Like with Buchanan, Moore was attacked from all sides — by both the left and the right; by both the Republican Establishment and the Democrats; by both the liberal talking-heads and the conservative talking-heads.
Yes, Trump was attacked from all sides during his bid for president also, but compared to the ruthless assault on Moore, it was a squall; the attack on Moore was a tsunami.
That Moore has stood resolute during it all speaks volumes about his character.
THE MOTIVE FOR THE ATTACK
The motive behind the attack is found in Mitch McConnell.
Most do not realize McConnell is fighting for his political life — and Moore is at the center of it. McConnell sent 10 million dollars into Alabama to try and defeat Moore in the September 26th primary. But Moore won.
Countless news stories were published prior to the primary and subsequent to it declaring McConnell’s political doom if Moore were to win the senate seat. This is why McConnell was in front of national tv cameras just 30 minutes after the Washington Post smear against Moore was published putting the thought into the minds of Americans that Moore should resign from the campaign. Five days later, he was demanding Moore quit the race outright.
McConnell has micro-managed this smear against Moore; the tyrant has been forced to come out of his lair; and show his fangs. I learned long ago the Republican blue bloods would always rather have a Democrat in office than a true Christian man. They fear a man like Moore because he can’t be bought.
Understand, this is a war between Steve Bannon and Mitch McConnell. Bannon won many to his cause when he announced he was leaving the Trump administration to devote himself to the specific task of taking down the Republican Establishment. A worthy and needed goal.
McConnell’s Senate establishment cronies are now dropping like flies: Flake, Corker, Gutierrez — have all announced they are not going to seek re-election.
FOX NEWS has also been busy doing McConnell’s bidding by attacking Moore.
On November 21, 2017, Gregg Jarrett, legal analyst for FOX NEWS, issued an editorial piece to further assault Moore. It had an entire section subtitled “Moore’s History of Lawlessness.”
Jarrett states in the section, “It is not within the legal province of state court judges to render the final word on the U.S. Constitution. Under the Supremacy Clause, such matters are decided by the federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.”
And this is a lie.
The Supremacy Clause is Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Constitution. And when one looks there, they notice that the Supreme Court is not mentioned there. They notice that federal courts are not mentioned there. What has the “supremacy” there is the Constitution itself.
And all government officials, from a policeman to the president, take an oath to uphold the Constitution — including state judges. They do not take an oath of subservience to the federal government; they do not take an oath to uphold unjust/immoral, constitutionally repugnant court opinions by the Supreme Court.
Jarrett gets this idea that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is or isn’t constitutional from the SCOTUS itself. The Supreme Court has, through its court opinions over the years, written itself powers that are completely foreign to the Constitution and would have been repugnant to America’s founders.
Jarrett is espousing what is known as ‘judicial supremacy” — and judicial supremacy is a fiction.
Thomas Jefferson warned of this 200 years ago. He wrote in a letter in 1820 to an early judicial supremacist: “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” He went on to write: “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
Jarrett goes on with his fiction against Moore by stating, “In the seminal case of Ableman v. Booth (62 U.S. 506), the Supreme Court held that state court judges can never issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts.” Again, the Supreme Court has ruled this — but it is not found anywhere in the Constitution.
Jarrett fails to understand that a tyrant always tries to accrue all power to himself. And that includes an oligarchy like the Supreme Court. An oligarchy that has been busy trampling representative government in America for decades now.
We now have social transformation without representation.
The federal judiciary is the tyrant here in America. The federal courts are the dispensers of injustice and immorality— and the other branches of government must defy them. They are duty-bound by the Constitution to check them.
The “lawlessness” Jarrett accuses Moore of is for “his refusal to abide by a United States Supreme Court decision” which Jarrett later refers to as “federal law.” The Supreme Court decision he refers to had to do with homosexual marriage.
And this is another fiction espoused by Jarrett; that whenever the Supreme Court issues an opinion, “it is the law of the land.” After the decision by the SCOTUS, 72 prominent legal scholars issued a statement agreeing with Moore that the Obergefell decision was “not the law of the land” and calling upon all federal and state officials to oppose the Court’s opinion.
The one displaying “lawlessness” in this matter was the Supreme Court - - Moore was trying to restore order.
Jarrett then maligns Moore’s character by stating Moore “has shown nothing but contempt for the rule of law.” Here’s a news flash for Gregg Jarrett: the rule of law is not whatever the SCOTUS says it is.
Jarrett employs here a common tactic of the statist. Government officials make egregious immoral or unjust law, policy, or court opinion; a public official like Moore interposes against the evil; and the statists castigate the interposing official as “lawless” because “We must uphold the rule of law!”
But what if an unjust or immoral court opinion has been made? Are we to respect it just because the judiciary declares it to be part of the rule of law? To do so is to stand the rule of law on its head.
After his long list of easily refuted lies, Jarrett concludes his hit piece against Moore by stating, “On this basis alone, Roy Moore is not fit to serve in the United States Senate. The appalling accusations of sexual assault and harassment only reinforce that conclusion.”
And that is the crux of Jarrett’s article. Unable to refute Moore’s position and arguments, Jarrett finds it convenient to join with nefarious men and women who have promulgated a lie and attack the messenger rather than the message. Another common leftist tactic.
Matthew Trewhella is the pastor of Mercy Seat Christian Church (MercySeat.net) and the founder of Missionaries to the Preborn (MissionariesToThePreborn.com). He and his wife Clara have eleven children and reside in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area. Matt has written a book entitled The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates: A Proper Response to Tyranny and A Repudiation of Unlimited Obedience to Civil Government which is available at DefyTyrants.com or Amazon.com.