Dating back to 2016, I have been urging Christian conservatives and other people of conscience to distinguish between the important affirmation that black lives do matter and the BLM movement.

The statement that “black lives matter” should be shouted loudly and clearly, since through much of our history, black Americans have felt that their lives did not matter to white Americans.

As for the BLM movement, it should be exposed for what it is. As I tweeted on July 6:

Here’s what we know about the BLM movement, especially when we dig a little deeper into their “What We Believe” statement.

When you start to connect the dots, you’ll understand why I described BLM as “dangerous” and “anti-Christian.” In fact, at the end of this article, I’ll connect the BLM movement with the J word – as in Jezebel. (Do I have your attention?)

BLM was founded by three black women: Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi.

The first two identify as queer and the third as “a transnational feminist.”

Speaking of Cullors, a website celebrating “lesbians who tech” states that, “When Patrisse was 16-years-old she came out as queer and moved out of her home in the Valley.”

The official BLM site describes Garza as a “queer Black woman” who states that “we must view this epidemic through a lens of race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

That’s why a June 21, 2020 article on ABC news declared that, “From the start, the founders of Black Lives Matter have always put LGBTQ voices at the center of the conversation. The movement was founded by three Black women, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, two of whom identify as queer.”

On a certain level, reading through the official BLM statement, being queer is as much of an issue for the movement as being black.

Accordingly, there are multiple references to “trans,” as highlighted here: “We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

“We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.”

Even more forthrightly, the statement reads, “We foster a queer-affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).”

Thus, the only references to heterosexuality are negative, as in “cisgender privilege” and “heteronormative thinking,” meaning the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm.

So, BLM is not just fighting against white privilege but also heterosexual privilege. Make no mistake about it.

That’s why the statement also goes out of its way to include people of “actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression.” The leaders have made themselves abundantly clear.

But there’s more, and this has often been missed in commentary on BLM beliefs.

While there are references to “mothers” and “parents” in their statement, there is not one single reference to fathers. Not one. (Contrast this with the multiple references to queer and trans and gender identity, etc).

As for mention of “men” or the idea of a male-led household, these are only found in totally negative contexts.

Specifically, “We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered” (my emphasis). Oh, those terrible, evil men.

And this: “We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work ‘double shifts’ so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work” (again, my emphasis).

Yes, that oppressive, husband-wife, male-female union, that outdated, outmoded patriarchal dinosaur. It must be dismantled. (And note the assumption that if something is “patriarchal” it is unfair to women. A truly fair relationship would have the husband home with the kids while the wife is out doing “public justice work”).

This is the language of radical feminism in unabashed, undisguised form. This too is part of the queer, trans-affirming spirit.

As for the third founder, Opal Tometi, she is also described as “a student of liberation theology.” And there is now the widely circulated quote from Cullors that she and Garza “are trained Marxists.”

As for the connection between liberation theology and Marxism, especially in this context, Prof. Anthony Bradley, himself black, has pointed out that, “Black Liberation Is Marxist Liberation.”

So, without question, the official BLM movement is Marxist-based, queer-affirming, trans-activist, traditional-marriage degrading, radical-feminist promoting and more. In a certain sense, it is fatherless as well.

That’s why I said that “the BLM organization is dangerous, anti-Christian, and should be avoided.”

Now, let’s also remember that Cullors is on record saying that their goal is to remove Trump from office: “Trump not only needs to not be in office in November, but he should resign now. Trump needs to be out of office. He is not fit for office. And so, what we are going to push for is a move to get Trump out.”

And this leads me to one last important point. When you connect all the dots, the spirit of the official BLM movement is downright Jezebelic, thus in direct conflict with the Alpha Male Trump.

---

This article originally posted at Townhall.com

 

When an organization makes billions of dollars killing babies in the womb, it is clearly a bloodthirsty organization. And when a disproportionate number of those babies are black and Hispanic, it is clearly a racist organization.

All this is self-evident when it comes to Planned Parenthood, but recent events – the firing of Planned Parenthood’s president and a blatantly racist tweet – underscore just how deeply Planned Parenthood is a bloodthirsty and racist organization.

First there was the unexpected firing of president Leana Wen.

Her primarily failing, it appears, was that she did not have the cold-blooded killer instinct necessary to make abortion the priority of Planned Parenthood.

Perhaps it was her training as a medical doctor.

Perhaps it was a trace of the image of God that still pervaded her humanity, as much as she was still an abortion advocate.

Whatever the underlying causes may be, the broad strokes are clear. As noted by Alexandra Desanctis on National Review, “The organization has ousted its president, apparently for being insufficiently committed to pro-abortion advocacy.”

Indeed, “Planned Parenthood has long sought to downplay its commitment to abortion, calling itself a health-care organization and spreading the lie that abortion is only 3 percent of its business, even as its clinics perform between one-third and half of all abortions in the U.S. annually. The group’s leadership evidently believes this political moment demands more aggressive advocacy.

“And Wen wasn’t up to the task.”

More bluntly, cultural commentator Bill Muehlenberg put it like this: “What they are saying is this: ‘You are not blood-thirsty enough! You are not meeting your quotas! More babies MUST DIE!’ That is the mindset of PP. They are after blood – and money. That is their core business. That is why they exist.”

And he suggested that Planned Parenthood should run an ad that sounded something like this: “Wanted, an experienced baby killer who has no qualms about taking human life, nor about selling body parts of babies to others for profit. It is preferred that you resonate with past such ministries, such as the Nazi extermination camps. Having no heart and no conscience is also essential. Those who think that the vulnerable and defenceless should be our priority need not apply.”

Do you think he was exaggerating? I do not.

When it comes to Planned Parenthood’s racism, there is a spirited debate concerning the connection between Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder, and eugenics. Sanger’s conservative critics are sure that she wanted to reduce the number of black Americans (among other races and ethnicities), if not exterminate them entirely. Her defenders deny this passionately, also claiming that her interest in eugenics was not racial.

Yet even the left-leaning Time Magazine admitted in 2016 that Sanger did “make some deeply disturbing statements in support of eugenics, the now-discredited movement to improve the overall health and fitness of humankind through selective breeding. She did, and very publicly. In a 1921 article, she wrote that, ‘the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.’” (Time also cited her defenders who claimed that she “uniformly repudiated the racist exploitation of eugenics principles.”)

And the very left-leaning Snopes.com, in an article devoted to debunking a quote attributed to Sanger, uncovered this hardly flattering quote from a 1923 New York Times article. She wrote: “Birth Control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.” (Snopes’ emphasis.)

To my liberal, pro-abortion friends: Are you sure you want to defend Sanger against charges of racism?

But let’s not worry about 1923. Let’s look at the present, as in July 19, 2019, when Planned Parenthood tweeted,

’Black women are sexy and sexual entities, independent of anyone else’s ideas of what that means.’ For #SummerOfSex, our partnership with @WearYourVoice, @GloriaAlamrew talks about creating space for Black girls to understand their sexuality.

In one short tweet, Planned Parenthood’s motives are revealed for the world to see.

Bound4Life, a pro-life organization, noted that, “Black non-Hispanic women have the highest abortion ratio. Black women’s abortion ratio has reached 444 abortions per 1,000 live births, while non-Hispanic white women’s abortion ratio is 124 abortions per 1,000 live births.”

Apparently, however, this is not enough. More black women need to have sex. More black women need to have unwanted pregnancies. More black women need to have abortions.

This, to me, is all part of the “Jezebelic” attack on our nation. It is an attack we must resist with prayer, with truth, and with compassion. May Planned Parenthood be exposed.

---

This article was originally published at Townhall.com.