Tired? Or tired of living a lie?

"On Sunday, June 10th, Congressman Jesse L. Jackson,Jr. went on a medical leave of absence and is being treated for exhaustion

Exhaustion? For a part-time job where you collect 150K in salary and are granted all the travel and benefits of a celebrity with no work history to speak of. Tired, from holding a position in congress because of nothing more than being the son of a charlatan who is an alleged “face” of black America? Seems legit (sic).  

Then it dawned on me. Maybe he is tired of being under scrutiny via the House ethics investigation? Could Jesse Jackson’s son be troubled by pesky ethics investigation? I would say the apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree, so that cannot be it. Maybe, just maybe he is literally tired from travel? Jet lag is a real problem and Jesse Jackson Jr has done plenty of travel via paid junkets during his time in DC.

So I took a visit over to Legistorm.com and what I found was pretty telling. Now Jackson’s 58 trips don’t come close to Maxine Waters (who at last count was the leading trip taker with over 100 trips) but I suppose all paid expense trips with a part time gig that pays six-figures can be stressing.

Now what I found interesting when looking over these paid junket trips was that many names on the most traveled list were names from members on the CBC.

If you exclude those congress members that were not holding office for any reason due to things such as election loss, retirement or death; Democrats would make up 20 of 20 in the top trip takers.

Of those Top-20 trip takers, 13 of them are members of the Congressional Black Caucus. That means 2/3 of the Top-20 come from a caucus divided by race that is not only a minority in society but a minority in congress as well, with only 40 members. If the 112 Congress has 435 Representatives and the CBC has 40 members (9%) isn’t 65% of the Top-20 trip takers out of synch statistically?

This Caucus jet sets around the country to allegedly speak about issues pertaining to black people. I suppose that is noble. Is it logical? Not according to the Constitution. After all, are not the members of congress representing a district in a state first and foremost? And if so, are these districts not composed of all types of races and ethnic groups?

How can we understand this idea that elected members of congress only bound by their skin tone, elected from various districts across the country by all types of ethnicity travel all over the country to cater to the ideas and needs of one ethnic group over everyone else actually help the districts they were elected to represent?

I simply cannot understand how this is acceptable.

Unless you have a district composed of 100% Black Americans, its disingenuous to cater to said Black American’s because you represent a district, not an ethnicity. However, if it was entirely made up of black folks; then it’s a different matter. But no district is that way.

For example, if I am white and vote in the 5^th district of Missouri and I voted for Emanuel Cleaver because I am a staunch Democrat; how does he truly represent me? If he is traveling across the country focused on the needs of Black Americans in the state of California, sharing the needs of those in Missouri its obvious he represents the needs of Black Americans in his district but what about everyone else, does he value their needs as well?   

The answer is clear; he doesn’t… well at least not as much as he does those of similar skin tone. And this isn’t just some anecdotal scenario I made up to make my point lacking data; the data is there. The fact is that 13 of the 40 members of the 112th Congressional Black Caucus represented areas where black folks were the minority. So we have 13 members of Congress on the Top-20 traveled list from the 40 member CBC. And 13 of the 40 districts in the CBC are not even black as a majority. This to me is astounding. But what does it all mean?

It means that the Congressional Black Caucus is no different than any other group of collectivists. They are limited by their own narrow definitions that they oppose and because of this opposition it’s ironically what also defines them by default. Where is the outrage? Where is the indignation for a group that is fueled not only by division and bound by their hunger for power and job security? Because remember, if Black Americans no longer voted strictly by race and political affiliations, wouldn’t these “race hustling pimps” be out of a job?

Some absolutely would. So at the end of the day, what works best for “Black America”? The politicians that keep them isolated and divided from other races, as if they can’t do for themselves? Or is it the idea of freedom, the idea that nobody should be judged on their content of their skin but yet the content of their character?

The more social programs and special attention you give to Black Americans the more you ostracize them as a whole. The division that exists in this country whether it is: political, race, religious etc is real but it can all be cured if people chose freedom and held individual liberty above all. The CBC pits race vs race. It attempts to take from one person and give to another in the name of the greater good, even at the expense of the person they are sworn to be helping. There is actual black on black crime and there is this. These are not crimes in the literal sense, but make no mistake; this is a betrayal of the highest order.   

Bring on the Cleaver: the Congressional Black Caucus does what they do best.

The death of Trayvon Martin has divided people in many ways; be it politically, ethnically or racially. The amount of vitriol we have seen regarding this tragedy has only been rivaled by the amount of hyperbole that accompanies it. I have already exposed the racebaiters a few weeks ago, so no need to do that again. This time I want to call out the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). 

Now what happened in that case with Martin and Zimmerman is still pending, so for me to comment would be unfair. I have made comments before regarding this matter and after I took a step back and looked at it from a wide vantage point; I find it’s just not logical to continue to do so until after the case has been closed. With that said, there is no denying people who are profiteers off of segregation have taken the opportunity to do so.

Released in a 4-page resolution this week, sponsored by CBC Chairman Emmanuel Cleaver, the CBC backed resolution calls to address the controversial “stand your ground” law and in that report is also states that Zimmerman used quote:

“unfounded assumptions and racial bias led to the use of deadly force.”

Just one problem Mr Cleaver. We have no basis or evidence that there was racial bias involved. CNN has corrected their version where they had Zimmerman saying “coon” on the 9-11 tapes to now “cold” and NBC blames a terrible edit which made Zimmerman look racist. Other then those now corrected errors, how can we draw an “assumption” or conclude there was “racial bias” involved in this case? How can Zimmerman be described as a racist? We can’t. Being that as it may be, that doesn’t stop members from an organization who lines their pockets via race card games, people who are elected many times due to their race, from using this to maximize political capital.

Let’s just pretend that this racial segregation in the form of representative caucuses is acceptable for a moment. Would it not be understandable to expect elected representatives to at least be representing the views of the dominant ethnicity of their district? Take for example; Maxine Waters, who represents the 35^th district of California. Only 35% of her constituency is black, 47% of it is Hispanic. Why isn’t she in the Hispanic caucus? Or what about Keith Ellison, who has 73% of his district identifying themselves as White?

Out of 40 members that make up the CBC, thirteen of them are representing districts that are not predominantly black. These districts show African Americans being a minority demographic, and in some cases behind both White and Hispanic populations. Yet you have politicians being elected to serve a minority demographic first and foremost, despite the fact that it took the votes from other larger racial demographics to get them elected in the first place.

The most audacious however and symbolic of this utter hypocrisy, is the Chairman of the CBC, Emmanuel Cleaver who sponsored this resolution. Mr Cleaver who has sixty-nine percent of his district being white is rushing to judgment to label this man a racist, even thou there is not information to conclude Zimmerman was what he was being accused of. Again, 69% of Mr Cleavers district is white. Yet he is chair of the Congressional “Black” Caucus, elected out of Missouri and condemning a some random Joe six-pack in Florida, some 1,200 miles away of being... racist?

Mr Zimmerman may or may not be a lot of things. Does he appear to be a creepy guy, a wannabe cop, and reckless… obviously. A murderer? It appears so, but again, the case is still pending. But, a racist? The evidence to this point states he is not and unless there is something totally unforeseen, it appears he is not a guy using “racial bias”. 

Even if CNN and NBC corrected themselves and that may have led some to believe he was a racist, I don’t see anyone from the CBC pulling back their slenderest remarks or resolutions. Ironically, the only thing we can absolutely derive from this event is that the Congressional Black Caucus is build upon segregation, intimidation, collectivism and racism. If anyone should be condemned for relying on "unfounded assumptions", its the CBC. If anyone is guilty of “racial bias” it’s the Congressional Black Caucus.

The pigs are at the Sanford trough

There has been a media firestorm surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin, the 17 year old tragically killed in Florida last month. Martin, who was unarmed and black, was returning home from a 7-Eleven when he was gunned down by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, who is half Spanish and half white, had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. 

Photo from: AP

  

The tragic death of Martin is undeniable. A young man cut down before even reaching the age of adulthood by the hand of an adult, is a tragedy that has a unique sting to it. Anytime a child or teenager is raped or murdered by an adult; it always cuts deeper and this is no exception.  

Now, much of this case is still pending but it appears this was a murder and if it was race motivated or not, is anyone’s guess at this point. The only person that could answer that for certain is Zimmerman and Zimmerman only. If it is in fact a hate crime, then Zimmerman wouldn’t be the first or the last white man to kill a black male. Just as there will be black males who kill white males. 

The motives for individuals involving any violent act have to be taken at a case by case basis. There is crime and murder everyday involving all races in a variety of ways and this will continue happening everyday, until the day every man exists this earth. In fact, the more the population grows, the more tragedies there will be, it's just simple math.

What is interesting to this author, is the relevance of this situation in terms of race and the charge of racism. How often do we look and say that these events that take place so often daily are racially motivated? And if they were, then it would be a racist committing a murder. There is nothing you can do to stop these events from happening; it’s up to each of us individually to do so. 

Racism and terrorism is the necessary evils of a free and open society, it's consequences we have to live with. We don’t have to like it, but it's individual responsibility that will keep them at a minimum, not exclusion and division; they only fuel the fires of the very same things they are against.

However, don’t tell that to those people who make a living off division, collectivism and race baiting that bit; it wouldn’t fit their agenda. And wouldn’t you know it, as soon as this tragedy started to simmer towards a boiling point across the country, the usual suspects had arrived (well at least half anyway) all feasting on this tragedy like pigs at a trough. Under a guise of racial justice, you can’t help but notice the stench of wicked self promotion, racism and cynicism trailing their every move, like freshly flattened skunk; beneath a tire on the road to collectivism.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson Sr have become synonymous, if not the face of every national crime, injustice, slandering etc etc involving a black victim and a white perpetrator or instigator, for the last forty years. Both of their entire careers and livelihood, have been made possible by racism, and the dividing of people based on race and creed. But above all, the creation of national headlines based on isolated incidents, is where their pockets get lined in emerald.

I could understand the national outcry if we were seeing an influx of murders like this happening everywhere but that isn't the case. We live in a country of 300+ million; it’s statistically unavoidable to not have incidents like this happen. Even if this case was involving the grand wizard/master of the KKK, it’s still an isolated incident. One person killing another person isn’t indicative of anything broad or sweeping.

In this case, we have a potential racist who uses self defense and felt his life was in danger even though the kid was unarmed while Zimmerman was. Zimmerman felt fear for his life even as he was following the young man. Pretty damning to me and he should be tried and/or punished accordingly. You also have the police department who didn’t arrest Zimmerman or at the very least detain him for questioning. This is also worth an investigation from local or state authorities. But how this is a national story is beyond me.

Even our own President’s Press Secretary,  Carney said as much earlier this week:

“Our thoughts and prayers go out to Trayvon Martin’s family but obviously, we’re not going to wade into a local law-enforcement matter.”

But that didn’t last long, as we all know by now. The president, true to his populist DNA, flipped the script and appeased to those calling for justice when the media began to run with this story. By doing so he did the exact opposite of what he said (and it was the right thing to do then and now) just days earlier, he waded into it. And why wouldn’t he? A populist running for re-election following the breeze of the assembling masses? Surprise…surprise. Titus Livius said it best:

The populace is like the sea motionless in itself, but stirred by every wind, even the lightest breeze.

Mr. Livius, I would like you to meet our President of the United States, Barack Obama; he is the Pacific Ocean in terms of populace seas. Our President however isn’t a race baiter, he isn’t out to divide anyone more so than any politician is by political nature. Al Sharpton however does not share that trait with our President. These were his quotes this week concerning this tragedy speaking at a rally in Sanford, Florida. Notice the vast amounts of pronouns and the context and which how they are used.

 

“Violence is killing Tray Martin, on’t act like we are the ones [who are] violent. We didn’t shoot nobody.”

“I want our people to understand that how you behave is going to be a reflection on this case”

“[No matter] how angry we get, don’t let them make you act in a way that they will say, ‘see, that’s what to think with Trayvon.’”

“We are going to act intelligent, we going to act dignified. And, we’re going to be determined. We may be angry, but we’re not mad dogs. We’re too smart to fall for [that].”

This is deliberate, divisive language. This is man who’s made a career of divisiveness. Outside of working as James Brown’s manager (that must have been pretty cool to be honest) for a brief stint, what has he done to create anything or provide a service before getting his own show on MSNBC? He’s been a preacher at some point just like Jesse Jackson was and just like Jesse Jackson, he has only made a living creating movements and rallying around isolated incidents to gain national exposure for his own personal gains.

Al Sharpton has appeared on numerous television shows, has tax fines from the IRS and leans, been fined by the FEC for breaking campaign finance rules – the man is opportunist, and a hot mess of greed, corruption and exploitation. I would call him the biggest leech and scourge on the black community but that distinction belongs to Jesse Jackson. Jesse Jackson hasn’t made the trip to Florida from what I have heard as of yet, but he did offer up this tidbit:

"Blacks are under attack." 

From whom you might ask? “Big Business” is according to Jackson. 

Blacks are under attack, indeed. But the attacks are coming from within, under a masquerade of outrage while concealing the truth that is self promotion via division and sensationalism. After all, if we eliminate racism what would that do in terms of job security for these two? Jesse's on a roll, apparently it is big business that is responsible. Exploitation is big business (just ask MSNBC and Al Sharpton) because it's always turning profits; to bad that there is a victim and family in mourning to make this happen.

2012: the Year of the Bible (but only the parts we like)

As some of you may or may not know, Pennsylvania this year actually passed a bill that declared 2012: the Year of the Bible. I have no idea what that means, seems to me, 2012's year after the persecution and death of Jesus is a rather ambiguous point to set something as important as “the year” of the Bible, but this state and country “continues to face great tests and challenges” according to the author of the bill, Rep Rick Saccone (R). Thus it was said… 2012: The year of the Bible. It was also a total whitewash in support as the bill passed by a whopping 193-0 vote in the state assembly too! And who said there was no longer any bi-partisanship?

Well, if you were like me, you didn’t pay anymore attention to this piece of news then did the 193 people who glossed over the five-billion dollar state deficit did. Obviously, within the first few weeks of the new year, this crucial piece of legislation had to go through. I mean, what would we have done without our state rep's branding the Bible as the book of the year? Funny, 193 elected officials sitting around declaring 2012:  the Year of the Bible, while authorizing the purchasing of a 100 million dollar building in Harrisburg even as the state is drowning in again, 5 Billion dollars of red ink this year. I have no idea why government is so ineffective?

Now, what gets me, is that here you have 2012 being passed into law as the Year of the Bible. And this isn’t a partisan issue, again, 193 elected officials for it, none against it. So you have all this overwhelming support and an organization, who opposed the bill decided to put up a quote from the Bible entitled: “Slaves, obey your masters." Biblically speaking, its accurate… but yet you have that organization chastised by some of the 193 for it? Seems, kind of strange, I thought 2012 was: the Year of the Bible?

And that’s where the humor comes in. It is the Year of the Bible, its just not part of the Bible… the 193 like. Typical really…but hypocritical and hilarious at the same time? You betcha’.  

State Rep. Ronald G. Waters, chairman of the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus wrote a letter condemning the billboard company (Lamar) for putting up the message from the Bible with an African man in bondage. Mr Waters went on to say "This image and mere reminder of slavery are offensive to minority citizens in the city of Harrisburg”. Fair enough, but is the billboard not truthful?

Were black folks not slaves at one point here in this nation? Obviously, the Bible was talking about the plight of Jews and Jewish law, but the word "slavery" here in this nation, does not make one think of slaves from 3k years ago Because we have a rather recent and dubious history with the word here. Does the Bible have a verse that commands slaves to “Obey your masters? If this is truly the: Year of the Bible, I suppose we ought to consider actually celebrating all of it, not just the parts that we don’t like or choose to ignore. After all, its not Year of the Bible chapters that aren't offensive, is it? Although, that would be the logical thing to do, in this context, logic isn’t useful when discussing the book of the year.

Maybe, just maybe, Mr Waters ought to consider the minority of people who didn’t want 2012 to be the Year of the Bible and used a billboard to demonstrate that. He had no problem passing this bill, which clearly would/could be found to be offensive by another type of minority as well. And therein lies the problem.

Mr Waters does not seem to care about the minority offended by this bill. However, he does care for the minority (his minority) that might be offended for displaying our history and quoting the book…that has been passed into law (by his own vote) as the: Book of the Year? There is a lesson to be learned from this and its one most people don't do enough of. That is, thinking for oneself. From political parties, caucuses inside those political parties, hate groups, religions etc etc… collectivism is a dangerous ideal that relies on double standards, ignorance and division. Don't be a slave to it.

Think for yourself and question authority – Timothy Leary