• 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

Piers Morgan Review of CNN Greediness

Trump’s media enemies know that bashing him makes them big money but CNN’s greediness and desperation to get him has cost them dear

” ‘CNN, the most trusted name in news,’ bellows James Earl Jones morning, noon and night during the network’s 24/7 programming.

Well, not today it isn’t.

In arguably the most humiliating moment in its history, CNN just accepted resignations from three of its top journalists over a story they got horrendously wrong about President Trump and Russia.

It couldn’t have come at a worse time for CNN, or involved a worse kind of story.

Its war with Trump has escalated on an almost daily basis since he won the presidency.

He furiously brands CNN ‘Fake News’.

CNN, in turn, mocks and berates him at every turn and devotes huge resources toward trying to expose him.

It’s a toxic, abusive relationship that’s got so vicious and vengeful it threatens to imperil the very cornerstone of democracy, freedom of speech.

Now, CNN’s high moral ground has crumbled beneath it in spectacular style.

And it’s collapsed because all those involved forgot the golden rule of journalism: if it seems too good to be true, it probably IS too good to be true.

Last Thursday, CNN.com blasted out a new ‘bombshell’ exclusive about Trump and Russia.

It was the latest in a relentless barrage of similar Russia-related scoops by award-hungry mainstream media organisations desperately trying to prove Trump and/or his campaign team colluded with Russians, possibly as high up as Vladimir Putin, to fix the 2016 US Election.

Yet to date, there remains not a shred of hard evidence to nail the swirling maelstrom of rumours and scurrilous headlines.

Hence, no doubt, CNN’s wild over-excitement at finally getting a lead on what seemed like a possible game-changing piece of information.

It reported the Senate Intelligence Committee was investigating a potentially highly compromising link between Anthony Scaramucci, a prominent ally of Trump, and a $10 billion Russian investment fund…….” Please continue reading:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4643532/PIERS-MORGAN-CNN-s-greediness-Trump-cost-them.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus

Dem Fems Shun World Hero Ayaan Hirsi

Ayaan Hirsi Ali On Why Senators Kamala Harris And Claire McCaskill Ignored Her At Last Week’s Hearing

by John Sexton  at  HotAir:

“Ayaan Hirsi Ali testified before a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs last week. Hirsi Ali was there with Asra Nomani to discuss the ideology of political Islamism. But a curious thing happened at the hearing. The Democratic Senators refused to ask Hirsi Ai or Nomani any questions, ensuring they were given almost no time to speak during the hearing. Here’s how the NY Times reported it:

SEE ALSO: GA-06: Hey Democrats, you wasted $30 million for your guy to barely break 48 percent

When the witnesses completed their brief testimonies, Democratic Senate committee members, including four women senators — McCaskill, Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Maggie Hassan and Senator Heidi Heitkamp — ignored Hirsi Ali and Nomani during the question-and-answer session, never once directing a question to them — about half the duration of the entire hearing…

Because of the strategy of deflection by Democratic senators, Hirsi Ali and Nomani spoke for about 15 minutes combined.

Today, the NY Times published an op-ed co-written by Hirsi Ali and Nomani about their experience at the hearing and what they think it means:    (Please read on!)

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/22/ayaan-hirsi-ali-kamala-harris-claire-mccaskill-ignored-last-weeks-hearing/

CNN’S TOY NEWS FOR IMMATURE FASCISTS by jeff zucker?

CNN poobah Jeff Zucker bangs his spoon on his high chair

By John Dietrich  at  American Thinker:

“CNN chief Jeff Zucker has criticized President Trump’s attacks on the press, calling them “unconscionable and dangerous.”  There are two possible ways to describe Zucker’s remarks a day after a congressman was shot: either they are an example of incredible chutzpah or they are so inappropriate that they border on the pathological.  Zucker claims, “[T]he level of threats faced by his journalists is more serious than people realize.”  He gives as an example recently elected Montana congressman Greg Gianforte “body-slamming” a newspaper reporter.  ABC News explained that the reporter simply asked the candidate a question and was attacked in response.

Zucker explained, “[T]his is what happens when you try to delegitimize an institution that is trying to do its job.”  He complained, “[I]t is shameful on the part of the administration and other politicians to cause a frenzy against something that is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States.”  In Zucker’s view, the media are simply doing their job, and this is protected by the Constitution.  However, the media’s critics are complaining that the media are not doing their job.  They are propagandizing.

CNN’s right to propagandize is protected by the Constitution.  The people’s right to criticize fraudulent news is also protected by the Constitution.  Has criticism of the media created a dangerous climate for journalists?  Or have the establishment media’s constant attacks on the Trump administration created a dangerous climate for his supporters?

The fact that establishment media are the source of “fake news” is long known and well established.  The New York Times still has a portrait of Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Duranty on its wall.  Duranty is famous for successfully concealing the Soviet communists’ murder of 6 million Ukrainians from the American public.  Numerous “journalists” have been exposed as liars.  These include Pulitzer Prize winner Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Brian Williams, and Dan Rather.

Perhaps the most damning evidence of media distortions was provided by one of Jeff Zucker’s predecessors.  In 2003, CNN head Eason Jordan admitted in his New York Times op-ed, “The News We Kept to Ourselves,” that CNN distorts the news.  Jordan explained that this was done in order to maintain access to sources.  Without access, a news organization cannot function.  But what price is it willing to pay?  This may be behind CNN’s Jim Acosta complaint about his seating arrangement during Trump’s joint press conference with Romania’s president.  He described it as being “in the equivalent of Siberia.”  CNN is accustomed to the front row.

Zucker’s remarks are part of an effort to blame Republicans for the recent assassination attempt on Republican congressmen.  Former vice president Joe Biden added to this at a Californian fundraiser, stating, “This past election cycle churned up some of the ugliest, ugliest realities that persist in our country. Civilized discourse and real debate gave way to the coarsest rhetoric, stoking some of the darkest emotions in this nation.”  Former executive editor of the New York Times Jill Abramson claimed that “both President Trump and the congressional leadership on the Republican side are extremely divisive and that they are really benefiting from a kind of rage machine that operates in this country.”

The Times attempted to buttress this argument by referring to the shooting U.S. rep. Gabby Giffords and attributing this to actions of the Sarah Palin campaign.  The Times followed this with a retraction.  Its editorial stated, “An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.”  The media are pursuing this argument even though it is obvious that the major portion of hostile rhetoric originates on the left.

Some of these attacks are obviously over the line.  David Simon, the creator of The Wire, a television show, wrote, “If Donald Trump fires Robert Mueller and is allowed to do so, pick up a [g——] brick. That’s all that’s left to you.”  Professor John Griffin from the Art Institute of Washington wrote on Facebook that Republicans “should be lined up and shot” for their votes and “Republicans are a [f——] joke and their voting block [sic] runs the gamit [sic] from monstrous to ignorant.”  Shalom Auslander wrote in  the Washington Post, “Don’t compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler.  It belittles Hitler.”  President Obama can remark, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” and this is considered totally benign……”  Please read on:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/cnn_poobah_jeff_zucker_bangs_his_spoon_on_his_high_chair.html

WSJ: Anatomy of a Witch Hunt

Anatomy of a Witch Hunt

The Trump-Russia scare comes from the same playbook as fake cancer scares.

by Holman Jenkins   at the Wall Street Journal:

“Americans won’t be really good citizens until they read Timur Kuran and Cass Sunstein’s 1999 law review article about “availability cascades.”

Their launching point is the process by which we (i.e., human beings) decide to believe what others believe, and judge the truth of a proposition by how familiar it is. Such “availability cascades” drive government policy in good ways and bad, but usually bad. An example the authors analyze in detail is 1989’s fake “Alar” cancer scare that devastated U.S. apple growers.

Which brings us to today’s question: How did it become widely believed in the first half of 2017 that a U.S. president committed treason with Russia?

Consider what has passed for proof in the media. Tens of thousands of Americans have done business with Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, not to mention before.

In 2009 President Obama made the first of his two trips to Russia with a gaggle of U.S. business leaders in tow.

Of these many thousands, four were associated with the Trump campaign, and now became evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.

Every president for 75 years has sought improved relations with Russia. That’s what those endless summits were about. Mr. Trump, in his typically bombastic way, also promoted improved relations with Russia. Now this was evidence of collusion.

Russian diplomats live in the U.S. and rub shoulders with countless Americans. Such shoulder-rubbing, if Trump associates were involved, now is proof of crime.

The Alar pesticide scare only took off when activists whom Messrs. Kuran and Sunstein label “availability entrepreneurs” peddled deceptive claims to a credulous “60 Minutes.” We would probably not be having this Russia discussion today if not for the so-called Trump dossier alleging improbable, lurid connections between Donald Trump and the Kremlin.

It had no provenance that anyone was bound to respect or rely upon. Its alleged author, a retired British agent named Christopher Steele, supposedly had Russian intelligence sources, but why would Russian intelligence blow the cover of their blackmail agent Mr. Trump whom they presumably so carefully and expensively cultivated? They wouldn’t.

Yet recall the litany of Rep. Adam Schiff, who declared in a House Intelligence Committee hearing: “Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence?”

His litany actually consisted of innocuous, incidental and routine Trump associations interspersed with claims from the Trump dossier to make the innocuous, incidental and routine seem nefarious.

Maybe Mr. Schiff is a cynic, or maybe Harvard Law sent him back into the world with the same skull full of mush with which he arrived. But ever since, every faulty or incomplete recollection of a meeting with a Russian has been promoted in the media as proof of treason by Trump associates.

The president’s obvious irritation with being called a traitor is proof that he is a traitor.

Whether the Russia incubus did more harm to Mr. Trump’s vote or Hillary’s vote during the election is impossible to know. But Mr. Trump won, so under the hindsight fallacy his victory is now proof that he conspired with Russia.

The term “availability bias” originated in the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, whose Nobel Prize-winning research gave birth to the field of behavioral economics.

Mr. Kahneman went on to write 2011’s indispensable “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” and I’m here to tell you that journalists especially pride themselves on their fast thinking—the kind that mistakes randomness for pattern, confuses correlation with causation, and gives excessive rein to emotional and cognitive biases.

Notice I don’t say reporters and editors are so dumb they can’t free themselves from such errors. I say that such errors are their stock in trade.

The original allegory of fast thinking, of course, is the old folklore tale, “the emperor’s new clothes.” In his 1922 book “Public Opinion,” Walter Lippmann explained how journalists reduce complex, novel realities to off-the-shelf “stereotypes.”

Or as a colleague once said of Stalin, “[He] tries to force life into a ready-made framework. The more life resists . . . the more forcefully he mangles and breaks it.”

Come to think of it, that’s not a bad way of describing how the D.C. anthill has reacted to the unexpected, exotic, high-risk, possibly providential experiment of the Trump presidency.

We mean every descriptor. His very unsuitability, the mood of the American public that elected him, the obscure impasse of American politics that brought him to power—all these signs deserve more respect than they’re getting.

His Torquemadas don’t and can’t know whether our democracy, in the improbable Mr. Trump, found a lever to move us forward, but there’s something repugnant in their desire not to find out.”

Comment:   The above Wall Street Journal article is a foreign language to about 99.3% of today’s American “adults” under the age of 50.  Truth, words, places, people, actions have become foreign to their modern  leftist equalized fascistic Democrat Party propaganda to force upon America the most important right….to be equally ignorant and powerless to what today’s “Democrats” are cooking up for the nation’s future.

Democrats Developing a Fascism Similar to Socialist Revolutionaries Which Led to NAZI Germany, and SOVIET COMMUNIST RUSSIA

The ‘Resistance‘ Goes Live-Fire

The media seem blithely unaware that the anti-Trump “Resistance” has been accompanied by nonstop militaristic violence from liberals.

(This article was sent by Prager fan, Lisa Rich in California.  She did not wish to identify the author.)


“T
he explosion of violence against conservatives across the country is being intentionally ginned up by Democrats, reporters, TV hosts, late-night comedians and celebrities, who compete with one another to come up with the most vile epithets for Trump and his supporters.

They go right up to the line, trying not to cross it, by, for example, vamping with a realistic photo of a decapitated Trump or calling the president a “piece of s—” while hosting a show on CNN.

The media are orchestrating a bloodless coup, but they’re perfectly content to have their low-IQ shock troops pursue a bloody coup.

This week, one of the left’s foot soldiers gunned down Republican members of Congress and their staff while they were playing baseball in Virginia. Democratic Socialist James Hodgkinson was prevented from committing a mass murder only by the happenstance of a member of the Republican leadership being there, along with his 24-hour Capitol Police protection.

Remember when it was frightening for the losing party not to accept the results of an election? During the third debate, Trump refused to pre-emptively agree to the election results, saying he’d “look at it at the time.”

The media responded in their usual laid-back style:

A ‘HORRIFYING’ REPUDIATION OF DEMOCRACY — The Washington Post, Oct. 20, 2016

DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY — Daily News (New York), Oct. 20, 2016 DANGER TO DEMOCRACY — The Dallas Morning News, Oct. 20, 2016

ONE SCARY MOMENT; IT ALL BOILED DOWN TO … DEMOCRACY — Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 21, 2016

“(Shock) spiked down the nation’s spinal column last night and today when the Republican nominee threatened that this little election thing you got there, this little democratic process you’ve got here, it’s nice, it’s fine, but he doesn’t necessarily plan on abiding by its decision when it comes to the presidency.” — Rachel Maddow, Oct. 20, 2016

“Trump’s answer on accepting the outcome of the vote is the most disgraceful statement by a presidential candidate in 160 years.” — Bret Stephens, then-deputy editorial page editor at The Wall Street Journal

“I guess we’re all going to have to wait until Nov. 9 to find out if we still have a country — if Donald Trump is in the mood for a peaceful transfer of power. Or if he’s going to wipe his fat a– with the Constitution.” — CBS’s Stephen Colbert, Oct. 19, 2016

“It’s unprecedented for a nominee of a major party to themselves signal that they would not accept — you know, respect the results of an election. We’ve never had that happen before. … This really presents a potentially difficult problem for governing …” — MSNBC’S Joy Reid, Oct. 22, 2016

“This is very dangerous stuff … would seriously impair our functioning as a democracy. … This is about as serious as it gets in the United States.” — CNN’s Peter Beinart, Oct. 20, 2016

“Obviously, it’s despicable for him to pretend that there’s any chance that he would not accept the results of this election; it would be — in 240 years you’ve never had anybody do it. …” — CNN’s Van Jones, Oct. 20, 2016

Then Trump won, and these very same hysterics refused to accept the results of the election.

Recently, Hillary announced her steadfast opposition to the winning candidate using a military term, saying she’d joined the “Resistance.”

Imagine if Trump lost and then announced that he’d joined the “RESISTANCE.” He’d be accused of trying to activate right-wing militias. Every dyspeptic glance at an immigrant would be reported as fascistic violence.

But the media seem blithely unaware that the anti-Trump “Resistance” has been accompanied by nonstop militaristic violence from liberals.

When Trump ripped up our Constitution and jumped all over it by failing to concede the election three weeks in advance, CNN ran a segment on a single tweet from a random Trump supporter that mentioned the Second Amendment.

Carol Costello: “Still to come in the ‘Newsroom,’ some Trump supporters say they will refuse to accept a loss on Election Day, with one offering a threat of violence. We’ll talk about that next.”

In CNN’s most fevered dreams about a violent uprising of Trump supporters, they never could have conceived of the level of actual violence being perpetrated by Americans who refuse to accept Trump’s win. (See Hate Map.)

It began with Trump’s inauguration, when a leftist group plotted to pump a debilitating gas into one Trump inaugural ball, military families were assaulted upon leaving the Veterans’ Inaugural Ball, and attendees of other balls had water thrown on them.

Since then, masked, armed liberals around the country have formed military-style organizations to beat up conservatives. In liberal towns, the police are regularly ordered to stand down to allow the assaults to proceed unimpeded.

The media only declared a crisis when conservatives fought back, smashing the black-clad beta males. (“Battle for Berkeley!”)

There is more media coverage for conservatives’ “microaggressions” toward powerful minorities -– such as using the wrong pronoun — than there is for liberals’ physical attacks on conservatives, including macings, concussions and hospitalizations.

And now some nut Bernie Sanders-supporter confirms that it’s Republicans standing on a baseball field, before opening fire.

In the media’s strategic reporting of the attempted slaughter, we were quickly told that the mass shooter was white, male and had used a gun. We were even told his name. (Because it was not “Mohammed.”)

But the fact that Hodgkinson’s Facebook page featured a banner of Sanders and the words “Democratic Socialism explained in 3 words: ‘We the People’ Since 1776” apparently called for hours of meticulous fact-checking by our media.

Did reporters think they could keep that information from us forever?

The fake news insists that Trump’s White House is in “chaos.” No, the country is in chaos. But just like Kathy Griffin and her Trump decapitation performance art — the perpetrators turn around in doe-eyed innocence and blame Trump.”

Prager: What if a Trump supporter shot a Democrat Congressman?

If a Trump Supporter Had Shot a Democratic Congressman

by Dennis Prager  at realclearpolitics:

“What would have happened if a Trump supporter had shot a Democratic congressman and other Democratic Washington officials?

The answer is obvious.

The New York Times, the rest of the left-wing media and the Democratic Party would have made the shootings the dominant issue in American life. It is not possible to understand the left — and, therefore, the media and the current state of American life — without understanding how the left uses and relies on hysteria. Hysteria is to the left as oxygen is to biological life.

From the moment Donald Trump was elected president, America has been drowning in left-wing hysteria, all fomented by the media and the Democratic Party.

The charge of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign is hysteria. The claim that the president engaged in obstruction of justice is hysteria. As I have pointed out, the charge of Trump’s election unleashing hate and anti-Semitism, which dominated American media for months, was hysteria.

If Democrats had been shot by a Trump supporter, all you would be hearing and reading about is how much hate the Trump election has unleashed in America, how his election is threatening our democracy and how he is unleashing fascism.

But it was a not a Trump supporter who attempted to murder a Democratic congressman, Capitol Police officers, a House GOP aide and a lobbyist; it was a Trump-hating leftist who attempted to murder a Republican congressman and other Republican officials. And, for that reason, what would have been the dominant issue in America today is already a nonissue. The shooting took place on Wednesday. On Friday, the only article about it on The New York Times front page was about the “harmony” engulfing Democrats and Republicans in the wake of the shooting. By Saturday, there was nothing about the shooting on the front page.

The “harmony” issue is worth noting. As sure as the sun rises in the east, had a Trump-supporting fanatic shot Democratic officials, the Democrats would not have said a word about the need for “harmony,” or the need to lower the temperature in American political discourse. On the contrary, they would have greatly raised the temperature of their already blistering rhetoric. They would have attributed the shooting entirely to Trump’s “hateful” rhetoric having permeated conservative and Republican America.

But it was a leftist who attempted to slaughter Republicans, so it was Republicans who had to respond. And they did so by calling for harmony and lowering the temperature of political differences.

In other words, Republicans reacted with complete conciliation, whereas, the Democrats and their media would have gone ballistic against the right.

Now, why is that?………”  Please read on:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/20/if_a_trump_supporter_had_shot_a_democratic_congressman_134235.html

Pro-Abortion Clergy Complain about Pro-Life Christians

Pro-Abortion Clergy Complain Pro-Life Christians Dominate The Faith-Based Political Arena

by Cal Thomas   at LifeNews         (article sent by Mark Waldeland)

“The religious left feels left out.

According to an article in The New York Times, liberal clergy feel excluded from the political arena and blame the religious right for occupying what they once believed was their exclusive territory. They are, according to the story’s headline, “seeking to break right’s grip on nation’s moral agenda.”

I wasn’t aware the nation had a moral agenda. An immoral one, perhaps.

The religious left’s agenda is little different from that of secular progressives — from gay rights, to sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants, bigger government and tax increases, abortion. Some on the religious left give lip service to a pro-life position, but they still vote for “pro-choice” Democrats.

Liberal clergy are “fighting for their faith,” says the Times. Which faith? Faith in government or faith in the God they are supposed to serve?

Having suffered rejection and ridicule following Prohibition and the Scopes trial, conservative Christians withdrew from the political arena into a modern version of the catacombs, leaving the religious left at the forefront of culture and theology discussions. That began to change with the formation of the Moral Majority and later the Christian Coalition and other conservative religious groups.

In reaction, the religious left called for a separation between church and state, believing that conservatives were somehow now violating the Constitution by speaking up on moral issues. The implication was that conservatives should go back to their churches and leave politics and biblical interpretation to them.

To their credit, religious conservatives spoke of a culture in decline, but they, like the left, mistakenly believed the solution could be found in politics. The social issues they addressed were not the cause of our decadence but a reflection of it. If repairs were to be made they would not come from Washington, but from transformed human hearts. Changing hearts is supposed to be the calling of pastors.

The religious right quickly became an adjunct of the Republican Party, just one more interest group to be placated with promises that were rarely kept. In turn, the religious left aligned with Democrats.

A lesson for all is found in Scripture, but it’s often ignored. Here’s one: “Do not love this world nor the things it offers you, for when you love the world, you do not have the love of the Father in you. For the world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world. And this world is fading away, along with everything that people crave” (1 John 2:15-17).

Every sermon dedicated to politics is time taken away from a pastor’s main calling, which is to preach a message that will fit people for Heaven. Are there moral and cultural issues that clergy can and should address? Of course, but the sermonizer should be sure he or she is faithful to Scripture and not preach a message designed to conform to an earthly political agenda.

When they do, this happens:………”  Please read on:

http://www.lifenews.com/2017/06/15/pro-abortion-clergy-complain-pro-life-christians-dominate-the-faith-based-political-arena/