Black Lives Matter is a business, and business is good.

It’s hard to come to any other conclusion regarding the organization that, according to the New York Post, claims to have taken in a cool $90 million in 2020.

Not a bad haul for BLM’s three self-proclaimed Marxist founders. But we wonder: Where’s all that money going? Because it doesn’t seem to be going to Tamika Palmer, the mother of Breonna Taylor, the drug money handler who was killed in her apartment in March 2020 during a gunfight between her then-boyfriend and Louisville police. Nor does it seem to be going to the father of Michael Brown, the “hands up, don’t shoot” thug who was killed when he attempted to disarm and then bull-rushed Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson.

(Note: Brown’s family received $1.5 million from Ferguson, and Taylor’s family was awarded $12 million by Louisville. To be clear, that’s taxpayer money, not BLM donations, though the threat of BLM is what brought such settlements.)

“I have never personally dealt with BLM Louisville and personally have found them to be [a] fraud,” Tamika Palmer wrote on Facebook.

“Who are they giving to, and what are they doing with it?” Michael Brown Sr. asked. “Why hasn’t my family’s foundation received any assistance from the movement? How could you leave the families who are helping the community without any funding?”

Those are two good questions. And to them we might add two more: At what point does this Black Lives Matter grift get exposed? And at what point does a self-styled Marxist own enough homes?

We’re speaking, of course, of Patrisse Khan-Cullors, one of the group’s cofounders. She’s gone on a bit of a buying spree of late, plopping down $3.2 million and snatching up four homes that are, it’s fair to say, well out of the price range of most black Americans.

As the Post reports, Khan-Cullors was also eyeballing property in the Bahamas at a resort where Justin Timberlake and Tiger Woods both have homes — and where luxury digs at the beachfront resort outside Nassau are priced between $5 million and $20 million, according to a local agent.

The crown jewel of the purchased properties, though, would seem to be the one in Topanga Canyon, which the Post describes as “a $1.4 million home on a secluded road a short drive from Malibu in Los Angeles. … The 2,370-square-foot property features ‘soaring ceilings, skylights and plenty of windows’ with canyon views. The Topanga Canyon homestead, which includes two houses on a quarter-acre, is just one of three homes Khan-Cullors owns in the Los Angeles area, public records show.”

Topanga, as independent black journalist and teller-of-hard-truths Jason Whitlock tweeted, has “a black population of 1.4%.” But, as he noted of Cullors’s choice of neighbors, “She’s with her people!”

That barb, though, was clearly too much for the thin-skinned totalitarians at Twitter, who showed that they’ll suspend even black people if they dare to wander off the Big Tech plantation. “Never apologize to these satanic MFers!” Whitlock responded upon being released from Twitter prison. “Never. Stand your ground. Stand on truth.” (We’re not certain what an “MFer” is, but we have a hunch it’s pretty bad.)

Which brings us to the point of this latest BLM saga: the naked censorship of legitimate news — this time by Facebook, which joined Twitter in blocking its users from linking to the Post article above.

As Alana Goodman of The Washington Free Beacon reports, “Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz has poured over $5 million into a network of nonprofits run by Black Lives Matter leader Patrisse Cullors, according to financial disclosure records, raising questions about whether this relationship played a role in the company’s decision to censor unflattering news articles about the activist last week.”

Hmm … ya think?

As Goodman continues, “Facebook said the reporting violated its ‘privacy and personal information policy.’ The Post argued that the decision was ‘so arbitrary as to be laughable’ and noted that the media routinely report on real estate purchases by other celebrities and political figures without facing social media censorship.”

Facebook is, for our humble operation, the necessary evil of our social media presence. Still, we think Peter Flaherty, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a watchdog group that monitors Facebook, summed up the social media giant pretty well: “We think this, once again, proves freedom of speech is an option not a feature across the Facebook platform, where their corporate interests are placed above the interests of their users at every turn.”