General Robert E. Lee’s picture has been taken down from many buildings in America, and even plaques in Texas have been removed where he praised the bravery of the Texans.

It is a slippery slope when we start eliminating parts of history we find offensive, and destroying pictures of someone we don’t like.

Ironically, the people insisting Lee’s picture be taken down, are the same ones who support full funding of art work in public museums, no matter how offensive and degrading.

My big question is can people complain about Bill Clinton’s picture being displayed in post offices and other public buildings?

For many, what he stands for is just as offensive and insulting as what they claim Lee stood for. He is a devisive leader who has pit one group of citizens against another and separated himself from the rule of law. What is the difference between Lee and Clinton other than one served with honors in the military and one dodged the draft?

To many, they are both despicable characters.

Should all these people be exposed to their portraits? Yes . . . as a reminder that we still live in a free country full of divergent views . . . lest we forget. This is Nina May . . .still searching for consistency.