• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Obama’s Communist CIA Man Brennan’s 2016 Spy Scandal

The human male is born a killer…..the human female born ditsy.  In the ideal of most modern societies,  they are to become civilized,  educated,  “human”, problem solving, raising children for the continuation of the species and cherish honesty!

And then there are today’s Democrats and the Obama’s evil, sleazy COMMUNIST  John Brennans of the world stirring their webs of destruction!  (There can be no good without evil, folks!)

And then there is Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal……an angel of the goodness and truth  gifted in exposing reality in today’s “Journal” and its fellow world of fake news dumping  on America-loving President, Donald J. Trump!   She writes in today’s Journal Opinion Page THE TRUTH of the year!


The Trump-Russia sleuthers have been back in the news, again giving Americans cause to doubt their claims of nonpartisanship.  Last week it was
Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Peter Strzok testifying to Congress that he harbored no bias against a president he describes as “horrible” and “disgusting”.  This week it was former FBI Director Jim Comey tweet-lecturing Americans on their duty to vote Democratic in November.

But the man who deserves a belated bit of scrutiny is former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan.  He’s accused President Trump of “venality, moral turpitude and political corruption,”  and berated GOP investigations of the FBI.  This week he claimed on Twitter that Mr. Trump’s press conference in Helsinki was “nothing short of treasonous.”  This is rough stuff, even for an Obama partisan.

That’s what Mr. Brennan is – a partisan – and it is why his role in the 2016 scandal is in some ways more concerning than the FBI’s.  Mr. Comey stands accused of flouting the rules, breaking the chain of command, abusing investigatory powers.  Yet it seems far likelier that the FBI’s Trump investigation was a function of arrogance and overconfidence than some partisan plot.  No such case can be made for Mr. Brennan.  Before his nomination as CIA director, he served as a close Obama adviser.  And the record shows he went on to use his position – as head of the most powerful spy agency in the world – to assist Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and keep his job).

Mr. Brennan has taken credit for launching the Trump investigation.  At a House Intelligence Committee hearing in May 2017, he explained that he became “aware of intelligence and information about contracts between Russian officials and U.S. persons.”  The CIA can’t investigate U.S. citizens, but he made sure that “every information and bit of intelligence” was “shared with the bureau,” meaning the FBI.  This information, , he said, “served as the basis for the FBI investigation.”  My sources suggest Mr. Brennan was overstating his initial role, but either way, by his own testimony, he as an Obama-Clinton partisan was pushing information to the FBI and pressuring it to act.

More notable, Mr. Brennan then took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was interfering in the election specifically to help Mr. Trump – which quickly evolved into the Trump-collusion narrative.  Team Clinton was eager to make the claim, especially in light of the Democratic National Committee server hack.  Numerous reports show Mr. Brennan aggressively pushing the same line internally.  Their problem was that as of July 2016 even then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn’t buy it.  He publicly refused to say who was responsible for the hack, or ascribe motivation.  Mr. Brennan also couldn’t get the FBI to sign on to the view;  the bureau continued to believe Russian cyberattacks were aimed at disrupting the U.S. political system generally, not aiding Mr. Trump.

The CIA director couldn’t himself go public with his Clinton spin – he lacked the support of the intelligence community and had to be careful  not to be seen interfering in U.S. politics.  So what to do?     He called Harry Reed.  In a late August briefing, he told the Senate minority leader that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump with the election, and that Trump advisers might be colluding with Russia.  (Two years later, no public evidence has emerged to support such a claim.)

But the truth was irrelevant.  On cue, within a few days of the briefing, Mr. Reid wrote a letter to Mr. Comey, which of course immediately became public.  “The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” wrote Mr. Reid, going on to float Team Clinton’s Russians-are-helping-Trump theory.  Mr. Reid publicly divulged at least one of the allegations contained in the infamous Steele dossier, insisting that the FBI use “every resource available to investigate this matter.”

The Reid letter marked the first official blase of the Brennan-Clinton collusion narrative into the open.  Clinton opposition-research firm Fusion GPS followed up by briefing its media allies about the dossier it had dropped off at the FBI.  On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff ran the headline:  “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.”  Voila.  Not only was the collusion narrative  out there, but so was evidence that the FBI was investigating………”

THERE IS MORE ABOUT CIA, FBI, HILLARY, and DEMOCRAT PARTY CORRUPTION attached to the article….This collusion of  crooked Democrat Party Obamalings reeks odors from the world of Hitler’s Nazis and Stalin’s Communists…..WILL TRUTH CONQUER IN THE END/


(Better one than none!)  ghr

For reader information:   Kimberley

PBS Fascistics Cover Election Day, November 8, 2016

Obama’s CIA Man, Communist Party Guy, John Brennan, Attacks President Trump


 As so often happens, President Trump’s critics are so crazy that one feels compelled   to take his side. Thus, former Communist and CIA Director John Brennan tweeted   earlier today:

“Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of “high crime and misdemeanors.”

It was nothing short of treasonous.  Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin.

Republican Patriots:  Where are you??”   John O. Brennan


This is   simply  insane. Other Democrats, not going as far as Brennan, say that Trump “gave away the store,” or made inappropriate concessions to President Putin. But there is no evidence that Trump gave anything away in his meeting with Putin, or made any concessions. Putin certainly didn’t suggest that he did, for example with respect to Crimea, about which Democrats expressed concern in advance of the meeting:

The posture of President Trump on Crimea is well known and he stands firmly by it, he continues to maintain that it was illegal to annex it. We – our viewpoint is different.

Through the first part of the press conference, when President Putin and President Trump gave their opening remarks, it was pretty much like all such press conferences following meetings between heads of rival states. We had a productive conversation; there are many areas where we disagree; we need to cooperate on certain issues like Islamic terrorism; we are looking for ways to have a more constructive relationship. Such statements border on the ritualistic.

It was when the two presidents took questions from reporters that things went South. As Paul says, criticism has justifiably focused on two points. First, Trump assigned blame for bad relations between the U.S. and Russia equally to both countries, while seeming to imply that if anything, his predecessors in the White House might merit particular condemnation.

Trump was wrong, but it is ironic that Democrats take offense at this–Trump isn’t sufficiently patriotic!–when for decades, the Democrats’ position, first held by the left wing of the party and finally by the party as a whole, was that the U.S. was primarily to blame for the Cold War. The Russians were merely acting reasonably in response to aggressive threats from America! Where is Noam Chomsky when we need him?

Moreover, Trump’s suggestion of moral equivalence, while clearly wrong, was not as offensive as President Obama’s apology tour, when he blamed strained relations between the U.S. and Islamic countries on American “arrogance.” Democrats universally defended Obama at the time.

The second focus of criticism is Trump’s refusal to place the blame for phishing the Democratic National Committee’s email system (and unsuccessfully trying to phish the Republicans’ system) on Russia. In his opening statement, he said that he pressed the issue vigorously:

During today’s meeting, I addressed directly with President Putin the issue of Russian interference in our elections.

I felt this was a message best delivered in person. I spent a great deal of time talking about it and President Putin may very well want to address it and very strongly, because he feels very strongly about it and he has an interesting idea.

The interesting idea being, apparently, that someone else did it.

However, when questioned by reporters, Trump, instead of responding as a head of state, took the role of an aggrieved party in a political conspiracy. He expressed agnosticism as to whether it really was the Russians who obtained and disseminated the DNC emails that showed the primary process was rigged in Hillary Clinton’s favor. He went off on a riff about about non-existent collusion, the electoral college margin, the DNC’s refusal to turn its email server over to the FBI–he is right about this, of course–and Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 emails.

In pursuing these themes, Trump was venting his own personal rage–entirely appropriate rage, in my view–against the Democrats who are trying to destroy his administration and are happy to sacrifice American interests in the process. But the role of a head of state is not to vent personal grievances, but to advance the interests of his country.

I don’t think Trump did anything wrong in meeting with Putin, nor do I think he negotiated in an inappropriate way or gave anything away. I think his desire to meet with Putin one on one and try to develop a constructive relationship was entirely reasonable; in fact, George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton did exactly the same thing. If Putin and Trump had waved goodbye to the assembled reporters after delivering their assessments of the day’s meetings, there would have been no news stories.

Instead, President Trump couldn’t resist going off-script and airing his personal grievances in answering reporters’ questions. It was a failure of judgment and discipline. I am not certain that the Russians were behind the DNC phishing, either. But this was not the time or place for the president to express lack of confidence in the CIA, notwithstanding the fact that that agency was corrupted, politicized and weaponized by Barack Obama.

Most often, Trump goads his enemies into saying and doing stupid things. Here, unfortunately, it was the Democrats who got under Trump’s skin and caused him to turn a diplomatic event, which by its nature should be boring, into a personal vendetta. The fact that the Democrats then responded far more crazily won’t change the reality that this was, as far as I can recall, the president’s first diplomatic failure.



Stupidity University of Mn Captures, “Sells” Lefty Stupid Gender Follies


by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

The University of Minnesota has published in draft form a new “gender identity” policy. The Star Tribune headlines: “He, she or ze? Pronouns could pose trouble under University of Minnesota campus policy.”

Using the wrong pronoun could turn into a firing offense at the University of Minnesota.

The U is considering a new “gender identity” policy that would assure transgender men and women, as well as others, the right to use whatever pronoun they wish on campus — whether it’s he, she, “ze” or something else.

And everyone from professors to classmates would be expected to call them by the right words or risk potential disciplinary action, up to firing or expulsion.

Gender nazis love to get people fired.

The University offers a menu of gender identities and pronouns from which students can choose:

Personal Pronoun

• He/him/his

• None

• Prefer not to specify

• She/her/hers

• They/them/theirs

• Ze/Zir/Zirs

Gender identity

• Agender

• Enter your own

• Gender nonconforming

• Genderqueer

• Man

• Nonbinary

• Prefer not to specify

• Two spirit

• Woman

The purpose is to prevent the dreaded “misgendering.”

The pronoun rule is just one of the proposed changes in a draft U policy that, advocates say, would bar harassment and discrimination against transgender and “gender nonconforming” individuals. It’s designed, in part, to combat an indignity known as misgendering — when someone is called by a name or personal pronoun they no longer use.

Misgendering is when you see a woman and refer to her as “she.”

The new policy isn’t directed only at policing speech:

The pronoun rule isn’t the only potentially contentious issue in the proposed policy. Among other things, it would also give individuals the right to access men’s or women’s locker rooms, recreational activities and housing based on their self-identified gender, rather than their biology. Konstan said he’s heard concerns about how that might affect roommate assignments, for example.

When I was 18 or 19, I would have thought integrated showers were a great idea. No doubt the concept will be embraced by today’s undergraduates, but not for the reasons intended by the committee that is drafting the policy.

The University of Minnesota proposal is in draft form for comment, and may be revised before it is implemented. In any event, it typifies the craziness that is going on at academic institutions these days. This is one of several reasons why higher education has fallen into disrepute.



The Obama, Hillary, Bernie Advance of Fascist Leftwingism in America

Did Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Save America?

by Steve McCann   at  American Thinker:

The citizenry of a nation that has experienced unprecedented peace, prosperity and global or regional hegemony over four or more generations are often lulled to sleep believing there will never be an end to their good fortune.   Inevitably these countries and empires have floundered and decayed as they gradually and unwittingly descended into societal, political and economic chaos invariably precipitated by their respective ruling classes.  Over the past fifty years, the United States has been adrift on this same calamitous course.   However, it appears that America may have been granted a reprieve through an event that could have been a long-term disaster potentially turning out to be its salvation.  That event was the presidency of Barack Obama and the ensuing hubris of his fellow-travelers in the American Left.

Over the past 55 years, regardless of any Republican in the White House or in charge of Congress, no one has been able to halt the incessant spread of left-wing radicalism in the nation’s institutions and culture as well as the exponential growth of government with its tentacles increasingly intertwined in the day-to-day lives of all Americans.   As long as the people remained largely disengaged the potential damage to society as a whole and to the financial health of the country was ignored by the vast majority of the population.

Since 2012 this indifference has begun to change as the reality of the nation’s future and the motives and tactics of those in the American Left has come into focus.  That reality has come to the fore as the result of the aggressive pursuit of extremist policies in the cultural and economic arenas by the Obama administration combined with the exposure of left-wing domination in the Democratic Party brought about by the unexpected and nearly successful candidacy of Bernie Sanders in 2016.

Nonetheless, had the Democratic Party hierarchy and Obama not been adamant in nominating the worst campaigner and most unlikeable presidential candidate in modern American history, Hillary Clinton, the stealth takeover of the nation would have continued apace.   It is almost certain that Donald Trump would have lost to a “moderate” Democrat who was more likeable and an aggressive campaigner.   Trump’s high negatives and the fact that he beat Hillary by an aggregate of only 70,000 votes in the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin reveals that Hillary was, in all likelihood, the only nominee he could defeat.

However, Obama and his minions in the Party were unwavering in their decision to actively support only Hillary Clinton and all her baggage, while viewing Bernie Sanders as a foil.   Buoyed by unquestioned belief in Obama’s fabricated popularity coupled with the assumption that the nation had accepted the basic tenets of their version of democratic-socialism, this cabal was so certain of victory that the prospect of Hillary losing to Trump or any Republican was inconceivable.

This overconfident mindset was the culmination of a unique set of events and circumstances beginning in the 1960’s, as the strategy of gradualism utilized during the first six decades of the Twentieth Century by the comparatively more moderate Progressives of that era was discarded in favor of more immediate and assertive tactics.

In the 1960’s the increasingly radicalized American Left began to aggressively infiltrate the mainstream media, the entertainment complex, the education establishment and government bureaucracies.  Due primarily to the fecklessness of the opposition party and ambivalence of the populace, by the early-1990’s the left succeeded in dominating these sectors of the American ruling establishment and the transformation of the culture and society commenced in earnest.

However, the strategic lynchpin of the overall strategy was the seizure of near absolute control of the Democratic Party while the indoctrination of a majority of the populace with anti-American and pro-socialist dogma continued apace.  Surprisingly, the goal of Democratic Party domination was achieved much sooner than anticipated.  With the election of an acolyte of left-wing indoctrination, Barack Obama, and the unabashed exploitation of his skin color and unspoken fealty to socialist/Marxist dogma, the left was in de facto control of the Democratic Party by 2012 and more emboldened in their determination to shut down speech and dissent while aggressively promoting radical cultural changes.

Nonetheless, the American Left has had less than thirty years and only one generation to fully indoctrinate with their failed and self-serving philosophy.  By the end of the Obama presidency 36% of the electorate still identified themselves as conservative (39% in 2000) while 25% self-identified as liberal (21% in 2000) and 34% as moderate (36% in 2000).  Additionally, 37% of those claiming to be moderate identified their views as leaning conservative while just 23% as leaning liberal. Thus, only 33% of Americans currently identify with or believe in current Progressive ideology despite 8 years of the Obama presidency and the left’s ongoing domination of the media, entertainment and education establishments.

While the timing may have been in place to have the first African-American elected President, the timing to turn the United States into a bastion of socialism was not.  The radicalization of the nation’s cultural and religious institutions by the left and the attempt to create a preponderant dependent class has not been in place long enough to change the essential character of a clear majority of the population.  However, Obama and the Democratic Party hierarchy chose to be oblivious to this reality and governed as if a majority of Americans were, in fact, sympathetic to their unique oligarchical iteration of socialism.

The Barack Obama presidency coupled with the overt left-wing take-over of the Democratic Party occurred too early in the history of the nation for the left to fully achieve their objectives.  While needing to do a better job of keeping their ideological bent in the shadows, Obama and his fellow-travelers should have been less obvious in their take-over of the Party and unquestioned support of an unelectable nominee in 2016 in order to control the Senate and the White House for at least another decade.

A decade which would have assured an irretrievably left-wing and all-powerful Judiciary, the near elimination of 1st, 2nd  and 4th  Amendment rights, a stagnant economy manipulated by the Progressives in Washington D.C., open borders in order to manipulate the composition of the voting citizenry, thus ensuring the left retained power in perpetuity, with religious and economic freedom limited to what the federal government bureaucrats declare as acceptable.

Fortunately for America, the conjoined hubris of the Democratic Party hierarchy, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton combined with the socialist absolutism of Bernie Sanders, opened the door for the left to unabashedly come out of the closet during the 2016 campaign.  Thus, offering a clear and unambiguous contrast between the Republican and Democratic Parties and their nominees.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz were the only Republican presidential candidates out of a field of 14 to clearly and instinctively see the reality on the ground and the political opening obliviously provided by the Democrats.  By waging a scorched earth campaign strategy, Trump won not only the nomination but ultimately the Presidency.   The resultant dismay and disbelief of the Ruling Elites and the Democratic Party hierarchy further exposed the unhinged radicalism of the left.

Panic has set in on the American Left with Trump in the White House and the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, as the realization sets in that the likelihood of the Progressives achieving their overarching socialist utopian dream may well be gone with the wind.   However, the specter of not only losing their illusory political supremacy but to do so to someone they view as a reprobate in the White House has so inflamed their passion that their threadbare tactics of fear and intimidation have given way to an unhinged and unabashed public unveiling of their fascist tendencies and their unconstitutional and potentially violent methodology of transforming the United States.  Their ability to hoodwink a majority of the American people is now fully and inalterably compromised.

What these permanent adolescents and their megalomaniacal leadership fail to understand is that they, due to their hubris, obliviousness and single-mindedness, are responsible for the circumstances that eventuated with Donald Trump as President and the Republicans in control of Congress.  The opportunity to dramatically reverse the course the nation was previously sailing with the Progressives at the helm is now within the realm of possibility.

To the surprise of many skeptics, Donald Trump thus far has pursued a primarily conservative agenda with a few exceptions such as spending and his random bombastic governing style in domestic and foreign affairs.  However, the elimination of vast swaths of regulations, the appointment of constitutionalists to the Judiciary including the Supreme Court, as well as tax reform and immigration enforcement, are foundational pieces of this vital course correction.    Trump and the rest of the Republican Party and a majority of the citizenry must continue to seize the moment and maintain the momentum in the upcoming 2018 mid-term elections.  Thus, ensuring Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders exalted status in the pantheon of 21st Century American patriots that helped liberate the United States from the clutches of the American Left.



Today’s Minnesotans Prefer Weed and Socialism

Minnesota Newspaper Laments Liberal Church Decline, But Ignores Reasons For It

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune fails to explore the contrast between receding liberal churches and more vibrant traditional ones.

(Article sent by Mark Waldeland:

Do churches decline without reason as though captive to impersonal forces of nature?

Perhaps so. At least according to a recent article in Minneapolis Star-Tribune. It reviews dying Mainline (i.e. liberal Protestant) Churches in Minnesota. There are a couple cryptic references to growing evangelical churches. And the Catholic Church’s in-state membership has nearly held steady amid national growth.

But the contrast between receding liberal churches and more vibrant traditional ones is never explored.

Unsurprisingly, this indifference to cause and contrast is common among Mainline Protestant elites. They routinely ignore or minimize their half century of perpetual decline. At their recent denominational conventions, both the Episcopal Church and Presbyterian Church USA largely pretended all was well. Meanwhile, they doubled down on radical political, theological and sexual stances.

These stances are unmentioned in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune piece. It states:

Steep drops in church attendance, aging congregations, and cultural shifts away from organized religion have left most of Minnesota’s mainline Christian denominations facing unprecedented declines.

It notes United Methodism in Minnesota since 2000 has lost 35 percent of members, compared to 17 percent nationally. The Presbyterian Church USA in Minnesota has lost 42 percent, commensurate with the national church. And the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in Minnesota has lost 22 percent, compared to 30 percent nationwide.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

The article reports church closings in Minnesota are “leaving a void in communities where churches frequently house child care, senior programs, food shelves, tutoring and other services.” Sadly, no doubt.

Church attendance is plunging nationally. Remaining worshipers are increasingly white headed, the article asserts. It makes America sound like Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. It further reports that the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church USA and United Church of Christ have lost nearly half their memberships nationally since 1990. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has lost one third.

Growth in ‘Smaller Evangelical Denominations’

Very briefly, the article admits:

Not every denomination or church is fragile. Some smaller evangelical denominations in Minnesota, such as Assemblies of God, and some megachurches report continued growth.

Then it insists: “But as a whole, even membership in the evangelical churches has plateaued, according to the Hartford Institute and other studies.”

Of course, “plateaued” is not the same as dying. And why is the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination growing? According to its website:

The USA AG has experienced 27 consecutive years of growth in adherents. The Fellowship is 54 percent under the age of 35 and more than 42 percent ethnic minority.

These numbers contrast sharply with dying Mainline churches with nearly all white, white-headed, congregations. The Assemblies of God with 3.2 million members is now larger than five of the seven Mainline denominations. And it’s larger than the Episcopal Church and Presbyterian Church USA combined.

What about those growing megachurches the article briefly cites? How did they become “mega” if religion is dying in Minnesota? Such questions go unanswered. Instead, there is a long litany of vignettes from shrinking and shuttered churches leaving a trail of tears and despondency. The cause of their demise is never explored.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune never mentioned that most of Mainline Protestantism is theologically liberal. Or that it largely shuns evangelism in favor of political and social causes.

“Church was a bedrock of daily life,” the article mournfully observes. “Its absence leaves a large gap — spiritual, social, emotional — that for many seems almost impossible to fill.”

Meanwhile, there’s another cryptic reference to an apparent exception to church death in Minnesota. A Lutheran church that is closing is still hoping “for a positive ending. They are pleased that a nearby church without a building has made an offer on their property.”

Hmmm, a congregation without a building implies it is a relatively new church plant. Perhaps it is renting space from a school or another church. But now its congregation apparently has sufficient members and finances to buy an existing church building. Who is this mysteriously growing church? And why are they thriving while the Lutheran church is closing?

Again, more unanswered questions. Perhaps the answers would disrupt the narrative of inevitable church death, in Minnesota and ultimately nationwide.

Answers at the Church Conventions

The article focuses on Catholic churches closing in Minnesota. It admits that their two percent membership loss in state is far below Mainline Protestant losses. And the Catholic Church nationwide has grown 14 percent nationally since 2000 while Mainliners lost one third of members. Why?

Answers to some of these mysteries might be found at the Presbyterian Church USA General Assembly meeting last month and the Episcopal General Convention meeting this month. At their current rates of decline neither denomination will exist in 20 years. Yet neither convention focused on evangelism or church growth. Episcopalians debated whether to compel a handful of dissenting traditional dioceses to host same sex nuptials. They also discussed editing their liturgies to become more gender neutral. Presbyterians denounced Israel and USA border policies, opposed religious liberty in favor of LGBTQ and abortion rights, and pondered whether to divest from fossil fuels. A senior church official claimed there’s increasing excitement in their denomination over “ justice” issues. No doubt. They lost 68,000 members last year.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune never mentioned that most of Mainline Protestantism is theologically liberal. Or that it largely shuns evangelism in favor of political and social causes. So lack of new church members should be no surprise. Particularly interesting is that United Methodism in Minnesota, more liberal than elsewhere, has declined twice as fast as nationwide.

Nor did the newspaper mention that Mainline denominations, after abandoning Christian sexual teachings, suffered schisms and accelerated membership losses. Instead, the liberal Mainline’s implosion is conflated with religion’s overall collapse. The wider story is more complex and not as sad.

But the article is right that declining historic churches have left an enormous social and cultural void not easily filled. Their demise is a tragic loss to Minnesota and America. Traditional churches are growing. But they can’t easily replace denominations that after two or more centuries of stately service are now committing virtual suicide.

That Night the Communications Experts “KNIGHTED” Hillary for President!