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.

Black Racial Solidarity On Display At Michael Brown’s Funeral

If there was any doubt that blacks have chosen their racial and cultural expressions of black identity and racial solidarity over- and at the expense of- their religious identity, one needs to look no further than the televised funeral of Michael Brown.

The attendees of this funeral- some of which include Snoop Dog, P Diddy, Al Sharpton, TD Jakes, Spike Lee, members of the Congressional Black Caucus and several representatives from the White House- are speaking and acting in ways that are counter to the gospel of Christ. Not only were they performing (black expressions of religiosity like ‘catching the Holy Ghost’) and exaggerating for the cameras, but those chosen to speak at the funeral are continuing to repeat the lies and distortions about Brown the media helped perpetuated like Brown being a “gentle giant”; that he was simply, “walking down the street”; that he was shot while his “hands were up”- even though mounting evidence contradicts these disputed claims.  This canard was preached and cheered because for the funeral attendees, racial solidarity with one another for the cause of Michael Brown means more than, truth.

Speaking of lies, a friend of the Brown family stood in the pulpit and said with a straight face, that Michael Brown was a gentle guy, and on the day he died, Brown was out ‘spreading the word of Christ’. This was an absurd and embarrassing lie if there ever was one. Unfortunately for the speaker- and the speaker no doubt knows this- there’s video surveillance showing Brown using his height, weight and strength to bully a convenience store owner while he stole a box of cigarillos. Not sure if this qualifies as the peaceful evangelism, or ‘spreading the word of Christ’ normally associated with Christian missionaries.

The speakers are also continuing to talk about “justice” for Brown, even though some evidence suggests that Brown may have been culpable in his own death. I’m not suggesting that Brown deserved to die, but I am suggesting that if some of the hearsay turns out to be true- specifically that Brown did assault the police officer prior to his shooting, then it’s no surprise that he ended up shot, which resulted in his death. But this is of no matter for black supporters of Brown because black racial solidarity takes precedence.

But more to the point, what exactly does ‘justice’ mean when used in reference to- and demanded– for Brown? And what about ‘justice’ for officer Darren Wilson, the man who shot Brown? Again, if the evidence confirms the justifiable use of force of Wilson, against Brown, what about ‘justice’ then? That this is never asked by people purporting to be Christian, is very problematic.

Justice, particularly biblical justice that’s connected to righteousness– the justice that is required of- and characterized- by God, is not and cannot be compartmentalized. Justice is a disposition that permeates the entire being and an entire way of life. It’s not characterized by deceit, slander or falsified information. Thus, by definition, there cannot be “justice for Brown” in the way it’s demanded from his supporters, while at the same time ensuring justice for officer Darren Wilson who may have been… justified… for using force. Or in other words, there can’t be ‘justice’ for Michael Brown apart from or at the expense of justice being meted out for the situation in its entirety. If these people, these so-called Christians, truly sought justice, they wouldn’t attempt to partition it, or pervert it, in the manner in which they have done and continue to do.

For example, one of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:16) clearly says that one should not give false testimony against one’s neighbor, which is juxtaposed with Jesus’ warning in Matthew 12: 36 that everyone will have to account for what they’ve said come the day of reckoning. It seems that many of Brown’s supporters- because they repeat what increasingly appears to be untrue- are in direct and continued violation of this directive.

Further, Exodus 23: 1-3 and 7-8, shows that God clearly warns against spreading false reports in addition to resisting the pressure of following the crowd in doing wrong in perverting justice. This verse directly and immediately applies to all the rabble-rousers, “community activists/organizers,” “preachers,” celebrities and other Brown supporters in Ferguson and across the country. Every time the claim is repeated that Brown was “walking with his hands up,” when he was shot, which contradicts the autopsy report- until we have more detailed evidence, is false. Again, blacks standing pretentiously and sanctimoniously in racial solidarity is more important than truth. More specifically, for many blacks, racial solidarity is truth.

Lastly, Deuteronomy 16:19-20 teaches that people should not pervert justice by showing partiality; we are to follow justice and justice alone. In my opinion, based on the rhetoric heard during Brown’s funeral and the events that have taken place since Brown was shot, we’ve seen and heard nothing but partiality. This partiality is in favor of Brown, regardless of- and prior to- evidence released in relation to the investigation of Brown being killed. To be fair, many supporters of officer Wilson also show partiality in his favor, but it does not appear to be as transparent and egregious as what’s been witnessed from the sympathizers of Brown’s family.

To be blunt, it should be clear that the rhetoric from the Brown family supporters is proof that what they want isn’t justice; they want vengeance. Now one can argue that in some situations, vengeance is justice- or at the very least, justice and vengeance are two sides of the same coin. And one might have a point; but not here. These people want vengeance and from what has been said and demanded in the name of ‘justice’ (calling for Wilson’s firing and being indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with murder- regardless of evidence), is really not justice at all. It’s vengeance saturated with black racial solidarity.

The funeral attendees also heard Sharpton preach about ‘blackness’- what it is and what it’s not. His sermon aside- this is the schizophrenia which afflicts black Christians. This schizophrenia is characterized by attempting to personify dual identities held in tension with one another, that inevitably brings both identities into competition with one another. Once those identities come into conflict, the holder of these competing identities must chose which identity takes preference and which identity must be subjugated. Jesus taught that one cannot serve two masters. For the black Christian, his Christian identity is generally subjugated to his black identity, which goes against the admonition of Paul’s teaching- aside from not regarding anyone from a worldly point of view- that those who’re in Christ are new creations, with new perspectives.

Blacks continued cultic practice of racial empathy and solidarity, worshiping at the altar of race, has had devastating consequences, many of which have been on display during the last two weeks in Ferguson Missouri. Any hope of spiritual redemption of black Americans must be predicated on their black identity being subjected to their Christian identity. They must eschew racial solidarity in favor of familial solidarity in Christ. Then and only then can blacks have a chance to overcome self-inflicted pathologies, which have negatively characterized their communities across the country for far too long.

 

First Black President Bad For Black America

In the 2008 election cycle, America proceeded to elect her first black president.  Predictably, blacks euphorically voted for Barack Obama in hopes of seeing what many considered a dream, become reality. The historicity and symbolism of that election were things that most blacks wanted to participate in, evidenced by ninety-six percent of blacks casting their votes in favor of Obama. The significance of his election on the psyche of black America couldn’t be minimized nor ignored.  Many anticipated that the implications of such an historical event would be- and could be- channeled by millions of individual black Americans for their socio-economic benefit.

Four years later, with most of his self-created and externally-projected veneer having worn off, Barack Obama won his re-election bid to the presidency.  Even considering his poor economic stewardship and socially-divisive record, particularly the constant level of high unemployment and its impact on black America, exit polls showed that ninety-three percent of blacks voted for Obama anyway.

That blacks voted for Obama in 2008 was understandable; in 2012 it was inexcusable, an example of irrationality.

Why?

Because the economic situation for black Americans under the country’s first black president has been nothing short of atrocious.

Since January 2009, the first month of Obama’s first term in office, the black unemployment rate was 12.7%.  It wasn’t until December’s 2013 unemployment numbers were released that we saw black unemployment fall below twelve percent. The black unemployment rate was been at or above 13%, fifty-five times; at or above 14%, thirty-nine times; at or above 15%, twenty-nine times and at or above 16%, eleven times. Black unemployment hit its peak under Obama at 16.9% in March, 2010.

Black teen unemployment has been worse- much worse. It’s been below thirty-five percent only twice during Obama’s reign- August, 2009 and February 2012. It’s been at or above 40%, thirty times. Black teen unemployment hit a high of 49% in September, 2010. This is a catastrophic look into the socio-economic future of black America.

And no one says “boo” about it.

Last month, the overall unemployment rate for blacks and black teens was 11.9% and 35.5%, respectively.

As we know, the drop in the unemployment rate among blacks isn’t the result of a growing and expanding economy but because, like the national unemployment rate, blacks are leaving the workforce as hope of finding work continues to fade.

According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, December 2013 saw the overall black labor participation dip .3% to 60.2%.  This reflected the lowest rate in thirty-seven years (December, 1977). For black men specifically, the rate fell .7% to 65.6%, which is the lowest record to date.

Sentier Research reported that between June 2009 and June 2012, median annual household income for blacks fell 11.1 percent to $32,498 (from $36,567). The drop for whites was 5.2 percent; for Hispanics, it dropped 4.1 percent.

The Census Bureau reports (2010), via CNN Money, whites ($110,729) had twenty-two times more wealth than their black counterparts ($4,995).

Also, according to the same report, of all the homes that report receiving food stamps, 26.4 percent are black; yet blacks are only 13 percent of the total population. For the record, forty-seven million Americans representing twenty-three million households now receive assistance through SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

And this year, black homeownership has hit an eighteen-year low.

With these kinds of stats, it’s no surprise that the black poverty rate now stands at twenty-eight percent, compared to just ten percent for whites.

And yet, the Congressional Black Caucus is still not marching around the White House. Actually, they’re not doing much of anything noteworthy. 

This bleak economic picture and outlook is sad and at one point in time would’ve stimulated a quantifiable amount of sympathy for- or toward- blacks.

But, not anymore because it’s very difficult to inspire sympathy when blacks intentionally contribute to that which ails them.

It’s awful but it’s also inexcusable.

Blacks that voted for Obama did so at the expense of their own best interests, period. Again, voting for Obama in 2008 was understandable- disagreeable, but understandable.

But for blacks to vote for him again in 2012 and then continue to support him and his legislation that has set blacks back a generation, socio-economically, is simply indefensible. Blacks need to think about how they look when they overwhelmingly support a man (and party) who, when questioned about his lack of attention to the economic plight of millions of black Americans- his most unquestioningly loyal demographic, responded by saying “I’m not the president of black America.”

Blacks supported this president in word and deed to the point of embarrassment- again, at the expense of their socio-economic well-being and credibility- and he says, in essence, “Take a hike!”

The sad reality is that Obama got exactly what he needed from blacks- electoral support and continued racial defenses of his increasing number of inadequacies, mistakes and lies. Blacks are also getting exactly what they voted for in Barack Obama- a black mascot, and nothing more.  Barack Obama is a false god, a symbol of a projected but poor representation of black power who has turned out to be power-less, not only for black America, but America as a whole, openly ridiculed both here and abroad.

Continued support of Barack Obama by blacks demonstrates to the country that blacks still prioritize and commodify race at the expense of all else that’s important. If worshipping at the altar of racial pride and solidarity is what blacks want, choose and continue to do, they are responsible participants of their own reality while sacrificing their future.  Blacks also severely undermine the future of their children, resigning them to a life of substandard living, government dependency or both. These are painful truths, but blacks must face them nonetheless.

Is “race” still that important?