Not anywhere near a majority yet, but the percentage is on the rise. Which ought to tell you all you need to know about where public sentiment on the question will head after the next 9/11 or worse-magnitude jihadist attack:
More Americans now think Muslims should be monitored by the government as potential terrorists, a new poll shows.
According to a Rasmussen Reports survey released Friday, 32% of respondents support the idea of tracking most individual Muslims – up ten points from a July 2013 poll after the Boston Marathon bombing – though 52% oppose the idea. Sixteen percent are undecided.
In a partisan breakdown, Republicans are far more receptive to the near-blanket surveillance of Muslims, with 43% in favor of such tracking; only 24% of Democrats and 29% of independent voters are supportive.
"Even prior to the recent killings in Paris by Islamic terrorists, 49% of all voters felt the federal government is not devoting attention to the potential threat of domestic Islamic terrorism," the pollster noted, citing its survey from October 7th.
Republican and independent support will skyrocket after the next jihadist strike here at home, although depending upon its magnitude, I wonder if just surveiling Muslims will be considered a sufficient countermeasure. But then at that point you run into all the downsides of taking eight million-plus potentially violent hostiles into our very midst. Try to require them to register themselves and their whereabouts with the government and you'll just drive them underground, broadening the pool of jihadist recruits. Rounding up and deporting eight million Muzzies is as impractical as doing the same with the thirty million illegal aliens squatting on our territory and leeching off our economy and welfare state. And unlike with the latter, we can't get Muslims to "self-deport" using economic incentives, as they aren't here to get rich or "build a better life" for themselves, but rather to conquer us from within.
The damage, in effect, is already done. And to keep any more from happening, we should be tracking Muslims in this country already. After Times Square gets truck-bombed or Miami gets shot up or Chicago "dusted" or Manhattan nerve-gassed or LA nuked or whatever, it'll be too late.
There was a particularly annoying line in this past summer's Avengers II: Age Of Ultron flick. It was in the wood-chopping scene at Hawkeye's country hideaway between Steve Rogers and Tony Stark. They're arguing over what the Avengers' purpose is supposed to be and Cap snaps, "Whenever someone tries to win a war before it starts, innocent people die - every time." The first words out of my brain were, "But don't a helluva lot more innocent people die if you wait to try to win said war until AFTER it starts, because that means by definition that you're allowing the enemy to strike you first?" Do unto them before they can do it unto you? In this case of the Global Jihad, it's not like they're remotely subtle or coy about their intentions, after all. Why not hit them first, hard, decisively, and take whatever measures we have to take at home preemptively to minimize their chances of successfully landing a crippling blow on us?
Most Americans are still, metaphorically speaking, with Captain America. I'm with Tony Stark (as I always am), because I'd prefer that we only have to learn hard lessons once. A truly great power and world leader would understand that and do what was necessary to safeguard its citizens. Obamerikastan is no longer such a country.
We can only pray that it takes the opportunity to regain that "eye of the tiger" before it's too late.