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.