This was so predictable. There is new anti-profiling legislation, co-sponsored by Senator Dick Durbin that would expand federal law enforcement guidelines against profiling and mandate training on racial profiling at all federal law enforcement agencies:
It is another example of a solution in desperate search of a problem. This is all based on a monstrous and deliberate distortion of the facts in the Trayvon Martin case. The following paragraph is typical of how this is portrayed by the liberal left:
“He was profiled, followed, chased, and murdered,” said Federica Wilson, the cowboy hat-wearing congresswoman from Miami where Trayvon lived with his father. “This case has captured international attention and will go down in history as a textbook example of racial profiling.”
So far, there is zero evidence that Trayvon Martin was profiled; in fact, it is not entirely clear that George Zimmerman committed any crime at all. He may be guilty of nothing more than self-defense. The most recent picture, released in court today, shows a bloodied George Zimmerman with significant injuries on the back of his head. These pictures were taken within 3 minutes after the policy arrived at the scene.
The following article from PJ Media shows just how bad this has become:
One has to ask why the liberal left jumped in with both feet on this case. I think it is because there is an embarrassing lack of racial profiling abuses. This is the same reason they hyperventilated about that Harvard professor. It is also why the Duke Lacrosse team was pillared in the media. As demonstrated by Dick Durbin, the liberal left has all this neat anti-profiling legislation burning a hole in their pocket, and they are desperately in need of a high profile incident.
The indictment against Zimmerman is not only bad, it is laughably bad. But this is not funny. It certainly isn’t funny to George Zimmerman who literally has a bounty on his head from the New Black Panthers. But it also isn’t funny because liberals are now trying to use this gross misrepresentation of facts to pass irresponsible legislation. The proposed legislation is not just wrong, it is dangerously wrong. If police cannot profile against those who are most likely to be a threat, they must treat everyone as a threat. It is precisely this kind of logic that resulted in a 95-year-old grandmother humiliated into removing her soiled adult diaper so some TSA agent could be sure she was not a threat:
I am unaware of the TSA stopping a single terrorist attack. There are certainly people who have been caught with weapons, but most of them are celebrities who leave handguns in their carry-on luggage. The real terrorists, such as the shoe bomber and the diaper bomber, managed to get on planes rather easily and were only stopped by outraged fellow passengers. Perhaps the terrorists were so intimidated by the mere presence of the TSA that they didn’t even try, but I suspect not. I think terrorists now know that fellow passengers are on the alert, and they won’t hesitate to fight back. The 9-11 hijackers only succeeded because official policy, up until then, was to cooperate with hijackers. Now that aircrews and passengers understand what is at stake, it is going to take more than a box knife to take over an airliner. I strongly suspect as long as we use good metal detectors and look for handguns and hand grenades, we will be pretty safe.
In addition, there is a shortage of people stupid enough to try and bring down an airliner by blowing their balls off midflight yet smart enough to pull it off. People that stupid can fool the TSA, but they are unlikely to fool their fellow passengers. In the meantime, the liberal left wants police to treat everyone as a potential criminal so we won’t risk offending those who actually are criminals. Of course, if we are talking about white Christians, then profiling is not only acceptable, it is required.
In 1770, John Adams was the defense attorney for the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. He took the job because none of the “Tory” lawyers were willing. The following is from his defense argument:
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
If we are right about the facts, liberals are doomed to defeat. If we are wrong, they deserve to win. Those who ignore the facts are incapable of governing effectively. That is why liberal governments are always voted out of office. It is only a matter of time. Eventually, all those strategies based on false assumptions are doomed to failure. That’s just the way it is.