Conservative-In-Name-Only (similar to RINO-Republican in name only, but a more important betrayal of principles instead of betrayal of party)

What does "CINO" stand for?

The Confederates were different from the Founding Fathers. At least the Founding Fathers, with all their faults, fought for a just cause.
The Confederates fought for a cause which, if won, would have caused the continuation of slavery. And everybody knows it.

Ain't it the truth!!!

True; and the coin is a counterfeit.

Re your "modernizing" Bible stories: have you ever read in Mark Twain's Letters From the Earth the idea that if the "sons of New York were to commit whoredom with the daughters of New Jersey", would it be right to execute the sheriff and the mayor and the archbishop,etc.? When it came to things like that, Mark Twain was a master of sarcasm; he really made his points.

....I was kicked out of the tea party for pointing out their self-defeatist mentality....

Re: Charlottesville: I understand that one of the "Anti-fa" people threw a bag of urine on somebody. There was blame to go around, true.
But I'd just as soon see the Confederate statues come down. It's one thing to recognize that history has taken place, it's another to celebrate and glorify what has taken place. And I do not think that the Confederate cause was great or noble. It might be a good thing to donate the Confederate statues to museums (at the museums' expense) and to replace them with signs stating which statues once stood there, how long they stood there, and where they are to be found.
As to "Huckelberry Finn", it is indeed unfortunate that people don't understand the book. It is anti-racist; Huck is not presented as a perfect person (neither does he so present himself); it shows how he comes to understand Jim as a human being.
A lot of this :"political correctness" comes from enshrining education as a function of government (which, properly, it is not).

Blarman, I'm saying that,and I did below in plainer terms, that it doesn't matter how anyone else rationalizes, justifies or qualifies the term virtuous. The only people who need believe to commit the atrocities are those perpetuating the atrocities. The ones who differ, justifiably or not, are the fodder to elevate their myopic "virtue" and vision.

I'm going to quibble with your choice of terms simply because I believe there is an important and distinct difference between education and actual wisdom. Education simply means attending an institution and being told that you learned stuff. True wisdom comes in the identification and application of correct principles - something it takes far more than simple "education" to achieve.

I don't equate anything on the left to be either "wise" or "virtuous" because the principles of the left violate the principles of reality and promote further ignorance! The left not only does not learn from the mistakes of the past (classic example: socialism) but they refuse to admit that the principles of reality are not subject to their own whims and desires. They are enemies of truth and one can not acquire wisdom or act virtuously in any other way than the defense of and adherence to truth.

Nazism and communism are two sides of the same coin.

The methods are identical.

History is a set of lies agreed upon ~ Napoleon Bonaparte. History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there ~ George Santayana.
History at best is a report that was often written by the court apologists and is oft interpreted to be an account of men with almost infallible virtue. When you study what the men who signed The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution it won't take long to realize that most used very convincing arguments for freedom as long as they were the ones in charge of determining exactly what that freedom would mean. When asked after succeeding with the revolution to make all men free if any would release their slaves they scoffed at the idea. Although they may have got some things right in how to sell the idea of government to the people they now claimed the right to govern they were quickly trying to find ways to benefit from being in the position of authority.
I have used an example of religion when discussing politics with religious people, I construe the bible stories into a current vernacular as though I am talking about current states or governments and religious people are quick to point out the immoralities and inconsistencies, when I reveal that I was talking about a particular personage in the bible they suddenly began to rationalize how it was okay then because it was what God wanted and somehow being immoral was how morality was attained.
How this relates to history is that we need to be very careful about deifying those who had anything to do with the government and its construction, or any history. Instead of analyzing history if we are to maintain good moral standards we need to rationally identify the standards and use them in our lives, not quote (usually misquoting) someone who has been deified as justification for the acceptance of a moral standard to live by.
As far as the current example of southern vs northern, there were good and bad on both sides and the killing of 650,000 was unnecessary to eliminate slavery (which the constitution did not allow) and was more about the power of the federal government to maintain an authority over the states that was not granted by the constitution. Lincoln even conceded in his writings that it was not about slavery as much as the Federal Governments power to ensure that the states were not sovereign. As Lysander Spooner put it; "Lincoln won the war, freed the chattel slaves and made political slaves of everyone!"

History is constantly being rewritten, by the victors of physical or political conflict. The most grievous form of rewriting is by omission. While Confederate military leaders are reviled for their ownership of slaves, you have to hunt to discover that Union General Ulysses T Grant did not release his own slaves until after the conflict was over. While Union General William Tecumseh Sherman is praised for his swift, efficient March to the Sea campaign that destroyed Confederate morale, you have to read the journals of the Prussian observers to discover the war crimes he committed. The Prussians learned how to commit atrocities from Sherman's practice of executing ten southern civilians for every Union soldier killed by rebel partisans, an act they repeated during both world wars.

The dictatorial acts of President Woodrow Wilson have been hidden from schoolchildren for decades, only now being "discovered" by investigative historians. It's still not easy to uncover the executive actions by FDR that make anything Trump has proposed look innocent by comparison.

Details of the JFK assassination that were supposed to be declassified by now, are still under wraps. We have to wonder if it's less about exposing living people, and more about inherent corruption in our intelligence apparatus.

The truth is out there, but it takes dedicated digging to find it. With today's alternate news pathways, we should make a determined effort to be sure the truth is made available to those who seek it.

I would say that none of the founding fathers were perfect in every way, and the current leftist witch hunting could bring them all down.

When you let the tiger out of the cage, it can bite YOU too. I hope the leftists get slammed by the same witch hunting that they are involved in.

when I was in first grade, the schools in NYC were called PS-XXX. That seemed ok with me, and would work well now in this age of censorship.

yeah

History is history and cannot and should not be "changed". It was what it was, good or bad.

As a Southerner who has always enjoyed studying Southern history and tradition, this is especially relevant to me. The ongoing effort by liberals to eradicate any reference to the Confederacy and blacken the names of anyone associated with it greatly disturb me. The Civil
War occurred and should be studied from both the Northern and Southern viewpoint. Great leaders like Robert E. Lee can still be studied and even honored even if one disagrees with the Southern cause. I have no problem honoring great Northern leaders like Ulysees S. Grant. The removal of the Confederate statue honoring students that fought in the Civil War from the UNC campus is another example of this historical purge by the left. One sadly wonders where all the evil will end.

The article is indeed dis-spiriting. However, I disgree with its basic tenet. This is why.

The Constitution "counter-revolution" traded out small govt for large govt. It was a risk, and included (essentially) one provision to ensure that we, as individuals, had final say. The FFs gambled that individuals - not The People - would take up the defense. They did not.

The vital power was, is, the power of the purse. As long as individuals do not understand income taxation and continue to mis-file (in nearly all circumstances, by filing a Form 1040) then individuals will continue to cede the most powerful control against the shenanigals and power accumulations the article presents.

note bene - This isn't anything radical, like not filing, going to jail &c. I posit that the simple action of filing a CORRECT return lassos all of the nonsense.

"Washington, Jefferson, etc...all are under scrutiny and are at risk of having their statues and monuments and having the schools named in their honor renamed"
That would be a travesty, given their accomplishments. I love utopian sci-fi stories in which smart people risk their lives and wealth to build a society using nerdy philosophical ideas that seem like impractical idealistic theories. In some stories that isolation and liberty cause them to create technologies that create more material value, not just personal liberty, than seemed possible. It's like how the residents of KSR's Red Mars cure aging. That's the kind of story the founders of the US started.

"By whose measure are things legitimized? Who sets the standard?"
I suppose it's up to each generation to figure it out. It's the wrong question to ask if historical figures are good or evil. We need to look at actions. Maybe we shouldn't have statues of people in a land the values reason and law. I'm categorically against tearing them down though. We should be intelligent enough to know we can view history as "great people" or "trends and forces", and that weighing the overall merit of a historical figure is a flawed activity.

Spot on.

The left never wanted enlightenment and with the help of CINOs they have succeeded in enslaving the American people to the dark side.
Enlightenment lives in the Gulch, not in the state.

CG, That's the thing entirely and it exemplifies the problem.. it is not what we think that matters. It was and is always what those groups believe of themselves and their causes (that they are supremely virtuous) that causes them to act with such zeal and conviction in committing atrocities.

Washington, Jefferson, etc...all are under scrutiny and are at risk of having their statues and monuments and having the schools named in their honor renamed by contemporary brown shits acting out of a profound belief in the righteousness of their causes. It started with Confederates but the sanitizing according to "virtuous" standards set by this generation are focusing more an more on the Framers and those who erected universities. When does it end? By whose measure are things legitimized? Who sets the standard?

It is exactly what the article is about.

"dark age virtuous catholics, the virtuous communists and virtuous islamists."
We're using a different definition of virtue. I find nothing virtuous in communism or religious extremism.

"Removing any reminder of our past, even honoring that memory of those we disagree with but overcame to make us better, "
That what what I was saying about George Washington. He helped realize what must have seemed like a fantasy until it happened. It would be foolish not recognize his achievements because he didn't take the next steps forward.

Defacement and ignorance of the past will surely cause them to repeat that same history they hate so much...Is it me or does it sound like the Spanish Inquisition all over again? (yes, it was about power and so it is today)

I get Imprimis, but thanks for posting, I hadn't had the chance to read it.