Monday, October 26, 2009

Hartzler: Democrats using defense spending to advance gay agenda

Former Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Harrisonville, a candidate for the Fourth District Congressional seat currently held by Ike Skelton, issued the following news release attacking the use of defense spending bill to advance "the agenda of the homosexual rights lobby":

Instead of funding American troops as a national obligation, congressional Democrats are again using defense spending legislation as a place to hide their pet political projects.
Congressional candidate Vicky Hartzler said: “This is a terrible example of liberals using the good will of our men and women in uniform to advance their radical agenda. It’s wrong.

“First, by Congressman Skelton’s decision, the House used military funding to make a backroom deal for an agenda of the homosexual rights lobby. Now, House leaders are said to be extending the disreputable game of ‘using the troops,’ to create a new House seat for the District of Columbia.

“The way to stop the partisan political games with the U.S. military is to replace go-along liberals like Congressman Skelton, who has lived in Washington DC for 33 years, with new thinking and new blood. If elected, I will support the military 100 percent. I will never play politics with troop funding by using defense legislation for unrelated partisan political payoffs.”
Hartzler, a Republican, said the possibility of the new plan to force the military to haul water for liberal partisan politics was mentioned last Thursday by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

As with Skelton’s recent acquiescence to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and homosexual lobbyists, the new bill would be included in a defense bill during final negotiations with the Senate. The earlier Skelton-arranged deal expanded federal law to create a caste-system for victims of certain violent crimes giving more justice to some based on the perpetrator’s intent.
This Skelton-managed special rights bill, voted on party lines October 8, was sought by homosexual lobby groups. It came from a closed-door House-Senate deal to include the special-rights language in the annual defense spending bill, as a "rider" and "special provision." It sets special federal penalties in violent crimes where sexual orientation is claimed as a motive. Hartzler believes in equal justice for all, with strict enforcement against all violent criminals.

The latest liberal move to use the troops as hostage to liberal politics would use defense appropriations to create a new Washington, D.C. vote in the House along with a second new seat created for Utah.


Anonymous said...

This nut conveniently left out the fact that the hate crime act is wide reaching and is not limited to homosexuals. It increases penalties for all violent crimes against individuals because of any bias, including race, sex, religion, military status (which is why it's in this bill) and any number of other differences. It is so comprehensive that if a black guy beat up a white guy just because he was white and he didn't like white guys, that would qualify. I hope the people of this district are smart enough to know not to vote for this woman.

Sue said...

Anonymous, do you mean that without this bill a black guy who beats up a white guy will not be punished?!

If your sister gets raped do you really want her attacker to only be punished to the max if it can be proved that he hates women. . .or does he deserve full justice under the law for such a heinous crime regardless of what was going on in his head at the time?

The hate crime act IS wide reaching but what's the point: you should be smart enough to know that violent crime is violent crime is violent crime, regardless of any bias involved on the part of the perpetrator.

Anonymous said...

Well, Sue, your narrow definition on different types of crime gives a lot of hints to your lack of ability to use critical thought, but that's another discussion.

This act is a deterent measure, much like some argue that the death penalty is a deterent against murder. I know in your world you might try to pretend that people do not activly go out wanting to hurt someone because of their bias against some personal characteristic that person may have, and what a pretty little world that would be; but, that's not the case here in reality.

This law will act as a deterent against people who go out looking to hurt someone just because of some specific personal characteristic. And aren't you rabid conservatives all about deterent punishments. I mean for people that push up the death penalty as all that, you seem to lose your stem on protecting people who are often targeted with violence. And yes, without this bill someone might be punished for beating someone up, but if you do a little research, you'll find it's typically a slap on the wrist. This will just make sure that the fag-bashing crowd will have a little more to be worried about next time they decide to "just be boys" and hurt someone. If your son or daughter were targeted for some reason and had the hell beat out of them for some random reason without having provoked anyone wouldn't you want a stronger arm of justice in place.

Anonymous said...

Thank you anonymous for not pouncing on Sue's ignorant remarks--your comments thought-provoking and neutral! (Unlike so many folks who comment on this blog)

Anonymous said...

Hartzler got the point. No social issues tagged on the back of critical military spending bills. Sue got it right. Anonymous---red herring.