Netanyahu Slams Ban Ki-Moon's 'Occupation' Remarks

Mar 4, 2015 19:59:14 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Actually, I do not think your support is so much for "the US Constitution" per se as it is for a policy that would surely assist the Democratic Party in all elections in which non-citizens were allowed to vote.  (And any other policy--quite conveniently, I think--you have pejoratively labeled as blatant "racism.")

If "young blacks" are routinely stopped and frisked for no good reason; and if police officers are typically believed, despite "overwhelming evidence to the contrary," as you have also asserted; what is your proposed solution?

I agree that the government's only concern, with regard to marriage, should be related to matters of property. And this could be addressed in pre-nuptial agreements.

There is an interesting contradiction in your assumption. Predominately Hispanics are very fiscally and religiously conservative (like most Republicans) but because of the anti-Hispanic agenda of the Republican Party roughly 75% of Hispanic Americans vote for Democrats. If Republicans supported the "right to vote" for non-citizens and "open immigration" policies, the two primary issues that result in Hispanics supporting Democrats, then we would see Hispanics flocking to the Republican Party and voting for Republicans by an over-whelming majority.

Of interest we can also note that blacks traditionally supported the Republican Party when it was pro-civil rights but when the Republican Party dropped support for civil rights basically under the Nixon adminstration and have since become anti-civil rights then blacks began to support the Democratic Party and today over 90% of blacks vote for Democrats. When it comes to minorities the Republican Party is it's own worst enemy.

One of the things we know is working is the use of body cameras, in addition to vehicle cameras in the police cars, on police officers. I was reading a story (that I believe I saved) where the use of excessive force against blacks was being addressed and when law enforcement officers adopted wearing body cameras the number of incidents reported dropped significantly. In the story it addressed one police department where the number of complaints dropped from almost 40 in one year to only 3 complaints when the police began wearing body cameras (if memory serves me correctly).

We've also found that federal investigations into local police departments and criminal justice systems is also effective in identifying racial bias and prejudice such as the recent findings by the DOJ in Ferguson. Just exposing the racial prejudice and bias is an important step in reducing it.

Ultimately there is a much deeper problem that needs to be addressed but it will unquestionably take many, many generations to overcome the problem.

www.salon.com/2015/03/04/10_ways_white_people_are_more_racist_than_they_realize_partner/

This is an exceptionally good article well worth reading in it's entirety.

Even those of us that recognize racism is real are also responsible for it's proliferation through our own racial prejudice and bias regardless of what we may think to the contrary. While we might contribute less to this proliferation than those that deny racism exists we still contribute to it. Anti-black racial prejudice is even perpetuted though the black comminity that also has anti-black racial bias because it is so deeply woven into the very fabric of our society.

On the final note on marriage a "pre-nuptial agreement" is merely a partnership contract and like any contract it can be verbal or written. As you note from the government's prospective any "marriage" based upon a partnership contract between adults, regardless of who they are, what sex they are, what religious or non-religious beliefs they hold, and the number of individuals involved in the partnership, should be accepted for all government purposes as a valid marriage. The government should only be interested in the property rights of those involved in the "marriage" partnership just like it is with all other partnerships established under contract law.

Mar 6, 2015 21:40:45 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your conclusion seems to be that the GOP could corral the majority of the black vote, if only it were to embrace reverse-discrimination (i.e. "affirmative-action") policies; and that it could win the Hispanic vote, if only it would endorse the (quite radical) concept of open borders.  Of course, that is a strategy that is steeped in convenience, rather than in principle. 

I guess I should not be surprised that you would quote the leftist site, Salon, in order to bolster your belief that anti-black racism is rampant in twenty-first-century America.  (You even believe that this prejudice is "so deeply woven into the very fabric of our society" that black people, themselves, are self-loathing.) 

Yes, I very much support the idea of body cameras on the police. As with DNA evidence in a criminal trial, this tends to exonerate the innocent and convict the guilty. And that is exactly as it should be.

If the state government in question simply does not recognize the validity of certain "marriages"--whether they may be polygymous (or polyandrous) marriges, same-sex marriages, or whatever--it would likewise not recognize the validity of any "marriage contracts" attendant thereunto.  

That is an incorect conclusion on your part and I'll address the case of blacks and Hispanics separately but both hinge upon the same thing, support for the US Constitution.

The term "reverse-discrimination" is a misnomer invented by the racists. Either discrimination exists or it doesn't exist. The laws should be the same when it comes to a white person proving they were discriminated against as for a black person being discriminated against. We can tell whether the laws are effective in this regard by statistical analysis. If the analysis shows that the discrimination remains then the laws must be changed to make it easier for the person discriminated against to establish that in a court of law. As we know "self-incrimination" by a person that engages in discriminatory practices is relatively rare so we need to expand the foundation for the lawsuits that address discrimination. That was what Democrats attempted to do related to the Equal Pay Act but Republicans opposed it even though the statistical evidence still reflects extensive pay discrimination against women in the work place. That same expansion under the law that would affect compensation for women would also apply to men. If a man was being discriminated against in employment compensation then the identical foundation for the lawsuit would exist for them as well.

The problem for Republicans is that in spite of the extensive statistical evidence of racial discrimination they choose to do nothing about the problem. They insist upon maintaining the status quo of racial discrimination today and that is why the blacks have abandoned the Republican Party since the 1950's and 1960's when Republicans did address the problems of racial discrimination in America. Worse still is that Republicans openly advocate for laws where the negative effects disproportionately affect black Americans such as the Voter ID laws that only address voter impersonation at the polls where no evidence exists to justify the law (i.e. voter impersonation at the polls is so rare that it's never affected any election results in our lifetime). In the 1950's and 1960's Republicans opposed Jim Crow voting laws and the Voter ID laws are identical to the Jim Crow voting laws that Republicans previously fought against when they supported the Voting Rights Act.

From a Constitutional perspective the Republicans should be fighting for the enfranchisement of American and not the disenfranchisement of Americans but they're not. The express purpose of recent Republican voting laws has been based upon winning elections by disenfranchisement and we both know that because Republicans responsible for the laws have openly stated that to be a fact.

Addressing Hispanics we can note that there are no enumerated powers for Congress to regulate immigration in the US Constitution.  The GOP often hinges many of it's anti-progressive interpretations of the US Constitution on a "lack of enumeration" in the US Constitution but contradict this political ideology when it comes to immigration restrictions. This is highly hypocritical from an ideological standpoint. You cannot claim "no enumeration" in arguing against government actions on the one hand and then advocate policies and government actions not supported by enumeration.  

The GOP also likes to cite historical American precendent but not when it comes to voting by non-citizens and immigration in American history. Both immigration restrictions and denial of the vote for non-citizens are contrary to historical American precedent. There were no immigration restrictions until they were imposed by the racists and there were no prohibitions against non-citizens voting until imposed by the racists. That is a historical fact that Republicans refused to accept. Once again they're hypocrites because they give lip-service to supporting "America" based upon historical precedent but then turn against that historical precedent when it comes to Hispanic immigration and voting.

Once agian this is a Constitutional issue because the US Constitution explicitly states that member of Congress are to be elected by the "people" and the "people" include both the citizens and non-citizens living in the United States. Additionally the Congress has no enumerated authority to restrict immigration as the word "immigration" isn't even contained within the US Constitution.

The very reason that blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly oppose the Republican Party is because the Republican Party rejects the US Constitution when it comes to blacks and Hispanics.

When it comes to your opinions you once again choose to "shoot the messenger" by condeming the reporting source (Salon) as opposed addressing the fact that the story provided the actual citations for the information it reported. You are apparently unable to dispute the reported findings and instead choose to shoot the messenger.

Let me provide a point of consideration. Many claim that 99% of cops are good cops and only 1% are bad cops so let's run with those numbers. I've read that there are 780,000 police offices in the United States and if only 1% are "bad cops" that engage in an illegal action (e.g. unlawful stop and frisk) on the average of once a day then that represents over 2.8 million illegal actions by police officers every year. Shouldn't we be seriously concerned about 2.8 million illegal actions by police, predominately against people of color (supported by statistical studies), in America every year?  Sadly these unwarranted "stop and frisks" are not just being committed by "bad cops" but instead by very "good cops" based upon racial stereotyping of black teenagers as typically being drug users and criminals. That 2.8 million is more probably 28 million unconstitutional violations of the rights of young blacks annually but we just can't prove it in individual cases but we can provide the evidence for it based upon statistical analysis.

If you're willing to provide so much creditability for DNA evidence then how about protecting the accused and let's exclude the death penality for murder convictions where DNA evidence does not exist. A person should not have to "prove" their innocence with DNA evidence but instead the DA should be required to prove their guilt based upon DNA evidence when the death penality is involved.

All states must accept "partnerships" under contract law and marriage is a contractual partnership. There should be no discrimination by the state when it comes to partnerships.

Mar 9, 2015 17:48:26 GMT pjohns1873 said:

First, I really do not think the GOP should be accepting advice from its vocal opponents as to what it should do in order to win more elections. 

Your (almost apoplectic) objection to the term, "reverse discrimination," is apparently due to your desire to control the language; and, by so doing, to control the likely outcome of the debate at hand.  But discrimination against whites is certainly the reverse of the anti-black discrimination that "affirmative-action" policies were originally designed to combat. 

If you truly believe that only "racists" oppose open borders and voting by non-citizens, I certainly hope you will convince the Democratic Party to use those as talking points in the next general election. We will see how well that line works with the general public.  (I believe that you would like to see non-citizens voting in order to help the Democratic Party, which is easily the more "progressive" of the two major parties.)   

Your total reliance upon "statistical evidence" necessarily implies quotas as the solution.  You may prefer to call them something else--"goals and timetables" is the preferred euphemism, I think--but it is essentially the same thing, just all gussied up.       

If 99 percent of the police are "good"--and I do not claim to know the actual percentage; I am just using your own number, here--we should get rid of the remaining one percent, rather than wringing our hands over the problematical stops made by these "bad" police officers. 

DNA evidence simply does not exist in all cases.  You know that.  To claim that the death penalty ought to automatically be removed from consideration, absent any DNA evidence--no matter how compelling all the other evidence may be--is, essentially, to campaign against the death penalty, by a back-door method...

Let me address your first and third points together. First of all both parties should be far more concerned about the people than they should be about winning elections. That's one of the major problems I see in politics today. Yes, the change needs to come from within the political ideology itself as opposed from those outside the political ideology. The Republican Party needs to address the fact that their policies and agenda have disenfranchised virtually all blacks and 3/4ths of the Hispanics from voting for them. We can also note that anti-black (and anti-Hispanic) racial prejudice is significant in Democrats as well as Republicans (and Libertarians as well) and each political ideology needs to address this anti-black (and anti-Hispanic) racial prejudice within their own political ideology. As a libertarian I strive on a consistant basis to expose racial prejudice within the libertarian political ideology and that is far more important than me pointing out it's existance in other political ideologies.

No, reliance on statistical evidence does not imply support for quotas. The statistics merely reflect the success or failure of measures being taken. So far we're failing miserably when it comes to equality of opportunity in Amerca. As you know from some of the proposals I've made such as my privatization plan for Social Security it's about creating individual and generational wealth based upon the labor of the person and no one is discriminated against by the proposal. No one is discriminated against by my federal income tax proposal either. In both cases everyone is treated identically under the proposal. And yet, because both provide income and wealth for the individual based upon their labor as opposed to wealth redistribution the begin to level the economic playing field over generations by passing the wealth created by one generation to the next in a fair and equitable manner. Is it enough? No, but it's a limited start on addressing the problem.

In the end the statistics only tell us where we're at and if we need to do more. They don't tell us what to do and that's up to us. How do we increase the employment for blacks that statistics indicate are discriminated against without "reverse-discrimination" or "quotas" is certainly a challenge but that doesn't mean we should do nothing and ignore the challenge. The statistics indicate that we must do something but it's up to us to figure out what to do. What we can't do is ignore the statistics and do nothing.

Statistics also show us where we're succeeding and by how much. Don't forget that fact as well. There are two sides to statistical studies because they can show that we've both succeeded and failed equally. Of course the one's we're most aware of is when the statistics show we're failing because they are a call to action. The don't tell us what to do but they do tell us we should be doing something more.

While the 1% is purely hypothetical it doesn't imply that the other 99% are free of any complicity by also violating the laws and Constitution in their actions. The "1%" only reflects those that overting and intentionally violate the laws and Constitution on a routine basis. The other 99% do so inadvertantly on an occasional basis if we look at the statistics because the 1% can't influence the statistics all that much even with consistant violations of the law and Constitution. Once again the statistics reflect a serious problem but the statistics don't provide a solution to that problem. That's up to us to figure out but the one thing we can't do is ignore the statistics and not address the problem. If the "stop and frisks" are causing racial discrimination in law enforcement then perhaps we need to raise the criteria for when law enforcement can stop and frisk an individual. If the color of a person's skin effects their likelihood of conviction and sentencing (studies show that the darker a black person's skin the more likely they are to be convicted of murder and sentenced to the death penalty than ligher skin colored blacks and far more than whites) then we should be looking at possible ways to address this problem and not ignoring the statistical evidence.

I'm actually opposed to the death penality completely because it's completely unnecessary to protect society from even the most heinous of individuals but in addressing the criteria of DNA evidence we know that DNA evidence after the conviction has resulted in hundreds of reversed wrongful conviction. They were "convicted" but dispite all of the evidence that was so "solid" in court it was a wrongful conviction. What about those that were wrongfully convicted also based upon "compelling evidence" that will not be exhonerated and will be put to death because of the death penality?  The government is literally committing the premeditated killing of an innocent person and it's completely unnecessary because life without the possibility of parole protects us from even the most heinous criminal in society. As a society we're just as protected from Gary Ridgeway, the Green River serial killer, that's serving life without parole as we are from John Wayne Gacy, another serial killer, that was executed. Are you really supportive of the premediated killing of innocent people today that we know is happening?  

Once again the statistics don't tell us what to do in these cases but they do identify that there is a problem that can't be ignored. That is what I don't think you seem to accept. We have challenges when it comes to law enforcement and discrimination that we know exist so what we face is the challenge of doing something about them. Instead of ignoring the statistics we need to meet the challenge of what we should do about the identified problem.

Mar 12, 2015 6:14:18 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I think you are making a blatant appeal to emotions, with your query as to whether I really am "supportive of the premeditated killing of innocent people."  To claim that the death penalty ought never be used except in those cases in which indisputable DNA evidence is available is, effectively, to say that the death penalty ought never to have been imposed prior to the discovery of DNA--not terribly long ago--and that it still ought not be used, whenever DNA evidence is not available.  (At least you are candid, however, in admitting your opposition, on principle, to the death penalty.) 

If we simply "can't...ignore the statistics and do nothing" as concerning racial inequities, what do you propose--short of quotas (which you claim to oppose), that is?

You seem to be claiming that one percent of police officers "intentionally" and "routine[ly]" violate "the laws and [the] Constitution," whereas the remaining 99 percent do so "inadvertantly" and "occasionally."  In other words, 100 percent of police officers are guilty--to one extent or another--of legal and constitutional violations. 

And your belief that anti-black and anti-Hispanic "racial prejudice" is a serious problem in the Republican Party; in the Democratic Party; and in the Libertarian Party, just speaks to your belief that this is a horribly racist country. After all, the leaders of these parties would not (supposedly) embrace racism otherwise.  

Yes, I'm opposed to the death penalty because it's not supported by the American political ideology where the purpose of government is protection and not punishment. Incarceration protects society while the death penalty is about extracting revenge. I'm not an advocate of "revenge" by government (or by individuals) as I support the Non-Aggression Principle and revenge is an act of aggression.

An interesting fact about the death penality is the means of execution. Historically it included extreme forms of torture like skinning the person alive, crucifixion, stoning to death, burning at the state, staking the person to an anthill, firing squads, hangings, electricution, and lethal injection (poison). All of these result in exactly the same outcome (death of the victim) but over time as we became "civilized" we've banned many of these forms of execution because we say they're "inhumane" but there is nothing humane about the premeditated killing of a person as punishment (an act of revenge) no matter how it's done. It is also completely unnecessary because incarceration (i.e. limitation of the "Freedom to Exercise" the "Inalienable Right of Liberty" is all that's required to protect society from even the most heinous of individuals.   

We've seen limited success already in addressing denial of opportunity. For example, taken as written Affirmative Action guidelines only require certain employers to incorporate policies and procedures that are designed to reduce racial and gender discrimination and those have been effective with large government contractors such as Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop. Those major corporations have benefited from Affirmative Action and all actively support Affirmative Action. They wouldn't have it any other way today. Unfortunately this only represents a very small percentage of employers in the United States (i.e. about 5% of all private enterprises). No quotas and no mandates outside of the "policies and procedures" developed by the enterprise and basically policed by the enterprise for effectiveness. The problem is that almost 95%  of private employers are not taking the same positive steps to fight against prejudice in their enterprise. A small step of progress and the challenge is how to get more of the 95% to do the same thing without quotas or other discriminatory practices? The enterprises actually benefit if they do internally eliminate discrimination and the major government contractors I've mentioned will all testify to that fact.

For my part I've addressed the problem of income inequity and wealth accumulation inequity with my federal income tax and privatization of Social Security proposals. Both proposals treat everyone the same and no one is discriminated against by either.

Of course I don't have all of the answers because the challenge is huge but if each of us can come up with one small answer then eventually the "statistics" will reflect that success. I've provided my "one" contribution so let's put the ball in your court. What small proposal would you make to reduce the inequities of equality of economic opportunity that the statistics reflect?

In truth the statistics don't support the believe that all 100% of law enforcement officers engage in unlawful and unconstitutional actions but they do support the fact that it's far more than just the "1%" of bad cops. The statistics also let us know that it's not just the bad cops but also racial prejudice in our criminal justice system generally driven by racial prejudice by prosecutors, members of the jury, and judges. This is another huge problem because the challenge of correcting it is not simple.

Once again I have a limited proposal that only addresses one thing. Perhaps we should raise the criteria for a "stop and frisk" by changing the criteria for the "stop" from "reasonable suspicion" (that is easily rationalized) to the higher criteria of "probable cause" and limit the "frisk" to a pat-down for weapons and require a search warrant when it comes to a body search for contraband (e.g. illegal drugs). As I've mentioned I was subjected to these "stop and frisks" when I was a long-haired surfer in the 1960's based upon stereotyping (long hair = druggie) but that practiced ended because we were white and came from affluent families. It never ended in the black community because, "Who gives a damn about poor young black people" in America - they're all on drugs and criminals anyway" (racial stereotype).

Once again if we pay attention to the statistical studies, as opposed to denying them whenever we don't like the conclusions, then we know that over 1/2 of all Americans have anti-black and anti-Hispanic racial prejudice. We know based upon a study in 2012 that 79% of Republicans, 32% of Democrats expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice. I've read another evaluation of  this same study where it also claimed that even 40% of blacks expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice (even blacks have negative stereotypes of blacks) and I've personally estimated that at least 50% of libertarians express explicit anti-black racial prejudice (but don't have a study to back that up). This 2012 study does not stand alone but is confirmed by prior studies between 2008 and 2012 that also had similar results and there are no studies that dispute these conclusions.   

So do we accept this study as being indictive of a serious problem across all political ideologies that needs to be addressed from within those political ideologies or do we simply deny it and don't do anything because we don't like the conclusions of the study?

Let me remind you that even if the specific percentages are wrong we know that this racial prejudice exists to some degree and actively addressing it is still necessary if we want to reduce the prejudice. Only the failure of each political ideology to address the probem of racial prejudice within it's ranks is a failure of the political ideology. 

The Democratic Party is unquestionably doing the most to address racial prejudice in it's own party but obviously it's not enough. The Libertarian Party minimally addresses the problem but only on limited issues while, except for a very small group of individuals, the Republican Party pretty much lives in denial by claiming that statistical studies are BS because they don't like the conclusions.   

Mar 16, 2015 17:49:19 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I do not believe that the death penalty represents "revenge," but true justice.  This is especially true whenever the condemned person has murdered one (or more) individuals.  And that is just about the only time that the death penalty comes into play. 

I would not do anything to "reduce the inequities of equality of economic opportunity," as you suggest. You seem to beleive that these "inequities" are caused by society.  And I firmly disagree.

Your observation that 40 percent of all black people "expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice" is just another way of claiming that those black Americans who do not toe the leftist line are, essentially, "Uncle Toms." 

If the "prosecutors, members of the jury, and judges" are typically prejudiced against black people, as you suggest, then you seem to believe that America is not basically a colorblind country, with a few abberations; but that it is basically a racist country, with a few honorable exceptions.    

The criminal justice system of the United States is about protection and not punishment based upon both the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. A government focused on punishment as opposed to protection is a tyrannical government.

Do you really believe that racial or gender discrimination that denies equality of opportunity is acceptable? I thought you said you opposed racism and assumed you opposed misogyny. Can I possibly be wrong?

Negative stereotypes can also influence those that are the subject of the stereotype. If you tell a child they're "stupid" enough times they're going to believe it and repeat it to others.

Yes, America is still very much a racist country and if we don't seriously address that fact it will always be a racist country. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's didn't make racism magically disappear in America. We saw racism explode again with the election of Obama and that was measurable by the explosion in the number of anti-black hate groups that formed in the United States after 2008.  

Mar 19, 2015 19:14:02 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Actually, I think more people supported Barack Obama precisely because of his skin color than opposed him because of it.  (I cannot prove this; but it is certainly my impression, given the inordinate emphasis that some place upon "breaking barriers," such as his becoming America's first African-American president.)

Apparently, you believe that the US government is "tyrranical" (even though it is usually the states--and not the federal government--thar carry out the death penalty).

No, I do not believe that it is "acceptable" to deny "eqquality of opportunity" because of racism or misogyny. But I do believe that all such cases of discriminatiion should be addressed on an individual basis--and not as a part of some "statistical analysis" (as regarding which, only quotas--however euphemistically re-titled--might serve as a "solution"). 

Do you believe that black American children are typically told that they are "stupid"? 

Barack Obama was elected because he was the "lesser of two evils" in the opinion of a majority of American and not because he was a good candidate. Obama was a "bad" candidate but McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 were worse candidates. Neither the Republican Party or the Democratic Party have nominated a worthy candidate in decades. I'm personally amazes at how deep down in the bottom of the barrel both parties dig to come up with candidates. Of course we basically know why. The candidates are selected through the primaries where typically the most radical elements of both parties represent the majority of the voters participating. The "extemists" vote so we get really bad candidates from both parties. It's merely a question of which extemist candidate the extemist voters can compromise on.

If the federal government allows tyranny by the states then it is not fulfilling it's roles and responsibilities under the US Constitution.

If the cases of discrimination are to be addressed at the individual level then the laws have to provide the "ammunition" for the lawsuits. As we know based upon statistical analysis that ammunition apparently doesn't exist because not enough individual lawsuits are succeeding to eliminate or even substantially reduce the discrimination. That was why, for example, it was so important to increase the available "evidence" that could be introduced in wage discrimination lawsuits under the law but Republicans blocked that effort.   

As I just previously addressed there are numerous ways of increasing employment for women and minorities in the workforce with some simply being reaching out to get more job applications from them that can be reviewed by the employers and providing scholarships across the board without discrimination as opposed to predominately limiting those scholarships to only white males. None of this creates "reverse-discrimination" and there is no need for "quotas" when all of the job applications are treated identically. As noted simply increasing the number of "black job applications" will increase the number of blacks hired. The historical problem for many major corporations was they only sought white applicants so that's all they got.

There is a general racial stereotype that is widespread that blacks are less intelligent (i.e. more stupid) than whites based upon IQ test scores that is propagated by white supremacy groups. This is a misrepresentation of what IQ test scores measure as well as ignoring the numerous factors that result in the much lower IQ test scores. Do black children believe this false racial stereotype of "lower intelligence" (stupidity) for blacks? Absolutely.  

**********

Returning for a moment to Netayahu I was deeply disappointed that his party was re-elected because it means one more term for him as Prime Minister of Israel ensuring that a peace accord will not be forthcoming and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue. Netayahu has no desire for peace with the Palestinians as it would end all hopes of Israel eventually acquiring all of Palestine. Peace with the Palestinians is the last thing that the  Likud Party, led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, want because it would thwart their eventual goal of evicting the Palestinians from their homeland in Palestine.

Mar 23, 2015 18:00:16 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu would favor a two-state solution--he has previously said so--but only with a Palestinian government that truly wants peace. He will not (and should not) compromise the security of Israel--which is a tiny country, about the size of Connecticut--on the altar of political correctness. 

You seem to be worried about the "stereotype" that is commonplace among "white supremacy groups," as if the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens' Council were running things in America; and that black children automatically accepted the rants of these groups, thereby believing that they must be inferior. 

I do not believe that scholarships (or other rewards) should automatically be "limit[ed]" to just "white males." On this point, we agree.  But neither do I think that white males ought to be disparaged, because of past favoritism. 

Although it is true that neither John McCain (in 2008) nor Mitt Romney (in 2012) were very inspiring, I believe that either would have made a much better president than Barack Obama has made.  That is because (1) Barack Obama has shifted this country considerably to the left; and (2) even more troubling, he has effectively shredded the Constitution, and acted as a mere dictator--no need for the advice and consent of Congress!--in the apparent belief that he can get away with it for a very long time, until the courts finally get around to reprimanding him for it. 

The night before the recent Israeli election Prime Minister Netayahu expressly stated there would be no two-state solution on his watch. He has since tried unsuccessfully to retract those words but we can assume one of two thing is true. Either he was telling the truth the night before the election or he was lying but in either case he's not to be trusted when it comes to an Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Lasting peace is always achieved by diplomacy and not force of arms. The Palestinians, based upon UNSC Resolution 242, have offered a secured peace with Israel that provides more security than anything Israel can achieve on it's own. More importantly this peace accord is what the Palestinian People want. They're the ones oppressed and they want that oppression to end and it would under this accord. And because the majority of Palestinians want it even Hamas is willing to support it which ends any threat from the Palestinians to Israel. If Israel reaches a peace accord with the Palestinians based upon UNSC 242 it also changes the entire Middle East where Muslim nations have opposed Israel because Israel will not withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967.  

Lasting peace for the Palestinians and the Israelis depends upon diplomacy but Israel has been rejecting a diplomatic peace.

A relatively small group of racist radicals, by the use of propaganda that is most effective based upon half-truths, can influence a majority of the population of an entire nation. Historical point the Nazis in Germany. Yes, even with small numbers the KKK and Stormfront can influence (and is influencing) the entire nation using propaganda based upon half-truths.

Let me ask a hypothetical question based on simple math. Assume that "pink" and "purple" are equal in number and qualifications and one year 100% of scholarships go to "pink" then is it fair if the next year 100% of the scholarships go to "purple"? The point being that each year independently would represent discrimination but the two years combined, would in a general, sense represents non-discrimination because mathmatically they cancel each other out.  

While you might have the opinion that McCain and/or Romney would have made a better president the American people didn't believe that. When Obama leaves office his "numbers" are going to be very good in the opinion of most American experts. The economy it up by many major indicators. The US is out of Iraq and Afghanistan (for the most part). Iran has not produced a nuclear weapon and it is very unlikely it will happen on Obama's watch (even though there's no actual evidence Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon so that's sort of moot). Same-sex marriage, supported by the majority of Americans, has been established under his adminstration. Well over 10 million Americans that had no hope of securing health insurance will have it when he leaves office and most Americans do support the expansion of health insurance to more Americans (while objecting to Obamacare because few even understand it according to most polls). 

I can find a lot of holes (and some are gapping holes) in the above but those are the simplistic "number" Obama's time in office is going to be judged by.

A president can not shift the country to either the left or right. It is the policies of the left and right that influence the American people. If more people are shifting to the left it's because more Americans are supporting the agenda and actions of the left and fewer Americans are supporting the agenda and actions of the right.  

Excluding extrajudical executions and GITMO detainees not charged with any crime that (IMO) violate the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment I'm unaware of any constitutional violation by President Obama. Deferred prosecution for "illegal" immigrants, for example, is not a violation of the Constitution nor are their any lawsuits based upon such a violation. There is a 'stay' against the recent deferred prosecution that was issued by a federal court but it is not on Constitutional grounds but instead the 'stay' was issued on procedural grounds. So where is a lawsuit with merit that claims Obama violated the US Constitution?