“Collusion” stories undermine democracy more than the Russians ever could

Not for the first time, I flipped over to MSNBC this morning for the first hour block of Morning Joe. Mixed with probably half a dozen other reasons why the presidency of Donald J. Trump is hanging by a thread were yet more stories about collusion with Russians by members of his campaign team. As usual, there’s no word as to what on Earth they might have been “colluding” about, and much of it still comes in the form of speculation by nameless sources, but the story rarely changes. It’s all about the collusion.

Let’s just say for a moment that James Comey is eventually going to produce some sort of blockbuster bombshell showing that there was some form of “collusion” going on. Collusion to do what? And were any laws broken? A bigger concern is precisely what the Russians supposedly were trying to accomplish and if this “collusion” aided them in those goals. At the Washington Post this week there’s a fascinating essay from James Kirchick, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of “The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age.”

Kirchick is no Trump cheerleader, as should be obvious from his previous work. He clearly has his share of misgivings about some of the President’s decisions and methods. But at the same time, he cites NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly, who argues that there has been, “no proof of collusion, no evidence that Russia changed the outcome of the 2016 election, no revelation that fundamentally revises our understanding of the trajectory of events.” With that as a backdrop, Kirchick argues that Trump’s opponents who are constantly ginning up talk of collusion in terms of High Crimes and Misdemeanors are actually doing Russia’s work for them, undermining public confidence in our elections and even our democracy. (Emphasis added)

The word “collusion” became a household term. For some Trump critics, every action or utterance of his presidency — firings, tweets, executive orders — is analyzed through the prism of these presumptions, breathlessly anticipating special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s nearly year-long Russia investigation will find a smoking gun validating it all.

Trump supporters, up to and including Trump himself, have tried to delegitimize Mueller’s necessary investigation for crassly partisan purposes — with the president constantly professing innocence while routinely acting guilty. But it’s also true that Trump’s opponents, eagerly taking reports of each new crumb of circumstantial corroboration as ironclad proof of collusion, are rapidly delegitimizing the presidency, our government and democratic processes.

In their haste to brand President Trump a tool, they’re unwittingly doing the Russians’ work for them: validating the notion that our democracy is a sham.

That has the ring of truth to it. From the beginning, I’ve said that if it turns out that either the President or his campaign staff were knowingly working with actors from the Russian government to disrupt the election, alter the vote count or otherwise directly change the outcome, the public deserves to know and all guilty parties must be held to account. And if it involved the President himself then he would need to be impeached.

But if, as so many indicators have suggested thus far, the only fire under all of the MSM smoke is a few inexperienced campaign aides talking to people they thought might have useful information, only to continually fail like the Gang Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight, what then? If the Russians were the only party responsible for hacking the DNC emails (a subject still up for debate) then they may have succeeded in having an effect on the polls, but if they didn’t involve the Trump campaign then most of this collusion talk becomes smoke and mirrors.

But the President’s opponents in not only the Democratic Party but also the media, seem to be delivering in spades what Putin allegedly desires. (And I purposely say “opponents” here rather than “critics” because there is clearly an ongoing, direct campaign against the White House taking place.) With the employment numbers looking as good as they are, the stock market and people’s 401Ks soaring, taxes being lower and consumer confidence hitting impressive levels, how do you explain a sitting President who has to take comfort in his approval level which barely scrapes above 40% on occasion?

Easy. The poll respondents are being buried in a deluge of news reports every day suggesting that the sky is about to fall on the House of Trump. And if they lose faith in the person in the White House their confidence in the office itself begins to erode as well. In that regard, Kirchick makes a valid point. If Vladimir Putin’s goal truly was to undermine our democracy, he must be having a good chuckle at the moment.

The post “Collusion” stories undermine democracy more than the Russians ever could appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Survey: 89% at March For Our Lives voted for Hillary, fewer than half were there because of gun control

Those numbers will come as no surprise to you or me, and probably as no surprise to lefties either. But they may come as a surprise to the media, which seems to be all-in on the theory that the Parkland students are leading a national popular awakening to the evils of guns and changing the politics of the issue forever.

Could be. We can’t assume too much about national opinion from the composition of a march, which will always draw more activists than regular voters. But here’s one data point about whether Something Has Changed: The marchers as a whole didn’t look like America and they weren’t all that focused on gun control.

Participants were also more likely than those at recent marches to be first-time protesters. About 27 percent of participants at the March for Our Lives had never protested before. This group was less politically engaged in general: Only about a third of them had contacted an elected official in the past year, while about three-quarters of the more seasoned protesters had.

Even more interesting, the new protesters were less motivated by the issue of gun control. In fact, only 12 percent of the people who were new to protesting reported that they were motivated to join the march because of the gun-control issue, compared with 60 percent of the participants with experience protesting

March for Our Lives protesters were also more likely to identify as ideologically moderate. About 16 percent did so, higher than at any other protest event since the inauguration. But unsurprisingly, it was still a very liberal crowd: 79 percent identified as “left-leaning” and 89 percent reported voting for Hillary Clinton.

Check my math, but between the new protesters and the experienced protesters, it looks like a shade under 50 percent claimed to have showed up for gun control. This was, in other words, as much a “Resistance” march as it was about guns. (Dana Fisher, the sociology professor who surveyed the marchers, is writing a book called “American Resistance,” go figure.) New protesters were particularly disinterested in gun issues, comparatively speaking: 56 percent of them said they showed up for “peace” and 42 percent claimed they were there to protest POTUS. For many newbies, this was more about being anti-Trump than about being anti-gun.

And just 10 percent were under 18, according to Fisher, another counterpoint to the media narrative that the Parkland students are leading an uprising of kids to do what liberal adults have tried and failed to do for decades. In fact, not only were the marchers not young, they were unusually old with an average just short of 49, which Fisher claims is higher than the average at most rallies she’s measured. The marchers were also overwhelmingly female at 70 percent and well educated, with 72 percent having a B.A. It was, in other words, on average a march by middle-aged professional women. That’s an important voter bloc but not a mirror held up to the electorate’s face.

Meanwhile:

[R]eports from the Federal Election Commission show donations to the NRA’s Political Victory Fund tripled from January to February.

In January, the NRA collected almost $248,000 in individual contributions. In February, they collected more than $779,000…

Since the Parkland shooting happened in the middle of the month, one could argue the relationship between it and the spike in donations is hard to prove.

However, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political spending, tracked itemized contributions (donations of $200 or more by an individual) in the days before and after the shooting. According to their data, in the two weeks after the shooting, itemized contributions to the NRA doubled from the previous two weeks.

Here again you can’t extrapolate too much from a single data point. Gun-rights supporters always double down after a mass shooting for fear that the anti-gun backlash might just succeed this time and turn into new state or federal regulations. Gotta buy those guns while you still can. This time is noteworthy, though, because Republicans control Congress and the White House, leaving the risk of a new federal “assault weapons” ban anytime soon at precisely zero. If there’s no near-term threat of losing your guns, why plow money into the NRA to protect them?

I think it’s because gun-rights supporters feel attacked and scapegoated to an unusual degree since the Parkland shooting. The NRA is always the evil mastermind in lefty narratives after mass shootings but some of the rhetoric, including and especially from the Parkland students themselves, has laid the blame for the murders directly on the organization and, by extension, its supporters. According to David Hogg, Marco Rubio’s original political sin is accepting money from the NRA; no amount of legislation he proposes now can atone for that. Rubio was explicitly compared to the Parkland shooter himself at that town hall/lynch mob CNN hosted, again because of his relationship with the organization. How can you watch that as a gun-rights supporter and not take offense at the suggestion that if you support a lobby group for gun rights for law-abiding people you have the blood of children on your filthy hands? What else can you do when you’re told that you’re a “bad guy” for objecting to being called a baby-killer by a teenager? Of course many are going to show solidarity by donating to the NRA.

Anyway. Whether or not the new gun-control push fizzles like every other gun-control push in the last 20 years, CNN will always have this. Total pwnage.

The post Survey: 89% at March For Our Lives voted for Hillary, fewer than half were there because of gun control appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Donald Trump Phones Roseanne Barr After Show Ratings Shock Hollywood

Donald Trump Phones Roseanne Barr After Show Ratings Shock Hollywood



President Donald Trump personally phoned Roseanne Barr on Wednesday to congratulate her on her show’s impressive debut.

Details of the president’s call on Wednesday were reported by the New York Times. Axios reported that Trump recalled crossing paths with the ABC sitcom star in New York City during the phone call.

The show’s return to ABC drew 18.4 million viewers in its debut on Tuesday, blowing past industry expectations.

Barr said that she wanted the show to explore how families were struggling to reconcile differences in political opinion and why working class people voted for Trump.

She is also a Trump supporter in real life.

“IT’S OVER! HE WON! PRAYERS ANSWERED! OMG! BREXIT! USA! THE PEOPLE HAVE ASSUMED POWER OVER THE OLIGARCHS! CONGRATULATIONS, AMERICANS!” she wrote on Twitter after the shocking conclusion to the 2016 election.

In an appearance via phone on Thursday’s episode of Good Morning America, Barr recalled her conversation with President Trump and revealed their years-long friendship.

“It was pretty exciting, I’ll tell you that much,” Barr said about the call. “They said ‘Hold please for the President of the United States of America,’ and that was about the most exciting thing ever, and it was very sweet of him to congratulate us.”

“Well, you know, we just kinda had a private conversation, but we talked about a lot of things, and he’s just happy for me,” the 65-year-old Trump supporter explained. “I’ve known him for many years and he’s done a lot of nice things for me over the years and so it was just a friendly conversation about working and television and ratings … Oh yeah, he really understands ratings and how they measure things, and that’s kind of been an interest of mine too for a long time.”

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

NRA PAC Donations More Than Tripled in February

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association / Getty Images

BY:

Donations to the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) political action committee more than tripled in February in comparison to its contributions from January, filings show.

The donations increased as liberal activists, politicians, and celebrities have called for more gun control measures and singled out the NRA and Republican politicians who have received support from the group following the Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 dead.

Speakers at the “March for Our Lives” rally this past Saturday in Washington, D.C., continued the push by calling for an AR-15 ban and restrictions on “high capacity magazines.”

Supporters of the NRA appear to have responded by infusing more money into the organization’s political action committee. The NRA’s Political Victory Fund, the group’s PAC, experienced a nearly five-fold increase in itemized donations immediately following the attack, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The PAC raised a total of $779,063 in February and reported $247,985 in donations in January, an increase of more than 200 percent.

For the two-week period prior to the shooting—from Jan. 31 to Feb. 13—the NRA’s PAC received $27,100 from 51 itemized contributions, or large contributions from individuals in the amount of $200 or more. The names, dates, and amounts of the contributions from donors who give more than $200 are included in filings, allowing for a count of large contributors.

During the two-week period following the attack, itemized donations to the PAC jumped to $70,870 and came from 226 donors. The PAC finished February with $93,963.04 in itemized contributions.

An overwhelming majority of the contributions to the NRA’s PAC last month were in the form of small donations.

Almost 88 percent of the money donated to the NRA’s PAC in February came from unitemized contributions, or individuals giving $200 or less. The PAC reported $685,099.51 in unitemized contributions throughout the month, according to filings.

Those who give less than $200 are lumped together in one total sum. The NRA did not respond to inquiries on the amount of small donors to the PAC by press time.

The NRA’s PAC has now taken in just over $7 million since the start of the 2018 election cycle, which began in Jan. 2017. More than $6.3 million—or around 90 percent—of its total donations this cycle came from small contributions, its filings with the Federal Election Commission show.

Liberals have used the contributions from the NRA’s PAC to Republican candidates as a focal point in their attacks against both the organization and the politicians.

Some in the media—along with liberal activists pushing for more gun control measures—have conflated the amount of contributions politicians have received from the NRA’s PAC by combining the donations given to campaign committees with independent expenditures spent by the group, which include the likes of paid advertisements in support or opposition of candidates. Independent expenditures are not coordinated between an organization and a politician’s campaign in any way.

For example, MSNBC’s Joy Reid tweeted out a picture of Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) ten days after the shooting that read, “Donations from the NRA to Sen. Marco Rubio — $3,303,355.” The picture with the widely cited figure was retweeted 4,800 times and received more than 5,800 likes.

Reid later talked about the $3.3 million in “donations” on her show that weekend.

“So now, Marco Rubio is essentially not taking a single step away from the NRA,” Reid said. “In fact, let’s look at his history. Over the course of his career, his donations from the NRA total—top—$3.3 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.”

Federal PACs such as the NRA’s are capped at giving a maximum of $10,000 per candidate, per election cycle with $5,000 allotted to a primary and $5,000 to the general election.

Rubio received $4,950 from the NRA’s PAC in 2010 and $9,900 during the 2016 cycle.

The NRA spent $2.3 million on independent expenditures during Rubio’s 2016 Senate race opposing his challenger, former Democratic representative Patrick Murphy, while putting $1 million towards communications in support of Rubio’s reelection.

However, independent expenditures “are not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party or its agents” and are not “donations” or funding to a candidate’s campaign.

Publications such as the New York Times have written that the “true source” of the NRA’s clout lies in its ability to mobilize its members and not from its donations to candidates.

The NRA “derives its political influence instead from a muscular electioneering machine, fueled by tens of millions of dollars’ worth of campaign ads and voter-guide mailings, that scrutinizes candidates for their views on guns and propels members to the polls,” the Times wrote.

“The organization’s calculation is that its money is better spent on maintaining a motivated base of gun rights supporters than on bankrolling candidates directly,” they later add.

Since 1990, the NRA’s PAC has averaged around $1.3 million in total direct contributions to all federal candidates per election cycle.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com

Actress Felicity Huffman: Leonardo DiCaprio’s Private Jet Is OK Because He Cares So Much About the Environment

Actress Felicity Huffman: Leonardo DiCaprio’s Private Jet Is OK Because He Cares So Much About the Environment



It doesn’t matter how many air miles eco-crusader Leonardo DiCaprio racks up in his private jet on his mission to save the planet. All that matters is that his intentions are good, one of his fellow celebrities, actress, Felicity Huffman has explained.

“I think Leonardo DiCaprio has probably done more for the environment than anyone. Does he fly privately? Probably but who cares? But he is doing amazing work, and really getting the message out there,” Huffman told the Daily Mail. 

The former Desperate Housewives star was speaking with her actor husband William H. Macey at the 2018 Institute of the Environment and Sustainability (IoES) Gala Red Carpet in Los Angeles.

DiCaprio also received praise from Friends actress Courtney Cox, who said who told the outlet, “Celebrity can bring a voice to things that you wouldn’t necessarily be able to do otherwise. So he is using his voice in a wonderful way.”

“We are creating the mess that we are in,” Cox continued. “We need to raise the awareness as much as we can to fix the problem. That is what we do at events like this, so we can honor the people that are changing our world.”

DiCaprio himself would likely agree that he is better at raising awareness of the problem than he is at fixing it.

The Academy Award-winner has previously admitted that his “carbon footprint is bigger than most peoples.”

“The U.S. has been the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in history. And there’s no doubt that we’ve all benefitted from fossil fuels. I know I have. My footprint is probably a lot bigger than most people’s. And there are times when I question, what is the right thing to do? What actions should we be taking?” DiCaprio said in his National Geographic Channel documentary spacial Before the Flood. 

“There are over a billion people out there without electricity and they want lights, they want heat, they want the lifestyle that we’ve had in the United States for the last hundred years,” the actor said. “If we’re going to solve this problem we all have a responsibility to set an example. And more than that, help the developing world transition before it’s too late.”

Indeed, DiCaprio’s carbon footprint is massive and MailOnline has helpfully catalogued a list of his environmental achievements.

In July 2015, he was lambasted for spending a week lounging on his super yacht in the Mediterranean, just after receiving another environmental accolade.

And in 2014, emails hacked from film studio Sony revealed he took six private flights in just six weeks which cost £138,000. This travel included two round trips from Los Angeles to New York, and one from LA to Las Vegas.

In the 2016 climate change documentary Before the Flood, which aired on on the National Geographic Channel, DiCaprio reflected on his carbon footprint.

He said: ‘The U.S. has been the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in history. And there’s no doubt that we’ve all benefitted from fossil fuels. I know I have.

He’s definitely not following his personal example, that’s for sure.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

With Friends Like This Trump Doesn’t Need Enemies

With Friends Like This Trump Doesn’t Need Enemies
Geeze Louise, to listen to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and a host of other fair-weather friends you would think that President Trump has started eating aborted fetuses for breakfast.  Get a grip people, he signed a short-term Omnibus spending bill, he didn’t give away the keys to the kingdom.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/

WATCH: Actor Mario Lopez Shares Baptism At Jordan River: ‘I Have Decided to Follow Jesus’

Last week, actor and TV host Mario Lopez shared his deeply-held Christian faith with the world, posting a video of his baptism in the Jordan River.

On a trip to Israel, Lopez toured holy sites and shared his experiences via social media. In one video post, the family man stood near the Sea of Galilee.

“This is where Jesus walked on water,” said Lopez, “and the River Jordan runs into the sea, and that’s where, of course, Jesus got baptized, which I’m gonna be doing!”

In another post leading up to the baptism, the “Extra” host said, “We are at the Jordan River where John the Baptist baptized Jesus Christ. I’m about to get baptized.”

“It’s a beautiful day. There’s a really cool Catholic priest that’s gonna do me the honors. And there’s a sermon going on right now. So I’m going to join these fine folks and then, bam! It’s on!”

Flanked by two Catholic priests in the river, Lopez was asked about his faith before being dunked in the water.

“Do you believe in Jesus Christ?”

“Yes, I do.”

“Do you believe that he is the son of God?”

“Yes, I do.”

“Do you intend to serve him all your life?”

“Yes, I do.”

After Lopez was baptized, tourists from Romania sang, “I have decided to follow Jesus.”

“Thank you,” Lopez said, exiting the river. “Beautiful people here. This is awesome. Wow. I just got baptized in the Jordan River. Hallelujah.”

“That was awesome, that was so cool and I was so fortunate to meet these very nice people from Romania. They sang the song for me and everything. That was moving. That was cool,” continued the actor.

WATCH:

Lopez has been open about his growing Christian faith, telling a Fox News affiliate in 2015 that he’s tried “to build a more spiritual muscle.”

“It’s nice to have something that is consistent in our life — family and faith is that for me,” he said.

The devout Catholic has continued to post about his spiritual journey through the Holy Land. Here are some highlights:

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml/favicon.ico

Shock Claim: Cambridge Analytica Employee Found Dead After ‘Deal Went Sour’

Christopher Wylie, the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower who claims that the project he led resulted in the company’s unethical use of Facebook data to help elect Donald Trump, made a series of shocking claims in front of a British parliamentary committee on Monday. Among allegations of “anti-Islamic” campaigns and hacking, Wylie said that his predecessor may have been “poisoned” after a “deal went sour.”

In his testimony, Wylie said that CA’s elections chief Dan Muresan was found dead in a hotel room in Kenya in 2012 while working with President Uhuru Kenyatta’s re-election campaign. Wylie said he’d heard Muresan was murdered.

“Cambridge Analytica was working with Kenyan politicians, but because in a lot of African countries if a deal goes wrong you pay for it,” said Wylie, the Daily Mail reports.

“Dan was my predecessor….what I heard was that he was working on some kind of deal of some sort — I’m not sure what,” he said. “The deal went sour. People suspected he was poisoned in his hotel room. I also heard that the police had got bribed not to enter the hotel room for 24 hours. That is what I was told — I was not there so I speak to the veracity of it.”

Muresan was the son of Romania’s former Agriculture Minister Ioan Avram Muresan. Shortly after he died, Romania’s Foreign Ministry described him as working for a “telecommunications company”; his presence in Kenyan territory, the ministry told the Bucharest Herald, had not be registered yet with the Romanian diplomatic mission. “The same source shows that after the police arrived, the body was taken by an undertaker company for an autopsy,” the Herald reported.

Among other scandalous claims, Wylie told MPs that the SLC, the parent company of CA, was involved in the 2015 Nigerian election, allegedly distributing compromising material and hacking information from presidential candidate Muhammadu Buhari. Wylie described the organization as “incredibly anti-Islamic,” producing “threatening” messages “portraying Muslims as violent.”

Wylie’s allegations that Cambridge Analytica accessed Facebook data to create a database of millions of user profiles for targeted campaign — a tactic used by the Obama campaign in 2012 to much praise from the media — created a media firestorm. Subsequent reports have indicated that the portrayal of CA’s role in the Trump campaign was overblown and the company maintains that the data collected under Wylie was not used after Facebook asked them to destroy it.

Related:

Ex-Obama Campaign Official: Here’s How We Were Able To Mine So Much Facebook Data

Mark Zuckerberg: Here’s What Really Happened With Cambridge Analytica, And How We’re Responding

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

WALSH: We Are A Nation Of Depressed People. Let’s Stop Ignoring The Spiritual Roots Of The Crisis.

Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro wrote an interesting piece for The Daily Wire last week about the epidemic of youth suicides in America. The suicide rate among adolescents has jumped by 70% in recent years. The suicide rate for all age groups has risen dramatically, and now stands at a 30-year high.

Shapiro correctly traced the problem not to economic or even psychological concerns, but to the human spirit. Many people in our secular society do not know why they exist and cannot figure out why they should continue existing. Our culture will not provide an acceptable answer to this question, and so they only feel more lost the more they look for one. I agree with Shapiro that this is where the suicide epidemic really begins. Now I’d like to extend his point a little further.

Depression has skyrocketed along with the suicide rate, which is no surprise. Today, one in six Americans takes some kind of psychotropic drug, and anti-depressants account for a good portion of that figure. To put that in perspective: a little over 20% of Americans take acetaminophen in a given week, compared to 16% or 17% on anti-depressants and other similar drugs. It is no longer hyperbole to say that psychiatric pills are about as ubiquitous in American society as Tylenol.

But the problem just keeps getting worse. More and more people are depressed. More and more are taking their depression to its most awful conclusion. And what’s our solution? Drugs, drugs, drugs. I saw a commercial the other day for a supplemental anti-depressant for people who are already on one anti-depressant. If that doesn’t work, take a third. Then a fourth. Drug yourself and drug yourself again and drug yourself until the pain goes away. But it will never go away because the pain is not merely physical. It is also spiritual. And we make a horrible mistake when we ignore the spiritual roots of this affliction.

I do not deny that depression has, in some cases, a physical element to it. We are physical beings, after all. What happens to our bodies and in our bodies matters. Yet we are also spiritual beings. We have souls as well as brains, and the two do not work independently of one another. We cannot say that guilt, worthlessness, hopelessness, emptiness, helplessness, and sadness are purely psychological, any more than we can say that love and hope and joy are purely psychological. Depression is despair, and despair is the absence of hope and joy. If joy’s absence is a medical phenomenon then joy itself must be a medical phenomenon. By reducing depression to nothing more than a chemical event, we have reduced the human conscience to nothing more than a chemical event. By taking a materialistic view of depression, we take a materialistic view of humanity.

Speaking of materialism, it is no wonder that depression is so common in a culture governed by a materialist philosophy and inhabited by those who subscribe to it. Indeed, hopelessness in a materialist is actually quite rational because materialism is fundamentally hopeless. It makes no sense for a religious person to say that a depressed materialist shouldn’t be depressed. Isn’t that exactly how he should feel? The godless life is a despairing life. It is a life of pointless suffering and misery. In a world without God, what is there to feel but despair? We are dust and our existence amounts to nothing and leads to nothing. There is no beauty, no joy, no redemption. We are careening helplessly back into the abyss from which we came. When we die, we will dissolve into the ether and all we are, all we have done, everyone we have loved, will be nothing. Life itself is nothing. And you say that a person with this belief system has no reason to be depressed? What else should he be?

If a godless man is in so much despair that he is on the verge of hurting himself or someone else, it may be necessary to treat the problem with drugs for a time. But anyone who has faith must recognize, plain as day, that the source of this man’s emptiness is emptiness itself. He has rejected God and left a giant, gaping hole inside himself. Drugs may numb the pain he feels because of the hole, but they cannot fill it.

It is a dangerous procedure to remove despair from a man without addressing the reason for his despair. We are depriving him of the very thing that may propel him to the light. We are giving him morphine for the burn without actually taking his hand away from the fire. We are healing his emotions while leaving his soul to languish in the void. We are erasing the bleak and terrible feelings that must naturally come from his bleak and terrible view of life, which makes it less likely that he will ever develop any other view. I think we do him a great injustice.

There is an obvious objection here: not every depressed person in America is an atheist. What about a religious person who has depression?

I can speak here from experience. I have carried this cross all my life. I think in my case — as in the case of so many others — there is a psychological predisposition to it. But that is not the whole story. It cannot be. Guilt, emptiness, hopelessness, and misery cannot have purely physical roots because we ourselves do not have purely physical roots. Depression cannot originate solely from your brain because even your thoughts do not originate solely from your brain.

Before we began our societal campaign to medicalize everything, we used to refer to depression among the religious as a “dark night of the soul.” Many religious people through the ages have written about this period in their lives — a period that sometimes lasts their whole lives — where they feel a certain coldness, a certain separation, a certain darkness inside themselves. They feel despair, or something like despair, despite knowing that there is no reason to despair. Sometimes they feel overwhelmed by guilt and self-loathing. Sometimes they become obsessively fixated on their mortality. Sometimes they feel as though they are damned. All of these are features of the dark night of the soul, or “depression,” as we call it today.

How can we explain it? Well, there is no doubt that some of this is the result of spiritual attacks waged by the Enemy. As you draw closer to God, you may hear even louder a whisper inside yourself telling you that you are too disgusting and evil and irredeemable to ever be loved or forgiven by Him. This is the voice of Satan trying in desperation to sabotage your relationship with God. It is not so much a product of depression as a product of oppression — spiritual oppression, from the Oppressor.

Spiritual warfare does not explain everything, however. It may be the case that God, in His wisdom and mystery, chooses to withhold comfort from a person of faith. It may be part of His plan that we feel this restlessness; that we travel through the dark; that we grapple with something painful yet profound. That isn’t to say that we should never resort to medication under any circumstance, or that God wants every depressed person to be depressed, but it is to say that we ought to stop and consider what else He may be trying to tell us in our suffering. Our first reaction when we feel pain is to get rid of it, using the quickest and easiest methods available to us. But perhaps, sometimes, we are meant to do something else with it.

Perhaps He allows us to experience this anguish so that we will depend even more on Him. Think of the paralytic in Scripture who had to be lowered down through the ceiling before Christ would heal him. Perhaps He needs to see the same kind of desperation in us, for our own sake. Perhaps there is a certain sin blocking our path and He needs us to confront it and repent of it before we can find peace. Perhaps He is giving us a small taste of Christ’s Passion, and we are meant to rejoice in it. Perhaps it is through rejoicing in the pain that we will find relief from it. Perhaps it is a trial that He gives us so that we can be humbled and strengthened. Perhaps our prayer life is severely lacking. Perhaps we are more introspective than the average person and our introspection brings us to questions that are overwhelming and terrifying. Perhaps a religious person may feel dread when he contemplates the Divine for the same reason that he may feel dread when he looks out upon the ocean: because it is vast and beautiful and unknowable, and he is so small and fragile in comparison to it. Perhaps a combination of these explanations. Perhaps an explanation I have not mentioned and cannot comprehend. Or perhaps, in some cases, there really is a mental illness playing a part in all of this.

I cannot say for sure. I do not pretend to know for sure. No man on Earth can look at another person’s inner turmoil and diagnose it with 100% certainty. But I can say for certain that there are many possible reasons for, and causes of, this thing we call depression. And it is very unfortunate that we only ever consider just the one.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

More Individuals Horrified, Begin Finding Everything FB Took Off Their Phones

It could be the two words that end up bringing Facebook down: Cambridge Analytica.

Yes, the firm that constructed an app to take data without permission from 50 million users has reduced public trust in the social media giant. This has happened before, particularly when it comes to privacy breaches and algorithm changes that target conservative users and websites.

However, this time major advertisers are pulling away from Facebook. Its stock price is plummeting. And, what’s more, the Cambridge Analytica scandal has users interested in finding out just what Mark Zuckerberg’s behemoth has been taking off of their phone and their computer — and not liking what they’re finding.

As you may have heard, you can download everything that Facebook has stored on you as a .zip file. The results, as Twitter users shared, are eye-opening.

Conservative Tribune Daily Email

Thanks For Subscribing!

It didn’t take long for people to discover that Facebook has a lot more data on them than they thought. As you can see from above, it’s not just search history. In some cases, it’s downright disturbing.

Does this information make you more likely to get off of Facebook?

And it’s not just big companies that are looking to mine your information. As one of the Twitterers above discovered, even Demi Lovato’s official page was interested in her info. And she isn’t the only artist doing that, either:

RELATED: Tech Journal: Facebook Secretly Recording Phone Calls — FB Denies, Users Post Evidence

And you don’t even have to be a user to have your data collected by Facebook — non-users who have visited sites with Facebook ads or shared content from Facebook are also tracked. The irony is that it’s significantly more difficult for non-users to find out what the social media platform has collected about you.

Last month, before the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke, New Zealand Herald writer Nick Whigham found out just how much data the service had been collecting from him.

“Since the moment I, and everyone else signed up, the social media service has been collecting and keeping everything — I seriously mean everything — we have ever done on the site,” Whigham wrote.

Whigham’s data “included scanned copies of lease forms from a previous rental property I must’ve sent to my buddies over Messenger, my current tenant ledger report, an old monthly billing statement for my home broadband, screen shots of banking transfers and seemingly endless web pages of all the banal conversations I have ever had on the platform.

“It’s one thing to know Facebook holds all this data (and much more) on you but it’s another thing to trawl through it and find things even you’d forgotten about yourself,” he wrote. “It’s an odd feeling to think that, in some ways, Facebook knows you better than you know yourself.”

This was scary enough before Cambridge Analytica. Now, it’s becoming even more of a dystopian nightmare.

If you want to find out what Facebook has been collecting about you, here’s a handy illustrated guide on how to do it:

Prepare to be surprised — and likely not in a good way.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://conservativetribune.com