Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To put it mildly, this past week has been what the military would call a “target-rich environment” for somewhat humorous weirdos like me. On the Left, there has been a move to create four more Supreme Court seats and do away with the Electoral College. On the right, Project Veritas exposed CNN, which promptly got James O’Keefe kicked off Twitter.

Now, which would be more entertaining, a dry discussion about the Supreme Court or the Electoral College, or poking fun at a cable news network whose fortunes are as bright as a Socialist Socialite policy position?

Let’s just say I’m siding with schadenfreude.

CNN

What the Left thinks it means – a reputable news organization that occasionally ventures into “Fox News Lite” territory

What it really means – a news network who keeps finding a way to tarnish its reputation

Back in the day, CNN was the only name in cable news because, well, there weren’t any other real cable news networks out there. And it was unique in that it showed a global perspective on news, which was a big risk because of the way American media are set up to cover international events. Think coups and earthquakes, kids.

Where CNN really came into its own was during the first Gulf War. With reporters live on the scene giving regular updates and being one of the few (if not the only) television news crews there, CNN became a household name around the world. Once the Gulf War ended, CNN could have either rested on its laurels and coasted or continued to cover stories as balanced and as in-depth as possible.

Given the fact we’re in the process of mocking it, I’m guessing you can figure out what path CNN took.

What happened that caused CNN’s fall from grace (no relation to Nancy)? That’s hard to say because there have been a number of incidents in the 30 years since the first Gulf War that could have been the catalyst, but for me, it was the campaign and subsequent election of Bill Clinton. For better or most definitely worse, Clinton was our first “rock star” President, and CNN acted like a pack of teenage groupies hoping to catch his attention.

To me, the minute any news outlet picks a side in an ideological battle, it ceases to be an example of good journalism and becomes an example of good propaganda poorly masquerading as journalism. As other news networks popped up or became more prominent as they carried water for the Commander in Briefs, talent had viable options to exercise, and some of them did. As that happened, CNN picked up other talent, but the replacements didn’t fill the talent void. And in the case of Brian Stetler, became a talent void in and of himself. Pro Tip: if you have someone with as inconsistent a track record as Stelter, don’t let him host a show called “Reliable Sources.”

Aside from Stetler, CNN doesn’t have as much star power as it once did, and even less actual journalism is being done. Maybe it’s me, but when you call yourself a news network, it kinda implies you know what news is. Judging from the Project Veritas video, though, even the staff wouldn’t recognize news from a hole in the ground. And don’t get me started on whether they know their asses from the aforementioned hole.

Although the video didn’t expose anything new (assuming CNN swung Left was so obvious Stevie Wonder could see it), it does damage their brand at a time when they need to regain some of their viewership. Although the landscape is looking like the Hatfields and McCoys, but more cordial, there is room for a straight news organization that gives different perspectives.

Which the Left hates.

The Left relies on being able to control the narrative, so any time one of their usual outlets decides to…horror of horrors…show more than the Left’s version of events, the Left accuses that outlet of betraying them. Just look at how they go after Jake Tapper when he tries to reason with the Left. Granted, it’s getting more rare than how Dracula likes his hamburgers, but it happens.

Right now, CNN is finding itself the odd network out. On the right, there is Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN, and on the left, there is…pretty much everybody else. No matter how Left CNN leans, it will be outdone by someone else. To put it another way, CNN is now the New Coke of cable news: some love it, but most prefer the Coke that actually tastes like Coke. MSNBC will do what CNN does or used to do with a greater Leftist slant, so CNN becomes an afterthought. Personally, if it weren’t for the Left’s hatred of Project Veritas, I’m not sure Leftists would care how bad CNN looks right now.

Yet, I’m reminded of a saying: “Where there is chaos, there is opportunity.” If CNN wants to be relevant again, they need to resist the urge to become MSNBC without Rachel Maddow. They also need to resist the urge to swing to the right, especially considering the Right doesn’t trust CNN as far as Pee Wee Herman could throw Mount Everest. So, I see the best way to stand out and move forward is to look towards the past. Wipe the slate clean and go back to straight news, complete with an announcement of the change so people know what’s going on. Sure, it will piss off the Left, but the way I look at it, you’ll get more viewers than if you continue on your current path.

Of course, that will go over with Jeff Zucker like David Duke at a BLM rally, so it probably won’t be done anytime soon. Even so, what do you have to lose, Jeff? A bunch of whiny crybabies who think they respect science while simultaneously believing there are more than two genders? At some point, you have to cut your losses, buddy.

And when it comes to Leftists, you’re dealing with a lot of losers!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Every so often, a phrase comes along that encompasses a political issue while simultaneously meaning little or nothing at all. This week, the phrase is “peaceful transfer of power.” It seems the Left has been floating an idea that if President Donald Trump doesn’t win the Presidential election this year he won’t leave office like he’s supposed to. Where they got that idea, I don’t know, but the President didn’t do himself any favors by giving a non-committal answer to the question when it was presented to him by a hack…I mean Playboy‘s correspondent in the White House Press Corps.

On second thought, I’m going to stick with hack.

The concept of a peaceful transfer of power isn’t a new one, but since it’s 2020, it might as well be the latest source of outrage within the Left. And a Leftist Lexicon entry to boot!

peaceful transfer of power

What the Left thinks it means – a President leaving the White House with dignity and respect for the outcome of an election

What it really means – the outgoing President acting like an adult instead of a whiny bitch

The concept of a peaceful transition of power has been tradition from George Washington on up to modern times. Then, Leftists had to go and upturn the Presidential apple cart in 2000 after George W. Bush beat Al Gore by actually winning the Electoral College vote. Instead of going the route of a graceful loser, they decided it would be a good idea to wreck a few things in the White House before W had a chance to fill out a change of address card. Granted, it was only $15,000 of damage, but it’s not the only thing that was damaged.

After George W. Bush left office, there were no allegations of damage to the White House or sabotage or even a cross word between the outgoing and incoming Administration. And this after W was accused of being Hitler. Hmmm…maybe it’s not just trash the Left believes in recycling. Nah, it’s still trash.

Before Barack Obama left office, members of the FBI (which falls under the Executive Branch in the hierarchy) started to take action against then-candidate Trump in an attempt to undercut his campaign. One debunked dossier, a few million taxpayer dollars spent on a Special Prosecutor, a farce of an impeachment trial, and a billion talking points later, the Left still hasn’t accepted the results of the 2016 election and are hell-bent on making it impossible for there to be a peaceful transfer of power.

Now, some Leftists are going to imply since there was no violence, there was a peaceful transfer of power. Coming from the side that says both silence and a lack of using the correct pronouns is violence, they should take a few seats. Like, say, all of them at Soldier Field. The point is there wasn’t a peaceful transfer of power because there was and still is active resistance to the transfer. From Lisa Page and Peter Strzok playing hide the salami while looking for an “insurance policy” that you can’t get from an agent to James Comey having a weird sense that destroying evidence necessary in an FBI investigation wasn’t that big of a deal to Sally Yates actively defying an Executive Order because she didn’t agree with it, there is no doubt in my mind the transferal of power from Obama to Trump was as peaceful as ANTIFA, and twice as mature.

Right now, there are threats of riots and violence if Trump wins. Somehow, I get the feeling there will be riots and violence even if he doesn’t win. Call it a hunch based on what ANTIFA/BLM/white Leftists LARPing as revolutionaries have said, but it’s clear there isn’t going to be peace in the midst of a transfer of power should Joe Biden stays awake enough to win the November election. This begs the question of whether the Left actually wants a peaceful transfer of power or if it’s just a convenient partisan excuse to create a self-fulfilling prophecy they have been in control of since 2016.

Guess which one I’m going with.

And, for once, with good reason. The Left believes the ends justify the means and they have a number of people at their disposal to get their hands dirty with the means so the leadership can keep theirs clean. That’s why the Left has been floating the idea of escalating violence leading up to Election Day; to drive up fear of voting for President Trump, which turns into support for Joe Biden or at least a suppression of the vote for Trump. (See, when the Left does it, voter suppression is okay.) Now, consider the Left’s tendency to expect the opposition knuckle-under their demands, even when the Left’s demands are as nonsensical as a spy thriller written by your average TikTok user. They don’t want their ideological enemies to agree to their terms. They want to rub the opposition’s noses in it. (See President Obama’s “I won” comment to Congressional Republicans for evidence.)

Good thing nothing bad ever happens when one side seeks to utterly embarrass the other side after a victory. Nothing like a world war or anything…

The Left clearly doesn’t want there to be a peaceful transfer of power because it plays into the seeds they’ve been sowing since 2016. But they will demand the Trump Administration play by the rules the Left has been pissing on for 20 years when they lose the Presidency. Just like when they oppose seating a Supreme Court Justice now after expecting it in 2016, it’s all about the end result.

Which is why we should take their outrage over President Trump not committing to a peaceful transfer of power with a Great Salt Lake. But it’s also important not to give the Left any ammunition (figuratively, not literally) by reacting to their violence, vitriol, and general jackassery. Consider the notion the Left needs people like us to look, sound, or be violent to “prove” them right about us, and unfortunately there are more than enough people out there who are more than happy to oblige.

However, that doesn’t mean we should be silent when we see the Left saying one thing and doing another. Call them out when you can and if you feel safe doing so, but don’t let the threat of what may come affect your judgment. The Left will not accept a peaceful transfer of power because it’s no longer in their nature. If they win, they will be sore winners, and if they lose, they will be violent losers. Vote for who you want and be mature about it, and the Left will have no hold over you.