Martin & John, but not Barack
I am a conservative independent. Two men I admire are John Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Both had visions of one nation, under God, no matter what color.
Both felt it was up to all individuals to better themselves and be part of one great country and to do not only for yourself, but for your country.
Both felt no one should stand by with his hand out, but should set a goal and work to achieve it. Both were godly men opposed to violence.
Kennedy and King told us that when you look at a person, you should not see color. I feel all Obama can see is color.
Our current leader is the opposite of these two great men. We have crimes committed every minute, every day, but the only crimes President Obama spoke on national TV about was when a white policeman arrested a black man for breaking into his own house with a crow bar and a Hispanic man who shot and killed a black teen.
In Chicago, Obama's hometown, more people have been killed this year than American soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Obama wants this country run like his beloved Chicago.
Obama lovers won't have to worry about him having a job when he leaves office. There is always room on the bus with Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson that travels the country causing racial trouble.
Until we rid the country of this kind of man, we will never have the dream world that John and Martin envisioned.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- ‘Food fight’ lamentable
- It’s not personal
- Unhappy returns
- UMW fighting EPA regulations
- Cockpit safety stalled