Why minorities and liberals should be “profiled” before being allowed to occupy national security positions

In an editorial, the Washington Times reports:

On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. sent a five-page letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, detailing his rationale for treating purported Christmas Day bomber [Abdul Mutallab] as a criminal suspect rather than a terrorist detainee. The attorney general’s defense betrays significant misreading of how the United States has dealt with terrorism in recent decades.

Let me be more blunt. At every step, Holder shows that his wrong and leftist ideas about how to deal with terrorism are fed by an Alice in Wonderland version of reality. Holder is simply too ignorant and stupid to occupy the position he occupies. But his ignorance and stupidity, while profound, are not the ultimate cause of the problem. His ignorance and stupidity are fed by his (at worst) hostility or (at best) indifference to the United States. And, in turn, driving such hostility or indifference to the United States, is, I believe, the fact that as a black convinced that America is a racist and guilty country, he cannot identify with the United States or see the world from an American perspective.

The Obama administration is inadvertently driving home the lesson that before any black or Hispanic is appointed or elected to a position of responsibility involving the defense and security fo the United States, he should be pointedly asked whether he wholeheartedly identifies with the United States and can wholeheartedly protect it. (It goes without saying that believing Muslims should be automatically barred from such positions of responsibility, and be barred from service in the armed forces as well.)

However, why limit the profiling to the two nonwhite groups I’ve just mentioned? Many whites today view America as a historically racist and guilty country. The largest grossing motion picture of all time is James Cameron’s Avatar, a movie that demonizes whites as anti-human oppressors and tells its (overwhelming white) audience to take the side of nonwhites against whites. Is it rational to presume that a white person who relates positively to Avatar will have the instinctive readiness, the “default position,” to stand with America and against its enemies, especially a nonwhite or non-Western enemy? I say it is not. To the contrary, it is to be expected that such a person will experience at least some degree of ambivalence on the issue, probably a lot of ambivalence, amounting to an inability to take America’s side and act effectively in its defense. Liberalism has turned us into a nation that consists in large part of people who are quasi traitors or who at best are deeply conflicted and ambivalent toward America. We need to recognize this terrible reality and deal with it when considering individuals for positions of responsibility in the areasof national security, national defense, and diplomacy.

—end of initial entry—

LA writes:

Curiously, after I drafted this entry, but before I posted it, I came upon this statement at the blog, “Workingclass Conservative”:

Perhaps the ONLY way to “clean up” the current rash of junk science is to bar those who hold left-wing views from holding positions of responsibility within the scientific community.

The blogger’s reasoning, and even his wording, with regard to positions of responsibility in the field of science, are similar to mine with regard to positions of responsibility in the field of national security and national defense. Just as blacks, Hispanics, and liberals, because of their anti-white, anti-American attitudes, cannot automatically be assumed to have a readiness to side wholeheartedly with America against enemies, leftists, because of their ideological passions and agendas, cannot be assumed to have a commitment to truth in science.

Gintas writes:

Joe McCarthy was right, where is he when we need him?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 05, 2010 01:50 PM | Send