Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

You are here: Home / Politics / Harris County / Very disappointed in Dr. Steve Hotze’s false robocall

Very disappointed in Dr. Steve Hotze’s false robocall

by

Dr. Steve Hotze recorded a robocall falsely attacking former Navy Seal Dan Crenshaw’s Christian beliefs. Take a listen:

 

Dan Crenshaw was not attacking Christianity as Dr. Hotze claims. He was, in point of fact, defending Christianity. But Dr. Hotze has chosen to do what Kevin Roberts has done, take Dan Crenshaw’s words completely out of context and bear false witness against him.

This is so sad. The commandment against bearing false witness is one of the cornerstones of Judaism and Christianity yet Dr. Hotze does it anyway, knowing full well that he is bearing false witness against a fellow Christian.

Dr. Hotze needs to be reminded of the words of Jesus:

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Is electing Kevin Roberts to Congress worth losing your soul Steve?

It’s interesting that Dr. Hotze revived his Restore Our Godly Heritage PAC to bear false witness against Dan Crenshaw. This is the PAC that Dr. Hotze used to prop up Roy Moore in Alabama.

Hopefully the voters in CD2 will do the same thing to Kevin Roberts that they did to Roy Moore – tell him to go away, that his negative, lying, bearing false witness campaign against a genuine good guy will not work.

Praying for you Steve.

Comments

  1. Mick Abrahams says

    Serious question:

    I agree that Hotze’s robocall is reprehensible. (Hell, I agree that HOTZE is reprehensible), and I despise Lowry’s (and others) pay-to-play scam, but I don’t see anywhere where Roberts himself has engaged in any behavior or made any statements against Crenshaw that I consider unethical or immoral or even questionable. Have I missed something? You say Roberts has borne “false witness” against Crenshaw, but I haven’t seen that. As an interested voter, can you show me examples of Roberts engaging in inappropriate behavior or is this a “guilt by association” claim?

    Thanks.

    • David Jennings says

      Hi Mick,

      Roberts has done a decent job of hiding behind his supporters and their attacks. As I noted here, he has set up a website claiming that Crenshaw is going to attack seniors: https://bigjolly.com/in-cd2-kevin-roberts-and-friends-are-starting-to-get-desperate/

      But you cannot overlook his longtime relationship (brother in-law) and employment (office manager) with Mark Lanier. Lanier has funded Terry Lowry’s trash for years – that’s not just “guilt by association”.

      We’ll have to wait until the day before the election to find out who is funding the SuperPAC attacks on Crenshaw: https://bigjolly.com/kevin-roberts-trashes-veterans-sends-out-false-mailer-against-dan-crenshaw/

      And of course, Roberts himself claimed that veterans don’t have real world experience, mocking Crenshaw’s Harvard education.

      And clearly, Roberts could have put a stop to the attacks by simply saying – stop and disavowing all of the groups attacking Crenshaw. But of course, he has not done that.

      So, in my opinion, Roberts is joined at the hip to the attacks. YMMV.

      DJ

      • Mick Abrahams says

        David: I agree the smart thing, and the right thing, is for Roberts to disavow Hotze and Lowry and their ilk, and I wish he would. But I watched the “real world” clip and- unless I missed it – Roberts doesn’t mention veterans anywhere in it. That part of the argument seems specious to me. But I think we’re both agreed that if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. I think Roberts needs to find better sleeping arrangements.

        Thanks for the give and take.

        • Fat Albert says

          Mick,

          At this point it’s a bit late for Roberts to be disavowing Hotze et. al. It would appear that he is in complete agreement with them. As for him mentioning “veterans”, you’re right, he never actually says the word “veterans”. But he specifically says that Dan Crenshaw has “no real world experience”. And, of course, there’s no doubt that Crenshaw is a veteran.

          I would say that Roberts didn’t just accidentally lie down with dogs, he’s part of the same mangy flea-bitten pack.

  2. Fat Albert says

    As far as I’m concerned, being endorsed by Steven Hotze is sufficient reason, in and of itself, to reject a candidate. Regardless of all other factors, I wouldn’t vote for Roberts on that fact alone.

    I believe that Dr. Hotze (quack that he is) represents the worst of the Republican party. He appears to consistently be unwilling to advocate for his position (or candidates) on their merits – instead choosing to twist facts, hide information, and prevaricate. The Republican party would be better off without him and his ilk.

  4. Sharon A Hicks says

    All eyes will be on Dan Crenshaw after he’s elected to Congress….we’ll be watching every vote he makes…..

    • David Jennings says

      Sharon,

      I think he can handle the scrutiny. Can you ask Larry when the Restore Our Godly Heritage PAC will report how much Dr. Hotze is spending to oppose Crenshaw?

      Thanks, DJ

  6. Red State Renegade says

    For the Record, that’s the “Conservative Results Matter” P.A.C. Who are obviously much better Christians that I’ll ever be. Not to get the two confused. Vote Bold!

  7. Jeff Larson says

    For the record, this is one of the many times that I agree with David but usually don’t comment.