The DI on Specific Core Issues

Marriage:

• Marriage is maximum commitment between a man and a woman, the foundation of the home—what makes a house a home. This 1:1 commitment is the core building block in nature. All relationships are built on the basic marital 1:1 model. Think 1:1 with spouse-spouse, sibling-parent, sibling to sibling, friend to friend, and person to God (The DI reveals there must be a creator. If natural laws of life exist then a lawgiver exists.) Life-learning begins by children observing their parents 1:1 and eventually creating their own 1:1 and family.
• The DI of all people consistently points to marriage as nature’s building block.
• The DI advises against divorce in most cases and consistently identifies overlooked fears which led to early and unnecessary divorce. The negative effect of divorce on children is well-documented in research literature. (Divorce is never ideal but people can repair and develop a new solid marriage.)
• The DI encourages maximum commitment in 1:1—marriage over cohabitation. The evidence comparing marriage vs. cohabitation compellingly favors marriage as a healthier lifestyle.[1]
• The DI of homosexuals consistently teach that homosexual orientation is fear-driven, points strongly to it being an unconscious learned or fear-driven behavior (versus genetic), and that there is a strong inclination toward promiscuity among homosexuals.
• Homosexuals cannot reproduce, of course, and can only have offspring via adoption or in vitro fertilization both of which require a heterosexual partner in some way. By definition homosexuality cannot be a basic building block of nature.

Abortion:

• The DI of patients in therapy consistently sees abortion as violence against the fetus and against the woman seeking the abortion and so advises against it.
• Simple reason of why this is the case: abortion “pro-choice” advocates violate their most basic principle of “pro-choice.” As it continues to grow moment by moment, the fetus requests, “Please keep my home in this womb stable, please keep sending me nutrients, I want to grow and be born. This is my choice.”
• Consciously a woman who espouses “pro-choice” as her highest value, will say, “Don’t tell me what to do, don’t impose your will on mine, it’s my body, my reproductive rights, it’s between me and my partner, me and my doctor, me and my God, etc.” But her arguments leave out—via denial—one major part of the equation. Namely, “It’s between me and my baby.” Women who wait long enough can hear the body language of their own baby within them moving and kicking, clearly saying “I want to live.”

Entitlements

• The DI of patients consistently advises against various dependencies: medication, depending on third parties for information about them, or third-party support for therapy. While parents or insurance companies must pay for therapy at times or necessary medication, the DI continually prefers maximum autonomy and independence.
• Applied to everyday life, plans to redistribute wealth undermine autonomy—the right of every man to achieve more financially than his neighbor, playing fairly within the rules of society. Likewise, the DI warns strongly against continued affirmative action plans.
• Black syndicated columnist Cynthia Tucker spoke out against black leaders who encourage government dependency—holding up as a model a successful black middle-class couple who obtained education, had successful careers and overcame whatever obstacles stood in their way including racism.
• Bill Clinton eventually supported welfare reform, an idea he borrowed from his political opponents which had significant positive results in spite of objections raised by its liberal critics.

Judicial Rulings

• For practical reasons, let’s add a fourth issue to see how a president would govern.
• In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court somehow pulled out of thin air constitutional rights to abortion—“rights” we now have irrefutable evidence do not exist, namely the right to destroy the life of a fetus.[2] This is just one example of the judiciary making up laws instead of judging existing laws. In effect they have become the legislature and are out of bounds—violating the rules of the Constitution (the law of stability) and violating the legislature’s rights (the law of autonomy). The founding fathers saw the need for clear boundaries among the three branches of government—each stable and autonomous.
• To show you how far such an out-of-bounds ruling can lead, even a live birth “accident” has become a debatable legal issue. Are you considered alive and a human being if you’re breathing on your own even after your own mother tried to destroy you?
• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that parents lose their rights to have decisions over their children at the schoolhouse door. The school will decide how to educate them and in what subjects. They have violated the rule of stability (stepping into the home) and the autonomy of parents. This is far past the protective function of government which, for example, must remove a child from an abusive home to protect the child’s needs.
• The same court has told the U.S. Navy it cannot scan under water for foreign submarines at certain places off the West Coast because it might hurt certain whales. This time the court has violated the Navy’s autonomy and undermined the country’s stability.

Dont't Lose Sight: Success is the Issue

If we violate the basic rules—core values as revealed by the DI—we will limit our national success. Now we put the two candidates for president under the success lens of deeper intelligence core principles.

Obama vs. McCain

Obama has consistently supported liberal court opinions such as the ones listed above. He has made plain that the typical jurist he would nominate would replicate Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court.

In summary, Obama would also be out of bounds as a leader on entitlement programs, abortion, judicial decisions, and leaning strongly toward undermining marriage with his broad endorsement of gay rights. He states opposition to same-sex marriage, but he would not support a marriage amendment to the Constitution.

On the other hand, we put the success lens on McCain who opposes abortion, has made a career of supporting tax cuts, limiting unhealthy entitlement programs, supporting a strong defense, and would nominate jurists for the top court who would play by the long-standing rules as laid out by the Constitution.

Bottom line: We now have a success lens which can help us judge leaders, especially presidents who have the most to do with America’s success or failure. Which candidate lives by the three rules of success and which doesn’t? As Obama has demonstrated and his policy plans/voting record has clearly shown—he is often far out of bounds of life’s three rules of success. The fact that he is “The Left Coast of the Senate”—the senator with the most liberal voting record—says it all and coincidentally fits with the location of the Ninth Circuit Court on the Left Coast itself. In his political decisions, Obama is rarely in bounds. This explains his numerous DI warnings to us not to put him in office.

Conclusion: Barack Obama would sabotage America’s success and allow us to continue our downhill slide. It is not just Obama’s conscious statements that we must consider or even his personal lifestyle as a husband of a wife with two children to whom he is devoted. We must be on the lookout for blind spots in the way he would govern, blind spots that would lead him to violate the basic principles of success. We must constantly assess his plans and decisions using the three basic core values of success. Even more so if he happens to be elected president.