The political conversations that you’re hearing these days can often be categorized beneath two mottos:
- In God We Trust
- You Can’t Force Your Beliefs on Me
Either the individual is accountable to something greater than themselves, or a person is accountable to no one but themselves.
By using phrases that imply a form of oppression, the Modern Day Democrat is able to distract attention away from their resolve to reduce the world to a collection of personal preferences where the truth is based more on how you feel rather than what is real.
It’s not so much about policies or personalities, or even two political parties.
It’s about two mottos…
Recent polls suggest conservatives are more likely than liberals to support bans on politicized practices, even when both groups view the practice as similarly immoral (e.g., abortion opposition among pro-life conservatives vs. pro-life liberals). We propose a novel theory to explain this phenomenon based on people’s moral philosophies. Nine studies found that conservatives tended to endorse moral absolutism, whereas liberals tend to endorse moral relativism, and that moral absolutists were more likely to support banning practices they deem immoral. Conservatives on X (formerly Twitter™) used more absolute language than liberals, particularly in tweets containing morality-related words (Study 1). In a data set spanning 59 countries and 30 years, conservatives more often endorsed moral absolutism over relativism (Study 2). Studies 3-4 identified a need for closure as an underlying mechanism. Studies 5-9 documented a downstream consequence of moral absolutism: support for banning practices one deems immoral. The link between the perceived immorality of a practice and support for banning it was stronger among conservatives, even after controlling for attitude extremity (Study 5). Moral absolutism predicted support for banning practices deemed immoral even after controlling for regulatory focus, deontological thinking, individual and binding foundations, ideological extremity (Study 6), and attitude strength of the politicized practices (Study 7). Liberals and conservatives exposed to moral relativism reduced their support for banning practices that they opposed (Study 8-9). Our theory linking ideology to moral absolutism versus relativism can help explain why the link between perceived immorality and support for bans varies across the ideological spectrum. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved). (PubMed)
No Bottom Lines
Anytime you converse with a Modern Day Democrat, you want to begin by clarifying how the define the concept of truth. Ask them if they agree with the idea that what’s true for one person may not be true for another, and they will most likely agree.
You see that supported in the 2025 study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin where it examined the relationship between political ideology and moral absolutism vs. moral relativism across nine different studies (see sidebar).
The study found that:
- Conservatives tended to endorse moral absolutism.
- Liberals tended to endorse moral relativism.
- Conservatives used more absolute moral language than liberals.
- The pattern appeared not just in U.S. data but in a dataset covering 59 countries over 30 years.
- People who endorsed moral absolutism were more likely to support banning practices they considered immoral.
This is a portion of a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR. In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus. At one point, she uses the phrase “minimum viable truth” to describe an approach that sets aside bigger belief systems and instead focuses on what appeals to the majority. It translates to a nonsensical contradiction in that while she says truth needs to be processed as something that’s different for everyone, she then goes on to say that, “…the truth of the matter is…” As though what she is saying now transcends the definition of truth she just articulated.
Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.
And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us. (Katherine Maher)
You see that dynamic elaborated on in a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR (see sidebar). In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus.
From a distance, this looks healthy. You don’t want to be so resolute with your opinions, that you disqualify yourself from being able to learn and grow based on a more comprehensive perspective.
But there’s a difference between being open minded for the sake of becoming more aligned with what’s accurate, and posing as someone who’s open minded in order to promote the idea that there are no absolutes.
Intellectual Icebergs
This is where Katherine Maher and the Democrat party are revealed as being an intellectual iceberg in that they appear approachable on the surface, but hidden below the water line is something genuinely sinister.
If truth is relative, then…
- I am my own absolute – my right to be happy means I get to make up my own rules and I don’t have to answer to anything other than what I’m comfortable with
- I am a victim – I may be different or damaged, but I am never wrong. When I’m confronted with a reality I can’t dispute without selfish or foolish, by pretending to be in pain, I can avoid having to explain myself or take responsibility for my actions.
- I am justified – I can silence anyone who disagrees with me in that they are not merely mistaken, but genuinely immoral because they’re not telling the “truth,” which qualifies them as a liar.
But, if truth is relative, then…
- You are a hypocrite – you can’t logically disagree with someone without violating your own premise that the truth is whatever an individual wants to believe.
- You are conflicted – when confronted with something that is obviously wrong (a mother killing their own child), you can’t condemn it because of the way you’ve dismissed the reality of objective truth and the obvious difference between right and wrong.
- You are meaningless – if there is no right or wrong, then your words are just mechanical noises that have no real meaning.
Even in the speech given by Katherine Maher, you see the unsustainable aspect of her platform…
Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.
And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.1
You can’t say, “…the truth of the matter is” without contradicting everything you’ve said up to that point by asserting the idea that there are “many different truths.”
But this is the Modern Day Democrat: A conflicted and meaningless hypocrite posing as a persecuted activist that’s justified in silencing anyone who has the capacity to reveal them for who they are.
An Unacceptable Mindset
On the surface, they are either outraged or oppressed (I am a victim). They are indifferent to what’s real or indisputable because of the way they have empowered themselves to dismiss whatever it is they don’t want to hear (I am my own absolute). And anyone who disagrees can be mocked, maligned, and even murdered, not because they’re wrong, but because they’re a threat to a manufactured reality that can’t be sustained (I am justified).
This is Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s not so much an objection to a personality or a policy. The same policies could be championed by a Democrat (deportation of illegal immigrants) and they would be applauded as bold leadership. Whether it’s President Trump or any other Conservative, the personality is irrelevant because the same accusations would be made regardless of the individual in the charge.
If the philosophy that drives the legislation includes the idea that the individual is ultimately accountable to something greater than themselves, that is an unacceptable mindset. Regardless of what’s being said or who’s saying it, if it’s coming from a perspective that doesn’t allow a person to proclaim themselves as their own bottom line, it is dismissed first as stupid, then immoral and, ultimately criminal (see the “SIC-ness of the Left“).
I am Never Wrong Because I am Always Hurt
The problem, however, is the inevitable situation you find yourself in, as far being being revealed as either a fool or a fiend, given the transcendent nature of truth and the results that can’t be ignored regardless of the distortions and distractions constantly being circulated in the marketplace.
But, by asserting the idea that they are a victim, the Modern Day Democrat is never wrong because they are always hurt. By communicating every talking point from the perspective of someone who is either outraged or wounded, they’re able to distract attention away from the nonsensical aspects of their platform because of the way you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel and hateful. As a result, the Modern Day Democrat is accommodated rather than evaluated.
Medical Realities, the Rule of Law, Moral Imperatives, Historical events, Mathematical certainties, Irrefutable evidence, Divine Absolutes…
None of these are acknowledged by the person who’s determined to see themselves as their own bottom line. They are either antiquated traditions or biased attacks that violate a person’s right to be happy.
We Hate America…
Darializa Avila Chevalier (NY-13): Abolish prisons, abolish ICE, abolish borders, defund the police, and ‘all deportations are wrong’, including for violent criminals. She has called the U.S. an ‘effing disgrace’, and said in a prior social media post ‘I forgot to get napkins so I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me.’”
Michigan Democrat Senate candidate Abdul “El-Sayed’s campaign website calls the Supreme Court a ‘major impediment for democracy.’” (Bloomberg Law: Campaigning Democrats Amplify Calls to Overhaul Supreme Court – 7/8/26)
Hasad Piker is an associate of Abdul El Sayed. Piker is on record for having said he hated America.
The DSA has released a new program that, besides contemplating the advent of a classless society, calls for abolishing the US Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani sat in the Al-Khoei Islamic Center in Queens on February 20, 2026, during Friday prayers on the first day of Ramadan. The imam led a supplication in Arabic invoking the Mahdi with words translated by MEMRI: “Through your hands comes the relief for the believers and the killing of the infidels by your sword.”
If truth is whatever an individual wants to believe, then there is no “correction,” only “oppression.” Their opponents are Nazis, their Republican leaders are tyrants, and their world is oppressive. Anything that has the capacity to reveal the fact that their ideas don’t work and they are the very thing they claim to despise is disputed, not as a valid criticism based on facts and results, but as a personal attack fueled by fear and hate.
You can’t argue with people who think that way because they’re not listening to you. They’re simply waiting for you to stop talking so they can tell you why you should feel sorry for them. Regardless of the facts and the bottom lines you would use to validate your position, it is all dismissed as irrelevant and unreliable propaganda – not because it’s lacking in substance but because it’s a threat to the way in which they have authorized themselves to dictate what’s real according to what they prefer.
This is the dialogue being heard in our society today. It’s not a conversation between two different parties who both want the same thing, only differ in the way it’s obtained. Rather, it’s a contest between two spiritual paradigms summarized as two distinct mottos: “One nation under God,” or “You can’t force your beliefs on me.”
Those Aren’t Words, Those Are Masks
The Modern Day Democrat cheers for America’s enemies. 40% of Democrats believe church has a negative effect on society, and several recent Democrat primary winners have made it clear that they don’t like America or its institutions (see sidebar).
Words like “corruption,” “unconstitutional,” and “racism” are not words as much as they are masks when they’re coming from the mouth of a Modern Day Democrat. They’re strategically selected terms designed to trigger an emotional reaction in order to prevent an objective analysis. When you invoke the idea that you’re “hurt,” or that you’re being violated, the first priority is to medicate your wound rather than question your logic. And the more your logic is revealed as nonsensical, the more you have to assault the character and intelligence of those you can’t dispute. The result isn’t a conversation as much as it’s a demonstration. Even when you’re talking to a solitary person, you’re still interacting with the equivalent to a group of people screaming slogans and waving signs.
Real Results and the Right Questions
So, how do you navigate a situation where you’re attempting to reason with someone who’s unreasonable?
Results.
And while you can be accurate by simply stating the facts, if you want to be effective, you want to ask the question that can’t be answered without your opponent having to state those facts themselves.
The current administration is delivering a collection of policies that have resulted in:
And when you look at the military strategy accomplished by securing an agreement with Greenland, the reacquisition of our oil interests in Venezuela3, coupled with the President’s fearless efforts in providing an ever expanding view of the global corruption and the lies masquerading as necessary measures and credible headlines4 – it’s a great day!
But in order to get to that “great day” idea, you first have to ask those questions that compel an answer that reveals both the truth and the nonsensical efforts to suppress it.
- Do you prefer a higher poverty level?
- Would you rather have more murders in this country?
- If you support open borders, then I’m assuming you leave all your doors unlocked, correct?
- Which option translates to a stronger economy: More jobs or less?
- Which gas station would you buy your fuel from: The one that charges a dollar more per gallon, or the one that charges a dollar less?5
- Would you be comfortable if someone you knew you couldn’t trust was pointing a gun at you just because somebody else said it wasn’t loaded?
Conclusion
The “third party audience” debate technique is an approach that you take where the person you’re arguing with isn’t necessarily your real target. The real target is the undecided or persuadable person watching the exchange. You want to keep that technique in mind when you’re feeling like withdrawing from the conversation, be it on social media or in person, believing you’re just wasting your time or, perhaps making a bad situation worse.
There are impressionable people listening to your voice and, provided you’re telling the truth, they need to hear what you have to say, even if your opponent refuses to listen.
At the end of the day, this is more than Politics. You’ll hear people sometimes saying that our country is engaged in an existential crisis.
We are.
It’s not so much about policies or personalities, or even two political parties.
It’s about two mottos.
Our currency says “In God We Trust.” That is the foundation upon which our founding fathers built the Declaration of Independence. It’s because there’s a God in Heaven and there are Absolutes that exist independently of the way a person thinks or feels that they were able to articulate a cause and not just a complaint.
You take God out of the equation and you no longer have rights, you have demands – demands that can only be met by surrounding yourself with like minded people and silencing those who think otherwise. But even then, you are subscribing to an approach that is a philosophical dead end because of the way you’ve declared yourself to be “right,” despite the fact that you want to simultaneously say that there is no definitive right or wrong.
The candidates we endorse do not have to be pastors, they only need to be able to lead in a way that lines up with what’s true. 3+2=5 regardless of how the number 5 makes you feel. Lead and live in a way that acknowledges the reality of standards and not just situations. Stop trying to reinvent the human experience by thinking you can speak into existence something that is fundamentally flawed and then defend that position by saying “You can’t force your beliefs on me.”
Truth isn’t created with a conviction. For a conviction to be valid, it has to be true and no amount of passion or persecution will ever change that.
Two mottos.
Which one is yours?
1. “The Singju Post”, “What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Balancing Truth and Beliefs: Katherine Maher (Transcript)” https://singjupost.com/what-wikipedia-teaches-us-about-balancing-truth-and-beliefs-katherine-maher-transcript/, accessed September 9, 2026
2. The JCPOA was an agreement put in place by the Obama Administration in 2015 that lifted certain sanctions in exchange for Iran’s commitment to restrict its nuclear program. The problem with that agreement is that it was based on inspections that proved less than credible.
If Iran’s leadership has demonstrated that it cannot simply be trusted to disclose its nuclear activities, and if international inspectors cannot obtain sufficiently comprehensive access to independently establish that Iran has disclosed all relevant nuclear activity, then no agreement can establish with certainty that Iran has abandoned its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The agreement may constrain Iran’s known capabilities, but the underlying threat remains wherever undeclared activity cannot be ruled out.
3. In 2007, Chavez ordered that all foreign oil companies, including ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil be transformed into joint ventures and Venezuela would own 60% of the new organization. Both Companies refused, but were nevertheless forced to comply. This has also been the situation in Venezuela under Maduro who had a 25 million dollar bounty placed on his head by President Biden. President Trump’s actions in seizing Maduro were justified on several levels, given the evidence against Mr. Maduro that’s been collected over several years by investigators in Miami, New York, Houston, and Washington who have brought drug trafficking, foreign bribery, and money-laundering charges against several senior Venezuelan officials, members of the military and government-connected businessmen. Maduro’s removal also restores to the American companies that were ousted by Chavez the opportunity to resume operations.
4. There are several instances of fraud and corruption that President Trump has shined a light on that were operating in the shadows. One example is how the financial network that funds Iran’s terrorist operations are based in London. Billions of dollars of wasted and fraud was revealed by DOGE. President Trump introduced a new economic paradigm that put a halt to unfair trade agreements that hurt American manufacturing and positions the overall wellbeing of America as a priority.
5. There are several dynamics to consider when it comes to lowering fuel prices. #1) Destroy an international sponsor of terror’s ability to control the global energy market. This is being done most directly by preventing Iran from controlling the Strait of Hormuz. While the US doesn’t have complete control as of yet, the US Navy is now the agency that enforces maritime safety and control and not the Iranian government. In addition, by virtue of the US control of the Strait, Iran’s ability to export oil has been severely damaged. And that’s just part of a much broader strategy to cripple the current militant regime that governs Iran and create an environment that allows the Iranian people to institute a more democratic government. By destroying the militants that were in power and deploying Operation Economic Outcast, an economic campaign designed to cut off every income stream that is used to subsidize the IRGC, President Trump gives to the Iranians an opportunity to take control over their own country.
For more reading…
