Search This Blog

13.8.08

Report reaffirms LA ACLU agenda, its hypocrisy

If one looks for the home of hypocritical chutzpah, you need to look no further than the Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Perhaps best known for an anti-religious slant, the organization founded by communist interests is in the news in the state again by provoking in part again its recent favorite target, St. Tammany Parish where recently it won a partial victory against Slidell for what it claimed to be too much religious content to a display in its City Court. This time, it concerns presumed racial profiling occurring with parish law enforcement agencies, as well as in a few other areas around the state.

The charges, however, lack any serious basis or intellectual justification, even as they comport to the constipated cosmology that forms the ACLU’s worldview. Arrest records shows for many crimes blacks disproportionately are arrested. This should come as no surprise: as research amply shows, unfortunately blacks simply commit more crime, disproportionate to their proportion of the American population.

However, this inconvenient truth negates the ACLU’s view of the state’s corruptness. It believes some “power elite” exists (mainly composed of whites) which likes to spend part of its time harassing black folks. Therefore, a statistical discrepancy in this case causes them to discard the actual real-world explanation that it is produced by different attitudes and behavior in general among races, and instead inserts this artifice that racial profiling occurs.

Guided by this ideology, the report itself is designed to come to this conclusion. Just as a Shreveport Times investigation of citations, which less forcefully came to the same conclusion that racism was playing some role in making traffic stops, was marred by its failure to study the race of the citing officer, the ACLU effort fails to do the same unless it is willing to assume black officers also harbor some latent racism against members of their own race.

This whole stunt, however, lowers to the level of hypocrisy when considering the ACLU’s own defenses against charges that it is anti-religious. Note the causal chain here: significant differences in data denote a certain attitude among the authorities, specifically here that differences in arrest proportions to population proportions are a result of undesirable police attitudes (rather than those generally inherent to the populations themselves).

Yet when it comes to applying the same criteria to the ACLU’s actions to determine its real motives, it refuses to do so. The organization constantly argues that it is not anti-religious, among other things. But the statistical evidence is overwhelming in that a great many of its cases deal with questions like that of the Slidell City Court. Therefore, using the ACLU’s own logic, it is accurate to say that the ACLU is hostile to a religion, as well as to a number of civil liberties given the kinds of cases it almost always pursues (although it does throw in, very selectively, a few of the opposite kind here and there to try to inoculate itself against such charges).

Make no mistake that the ACLU has its own agenda countering the moral values implicit to the Constitution and the legitimate functions of government which it desperately tries to cloak through civil libertarian rhetoric. This latest action on its part merely provides more confirmation of this and reminds us of the hypocrisy inherent to the group.

8 comments:

Daniel Z. said...

Several comments to make on your post.

A)If you don't think that black americans are not treated equally by the justice system then you are fooling yourself. And I am not the person who is going to sit here and complain if a criminal goes to jail. You commit a crime, you deserve to go to jail and I have no sympathy for the criminal on that aspect. However, if you look at the sentancing disparities between similar crimes, you then see that black criminals are punished more harshly than white criminals. You can see a recent example (that only recently was "fixed") was the disparity between sentancing lengths of cocaine sales (typically white criminals) and crack sales (typically black criminals).

Again, criminals belong in jail. Period. However, the race of the victim should play no part in the decision making process involved in putting crooks in jail. Now, it is very possible that the police just went to "high crime areas" and those areas happened to have a majority of, well, minorities. And to me, that is fine. However, if it is more than that, and the actions taken are done because the people being investigated are black, then action needs to be taken.

Jeff, do you agree that black people should not be targeted on ONLY their race because by doing so it violates the concept of innocent until proven guilty?

B) You claim that the ACLU is anti-religious and use the Slidell case as an example. The reallity of the matter is that the ACLU is against GOVERNMENT promoting religion. It could care less what you do as a private citizen. However, when you act on the part of Government and use your position to promote your religious beliefs (for example, by hanging a picture of Jesus alone and a mural saying "to know peace, follow these laws" by it) the ACLU will speak up (and rightly so).

You discount the cases where the ACLU defends those it disagrees with as being just to inoculate itself from your charges. (For example, take the case of Edwin Crayton.) However, the fact that those cases exist just go to prove that your charges are false and that their reason for acting are for some pupose other than being against religion.

I am always suprised at the people who get upset at the ACLU for trying to keep government from promoting religion. Shouldn't those people be more upset at those who use God and their own religion to promote their selfish political desires? Isn't THAT something to be more angry about? Or do you just not care as long as you believe in the religion that the politician is promoting?

Anonymous said...

"You discount the cases where the ACLU defends those it disagrees with as being just to inoculate itself from your charges. (For example, take the case of Edwin Crayton.) However, the fact that those cases exist just go to prove that your charges are false and that their reason for acting are for some pupose other than being against religion."

Priceless. By this argument, we should presume that the existence of a single white person put in jail there could not be any discrimination by law enforcement. There is. Try googling New Orleans District Attorney Eddie Jordan and you'll see that it works both ways. He fired all the white people working for the Orleans Parish DA, they sued him, they won, and he got a golden parachute while New Orleans taxpayers had to pay out the settlement.

And since you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone ignorant of the first ammendment, here's a refresher: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

In case your grammar education was as bad as your civics education, what that means (besides prohibiting a state religion) is that the government is prohibited by the Constiution from discouraging any person's free exercise of religion, like the kind of display you mention above, without a compelling interest. It doesn't matter if you're Hindu or Wiccan, you can exercise your religion. I get the sense you need a shortcut to remember this, so just think: "The Constitution ensures freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

You could argue that a person should have to give up their civil liberties if they want to work for the government. I wonder what other civil liberties you think they should have to give up. Somehow, I think the second ammendment too, right? Why stop there?

T. Wong said...

Now hold on, Professor Colbert. You say that “research amply shows . . . blacks . . . commit more crime.” You then cite a publication called City Journal, which itself does not cite any sources for its conclusions. Is that what you call “ample research,” or is there something more?

Even assuming that the City Journal is the gold standard for studies on racial profiling, its statistics deal only with New York City. What makes you think these statistics would apply equally to a State Trooper on a rural Louisiana state highway?

The City Journal article states that New York City focuses its resources on neighborhood policing in high-crime areas. These areas are likely to have a higher concentration of blacks anyhow. The anecdotal evidence, on the other hand, suggests that blacks are very likely to be stopped outside of these areas—often in the ‘burbs or rural areas.

Had the City Journal collected evidence somewhere else, where there are virtually no blacks (remember, blacks are only about 13% of the population), the City Journal’s “logic” may have dictated an entirely different conclusion. Were the statistic gatherers looking at other factors, such as poverty or lack of education? Or are they, like you, content to solely use skin color as the linchpin of their analysis?

There is little hypocrisy about the ACLU—they are fairly consistent in their views and actions. They are interested in protecting rights under the U.S. Constitution. They even defend the rights of those that would not ordinarily support them.

The hypocrisy is that a professor of Political Science would have us erode the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause in favor of a police state and theocracy. You well know that King George fostered in our founding fathers a healthy fear of the tyranny of the majority. This fear led to the Bill of Rights and the engineered gridlock we call “separation of powers.” But do I really need to tell you that? No.

So get over yourself, Professor Colbert! Our Constitution will sometimes cause difficulties for law enforcement and those who would have government favor their personal religion over others. Fortunately, we have been willing to pay this price for our individual freedoms. In fact, our Constitution often dictates such.

Anonymous said...

"There is little hypocrisy about the ACLU—they are fairly consistent in their views and actions. They are interested in protecting rights under the U.S. Constitution. They even defend the rights of those that would not ordinarily support them."

Actually, in the recent Heller case, the ACLU argued that when the 2nd ammendment says "the people," what it really means is a well regulated militia. They are protecting the rights of a well regulated militia, so you score with that point, but they're protecting an armed and regulated militia against United States citizens who would by any other interpretation be allowed to protect themselves against an oppressive government.

Who benefits when the ACLU wins? Pelosi tried to condemn Turkey to pave the way for ACLU lawsuits against Turkey. For decades, lawyers give more than two thirds of their campaign contributions to Democrats, so Democrats open the door on new lawsuits. Our troops don't need the headache of wondering if their supply lines will get cut, but apparently Harry Reid needs the money.

The ACLU has been doing this for decades. What liberty do you enjoy today that you didn't enjoy in 1988? Has your life and the prosperity of your community measurably improved? I remember the late 1980's, that's when the crack cocaine epidemic led to gang violence. People weren't killing each other over protecting Valium territory in 1985. If you want to know why crack dealers WERE punished more than other criminals (retroactive sentencing guidelines led to the recent early release of a thousand crack dealers), it's because the crack trade killed a lot more people than the valium trade.

Do you realize that the ACLU supported a law to ban the free expression (the use of the words abortion and clinic) of anti-abortion groups who wanted to promote alternatives? That they wanted to data mine their own donors' information when they called the federal government's similar action domestic spying? When gang members are separated by injunctions or organized criminals targeted by RICO laws, the ACLU defends them. When abortion protesters were targeted by RICO laws, where was the ACLU? Whose rights are they protecting so consistently?

Daniel Z said...

"Priceless. By this argument, we should presume that the existence of a single white person put in jail there could not be any discrimination by law enforcement."

Incorrect. You are comparing apples to oranges. One is an example of affirming rights of someone the ACLU disagrees with. The other would be an example of a government reducing rights based on color.

"And since you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone ignorant of the first ammendment, here's a refresher: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." "

I guess you hit yourself.

"In case your grammar education was as bad as your civics education, what that means (besides prohibiting a state religion) is that the government is prohibited by the Constiution from discouraging any person's free exercise of religion, like the kind of display you mention above, without a compelling interest."

Without a compelling interest being the key words.

"It doesn't matter if you're Hindu or Wiccan, you can exercise your religion."

Just as it shouldn't matter if you are a hindu or Wiccan when you would go into a court of law. Unfortunately, in the slidell case, the problem was the courthouse erected a picture of a representation of one deity and put under it "to know peace, follow these laws".

Or are you telling me that had the person who put that display up had instead posted a picture of Muhammed and said the same thing... you would have had no problem with it because it would have only been that person exersizing his first amendment rights to practice his religion freely? Are you really telling me that?

"I get the sense you need a shortcut to remember this, so just think: "The Constitution ensures freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.""

It means freedom of religion AND freedom from Government sponsored religion. That that banned sponsorship can refer to legislation or direct actions (like promoting Christianity in a courthouse).

"You could argue that a person should have to give up their civil liberties if they want to work for the government."

I am arguing that while "on the clock", a government employee does not have the right to use his/her job to promote religion. That doesn't mean that in his/her personal time that he/she cannot outwardly express his/her faith. It just means that he/she cannot do it on the government dollar.

Anonymous said...

"I am arguing that while 'on the clock', a government employee does not have the right to use his/her job to promote religion."

This is what it comes down to. You think that religion cannot be central to the life of someone working for our government, that it can only be a cloak which they take on and take off. You think that if an Islamic man works for FEMA, they should not be able to bow to Mecca until their work is done, ignoring so much research by Pargament and others that religiosity and spirituality help people get through times of crisis.

As is typical of liberals supporting the ACLU, you expect that people are capable of an ideal of objectivity when they can separate themselves from their beliefs. It doesn't work like that. Liberals who hate the idea of authority get so upset when a person talks bad about their authorities, Justice Ginsburg etc. Liberals who hate the idea that people should favor their own groups above others get so upset when their groups, like the ACLU, are challenged. Giving lip service to a lie about human beings having some infinite rational power only makes you look like an idiot. But you'd prefer an inauthentic presentation so that you're not reminded of the very distinctions whose value is the reason for protection of individual rights.

You do not practice tolerance by pretending to be someone else. You practice tolerance by accepting yourself and others for who they are.

You obviously set one standard for this group whose authority you accept (the ACLU), for a single instance proves they must be fair. But for law enforcement, a single instance is not enough to prove they are fair. So much for your rationally detached ideal.

Daniel Z. said...

"This is what it comes down to. You think that religion cannot be central to the life of someone working for our government, that it can only be a cloak which they take on and take off."

Where did I say that? I didn't say that people have to stop being Christians when they go to work. I am saying that people are not paid to evangelize on the clock.

"You think that if an Islamic man works for FEMA, they should not be able to bow to Mecca until their work is done, ignoring so much research by Pargament and others that religiosity and spirituality help people get through times of crisis. "

I have no problems if a Christian wants to say a prayer. Byt saying a personal prayer and using your place of employment to try and convert people to your religion are two different things.

"As is typical of liberals supporting the ACLU, you expect that people are capable of an ideal of objectivity when they can separate themselves from their beliefs."

No, I am not expecting people to separate themselves from their beliefs. Show me where Christianity requires you to evangelize at the workplace.

"Liberals who hate the idea that people should favor their own groups above others get so upset when their groups, like the ACLU, are challenged."

Challenge the ACLU all you want! You stated your opinion and I stated mine. That is what is great about this great country of ours.

"You obviously set one standard for this group whose authority you accept (the ACLU), for a single instance proves they must be fair."

The single instance does not prove they must be fair. There are many instances that prove they are fair. They have defended Ollie North and Rush Limbaugh as well. I am sure there are many examples of "conservatives" who have been defended by the ACLU.

But I don't set one standard for them, the same standard applies for all. And that is what the ACLU fights for.

"But for law enforcement, a single instance is not enough to prove they are fair. So much for your rationally detached ideal."

Remember my first post? Scroll up if you cant. Or I will make it easy for you. I said: "Now, it is very possible that the police just went to "high crime areas" and those areas happened to have a majority of, well, minorities. And to me, that is fine."

I am a firm supporter of law enforcement and often give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to questions of their integrity. However, as in any group, there can be some bad apples in the bunch. And if there are members of law enforcement in St. Tammany Parish that are targetting people JUST because they are black then those officers need to be removed. Period.

If they are going into all neighborhoods that have high crime then I see no problem with that.

Anonymous said...

Back up, and maybe you'll see your assumption in the first post. Your initial suspicion is with law enforcement, that they will pull people over just because they're black. Where is a similar suspicion of the ACLU? You could as easily doubt that their window dressing defense of conservatives is sincere, but you don't.

I even brought up the example of the ACLU not equally defending the abortion protesters, when they defend gang members pursued the same way by law enforcement. But you don't doubt the ACLU, you defend them. Even when they're not fair you ignore it. If the same standard applied to all and they weren't serving a particular political agenda, why not defend people protesting abortion?