Martin Luther King

Just because he is of color doesn't mean our President has anything in common with the brave warrior of freedom and peace, MLK. It is actually an insult to King to spea the name of the current president in the same sentence with his. The overwhelming joy that it brought to people of a darker skin tone than myself actually flys in the face of what King preached. Although, it may be easy to understand giving history, it is not a step in the right direction. What if we don't have another president of color for 50 years? (or more). Given the jubilation seen in November of 2008, it can be assumed that this will be taken as "loss" for colored citizens and show inferiority once again. The contradiction of being overjoyed by a victory just because of a man's skin color (or religion, ect...), because it shows how we have become colorblind as a country is fairly obvious. I may be taking an unpopular stance here, but would it not have been a true sign of how far we have come as a society if him being the first black president was not mentioned or thought of any more than the hair color, height, eye color, shoe size or you name it of past presidents. Could his ideas not be more important, and the fact that he is just like all the other presidents in terms of welfare/warfare, anit-liberty, and socialistic central planning agenda. Which is better, someone who will hurt you and your family but is your race, or a man who has a lighter skin tone but comes in the name of peace and free, voluntary cooperation which you can choose to accept or walk away in peace and live as you choose and leave him to do the same rather some other topic or issue that separated him from the politicians of today coming from his ideas.

Many may disagree, but MLK would have preferred Ron Paul to Barry (or any other candidate of any race who was equally as unqualified). The message and ideas should be what we cheer for and fight against when necessary.