Hi again, folks!
This is another quick FYI. As always, I will post here whenever an article in my Eccentric Entries blog is appropriate for Uncommon Comments.
The article in Eccentric Entries concerns the new "Black Lightning" TV show and how it resonates with me. It is not for those who are easily offended or who subscribe to simplistic answers to complex problems. Click this and find out why!
The overall blog is located here. There are many articles to choose from. Visit often!
Once again, I expect to return to this mostly political blog in the near future.
All the best,
This is just a quick FYI. I posted an article in my Eccentric Entries blog about Oprah Winfrey and just how much socialism a president could introduce to the USA.
So, what's to stop a "President Oprah" from turning us into a wholly socialist nation? Read and found out! Click this and prepare to be stunned!
The overall blog is located here. There are many articles to choose from. Visit often!
Again, I expect to return to this mostly political blog in the near future.
All the best,
I realize there is much to discuss about the world, but I need time to move forward with an important, yet wholly unrelated task. Therefore, I must reluctantly step away for the time being. However, as General MacArthur stated, "I shall return!"
Blog update: This continues to be a not-so-great time for the Viverette family. Not only do we have a beloved household member going in-and-out of intensive care, I have suffered an injury to my rib cage that makes breathing a challenge. My injury has only become worse with time and I can barely move, and that's despite allowing much time and the use of heating pads to work some magic. It is with great reluctance that I state my expectation to see a doctor no later than tomorrow.
In the meantime, this month's entry is delayed. It's not for lack of trying, I assure you. I'm just having a Hell of time trying to focus from within the recent upheaval that now exists within our family dynamic and from my own painful inability to move and breathe.
I'll keep you posted.
Praying for a president to fail is the same as praying for the country to fail because the president sets our national direction. It's very much like cheering for the captain of a ship to run his vessel into an iceberg, but the last time I checked we were in America and not aboard the Titanic. Unfortunately for us all, America is stubbornly charging forward on a certain path of destruction despite warnings to the contrary, much as the Titanic raced at full speed into tragedy despite warnings against doing so.
The celebrated racial "melting pot" that is America is not enough for some people. Instead, they seem to find the realities of race too daunting to dare face with accuracy and care. Even today, decades after Mickey Rooney's ill-advised and horribly stereotypical turn as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), there remains a real problem with the accurate portrayal of race in America as applies to real individuals.
The day I first noticed that the preceding existed as something wrong in our nation directly relates to the most tragic day in modern American history: September 11th, 2001. The horrific events of that day shaped the America in which we live today, yet amidst the televised images of Islamic terror in America came the image of Americans emerging from tragedy to raise Old Glory within the pit of destruction that was the World Trade Center. Three men, all white, took a moment to express what all Americans felt that day, that we would stand strong as a nation and defy those who would bring terror to our shores. It was a moment of resistance frozen forever in time, preserved for the ages thanks to nearby photographers. Why, then, did the proposed statue of the firemen present them as black, Latino, and white? Was the photo not clear enough? Did the sculptor wear sunglasses while preparing? Was there some valid reason why the races of the firefighters were to be changed in the artwork? The sad answer is "no," for satisfying the nebulous requirements of the "politically correct" push for multiculturalism does not constitute a true rationale.
It's November. Now that the General Election is over and all the dust has settled, I have resumed blogging from within the unified land of peace and tranquility that is our sedate American nation. Gone is the old America, Obama's America, the land of vague and largely unfulfilled promises of nebulous "change" and "hope," blown away in its entirety by a raging storm of disaffection that grew from within the nation's heartland and which surged across the country as an electoral hurricane of epic proportions. The existence of the storm and its aftermath are both things the slanted liberal media failed to predict, for in the eternal left turn that is the mainstream media, a rightwards twist is accountable only in the form of navigational error. Yet happen it did, and America is now facing a plethora of "What Will Donald Do?" (WWDD) questions regarding every functional aspect of our Federal Government and the affect to be had on each and every nuance of American life.
Hello, dear readers!
This is just a reminder that Uncommon Comments will remain on hiatus until November 2016, and perhaps longer. In the interim, please give yourselves some time to review the candidates running for President of the United States. I strongly urge you to make an informed and conscientious decision!
"Vote your conscience," Ted Cruz said during the Republican National Convention. Shortly after saying those words Ted Cruz became many things: a GOP pariah, a vanquished spoiler, and most of all, he became the bravest man on the planet. Given the extremist nature of today's electorate, he knew he would be vilified for refusing to endorse a man against whom he exchanged every slight imaginable in pursuit of the nation's highest office. He knew he was driving his political career onto the rocks when he refused to explicitly state his support for the wildly popular Donald John Trump. He knew that standing up for his family would garner him not the respect of the otherwise "family values" GOP, but its bitterest enmity. "Vote your conscience," Ted Cruz said as he refused to genuflect before the Trump juggernaut. He knew his stance could lead to his political destruction, yet Cruz stood firm and spoke his conscience.
Despite his rapid vilification at the hands of the GOP faithful, the words of Ted Cruz ring just as true for the Democrats as they do for the party of Lincoln given the Democrats committed acts that greatly exceed the bounds of mere insults. No, their actions were absolutely treasonous. The Democrats set out to nullify voter intent and anoint Hillary from the start, so if a truly great candidate had emerged from the traveling freakshow that was the noxious field of Democrat challengers, that person would not have been able to win due to the vote-rigging of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, all those who actively performed a year-long act of vote tampering, and all those who gave (and currently still give) their tacit approval of such illegality.
In a bold act of national self-determination, voters within the United Kingdom bravely wrested control of their nation's destiny away from the European Union in a recent election. They became greatly incensed by the waves of illegal Middle Eastern immigrants entering their nation, the voters of the UK chose to reject the EU as was their right, and in doing so they rid themselves of the EU’s failed control over the immigration policy of their sovereign nation. Britain’s striking action of disassociation against the EU should serve as an example to other nations, states, and territories that are encumbered by corrupt and ineffective parent governments.
In regards to the UK, the EU's own regulations damned the partnership with Britain to failure. The following is excerpted directly from the EU’s own guidelines and illustrates the failure of the EU perfectly:
My dear New York Democrats, I ask you to remember that Republicans (like me) and Independents can't vote in your upcoming Primary. It is up to you to cast your vote responsibly. Are you going to give the lying populist named "Hillary Clinton" our state's blessing to continue her campaign of deception? Are you going to be part and parcel to her march to power?
It's not that this candidate is a woman. The fact that she is and trades on it shows how shallow her campaign truly is. No, it's about issues, facts, and truth, not gender. We should all feel free to vote against her despite this candidate's absolutely false claims that failing to support her is a blow against women. The truth is, voting against her strikes a blow for a better America as a whole. The last time I checked, "America as a whole" includes women.
Could you vote for a purported "champion of minorities" who casually makes statements that invoke the worst of black stereotypes and then rests easy while the Democrat machine shields her from the inevitable fallout? Hillary committed yet another verbal gaffe recently when she and NY Mayor Bill DeBlasio conducted a "comedy" skit in which they referred to the alleged tardiness of blacks via the derogatory term "C.P. Time" (Colored People's Time). Since the pair has seemingly forgotten the scope and usage of basic English, I'll explain it to them: Words have meaning, and the meaning of words--especially offensive ones--does not change or lose impact when spoken by certain groups. "Colored People" is an old and offensive term, as is the N-word and other slurs against blacks. However, Mrs. Clinton benefits from a Democrat-based double standard that fosters the idea that (A) all Democrats are fair and color-blind and (B) that slurs, when spoken both incorrectly and exclusively by minorities, are perfectly acceptable.
The Democrats performed this sleight of hand by not rallying its usual troops of activists and slanted media against the use of the slurs in the above manner. That is, if the N-word was in wide public use by Caucasians, the Dems would decry its use as proof of a GOP conspiracy and spread fear within minority communities. However, since minorities are largely the ones publicly using slurs about themselves in self-destructive fashion, the Democrats simply ignore the issue as to keep the fatted calf that is their most dependable voting bloc placated. The end result is that the Dems foster the perception that they are the champions of the minority community, but actions from prominent Dems such as Mrs. Clinton belie their words.
Hillary is typical of Democratic candidates and the party as a whole. They excel in lumping groups together so they can pander to, frighten, or misdirect target demographics en masse. So, don't be a lemming. Don't vote for Hillary. Don't reward the most visible Democrat on Earth for her party's duplicity. Don't join the herd in jumping off a cliff. Ask yourself: Do I really want to empower a lying Dixiecrat who lacks sufficient political adeptness to avoid being caught in her own duplicity? Do I really want to reward someone who continues to place herself above the law? Do I really want to vote for a candidate who's backed by the very people she claims she's pledged to fight against? Do I want to vote for a candidate who belittles the very people she claims to champion?
For the sake of this nation, I hope your answer is no.
Fidel Castro remains one of the most despicable human beings on Earth. Though he is no longer the official despot-in-charge of the nation of Cuba, he remains both the greatest symbol and the ultimate cause of his country's decline. As the father of the deprecated nation of Cuba, any comment from him remains as notable to Cubans as would a comment from George Washington be to an American. However, unlike Washington, Castro fathered a dictatorship with Communist trappings, and he subjugated the very people he swore to liberate.
His recent rant against closer ties between America and Cuba shows that even in advanced age and failing health, his number one concern for Cuba remains his anti-Western beliefs. He desires conflict, acrimony, and continued struggle against America, and perhaps in doing so he feels a youthful surge brought on by remembrances of revolutionary days long past. In truth, the world continued to spin after the Cuban Revolution and it continued to spin after he stepped down from his post as leader of the island, but he sees not the world's progress, but a continuance of the world as it was when he was in his prime. In his mind America is still the enemy, the Missiles of October are coming back, and the Bay of Pigs is to be defended again. Damn that John F. Kennedy!
Fidel Castro thus exemplifies two of man's less-desirable tendencies: the refusal of change and the acceptance of failure. The world changed, he failed his country, and Obama has proceeded without the consent of the former leader, as is correct. Fidel is an echo of the past. Obama and Raoul Castro are opening a door to Cuba's future. I can only hope their door leads to a future Cuba far removed from Fidel's concept of a better nation.
Some people will look at the above and fail to understand the per-party history of racism in the US. Yes, the KKK started as a Democrat terrorist organization and remained so well into the Civil Rights era. However, since the 1960s its membership is mostly composed of racist Republicans (not ALL Republicans) and racist Democrats as exemplified by Dixiecrats Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, and others. FYI, Bill and Hillary Clinton are typical Dixiecrats in that they've insulted blacks as much as any rightfully vilified Klansman, but then they have the impertinence to turn to the insulted blacks and say, "Vote for me!" That's when two things happen: I watch my fellow black people vote for them time after time like mindless drones, then I become violently ill and throw up.
Neither party is angelic and neither party is demonic, so casting a wide net and labeling every Democrat or every Republican as either a Godsend or a curse is wholly inaccurate. The truth is simple: If nothing is getting better in our communities, if promises are made then broken with each election, if local elected officials spend not one dime of the community affairs money they are allotted on the communities they are supposed to serve, then why the hell are we putting the elected officials in predominantly black areas (normally Democrats) back in office every election? Try to find a qualified member of the opposing party, but if you can't find one or if you just can't stomach voting for a member of that party, you can support independent candidates. Independents can win if enough people get tired of playing the two-party tango and vote to make a difference, a real and positive difference, in our communities.
Don't vote in accordance with tradition for that favors established norms, and that means the established presence of the Dems and the GOP. It is time to shake off the yoke of established voting patterns and express our hard-won right to vote in new and daring ways. Use truly informative sites (not sites for punditry or outright propaganda) to learn who wants your vote, who is backing them, how accurate their claims are, and how strongly they've adhered to their stated beliefs. If you do that, then you'll find many surprises in the current crop of presidential candidates.
Our nation is at a crossroads. We must ensure the course we set is not just a new one--it must the the right one.
I have to ask if Black Lives Matter believes that black lives matter only when police are involved. As a black man, I understand the initial aim of the movement--to promote that the loss of black lives to police aggression is a sign that the lives of blacks are held in extremely low regard by law enforcement--but what about the rate of black-on-black murder that makes it appear that we don't give two sh*ts about the lives of our own kind?
Make a statement about this, people. Hold a rally. Encourage life. Expand your position to explain how Black Lives Matter is meant as a call to peaceful and lawful action against police abuses and perhaps incorporate the need for blacks to respect each other's lives as well. Acknowledge that each and every human life on this Earth is precious, and that your specific area of concentration is on the preservation and re-valuation of black lives.
Who knows? Perhaps that is on the agenda. I can only hope that it is and they close this gap in their message even as they are expanding to address matters of importance to the LGBT community and others. Black Lives Matter is a decentralized movement in that it is chapter-based, so we'll have to wait and see if the gap is eventually shut across the diffuse and diverse organization.
Beyond the actions taken by the Black Lives Matter movement, I can only wonder what the mainstream media--especially the conservative media--finds so distasteful about the ever-growing movement itself such that Right-wing pundits often fly into a rage upon its mention. Do they not understand that the Black Lives Matter movement was never about de-valuing the lives of non-blacks as much as it was initially about the specific concern I mentioned above? Are they truly that dense or is theirs a pretext of some kind?
It is a mystery. Yet I must remind everyone that the actions of Black Lives Matter at political events and their formerly narrow focus merely follows the lead of a previously successful group that vociferously campaigned for change, held protest marches, and interrupted presidential candidates--a group whose disruptive actions and stated beliefs were defended, and even championed, by powerful conservatives.
A group called the Tea Party.
Conservatives favored the Tea Party, itself an organization that started out in a manner similar to Black Lives Matter, though with much greater financial backing. Conservatives helped give birth to the Tea Party, they enabled it, and they helped it grow. Given the similar origins of Black Lives Matter and the Tea Party, I again wonder if the conservative backlash against Black Lives Matter is in response to the things Black Lives Matter has done in following the Tea Party's lead or something Black Lives Matter has yet to do (such as I illustrated above).
In examining why Black Lives Matter is so vilified by the conservative media, I have gained a new understanding of it as an (allegedly) decentralized grassroots organization fighting for the beliefs of many on a state-by-state basis, much as the Tea Party fought for the beliefs of a like-minded political body. That I disagree with their methods, their linkage to Black Liberation Movement, their admiration of "Assata Shakur" (alias the cop-killer former known as Joanne Chesimard) does not change the fact that Black Lives Matter is the embodiment of many freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, just as the Tea Party has purported to be from the start. Amazingly, the more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that Black Lives Matter, by virtue of their strategies and narrow focus, is the child of the Tea Party.
Conservatives birthed the Tea Party, and the limited scope and disruptive tactics of that movement were appropriated by Black Lives Matter. In the strangest and most unexpected of ways, Conservative activists are at least partially responsible for inspiring the creation of the ultra-liberal, pro-black, pro-LGBTQ, Black Lives Matter movement.
There once was a candidate running for the office of President of the United States who traversed this great nation from coast to coast, drawing throngs of onlookers and supporters wherever he appeared. He spoke to the country about its fears, its aspirations, its recently troubled past, and its very uncertain future in orations that were at once fiery, yet comforting. And he did all of that without uttering one syllable of detail about how he would address the country's many issues and move us to a secure future.
The year was 2008. The candidate was Barack Obama. During the Democratic primaries, the neophyte senator from Illinois crisscrossed America and spoke in the most general of terms to all who would hear him. He pioneered the art of insubstantial oratory and proved that specifics are but a minor concern when one is able to mesmerize an audience and the media with a strong presence and fantastic oratory skills. Watching Obama command a gathering was like turning back time and watching Ivan Pavlov make his dogs salivate on command. For those who didn't see him at the time, let me assure you--he was that good.
As we know, Senator Barack Obama became President Barack Obama, and he did it by campaigning on a platform of nebulousness, of vaporous statements and insubstantial utterances. The Democratic machine sensed that the presidency could be recaptured and he was thus embraced by the Party faithful despite his lack of substance. To be fair, candidate Hillary Clinton was equally non-specific, but she did not have Obama's speech-making brilliance. She did, however, have an utterly creepy knack for pointing and waving to imaginary persons around her whenever she walked forward to speak. Vacuous and JFK-esque eventually won out over vacuous and creepy, so with the former in office we again have a candidate who is a powerful speaker, yet whose diatribe is utterly vacuous.
Democrats, meet candidate Donald Trump. Meet a man who espouses "Hope and Change" as much as candidate Obama did, complete with a lack of information about how Hope would be met and Change would be achieved. Trump is the Conservative Obama in this instance, an excellent speaker whose passionate oratory addresses hearts, but whose lack of detail leaves the mind wanting. I am puzzled, then, as to why Democrats vilify Trump for following a playbook that was perfected by the current Democratic president and one of the two current Democratic front-runners. The likely answer, of course, is fear. Fear that Trump--the unapologetic anti-Muslim Birther and nativist--could follow the Democratic playbook and return the presidency to the GOP. If so, then I wonder if the gods of the Democratic Party will blame the People for falling for such tactics again or shame themselves for perfecting the tactics in the first place.
Sarah Palin is right.
Not once did I ever think I would state such a thing, but the former governor of Alaska is correct in her belief that English should be the official language of the United States. Yes, I know all of the less-than-positive things that are often said of the former VP candidate. Yes, I know of her public gaffes. Yes, I know, I know, I know....
The fact is, however, that Sarah Palin (yes, her, the woman who shoots animals from a helicopter) is absolutely correct in her assertion in this matter. She made her assertion on Sunday, August 6th of this year, and for me that was a red-letter day, for that that was the day I found myself in agreement with the Sarah Palin. We need to mandate English. Now. To put it bluntly, America is on a strong, steady course towards becoming a modern analogue to the Tower of Babel as every language on Earth is in use here in the United States, and each is as legally viable in all matters as any other. While such a situation provides a sense of egalitarianism to the speakers of the various non-English languages, I argue that their very presence as equal tongues within our nation only serves to divide us.
Let us consider that the United Kingdom includes England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland--each a formerly independent nation with its own national and historical languages. For England, the primary language is, of course, English, but the Welch and Cornish languages are also spoken. As for Scotland, as part of the UK it also has English as its national language, but the use of the original Scots language and Scottish Gaelic (an offshoot from old Irish languages) remain in use as well. In Wales, the languages are English and Welch, and in Northern Ireland the languages are English, Irish, and Ulster Scots (a dialect of the Scots language). At the time of the American Revolution, most of the modern UK was in place, meaning Redcoats, British Loyalists, Colonial Militia, and British Americans alike had roots deeply planted into England, Wales and Scotland. For us, that means our Founding Fathers not only spoke with a British accent, there is an excellent chance that some spoke with a Welch, Cornish, or Scottish lilt as well.
So what does this have to do with America? Everything. From the beginning, America was a nation of many languages, yet the Founding Fathers created The Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, and the United Stated Constitution in English. It makes sense that a nation whose early flag included the Union Jack (of that time) would follow established UK practices, not the least of which is the expectation of a national language without the official declaration of one. That is, the use of English in the United Kingdom is a de facto standard, not a de jure requirement, meaning there is no law, decree, or other document which requires its people to speak English. However, they just do. Until recently, the expectation of a national language saved the UK from being a nation of multiple tongues and sub-tongues, and it enabled the Government and the People to communicate in a single manner, thus eliminating the confusion that often comes with massive amounts of translation. (Click here and here for a few hilarious examples.)
Historically, the use of the English language is as expected of Britons, Irish, Welsh, and Scottish as breathing air or drinking water. It is therefore very reasonable to believe that the Founders likely assumed the use of English to merely be part of Natural Law, the basic tenets of which form the underpinnings of our Constitution. With English long established as an intrinsic element of everyday living within the United Kingdom and its colonies, the Founders likely saw no need to formally state that which was known across the land, that English was the natural language to be used.
I will not employ any euphemisms in this post. I want it to be perfectly understood that mankind’s trusted “common body of knowledge” is both a sick joke and a barely-there thing of an overwhelmingly ephemeral nature. As I see it, the damned thing is a dismal, incomplete collection of dim remembrances, half-truths, and folklore-turned-fact that becomes inserted into the collective American consciousness through repetition. And when I say repetition, I mean the kind like the “Columbus set sail to America prove the world was round” kind of repeated misinformation. He was looking for a new route to India, not looking to discover some "new world". In truth, the Vikings and Asians already found what would later be called "the Americas" long before the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria went sailing around the Caribbean. Only recently has the above correction begun to creep into the popular consciousness, thus showing how in retelling that which is incorrect again and again, fable becomes fact while fact becomes corrupted or forgotten.
Speaking of fact, it is an unquestionable that the general population tends to know of the extremes of a given type of incident or element of an event, but few are aware of other events that, while not quite as spectacular, devastating, or salacious as the better-known events, are nonetheless possessed of their own elements of courage, sadness, triumph, and bitter tragedy. This is the critical point where truth pivots toward lesser things. It is not only the exact point where the failures of the common body of knowledge become apparent, it is where our own desire and ability to be informed fails us as well, and where true knowledge should not only begin, it is where common knowledge should end. Unfortunately for us all, it does not.
There are many instances which illustrate the fallacy that is common knowledge. Let us consider the common knowledge about troubled painter Vincent Van Gogh (1853 - 1890). According to popular lore he cut off his entire right ear, but in reality, Van Gogh cut off his right ear lobe, not his entire ear. However, common knowledge demands the depiction of Van Gogh in the mass media with a large bandage on his head, presumably to cover his presumedly severed ear.
With Ben Carson addressing #BlackLivesMatter (and being dead-on with his assessment), I thought it was time to present a refresher on what "Black Lives Matter" was initially about. First off, it is NOT about valuing the lives of blacks above all others. The hashtag is "BlackLivesMatter", not "#ONLYBlackLives..." Next, it IS about reminding society in general (and the police forces, DA's, courts who are supposed to protect ALL) that we ARE human beings and as human beings OUR LIVES DO MATTER.
The above video from YesterVid features too many goodies to accurately list. I found the following to be of note:
“Ferguson”. The one word everyone else is talking about here in the US, yet I've found that few whites and blacks are discussing the issue together.
Personally, as I see others outside of my race talking about the incidents in Ferguson, Missouri, none of them, not even those I know, seek to bring me into their conversations on the subject. I hear words like "Ferguson," "shoot," "thug," "Wilson" and "Brown," so I know what's being discussed. I draw near and...
Sad, but true. It's clear that we fell for "the black JFK" image. We fell for the image of a dynamic leader. Instead, we got the reality of a black Jimmy Carter. I recall how Bill and Hill Clinton raked Obama over the coals on a daily basis during the 2008 Primaries and he always failed to respond. That's not class, that's being a pushover. It foreshadowed the presidency of a man who, when called upon to lead as he was by many during the crisis in Ferguson, MO, retreated into the world of useless rhetoric.
Pres. Obama has never been forceful or combative, never held persons accountable to the point where they were terminated for gross screw-ups (Kathleen Sebelius and Eric Shinseki, for starters), and worst of all, he squandered the first 2 years in office when he had both houses of Congress in Democratic control! He could have passed anything, done anything, and stressed anything at that point. Instead, he did ... nothing. Oh, there were TV appearances galore and "Cash for Clunkers" (a sign that his allegiance to environmental concerns outweighed his concern for economic stability), but he did nothing of substance and led the Dems to defeat in the 2010 mid-terms.
Finally, after losing the full support of Congress, he has repeatedly claimed that he can't get anything done due to GOP obstructionism. While that's true, he should be held accountable for the lack of progress that accompanied his first two years in office. Had he done something then, had he taken the reins of power and steered the ship of State like a true leader, then it all could have turned out differently. Who knows? He might even have developed enough of a backbone to address the situation in Missouri as a forceful leader, not a meek community activist.
Sadly, it didn't.
This is the scariest, sickest cartoon I've ever seen! It is from some of the evil, warped, sick, twisted, diseased minds in Nazi Germany during WWII. They used warped images of then-popular American cartoon characters (Goofy, Felix the Cat, Popeye the Sailor, Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse) and the worst Jewish stereotype imaginable to demoralize the French and demonize America.
This, people, is how evil sees what others perceive to be innocent cartoon characters. We can't forget what they did. They killed. 6 million plus -- dead. Entire countries left in ruins. Attempted genocide in assembly-line fashion. Sickening. If the Nazis won, then every non-Aryan would be dead today. (By definition, few or none of the Nazi high command were Aryans, but then again, they were too bat-sh*t crazy to notice.)
So, why do I feature this animated short? Because the Nazis of yesteryear are brothers and sisters in thought and deed with the hatemongers of today. The only thing standing between them and widespread hatred are masses of decent people made aware of their sickness.
History. It's more than just past events -- it's a warning for today.
I have removed many from my FB "friends" list over the past year. Just this week I removed someone because they spoke of their love of being a Redneck complete with a Confederate battle flag! And that's the way it's been for all "unfriended". Anti-Obama comments relating him/his wife/kids to apes, references to "sand ni99ers", and comments against the President that are based on racial hatred.
The views and opinions in this site are strictly those of the author,