A moonbat who attacks racial profiling and for whom Ron Paul is the only "right-winger" he'll support

The nasty moonbat Andrew Belonsky opened his big mouth and let us all breath his foul breath again as he attacks Republicans in some of the most hypocritical ways, including on the need for racial profiling, which was brought up at the recent GOP debate. Some of things he says:

Fear mongering and sabre rattling were on full display as Republican presidential candidates bickered about national security at last night’s CNN debate.

Yes, there were warnings about evil Iran wanting to destroy Israel, rumblings over shady Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, loads of discussion about securing our borders from scary Mexicans and even a little mention of AIDS aid to Africa, which Rick Santorum callously equated not with human goodness, but national security.

“The work that we’ve done in stabilizing that area, while humanitarian in nature, was absolutely essential for our national security,” he said, because “Africa was a country on the brink.” (Country? Really?)

Santorum may be a sadly awkward speaker, but for a character like Belonsky - who whitewashed the Muslim Brotherhood, opposes criticism of Islam and even supports the Ground Zero mosque - to be attacking Santorum on his flaws is a bit rich. Besides, as it so happens, US national security does have a role in this, since in Iran's case, not dealing with them enables them to advance their nuclear arsenal, as they are now (judging from the sleazy way he references them, it's clear he shares Paul's horrid viewpoint on them too). Nuclear building could even happen in Somalia too if we don't keep a sharp eye on them.

In the midst of all these topics came another controversial issue, the TSA, and how to improve it.

Long a target for right-wing ire, the TSA catches a lot of flack for intrusive pat downs and extraneous searches. Rather than subjecting red-blooded Americans to such tactics, most of the candidates said the TSA should essentially start racial profiling.

Whoa now, is he saying a leftist couldn't possibly be bothered by this intrusive crap, and that all leftists across the board would actually be quite fine with it? Tsk tsk tsk. Talk about insulting even his own side of the political spectrum; it must be more common among some leftists than we think.

Frontrunner Mitt Romney suggested the TSA start identifying “lower risk” travelers and letting them go through security faster, though stopped short of identifying what “lower risk” may mean. Santorum got more specific, suggesting we model our system after Israel, where, in addition to profiling, agents employ low-intensity interrogation to pick out especially jittery travelers.

Asked by moderator Wolf Blitzer if he endorses profiling, Santorum replied TSA should target “the folks who are most likely to be committing these crimes.” That means, of course, Muslims.

“Obviously, Muslims would be someone you’d look at, absolutely,” Santorum admitted. “Those are the folks who are — the radical Muslims are the people that are committing these crimes, as we’ve — by and large, as well as younger males.” He then tried to correct his obviously racist statement by claiming Muslims should not be targeted “exclusively,” though they are the “most likely candidate” for a security breach.

And Herman Cain, who has a long history of fanning Islamophobic flames, described his plan as something called “targeted identification.” The former pizza executive kept clear of specifically calling out Muslims, but did give a telling hint: “If you take a look at the people who are trying to kill us, it would be easy to figure out exactly what that identification profile looks like.”

As it so happens, racial/ethnic profiling is needed to identify the specific individuals who may be out to commit crimes so that other people can be on the lookout for them as well in case they might turn up elsewhere. If it's a Norweigian criminal who's causing concern, authorities should be able to profile what he looks like as well. The profiling proposed is also to get an idea of what kind of cultural habits and customs suspicious characters go by, which could help figure out just what they're like even on a cultural level.

And again, Belonsky can only provide laughter or just a headshake at his own inability to distinguish between race and religion, to say nothing of his obvious hatred for Cain.

Rick Perry, meanwhile, suggested the TSA be privatized, opening the door to all sorts of private-interest profiling.

And this is clearly a hint at someone's disrespect for private business, which can often, if not always, get a better job done than a government-run security system.

Of all those who remarked on the TSA, Ron Paul was the only one with sense enough to see that racial profiling is A.) unfair and B.) counter-productive. By profiling, we are “digging a hole for ourselves,” he said.

“What if [the terrorist] look like Timothy McVeigh? You know, he was a pretty tough criminal,” explained Paul, referencing the white American who orchestrated the Oklahoma City bombing. Implementing a superficial screening process based on xenophobia and hateful loathing ends up eroding all of our rights, explained Paul, because terrorism is not a person — it’s a tactic.

Yes, a tactic carried out BY people, dummy. And in the cases we're facing today, with ideology.

Said Paul, “[Terrorism] isn’t a person. It isn’t a people. So this is a very careless use of words. What about this? Sacrifice liberties because there are terrorists?”

That sounds like the same kind of mantra blabbered by some leftists. And Paul, of course, doesn't have the courage to acknowledge that the Religion of Rape is what teaches the concept of terrorism. And Belonsky doesn't make things any better when he belches out:

By sacrificing those liberties we end up perpetuating anti-Muslim stereotypes, overlooking other potential threats and exacerbating political and social tensions that alienate us from the world and further isolate American Muslims. Plus, it assumes all Muslims are one shape, size and color.

Uh uh. As Mark Steyn once said, there may be moderate Muslims but no moderate Islam, which is meant to allude to how some Muslims may have the ability to resist the most ugly of the beliefs taught by the Religion of Rape, but if the Koran is as vile as it is, that's why you cannot expect Islamic society to ever be %100 free of the kind of evil they cough out.

Furthermore, let us be clear: when many members of a certain society engage in acts of evil, you can only expect that people not part of that society will feel reason to worry. That's how it was during WW2, when there were German-Americans who acted as nazi agents, and today's situation is no different.

And Belonsky refuses to note Newt Gingrich's response to Paul, which was:

The biggest sparks flew over the Patriot Act, where Newt Gingrich had his stand-out moment. Ron Paul used the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh as proof that treating terrorists as criminals is a workable approach. Gingrich replied, “Timothy McVeigh succeeded,” paused and continued, “That’s the whole point.”

“I don’t want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we sure are going to find you. I want a law that says if you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you,” he said.

Or, put another way, we need a law that can help to stop terrorists before they carry out their evil deeds. If it weren't for the Patriot Act, the NY authorities might not have succeeded in stopping Jose Pimentel before he could carry out the horrific plot he was working on.

Paul seems to be the only "right-winger" Belonsky actually supports, and even that's in question. Whether he would actually vote for him as a candidate is another question entirely. Presumably, he wouldn't even do that, and just supports him as a way of sabotaging the conservative movement.