MLK Jr.’s Niece Drops Massive Truth Bomb In Open Letter About Planned Parenthood

In response to a series of disturbing videos apparently depicting Planned Parenthood officials discussing the harvest and sale of organs from aborted babies, pro-life activist Alveda King penned a scathing open letter directed at black legislators.

She addressed the Congressional Black Caucus, expressing her dismay “over the deafening silence coming from you” as it pertains to the controversial videos.

“If they or anyone else had been exposed for harvesting and selling animal body parts,” she reasoned, “there would be such an outrage from the left and right.”

King noted that, through the National Black Prolife Coalition, the CBC has been asked previously to respond to the disproportionately high number of black children killed by abortion. Thus far, she confirmed, there has been no such response.

When the latest controversy arose, however, she said she initially had hope that the caucus would denounce – or at least react to – Planned Parenthood’s behavior.

“But yet we hear nothing,” she wrote. “Your silence is deafening.”

King explained that the prominent men in her family – including her uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. – were advocates for life.

“Granddaddy even saved me and one of my children from abortion,” she noted. “Thank God he did.”

In further making her point that the CBC should reconsider its tacit support of Planned Parenthood, King referenced the racism and exploitation embodied by its founder, Margaret Sanger.

“Well, CBC,” she concluded, “you cannot serve both Planned Parenthood and your constituents. By serving Planned Parenthood you are not only hating the other or despising the other but your position is helping to kill our people.”

Should black leaders denounce the actions of Planned Parenthood? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Why MLK Would Have Opposed ‘Gay Marriage’

Ever notice how the secular left conveniently omits the fact that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a devout Christian minister?

While, historically, there have certainly been apostate “Christians” who, in the name of Christ, have abused and taken out of context certain biblical passages to support slavery, segregation, racism and other evils, it has been, without fail, true Christians–that is, Bible-believing Christians of every race, color and creed–who have led the charge in defense of all legitimate human (and civil) rights.

The Rev. King was one such Christian; and though he and other Christian leaders have, no doubt, welcomed aid and support from honorable and like-minded secularists over the centuries, it was and remains Christians – Bible-believing brothers and sisters like MLK, William Wilberforce, Harriet Tubman, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, et. al. – who have, indisputably, embodied the most effective and well-known of all humanitarian and civil rights activists.

Even so, in recent decades, sadly, and in what amounts to a sort of soft racism, a mostly white, hard-left movement of secular extremists has managed to hijack MLK’s Christian legacy and invoke his character-based “dream” to advance their own anti-Christian agenda and behavior-based nightmare. I am referring, of course, to homosexual activism (i.e., the push for so-called “gay marriage” and “gay rights”), which, by its very nature, and unlike MLK’s “dream,” is a wholly counter-biblical endeavor.

On all issues, particularly issues relating to morality and human rights, God’s word is the plumb line by which all truth is measured. “The moral law or the law of God,” as MLK called it, was, in fact, his exclusive guidepost and primary motivation. From a biblical standpoint, racism is objectively immoral; and Rev. King understood this – so he spent his entire life, gave his life in fact, working to secure civil and human rights for racial minorities.

Similarly, from a biblical standpoint, homosexual behavior, or “the sin of Sodom” as it’s oft referred, is likewise objectively immoral (along with its oxymoronic offshoot: counterfeit “same-sex marriage”). Jesus defined marriage for us. His definition is reflected in the spiritual, biological, and in-every-other-way-self-evident order of His divinely defined design. “‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate’” (Matthew 19:4-6).

Moreover, the very thing that defines “gay marriage,” the biologically and spiritually disordered act of same-sex sodomy, is, likewise, a counterfeit. It mocks God’s design for natural sexual intercourse.

Indeed, the Bible, throughout both the Old and New Testaments, unambiguously condemns as “vile affections,” as sin rising to the level of “an abomination,” all same-sex sexual conduct, be it “loving, monogamous and committed,” or otherwise.

Homosexuality is mock sexuality.

And “gay marriage” is mock marriage.

So-called “gay rights” represent nothing more than moral wrongs. Homosexual sin has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights; and, based upon what we know of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., he would have wholeheartedly agreed. While he said little in public on the issue, what he did say made his viewpoint abundantly clear.

But don’t take my word for it. Unlike the “LGBT” lobby, I’ll let Dr. King speak for himself. In 1958, while writing an advice column for Ebony Magazine, Rev. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. To avoid being accused of “cherry-picking,” here’s the exchange in its entirety:

Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.

No amount of leftist spin can muddy Dr. King’s lucid position on the homosexual lifestyle. He recognized it as a “culturally acquired” “problem” in need of a “solution” – a “habit” stemming from a series of negative “experiences and circumstances.”

Although homosexual activists desperately cling to the fact that, after his death, Dr. King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, did voice some level of support for the homosexualist political agenda, the undeniable reality remains that, based upon his own words, Dr. King supported neither homosexual conduct nor “LGBT” political activism.

Neither would he have supported same-sex “marriage.”

To be sure, in 2005, Rev. King’s daughter, Bernice King, led a march to her father’s graveside in support of a constitutional amendment to defend natural marriage. Sharing his position on the issue, she later said that her famous father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage.”

Indeed, it strains credulity to suggest that MLK, a man of the Bible, would have thrown his weight behind a political movement hellbent on justifying unbiblical sexual appetites and behaviors that he properly identified as “a problem” demanding “a solution” – a “type of feeling” that requires “careful attention,” up to and including “see[ing] a good psychiatrist.”

No, MLK was a Christian minister who both embraced and articulated the biblical “love the sinner, hate the sin” model on homosexuality. Every Christian should follow his lead. After all, it is the lead set by Christ Himself.

And so, how would MLK have responded to the Supreme Court’s recent opinion presuming to invent a “constitutional right” to sodomy-based “marriage”?

It’s clear how he would have responded.

In his “letter from the Birmingham jail,” Rev. King famously declared: “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God,” he explained. “An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

As it was with the national sin of systemic racism, there can be few things more “out of harmony with the moral law” than the inherently immoral notion of sodomy-based “marriage.”

And so the good reverend would have opposed it.

Quite likely, he would have led the charge against it.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

He Marched Next To MLK, Now He Has This Blunt Message For ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement

A Memphis businessman and civil rights leader with a storied past has a message for his fellow African Americans: “Black lives matter. So let’s quit killing each other.”

He believed in and wanted to share the message so much that he placed it on a large billboard next to his insurance agency in the city.

Fred Davis, born in 1938, lived through the momentous civil rights era and was able to witness firsthand some of its watershed moments. He marched right beside Martin Luther King, Jr. during the famous leader’s last protest march and sat with him on the stage during his last speech before an assassin’s bullet cut him in Memphis in April 1968.

Davis, in fact, was chairman of the Public Works Committee of the Memphis City Council during the sanitation workers strike in 1968, which had brought King to town. Davis advocated for the city to recognize the workers’ union.

“I can speak, not from reading a book about the history, because I was a part of the history,” Davis told local NBC affiliate WMC. “I think that gives me a license as an experienced observer to push and to advocate to the black community.”

Image Credit: Local Memphis - Fred Davis with Martin Luther King, Jr.

Image Credit: Local Memphis – Fred Davis with Martin Luther King, Jr.

“We’re going to have to wake up,” he added. “We’re going to have to say to ourselves that black lives matter, and we’re going to have to refrain from killing each other out of our own frustration.”

Davis can speak with the authority of someone who has broken racial barriers and has overcome obstacles to success. He opened his insurance agency in 1967 and went on to become the first African American member of the Independent Insurance Agents. He also ran for and was elected to the first Memphis City Council from a majority white district in 1968.

The “Black Lives Matter…” billboard is not the first time the businessman has used the medium to convey a message.

In 2013, he put this banner on the same billboard next to his business.

Image Credit: WMC Action  News (screen capture)

Image Credit: WMC Action News (screen capture)

Local Memphis featured Davis during its Black History Month programming in 2011, noting he “has also been a strong mentor to young people and his mission is to help grow young people and share what he has learned so that they can step up to the plate and carry it on.”

h/t: The Blaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Simon Says: Tolerance According To Gays Means “Do What I Say, Not What I Do”

Photo credit: Lisandro Sanchez (Flickr)

Houston mayor (and lesbian) Annise Parker’s recent actions exemplify history repeating itself, the necessity for understanding context, and realizing that the simplest solution is found amidst child’s play.

Parker and gay agenda supporters immediately bring to mind the children’s game Simon Says (and other themes from children’s rhymes.) The game’s primary rule, “Do what I say, Not what I do,” is designed to teach children to observe and differentiate between commands and actions. The same skills are necessary for adults. The definitions of tolerance, equality, morality, or societal and behavioral norms differ depending on who uses them.

For example, regarding Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance, nearly triple the number of required signatures were obtained to petition for its repeal. Yet Parker and Houston’s city attorney redefined the requirement and rejected the petition. In response, Houstonians sued. Parker countered, by subpoenaing Christian ministers’ sermons and emails, then revised it to “speeches and presentations.”

Parker is not alone. Judge Vaughn Walker, also gay, overturned California’s Proposition 8, a law supported by the majority of California voters and unsupported by only a minority of Americans.

Walker is not alone. In more than five states, from Indiana to North Carolina, judges are reversing the will of voters by overturning state marriage laws determined by ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments.

Judges are also demanding that ministers be imprisoned for believing and teaching their faith, and that small businesses be fined and closed because their owners won’t bake cakes, take photos, or arrange flowers. And the IRS recently agreed to audit churches.

Many Americans wonder, why follow any law if the only relevant law is what a mayor chooses? Or why vote at all if a judge can nullify the outcome? Why express your faith if you might lose your job?

Simon Says is obviously more than fun and games.

Over the last 25 years, nearly every area of society has been transformed by a successful rebranding scheme devised by Harvard-educated intellectuals and gay activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. In 1990, they initiated an aggressive marketing campaign, detailing their approach in After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s. Their strategy incorporated six points:

  • “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.”
  • “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.”
  • “Give homosexual protectors a just cause.”
  • “Make gays look good.”
  • “Make the victimizers look bad.”
  • “Get funds from corporate America.”

The gay agenda does not solely want tolerance, the right to privacy, or legal protection, but affirmation of the gay lifestyle as a societal and legal norm. Its only obstacle has been, and will always be, Christians who remain faithful to biblical teaching and those who support several millennia of social norms understood as fundamental to human flourishing.

The gay agenda, like Simon Says and very much like Humpty Dumpty, seeks to distract, confuse, and completely bewilder. Brilliantly portrayed by Lewis Carroll through a preposterous and lengthy conversation in Through the Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty best explains their approach. He says to Alice:

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Black News Site Rejects Commentary on MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail-Why?

A minister recently produced an article dealing with MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail. The minister, Reverend Clenard H. Childress, produced his commentary entitled, “The Church in America Has Forgotten,” and quoted King in the piece:

“…If I lived in a communist country today where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeying these anti-religious laws…”

This line captures Dr. King’s belief in civil disobedience against the government when necessary. So what is the controversy? Black PR News decided not to accept Reverend Childress’ commentary after all. What made it unacceptable to them? Black PR News stated:

This column is a sermon with your personal doctrinal beliefs, and we have received many complaints in the past about distributing such material.

 Reverend  Childress took issue with the Black PR News Response and said:

This obviously exposes a deliberate agenda to silence opposing minority voices who have opposing views to abortion and homosexuality.

He added:

Their reasons are absurd. I make it my business to be respectful and empirical. This article holds true to those principles. Commentary always reflects the ‘belief system’ of the commenter.

Dr. Childress clearly believes homosexuality and abortion are sin and that MLK’s Christian ethics would have lead MLK to oppose these things. Black PR News refuses to include the commentary. What do you think?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom