Black Lives Matter Isn’t Pro-Life, Period

unborn-lives-matter-640x480

Recently at The Federalist, an article appeared in which the author sincerely argued that two popular social movements – Black Lives Matter (BLM) and anti-abortion advocates – pursue a common goal: the respect and preservation life.

Christina Marie Bennett- a writer and pro-lifer who works with pregnant women in crisis environments for the benefit of both mother and child- is challenging the way pro-life advocates have responded, and should respond, to claims of police brutality, the growing frustrations in the black community and Black Lives Matter.

Specifically, Bennett laments the continued dismissal of Black Lives Matter activists and others by pro-lifers who cite black abortion rates when the issue of police brutality is raised. Bennett sees this practice as a kind of pro-life, one-upmanship that minimizes the tragedy of lives “lost through violence.”

For example, Bennett claims the “knee-jerk” response of, “If black lives matter, then why are your abortion rates so high?” deflects from the issue BLM supports. She says the response insinuates that black people don’t care about unborn black lives as much as adult black lives, which calls into question black concerns regarding what lives are more valuable. I’ll return to this point.

Rather than pitting one cause against another, Bennett believes that neither movement should be used to undermine the other because in their respective ways, both movements are trying to safeguard human flourishing. For Bennett both movements are solidly pro-life.

To be fair, Bennett isn’t fully onboard with the Black Lives Matter agenda. She disagrees with the movement on several issues, including its support of killing the pre-born black children. Honorably, she admits to the difficulty of trying to empathize “with a movement that advocates for something I disagree with.” But for her, the resolution comes when she sees, “the movement for what it is,” which is, “a broad group of people with varying levels of involvement, all trying to raise awareness and fight the specific issue of police brutality.”

This exercise in nuance permits her, as a pro-lifer, to winnow away the ongoing negativity that overshadows BLM’s agenda, freeing her to sustain solidarity with the movement’s pursuit of justice- a model she believes that all pro-lifers should follow.

Though I disagree, I am sympathetic to the author’s intention- dispelling the either/or nature of supporting BLM or being pro-life. However I think some of the negativity she wants to minimize in favor of legitimizing BLM, while maintaining fidelity to being pro-life from the womb to the tomb (that part I agree) misses a few essential points.

To begin, the phrase “black lives matter” is incongruent with the movement’s agenda. Black Lives Matter as an ideological movement is primarily concerned with police brutality against blacks. It should therefore change its name to Black Americans Against Police Brutality or something similar to reflect this goal rather than a name that suggests an all-encompassing concern for confronting problems that decrease the quality of black lives.

Black Lives Matter is also a Marxist/socialist movement funded by an admitted cultural destabilizer George Soros, and other leftist organizations, which also calls the movement’s credibility into question.

Also, being pro-life as it relates to the pre-born is an exercise in proactivity. Life can’t be defended from police brutality if it’s prevented from being born. There’s a reason why people say that the most dangerous place for a black child is in its mother’s womb, and that painful admission is found in Bennett’s reflection on the more than 16 million black children killed by abortion since it was made a “right” in 1973. Increasing the black birth rate by decreasing abortion is an intrinsic good.

BLM on the other hand, to the point that it’s pro-life at all, is deliberately reactive, not to mention, misguided.

Aside from supporting black abortion, its focus isn’t on the broken families and the chaotic home and neighborhood environments that create, nurture and contribute to the predictability of blacks being in police confrontations that go south. BLM’s focus is on “systemic racism” that fosters “police brutality,” which is always initially or reflexively cited and deprived of facts to support such accusations. When facts in respective cases are released, invalidating BLM’s racial narrative, it ignores them- up to and including the responsibility and contribution of the deceased to his/her death.

In other words, BLM’s definition of pro-life isn’t discouraging blacks from self-destructive behavior that increases the predictability of encountering police. Rather, they define pro-life as law enforcement officers refusing to use force against any black person/suspect at any time, despite elevated levels of danger- including potential threats to personal or public safety. That’s racial solidarity, being pro-black, not necessarily pro-life. 

Again, Bennett argues that abortion rates and police brutality both deserve attention and shouldn’t be used against each other. I partially agree, but there are very clear reasons why they are.

One reason people, regardless of color, persist in highlighting the issue of black abortion percentages is that members and supporters of Black Lives Matter intentionally avoid discussing black abortion rates. This moral sidestep by BLM, over and over, proves to increasing numbers of people that BLM isn’t concerned with preserving and redeeming black lives in any meaningful way.

To the point, black abortion is specifically raised to gauge black integrity when it comes to the conservation of black lives.

It’s also mentioned because of the selectivity of the moral indignation that inevitably accompanies charges of “police brutality” against blacks, but is nonexistent when black abortion percentages are raised. Bennett confesses abortion destroys black children- more in any given year than all black deaths by law enforcement officers combined.

Blacks are only 13% percent of the population. Black women of childbearing age- not incarcerated and suffering from physical/mental abilities that prevents pregnancy in any given year are only 3-4% of the population. Yet, according to the CDC, these women were responsible for close to 36% of all abortions between 2007 and 2010. Though this demonic act is specifically targeted to black and Hispanic women by white leftists, no one forces these women to kill their black preborn children, all of whom are unarmed. Morally wayward black men and sexually irresponsible back women are complicit in this genocide. And all of this is done under the euphemisms of “choice” “rights” and “reproductive justice.”

The same CDC report said blacks accounted for almost 54% (16,738) of all abortions performed in Georgia (31,244 total), even though blacks are less than a third of the population. In Mississippi, between 1995 and 2010, blacks accounted for almost 72% (39,052) of all abortions while comprising 37% of the population.

In a 2012, report from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, more black babies were killed by abortion (31,328) than were born (24,758) in New York City, totaling over 42% of all abortions performed. In 2010, 60% of all viable, black pregnancies in New York City ended in abortion

According to another pro-life organization, 870 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. The report re-emphasizes that 37 percent of all abortions in the U.S. are performed on black women. Yet, as day follows night, there’s no outrage.

Contrast that to the data that tracks police-involved fatalities from the Washington Post.

According to the Washington Post’s data- based on news reports, public records, social media and other sources, as of 9:45 am Friday morning (10/21/2016), 772 people have been shot and killed by police this year (2016).

Of the 772 killed by police so far, 363 of them have been white, 188 have been black. This unofficial statistic here directly refutes, again, any and all claims that the police are hunting, targeting or killing blacks indiscriminately. Almost twice as many whites have been shot and killed by police than have blacks.

Of the 188 blacks killed, only 16 were unarmed when shot.

Now, of the sixteen unarmed blacks who were shot and killed by police, all but three either resisted arrest, refused orders of compliance and submission, attempted to flee or attacked an officer.

Three!

Now we can all agree- life lost under these circumstances is unfortunate. But in reality, this sort of racial exaggeration- the false cries of ‘systemic racism’, ‘racial injustice’ and cops being ‘racist agents of the state’ by BLM and other racial justice warriors and activists over the killing of three unarmed blacks, is dishonest and disproportionate to say the least.

So, 870 black babies are killed, daily, while only three unarmed blacks (who didn’t resist arrest) have been killed by police this year as of this writing, is why this issue is raised. Black Lives Matter claims to be against lethal force against unarmed blacks. What exactly is abortion if it’s not precisely that- lethal force used against an unarmed, defenseless black life?

The reality is that people correlate the level of black outrage to matters of black importance. Based upon that metric, the general public is convinced that blacks care more about blacks killed by (white) police officers than those killed in abortion clinics. Further, it’ been argued that blacks are apathetic regarding black children based on the proficiency at which they kill their unborn children.

Moreover, the raising of this issue has to do with moral priorities. There’s a moral distinction between those killed by abortion and those killed by police officers. Pre-born black children murdered by abortion are innocent; the overwhelming majority of blacks killed by police aren’t. (This isn’t to say that blacks that have been killed by cops deserved to die.) Innocent black children killed by abortion should, by definition, take priority over criminals, felons, and others who contributed to their deaths via the police by resisting arrest, attacking cops or attempting to flee.

Again, I understand the necessity and obligation of being pro-life from birth until death, but BLM isn’t the vehicle to appropriate or sympathize with in pursuit of this noble objective.

The value of black life should be protected from the very beginning; as stated, BLM is against that.

Black children deserve a stable family environment that includes a mother and father, not a 70%-plus illegitimacy rate- born in tumultuous homes of a single mothers and half-siblings from multi-sexual partnered relationships. President Barack Obama said that, “children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves.” Being pro-life means undoing this social dysfunction, which reduces run-ins with the police, which reduces the chances of experiencing police brutality and death.

Black Lives Matter says nothing about that.

Being pro-life means black children deserve quality education, which charter schools deliver, rather than inferior schooling because they’re black, poor, or both. BLM (and the NAACP) is adamantly against charter schools for black children, in favor of the status quo that has deliberately undereducated and underserved black children for generations.

The anti-charter school stance of BLM (and the NAACP) has put these so-called civil rights groups at odds with the majority of blacks. A recent study demonstrated that 82 percent of black parents with school-aged children enthusiastically support charter schools.

Black students comprise 27 percent of enrollment in charter schools, compared to 16 percent of black enrollment in traditional public schools.

Black Lives Matter can say what it will about the dignity and worth of black lives, but unless and until members and supporters of the movement start demonstrating that the totality of black lives matter to blacks first, black lives won’t matter to anyone else.

Being pro-life is commendable. Legitimizing Black Lives Matter isn’t.

Advertisements

NAACP, ACLU Sue Again to Legalize Race, Sex-Based Abortions

Once again, it’s as if the NAACP sees itself as not having done enough to dishonor its legacy and completely ruin its reputation as a civil rights organization. In its fledgling grasps at political relevancy, the so-called civil rights organization- with the help of the ACLU- is suing the state of Arizona again in an attempt to achieve greater access to race and sex-based abortion.

Last year, the NAACP unsuccessfully sued the state of Arizona in an attempt to have the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011 declared unconstitutional. In their lawsuit, the NAACP and ACLU claimed that the law was “discriminatory” because it unfairly singled out black and Asian women in regards to abortion. As a result, the groups claimed that the law violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it “stigmatized” black and Asian women’s “decision” to kill their babies.

U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell dismissed the lawsuit saying the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Not content with having their original lawsuit thrown out, the NAACP- again with the help of the ACLU- is now begging the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider their lawsuit. Their argument this time- according to Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU- is that presumably, black and Asian women in Arizona “must endure the humiliation of living under a government that views them as a threat to American values simply by virtue of alleged character flaws possessed by persons of their race.”

In other words, black and Asian women shouldn’t have to be associated with the stigma of intentionally having an abortion based on race or gender because it makes them feel bad. These women should be free to kill their black, and female preborn babies free from moral condemnation.

Fools, the whole lot.

The law doesn’t single out any ethnic or racial group; the law, as written, it applies to everyone, equally. As a result, the law isn’t discriminatory because the essence of the bill is to prevent discrimination in regards to abortion based on race and gender. If anything, it discriminates against those who would seek to discriminate against race and gender through the process of abortion.

But that hasn’t stopped the Maricopa County Branch of the NAACP, led by so-called Reverend Oscar Tillman – and by extension, the national NAACP organization since they haven’t spoken out against the actions of the local branch throughout this entire shameful process.

Again, The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act makes illegal any and all abortions that are based on the race or sex of the mother or preborn child.  It also criminalizes anyone who knowingly performs an abortion that is the result of race or gender.  Lastly it criminalizes anyone who engages in physical or verbal coercion that leads to a race or sex-based abortion.

But the NAACP still isn’t content with the disproportionately high numbers of abortion in the black community; it wants more of them and will sue repeatedly to make it happen. Now, if a predominately white, conservative organization endeavored to sue a state in an attempt to rescind a law that prohibits race and sex-based abortions because they sought to increase the numbers of black babies aborted, it would rightly be called racist and one knows that the NAACP would waste no time letting America know the racist intentions of this racist organization, which they would also argue is a direct reflection of a racist America as a whole.

Yet the NAACP, again, is engaged in this very same practice, which clearly indicates their hypocrisy and broken moral compass. The NAACP is actively supporting a position- through word and deed- that will in theory increase abortion in the black community.  Doing so effectively undermines the association’s credibility (with many questioning if it has any left?) when it comes to being an advocate against racism.  Who should take seriously any organization that protests and demonstrates against racism while at the same time advocating a form of racism itself?

Since racism as a comprehensive obstacle to black advancement has been overcome, the NAACP no longer has any moral or cultural relevancy. It should therefore drop the pretense of being a civil rights organization (because in this case, civil rights don’t extend to those in the womb) and admit what it has become -and what many Americans already know- that it’s a political advocacy group that seeks to advance progressive political causes to the highest bidder.

For example, the NAACP is at odds with many black Americans on a number of issues. Blacks overwhelmingly support school choice; the NAACP doesn’t and has sided with teacher’s unions- responsible for delivering piss-poor, substandard education to poor black children- against school choice advocates, many of them being poor black parents.

The NAACP also supports same sex marriage; many blacks oppose it. The NAACP should be creating and implementing strategic initiatives that would encourage and increase marriage rates in the black community- which would increase the numbers of children born into two-parent homes. But it would rather march with “pride,” supporting the redefinition of marriage.

The NAACP is against stop-and-frisk, proactive policing techniques; many blacks, particularly those who live in neighborhoods plagued with violent crime, support these techniques. The NAACP and other black “intelligentsia” argue against stop-and-frisk, calling the practice racist. They also actively prevent these measures from being implemented or maintained. But that only increases the numbers of poor, law-abiding blacks who become victims of violent criminals, many of them being black themselves since crime is largely an intra-racial phenomenon.

The NAACP supports increasing the minimum wage as an effective economic policy to decrease income and wealth inequality. Yet many blacks realize that increasing the minimum wage prices many in their communities out of the workforce because the wage is higher than the skillset many blacks, particularly black men, have. Unfortunately, on top of receiving poor quality education, many blacks have low job skills. This combination has lead to disproportionately high and sustained levels of unemployment among blacks. To have an opportunity to develop work skills and increase their economic value, many blacks prefer expanded economic opportunities that allow for participation in the workforce. Increasing minimum wage only benefits those fortunate enough to be employed, not those who aren’t.

None of these issues, as they relate to blacks, matters to the NAACP. They are chiefly concerned with maintaining cultural and political relevancy, literally at the expense of those they claim to represent. For this very reason, the NAACP should cease self-identifying as a civil rights organization, change their status from a 501(c)(3) to a 501(c)(4) and be done with it already.

Then they can whore w/o lying.

Racism & Misplaced Priorities

The past couple of weeks the country has been in the midst of a media-prolonged, emotional orgasm over the “racist” statements of Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and the racial comments made in a private conversation that NBA franchise owner Donald Sterling had with his scheming mistress.

 

Black folk particularly have been hyperventilating over the incidents as “see, I told you so” moments that prove white racism is still an ever-present and relative evil that continually seeks to impede black progress.

 

Say what you will about Cliven Bundy’s “Lemme tell you one more thing I know about the Negro” comments, but his underlying point was spot-on. Yes, his comments were clumsy, his terminology- rudimentary; slavery was deplorable. But the essence of what he said can’t be overlooked precisely because blacks such as Thomas Sowell, Allen West and Walter E. Williams have offered similar statements on numerous occasions. Government intervention has successfully accomplished what slavery and Jim Crow-era discrimination failed to do- completely destroy the black family while undermining the nobility of work. This reality is extremely difficult to argue against considering the fifty years of accumulated and related data in combination with the product of what every inner city in America has become since the celebrated ‘war on poverty’ programs were instituted.

Sterling’s comments on their face, appear far worse than Bundy’s. I include that caveat because as of right now, we can’t eliminate the possibility that these comments were purposely edited in such a way as to intentionally damage Sterling’s character and reputation by an angry, gold-digging girlfriend who’s being sued by Sterling’s wife, Rochelle Sterling.

 

That said, we can speculate as to what Sterling was trying to convey to his mixed-race lover, but in my opinion, that isn’t the primary issue. The issue isn’t whether Donald Sterling is a racist; based on his history, he may very well be or he may simply be a bigot (even though the NAACP was to honor him again in May, which is ironic considering they will honor a preeminent racist, Al Sharpton, at this event).

 

But, so what? The issue is- what was supposed to be a private conversation between two people was deliberately recorded and released in an attempt to humiliate him publicly. Say what you will, but everyone says things in private conversations, to people whom we trust, that we would never- ever- dare mention in public, for obvious reasons. If private conversations were to be regularly aired, most people would lose respect, relationships, jobs, confidence, money, etc., which is precisely why we have these conversations behind closed doors rather than in the decency of public spaces.

 

More importantly, the twisted public revelry in “racism” once again demonstrates the confused priorities that blacks- and their sympathizers- still have regarding those things that should be important and relevant. It also shows why blacks continue to lose moral, cultural and political credibility. Bundy’s views on ‘the Negro’ or Sterling’s comments about blacks have absolutely no relevance or power over the lives of black Americans and are truly of very little importance.

 

While the racial sympathizers and instigators in the racial grievance and agitation industry were busy emotionally manipulating blacks, again, forty-three people where shot and five were killed just this weekend alone in Chicago. In addition to this nightmare, black unemployment is at 12.4%, black teen unemployment is over 36%; black women continue to have a disproportionate amount of abortions as recent stats in New York, Mississippi and Georgia demonstrate; black illegitimacy is 73%; black children are still subjected to substandard education in inner cities across the country, preventing them from building the academic foundation that will allow them to effectively compete against their white and Asian counterparts. Yet more time, voice, examination, importance and relevance were given to what two old white men say about blacks rather than focusing on the self-inflicted problems and pathologies that many blacks are in close proximity to address and rectify.

 

Damn shame. Again, priorities, people.

 

Cliven Bundy can use ‘colored’ and ‘Negro’ in reference to black people until the second coming while Donald Sterling laments the presence of black people on “the Instagram” of his mixed-race concubine and at the presence of his games, but these aren’t the problems that black folk should transfix themselves. As long as blacks continue to attribute more moral importance to trivial conversations about “racism” rather than the crucial issues that actually affect the daily lives of so many blacks across the country, much worse will be said about black people and their (lack of) credibility behind closed doors than ‘Negroes’ will ever want to hear.

 

And as usual, if those conversations are ever aired publicly, it will of course be “racist.”