Holy. Sh*t. The Federalist Literally Just Endorsed Molesting Little Girls

Their reasoning? Moore's opponent is pro-choice so attempted kiddie rape is acceptable. No, seriously.
By Justin Rosario,

The Federalist just became the latest in a growing list of right wingers to not only support Republican Roy Moore, the child molesting Senate candidate from Alabama, but also to actually defend the practice of grown men sexually assaulting underage girls.

No, that is not a typo.

First, author Tully Borland explains that if Moore had attacked his daughter, it'd be a different story:

I have a 14-year-old daughter. If I caught Roy Moore doing what was alleged, for starters I would kick him where it counts.

But he immediately follows that up with, "That said, I don’t think it’s wrong to vote for Moore."

I'm sure his daughter will understand someday that her father is OK with letting other people's daughters be violently attacked as long as the attacker votes the right way. Real father of the year material right there.

We're going to ignore Borland's ludicrous justifications for voting for Moore the child molester over Doug Jones (Hint: Borland is very concerned for the unborn fetuses! Just not the little girls they grow up to be) and focus on his full endorsement of grown men sexually assaulting little girls.

Again, that is not a typo.

Borland attempts to make the case that men in their 30s having wives in their mid-teens is perfectly normal:

Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family

To have a large family, the wife must start having kids when she is young. The husband needs to be well-established and able to support the family, in which case he will typically need to marry when older.  

The link is to a study of marital practices of an indigenous tribe native to northern Europe from the 17th-19th century. To say this is relevant to Alabama in the 1970s is a stretch of Trumpian proportions.

Next, Borland quotes a professor at UT Arlington who goes on about how his grandmother got married when she was 15 and his grandfather was 41. "This was normal back then", he says. But Prof. Burgess-Jackson was born in 1957, meaning his grandparents were probably married roughly 100 years ago, give or take a decade. "Normal" for 1917 was a life expectancy of 48 years for men and 54 years for women. Infant and maternal mortality rates were unacceptably high by our standards today (except maybe in Texas). Women couldn't vote yet and it had only been a few years since every state had finally allowed women to control their own property and money. We would not recognize daily life from 1917.

Naturally, Borland tries to conflate this long ago "normal" with the not-at-all long ago 1970s:

Times have changed. But, like it or not, four decades ago Moore dated teenagers (even his wife is 14 years younger than he).

Nope. The 1970s were not some bygone era and Gadsden is not the deep rural South. Things were different but they weren't that different. The locals knew enough to recognize a sexual predator when they saw one and that's why Moore was kicked out of the Gadsden Mall for sexually harassing teenage girls. It should also be pointed out that Moore only has four children so clearly he wasn't trying very hard to have a "large family".

And after all that inane justification, Borland then makes sexually assaulting a minor and attempted rape vanish into thin air anyway as he rewrites the English language:

But let’s suppose the accusations are mostly true. Then from a conservative moral perspective, Moore is guilty of lying, trying to have pre-marital sexual relations with girls half his age, and pressuring them to do so without first determining that they reciprocate. 

And just like that, molesting a 14-year-old that cannot legally, morally, or psychologically consent to sex with an adult and trying to force a 16-year-old into oral sex becomes "trying to have pre-marital sexual relations with girls half his age". 

Ladies and gentlemen: Your modern day conservative movement.

Doug Jones is not putting a lot of effort into discussing Moore's penchant for little girls because to the conservative "Christians" in Alabama, young girls are prized for their purity. Yes, it's sick and disgusting but, you know, "Jesus" and all that. How that lets them overlook the attempted rape or the fact that one of the girls was 14, which is (one would hope) too young even for their purity fetish, is unclear. But for the rest of the country, the spectacle of watching the right wing come up with ways to justify molesting a child and trying to rape another is something that will stay with us long after Roy Moore has come and gone.

We are watching the final descent of a political party into total madness and absolute moral depravity. If we don't fight back with everything we have, they're going to pull us down with them.

There are 340 days left to the 2018 elections.

- This article kills fascists and child molesters

Please consider becoming a paid member of The Daily Banter and supporting us in holding the Trump administration to account. Your help is needed more than ever, and is greatly appreciated. 

Loading ...
Join the Conversation