Cincinnati Area Pastors Call On NRB To Sever Connection To League Of The South Board Member

Some Cincinnati area ministers are calling on the National Religious Broadcasters’ Network to drop ties to the Institute on the Constitution & League of the South. The group is troubled by Institute on the Constitution teacher Michael Peroutka’s course on the Constitution which has been shown on the NRB Network weekly since July. They point out Peroutka’s long time membership in the League and the fact that he is a newly elected board member of the organization. The Institute was behind the course on the Constitution which was canceled by the Springboro, Ohio school board and the conference which Family Research Council VP Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin exited earlier this year. More about the League of the South/Institute on the Constitution can be found here
Here is the press release in full:
Evangelical pastors unite to hold National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) accountable for its airing of Michael Peroutka’s Institute on the Constitution.
* * * * * * * * *
For more information contact: Rev. Chris Beard or Rabbi Michael Wolf.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Cincinnati Area Pastors is a multi-ethnic group of evangelical leaders, committed to creating and preserving unity in the Body of Christ. It has come to our attention that NRB airs, and endorses, a program by Michael Peroutka:Institute on the Constitution. Mr. Peroutka is an unashamed board member of the League of the South, and has pledged his business and family resources to that effort. League of the South is a neo-Confederate movement endorsing secession from the current government, and a return to the Confederate Constitution of 1861. League of the South’s main goal is to see the South become a separate nation led only by whites. Its leader, Michael Hill, applauds slavery, as well as Jim Crow; and is vehemently against multiculturalism and diversity.
Our commitment to unity makes it impossible for us to overlook this promotion by the NRB. As leaders, we must hold NRB responsible for the divisive ideology it has espoused through connection with Mr. Peroutka. Our specific issues with the NRB are as follows:

  • We contend that one cannot separate Michael Peroutka from his alliance to League of the South.
  • We contend that by endorsing Michael Peroutka, NRB also endorses secessionism and extreme anti-American government sentiments.
  • We contend that NRB is responsible for giving Mr. Peroutka an enormous platform of influence and sway within the Body of Christ.
  • We contend that NRB is also promoting the racial divide within the Body of Christ, by promoting someone who idealizes the Confederate Constitution.
  • We contend that NRB has left its guiding principle and “holy obligation to boldly and creatively proclaim a Christ-centered Gospel, rather than a ‘man-centered’ message.” A company cannot promote pro-slavery documents, and still proclaim a Christ-centered Gospel.
  • We contend that NRB cannot promote a man who is against multiculturalism, without promoting the division of the Body of Christ along color and ethnic lines.

The Cincinnati Area Pastors contacted Frank Wright, CEO and president of NRB, three weeks ago with our concerns. Mr. Wright acknowledged receipt of our concerns, and has chosen to take no action against Michael Peroutka.
Therefore, we are urging all pastors, and their congregations, to take action with us in an email/letter writing campaign or by signing our petition ( NRB leadership will either have to decry the ideology Michael Peroutka/League of the South espouses, and, distance itself from that connection; or, NRB will have to acknowledge that it embraces the ideologies of Michael Peroutka/League of the South, and we will then distance ourselves from all things NRB (memberships, products, etc.). Please write and ask that NRB distance itself from Institute on the Constitution.
Frank Wright at
Troy A. Miller at
National Religious Broadcasters, Frank Wright, President
9510 Technology Drive
Manassas, VA 20110 or Call: (703) 330-7000
For more information contact: Rev. Chris Beard or Rabbi Michael Wolf.

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.

Institute on the Constitution Uses Fake George Washington Quote on Second Amendment

Yesterday, I noted concerns about the teaching of the Institute on the Constitution on the National Religious Broadcasters network. Last night, the problems continued during Michael Peroutka’s teaching on amendments two through ten. To bolster his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, Peroutka cited four founders on guns. One of them is a citation either fabricated or falsely attributed to George Washington, two of them were not cited in proper context, and one was cited properly.
Exhibit A in Peroutka’s speech was this quote he attributed to George Washington:


First, I looked for this quote in the digital Papers of George Washington and couldn’t find anything. Then, I found a reference to the quote on the Second Amendment Foundation website. Listed under the heading: “BOGUS, FAKE & QUESTIONABLE QUOTES FALSELY ATTRIBUTED TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS,” the quote has been researched by the SAF with no success in linking it to Washington. According to the SAF, this is “perhaps the most ‘infamous’ bogus saying attributed to a Founding Father.”

The second quote comes from Samuel Adams:

The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

Several sources attribute this proposal to Samuel Adams in the context of the Massachusetts convention to ratify the Constitution. Adams included this proposal along with others.

A motion was made and seconded, that the report of the Committee made on Monday last, be amended, so far as to add the following to the first article therein mentioned, viz.: And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms, or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them, or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances, or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions.

And the question being put was determined in the negative. 

For a complete picture of the sentiment of the day, it would have been helpful for Peroutka to include the context and the fact that the Massachusetts convention failed to approve this language. Furthermore, Adams’ reference to “peaceable citizens” could be taken as a qualification on the right to bear arms. In his NRB broadcast, Peroutka argues that the founders believed possession of arms was a deterrent to government tyranny. However, it could be argued that Adams was not referring to citizens who were seditious or who did not keep the peace.

Next, he cites Thomas Jefferson with a brief quote:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

The Jefferson quote is taken from Jefferson’s first draft of the Virginia Constitution. However, Jefferson revised this draft in a way that works against Peroutka’s contention. Jefferson’s 2nd and 3rd draft added a qualification to the first draft. Here are all three drafts:

First Draft: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 1950, 344)

Second Draft: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].”(PTJ, 1950, 353)

Third Draft: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]”(PTJ, 1950, 363)

As the Monticello website notes, the draft language was not included by the Virginia legislature into the final Constitution. Jefferson, writing these drafts in 1776, was not referring to the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, Jefferson qualified his earlier statement by locating the freedom for freemen to their own property. Although the later drafts undermine Peroutka’s argument, he should have made his audience aware of Jefferson’s final draft.
Peroutka then cites Noah Webster accurately.
The 2nd Amendment is important to the IOTC in that they back local sheriffs and police chiefs like PA’s Mark Kessler who claims the 2nd Amendment is a conceal carry permit and who promote the nullification of gun control laws. While some quotes from founders can be advanced in support of a broad reading, other quotes must be invented or adapted.
In any case, NRB viewers now have some history to unlearn. How will this happen?

Institute on the Constitution: Post-Civil War Amendments Helped Undo The Bill Of Rights

(Note correction regarding the National Religious Broadcasters below…)
Those following my posts on the Institute on the Constitution may have noted that I have only once critiqued the content of the course being offered on Thursday nights at 8pm (ET) on the National Religious Broadcasters network.  There are two reasons for this. One, I think Michael Peroutka’s affiliation (board member) with the League of the South and his stated purposes for the course (support the League and prepare people for secession or something like it) are enough to warrant concern. The second reason is that the videos are not available for embedding on the blog. The NRB and IOTC have has rejected my requests for permission to clip relevant portions of the sessions. Thus, it makes clear presentation of the problems more difficult. (Correction: I asked the NRB for permission to clip relevant portions of the IOTC sessions and they informed me that the network does not have the authority to provide such permission since the network does not own the content. I apologize to NRB for misrepresenting their position).
In fact, I have many concerns about the content of the course.  Generally, Peroutka repeats many of David Barton’s mistakes. For instance, Peroutka insists that the First Amendment only applies to Christian sects.  He quotes James Madison out of context to attempt to prove this and he relies on Joseph Story’s opinion as the last word on the subject. He doesn’t cite other evidence which contradicts his thesis.  I have addressed this topic elsewhere. In fact, elsewhere in Story’s commentaries on the First Amendment, he specifically said that “the Catholic and Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.” Jews and Infidels were not considered to be sects of Christianity. Peroutka does not cite this section of Story’s commentary.
Last Thursday (session eight), Peroutka began discussing the Bill of Rights and has a curious view of the relationship of the post-Civil War amendments to the Bill of Rights. Peroutka contrasted the Bill of Rights with amendments 13 and following. Concerning those amendments, Peroutka said:

All of those [amendments] acted to break down the walls and expand federal power. They actually helped to undo the work of the bill of rights; to undo the first ten amendments.

While there is a sense in which some amendments may do this (giving Congress power to use legislation to give effect to the amendment), it is also true that the slavery amendments applied the Bill of Rights to millions of newly freed slaves.
Here is the text of the 13th Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It is hard to imagine how this amendment undid the Bill of Rights. If anything, the promises of the Bill of Rights were extended to more individuals.
I will be watching to see what other concerns Mr. Peroutka has with the other post-Civil War amendments. Given this talk at a meeting of the Maryland League of the South by Peroutka’s IOTC senior instructor and pastor, David Whitney, I suspect he will take a dim view of at least the 14th Amendment.

Institute on the Constitution: There Is No Reason Why Men Should Not Discriminate On Grounds of Religion, Race, or Nationality

On Institute on the Constitution’s website, a 1956 essay by Calvinist thinker Frederick Nymeyer describes discrimination which is permitted within a society.  John Lofton, IOTC Director of Communications, reprinted this article from a journal recommended by Christian reconstructionist Rousas Rushdoony.
Nymeyer lays out his thesis clearly:

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).

Injustice is not completely spelled out but involves violation of the Ten Commandments.

What, if any, discrimination is forbidden? The discrimination that is forbidden is the discrimination that involves injustice. And in our thinking injustice is discrimination which involves coercion, fraud and theft. All other discriminations are, we submit, permissible. 

According to Nymeyer, discrimination is allowed even if the reason for the discrimination is an immutable trait.

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.

Somehow for Nymeyer (and apparently for IOTC) singing skill is analogous to race. Since the trait in question is the unalterable trait of skin color, Nymeyer must believe there is something inadequate about one skin color versus another (analogous to the desirable trait of song versus inability to sing). I wonder which race is the disadvantaged one?
Even if they would not personally discriminate based on race, Nymeyer and by extension IOTC actually promote the idea that discrimination based on race can be justified. If IOTC does not mean to convey this belief, then why post this article on the website?
For more on the IOTC, click here; for more on the League of the South, click here. IOTC founder Michael Peroutka is a board member of the League of the South and has pledged the resources of the IOTC to the League.
The IOTC’s course on the Constitution is being hosted by the National Religious Broadcasters each Thursday evening at 8pm.

Institute on the Constitution: Confederate Troops Fought For “Government Of The People, By The People, For The People"

According to a post on John Lofton’s Institute on the Constitution blog, journalist H.W. Mencken was right to declare the Confederate side of the Civil War to be fighting for government of the people. Lofton declared the Gettysburg address to be a lie because, in agreement with Mencken, the Union soldiers were fighting against self-determination.
And what did the South want to self-determine?
Mencken says the Confederates went into the battle free. But who was not free? What group of people, living in the South, did not have the right of self-determination?
After spending some time listening to the IOTC material and perusing their website, there can be little doubt that the the position of the IOTC is that the wrong side won the Civil War.  They are not over it.
Here are just a few other articles on point:
Lincoln A Murderous Tyrant Who Lied Repeatedly About Secession
America According to Lincoln
What Might Have Happened if the South Had Won and Lincoln Put on Trial for War Crimes?
Michael Peroutka To Address “League Of The South” In Chattanooga, Tennessee, November 1
President Bush Trails Michael Peroutka by 45 Points! – “You may also tell them that I am proud to be a member of League of the South. I look forward to receiving the support not only from guys with Confederate flags in their trucks, but also those with the Southern Cross in their hearts.” — Michael Peroutka
Fireworks, Gettysburg, and a Bittersweet Fourth of July – In this article, Michael Peroutka says America lost the battle of Gettysburg:

The second sadness comes from the historical proximity of the defeat of our American forces at Gettysburg.
On the fourth of July, 1863, after three days of brutal and desperate fighting to defend and preserve an American way of life, American soldiers retreated in the rain through Frederick, Maryland and slipped back across the Potomac River to the relative safety of Virginia.
I wonder what “Independence Day” thoughts went through the minds of these men as they marched away from that horrific scene where they and their brethren had sacrificed life and limb for the cause of American Independence. What singular faith and courage led them to continue the struggle to defend America from the growing tyrant!
Though most people living in America don’t realize it, the Army of Northern Virginia was the last force capable of countermanding the centralized tyranny that had, more than one hundred forty-two years ago, succeeded in undermining the concept of the Constitutional Republic. When Lee lost at Gettysburg, no earthly force remained that could stand against the Washington leviathan.

Do you see what he did there?  Peroutka refers to the Confederate troops as the “American forces.”  These “American forces” were battling to “preserve an American way of life.” According to Peroutka, the effort to preserve the Union and end slavery was tyranny and the Confederates were fighting for the “cause of American Independence.”
So when the National Religious Broadcasters and Liberty University broadcast the IOTC course, should it be called the American view or the Confederate view?

Institute on the Constitution: R. L. Dabney on Civil Government and Civil Rights

I have been making the case that the Institute on the Constitution defends the Confederate view of the Constitution more so than the American view that has evolved since the founding. This post provides another support for my case. Who one reveres and cites as an authority and who one rejects and denigrates can give some insight. In the case of the IOTC, it is very clear from their website that they believe Abraham Lincoln was a scoundrel and Confederate leaders and thinkers were heroes. On Lincoln, see these articles (here and here).
On the other hand, IOTC exalts R.L. Dabney. Dabney was a Presbyterian minister who fought for the South in the Civil War and was considered to be one of the leading theologians of the day. Dabney promoted the concept of a Christian nation and defended slavery before and after the Civil War. Dabney is cited frequently on the IOTC website. In fact, they cite him favorably in their mission statement.
Dabney is used as a source for IOTC teaching. His treatise on civil government is cited as a reading in their lesson on civil law and the civil magistrate. In this section, Dabney makes a case against the view of government as a social contract and instead proposes biblical law as a basis (as does IOTC). Later in this excerpt, Dabney defends slavery and diminished civil rights for blacks and women:

Men have by nature, a general equality in this; not a specific one. Hence, the general equality of nature will by no means produce a literal and universal equality of civil condition; for the simple reason that the different classes of citizens have very different specific rights; and this grows out of their differences of sex, virtue, intelligence, civilization, etc., and the demands of the common welfare. Thus, if the low grade of intelligence, virtue and civilization of the African in America, disqualified him for being his own guardian, and if his own true welfare (taking the “general run” of cases) and that of the community, would be plainly marred by this freedom; then the law decided correctly, that the African here has no natural right to his self–control, as to his own labour and locomotion. Hence, his natural liberty is only that which remains after that privilege is retrenched. Still he has natural rights, (to marriage, to a livelihood from his own labour, to the Sabbath, and to the service of God, and immortality, etc., &c). Freedom to enjoy all these constitutes his natural liberty, and if the laws violate any of it causelessly, they are unjust.

According to Dabney, a African in America had certain rights but not rights to be “his own guardian.” Elsewhere in his writings, Dabney referred to the righteousness of slavery and to abolitionists as infidels.
While I am not giving an opinion about what IOTC believes about Southern slavery, I am noting that their heroes promote a view of civil government that did not prevail beyond the 1860s. As articulated by the Declaration, Lincoln, and the Constitution as amended, America is dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal before the law; the Confederate view was not dedicated to that proposition.

Institute on the Constitution: Ted Cruz Can't Be President Because He is Not a Natural Born Citizen

Yesterday, the Institute on the Constitution reprinted an Orange County Register op-ed which declares Ted Cruz ineligible for the presidency because his father is Cuban. The article was posted by MD League of the South chaplain David Whitney.
Defining the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution in terms of parentage, the op-ed writer, Steve Jackson, comes to the the conclusion that Cruz’s father disqualifies the Texas Senator from eligibility.
Jackson writes that the founders got the term “natural born citizen” from a 1787 book by Emmerich de Vattel’s titled The Law of Nations – the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns. He cites Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212 which states: “…The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…”
Will Obama birthers come out in opposition to Cruz? Will those opposed to a Hispanic president use this as a means to trip up his chances? I don’t know whether the op-ed writer is accurate in his claims but it will be fascinating to see this play out.
For more on the Institute on the Constitution read here.

League of the South Hopes to Create Friendly First Impression at Immigration Rally

Or perhaps they should call it, the Anti-Demographic Displacement Rally. Or the Rally to Prevent White Genocide.
According to the League of the South, white nationalists of various sorts will be in Uvalda, GA on Saturday to “rally against our displacement as a people.” League president Michael Hill told white nationalist radio host Rodney Martin that illegal immigration will lead to “anti- white genocide” if it remains unchecked. Uvalda is the home of Paul Bridges, mayor of the town and defender of immigrants who provide much farm related work in the region. Called a “scalawag” by the Georgia League president, Bridges has become a focal point of League anger.Thus, the League heads to the little George town of Uvalda to make their stand.
They want their stand in Uvalda to be inviting to those who might be attracted to their cause. To present a “friendly first impression” of white nationalism, the League has promoted some guidelines for protesters, including a dress code:

No t-shirts. Shirts must be tucked in. Belt needed. No belt buckles with pictures, flags or messages. The same goes for hats. No old or holey jeans. No re-enactment paraphernalia. Do not bring flags or signs – we will provide these. Please be ready to smile and make a positive, friendly first impression of the League of the South and Southern nationalism!

Instead of the Confederate battle flag, the group will sport the Georgia secession flag and a new flag which is a black cross on white background.
The new black cross flag is designed to be the antithesis of the American colors. Watch:

Very European. Opposition to forced equality.
See especially the conversation where John describes the differences between their black cross and the colors of the American flag.  At 4:19, he says:

John: It’s a complete rejection of course of the red, white, and blue which was borrowed from the French revolution. You know, equality, democracy, fraternity, you know, liberty
Michael Cushman: Propositional nation.
John; Right, it was a nation built upon a philosophy, or something of that nature, and this is a complete rejection of that, obviously.

By proposition nation, Cushman is referring to the League of the South rejection of Lincoln’s Gettysburg statement that the United States was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
So when the Michael Peroutka’s League of the South displays this new rejection of the red, white and blue, the group’s protesters will not be advocating for the American view, but rather the Confederate view.

Wake Up America! Profiting from Politics

Looking for something else, I came across Wake Up America, a method to profit from tea party politics.
Essentially, WUA wants people to buy media kits filled with tea party talking points, and then the new owners of a media kit try to get other like-minded people to buy the kits and start selling them too. The compensation plan is here. The more people selling kits on behalf of the “wakers” (as in those waking up a sleepy nation), the more money the wakers are supposed to make. Sounds all multi-level marketing to me. Some might call it a pyramid scheme. However, I am not qualified to make that assessment, but I suspect they are in compliance with the law.
Wake Up America features some big name conservative expertsLt. Gen. Boykin is there; Tim Johnson, Frank Gaffney, etc., and then League of the South board member Michael Peroutka on the list as well. I’m not sure what they do but they are there lending their reputation to WUA.  Clearly, IOTC is a player in the tea party world and should be taken seriously.
Apparently, WUA isn’t CEO William Head’s first rodeo. He started a similar plan in 2006 called Purge Congress. Apparently, that effort didn’t work out well.
Over the years, I have been approached by various people to enroll in plans to sell soap, vitamins, and once motivational videos. I never got involved because it seemed like a lot of work for very little payoff, at least since I was getting in way down the downline. In this case,  WUA sells ideology and apparently hopes that lots of people want to buy and sell it too.