Hate crimes legislation has become one of the hottest political issues in the last few years, especially after the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. cases.

On Monday, the Texas State House of Representatives pre-approved a new hate crimes law that strengthens penalties for hate crimes.

According to an Associated Press article, the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, spoke to the house using three posters. The first was a photo of a bloody hate-crime victim. The second was a poster of a pig. The third, a picture of Rep. Wayne Christian, R-Center, who opposes the unconstitutional bill.

The way this woman went about this should upset every pro-right-to-abort person who has gotten upset over the anti-abortionist who visited Iowa State a few weeks ago.

She was using the exact same tactics – with her picture of a bloody victim – as the anti-abortionists were with their pictures of aborted fetuses. She displayed giant pictures of the truth about a sensitive topic.

The second picture, the pig, is one I would expect most people to just laugh at. This woman tried to make a point; she said, “We have a chance, just like we protect the pig and the dog, to protect human beings.”

Give me a break. We have things that protect all people from all other people – they are called laws.

We do not have laws that prevent a farmer from kicking a spotted pig because of the pig’s spots; we just have laws that protect pigs.

As for the picture of Christian, Thompson later apologized for it when he said he was offended. Was Thompson actually surprised he was offended? She made it look as if just because he opposed the bill, he supported people committing hate crimes.

How effective was Thompson? Who knows, she did use a typical liberal tactic when it came to making a point – she appealed to people’s emotions. Why didn’t she hold up any facts about hate crimes? Because they are not on her side.

When people associate themselves with putting an end to hate crimes, they typically think of Shepard, a gay man killed by two straight men, and Byrd, a black man dragged to his death from a pick-up truck by whites, and how the two men died tortuous deaths.

What these people don’t realize is more blacks kill whites than whites kill blacks.

I know there are going to be some people who think I am a racist because of what I am saying, but I assure you I am the furthest thing from a racist.

I am simply presenting you with facts most people are unaware of.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics bureau, in 1999, 2.8 percent of all murders in the United States were committed by whites on blacks.

On the other hand, 8.1 percent of all murders in the United States were black-on-white murders. That means a white person is almost three times more likely to be killed by a black than vice-versa.

There is yet another hypocrisy of the left that I have failed to point out up until now.

They will argue that criminals do not think like normal people, that they cannot be deterred from committing crimes by tougher laws.

Liberals say criminals are a result of a harsh society, that they can’t help what they do, life has been rough on them and it is not their fault.

It is a typical argument when a poor person robs someone richer. If he wasn’t poor he wouldn’t have to steal; we should help this person with his problem, not punish him for trying to survive.

Wrong – he broke the law, now he has to face the consequences. He should have thought about that in the first place.

To them, people need to be rehabilitated, not punished. But when a crime is based on “hate,” punishment is the answer.

I suggest, once again, they make up their minds or perhaps use their minds rather than their hearts and be consistent.

So, using the left’s propaganda, hate-crime laws will not help prevent crimes.

Even if they did help put an end to hate crimes, they are unconstitutional.

The government has no right to tell a person what to think. There will always be bigots in society; there is nothing the government can do about that.

Congress can make the actual crime illegal – that is the purpose of laws prohibiting assault, murder, etc. It cannot, however, tell a person what they can say. That is free speech, a phrase that is actually used in the Constitution.

It is not illegal to be prejudiced; you can’t legally condemn that.

Under current law, a hate crime is a crime committed because of a person’s race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religion and/or handicap status.

Why are these few factors the criteria for “hate crimes”? Why isn’t socio-economic status part of the criteria?

Someone might hate me because I am wealthy (figuratively speaking) and rob me. This would be a crime based on hate and envy, but of course that isn’t a hate crime.

Or what if a well-to-do person beat up a poor person, blaming him for societal problems and being a drag on the economy? Unless that person is of a different race, that is not a hate crime.

If someone rapes my mother, I am going to hate that person and probably take action. That is not a hate crime, but I hate that person.

Speaking of rape, I would think that would be a hate crime. A rapist who acts on a woman does so because she is a woman. But of course, once again, that is not considered a hate crime.

Another problem with hate-crime laws is the difficulty of proving a person’s motives. Because he or she is being charged with a crime and its motive, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did so because of race, sexual orientation, etc.

Until psychic testimony is allowed to stand as evidence in a court of law, this is close to impossible.

Even if a person – white or black – uses a racial slur in the middle of an assault, it does not mean the assailant committed the crime because of the victim’s race.

When it gets down to it, these are senseless, unconstitutional, unprovable laws that will not do anything but stir up more racial tensions.

Whites will be upset when a black person commits what appears to be a hate crime and is not charged, just as blacks will be upset when a white person gets off.

The same goes for homosexuals, the handicapped and people of different ethnicities.

If the liberals want to do something about these crimes, they need to turn their attention to all crimes and figure out what really works.

If punishment proves to be the dominant factor in turning criminals into law-abiding citizens, we need stiffer punishments on all crimes, not just the ones liberals don’t like.

Hate crimes legislation has become one of the hottest political issues in the last few years, especially after the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. cases.

On Monday, the Texas State House of Representatives pre-approved a new hate crimes law that strengthens penalties for hate crimes.

According to an Associated Press article, the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, spoke to the house using three posters. The first was a photo of a bloody hate-crime victim. The second was a poster of a pig. The third, a picture of Rep. Wayne Christian, R-Center, who opposes the unconstitutional bill.

The way this woman went about this should upset every pro-right-to-abort person who has gotten upset over the anti-abortionist who visited Iowa State a few weeks ago.

She was using the exact same tactics – with her picture of a bloody victim – as the anti-abortionists were with their pictures of aborted fetuses. She displayed giant pictures of the truth about a sensitive topic.

The second picture, the pig, is one I would expect most people to just laugh at. This woman tried to make a point; she said, “We have a chance, just like we protect the pig and the dog, to protect human beings.”

Give me a break. We have things that protect all people from all other people – they are called laws.

We do not have laws that prevent a farmer from kicking a spotted pig because of the pig’s spots; we just have laws that protect pigs.

As for the picture of Christian, Thompson later apologized for it when he said he was offended. Was Thompson actually surprised he was offended? She made it look as if just because he opposed the bill, he supported people committing hate crimes.

How effective was Thompson? Who knows, she did use a typical liberal tactic when it came to making a point – she appealed to people’s emotions. Why didn’t she hold up any facts about hate crimes? Because they are not on her side.

When people associate themselves with putting an end to hate crimes, they typically think of Shepard, a gay man killed by two straight men, and Byrd, a black man dragged to his death from a pick-up truck by whites, and how the two men died tortuous deaths.

What these people don’t realize is more blacks kill whites than whites kill blacks.

I know there are going to be some people who think I am a racist because of what I am saying, but I assure you I am the furthest thing from a racist.

I am simply presenting you with facts most people are unaware of.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice statistics bureau, in 1999, 2.8 percent of all murders in the United States were committed by whites on blacks.

On the other hand, 8.1 percent of all murders in the United States were black-on-white murders. That means a white person is almost three times more likely to be killed by a black than vice-versa.

There is yet another hypocrisy of the left that I have failed to point out up until now.

They will argue that criminals do not think like normal people, that they cannot be deterred from committing crimes by tougher laws.

Liberals say criminals are a result of a harsh society, that they can’t help what they do, life has been rough on them and it is not their fault.

It is a typical argument when a poor person robs someone richer. If he wasn’t poor he wouldn’t have to steal; we should help this person with his problem, not punish him for trying to survive.

Wrong – he broke the law, now he has to face the consequences. He should have thought about that in the first place.

To them, people need to be rehabilitated, not punished. But when a crime is based on “hate,” punishment is the answer.

I suggest, once again, they make up their minds or perhaps use their minds rather than their hearts and be consistent.

So, using the left’s propaganda, hate-crime laws will not help prevent crimes.

Even if they did help put an end to hate crimes, they are unconstitutional.

The government has no right to tell a person what to think. There will always be bigots in society; there is nothing the government can do about that.

Congress can make the actual crime illegal – that is the purpose of laws prohibiting assault, murder, etc. It cannot, however, tell a person what they can say. That is free speech, a phrase that is actually used in the Constitution.

It is not illegal to be prejudiced; you can’t legally condemn that.

Under current law, a hate crime is a crime committed because of a person’s race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religion and/or handicap status.

Why are these few factors the criteria for “hate crimes”? Why isn’t socio-economic status part of the criteria?

Someone might hate me because I am wealthy (figuratively speaking) and rob me. This would be a crime based on hate and envy, but of course that isn’t a hate crime.

Or what if a well-to-do person beat up a poor person, blaming him for societal problems and being a drag on the economy? Unless that person is of a different race, that is not a hate crime.

If someone rapes my mother, I am going to hate that person and probably take action. That is not a hate crime, but I hate that person.

Speaking of rape, I would think that would be a hate crime. A rapist who acts on a woman does so because she is a woman. But of course, once again, that is not considered a hate crime.

Another problem with hate-crime laws is the difficulty of proving a person’s motives. Because he or she is being charged with a crime and its motive, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did so because of race, sexual orientation, etc.

Until psychic testimony is allowed to stand as evidence in a court of law, this is close to impossible.

Even if a person – white or black – uses a racial slur in the middle of an assault, it does not mean the assailant committed the crime because of the victim’s race.

When it gets down to it, these are senseless, unconstitutional, unprovable laws that will not do anything but stir up more racial tensions.

Whites will be upset when a black person commits what appears to be a hate crime and is not charged, just as blacks will be upset when a white person gets off.

The same goes for homosexuals, the handicapped and people of different ethnicities.

If the liberals want to do something about these crimes, they need to turn their attention to all crimes and figure out what really works.

If punishment proves to be the dominant factor in turning criminals into law-abiding citizens, we need stiffer punishments on all crimes, not just the ones liberals don’t like.

Zach Calef is a sophomore in journalism and mass communication from Cedar Rapids. is a sophomore in journalism and mass communication from Cedar Rapids.