From Laurie Higgins:
*UPDATE/CORRECTION: As of this writing the Peters-DeMaio race in California is too close to call.*
*WARNING: some graphic language not suitable for younger readers*
Residents of California’s 52nd Congressional District were just confronted with the choice between Democratic incumbent Scott Peters and homosexual “pro-choice” Republican challenger Carl DeMaio, whom the GOP establishment vigorously supported. Not only is DeMaio openly homosexual—which is no problem for House Speaker John Boehner who campaigned for him—but according to multiple accusations, DeMaio has a peculiar practice of engaging in semi-public self-pleasuring. According to Slate Magazine, a third man has recently come forward alleging sexually inappropriate conduct on the part of DeMaio:
I was at the urinal, and (DeMaio) came from the stall that was closest to the urinal and was kind of just standing there hovering….I turned around and realized that it was Carl. He had his pants up, but his fly was undone, and he had his hand… grasping his genitals.
Previously, a former colleague of DeMaio’s who served with him on the San Diego City Council told CNN that he had twice found DeMaio self-pleasuring in public restrooms, and a former campaign staffer for DeMaio, who is also homosexual, has alleged that DeMaio both sexually harassed him and engaged in onanism in his campaign headquarters office.
Thanks to the support of the Republican Party, DeMaio won the congressional seat last night.
A few weeks before yesterday’s mid-term election, Princeton University law professor Robert George made these comments about this California race, comments that are equally applicable to any races with RINO candidates, including Illinois races:
If I were in the district, I could not in conscience vote for the Republican. His election would do greater harm to the causes of life, marriage, and religious liberty than would the election of his Democratic opponent, as bad as that guy himself is on these issues. The question is whether to abstain or to cast a tactical vote in favor of the Democrat. In circumstances like these, I believe that tactical voting is morally permissible, and it would improve the likelihood of the least bad outcome….Abstaining is morally permissible too.
The partisans of abortion and marriage redefinition have a lock on the Democratic Party now. Effective dissent of any type is not possible. Having gained that lock on one party, they are now turning their resources and attention to weakening the pro-life and pro-marriage reality witness of the Republican Party….I can think of no more urgent priority than preventing that from happening. Maintaining and solidifying the pro-life and pro-marriage reality stance of the Republican Party is critical. That’s why tactical voting, including voting for bad Democrats over bad Republicans, is IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (e.g., where the election of a Democrat does not jeopardize Republican control of a legislative house), morally legitimate and perhaps even advisable. We must not let the pro-abortion and pro-marriage redefinition movements strengthen their positions in the Republican Party. We must make the Republican Party as solid for life and marriage as the Democrats now are for the contrary positions.
The GOP is slowly transmogrifying into the political incarnation of Tolkien’s Gollum…
Read more: IllinoisFamily.org
