Michael Brown: Gunned down in Cold blood or Justified Killing?

Ferguson, Missouri is the new focal point of racial tensions. The issue at hand is the death of Michael Brown at the hands of Ferguson Police Office Darren Wilson. Facebook, Twitter, and the media has been all over this story with speculation on what took place. Instead of allowing the investigation to play out, the typical race baiting machine - Rev. Al & New Black Panthers - show up to stir the pot. To make matters worse, the city is put on curfew after several nights of looting and rioting.

No one is willing to take a breath and allow the facts to sort themselves out. After discussing this on Facebook with others and reading media reports we do know certain indisputable facts. The facts that no one is disputing are:

1.  FPD Wilson approached Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson as they were walking in the middle of the street to ask them to get out of the street.
2. After passing Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson, FPD Wilson hears on the radio a description of two people involved in a strong-arm robbery earlier in the day.
3. FPD Wilson believes Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson fit that description and backs up his vehicle to investigate further.
4. Struggle ensued in/near the FPD vehicle between FPD Officer Wilson and Michael Brown.
5. Shot was fired in the vehicle.
6. Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson fled on foot.
7. FPD Officer Wilson got out of the car to pursue.
8. FPD Officer Wilson order Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson to "Freeze".
9. Michael Brown turned around.
10. Michael Brown was shot multiple times being hit six times with all bullets entering the body from the front.
11. Michael Brown was killed with final bullet to head.

The rest of the conversation is speculation. The big question that remains is: Was Michael Brown standing still with his hands raised as some eyewitnesses claim or Was Michael Brown running at FPD Wilson as some eyewitnesses claim. The answer to this question will determine the course of action taken against FPD Wilson.

For society, did we learn nothing from the Martin/Zimmerman case? That we need to allow the facts to come out before we rush to judgment. Please let's all take a step back, a deep breath and stop passing along speculation as fact. A young man is dead, families are grieving - we owe it to them and society at large to allow the facts to be heard in their entirety before judgment.

Race Relations: Better or Worse under Obama?

Tomorrow President Obama will be giving a speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on race. Since Sen. Obama became President Obama race has been a hot topic for many in the media and even those on social media as well. Originally, many viewed the election of Sen. Obama to the Presidency of the United States as a positive step toward improved race relations in the United States. Star Parker wrote, Racial Divide Worse Under Obama, initially, "There was exhilaration that the nightmare was over- finally. That wrongs have been righted, that we can get on with America's business without the ongoing issue of race looming, and that we can stop looking at blacks politically as a special class of Americans."

Star Parker was on to something here. America had elected its first black President four years prior to were piece. The trouble is the election didn't bring forth the calming aspect Parker, and others, wished for; rather it armed the media with a new talking point - race. From the time that Sen. Obama was elected President, those that oppose President Obama's ideals for America have been labeled racist. Granted there are parts of America that still harbor deep seated racist thoughts and that is not something that will completely go away.

At the same time, as Star Parker had hoped that "we can stop looking at blacks politically as a special class of Americans" the media did just that. Anytime a black politician or candidate for office voiced an opposing view of President Obama's agenda - the media and more specifically social media - labeled them as an Uncle Tom. How does that promote race relations?

In a recent town hall in New York President Obama answered a professor's question by saying, "Fifty years after the March on Washington and the 'I Have a Dream' speech, obviously we have made enormous strides. I'm a testament to it, you're a testament to it, the diversity of this room and the students who here are a testament to it. And that impulse toward making sure everybody gets a fair shot is one that found expression in the civil rights movement and then spread to include Latinos and immigrants and gays and lesbians." Now, on social media when one invokes the "I Have a Dream" speech and the famous lines where Martin Luther King implores America to view people not based on the color of their skin rather on the merit of their character by any white person that person is persecuted by many in the black community.

Why is it so wrong for people of all color to invoke those sacred words of MLK? Is it not better for America, better for race relations that we all have a common theme, a common thread from which to weave the future? MLK nailed it. Unfortunately we have failed. We can point fingers to the past all we want.

Governor Bobby Jindal recently wrote an Op-Ed for Politico, The End of Race, where he points out that, "Racism is one of the more tragic features of the human condition. Like greed, envy and other sins, it has been around for thousands of years, on every continent." Gov. Jindal continues, "Here's what I've found in Louisiana: The voters want to know what you believe, what you stand for, and what your plan to do, not what shade your skin is." Gov. Jindal parents came here from India around the time of MLK's assassination.

Louisiana, the Deep South, voted in Bobby Jindal as Governor of the state. A colored man, a child of immigrants - why? Because of his ideals, his beliefs, his plan - not the color of his skin. Louisiana is the same state that David Duke hails from too.

Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman (CBC), Rep. Marcia Fudge of Ohio stated in response to a question on the trajectory of race relations in Niall Stanage piece Black Lawmakers Lament Flaring of Racial Tensions under Obama, "Right after the election of the president, I would have thought it was going in a positive direction, but I am not so sure anymore."

In the same article, CBC member Rep. Barbara Lee of California said,"The country, for whatever reason, has not confronted race in the way that it should. With stop-and-frisk, and all the issues around income inequality, you really have to wonder [how much things have improved.] But I think a lot of it is to do with the idea that race has been an issue that we can talk about."

Niall Stanage does hit the nail on the head later in the piece when stating, "Put those economic factors together with the high-voltage legal cases on the killing of Trayvon Martin and the curtailment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and it is easy to see why black politicians, and liberals in general, are ambivalent over where things stand." Stanage is guilty of what many in the media and on social media equate - black politician to liberals. Not every black politician is a liberal but as I stated earlier for some reason those black politician's that speak non-liberal talking points are labeled Uncle Toms.

The melting of race today in America is taking place. The Ruling Class understands that if America completes the melting of race into a society of merit of character they have lost control and are in danger of office. It is time for America to embrace MLK and view less on skin tone and more on character. Race relations are in a similar boat that ethnic relations were in Boston, New York and other major cities in the 1800's. It took time for the "Natural Born" citizens to accept the Irish, the Germans, the Swedes, etc...