Another week, another radical Islamic terrorist attack on the West – most recently, right in the heart of the European continent.
We have become numb to this. It is now rare for one to experience what people once experienced after terrorist attacks: a profound state of shock and disbelief. If the event of multiple ideologically-driven, deranged men slaughtering over thirty innocents in Brussels does not shock us, then something is wrong.
Both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates were quick to chime in. Donald Trump, who predicted terrorist activity in Brussels over a month ago, said that the attacks were “just the beginning.” He is sadly right about this, as there is no reason to believe that terrorist attacks will cease in the multicultural heaven that is Europe, full of its Syrian refugees and leftist tolerance.
Ted Cruz suggested that law enforcement should “patrol and secure” Muslims neighborhoods to prevent the radicalization of Muslim citizens. Instantly, he was attacked by the left, including Hillary Clinton, who called his proposal “offensive” and “dangerous”, insisting that “we want everybody to feel together” in the common defense of our nation.
I won’t say too much about how it’s utterly ridiculous for Hillary to claim that a feeling of togetherness is really what matters in this nation. She hasn’t exactly been the epitome of a unifying presidential candidate. Forget the fact that she called half of Americans her “enemies;” what really matters is that we feel together, guys.
I would advocate that it is more important to not get blown up than it is to feel “together.” This is why Cruz is right and Hillary is wrong.
For starters, let’s clarify what Cruz did not say. He didn’t say that innocent Muslims should be rounded up and thrown in jail. He didn’t say that Islam should be illegal. But he did say that police presence should be increased in Muslim neighborhoods in order to prevent future terrorism.
For leftists, this isn’t just bad policy, it’s hateful. According to DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Cruz’s comments were “a shameful display of hate that only serves to foment anger and make the world less secure.”
The irony is rich. One might think that radical Islam might be a fine candidate for the label of “that which foments anger and makes us all less secure.” But no, the real problem – and the real hate – comes from people such as Ted Cruz. The real danger is that we give an disproportionate amount of police scrutiny to different groups of individuals.
Not only are those who are against racial or religious or gender-based profiling incorrect, they are also hypocrites. Everybody profiles. Everybody makes judgments based out outward characteristics. It is a common occurrence in the life of every citizen.
Let me present you with a scenario. You’re walking down the streets of West Philadelphia at 2:00 A.M., unarmed, with a briefcase full of money. You are presented with a choice between walking down two alleys: one in which you will walk past a 25-year-old man, and the other in which you will walk past a 25-year-old woman. Everyone would choose to walk past the woman. Why? Gee, I don’t know, maybe because everyone knows that women are much less likely to commit violent crimes. Of course, being a male myself, I could raise a fuss about that somehow being proof of sexism against men, but that’s exactly my point: It’s not sexism. It simply means that we realize that it is statistically more likely for a man to mug us than it is for a woman to do the same. It’s basic profiling, and it happens constantly, whether people realize it or not.
In short, the fight against terrorism requires racial, religious, and gender-based profiling in order to maximize efficiency and save the most lives possible. This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists. But what it does mean is that it is absolutely ludicrous to claim that a 75-year-old white woman deserves the same scrutiny at an airport that a 30-year-old man from the Middle East deserves. Why? Because almost every major terrorist attack in the last thirty years has been committed by a radical Muslim. That is simply a fact.
Profiling works, too. Israel, the most hated country in the Eastern Hemisphere, has been a constant terror target for years, but has managed to dramatically decrease terrorist attacks through unapologetic racial profiling and by building a wall. And before you commence the standard lecture about the “victims” of racial and religious profiling, let’s be clear: The real victims are those torn to shreds in terrorist attacks. It’s easy to take the moral high ground if you think of only one group of people – those being profiled – rather than victims who are literally ripped apart due to suicide bombers.
Indeed, profiling is based on the rather obvious principle that we should focus our resources where they are needed most. Cruz is correct in saying that Muslim neighborhoods and mosques have been known to frequently aid terrorists, even if they are not chock-full of actual terrorists themselves. Not every mosque is at fault. Not every Muslim neighborhood aids terrorists. But the reason why the Brussels terrorists were able to be so effective is that they had help. And regardless of how many Muslims are terrorists, there are many more who at least sympathize with their cause.
We should focus our law enforcement and anti-terrorism efforts where they are needed most. Of course, Ted Cruz isn’t perfect, but he sure is right about this.
Follow this link for a list of terror attacks with their causes (overwhelmingly radical Islam):