Let’s be clear about one thing. When it comes to crime in America, far too many lawmakers believe not all of us were created equal. In fact, thanks to the multicultural cultists in government and the federal judiciary, some Americans, it seems, are so threatened they deserve special “victim” status and treatment.

This utterly fallible line of thought was again brought to the forefront last month in the form of yet another piece of “hate crimes” legislation – only this time it actually made some progress, thanks to the support of a Congress dominated by Republicans once morally strong enough to withstand such blatant attacks on American principles of equality.

On Sept. 14, the House voted 223-199 in favor of a bill that would give the federal government more authority to prosecute crimes committed against individuals ostensibly on the basis of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. The bill’s future in the Senate is uncertain, but that this issue got so much Republican support after enduring years of GOP-bashing is remarkably disappointing.

For one, Sen. George Allen, R-Va., who said he likes this bill and will vote for it, has been reduced to back-peddling from a pledge he made five years ago to pro-family groups while running for office that he would not support these kinds of proposals.

According to Joe Glover, president of the Virginia-based Family Policy Network, Allen promised in an Oct. 27, 2000, letter to a constituent he would “take no action that would have the effect of elevating sexual orientation to civil-rights status, including, but not limited to, adding sexual orientation to Federal Hate Crimes legislation or any other similar legislation (my emphasis).”

When accused of reneging on that promise, Allen – considered a legitimate GOP presidential contender in 2008 – put on his best “you didn’t hear what you think you heard” face.

“When I ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000, I stated numerous times that I would support adding ‘sexual orientation’ to the category of ‘hate crimes,’ unless the legislation raised ‘sexual orientation’ to the level of a civil right, which I could not support,” he said, explaining an amendment added to the House bill was “different from earlier proposals,” and “(did) not elevate ‘sexual orientation’ to civil-rights status.”

And his spokesman, John Reid, put on his “you’re not smart enough to understand what you heard” face, calling the disagreement “a misunderstanding of what the letter says and what the senator said over and over again in the campaign.” Oh.

For his part, Glover says, “He made it extremely clear that any type of legislation similar to what he was looking at in 2000 … would have the effect, in his own words, of elevating ‘sexual orientation’ to civil-rights status. And he promised not to do it.”

Who’s right?

Let’s see. To know that, we need to know who prosecutes “hate crimes” for the federal government. That would be the Justice Department and, in particular, the FBI. And, more to the point, the FBI’s Civil Rights Program.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the primary federal agency responsible for investigating all allegations regarding violations of applicable federal civil rights laws,” says a description of the division’s duties. That includes FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances – don’t you love the acronyms?); Involuntary Servitude/Slavery (I’m thinking this division doesn’t have much to do these days); Color of Law/Police Misconduct (with a newly opened branch office in New Orleans); and – a-hem – Hate Crimes.

Oops, Sen. Allen.

The fact is, most hate crimes are really just “thought crimes” anyway. And as such, how can a person ever be judged fairly based on someone else’s perception of his or her thoughts?

Unless someone is screaming racial expletives while knifing a victim of color (or no color, as in black-on-white crimes – which don’t seem to qualify as a “hate crime” in most instances), how do cops know if it is a crime against ethnicity? And even then, isn’t it still just a knifing? Does it hurt more if it’s a racially motivated knifing? Does a victim heal more quickly if he knows his attacker is also going to be charged with a “hate crime”?

Consider these variables. Suppose a black man commits a crime against a Hispanic man. Hate crime? What if a white man commits a crime against a Hispanic man in an area of the country where Hispanics are the dominant ethnicity. Hate crime? What if an ugly woman commits a crime against a pretty woman. Hate crime?

So-called “hate crimes legislation” is nothing more than raw political pandering, a profligate practice in legislatively bankrupt America.

There is no such thing as committing a lesser or greater crime against certain people because of the color of their skin or because they have unusual sexual proclivities. Crime is crime is crime; victims are victims are victims.

It’s a shame Republicans, once brave enough to recognize this ageless truth, have now bought into another multicultural lie.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.