Home American Principles No Justification: The Top Ten Absurd Moore Defenses Debunked

No Justification: The Top Ten Absurd Moore Defenses Debunked

2974
0
SHARE
Roy Moore in Fairhope, Alabama on December 5, 2017 at a rally before the election.

Over the past couple of months, I have spoken out forcefully against Roy Moore. I have spoken about his hostility to the Constitution and the rule of law, his pathological hatred of homosexuals and others who don’t believe the exact same things he does, and yes, his sleazy history of preying on underage teenage girls.

The responses to these columns have been pretty consistent, with many people agreeing, but with many more making arguments that prove just how poorly our public schools are teaching critical thinking.

So, I have now compiled here in one place the top ten arguments that I have seen Moore’s followers make in his defense, and below I explain why these arguments are absurd.

Moore Defense Argument #1: Moore is the victim of a “conspiracy” by “liberals… lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender… socialists… [and the] Washington establishment.”

Why This Argument Is Absurd: The above argument was recently made by Roy Moore himself. It is absurd on its face and verifiably false. The allegations against him have been brought by nine women in Alabama (not Washington) who have never met each other, are not gay, have no known connections to any political organizations, and most of whom are self-proclaimed Republicans who voted for Donald Trump last year.

It is unsurprising that Moore would spew this kind of self-serving, paranoid, and delusional nonsense considering that he has made a career of expressing outright hatred for gays and of using them as scapegoats for everything that he considers wrong with our country – a tactic that is literally identical to the one used by Hitler and the Nazis with the Jews in the 1930s.

Moore Defense Argument #2: There is no proof that Moore preyed on teenage girls when he was in his 30s, and he has expressly denied it.

Why This Argument Is Absurd: The evidence that Moore was a pedophile predator is overwhelming. As stated above, nine women have stepped forward with accounts that are entirely consistent about how Moore treated them as teenagers despite the fact that none of these women have ever met or spoken with each other. The original allegations came from a woman who was contacted by a journalist who had heard rumors about what happened, and she verified the rumors to be true. It is important to note that she did not come forward on her own. She responded to questions when she was contacted. None of these women have any personal or political stake in the outcome of this election or in Roy Moore’s fate. They all simply told the truth about what Roy Moore did.

Moore Defense Argument #3: The women making these accusations have been discredited because accuser Beverly Young Nelson forged Moore’s signature in her yearbook.

Why This Argument Is Absurd: This argument is absurd on multiple levels. First, Ms. Nelson did not forge anything in that yearbook. She made a note below Moore’s signature about the date and place that he signed it. The signature has been authenticated by experts as Moore’s. This is important because it categorically disproves Moore’s assertion, as recently as yesterday, that he never met any of his accusers.

All of that said, it cannot be denied that Ms. Nelson’s failure to disclose at her initial press conference that she had written the note below his signature places her credibility in question. Her having hired Gloria Allred, an agenda-driven celebrity attorney whose mission is always to attack conservatives rather than represent her clients, also raises legitimate questions about whether Ms. Nelson had a political ax to grind. Personally, I think the fact that Moore has been proven to have signed her yearbook when she was 16 years old lends credence to her account notwithstanding the sloppy handling of her claims by Ms. Allred, but I allow that reasonable minds can disagree about the credibility of this particular accuser’s claims.

What cannot be disputed, however, is that eight other women who never met Ms. Nelson, Ms. Allred, or each other, have made similar accusations against Moore, and there is no credible evidence that any of those women lied or had any motivation to lie.

Moore Defense Argument #4: Moore is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Why This Argument Is Absurd: Voters are and always have been entitled to form their own conclusions about candidates based on information known to them. It has never been the case that voters had any obligation to refrain from forming independent conclusions and opinions about candidates unless that candidate had been tried in a criminal court, and it is the height of absurdity to claim that voters must do so with Roy Moore.

The legal standard to prove a criminal suspect guilty is evidence that establishes his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The purpose of that standard is to prevent a tyrannical government from depriving people of their freedom for illegitimate reasons. In our system, to protect our freedom, we place the burden on the government to prove its case against an accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The same standard does not apply to voters forming conclusions about a candidate. Voters can’t deny a candidate his freedom. The worst they can do is deny him election to public office. So, voters can apply whatever standard they wish in forming their personal conclusions, and that standard doesn’t even have to be fair. In fact, most voters view candidates through partisan lenses and do, in fact, form conclusions that are unfair to the candidate. That’s life in the real world.

But even if we were to say for the sake of argument that voters had to give candidates the same presumption of innocence that criminal suspects get in court, the evidence against Moore does, in fact, proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If I were tasked to prosecute a suspect based on the testimony of eight upstanding citizens with accounts consistent with each other although they had never met each other, I would jump at that case, and I would win it before just about any jury.

Moore Defense Argument #5: Well, even if he did date underage girls while in his 30s, he had parental permission and it was legal.

Why This Argument Is Absurd: First of all, as recently as yesterday, Moore denied ever having dated any underage girls. This statement contradicts his previous statements admitting that he did so, but always with the permission of the parents. Was he lying then or was he lying yesterday?

His denial that he ever dated underage girls is refuted by his signature in Ms. Nelson’s yearbook as well as the statements of scores of people in Moore’s community who have said that his predatory conduct with underage girls was well known in the community. He had friends who abandoned him because of his creepy conduct, and he was even banned from the local mall. In fact, he first took interest in the girl that he ultimately married when she was fifteen years old and performing at a high school dance recital. Moore was there. Alone. For no apparent reason.

Even if he had the permission of these girls’ parents, which even he now denies, what kind of parent lets their underage daughter go on a “date” with a 30-something year-old man? How would you expect that girl to feel while she’s alone with that man, parental permission or not? There is simply no way to look at this conduct that doesn’t result in Moore being a creepy predator.

Some argue that even if he did “date” underage girls, as long as they were at least 16-years-old, it was legal. My answer: So what? It’s also legal to walk down the street wearing a swastika armband, or to burn the American flag, or to produce fake child pornography. Would you vote for any candidate who had done any of those things? Our standards of acceptable conduct from a candidate for public office ought to be considerably higher that merely what is allowed under the law.

Moore Defense Argument #6: Moore is a champion of the Constitution.

Why This Argument Is Absurd: This argument is beyond absurd. It is laughable. Roy Moore abhors our Constitution and has made a career of spitting on it. He was removed from the bench twice for refusing to obey the orders of the U.S. Supreme Court.

He also has stated publicly that he believes we should repeal every constitutional amendment after the first ten, which would mean restoring slavery, depriving black people and women of the right to vote, stripping the District of Columbia of their votes for president in the electoral college, and restoring the ability of states and localities to impose poll taxes. Moore’s followers might argue that this was an off-the-cuff remark not to be taken seriously, but that would ignore the fact that this man was Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Twice. No, he knew exactly what he was saying, and he meant it.

And for years Moore has stated his belief that (his concept of) God’s law is the “only” law that governs our country. This means that he does not recognize the Constitution as our ultimate governing document. He believes that if any law or court ruling violates his concept of God’s law, he has a moral and legal obligation to disregard it. A man with that kind of open hostility to the United States Constitution has no place serving in the government established by it.

Moore Defense Argument #7: Moore is a good Christian, and we need more good Christians in Congress.

Why This Argument Is Absurd: Even as a Jew, I agree that the nation would be well served by electing more good Christians into public service. But Roy Moore is not a good Christian. In fact, his hateful and distorted concept of Christianity is an insult to Jesus and to every Christian who actually lives his or her life by his example and teachings.

As I previously wrote: I’ve read and studied the New Testament. I don’t recall seeing anything in there about expressing sympathy for killing people for being gay, or attributing the 9/11 attacks to God taking vengeance on a sinful nation, or smearing people of other religions as unworthy to hold public office, or comparing homosexuals to murderers as a judge in an official court opinion and later comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

The God of the New Testament is a God of love, not Moore’s God of hate and vengeance. Moore’s unChristian bigotry has no place in our nation’s Congress.

Moore Defense Argument #8: It doesn’t matter whether Moore is innocent or guilty. He’s a conservative, and we need to prevent a liberal from getting that seat.

Why This Argument Is Absurd: This argument is both morally bankrupt and politically short-sighted. First, the idea that it is preferable to vote for a proven child predator who wants to imprison and possibly execute gays just for being who they are and who has repeatedly shown his contempt for the Constitution than to allow a liberal to win the election is morally reprehensible and indefensible.

If voting for this man can be rationalized as acceptable, where do we draw the line? In 1991, the Republicans nominated former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke as their candidate for Governor of Louisiana. Would you have justified voting for him because not doing so meant electing a liberal Democrat (and a corrupt one at that)? The national Republicans of that time firmly said, “No.” The Republican National Committee and the Republican Governors Association refused to support or fund his campaign. And Republican President George H.W. Bush endorsed the Democrat and went to Louisiana to campaign for him. The Republicans of 1991 understood that some men are so evil, so unworthy of the public trust, that there can be no justification for supporting him. Roy Moore, whose bigotry against gays is as rabid as Duke’s bigotry against blacks and Jews, is such a man. And even David Duke never called for abolishing the U.S. Constitution in favor of a theocracy.

Even putting the important moral considerations aside, electing Moore would keep one Senate seat in Republican hands for the moment, but it would cost Republicans many seats in both houses of Congress in the 2018 mid-term elections when Moore is wrapped around the neck of every Republican candidate in the country. Meanwhile, if Moore loses, the Democrats lose that ammunition against Republican candidates, and Alabama gets to elect an honorable and decent Republican back into that seat in just three years.

Moore Defense Argument #9: We need Moore’s vote to get tax reform passed.

Why This Argument Is Absurd: This is the argument used by President Trump to try to convince Alabamians to vote for Moore. It is morally bankrupt for all of the reasons discussed above. In fact, it’s downright cynical given that Trump is actually asserting that the need for Moore’s vote on one singular issue is sufficient justification for voting for a proven child predator. This argument by Trump constitutes one of the lowest points of his presidency.

Moore Defense Argument #10: It’s up to the people of Alabama, If you’re not an Alabamian, butt out.

Why This Argument Is Absurd: The election of Roy Moore to the U.S. Senate would be a stain on both the Senate and the country. Any American has the right to express his objections to the idea of such an unworthy man serving in the body that makes the laws under which we must live. I ask again: In 1991, was the the election in which David Duke was the nominee solely the business of the people of Louisiana? Was it wrong for President Bush to step in on behalf of Republicans nationwide to say that Duke does not represent the values of his party? And, not for nothing, is it wrong for Moore’s many admirers across the country to weigh in on his behalf, or is it only wrong when his detractors do so?

I’ll put this as plainly and simply as I can: Roy Moore is an evil degenerate who wants to transform our constitutional republic into a theocracy rooted in his twisted and hateful concept of Christianity. There is no rationale that can justify voting for such a man. He should not be allowed in the same ZIP code as our nation’s Capitol, no less elected to walk its hallowed halls.

Alabama: Our nation’s honor now lies in your hands. Please, for the love of God and country, don’t let us down.

Ken Falkenstein

Author: Ken Falkenstein

Ken Falkenstein is the Managing Editor of Committed Conservative and brings a wealth of experience and expertise in public affairs to the job. Ken served in the U.S. Army in the last years of the Cold War as a Russian linguist for military intelligence and the NSA. After leaving the Army, he earned his degree in Secondary Education from Old Dominion University, where he also wrote a popular column in the student newspaper.

Upon graduation, Ken worked as a Legislative Aide to two Republican members of the Virginia House of Delegates. Ken also served as Corresponding Secretary of the Young Republican Federation of Virginia, managed several successful political campaigns, and managed governmental affairs operations for a local Realtor association.

In 1995, Ken moved to Washington, DC to serve as a Legislative Assistant to Sen. John Warner (R-VA). While working for Sen. Warner, Ken attended law school at night, earning his J.D. with honors from the George Mason University School of Law (n/k/a The Antonin Scalia Law School). Since that time, Ken has practiced as a civil litigation attorney, including serving for three years as an Associate City Attorney for the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Ken previously was a contributor to the highly-regarded political blog Bearing Drift and was a weekly co-host of The Steve Batton Radio Program. In 2016, Ken ran unsuccessfully for the Virginia Beach School Board. Ken is also a former President of the Down Syndrome Association of Hampton Roads.

Ken now lives outside of Denver, Colorado with his wife, Kim, and three sons, Adam, Dylan, and Joshua, who has Down syndrome. Ken’s writing is motivated and informed primarily by his concern for his kids’ future.