A Bipartisan Acquittal May Be in President Trump’s Future

trump-manchin-rt-hb-180131_10x7_992

When the Senate impeachment trial wraps up, a supermajority of 67 votes will be necessary for the president to be removed from office.

The math indicates that even if all 47 Democrats in the Senate vote to convict, 20 Republicans would still have to break ranks with their Party and their base in order for the Dem’s dream to actually materialize.

Unlike the House vote on the articles of impeachment, the Senate vote that will ultimately exonerate the president is likely to be bipartisan, with at least one Senate Democrat voting against the president’s removal.

Although attention has been focused on how so-called moderate Senate Republicans may vote, three Democrat senators may serve as potential swing votes in favor of the president.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) looms as a potential vote to acquit. Sinema has a somewhat centrist voting record, and the state that she represents went for President Trump in 2016.

The Arizona senator has not revealed what she thought about the case that was presented by House Democrats. However, as the first Democrat sent to the U.S. Senate from Arizona in 30 years, she is no doubt aware of the eyes that are fixed upon her.

Sinema voted with the GOP to confirm both Attorney General William Barr and Interior Secretary David Bernhardt. She also voted in the positive to confirm many of President Trump’s judicial nominees and to pass a bill that enhanced immigration screening and expedited the cases of those who lack valid asylum claims. Putting herself directly in the crosshairs of the far-left wing of the Democratic Party, Sinema voted against the Green New Deal.

Democrats still carry a grudge, when as a member of the House of Representatives, Sinema voted against the Iran nuclear deal that was put together in 2015 by the Obama administration.

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) is the most vulnerable Democrat senator on the ballot this year, as he seeks to win a full term after his upset victory in a 2017 special election in the solidly red state of Alabama. In 2016 Trump took the state by nearly 28 points. Jones will be seeking a full term in 2020.

The Alabama senator has voted to confirm the vast majority of the president’s judicial nominees. He has additionally voted in favor of appropriations that included border wall funding. He also voted against the Green New Deal.

An outside group aligned with President Trump has targeted Jones in an advertising campaign, which aired during the Senate impeachment trial. The ad, which is appearing on television and other digital platforms, features images of House Manager Rep. Adam Schiff, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Rep. Maxine Waters discussing impeachment.

Jones has joined other Democrats in calling for witnesses and documents to be part of the Senate trial. However, he is aware that if he votes against the president at the conclusion of the Senate trial, his upcoming election chances are likely to be negatively impacted.

The most likely of all Democrats to vote in the president’s favor is Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who was once considered for a cabinet position in the Trump administration. Manchin was the only Democrat to vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Displaying more support than any other Democrat senator, according to the website FiveThirtyEight, Manchin has voted with the president the majority of the time. And he, too, voted against the Green New Deal.

Not only does Manchin represent a state that President Trump won by more than 40 percentage points, he reportedly enjoys a friendly relationship with the president. He has been a guest at White House movie screenings and has lunched with the president. President Trump posed for pictures with Manchin, which were used in the senator’s 2018 campaign.

On Manchin’s urging, the president signed a bill into law in 2019 that dealt with pension and health care benefits for coal miners. After Manchin lobbied the president to do so, President Trump gave two basketball stars, Jerry West and Bob Cousy, the Medal of Freedom.

A recent Club for Growth poll of West Virginia voters indicates that almost 70 percent of those surveyed are opposed to the impeachment of the president.

Many Democrats have concerns about how Manchin will vote, but another issue may carry even more weight.

In December of 2019, Jeff Van Drew, a Democrat congressman from New Jersey, switched parties and became a Republican.

Manchin may find it’s the perfect time to follow suit.

Democrats Implement ‘The Big Reverse’

safe_image-14

“The Big Lie” is a form of propaganda that has been used over time by manipulative figures in and out of government, politics, and institutions. It has generally been adopted and applied with the specific intent to surreptitiously alter the beliefs of large groups of people.

Adolf Hitler utilized “The Big Lie” phrase in his 1925 book “Mein Kampf,” describing a lie that was so enormous in size those hearing it would be compelled to believe it.

As members of the human race, the positive side of our nature does not allow for us to accept the notion that any of our fellow human beings would ever lie to us in such a massively brazen way. Our line of reasoning, as well as our unconscious processing, leads us to believe that the lie we are hearing just may be the truth.

Hitler put it in the following way: “It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

And so it is that if the lie is big enough, people will oftentimes come to the conclusion that it is true, particularly if it is repeated over and over again.

Chiseled on an unholy invisible stone tablet, the insidious principle persists to this day. It was embodied in a quote from Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, which read as follows: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

Our customary psychological defenses endow us with the ability to filter out falsehood from truth so that we are able to deal with the commonplace types of lies that we encounter in everyday life.

However, “The Big Lie” is so extraordinary that it is able to pass through psychological defenses that exist within us. Our minds are temporarily short-circuited and ultimately manipulated to a sufficient degree that allows the lie to emerge as “truth.”

Various members of the Democratic Party have either wittingly or unwittingly come upon a variant of “The Big Lie,” which they have used in their “resistance” efforts against President Donald Trump, his administration, his personal relationships, and his family.

I have given this variant of “The Big Lie” the label of “The Big Reverse.”

Lying, of course, is part and parcel of “The Big Reverse.” However, “The Big Reverse” involves an additional component with an individual or group displaying a sudden and dramatic turnaround of language and conduct. This creates in the recipient population what media psychology refers to as “cognitive dissonance.”

Cognitive dissonance is an intellectual and psychological discomfort caused by the intake of information that involves a conflict between what has been said or done in the past and what is presently being said or done.

As human beings, we will instinctively seek to alter one of the opposing beliefs or behaviors to restore the sense of balance that needs to be maintained for individual stability and functionality.

How does all of the above information relate to where our country finds itself in a political, psychological, and societal sense?

Some recent examples may be instructive.

“Impeachment is a very serious matter. If it happens it has to be a bipartisan initiative,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated in the spring of 2018. “Unless you have bipartisan consensus, impeachment is a divisive issue in the country.”

In an interview with The Washington Post in the early spring of 2019, Pelosi remarked, “I’m not for impeachment. Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.”

Then the turnaround occurred.

It was the fall of 2019. Without a single Republican vote, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted to approve an impeachment inquiry. Two hearings were then conducted, where partisan rules were imposed, restrictions were placed solely upon Republican committee members, witnesses that Republicans wished to call were denied, and evidence, fairness, and due process were ignored.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives brought the articles of impeachment up for a vote. Not a single solitary Republican voted in favor. In the most partisan way imaginable, the articles passed.

In another turnaround example, Democrats stoked the flames of fear and anxiety for months about the urgency that existed to remove the president from office. They even used the culturally familiar phrase “clear and present danger.”

Democrat committee chairs Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler had pushed through the proceedings without having waited for the judicial branch to decide on the legality of the president’s assertion of executive privilege.

After the articles passed the House, Pelosi suddenly put on the brakes. Shirking her constitutional duty, she held back the articles from the Senate for almost a month.

During the impeachment process, the Democrats went to great lengths to portray themselves as being “prayerful” and the process itself as being a “solemn” and “somber” one.

Then the impeachment signing ceremony happened.

Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues celebrated with abandon. Pens with Pelosi’s name stamped on them were actually handed out as souvenirs.

This caused a bit of short-lived cognitive dissonance on the part of otherwise Democrat-adoring personalities on cable news shows.

CNN’s Dana Bash commented, “We are used to seeing signing ceremonies handing out pens at moments of celebration, when a president is signing legislation.” She added, “It was unusual to see that kind of ceremony and handing out the pens and smiling for a picture in this kind of situation where the House speaker has bent over backward to say publicly and privately that this is somber, this is not a time for celebration.” And Bash’s colleague Nia-Malika Henderson called the odd festivities “a little jarring and certainly off message…”

Note of caution in the upcoming days: Expect to see more use of “The Big Reverse” in the Senate impeachment trial.

On the Brink of Peace

air-force-sun-research-770x434-5df2574cf10fd

Many of the previous foreign policy makers of our country have turned a blind-eye to the evil that has emanated from Iran over the years. A glance back helps to explain where we are now, how we got here, and what we need to do moving forward.

The year was 1979. Fifty-two of our people were being held hostage in a U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Our own would be forced to endure captivity for over a year.

The Iranian regime had claimed that Americans were being held by a group of “students.” This would be the first of many falsehoods to come. The truth was the real hostage takers were actually armed personnel who reported to dictator Ayatollah Khomeini.

Iran adopted a strategy of attacking the United States and her allies in an indirect manner, thereby making things appear to be something other than what they actually were. Plotting continued over the years via the application of a deceitful formula that used proxies, militias, terrorist organizations, and the like as covers behind which the country could slyly hide.

The scheme ultimately expanded into an enterprise of indirect warfare led by international war criminal and terrorist Qasem Soleimani. It would tragically remain in place. But thanks to action taken by President Donald Trump, which culminated in a precision drone strike, Soleimani’s sinister reign came to an end.

For those who dispassionately examine the facts, the take-down of Soleimani is good news, not only for the Middle East, but for the world. As the architect of the Iranian effort to exert influence outside of the country’s borders, under his diabolical direction roadside bombs were provided to Sunni terrorists, support was supplied and advice was given to the terrorist group Hezbollah, a civil war in Yemen was fomented, and Shiite militias were used to attack U.S. personnel and interests.

Soleimani planned and implemented almost all of the terrorist attacks of the Iranian regime and its proxy groups across the globe. The Shiite terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East were under his control. He and his proxy groups were behind the flow of IEDs to Iraq and Afghanistan, he used rooftop snipers in both Iran and Iraq to kill protesters who were demonstrating, and on and on it went.

Much as it did with ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in labeling him an “austere religious scholar,” The Washington Post called international terrorist Soleimani a “most revered military leader.” Rather than revered, the overwhelming majority of Iranians viewed him as a brutal participant of an oppressive regime.

Mere days before Soleimani was removed by the American military, he appeared to be trying to conjure up a sequel to the above referenced hostage crisis of 1979. But this time around, instead of “students” Soleimani used “protesters” to attack a U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

President Trump’s action in removing Soleimani stands in stark contrast to the feeble policies of past administrations toward Iran. This, in part, may explain why Democrat lawmakers and former Obama administration officials displayed such inexplicable and over-the-top public reactions to President Trump’s Iranian action.

Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi used language that implied a war crime had been committed. She additionally used a legislative session to pass an unconstitutional resolution to place restraints on presidential power.

Former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, who was instrumental in the promotion of the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, came forward to claim that President Trump’s action would lead to war. He wrote via his Twitter account that the drone strike on a terrorist leader “is a really frightening moment…”

Former Obama Defense Department official Kelly Magsamen tweeted that she was “honestly terrified” and sent up an additional prayer petition of “God help us.”

While at a recent campaign event for Democrat 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden, former Obama secretary of state John Kerry weighed in with his assessment of President Trump’s decision, characterizing it as a “tragedy” and stating the following: “If this develops into a tit for tat increased effort, it will become a war that is needless, it didn’t have to happen, and it will be a reckless war of choice by the president of the United States.”

Interestingly, in a recent appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Kerry was asked about his role in releasing billions of dollars to Iran while serving in the Obama administration. He responded to the question with a non-responsive reference to the president’s tweet on the subject.

He had admitted to CNBC back in 2016 that “some” of the money would end up in the hands of “entities, some of which are labeled terrorists.”

Fast forward to 2020. When asked in the above referenced CBS appearance why he believed the release of the money was a risk worth taking, Kerry failed to respond, choosing to attack the president instead. He never did explain why he authorized giving a lawless regime an extraordinary amount of money without knowing where the funds would end up.

President Trump has been remarkably consistent. He has shown a great deal of restraint in his use of limited targeted action, while still displaying strength and resolve. It is clear from Iran’s failed missile attack against U.S. forces in Iraq that the regime has a healthy fear of the Trump administration. And so it should.

In the aftermath of the Soleimani saga, a healthy fear is precisely what is needed to keep our country and the world solidly on the brink of peace.

Why CrowdStrike May Be the Real Reason for the Impeachment Charade

pelosi_impeachment_trump

A single telephone call kick-started the Democrat impeachment ruse.

The call involved a conversation between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. During the inter-continental back and forth, a lone reference to a company named CrowdStrike was made.

Few allies of the president have ventured to speak publicly about CrowdStrike. And in their endless indulgence in pretend journalism, the mainstream media have repeatedly tried to divert attention away from any type of substantive discussion regarding the company and the growing list of questions that seeks cover in darkness.

Media figures have used a tired gambit to diminish the importance of CrowdStrike, suggesting that any belief on the part of individuals and/or groups about the company’s possible ties to the Democratic Party or potential involvement with the losing party’s 2016 campaign gets such persons or groups labeled “conspiracy theorists.”

No theorizing is necessary to arrive at the conclusion that CrowdStrike is at the epicenter of the Russia-collusion narrative, which the Democrats and their media allies crammed down the public’s throat during the first two years of Trump’s presidency.

The story surrounding the company’s origin, connections, and purpose is incomplete to say the least. In early 2016, after the DNC server was reportedly hacked, Perkins Coie, a law firm with connections to the Democratic Party, brought in CrowdStrike to investigate the matter.

If the law firm’s name has a familiar ring, it is because the very same entity hired the infamous firm Fusion GPS on behalf of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign; this was done in order to obtain so-called opposition research prior to the 2016 election, in an apparent effort to establish a link between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In June of 2016, CrowdStrike made the determination that agents of Russia were the ones who had hacked the DNC’s computers, and a claim was made that Russia was the source of the e-mails that were subsequently published by WikiLeaks.

The widely circulated notion that Russia interfered with the U.S. election is based, in part, on the investigation into the DNC’s servers.

However, CrowdStrike employees, as opposed to U.S. law enforcement in the form of the FBI, were the only people to actually investigate the DNC e-mail servers, which purportedly contained evidence of Russian cyber intrusion.

CrowdStrike provided findings to the FBI but did not produce and hand over to the FBI the actual hardware, i.e., the servers themselves.

An adequate explanation has never been provided as to why the FBI was not given access to the servers, although reportedly there were multiple requests to do so.

The Obama intelligence community subsequently issued the frequently cited “intelligence assessment,” which concluded that Russian hackers had infiltrated the DNC servers, based on data provided by CrowdStrike.

Jeh Johnson, former Homeland Security secretary in the Obama administration, told the House Intelligence Committee that when his department offered to help the DNC with the investigation of server intrusion, he was told that the DNC “did not feel it needed DHS’ assistance at that time.”

CrowdStrike has a multiplicity of relationships with Democrats. The president of CrowdStrike Services is an individual named Shawn Henry, who headed up the FBI’s cybercrimes division during the Obama administration.

The company’s co-founder and CTO is Dmitri Alperovitch.

Alperovitch authored the report, which determined that hackers tied to Russia were responsible for the DNC server breach. A Russian-born immigrant who has since become a U.S. citizen, Alperovitch is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, an anti-Russian think tank, which is backed and financed by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk. Pinchuk is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation.

The Atlantic Council decided in 2013 to grant its Distinguished International Leadership Award to none other than Hillary Clinton. The Ukraine-Russian conflict has involved an extensive and intensive cyberwar, with each side attempting to hack the networks and infrastructure of the other. Major cybersecurity firms are involved with the government of Ukraine, including CrowdStrike.

When President Trump mentioned CrowdStrike during his phone call with the Ukrainian leader, he invoked the questionable nature of the firm’s role in the failed Russia-collusion narrative. This likely prompted some of those who were listening to create what we now see creepily unfolding before our very eyes.

What we have here is an impeachment defense.

Like in the movie “A Few Good Men,” the question is whether or not in the end the Democrats and their media allies will be able to handle the truth.

California’s Electric Power Grab?

US-CALIFORNIA-FIRE

California currently lays claim to a record number of homeless people that are living in urban squalor, a string of diseases from the Dark Ages that have made a 21st century return, and a series of wildfires that are ravaging forests, businesses, and homes alike.

Now comes the news that millions of people are having to live off the grid, after having been involuntarily unplugged, courtesy of the utility company.

Gavin Newsom is the current Democratic governor of the state. He continues to advocate the same kinds of policies that placed California in the disastrous predicament in which it finds itself on so many fronts.

In struggling to address the problematic multi-layered situation, Newsom recently made the decision to appoint an individual to look into the idea of the state actually taking over California’s major energy company, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).

One of Newsom’s cabinet secretaries was recently given the title of “energy czar,” ostensibly to try and deal with, as well as find solutions to, the massive utility problems that the state faces.

PG&E is California’s largest privately owned utility. The beleaguered company has had to seek bankruptcy protection, due to the billions of dollars in claims that have been heaped upon it for damages related to wildfires that occurred in two previous fire seasons, which were allegedly sparked by company-owned equipment.

At a recent press conference, Newsom gave a not-so-veiled warning that involved a government takeover of the utility company.

“PG&E may or may not be able to figure this one out,” Newsom said. “If they cannot, we are not going to sit around and be passive. We are gaming out a backup plan. If PG&E is unable to secure its own future… then the state will prepare itself as backup for a scenario where we do that job for them.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.), in an appearance on CNBC, provided an even more explicit statement, saying, “It’s time for the state to take ownership of PG&E…”

As the devastating fires rage on and electrical power for the people gets turned off, many of the politicians appear to be practicing the art of distraction, with focus being redirected toward the power company.

PG&E has not helped with its standing in the public eye, though. The company has been trying to sell the idea that, as a supposed safeguard, it has been preempting wildfires and preventing potential tragedies from occurring by cutting electrical power to customers before any flames actually materialize.

The problem is that folks are finding it extremely difficult to endure the power outages because, as everyone knows, our day-to-day survival in the modern world is highly dependent on a consistent flow of electricity to light our homes, run our appliances, charge our phones, digital devices, and electric vehicles, power our home medical equipment, and myriad other essential requirements.

What the mainstream media will not cover is the other side of the utility story; that being, environmentalist groups have caused the heretofore routine maintenance of forests and fire-prone shrubbery to come to a halt.

A portion of the regulatory framework has been compiled by environmental activists and left-leaning politicians, who have implemented policies that prohibit safety buffers around electric power facilities. This has resulted in a significantly heightened fire risk across the state.

The lack of proper forest maintenance has allowed for an overgrowth that literally becomes fuel for wildfires during the recurring dry hot period, which descends upon California each year between the autumn and winter seasons.

PG&E is a utility run, in great part, by the state. It is under the watchful eye of a stringent regulatory agency called the California Public Utilities Commission, a government bureaucracy with a whole lot of power and very few checks and balances.

Because PG&E is a regulated monopoly, the state has significant influence on how the company is managed. As politicians are prone to do, the political leaders in this deepest of blue states appear to have turned a blind eye to the deferred maintenance that the power company has piled up.

PG&E has been further boxed in by a legal edict that exists in only one other state, Montana. The premise is that of inverse condemnation for utility companies. Under the law, liabilities are imposed on utilities whenever their equipment is involved.

And so it is that PG&E is now going into a fire season with tens of billions of dollars in potential liability hanging over its head.

Meanwhile it looks as though California’s political leaders see yet another plum for the picking. Dangling before them is one of modern life’s most basic necessities, electricity. If they seize it, they will have gotten control over people’s lives like never before seen in this nation.

As goes California, so goes the rest of the country?

It’s long past time for folks in my state to wake up; that is, of course, if they still own a battery powered alarm clock.

The Agenda behind the ‘Climate Strikes’

eight_col_climate

Climate strikes were recently staged around the globe in an effort to bring attention to the supposed emergency state of what was once called “weather.”

Leftists are expert at manufacturing scary crises. To this end, they have managed to re-frame “weather” by giving it a number of anxiety-inducing names over the past few decades. Prior to settling on their latest iteration, they bandied about frightening sounding phrases such as “global cooling” and “global warming,” among others.

Similar to the unsavory designs that came before it, the latest weather-related scheme is as flimsy as a plastic straw.

In a quest to amass power, insure compliance, manipulate minds, and fuel negative emotions, liberals have landed on a single moniker that is broad enough to stick to whatever weather circumstances may arise. Full and complete control over the lives of target subjects is the end goal.

Unfortunately, many of our young people have fully embraced the climate change propaganda, as have the expected tried-and-true liberals.

Much like the “March for Our Lives,” a youth-led event that took place prior to the 2018 elections and focused on firearms, the whole notion of a climate strike looks more and more like a subtle means of ginning up enthusiasm and participation for the upcoming 2020 elections, all to the benefit of the left.

The recent climate protest, which involved millions of students skipping school and taking to the streets, was said to be inspired by 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg.

Thunberg was reportedly so stirred by the teen activists at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, who had organized the aforementioned March for Our Lives, she decided to boycott school until the 2018 Swedish election.

The year in which Democrats launched what they referred to as the “blue wave” was the same year that the left utilized the anti-gun movement to mobilize younger voters. That was the year 2018.

It was also the same year that climate justice group Zero Hour initiated a climate protest march globally for young people. Additionally, a political action organization, Sunrise Movement, began demanding that mid-term candidates take a “No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge.”

The Sunrise Movement is part of the reason why the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates are spouting such extreme positions. The group was influential in getting squad members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota elected.

In an article titled “Too Young to Vote? Get Your Parents to Vote for You,” the Sierra Club website pushes the idea of young people cajoling away the vote of their parents and grandparents by using apocalyptic fear as a motivator. The subtitle of the Sierra Club piece is “Young climate activists in Europe and the U.S. work to sway elections.”

Similar to Thunberg, 10-year-old Lilly Platt prompted a school climate change strike in the Netherlands, during the lead up to the 2019 European Parliament elections.

Platt, along with other activists, came up with the idea of having young people request that adult relatives and acquaintances “gift” them their votes. Platt’s grandfather Jim allowed Lilly to “have” his vote, and the two recorded what became a viral video, which urged others to emulate the action of the grandfather and granddaughter. After Lilly “voted” via her grandfather, she posted on her Twitter account the suggestion that young activist colleagues in the U.S. should generate a “climate coup” during the 2020 presidential election.

Hollywood and the media have been pushing ideological views and doomsday scenarios on our children for decades. Young people have been programmed to accept the notion that in order to save the planet, industrialized nations must transfer wealth to developing nations and forego the Western standard of living.

The current mass protests appear to be timed to activate a portion of the voting base with which the left has struggled for years, the youth vote. Despite the use of Hollywood celebrity encouragement and extensive targeted advertising, the voting turnout of young people has historically come in at disappointing levels.

In an effort to increase their numbers, liberal politicians and media figures have advocated giving children under the age of 18 the ability to vote. Andrew Yang, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, has backed a voting age of 16, and a majority of Democratic representatives have supported a bill in the House that proposes a voting age of sixteen.

For radical weather activists, the enlisting of fear as a means of influencing the public is nothing new. They have specialized in dire predictions for decades, including the following:

As catalogued by the Competitive Enterprise Institute during the 1960s, famine and a new Ice Age were imminent.

In the 1970s, water and food rationing and the potential end of all life loomed on the horizon as a result of Ozone depletion.

The 1980s delivered acid rain threats and rising sea levels that were certain to destroy nations by the year 2000.

As the 21st century began, the public was told that there would famine by the year 2012 and that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2018.

Of course, not a single apocalyptic prediction has materialized. Still, the same media that are ready and willing to report every gloomy detail regarding future doom utterly fail to follow up on the accuracy of earlier faulty dire predictions.

New APA Guidelines Incorporate Leftist Notion of ‘Toxic Masculinity’

Father and Son

For the first time in its history, the American Psychological Association (APA) has released guidelines for mental health professionals responsible for “psychological practice with boys and men,” stipulating that “traditional masculinity – marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression – is, on the whole, harmful.”

Although the report was released by the APA back in August 2018, the organization just recently used its Twitter account to convey that the essential takeaway from the new guidelines is that men displaying conventionally held masculine characteristics are harming themselves and others via their so-called toxic masculinity.

“Masculinity ideology” is defined by the APA as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.”

Some of the characteristics embodied in what the APA terms as “masculinity ideology” are traits that have traditionally held societal family units together, including courage, loyalty, self-reliance, competitiveness, and ambition. These traits have now been classified by the organization as “psychologically harmful.”

The application of scientific principles within the construction of the guidelines appears, for the most part, to be absent. This is particularly manifest in the APA’s adoption and inclusion of the identity politics language of the radical left.

Additionally, rather than using the biological indicator of the human Y chromosome as the basis for male gender designation, the perspective taken by the APA is that gender is instead “socially constructed.” The viewpoint also takes the position that gender is “non-binary” and that maleness itself causes a host of negative effects.

The narrative within the APA guidelines blames masculinity for the societal ills of, among other things, racism, homophobia, and misogyny. Masculinity is blamed as well for the disruptive behaviors of bullying and sexual harassment.

According to the APA’s release, mental health professionals, policy makers, and private citizens must eradicate existing masculine tendencies and work to create a new form of maleness. The studies that are incorporated in the guidelines presuppose that masculine characteristics originate via social construct.

However, the scientific evidence and society’s basic understanding are largely contrary to this premise, indicating instead that the qualities of manhood are an integral component of human biology and are innate as opposed to cultivated.

This conventional premise, i.e., that masculine traits are inherent in males, is referred to by evolutionary psychologists as the “male warrior hypothesis.” The hypothesis posits that the behavior of human males stems from the biological necessity for them to attract females for reproductive purposes. Males outwardly project signs of these attributes, which include physical strength, social alliances, the ability to aggregate resources such as food, territory, power, stature, etc., in order to heighten their appeal to females.

Up until fairly recently, gender was a relatively clear and simple concept. Moreover, the modern day leftist notion that male characteristics are somehow a construction of a patriarchy is foreign to a majority of those in our society as well as to people and cultures around the globe.

Despite the left’s entreaties to the contrary, the simple facts are that human babies are born with particular genitalia and a specific genetic code. Exceptions do exist, but they are extremely rare.

Male characteristics of masculinity typically manifest themselves very early in child development. The findings of one meta-analysis, with which many parents and grandparents can relate, appeared in “Infant and Child Development” in November 2017.

Researchers examined 1,788 papers and 16 studies, which involved the free selection of toys by boys and girls, 1 to 8 years of age, and found that “boys played with male‐typed toys more than girls did.” They additionally found that “girls played with female‐typed toys more than boys did.”

The abstract of the meta-analysis reads as follows: “Despite methodological variation in the choice and number of toys offered, context of testing, and age of child, the consistency in finding sex differences in children’s preferences for toys typed to their own gender indicates the strength of this phenomenon and the likelihood that has a biological origin.”

Interestingly, other primates also appear to reflect similar infant gender differences when it comes to toy preference.

A study conducted in 2008 by psychologists at Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia examined 11 male and 23 female rhesus monkeys. Most of the study animals were juveniles, 1 to 4 years of age. When the young animals were exposed to trucks and dolls, the males preferred to play with trucks while the females showed a preference for playing with both kinds of toys.

Having studied and written about the mindset of the left over the course of many years, I have found that there is an authoritarian tendency that frequently arises in those who subscribe to the worldview of the radical left, and now some of the hallmark institutions of our society.

Many on the left may have feelings of resentment toward males who possess the aforementioned masculine traits, possibly due to past experiences in which they may have suffered negative ramifications to physical, psychological, or social well-being.

There is another explanation, though, that is not in any way new to history. There is a type of quest in individuals and groups within any society to aggregate and retain power. This quest oftentimes incentivizes certain people or groups to try and coerce others into abandoning their knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes in favor of, in this instance, the prescribed ideology of the radical left.

For society’s enlightened, the notion that all are created equal is written upon individuals’ hearts, and respect for all people is fully embraced. Within this realm, virtue claims no gender exclusivity, nor does self-sacrifice, or any other positive characteristic that the left has deemed to be toxic on the part of males.

In a strike at the self-esteem of those who happen to be males, instead of validating the essence of half the population, who not so incidentally are our sons, husbands, fathers, grandfathers, friends, and loved ones, our society is being led by so-called experts into the arena of hating the boys and men that we love, accusing them of vile thoughts and deeds, and stigmatizing them until they capitulate to the left’s “scientifically derived” diagnosis and treatment.

The APA wields the power to influence a host of important societal institutions. School administrators, colleges, universities, corporations, courts, etc., will undoubtedly be making reference to the new guidelines, and this in turn will deeply affect the lives of boys to men.

Essentially, males of all ages will be required to deny who they are and become what the leftist social engineers have designed for them. This is an untenable scenario for anyone who understands how the autonomy of the individual is necessary for a society to remain healthy.