Share This Article with a Friend!


Outsiders vs. Insiders: Roy Moore’s holier-than- thou critics prove elections have consequences

Integrity; it’s a fleeting concept. The dictionary defines integrity as, “possession of firm principles – the quality of possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles or professional standards,” and, “completeness – the state of being complete or undivided (as in territory),” and, “wholeness – the state of being sound or undamaged.”

It’s the first and third descriptions we need to focus on here, as establishment-to-the-core Arizona Senator Jeff Jeff Flake checkFlake did something earlier this week to prove he possesses neither principles nor wholeness -- and therefore has no integrity. The “retiring” Grand Canyon State pol tweeted out a picture of a $100 check to Alabama Democrat Doug Jones on Tuesday with the title “Country over Party.”

It doesn’t require much deep contemplation to figure out what Flake was trying to accomplish with his social media outburst, but we’ll offer an explanation anyway. He was one, showing he’s cheap – come on, Jeff, a hundred bucks for “country”?, two, demonstrating he’s a card-carrying member of the Washington swamp that is cowering in fear over the prospect of Judge Roy Moore coming to town; three, exposing himself as a bitter clinging idiot who judges from afar without any kind of deference to the opinions of Alabamians or conservatives who’ve known Moore for years and vouch for his character.

And four (there are more but we have to stop somewhere), Flake was pretending to be someone who supposedly believes in something (the sanctity of unborn life) yet is willing to cut checks to candidates who would fight to sanction legal abortion up until the moment of birth. Sick, isn’t it?

Naturally Flake’s acrimonious undertaking inspired substantial commentary from the Trump/Moore-hating news media. It also drew the contempt of notable conservatives such as Steve Bannon.

Diana Stancy Correll of the Washington Examiner reported, “Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon mocked Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., for writing a $100 check on Tuesday to support Democrat Doug Jones in the special election contest to fill Alabama's empty U.S. Senate seat.

“’Come on brother, if you’re going to write a check, write a check,’ Bannon said at a rally for the Republican candidate, Roy Moore. ‘Support somebody.’

“’Man, you are a total embarrassment,’ he added.”

Bannon’s last comment is an understatement though everyone understands the “embarrassment” part except Flake himself apparently. It’s one thing to make a political contribution to the “enemy,” it’s quite another to broadcast it to the entire world and promote yourself as favoring “country” over “party” by offering up a single c-note to a sleazy lout like Jones.

As if that weren’t bad enough, it’s hard to see how having Doug Jones in the Senate would advance Flake’s notion of “country” either. Jones is a Hillary and Obama-supporting liberal who would rubberstamp the Schumer/Franken/Warren agenda and oppose everything Flake professes to believe in. For a man who published a book this year with the stolen title “Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle” it’s saying a lot that Flake can stomach backing a candidate who proudly proclaims he’s a big government liberal.

And what about those “destructive politics”, Jeff? What must Flake’s Republican colleagues think about his move?

Heck, even steadfast #NeverTrump Senator Ben Sasse criticized Flake’s Jones contribution, tweeting, “This donation is a bad idea. It's possible to be against BOTH partial birth abortion AND child molestation. Happily, most Americans are.”

Of course Sasse’s “child molestation” jab is directed at Moore. The Nebraska Senator expanded on his take of the Alabama senate race by suggesting citizens of the state should choose neither Jones nor Moore, while neglecting to elaborate on who might merit a vote after rejecting the top two. Perhaps Flake, Sasse and the other judgmental elites would prefer folks write-in the name of Forrest Gump to be the new senator. We all know Gump doesn’t actually exist, but a “fantasy” candidate is about as good as anything the snobby ruling class has come up with.

Sasse’s position is similar to the one he took in last year’s presidential election when he refused to endorse Donald Trump over Crooked Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s promise to appoint liberal Justices to the Supreme Court should have been more than enough justification for a pro-lifer like Sasse to admit that maybe Trump was the better candidate last November – or that Moore is the best choice on Tuesday in Alabama.

In either case it’s really none of Sasse’s – or Flake’s – or Mitch McConnell’s -- or even my business who Alabamians choose. The aforementioned don’t live in the state and will not be represented in the vote count next week. Sure, we can do as Flake just did and contribute to a candidate (here is a link to donate to the pro-lifer, Roy Moore), but local residents will ultimately decide the contest.

Polls indicate the race is moving towards Moore. Good for Alabama.

What happens after Moore’s anticipated victory is anybody’s guess though the establishment has already promised to push forward many unhappy faces to greet Moore and there are also loud whispers about some sort of “ethics” investigation in the wings, perhaps initiated before the new senator even sets foot in the upper chamber. For all we know Moore’s desk could already have a note on it saying, “The Majority Leader wants to see you in his office.”

If such a thing comes to pass the search into Moore’s background will be even more intense and no stone will remain unturned. Earlier this week it was discovered, for example, that Moore’s wife’s divorce was not finalized before the couple began dating – in 1985. Therefore, by implication, Moore allegedly ignored his future wife’s uncertain marital status and their relationship began while she was still legally bound to another.

Wow, even if true, how many second (or third, fourth, etc…) marriages would offer similar circumstances? And again, this is well over thirty years ago we’re talking about. Nobody says anything about the contemporary Moore other than he has been a model husband and father ever since he married wife Kayla in late 1985.

Question: is there anyone out there who feels comfortable discussing their own dating habits from over thirty years ago in terms of how it relates to them today? How does all of this matter to how a potential Senator Roy Moore would assess issues like tax reform next year? Or illegal immigration? Or his support for the military?

Are Moore’s virtue signaling persecutors seriously asserting that people don’t change or improve over the course of time? Just like with Trump during the presidential campaign last year, how is it that a major party candidate’s calling a beauty queen “fat” twenty years ago has any relevance today? The same can be said for the infamous “locker room talk” tape with Trump’s voice from over ten years ago.

Why is it American politics has become so trivial and pejorative that people are incapable of focusing on what’s really important, namely how a successful candidate-turned elected lawmaker will vote to make a difference in his constituents’ lives?

If Moore loses next Tuesday and somehow the national tax reform process is dragged out until after Jones is seated and the matter ends up falling one vote short -- are people going to care that the beaten Republican candidate allegedly (according to some) liked teenaged girls (above the age of consent, mind you) in his premarital dating days?

Likewise if Trump had lost to Hillary Clinton because he “fat-shamed” Alicia Machado in 1996, would Justice Neil Gorsuch be on the Supreme Court today? Would the American economy be humming along with the promise of better tax rates? Would Jerusalem be the new home for the United States embassy in Israel? Would illegal border crossings have slowed to a 46-year low this year?

Will the country be better off with Doug Jones filling Jeff Sessions’ old senate seat? Perhaps we should ask Jeff Flake – he seems to know all the answers. Pfft. What a dunce.

Concerning President Trump’s announcement moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem (from Tel Aviv), contrary to many liberals’ paranoid warnings, it will actually make Middle East peace more likely in the future because Arabs will finally have to accept the truth. David Harsanyi wrote at The Federalist, “Many of the same people who lecture us to stand up to the authoritarianism in Russia or China argue that we should cave to threats of groups that subsidize jihadists and undermine American interests.

“Why do Booker, Feinstein, or the experts at the Brookings Institution believe that Hamas or Qatar should dictate where the United States puts its embassy? Yes, the move will generate widespread hand-wringing in the world, and there is a good possibility that there will be a new round of self-destructive violence among Palestinians. But if Arabs are willing to embrace extremism and violence because the United States no longer supports a delusion, perhaps the problem isn’t Israel?

“Then again, though the chances of any real peace with the Palestinians is slim, maybe reality will start to set in.”

Not to mention Trump’s decision to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel constitutes yet another fulfillment of a campaign promise he made last year, something no other president in the past two decades has done. Trump said it and now he’s doing it – it’s the same for issue after issue. If you don’t believe it, look it up.

Therefore the election of Donald Trump in 2016 not only had the very quantifiable outcome of improving the U.S. economy it is also increasing the likelihood of peace in the Middle East, something that would not have happened if Crooked Hillary were in the White House instead.

The recent positive national news resulted in a slight boost to Trump’s approval rating as well, with the president now at the highest level since September (45 percent). Historically speaking the numbers still aren’t stellar but the progress could be an indication more Americans are beginning to see the benefits of having an outsider business-conscious non-politician in the White House.

Voters are likely to see the same types of advantages deriving from electing Roy Moore to the senate next Tuesday. Regardless of one’s personal opinions on candidates, elections do have consequences. Good policy follows from sound votes – don’t let the integrity-less naysayers like Jeff Flake convince you otherwise.

Share this