Profiling by conservatives? Bad. Profiling by Obama? Huh? Obama profiles?

In case you missed this, back in January, following the unsuccessful Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight, the Obama Administration announced that passengers coming into the United States from fourteen specific countries would be subject to extra security screening. 

While the mainstream media (MSM) did not ignore the story completely, they did manage to avoid stating the obvious: Is this not racial profiling, something they decried whenever conservatives suggested that certain groups, more likely to have terrorists among them, be given extra scrutiny before being allowed to board a plane?  For example, a search of New York Times editorials from the month after this decision finds exactly zero editorials dealing with this issue. 

On the other hand, to its credit, the ACLU criticized the announcement, "...because there is no way to predict the national origin of a terrorist...many terrorists have come from countries not on the list."  (I say "to its credit," because while I think that the ACLU, as usual, is wrongheaded in its opposition to a commonsense approach to fighting terrorism, at least I can respect them for their consistency in criticizing this decision of the Obama Administration.  They, as opposed to the MSM, are at least intellectually honest.)

By the way, what is this "list" to which the ACLU refers?  Here it is, and ask yourself, "Is there any common denominator here?"

1. Iran
2. Iraq
   
3. Syria
4. Sudan
5. Saudi Arabia
6. Algeria
7. Yemen
8. Pakistan
9. Libya
10. Lebanon
11. Somalia
12. Nigeria
13. Afghanistan
    
14. Cuba
    

Hmmm....think, think, think.  Aside from Cuba, what might the other thirteen countries have in common?  Love of cricket?  Former colonies of European powers?  Or could it be, dare I say it, they are all MUSLIM-MAJORITY COUNTRIES!!!  Yet the ACLU's Michael German, in citing Shoebomber Richard Reid, four of the London subway bombers, and a Belgian female suicide bomber says that "...there is no way to predict the national origin of a terrorist..."  Perhaps not, Mr. German, but since all of your cited exceptions were Muslims, is it fair to say that there is a fairly accurate way to predict the religion of a terrorist?  Since the answer is obvious in any honest assessment, putting nearly every Middle Eastern Muslim country on the extra screening list might be a good start.

The two points I wish to make are these:

1. The MSM has exposed itself as blatantly hypocritical in this case.  When conservatives want to give extra screening to high-risk groups, liberals charge, "Racial profiling!  Unconstitutional!"  When President Obama blatantly does the exact same thing, there is not a peep from his adoring fans at the New York Times.  So, when conservatives want to do it, it's unconstitutional.  But when liberals do it, it's OK.  Did I get that right?  I am very interested in how my liberal readers would explain this one.
2. Given that security resources are limited, focusing on high-risk groups, namely Muslims, is clearly the right thing to do.  Claiming that doing so smears all Muslims is ludicrous.  Since, as I believe, the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, those Muslims should be thrilled that their lives will also be saved by these techniques.  Would they rather get blown up instead of being inconvenienced by some extra screening?  If there were a serial killer on the loose in my neighborhood, would I be offended if the police gave extra scrutiny to me as a man, since the overwhelming majority of brutal murderers are men?  Of course not; I want to live!
   

Having visited Israel many times (I moved there last September), I see on a daily basis how well profiling works.  Israelis do not have time for ACLU-like foolishness; we need to survive.  When eighty-year-old Miami Beach grandmothers start slaughtering innocents, we can focus on them.  Until that time, however, let's go after the usual suspects, shall we?