It Says in the Paper: July 3rd & July 6-7, 2019

Rev. Steve Schlissel - July 6, 2019

by Irving Tremellius

The Wall Street Journal is not a conservative voice. Nor is it an “objective voice of reason.” Sure, compared to the New York Times, Pravda could be considered more restrained. But if you are looking for sane presuppositions, moral integrity, fidelity to American Christian traditions and positions, look elsewhere. Not that you’ll find these anywhere in a paper of quality, but…

So, two examples from July editions of the WSJ. On July 3rd, right column, above fold, feature story headline, reporting on the administration’s change of plans following the latest 5-4 Supreme Court intrusion on the Constitution, the betrayal of that document’s mandated separation of powers, and another long step away from consistency: “Citizen Question Dropped From Census.” Subhead: “Move marks a reversal for the administration and is a victory for civil-rights advocates.”

This is the kind of barf journalism encountered daily from this would-be paper of record. But how much reflection is required to see through the alleged reporting and sense instead the smirks on their faces, their protruding fangs, the glee in their tone as they do another frontpage dance celebrating one more “defeat” for our president—and sanity.

Yet, apart from (almost) all the above, dwell instead on the way the featured opponents are set up. The changed plan is interpreted by the Journal as a victory for civil-rights advocates. Well, if it’s a defeat for the administration, what does that make them? Opponents of civil-rights. Inescapable. They didn’t need to say it; its implication is unavoidable, yet they are able to plead, “We never said that.” Sure you did, Slewfoot.

But where is justification found for the calling of this reversal a “victory for civil rights”? Hello? Nowhere. The matter at hand was re-introducing a question on the every-ten-year, constitutionally-required census. If the Constitution is the rule-book (barely) kept in place to guard the civil rights of the citizens of the United States of America, how is it a threat to the civil rights of those citizens to ask if they are citizens?? In fact, this could only be regarded as a challenge to civil rights if the author of the statement first presupposed that a) the census conducted by the USA is supposed to be a counting of everyone, regardless of their citizenship, in which case, b), from whence cometh the civil rights these “advocates” are advocating for? Seriously. Does not consciousness require that this question be addressed in an article with that subheading. The Journal said it was a loss for Trump and a victory for civil rights advocates. What particular RIGHTS were they advocating for? If you cannot name one, you lied ion your subhead. If you can name one, was it a right specified as belonging to citizens of the USA? If not a right enjoyed in virtue of USA citizenship, then what right is being advocated? I trust you see this. The subtext here is “open-boarders” incoherence. For these clowns, there is no such thing as a country called the United States of America. That’s right. Seriously. Follow the logic of their rhetoric. The rights they imagine are being contended are not rights of citizenship. Else, what possible objection do you have to the citizenship question being included? But honesty and plain speech would show them to be the fool, so they lie and paper over truth. They are detestable. For them, the USA is a punching bag, to be used and abused, but never to be honored, never to be accorded the respect which is utterly fundamental—obeying the laws of the land. For them, law itself is a joke, a device, a trick. They are despicable, these writers and editors.
Moving right along, it also says in the paper, this time in the July 6-7, 2019 edition, that there were “Founders Who Opposed the Constitution” (page A11). The headline is, in fact, false as far as it goes, but I’m not going to quibble about that.

What I mean is, the piece is concerned with familiarizing readers with the Anti-Federalists, leaders during our founding period who were highly suspicious and critical of a federative government which they feared would inevitably grow in power until it became tyrannical. So it was not opposition to the constitution, per se, that best describes Anti-Federalists. In fact, the Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, testifies to the involvement of the Anti-Federalists in its formulations.

But as I said, all that is beside my point. What I’d like you to know is, at the end of five full ¾ page columns speaking about Federalists and Anti-Federalists and their respective concerns, suddenly, out of the blue, without warning, and for no discernible reason, that is, related to anything that had been said in the long article, the writer leaves us with a last shocking sentence. “The election of Donald Trump ought to bring home the risk that the devil may one day turn round on them.”

That is a deeply offensive sentiment, the making of which, according to the writer and his editor, necessitated not a shred of evidence nor even a predicate of having discussed anything about Mr. Trump anywhere in the piece. These bozos are so convinced by their own conceit, by the power of their own endlessly recycled lies (lies about Trump of quality roughly equal to what I’m citing here), they presume no warrant needs to be produced, no evidence appealed to, for them to suddenly blare out, baldly and without provocation or allusion, and completely out of context, that the President of the United States is the devil we’ve so often been warned against. Where they got their notion, I don’t know. I can only say, the more they blather like they do, the firmer is my support for this great president, the more respect is due him, if only for putting up with ignorant hick idiots like these writers and editors at the Wall Street Journal. “Fake news” is a brand they fully earn daily.

Questions or comments?
Send them to