Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Minister Repents of Racism

This is the first sentence of an op-ed of 23 July in the Lexington Herald-Leader by Presbyterian minister Robert Cunningham: “I’ve spent most of my life ignorant of racism.” He claimed to be 35, also rolled his eyes at the notion of white privilege and that all forms of hatred were “doomed” when he became a Christian, presumably after age 18.  

This is the Merriam-Webster definition of racism: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”  There’s no mention of hatred but further definitions of race include mistreatment of others so could involve hatred...or not.  

Cunningham wrote that he became convinced of personal racism and is repenting of it but was “slower to admit racial injustice as a social phenomenon.”  As an example, he noted that band-aids are the color of whites (not noticeable) but stand-out on blacks, thus causing them to look (feel?) different.  Actually, a check with Amazon indicates that band-aids come in “skin-tones” and can accommodate all people of color.  Look in pharmacies, as well.  What a stretch!  

He then juxtaposed Pearl Harbor/9-11 with Jim Crow/slavery, the former solemnized and the latter suppressed and patronized (by whites?) as in “It’s time to move on.”  Ask a white kid about Pearl Harbor and get a blank stare.  Ask a black kid about slavery and get an earful.  Perhaps Cunningham doesn’t realize that the most monumental statue on the Washington Mall is a sculpture three-stories tall of Martin Luther King, Jr.  

Cunningham, after a homily about Christ, ends with his intention to ask people of color how to help him use his new-found (white?) sense of personal privilege.  He's fallen into the Jackson/Sharpton trap for whites that consigns them to self-flagellation for the sins of their fathers, as if one can apologize for something for which he bears no responsibility.  

Some religious folks have a self-guilt problem.  In the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1995, a resolution asking for forgiveness of and exhibiting repentance for slavery was passed and presented to the three largest black Baptist denominations, whose leaders laughed it to scorn.  At least one accused the white Baptists of an attempt to proselytize.  Learning nothing from that, the SBC did the same thing last month, well-intentioned but stupid.  

In 1960, almost 75% of black families were headed by a father and mother.  The bulk of the civil-rights and entitlement legislation was passed in the mid-60s.  In the mid-90s, some 75% or so of black babies were born to “single mothers,” and had no documented fathers.  This is still the case, and slavery had nothing to do with it. Fornication does.  

The Jackson/Sharpton approach is that black children must be indoctrinated asap concerning their victim-hood, not because their fathers have abandoned them but because their ancestors were slaves.  The approach does not include the fact that the initial slave traders were blacks in Africa who kidnapped other blacks or physically overcame another tribe and enslaved it or sold its members to the white slave-traders for mere trinkets.  

Nor does the J/S doctrine include that slavery was introduced not by Americans but by British colonists in the seventeenth century long before there was a U.S. and that American citizens banished slavery in far less than a hundred years at the cost of 625,000 lives, mostly white American men.  Cunningham wrote that before his conversion, apparently, he thought the race-card was overplayed.  No!  That card was/is overplayed every day in the black community and by white politically correct morons, lest common sense prevail.  

My great-grandfather (wounded once and near death by disease once) and two great-uncles volunteered (couldn’t be drafted in Kentucky) and fought in the Union Army.  All three were born in England and had no slaves in Pulaski County, Greenwood area.  As a Baptist, I take no responsibility for slavery; rather, I’m part of the generation that tried in the 1960s to be of great help to blacks, but that well-intentioned legislation destroyed the black community, now a permanent underclass.  

The above is politically incorrect but so is Truth.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Columnist Skewers Ark-Evangelicals

Eblen Is No Ignorant Rube

One of the loudest critics (newspaper-wise anyway) of the Noah’s Ark project near Williamstown, Ky., has been Lexington Herald-Leader columnist Tom Eblen, who recently wrote that he had an attack of curiosity, never mind that such a thing (ark, not curiosity) ever actually existed, and made his way via I-75 (aka as Death Alley) to see the figment of imagination of whoever wrote Genesis.  

He described the ark (wooden but mythical, of course) and its dimensions, which were as close as possible to those described in Genesis.   It’s roughly the size of the baby-aircraft-carrier (USS Palau) on whose flight-deck I pushed Corsairs around in the late 40s (not 1840s, for Harvard graduates who get the usual revisionist history).  The carrier was 500 feet long, as is the ark, but the ark has more mass, I’m sure.  

Eblen made a point of the $40 ticket price (steep for viewing something that never existed) and the $10 parking fee which probably had no time-limit.  For a bit of perspective, I checked the best-seat ticket-price for the Taylor Swift concert in Austin, Texas, next October—$429 with fees of $17.70 (compared to parking?) and $1.47 for a total of $448.17.  

The ark-proponents insist that the earth and everything connected to it, including mankind’s earliest existence, is about 6,000 years old and made by God in six days.  Eblen wrote that the “scientists” (didn’t name any) claim the figure to be 4.5 billion years, making it terribly hard to explain away a differential of some 400,000,000,000 years.  Other scientists say it’s about a billion years older but who’s counting anyway, especially since not a living human can comprehend even 6,000 years, much less billions.  

Eblen is flustered because neither he nor the “scientists” can prove the ark-gang wrong.  There are virtually no written records except the scriptures that go back roughly to 4,000 B.C.  Some figures chiseled into rock have been found but no one knows when or what they mean.  Caveat: I don’t accept the 6,000 figure, mainly because scripture also says that to God a day is as a thousand years.  But I definitely accept the ark as a real boat in a real event, the flood. Anyhow, literally accepting the day-as-a-thousand-years figure, the time-line would call for 2,190,000 years instead of 6,000.  

According to livescience, dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago, assuming they (the scientists, not the dinos) actually had a clue, which means by my accounting that they were gone long before the time of the ark, according to the ark-gang accounting, thus destroying the doubters’ favorite arguments concerning how to even catch them (the dinos, not the doubters) without being eaten, much less herd them onto the ark and keep them fed and peaceful.  

Eblen claimed to be a “mainstream” (as opposed to “evangelical?”) Christian and so predictably led his essay into “evolution” (presumably of mankind), claiming that most “mainstream” Protestant denominations and the Catholics and Jews buy into that theory.  Exponential nonsense!  At least for me, a plain old Baptist.  

I definitely haven’t evolved from a one-cell slime through the ape ages to the Now, and I laugh heartily every time some arrogant anthropologist insists he’s found the “missing link,” only to discover the tail still affixed or the knuckles not dragging the ground consistent with arm length.  The evolutionists consider themselves the intellectual elite, and the evangelicals as poor, ignorant rubes.  Eblen is welcome to his orangutan ancestors but I’ll take mine any day...straight from Adam through the ages.  

I stand with the rubes and agree with them that man and woman were spontaneously created, no matter when.  I believe they were formed whole in an instant on the sixth day, no matter its time, length and place.  I doubt that dinosaurs (already extinct) ever saw the ark, but if they did, so what!

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Friday, July 15, 2016


FBI Chief Comey the Scapegoat

At least 99% of the time when a citizen appears before the judge account receiving a speeding-ticket and offers the explanation of not knowing he was speeding, the judge will proclaim ignorance as no excuse and levies the fine. This is essentially comparable to FBI Director Comey’s predicament regarding Hillary Clinton and the accursed unprotected private server(s) in her basement and elsewhere upon which she conducted the nation’s business.   

After brilliantly making the case that Clinton was guilty as sin in his official/shocking announcement of her innocence, Comey, in the House hearing on the matter, reckoned that perhaps she was simply not sophisticated enough to recognize the markings of “top secret” on her emails, even though she had been a senator and, more damning, the secretary of state and therefore exposed to those markings for years as a matter of course.   

Using a private server, whether protected or not, she surely knew was an absolute no-no and might have put many people in danger since hackers in other governments and even ISIS could have gained access to classified material including names and places. Comey as well as said that anyone else in government who did what Clinton did would be cashiered if not charged with a crime. Security clearance would be out of the question. Imagine a president without security clearance.  

Possible lack of sophistication was an amazing conclusion on his part and an insult concerning her level of understanding.  Even more amazing was Comey’s assertion that during his office’s investigation no one monitored her appearances before congressional committees, something any citizen could do just using C-Span or any other network covering them.  He did indicate that she lied in those hearings but not to the FBI and said that a referral from Congress was necessary to monitor them, something beyond belief.  

This, of course, left her open to perjury charges since she was under oath in the hearings so it would seem that AG Lynch would insist on action concerning that matter.  She, however, has said the case is closed, meaning that Clinton can get on with her campaigning, and Obama let Air Force One be her campaign commute to North Carolina right after Comey had insisted that not even the president knew when and what his report would be.  Obviously, this was not true since the president would never have allowed that excursion absent the supposed privileged information already being in his possession.

Comey let her off the hook, he said, because an intent to do wrong was not provable. The speeder alluded to above probably did not intend to do wrong, either, and was just careless but that made no difference to the judge. It made a difference to Comey, who said that Clinton was “extremely careless,” so that apparently was okay because her carelessness handling secret documents did not rise to the culpability level of speeding.

This affair explains why people have such a deep distrust of government. Add into the mix that Bill Clinton had a 30-minute tete-a-tete with AG Lynch just before Comey’s announcement that he said nobody knew about…and the plot thickens…or sickens...or both. The agents guarding that meeting declared that no pictures or recordings of it could be made, as if that could happen.

So now the State Department is having its own investigation. This is John Kerry’s turf. Will he consider if Clinton receives any more briefings or a security clearance given that, as Comey might say, she is irresponsible and either stupid or is not acquainted with truth-telling…sort of like her humongous subterfuge regarding the Benghazi massacre, in which the president participated.

The whitewash is in. Comey cited the law concerning this matter but indicated that it had been used only once in 99 years so, presumably, couldn’t be used again. What rubbish! Resignations are in order. Don’t count on that!

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Thursday, July 07, 2016

Minister Takes on the Tolerance Movement

In an op-ed of 02 July, the Rev. Robert Cunningham asked, “How tolerant is your tolerance?”  He noted that the ideal tolerance is easily managed in one’s own “tribe” but in the presence of someone from another “tribe” its limits are defined in light of “progressive values.”  He noted that an opinion “not in line with the narrow parameters of our increasingly secular society is now disregarded or even scorned.”  

Far from narrow, the parameters of a secular society (if it feels good, do it) are virtually nonexistent.  Most anything goes.  Cunningham sympathized with the “tolerance movement” (whatever that is, probably political correctness or diversity or multiculturalism) since he said it’s a reaction to the history of shameful hatred endemic to conservative fundamentalism.  

Hatred of whom or what?  Cunningham, who described himself as conservative [but not fundamentalist], didn’t say, but one infers via such strong condemnation that he’s intolerant of conservative fundamentalists, though he wondered if they have inspired the tolerance-movement into becoming severely intolerant, i.e., militant against anyone or institution they accuse of being racist, homophobic, gender-insensitive or in any other way offensive to them.  

Regardless of the cause, though fundamentalists could hardly be blamed, the tolerance movement has become so powerful and vicious that homosexuals, for instance, can bankrupt businesses which do not cater to them.  In this, the tolerance movement has had inordinate help from the government, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, as the general public has had tolerance-movement views imposed upon it.

Strangely, Cunningham insisted that an individual has the right to impose (defined as “to establish or apply by authority”) his beliefs on others and that anyone who disagrees with that position subscribes to “an incredibly naïve and self-defeating construct,” never mind that the nation was founded on the principle that such imposition never be allowed.

Cunningham finally gets to the inevitable point – dialogue with humility, civility and love, the way of Jesus. This is people talking out their problems, of which the nation has had a surfeit for decades with virtually nothing accomplished. Political correctness has exacerbated the dialogue approach since it demands that no one be offended, i.e., be made to think or be so thin-skinned that they can’t absorb reality-talk.  

Intolerance, however, has its place and Jesus Christ was if anything inordinately intolerant.  He also didn’t seem to dialogue very much but considered his positions/teachings inviolable.  He made a whip and lashed the unscrupulous vendors who had turned the temple into a bazaar and threw them, animals, birds, tables and money out into the street – no dialogue there.  He did not impose his beliefs on either government or populace, merely preached, prayed, taught, acted.  

Per the middle parable in Matthew 25, he upbraided the slothful servant, who was fired on the spot.  At the Last Supper, he told the disciples to buy swords even if they had to sell clothes to do so and explained a few hours later that the weapons were for defense/protection, not aggression.  Jesus was not a wimp looking to dialogue with folks about truths he knew to be immutable. He looked the head honchos of his own faith in their faces and likened them to whited sepulchers full of dead men's bones and uncleanness...not much dialogue there.

In other words, Jesus made it plain that absolutes exist and are not susceptible to dialogue, which in the so-called mainline denominations have been compromised amidst all the dialogue that has already occurred, with the tolerance-movement winning the day. These denominations are dying.  

Cunningham got it right at the end when he wrote that the way people treat each other is more important than dialogue.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Monday, June 27, 2016

Tarnished Rainbow

“In your face, God!?”

The LGBTQ individuals/institutions have adopted the colors of the rainbow as a symbol of their community, using them as flags, lights, etc.  Explanations for the use of each color have been made but the overriding explanation is obvious, to wit, that flaunting these colors is an in-your-face gesture to the God of the Bible (and people of faith), who introduced the rainbow to the world as Noah’s trip ended after the great flood documented in Genesis. For Harvard graduates, Jesse Jackson (Rainbow Coalition) did not invent the rainbow and also did not invent God.  

Among the reasons the rainbow was instituted by God was to effect the promise that he would never destroy the world by flood again (Genesis 9).  Simple.  It stood also for the fact that God was making a covenant between himself and mankind…a sort of contract. Most if not all homosexuals may eschew any belief in God but do understand the uses of bodily orifices, with which the contract deals harshly.  

A contract represents a promise by two or more entities to live up to the agreements therein. The people who followed Noah did not live up to the provisions of the contract, a part of which had to do with personal behavior vis-a-vis the natural and easily recognizable parts of the human body, not to mention the requirements of God concerning same. Those requirements included the disallowing of homosexual behavior of any kind, condemned and listed with the condemnation/forbidding of bestiality, as an example of its coarseness.

The professional psychologist/psychiatrist community in the U.S. considered homosexuality a mental disorder until 1972-73 when, under extreme social duress similar to the current pressure of diversity-mongering, it gave in to liberal pressure and removed the stigma without any new information upon which to base the change. It was easier to go with the flow of a handful of social (not clinical) engineers than be right, despite the fact that a fool would know that a penis is not designed to penetrate either an anus or a mouth, nor either to receive such penetration.

The weird insistence by homosexuals that they be considered normal while acknowledging their “difference” demands that they “come out” instead of doing their lurid things in private blows the mind. Until Obama became president, the military, for perfectly obvious reasons, would not tolerate homosexuals. Cleanliness is demanded in the military, but what could be more unsanitary than having a shipmate hand you the salt at breakfast after he had just come off liberty jiving with his friends in some toilet on the beach?

This is to say nothing of the angst felt by the straights at having to put up in close quarters with colleagues owning such bizarre, filthy behavior. Paul wrote in Romans 1 that homosexuals defile each other and themselves through lust, not “love,” the clear implication being that they were not created “that way.” When Obama pushed for same-sex marriage he damned any sort of “family” or “love” approach as normal since the main element of heterosexual marriage is the procreating necessary to continuing the race.

Ironically, both “Gay Pride” and Ramadan, both handled in scripture, are happening at the same time. The homosexuals have been milking the “Orlando Nightclub Massacre” for all it's worth and caterwauling throughout the nation, never mind that Mateen's marching orders were to kill all infidels, whether straight or perverse. He picked a “gay” club perhaps because he was homosexual himself. In Iraq, both he and his victims would have been thrown off the roof, stoned, beheaded or otherwise wasted. This was recommended by Muslim pooh-bahs recently as a fitting way to celebrate Ramadan. So...Mateen killed himself by order whether he was gay or straight.

Much of holy scripture was hijacked by Mohammad, camel-driver and caravan-attacker, when he invented Islam and appointed Allah as the new god that ordered “death or slavery” to all infidels (Americans, for instance). Because of Mohammad's illiteracy, his words were probably copied by one of his 14 wives. Especially with the presidency of Obama, the perverts have won the diversity game not just in the culture generally but even in many if not most “mainline denominations,” which as a result are dying on the vine. Evangelicals are the current holdouts, sticking to the scriptures. Secularism is the new diversity-tool, the devil take the hindmost.

The rainbow is a sacred symbol created by God. To despoil it, the LGBTQ gang has made a mistake. God will not be mocked.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Pecksniffian Commits Schadenfreude

Math Teacher Skewers Evangelicals

Columnist Roger Guffey (op-ed18 June) took dead aim at those “evangelical prophets of God” who described the Orlando massacre as God’s punishment of homosexuals and feel “they know God’s will so well that they can prophesize [sic] to the rest of us.” He then lists sarcastically a number of events such as floods and other massacres in the U.S. (didn't mention the Civil War, strangely) God visits on folks to show His hatred for them and consequent punishments.

Guffey wrote that far too many Christians suffer from schadenfreude and Pecksniffianism and explained both terms to the Great Unwashed, like me. He didn’t explain the difference between the accursed evangelical prophets and Christians but one guesses he thinks the former are hell-bound and at least wonders about the latter.

Guffey’s problem is that he can’t prove the evangelicals are wrong, which makes him sort of Pecksniffian, especially concerning a personal righteousness that qualifies him to judge those insensitive evangelicals, even though some biblical events concerning God’s direct/indirect actions toward people are gruesome, thus suggesting a proclivity for mayhem, pain and death for whatever reason.

Guffey brought up the event – Orlando massacre – that might explain why evangelicals consider homosexuality worthy of censure and current condemnation, i.e., God’s biblically-documented wrath and consequent judgments, such as His treatment of Sodom and Gomorrah, cities predominantly peopled by homosexuals, as outlined in Genesis 19.

Abraham’s nephew Lot was hosting two male visitors in Sodom when he was accosted by rabid homosexuals who demanded that he make his visitors available to be raped. Lot refused so they attempted a break-in/kidnapping with a view toward a grand orgy. In his anger, God struck the interlopers blind and told Lot to get his family out of town. The next morning, God completely destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah – fire and brimstone.

In Leviticus 20, as part of God’s design for an acceptable lifestyle, He indicated that those practicing “detestable” homosexual behavior be put to death, also indicating thereby that their lifestyle was one of choice and not of Creation activity. In Matthew 11, Jesus alluded to Sodom as the most evil standard by which cities could be judged.

Paul wrote in Romans 1 that both lesbians and homosexual men are condemned because through lust (not Creation) they defile their bodies by choice even though they know better, and reminded everyone of God's Leviticus-mandate about being worthy of death in that defilement. Sounds a bit harsh but Paul was not known for attempting to be God, only to quote Him.

The foregoing is not to judge homosexuals as Guffey did regarding the evangelicals, only to explain why evangelicals interpret homosexual behavior differently from Guffey on the basis of what is scriptural, taken quite literally but allowing for biblical poetry, parables, etc. Regarding obvious pronouncements by God/Jesus in both Old and New Testaments, they consider some things right or wrong with no shades of gray between.

Guffey cited Isaiah 55:8-9: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. … So are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Substitute the word Guffey for the word Lord and discover the perfect example of Pecksniffianism with respect to Guffey's approach to evangelicals.

Guffey ended by writing that individuals who revel in judging others (evangelicals, for instance) and relishing their sufferings (schadenfreude) should spend more time reading the Bible they claim to already know. This is good advice that Guffey should put into practice when considering another hatchet-job on people who simply disagree with him.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Friday, June 17, 2016

The Pulse Peroration

As more is made known, the Orlando homosexually-oriented nightclub massacre seems more and more bizarre.  Was the shooter actually a homosexual himself, though married and a father, or perhaps a both-ways murderer?  And what about his wife as an accomplice?  Motive: Who knows? The answer is as inaccesible as the gunman.  

The candidates have weighed in, as has the president, whose heritage is Islamic (death to homosexuals) but who “evolved” by his own account and signed the same-sex marriage legislation.  In the Middle East, Muslim homosexuals are thrown off buildings to their deaths or perhaps just beheaded.  So, Obama is caught on the horns of a dilemma, fearing this weird contradiction between his religious heritage and his own subverting of it (raised until age ten in Muslim households) will damage his legacy, the thing of most concern to him now as he plows through lame-duck mode while treading carefully, especially during the current Ramadan during which Islamic pooh-bahs have urged more killings such as those in Orlando.  

Obama claims to have become a Christian under the mentoring of the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah (God damn America) Wright and attended Wright’s church for 20 years, listening to Wright rage against white people and the United States.  Wright was to offer a prayer in Obama’s first inauguration but account his publicly expressed animosity to the U.S. was “thrown under the bus.”  Christian doctrine in most churches (at least until Political Correctness became the new god) also condemns homosexual behavior and disallows homosexual’s ordination as ministers, though Obama’s church/denomination at the time of his participation (UCC) approved same-sex marriage in 2005.  

The president said that Muslims, especially Syrian refugees whether real or simply self-described, should be allowed to enter the U.S (up to 100,000 in 2017) even though they can’t be vetted and this will be the case in the foreseeable future since the U.S. has no relations with Syria, whose president Obama told to turn his country and his office over to the local insurrectionists in 2011, as if he could expect Assad to just do that.  He also told Libyan President Qaddafi to do the same in 2011.  Qaddafi (with virtually no military of substance) of course said “No thanks” anyway whereupon Obama simply made unprovoked illegal war on the Libyans for seven months until Qaddafi was killed.  Libya is in a shambles now, ungovernable and an outpost of ISIS.  This outrageous action against a sovereign state will shatter his legacy as future historians inflict their sharp knives.  

Now, fifty-one U.S. diplomats have signed some kind of memo urging Obama to start bombing Syrian targets in order to hurt Syria, while Obama is already bombing installations in Syria to displace ISIS. The unprovoked bombing of Syrian government targets (and probably the ISIS targets as well) would be the same as Obama's bombing of Libya, which ended in total disaster. Obama has already mismanaged Middle East policy enough and actually should just begin total withdrawal of American forces from that area so the Muslims could settle their wars there instead of threatening the rest of the world.

Trump is for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration but Clinton is horrified at such a thought, i.e., bring in the Syrians no matter what their backgrounds are.  She and Obama claim that this conforms to American “values.”  Neither she nor Obama has any concept of those values, as proven by their well-documented lies, unless they consider subterfuge a “value.”  Consider their tandem effort concerning the Benghazi massacre as just one of those humongous LIES.  Trump is right. Jihadists are holding the world hostage (think airport-lines and mass killings throughout the world).  The Koran and the ayatollahs insist on death to the infidels.  Inviting potential murderers to just walk in and immediately sign-up for all the entitlements is loony-tunes.  

Not only the LGBTQ gang is at risk.  Every non-Muslim is at risk.  

And so it goes.
Jim Clark