November 18, 2009


One of the more rational (usually) folks over our LGOMB, pandora, writes that Sarah Palin is "unfit to be president" because she apparently said she'd favor profiling Muslims to save American lives. "Iím really sick of this sort of talk," she says. "Itís beyond disgusting. Frankly, itís un-American."

Really? For for mere (yes, "mere") profiling?

"Profiling" has taken on a negative connotation mainly because many of the usual race hustlers saw some disparities in police traffic stops in various jurisdictions across the country, etc. Indeed, some of these stops were arguably inappropriate. However, the very nature of police/law enforcement work relies on that nasty term "profiling."

Despite what your typical nor'eastern "progressive" (like pandora) desires, there are disparities (racial, ethnic, gender) with regards to various crime statistics. White males are profiled as serial killers. Black and Hispanic males are frequently profiled for drug running. And so on.

pandora asks if conservatives/Republicans would be so willing to profile pro-lifers as possible abortion doctor killers ... or tea partiers and gun nuts as potential shooters of government types. And the answer is yes -- the more radical of those groups should indeed be watched! Profilers (or, more accurately, "those who profile") don't look at all members of a particular group. There are other factors involved in profiling than just someone's skin tone or religion. Much more likely than not, this is what Palin meant -- and she's right. It would be irresponsible not to profile/survey radical Muslims whose activities meet the criteria of "suspicious." After all, Nidal Hasan's actions should have met that criteria, but as we've heard already, some of those in higher positions have admitted that they'd have likely gotten into trouble had they raised concerns about Hasan's statements and actions prior to his offing 13 people!

If keeping an eye out for folks like Hasan is "disgusting" and "un-American," then it's very little wonder why so few people (still) are comfortable ascribing the "liberal" label to themselves these days -- even though one is in the White House. In other words, your average person believes in common sense, not a political correctness that results in the mass murder of Americans.

Posted by Hube at November 18, 2009 03:08 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

At the same time, the folks over at LGOMB are demanding the suppression of the Jewish Scriptures/Old Testament because some conservatives have quoted Psalm 109:8 in reference to Barack Obama, carefully leaving out the verses which follow so as to be clear that they are praying for Obama's removal from office not his death.

But don't you dare suggest that there might be something bad in Islam that is causing real violence.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at November 18, 2009 07:47 PM

Not all muslims are terrorists, but 99% of terrorists are muslims.

Posted by: h. at November 19, 2009 10:54 AM


Obviously, I don't think that Psalms should be banned, but knowing the full context in that chapter (though in Hebrew) I didn't think that citing that verse out of context was proper.

Posted by: soccer dad at November 20, 2009 10:21 AM

And I agree with you -- but having carefully taken the single verse so as NOT to include the broader call for the utter annihilation of the target, i believe that the Left is certainly behaving disingenuously in claiming that it is a call for the assassination of Obama.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at November 20, 2009 05:55 PM