The un-American Senator James Inhofe

The Republican senator from Oklahoma has called for passengers to be “racially and ethnically profiled,” because according to him, “all terrorists [or at least 90% of them] are Muslims.”  Yes, that’s true: all terrorists are Muslims…except of course the 94% that aren’t.

Does the good senator not know the ugly history of racial profiling?  Based on this same logic, white racists justify the racial profiling of blacks.  A white supremacist on the white nationalist website Stormfront.org says:

Blacks looking ghetto in an affluent neighborhood should send up flags. For some reason, I doubt that they are there to do the plumbing, though I am sure they wouldn’t mind relieving you of a few of your more valuable items.

These white nationalists ask, just like Inhofe: “why should my white wife be considered on the same level as a ‘ghetto’ black guy?”

That racist forum is in fact full of calls for a return to racial profiling.  And they justify their belief based on “practicality” just like Inhofe and other loons do.  These white nationalists argue that according to the Department of Justice, blacks are seven times more likely to commit murder than whites:

Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders
In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

…In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites……………..

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

In another thread, they argue that blacks commit fifty times the number of violent crimes as whites.  There are also other points brought forth by such people, such as the fact that one in twenty adult black men are incarcerated.  Or that “more than three times the number of black Americans live in prison as in college dorms.” Or that over 55% of offenders admitted under the age of 18 are black. And on and on…All justifications to legalize racial profiling.

So if you justify profiling on airplanes by arguing that 90% of terrorists are Muslims (which is false anyways), then by that same logic you ought to be OK with profiling blacks, especially those “ghetto blacks” who happen to be walking through the suburb.  Whatever arguments you use to justify profiling of Arabs/Muslims can be used for blacks…What?  You’re not OK with that?  Then why is it OK to do that to Muslims or Arabs?

I am an American, and I oppose these un-American calls to racially and ethnically profile.  I don’t believe in such discrimination, and know that it is prohibited by the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution (that annoying document that right wingers always try to circumvent).  If you don’t believe in the ideals of this country, then kindly leave.  You, Senator Inhofe, are un-American.

And if you want to lament about your wife being pulled aside for extra searching, maybe think about changing the war mongering policy that has been shoved upon us by the right wing.  You can’t really kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims, and not expect there to be a handful of disgruntled Muslims who seek revenge.

I know that people are annoyed by the added costs of airport security.  Well, I have a very low cost solution: the U.S. would save trillions of dollars if it withdrew all troops from foreign lands, and stopped aiding the state of Israel.  (Then put the money into universal health care.)  That would take away the motivations of Islamic extremists.  But I get it: you don’t want to do that…then stop complaining when that policy ends up fueling terrorism.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

The Young Turks

Many of us here at LoonWatch.com are fans of The Young Turks, so we decided to post some of their videos on the Ft. Hood Shooting along with some commentary:

Crazy Conservative Bloggers on Fort Hood

My comments: There were two Muslim American soldiers who shot their fellow soldiers, compared to tens of thousands of Muslim Americans who serve in the military, and millions of Muslim Americans who live in the country.  But surely two of them define them all, right?

Fox “News” Un-American Take on the Fort Hood Shooter

My comments: At about four minutes into the video, the Fox “News” lady host argues that “political correctness” is the problem: the U.S. military knew about his radical postings online and didn’t do anything about it because they wanted to be PC about it.  Of course conservatives love to be politically incorrect–or rather, pathetically incorrect–and this is one of their favorite talking points.  They use the euphemism of “I’m going to be politically incorrect” instead of just saying “I’m going to be bigoted.”  Anyways, the entire theory is bogus because his military command already said that they didn’t know about his radical postings online.

Also, at the very end of the video, Cenk mentions the most important point: so many right wingers unfortunately think that they are “allowing” Muslims to be Americans.  We’ve had a few similar comments on LW, where a few posters would say something along the lines of “if Muslims want to be treated as Americans…”, not knowing that Muslims in this country are already Americans!  You didn’t “gift” that Americanness to them, and they are just as American as you are.  And your entire attitude of thinking that you get to decide who is and who is not a real American is the most un-American of all.

America was a country founded upon immigration, a melting pot by definition.  Unless you’re Native American, your ancestors were also immigrants to this country, and what difference does it make that they were from a European country as opposed to an Asian or African one?  Why is it that a third generation Arab American is treated as being a foreigner/immigrant, whereas an immigrant who just moved from Italy to the United States some three years ago is considered more American?  It’s absurd.  Get this through your thick skulls: you will treat every single American as a fellow American regardless of his race, religion, or ethnicity.  And if you don’t believe that, then you should be treated as being un-American.

Should Ft. Hood Shooter Been Racially Profiled?

My comments:  Cenk, I think you missed the point here.  There was absolutely no need for racial or religious profiling here at all.  The fact is that if anyone had said the things Major Nidal Hasan had said–be it his radical postings online or his rantings in person–then that’s a red flag no matter what race or religion he is.  So that’s not racial or religious profiling if you pull a guy aside for saying those things.

Let me clarify: if there is a guy going through airport security and he says something like “I love Al-Qaeda,” then you can and should pull him aside for saying that.  This is regardless of his race or religion.  On the other hand, if you simply pull aside those who are of a certain race or religion, then that’s racial profiling.  Nobody on earth would have a problem with the former, but the latter is racist and 100% un-American.

The thing that is being missed here, with the Ft. Hood Shooting, is that there was no reason to racially profile this guy!  He could have been caught and stopped if people had just paid attention to the numerous red flags.  Major Hasan was saying crazy things, and doing crazy things (giving absurd and out of place presentations at work)…It was just a matter of picking up on those numerous cues and then looking into that.

If you start racially or religiously profiling people, then you alienate the same community within which the problem exists.  It’s counter-productive.  Instead of wasting time trying to screen tens of thousands of Muslim Americans, why not just investigate those people that are saying and doing things that are questionable?  And that’s the American thing to do: judge people based on their words and actions, not their race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.  It’s about judging people for the content of their character.

Crazy Conservatives on Ft. Hood

My comments: Of course, any sane person knows that it’s a lie that Muslims believe they must “kill all infidels.”  Pious Muslim Americans believe that they must obey the U.S. laws, and are thus not a threat.

The Islamophobe says “this is not Islamophobia, it’s Islamo-realism.”  That’s exactly what bigoted people say.  Cenk of TYT interviewed a racist guy earlier on his show, and that guy would call himself a “racial realist” instead of “racist.”

Anyways, the key point that Cenk raises is at 4:00 when he talks about how truly un-American these guys are, and how they really and truly don’t understand the ethics and purpose of this country.

UPDATE:

Pat Roberson: Islam is Not a Religion

My comments:  A bit over the top?  I don’t know.  But yes, I do agree that these right wingers shouldn’t throw stones when they live in glass houses.

Alright, that’s it for now.  Thanks a lot, TYT Nation!  Keep up the good work.