“I seek neither or defend or criticize Pres. Obama. He is here among us, and he and his supporters can speak for or on his behalf.
I seek only to protect and clarify the legacy of Dr.King; he is not here to speak to correct or clarify some statements made by you and others that are contrary to the facts as to who the man was.
Neither Pres. Obama or anyone else I know in our country today is like Dr. King.”
BRight Black on Aug 29, 2012 at 10:38:39
“Dr. King was above factions. He would not subscribe to any of our politcal parties today.
The attacks on christianity and the passive stance on late term abortions without the mother's life being in jeopardy, would never pass with out his comments about the value of life; all life.
I also do not see Dr. King subscribing to a tolerance of our poor educational system, our wars for whatever justification, the spending of our childrens future labor.
He would hold both major parties accountable and expect them to answer for their decisions against the American people.
He is neither Republican nor Democrat. As I said, I believe, he would not faction his house.”
“Dr. King father was indeed a Republican. However, Robert Kennedy intervened to get Dr. King out of prison during the Kennedy Nixon presidential contest in 1960, it is unlikely that even "Daddy King" voted for Nixon that year.
Your statement that "Dr. King was a Republican" is only conjecture on your part. I don't know who you are; but, as one of those persons close to Dr. King from 1961 to April 4th, 1968, most persons who might know are deceased. Consequently, it is unlikely you know whether "Dr. King was a Republican".
Yes. our fight in the Civil Rights Movement was indeed sometimes against some Democrats. These were those in Congress, primarily from southern States,who were either chairman of or on the powerful standing c committees of Congress, and who opposed Dr. King's civil rights efforts.
There are no revealed circumstances about President Obama that would cause him to "be ashamed of Obama today." On the contrary he would be very proud of Obama; that does not mean he might not have been critical of Obama about one or another issues during his presidency.
But, ashamed, No. Proud, yes
DolEgon on Aug 28, 2012 at 17:05:00
“I'm sorry, but Dr. King did not promote separation of people by class and race as Obama uses as a tactic on a regular basis. Obama's adoption of CRT and Black Liberation Theology is apparent not just in his policies and speeches, but were the main beliefs of two of his mentors. Dr. King believed in equality for ALL people, regardless of race.
Sadly, your messiah is nothing but a divider. I had so hoped for something more than a liberal hack who consistently uses race and class to divide us. I just have to keep reminding myself that some people prefer some races over others, thus Obama's supporters keep supporting him.
I weep for our country under his administration... I do not use the word leadership to describe this man, as he has never lead anything.”
“If i am mistaken in my description and/or comments about F&F, I am open to " factual" correction.
To say I "lie" means that I knowingly and intentionally misstated facts which I knew to be false.
We are all entitled to our own opinions; but, we are not entitled to "our own set of facts".
Clarence B. Jones”
Moondancer2 on Jul 6, 2012 at 21:03:38
“Perhaps, then, it would behoove you to investigate the facts on your own instead of believing the Fortune article. You will find that it has been refuted "with facts". It is lies. Either you know and repeat them with attribution to another, or you do not do due diligence in finding out the facts.
Your choice, but it's one or the other.”
“I simply recited those acts or instances of individuals speaking or initiating an action in their individual capacity. I did think of the Loving decision as the 1954 Brown decision outlawing racial segregation as a matter of public policy in our public education and other landmark cases.
Was merely being factual as to what immediately came to mind after I heard President Obama affirm the legal validity of same sex marriage.
Thank you for you comment
istanbulite on May 15, 2012 at 15:56:24
Many thanks for the quick response and explanation. I really appreciate your candor and personal observations. I am sure that MLK is smiling down at you and saying Amen. Perhaps in time more people will understand Obama's bravery and character. At the moment we (partner and I) are composing a letter to all of our family and friends to take a moment to consider Obama's bravery and what it means to us and to support us at the ballot box this fall. Some will find it distateful and others will have already reached that point. We want all of them to know that when they mark that box in November that who they vote for will have a huge impact on us.”
“You are absolutely correct. Was thinking the word "variation" or other synonym, but writing on other different document at the same time(a book) and my mind was momentarily distracted from choice of my choice of words used in the post.
In traffic court, this is called "pleading guilty with an explanation."
John Olson on Apr 26, 2012 at 13:32:41
“Unfortunately, Professor, you are a repeat offender. In the next sentence you wrote that the Republicans want to "role back Social Security and Medicare..." I suspect you meant "roll back", since "role" is a noun as in "the role of government". To roll something back is to reduce what has been increased; to role something back is a meaningless phrase.
In the very next sentence, you wrote that the Republicans want to "financially starve our public education system, since to maintain it cost too much money." Shouldn't that be "costs"? If so, then you made three grammatical errors in three successive sentences even though you have a law degree, once edited a newspaper, and are now a college professor. What that tells me is that even if the Huff Post doesn't pay its columnists, they ought to hire a proofreader.”
“Regrettably, your reaction and that of some others to either my post or the Trayvon Martin case only confirms my belief in the necessity for an urgent national discussion about race because so many people in our country are in denial that Trayvon Martin's killing HAD ANYTHING TO DO ABOUT RACE. This point of view contends that only the left wing media made it out to be about race, when it was not.
In an earlier blog I asked readers whether they thought George Zimmerman would have been arrested and detained by the Sanford Florida police had he been black and Trayvon Martin a 17 year old white teen under the same circumstances, except for their role reversal?
What do you think?
Will Yum on Apr 15, 2012 at 17:39:26
“I don't think you want a conversation about race. You want one about racism. A real conversation about race would cause all groups to have to rethink and change their "talking points."”
Komrade Killjoy on Apr 13, 2012 at 08:45:08
“How can anyone answer that hypothetical question? You want us to assume everyone who is white is racist, and that shows a racial bias in your question. It's always specfic circumstances and specific people involved in specific cases, answering a broad hypothetical like the one you posed is impossible, unless you're willing to create a false narrative.”
“I quoted from the information recited in the press release announcing the planned Palestiianian "Freedom Rides". Presumably, their intention is to awaken the conscience of Israel and the world to a condition they experience daily which they regard as being unfair and discriminatory.
My comments are not intended to be definitive review or statement about the history of the Iserali Paliestinian dispute. So many past Palestinian protests have involved acts of wanton violence against Israel. We should all welcome and commend this new form of protest based on the non-violent civil disobedience "model" of the Freedom Riders during our Civil Rights Movement.
The issue is not "moral equivalency". The issue is whether or not the condition they seek to peacefully protest against is morally right or morally wrong.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment
CLARENCE B JONES”
Jew in G-ds Land on Nov 14, 2011 at 18:34:10
“Granted- the turn to non-violence is a WELCOME change. One thing that you and so many of the Huffington readers seem quite unaware of- is the fact that a majority of Israeli's ALREADY agree with you about turning over Jewish settlements ( i don't have the exact numbers but its close).
On a deeper level- the credence you give to these actions by not challenging the equivelancy to pre-Civil RIghts America is dangerous. As are those who bandy around the apartheid label. African-Americans weren't discriminated against because they bombed whites and weren't willing to recognize the right of the whites to live alongside them. Israeli's enact these policies as security measures based on existing threats. Of course we dream of going back to the days when we could shop and live together. (I am a "settler" in your eyes and don't like the fear or hatred that this conflict has put between us). But by importing the language of other struggles (apartheid, FreedomRiders) we sometimes INCREASE the chasms between Palestinians and Israelis- by emboldening positions and making zero sum games (like Israeli=Racists). Please support movements that are working together for change, not initiatives that ultimately drive us apart. www.eretzshalom.org”
First, big props for responding to my reply. Too many bloggers and columnists refuse to participate in the conversation their post engenders.
I must however defer to the points by Rosin The Bow. The "segregation" is a result of mass murder perpetrated via suicide bombers, and continued support of said activities in Palestinian society, mosques and media. Arab/Muslim citizens of Israel have total rights to participate in Israeli society as do Jews and Christians.
I'm not saying it's perfect; nor that both bigotry and prejudice are non existent. They are a real problem. And they exist in the US as well. To a lesser degree because of
the non-violent resistance of the civil rights era, and the suffrage movement.
If the Palestinians would stop the terror activities of their own citizenry, remove the calls for the eradication of Israel from their Charters they would make a believer out of many Israelis and myself. That has yet to happen.
A real non-violent peace movement on the part of the Palestinians has never taken root. I would applaud it. And if it went mainstream you'd see the Israelis toss the right wingers straight out of their Government posts and back into the street.”
Rosin the Bow on Nov 11, 2011 at 11:51:33
“Clarence, are you aware of the dozens of buses blown up by Palestinians? Do you think that might have something to do with the Israelis stopping them from getting on them freely?”
Richard Pearce banned on Nov 11, 2011 at 10:21:31
“I would also point out that the only people who call it 'disputed territory' and not 'occupied territory' are, like those who came up with the phrase 'collateral damage', those who's purpose is to try and sanitize the reality of what is going on.
The International Court of Justice, the highest competent court on international matters, termed it 'Occupied Palestinian Territory' which makes that term not only the most correctly descriptive term, but also the legal one.”
“I do not, nor have I ever suggested that President Obama should not be criticized for this actions, leadership or lack of lack of leadership. Indeed, I have been very critical of Obama in several of my past blogs.
Not suggesting he be exempt of immune from crtiicism. I have never impugned or questioned his loyalty or devotion to our country or engaged in any form of character assasination, direct or indirect.
One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see or hear the level of tv and talk show hatred for Obama, personally, by some of his "political" critics.
“Not seeking to "sell" anything. My comments about the health insurance hypothetical question to Ron Paul were based on my own viewing, in my home, of the televised debate. I did not see any video replay of it.
If my use of an adjective to described the audience reaction transmitted by the TV was an exagggeration, it was not pre-meditated "to sell" a point of view.
If, in fact, the audience reaction is as you described, in the magnitude, that you described, then, indeed, I extend an apology for not accurately describing the volume or magnitude of the on site auience reaction to the incident referenced in my article.
“The classic description of "insanity"based behavior is continous repetition of the same behavior expecting a diffirent result. Assuming EVERTHING you recite to be true, it is unlikely that Israel and the Palestinians if they continue their joint pursuit of the same negotiations paradymn that any MATERIALLY dfifferent resuts will occur.
More importantly, a new generation of Israelis and Palestininans apparently have lost faith in the "status quo"
CLARENCE B, JONES”
Teacher 15 on Sep 19, 2011 at 23:40:26
“"paradymn," Clarence? Did you mean "paradigm"? All you had to do was reference your own article. There are several other errors in your post as well. You might consider proofreading or consulting an editor (whose work was evident in your blog) before pressing "reply" to help get your message across.
Speaking of which, your mentioning the Civil Rights era reminded me of the many Jewish people who helped fight for that noble and righteous cause. I've never heard anyone from the group you're now defending lifting as much as a finger during that time. Connecting them with the good men and women who suffered during a particularly shameful time in U.S. history--people who truly protested peacefully and never terrorized innocents--is as inaccurate as it is unjust.”
paul delano on Sep 19, 2011 at 18:12:07
“I'm afraid you're mistaken on what the 'new' generation of Israelis wants.
Proposed two-state solution map
Proposed two-state solution map
Israel news photo
A “New Wave” poll reveals that nearly two-thirds of Israelis favor annexing at least parts of Judea and Samaria if the Palestinian Authority wins unilateral recognition at the United Nations.
The poll, carried out for the national camp of the Likud party headed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, covered a sample of all Israelis, implicitly including Arabs with Israel citizenship.
In response to the question, “Do you support Israel annexing areas in reaction to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state?” 37.3 percent of the respondents said that Israel should make all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria a part of the sovereign state instead of leaving them under military rule, which is their current status.
Slightly more than 12 percent favored annexing only large Jewish population centers, such as Maaleh Adumim, east of Jerusalem, and Ariel, a city in central Samaria.
In addition, 11.6 percent of the respondents said they would support annexing communities in areas they consider crucial for security, such as those in proximity to Ben Gurion Airport, metropolitan Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
A majority – 56 percent – also said that unilateral recognition of the Palestinian Authority as an independent country would endanger the State of Israel.”
Bar Kokhba on Sep 19, 2011 at 17:09:57
“And what exactly will manifest following the rubber stamping of member status for the "Palestinians"? What I think you discount or simply ignore is the fact that the Arabs are intent on one goal; the total annihilation of Israel. This is not a secret only I am privy to but rather publicly expressed policy by Fatah, Hamas and the PLO (PA if you prefer, although they are one and the same). Nabil Shaath, Abu Mazur, etc.have never deviated from this mantra. Fatah has never recognized Israel’s right to exist and will never do so, according to Azzam al-Ahmed, a member of the Fatah Central Committee who is closely associated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. I agree with you in your reference to insanity but allow me to add a codicil. It would be the very height of insanity for Israel to acquiesce at this time, for it would amount to suicide.The paradigm has not changed; it is only that the youth of this generation of Arabs feel it their destiny to take Israel as their own. What could not be accomplished on the battlefield and through terror, they will gain through a world body that is inherently anti-Israel and currently seats Lebanon (Owned and Operated by Hezbollah) as president of the Security Counsel. Tragically, the result of this symbolic action of folly will be more violence, more regional instability and more innocent lives taken.”
“You have stated more clearly than I did the point of view expressed by several friends and colleagues of mine in support of Israel. Thank you for your thoughtful comment .
CLARENCE B. JONES”
Catothemuchyounger on Sep 19, 2011 at 00:15:21
“Thank you for saying so. That is a rare compliment around here, particularly on this issue. Feelings run very high. And not just here. I post on a couple other discussion boards that simply do not have discussions of these issues, as they tend to degenerate rapidly.”
“Not intended as THE definitve list of EVERY event that historically occured; only recital of SOME of such events. That said, your additional info is important
CLARENCE B. JONES”
GZLives on Sep 18, 2011 at 16:48:34
“"U.S. and Israel refused to recognize the winner and tightened their dominance over Gaza,"
Not so initially. That it eventually happened that way is Hamas' choice.
Hamas refused to disavow terror and acknowledge previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians including recognition of Israel.
All were willing to deal with Hamas if Hamas was willing to enter the political arena leaving its terror behind. They refused and all parties deemed Hamas to be what they clearly are - a terror organization and as such Israel, the US and EU refused to deal with them.”
“You say shame on me "for defending these two characters". The intent of my post was not to defend them, but urge readers to separate their view or opionion of Smiley and West from the content of the message they present.
No matter what motive you impute to them, of what character "defect" you beleive they have, the ultimate question remains: Is their message true or false?
“I am not asking you or other readers to like or agree with everything Smiley and/or West may have done or said in the past. I am asking that you set aside imputing any particular motive for their actions, and merely address or pay attention to the substance of what they are saying in connection with their "Poverty Tour".
The elemental threshold question is whether or not what they SAY is true or false, or more true than false about the conditions in our country and within the African-American Community.
The issue is not Tavis Smiley or Cornell West. The issues is whether the conditions they cite are real, unreal,true or false. Whether President Obama has addressed those issues, yes or no.
I disagree with most of what the Tea Party has said and done. However, their focus on the explosive growth of our deficit and national spending cannot be ignored or dismissed because they are the source for causing our country and Congress to pay more attention to this issue.
I may disagree with their proposed solutions, but my disagreement does prevent me from acknowledging the underlying truth of their concern.
So, it is with Smiley and West. Don't focus only on them, the "messengers" or whatever professional or personal defects you believe they have. ,Focus on the content of their message, not the actual or imagined defects they may have as "messengers"..
Thank you for your thoughtful comment
msnovember1963 on Aug 16, 2011 at 01:02:21
“I agree Clarence.
It's sad that people are concentrating on some phony vendetta that Smiley and Dr. West allegedly have against the President rather than listen to the substance of what they are saying.”
soldiergirl on Aug 15, 2011 at 20:33:51
“I still think that they are all talk and no action. That's my opinion.”
Stephen Stafford on Aug 15, 2011 at 19:25:06
“There is something you appear to not be hearing, or choosing to ignore. Perhaps it is not important to you. It may be as simple as divergent agendas.
In my view, this presidency is of a decidedly different approach and tone. To me, there is a different approach to the issue of poverty which is unfortunately mired in the obstructionist phalanx Congress imposes.
The President is really busy, and his hands have been more than full. He knows there is great economic suffering throughout the land. No one need remind or inform him of that.
Any that are interested might be most effective by relieving the roadblocks to his plans and goals. This sniping and carping by those with suspect agendas and known sour grapes to mash is not helpful, and diminishes their brands by many who formerly approved of their offerings.
I am guessing that this entire dynamic may be a bit different than you had imagined when you posted your article. I would encourage you, if you have not referenced them already, to read the other articles recently posted on these issues and the comment sections of the two articles of which I am aware.”
“The "me" before the word President was a typo error. The intended word was "Mr."
Everyone is entitlrd to their own opinions But, not their own set of facts. Among other sources, I reefer you to "IN THE BEGINNING-The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation,a Language< and a Culture" by Allister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology, Oxford University, UK, published by Anchor Books, a division of Random House
“To "Reed Boyer" and "Bill J4321" I ackbowedge and accept the validity of your criticism about my in artful and incorrect use of the the word (adjective)"chosen" referring to lifestyle and sexual preference.
It is contrary to the theme and intent of my speech.
Thankful for your thoughtful constructive crticism.
“With all due respect, African-Americans of my generation, read and hear, as a "red flag", of condescending racism, presumably not intended, but culturally conditioned, the use of the phrase "you people" .
Let make it as clear as I possibly can: one would have to be deaf, dumb and blind an living in a pneumatic isolated air chamber in America, not to pause and reflect and ask yourself: If Obama was white, would he have been relentlessly pursued to produce his "official" birth certificate AFTER the same certificate had been officially authenticated by Republican and Democratic officials in Hawaii?.
Moreover, why couldn't ANY white Republican official or civic leader say something like":I disagree with virtually everything President Obama stands for, has done, and is seeking to do. However, I don't question the authenticity of his citizenship"
Is this such an unreasonable question? Is this too much to expect?
Thank you for your comment.
Clarence B. Jones”
jenne andrews on Apr 29, 2011 at 17:20:36
“Clarence-- where are the black leaders on this issue? Why is this about failings of white people. why pass the buck? where is black activism now? xj
BTW-- Boehner and Cantor have now said they believe the evidence. Believe me, no thinking person of any hue likes Donald Trump or what comes out of his mouth.”
“I wrote incorrectly that the March on Washingoton was organized after its annoucement five months earlier. This was a miscalculation of dates in my mind as I was writing the blog.
The major civil rights organizations comprising the MOW Committee announced their intention to hold such a demonstration in June 1963 at a Press Conference at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City. This was two months earlier, not five
“My post did not suggest the uprising in Egypt had anything to do with "race". I commented that the demonstrations there, based on non-violent disobediance to the the Mubarak regime was reminiscent of the struggle of Gandhi in India and Martin Luther King, Jr in our country.
Clarence B. Jones”
Ngonyama on Feb 14, 2011 at 14:16:08
“And you were right. Suppressive regimes find many things besides race useful tools for their manipulations. Freedom though is one.”
“To those of you who take the time to read and respond to my posts about Obama and other issues, I want to express my gratitude for your thoughtful comments.
Like many of you, I too have been disappointed with several of President Obama's decisions and his continuation of the some of the most reprehensible policies of Pres Bush.
We cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good or what is politically possible.
Many of you have criticized me for my last blog, even suggesting that someone "got to me" to revise some of the substance of my initial criticism of President Obama.
I try to be clinically objective and politically principled, taking into account realistic alternatives. I don't want to participate directly or indirectly in the destruction of Obama. or his efforts to implement the best that he can achieve under existing Congressional circumstances.
Do progressives want to enable or destroy Obama?
I have concluded to keep my eye on the "North Star" and try to hold President Obama as accountable . I see no other realistic alternative for Presidential leadership by someone else who could significantly make a material and better difference than Obama.
Political leaders at best are only "agents" to implement the change we seek.
Cynicism, criticism and challenging one's political integrity( who "got to him") is a luxury that the urgency of the issues confronting our country cannot afford.
Happy holidays and thank you for your constructive comments and criticism.
Clarence B. Jones.”
Emilia Platas on Jan 1, 2011 at 19:20:24
“Well said. We would all do well to remember that perfect is the enemy of good, and if we destroy Obama, what we end up with may be bad, really bad.”
Louis Bloom on Dec 26, 2010 at 14:30:02
“"We cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good." Neither can we make the easy the enemy of the good. Otherwise we are looking under a streetlight for a coin lost two blocks away, because "the light is better here."”
68Namvet on Dec 24, 2010 at 21:08:52
“My single issue is the insanity of the wars! Obama has decided to continue the war in Iraq with the same personnel, same policies and same timetable as his predecessor. People are still dying and $billions are still being wasted. Obama has decided to escalate our involvement in Afghanistan, more dead people, more wasted $billions.
Huffpost user Stephen Stafford stated "for as important as that issue is to you, it does not make the world go round."
For the tens of thousands who have died in these two wars since Obama took office, (after having pledged to stop the wars), their world no longer goes round.
To support Obama is to support more war and more killing in the name of the United States - something I cannot and will not do!
I grieve for lives I have cost by my actions in Vietnam. I grieve for the lives of our soldiers now giving their last full measure in Iraq and Afghanistan. I grieve for the fallen innocent Iraqis and Afghans caught in the utter chaos and insanity of war. I grieve for mankind, who in thousands of years of war, has learned nothing – save how to make war more brutal and savage.
I do not support continuing wars of choice, and therefore, Cannot and will not support Obama.”
“Whatever you think about my opinion(s) is fair and acceptable in the market place exchange of ideas, even including the possibility that someone "got to me" to change my opinion.
Even the most cursory view of my life and political history should indicate, that while theoretically possible; in reality, improbable and unlikely.
Accordingly, for the record. NO ONE "GOT TO ME"
Stephen Stafford on Dec 24, 2010 at 23:20:53
“In this instance, he just did. As rough as this thread has been on Obama, were I you contemplating his comments, I would have cussed him out in my head, but not commented at all, and let it roll off my back.
At another juncture I would like to discuss a few points with you, but the thread you have inspired has sapped my energies as I have commented vociferously throughout the day, and am somewhat stunned as to how some people feel about the President and his policies.
Merry Christmas. Thank you at least for providing a platform for my amazement. Here's to hoping the President makes the New Year Happy for us all.”