Really?

Now we have people who are upset because their parents didn’t give them consent to be born

It’s the new growing movement in America and the world; a movement that refers to mommies as, “mombies,” babies as, “crotch-fruit,” and and fathers as, “semen demons.”

They call themselves, anti-natalists.

Anti-natalists are adherents of the philosophy that human beings are a destructive force to animals and to the earth, and therefore it’s morally wrong to create more of them. It isn’t possible, anti-natalists point out, to ask fetuses if they wish to be born (or get an answer out of them, anyway), so having a child means foisting life on another being without his or her consent.

I’m preparing an exclusive article on this, but in the meantime, here’s a story that will cause your head to spin.

Also, check out this video from a few years ago in which I interview a young girl who has been taught that “we shouldn’t exist.”

Facebook Blocks/Unblocks Image of Santa Claus & Jesus

I truly am concerned about the power and influence that Facebook, Google, Apple, and Twitter have when it comes to freedom of speech, expression, and thought. The companies hold the primary platforms of popular communication and as such have place themselves the arbiters of truth and morality. Check out this story, which involves the accompanying image, from LifeSite News:

Facebook is no longer censoring an image of Santa Claus kneeling before the Baby Jesus that it had deemed “violent or graphic content” after a report on LifeSiteNews about the matter went viral yesterday.

Facebook had obscured the picture, explaining that the “photo was automatically covered so you can decide if you want to see it.”

Users then had to click on a button to uncover the photo. Facebook users are now able to freely share the image without any additional step required to view the image.

After LifeSiteNews wrote yesterdayabout Facebook’s condemnation of the picture, the story went viral. In less than 18 hours, the story was shared on Facebook over 42,000 times by LifeSiteNews readers and had been viewed about 60,000 times.

The story received a boost when it was picked up by U.S. conservative columnist Todd Starnes and published on his blog today. It was also picked up by The Blaze in a post today.

Interestingly, the image was restored on the Feast Day of Saint Nicholas, aka, Santa Claus, who is revered for his kindness and generosity.

Facebook explains on its site what it means by “Violence and graphic content:”

“We also know that people have different sensitivities with regard to graphic and violent content. For that reason, we add a warning label to especially graphic or violent content so that it is not available to people under the age of eighteen and so that people are aware of the graphic or violent nature before they click to see it,” the social media giant states.

“We err on the side of allowing content, even when some find it objectionable,” declares Facebook’s community standards, saying it does so in order to maintain a “safe environment” for its “Facebook community.”

It remains unclear why the image of Baby Jesus and Santa was deemed by Facebook to be “violent and graphic content.”

On December 25, Christians around the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ that happened 2,018 years ago. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who came into the world to save mankind from sin and to open the way to heaven. Christians consider God becoming man the greatest historical event to have ever taken place.

The image in question — of the Savior of the World as an infant and a popularized version of a saint — was originally posted on December 1, 2015, with this accompanying poem explaining the touching illustration:

My dear precious Jesus, I did not mean to take your place,
I only bring toys and things and you bring love and grace.
People give me lists of wishes and hope that they came true;
But you hear prayers of the heart and promise your will to do.
Children try to be good and not to cry when I am coming to town;
But you love them unconditionally and that love will abound.
I leave only a bag of toys and temporary joy for a season;
But you leave a heart of love, full of purpose and reasons.
I have a lot of believers and what one might call fame;
But I never healed the blind or tried to help the lame.
I have rosy cheeks and a voice full of laughter;
But no nail—scarred hands or a promise of the hereafter.
You may find several of me in town or at a mall;
But there is only one omnipotent you, to answer a sinner’s call.
And so, my dear precious Jesus, I kneel here to pray;
To worship and adore you on this, your holy birthday.

Facebook has a long history of censoring faith-based organizations and individuals. The social media giant has been forced to apologize for numerous instances of improperly flagging conservative or Christian content as “hateful” or otherwise inappropriate. It has also come under fire for letting left-wing organizations like PolitiFact and the Southern Poverty Law Center influence its “fact-checking” and “hate speech” policies.

Facebook has censored a Christian theology professor after he criticized a video selling LGBT “pride” to children. It has suspended the account of Elizabeth Johnson, a Christian who goes by the name of Activist Mommy, after she called gender confusion a mental illness. The social media giant has also blocked ads for the movie Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer, labeling the film about the serial killer abortionist ‘political speech.’

The social networking giant has also banned many LifeSiteNews’ pro-life ads, deeming them too “political” because they showed pictures of pregnant mothers, ultrasounds, preborn babies, and the tiny feet of an infant child held in her mother’s hands.

Psych Professor Claims Virgin Mary Was #MeToo’d

I saw this story over at World Net Daily and had to chime in.

A Twitter user who profiles himself as an associate professor of clinical psychology and sexuality studies from Minnesota is trying to #MeToo, God, regarding to the New Testament account of the virgin birth.

Eric Sprankle claimed the “The virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen. There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario. Happy Holidays.

In other words, this guy is trying to claim that God caused Mary to become pregnant against her will–which is hardly true.

Dr. Sprankle further tweeted, “The biblical god regularly punished disobedience. The power difference (deity vs mortal) and the potential for violence for saying “no” negates her ‘yes.’ To put someone in this position is an unethical abuse of power at best and grossly predatory at worst.”

Sprankle needs a history lesson. In Luke 1:26-38,

²⁶In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, ²⁷to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

²⁹Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. ³⁰But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. ³¹You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. ³²He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, ³³and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

³⁴“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

³⁵The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called^[a] the Son of God. ³⁶Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. ³⁷For no word from God will ever fail.”

³⁸“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

Sometimes it just takes opening up the Bible and giving it a read.

Vegetable Cartoon Characters Racist?

More madness from my state of California, this time originating at our state’s University in San Marcos.

At an event known as the Annual Whiteness Forum, the popular Christian children’s cartoon series, “VeggieTales,” has been labeled, “dangerous” for promoting racial stereotypes by making the villains colored. That’s right, Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber, whose tagline is, “Remember kids, God made you special and he loves you very much,” are promoting racism.

According to one of the posters presented at the forum, “Whiteness in the Bible isn’t just seen as ‘power’ it’s seen as ‘good.’ When kids see the good white character triumph over the bad person of color character they are taught that white is right and minorities are the source of evil.”

It should be noted that the Veggie Tales’ heroes, Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber, are red and green, respectively.

According to Fox News, the female student who headed up the project reportedly said the evil characters sound ethnic or Latino, while the good characters sound white.

By humanizing vegetables, says the poster, the creators of VeggieTales are using children’s programming to promote racial stereotypes by making the villains racial minorities. “When supremacists aim to taint the way children think of people of color, it will work,” it reads.

PJ Media reached out to Eric Metaxas, a former Veggie Tales writer and narrator, who offered this profound comment:

“All vegetables are part of one race, even though they are of many colors. They are all descended from the same parents — the Adam and Eve of vegetables, who foolishly ate a forbidden fruit (irony?) and screwed everything up for all vegetables descended from them. At least I’m pretty sure that’s the story.”

The Bible teaches that all people — regardless of race — were created in God’s image, have sinned, and are in need of the saving grace of Jesus the Messiah. This is the message of Veggie Tales. I would know–my kids grew up on the series, Veggie Tales. And the villains (and even some of the good guys) do often have silly accents, for purposes of humor.

Satanists Sue Netflix and Warner Bros

A group of Satanists filed a lawsuit against Netflix and Warner Bros for “falsely” depicting their goat-headed idol, Baphomet, in the new spin-off of “Sabrina the Teenage Witch” (editor’s note: see photo by Reuters).

The Salem, Massachusetts-based Satanic Temple is suing the entertainment companies for $50 million for depicting its Baphomet statue in four episodes of the series, “The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina.” The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in New York on Thursday, claims Baphomet’s appearance on the series is copyright infringement, trademark violation and constitutes misappropriation, and “confusion of origin and injury of reputation,” according to the U.K. Telegraph. “Importantly, these original expressions are misappropriated through use of an obvious copy which is featured prominently throughout the ‘Sabrina’ series and the central focal point of the school in the ‘Sabrina’ series which represents evil antagonists,” said the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit states that one of the reasons the Satanic Temple created the goat-headed image was “to promote First Amendment values of separation of church and state and equal protection.”

“The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina” features their version of the statue when Sabrina (Kiernan Shipka) is forced to make a decision on whether to join her family’s devil-worshiping church and sign her name in the “Dark Lord’s Book,” which would take away her free will.

Neither Netflix nor Warner Bros. have publicly commented on the lawsuit.