A “Love’ in” was a term used in the 1960s, a decade of enormous change.  The term refers to the a gathering of “Hippies.”  The gathering was sort of a party with like-minded people, who loved to smoke dope, and hang out together, and do what young people usually do, usually not of the approved moral order.  The 1960s changed America forever, most for worse. 

I attended college in the 1960s, an era that was the start of the decay and fall of the great American society.  It took me about 20 years to unlearn all the false and stupid stuff I learned in College.   The decay started with the assassination of President Kennedy.  Not only did Camelot end with Kennedy, but also the start of the degeneracy of our society started and has now given fruit.  I’m referring to our culture of self-gratification, our drug culture and the fall of Hollywood as a force for good. 

In the 1960s I was a happy Democrat.  The Democratic Party was the party of the people in those days; the party of the workers.  The impact of what was happening in 1960s changed everything, even the Democratic Party.  It took me another 20 years to realize that the party I belonged to no longer represented my values or me.  As a matter of fact, the party represented everything I opposed by the time I got out in 1990.  What follows is why the Democratic Party is no longer a party I can support – it is a party that I oppose now 100%.  I can’t think of one thing that I agree with in the Democratic Party. 

The Democratic Party was a respectable party, in my view, up to the 1970s.  Something happened to the party; the party went from a moderate party to a hard left party.  There are many reasons why the party changed.  I will concentrate on two of them. 

The first bad influence was the “Love-in” age of the 1960s.  This was the age of the popularization of drugs.  Timothy Leary, a psychologist and College professor at the time, was a proponent of taking drugs and was famous for the saying "Turn on, tune in, drop out."  The 1960s turned our culture upside down.  Young people started challenging authority – all authority, their parents and government.  These young people considered themselves as “enlightened” and smarter than their parents. 

Ask any mother or father who is dealing with the drug abuse problems of their child and see if they think that taking drugs is romantic or enlightened.  We owe the culture of the 1960s for the ravages of today’s drug problems.  Entire countries, such as Mexico and Columbia are being held hostage by the drug lords who have more power that their government.  The cost of the drug culture of our day is incalculable.  The rest of the world cannot control drug use. 

The second bad influence on the Democratic Party was the feminist movement.  The movement originally had honorable aims such as equality of women in the workplace and society in general.  However, the feminist movement quickly fell off the edge of the cliff.  The movement proclaimed that in order to be equal woman had a right to kill their unborn babies; they were equal to men in all respects.  College professors taught that there were no differences between men and women, for instance.  The feminist movement even went so far as to claim that women did not need men.  In fact it was considered honorable for women not to marry or prefer a career to motherhood.  What we’ve reaped as a result of the feminist movement is the breakdown of the traditional family, abortion for any reason for all nine months of pregnancy, the feminization of males, the loss and importance of a father in the home, and the breakdown of the nuclear family. 

As of this writing, 40% of all births are to unwed mothers.  The breakdown of the family has also given us more crime.  Our society has abandoned the importance of having a father in the home.  We now claim that fathers are not important for the rearing of boys.  Just look at crime statistics and see how many criminals are from single mother homes compared to a mother and a father homes.  The statistics quoted here are nothing short of alarming for fatherless homes.  The breakdown of the family has been the most damaging affects of feminism. 

These two events had a substantial influence on the Democratic Party.  The party went from being pro-life to pro-abortion; from a party of family values to a party that now promotes no moral values at all and more specifically the worst values of our society, such as homosexual marriage, out of wedlock births, and a proponent of replacing the nuclear family with the government taking care of you from the cradle to the grave (socialism in disguise). 

The Democratic Party endorses a culture of moral relativism.  Here are just a few ideas promoted and defended by the Democratic Party: 

Homosexual marriage,

Abortion on demand for all nine months,

Taking God and religion out of the public square,

Moral relativism,

Persecution of anyone who dares make references to the Bible, or standing in front of abortion clinics,

Promoting a socialist/ Marxist philosophy that government knows best not the family,

Taking God and religion out of the classroom,

European style secularism.

 There is a saying that your friends say a lot about who you are.  The best friends of the Democrats are the Hollywood crowd which believes in a narcissistic moral relativistic philosophy of life of anything goes as long as you want it; people like George Soros who believes in Socialist/Marxist political philosophy, America haters such as the American terrorist Bill Ayers, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and the United Nations.  George Soros, who has become one of the richest men in world, thinks America is an oppressive state.  Soros loves communism but hates America, which has made him what he is today.  Democrats are big supporters of such Internet hate sites as Moveon.org and the Huffington Post. 

As a Christian with Judeo-Christian values, I find that the Democratic Party has none of my values.  Many Christians and Catholics are Democrats.  This is a contradiction to me.  How can a Christian support a party that has such degenerate moral values as described above?  A partial answer is that liberal Christians believe, for the most part, that as long as they take care of the poor, this is all that is required of them.  They have replaced the Bible with current political activism that they consider beneficial.  Leftist Christians such as Protestants Tony Compolo and Jim Wallis, or Catholics such as the Norte Dame Theologian, Fr. Richard McBrien believe that this is the sole Christian mission.  This philosophy is what is called Liberation Theology, a theology that came out of South America, based on Socialist/Marxist philosophy, in the late 1960s and which has been condemned by the Vatican.  

I vote according to my values.  I find that the Democratic Party has none of my values.  The party’s socialist bent is very disturbing because it promotes government as the father and mother to us all.  This also promotes irresponsibility and what Larry Elder calls “victocrats” – people who always consider themselves as victims with no responsibility for their lives; “ it’s always someone else’s fault for why I’m the way I am” type of thinking.  This is a very bad philosophy.  Socialism has been tried for over 100 years and failed at every attempt.  Don’t believe it?  Tell me of one socialist society that has been successful.  

Change is the buzzword for the Barack Obama campaign for President of the United States in 2008.  The word “change” can mean many things, both good and bad.  One of the changes that Obama wants to make is in the Supreme Court.  It is estimated that there will be, at least, two or three vacancies in the Supreme Court in the first term of the next president.  Obama has made it perfectly clear that his choice of a Supreme Court judge will not be one like the last two judges appointed by President Bush, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.  Obama will appoint someone in the leftist, activist judge mode of justices Ruth Bader-Ginsburg or David Suter.  This also means that no one who is, or possibly could be pro-life, or a conservative, would ever be considered. 

There are two very distinctive philosophies in the current Supreme Court.  Those on the left are activist judges and those who are not are considered strict constructionists.  Judges Scalia, Alito and Thomas, for instance, are very much strict constructionist, while the liberal judges such as Suter, Ginsburg and Stevens are activist judges.  Activist judges believe in a “living Constitution.”  A living Constitution means that they can interpret the law to mean what they believe, regardless of whether it is in the Constitution or not.  The famous 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade is a famous example of judicial activism run amuck.  The right to an abortion is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or any of the Constitutional Amendments.   In Roe they found a “right to privacy” in the 14^th Amendment.  However, such a right is nowhere to be found in the 14^th Amendment.   So how did they justify it?  They justified it by coming up with what they called “penumbras and emanations,” meaning they somehow added a connection even though there was none.  Other famous Supreme Court decisions that used penumbras and emanations were Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992. 

 If you’re still mystified by penumbras and emanations, so is everybody else.  Translation:  you can make up any connection you want from any law - in other words plain judicial tyranny.  This should scare anyone, liberal or conservative because it represents a judiciary that is out of control and not representative of anybody.  A current example of judicial tyranny just happened in California.  The California Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is constitutional; despite the fact that California voters voted 60% to say that marriage is between a man and a woman (Proposition 22).  Yet, five activist judges told us that they know better than the entire State population.   Where did they find it in the California Constitution?  They did not – penumbras and emanations; they made it up. 

The August 2008 issue of Townhall.com Magazine has a brilliant article by Curt Levey titled “Holding the Line.”  This article clearly describes the fallacies and outright dangers to our society that judicial activism can produce.  Levey states, “judicial activism is not the failure to follow precedent.  Courts must generally adhere to their past decisions and those of higher courts.  But, as law professor Gary Lawson notes, “if the Constitution say X and a prior judicial decision says Y, a court has not merely the power, but the obligation, to prefer the Constitution.   Judicial activism threatens, not only the rule of law, but also the American political process and, potentially, each and every American.  Because judicial activism lacks any standards, it cedes unchecked power to judges.”  

Judicial activism is a favorite of the political left and the Democratic Party.  Since most of what they want cannot happen through the ballot box, such as the definition of marriage in Proposition 22 in California, an activist court, overturns the will of the people and rules for homosexual marriage.  Activist judges are the bread and butter of the left.   A few years ago the 9^th Circuit Court ruled that in the Pledge of Allegiance,” under God” was unconstitutional, overturning the United States Congress with passed this law in 1954.  The 2-1 ruling overturns the will of the entire country’s representatives.  Laws are made by the legislatures of the states or the Congress of the United States, these some bodies can change them, but activist judges do not want legislatures to rule, they want to rule.  This is an obvious contradiction.  The job of any judge is to rule on the law, as written, not to make it.  They conveniently ignore this simple axiom. 

Many of my fellow Republicans are lukewarm about John McCain.  McCain would have been my last pick for President, but compared to what we would get in Obama, it is a slam-dunk for me to vote for McCain.  Judges is one of the reasons.  Judges are on the bench for as long as 40 years.  A liberal, leftist activist judge would do irreparable harm to the United States and the rule of law.  We would no longer be people ruled by the will of the people but by the will of one or two unelected, unaccountable judges.  This is extremely dangerous and will hurt our country.  We do not want judges who make laws, that is the job of our legislature.  Electing Obama would be the same as picking activist judges who will make law, rather than ruling on the law as written.

Tell me who a person’s friends are and I will tell you who the person is.  Your associates, friends and acquaintances say something about who you are and what you believe.  If many of your friends were shadowy figures, mobsters, America haters and other unsavory characters, there is a good likelihood that you will also be an unsavory character just like the friends that you have. 

The Democratic Party has a long list of questionable characters that they associate themselves with, such as George Soros, the billionaire socialist who wants to turn America into a Soviet style socialist republic, Jesse Jackson, who believes that victimhood is what blacks should aspire to, and the government should be responsible for what they do or do not do, such as get an education and a job.  Then there are the far left web sites who spew hate like McDonald’s Restaurants serve hamburgers.   These include The Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, the Huffington Post and many others. 

Additionally, the Democrats associate themselves with people and organizations that are hostile to religion as a whole, such as the ACLU, which has its origins in the 1920s and many of their founders were communist sympathizers.  The ACLU is notorious for suing to rid government of any religious symbols. 

The Democrats are very strongly pro-abortion and will not tolerate anyone who is pro-life.  Whenever a judgeship comes up, the first question they ask is the candidate pro-life; if he/she is they are excluded from consideration or they will all vote against anyone who is.  All you have to do to prove this point is to look at the last two Supreme Court appointees of President Bush, Samuel Alito and John Roberts.  Although neither of these two proclaimed being pro-life, the mere suspicion that they were compelled all Democrats to vote against them.  The Democrats also tend to suspect anyone who is particularly religious, unless they are of the religious left persuasion.  Liberation Theology, a Socialist, Marxist religious worldview, is a favorite religious philosophy of the Democrats. 

During this year’s Presidential campaign, much has been made of Barack Obama’s close association with certain questionable characters such as the following:  Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Fr. Michael Pflegler, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers.

 Rev. Jeremiah Wright has been his pastor for the past 20 years and he considers him his close confidant, advisor and friend until he was forced to disown him after he clinched the nomination.  We have all heard what Rev. Wright said about America, if not, click on the last hyperlink to see this YouTube video.   He has stated that we should not bless America but damn it.  He also said that American was responsible for 9/11 and the United States purposely spread the HIV virus to kill blacks.  Fr. Pflegler , a renegade Roman Catholic Priest, is a Rev. Wright clone.  Although Fr. Pflegler is white he speaks like a black preacher and condemns America even more vehemently that the Rev. Wright. 

Tony Rezko, a Chicago developer and close friend of Obama, has recently been convicted of 16 counts of corruption.  Rezko is a long-time supporter of Obama.   Bill Ayers is a 1970s terrorist who belonged to the Weather Underground whose purpose was the overthrow of the United States government.  In a Chicago Magazine article recently he is shown proudly standing on an American flag.  His wife is Bernadette Dohrn who is also famous as a Weather Underground terrorist. 

Obama has never distanced himself from any of these figures.  Now I do not believe that Obama is like any of these people.  I believe that he is a decent and good person.  However, I strongly question his judgment in keeping such characters as associates and or friends.  Let me ask another question.  If John McCain had such friends would the mainstream media ignore it like it has ignored these friends for Obama?  I have yet to see anything in the mainstream media anyway critical of these associations. 

If you are an employer and Barack Obama applied to work for you and you knew of such associates, would you hire Mr. Obama?  Yet, this man wants to be your President.