference

Founder of the young Earth Creation Museum Ken Ham accepted the donation of a dinosaur from Michael Peroutka’s foundation in May 2014. Now Ham is going to headline an event with Peroutka and David Whitney and put on by Peroutka’s Institute on the Constitution.
Peroutka is a member and former board member of the League of the South; Whitney is the chaplain of the Virginia/MD chapter of the League. The League of the South advocates for the Southern states to secede to form a homeland for whites of European heritage. Peroutka has pledged the resources of the IOTC to the work of the League, and Peroutka defended the League as a Christian group.
Just over a year ago, fellow right wing luminary General Jerry Boykin pulled out of a conference because of the presence of IOTC speaker David Whitney on the program.  Ham is a frequent speaker at right wing functions. Ham’s decision to partner with IOTC indicates the reach that the IOTC has developed within the Christian right.
The IOTC claims to properly represent and teach the Constitution. However, David Whitney teaches that only Christians should be allowed to be citizens:

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.  Those who will serve as Jurors, committed to do justice in judging the law by the eternal standard of God’s Law.  Those who will serve when called up as Representatives to serve in civil government to do justice by God’s Law, and those who will put themselves in harms way serving in the Militia – only in just wars as defined by God’s Law.

Citizenship should be restricted, according to Whitney and the IOTC, to those who are”disciples of Jesus Christ.” This is no small error and should be rejected by anyone who values the Constitution (see especially the First Amendment and Article Six).

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.