The whole argument about profiling is ludicrous because the actual practice of profiling is to take one particular characteristic such as hair color, gender, ethnicity and treat those who have that characteristic differently than those who do not. The argument against profiling rests on the assumption that any of these overt characteristics have no relation to underlying character traits or ability to perform a job, commit a crime, etc. Hence the protected classes of the ADA and other legislation which make it illegal (hence unconstitutional, because laws are ipso facto constitutional until deemed otherwise) to discriminate on the basis of age, religion, gender and other inherent classes.

In a law enforcement investigation, profiling is widely used to determine the suspects of a crime, and allows investigators to cull the suspect pool down to those who should be interviewed or put under surveillance: in other words, they determine who poses the most risk of having committed (or going to commit) a crime by looking at relevant exogenous factors such as group affiliation, etc. When, as many have noted, the only perpetrators of attempted (and successful) acts of terrorism in the United States have been swarthy Islamic males “SIMs”, and the religion of these SIMs is an integral part of their propensity to kill innocent people, profiling becomes a necessity to protect the public interest.

The liberal media and our very own Homeland Security has no problem with “profiling” Tea Party activists as being a “fringe, radical, racist organization and prone to violence, being comprised of white, fundamentalist Christian males.” They are too politically correct to call out those groups who really want to kill Americans but patriotic Americans who believe in limited government are apparently fair game.

So, answer me a question: who poses the greatest danger to American life and liberty? Is it the small minority of fanatics who are trying to blow things up, or the large majority of liberal, politically correct media enablers and politicians (including a President with a Muslim name) who refuse to protect American lives because they value Muslim sensibilities more?

I argue that in order to fight a war successfully, one must first remove the ineffective, the indolent, and the traitorous from among the ranks of those called to lead the nation (better known as the enemy within, and as an aside,the oath of office specifies protecting the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic), then turn the focus to defeating the enemy without our borders. Should we profile SIMs? Absolutely, because they as a group represent an enhanced risk to our nation. But the real clear and present danger to our republic are those leaders, both agencies and individuals, who mock our laws and are in dereliction of their Constitutional duties.

Let us profile THAT group into oblivion through every electoral and legal means at our disposal, starting with the TSA.

Link to Jonah Goldberg column