Day before Memorial Day, NY Times runs editorial "Why does the U.S. military Celebrate White Supremacy?"

Memorial Day is supposed to commemorate members of the U.S. armed forces who have died or been gravely wounded in combat.  So naturally, on the Sunday before Memorial Day the anti-American communists at the NY Times ran an editorial with the following headline:

Why Does the U.S. Military Celebrate White Supremacy?

Sub-head: "It is time to rename bases for American heroes — not racist traitors."

Excuse me?  As a former member of our armed forces I NEVER saw the military "celebrating white supremacy" at all.  What, I wondered, could the Times possibly be referring to?

The clue that this is pure anti-military propaganda--anti-American, on the day before Memorial Day--is in the very first sentence of the editorial:

The white supremacist who murdered nine black churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., five years ago dispensed with the fiction that the Confederate battle flag was an innocuous symbol of “Southern pride.”

The Times claims a psychotic killer represents "Southern pride," eh?  In that case why wouldn't you be equally justified in claiming that every black who killed whites represented "Black pride"?  Like 29-year-old black man Sheldon Francis, who fatally shot a white couple (ages 86 and 85) as they visited their son's grave just two weeks ago?  Yeah, the Times was all over that as representing "black pride," right?  Made no national headlines at all, cuz...reasons.

But don't bother mentioning any of this to the editors of the Times, cuz they're on a roll.  They've got racial hate to fan.  Causing division helps their politics, sells papers and...wins elections for Dems.  Win-win, citizen.

But surely you'd think that the thousands of stories about the South Carolina nutter five years ago were enough to make the point...right??  What does this have to do with Memorial Day?  Oh yeah--the Times brings up this story again, five years later, to inflame readers.  They make it the very first sentence of a story claiming the U.S. military "celebrates white supremacy" because the killer was in the military, right?

Of course he wasn't.  He was a deranged 21-year-old who'd never served.  Which ties in perfectly with the Times' screaming headline that our military "celebrates white supremacy," right?

It takes the Times six paragraphs of loaded imagery before they get to an actual point:  that ten military bases in the south are named for Confederate generals.

Wait...what?

I'm a student of military history, but I didn't know who most of the names were.  And I guarantee that not a single recruit knows them either.  But fortunately the anti-military, virtue-signalling editors of the Times are eager to remedy this lack of knowledge.  In other words, no one knew, but the Times will remind us--inciting racial animosity where it wouldn't otherwise have been present.

But finally, after 4,000 words of anti-military propaganda, the Times finally admits the truth.  They buried it in the next-to-last paragraph of their ghastly piece:

Fifteen years later, a young African-American Army officer named Colin Powell marveled at the contrast between the fairness and opportunity he experienced at Fort Benning, Ga., and the racist treatment he suffered at off-base restaurants that refused to serve him. In his memoir Mr. Powell describes the racially integrated bases of the segregated 1960s-era South as “healthy cells in an otherwise sick body.”

That totally negates the inflammatory headline.  Which is why the editors of the Times buried it in the next-to-last 'graf of their race-baiting article.  Which they deliberate published the day before Memorial Day.

Hate those rat-bastards with a passion.

So why do you think the Times would run this editorial--let alone on the Sunday before Memorial Day?   Here's my guess:  This is "prepping the battlespace" for a bill that will cost Trump millions of votes in November.  The communists at the Times got together with Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff and Nadler to devise a bill ordering the military to re-name all ten bases, by election day.

My guess is that it's already been drafted--and will pass the House by a huge majority.

Republicans have a paper-thin majority in the senate, so the Dems only need to get two or three GOP senators to vote for the measure.  Thanks to the Times, that should be easy.

At that point the measure goes to the president--and you can see the cunning of the Dems:  If Trump signs it, the Media crows that he's betrayed his raaaaacist base voters, just as they crowed about Trump promising that "Mexico will pay for the Wall."  If he vetoes, there are probably enough votes to override, which is a huge hit to a president's popularity.  But even if no override, a veto would push a million independent and black votes back to the Democrats--likely resulting in Biden becoming president, with Dem majorities in both chambers of congress.

It's a cunning strategy.  Win-win for the Dems...and the Times.