For Memorial Day, the New York Times launches a sleazy attack on the military

Today is Memorial Day, the day on which we honor the men and women who have given their lives for our country for 245 years. Alternatively, if you're the New York Times' editorial board, this is the day on which you call the American military a white supremacist institution.  It's a mean and silly piece.

The attack is also grotesquely ironic.  The editors have lost track of the fact that their Democrat cheerleading ties them to a party and ideology that have been responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, and racial obsessions since the 1820s.

The latest Times excrescence is entitled "Why Does the U.S. Military Celebrate White Supremacy? It is time to rename bases for American heroes — not racist traitors."  The accompanying illustration is a fusion of a bullet and a Klansman's hood:

This is no mere opinion piece.  Instead, it is a formal statement from the 15-member editorial board (only two of whom are black).  None of the editors served in the military.  All 15 have worked solely in the media, which a few temporary slides into academia.  These are leftist bubble people.

The article begins describing how Dylann Roof's 2015 murder spree in Charleston led to a mostly successful war on the Confederate flag, including in the Marine Corps and at the National Cathedral.  While there's no doubt that some white supremacists still wave that flag, the Times ignores what informed people (such as the teacher Stephen Fry interviews) already know: for most modern Southerners, the Confederate flag has nothing to do with race.

Having bested a flag, the Times identifies its next target: the American military, which it contends is a white supremacist institution because ten installations are named after people whom no one living today remembers:

This same toxic legacy clings to the 10 United States military installations across the South that were named for Confederate Army officers during the first half of the 20th century. Apologists often describe the names as a necessary gesture of reconciliation in the wake of the Civil War. In truth, the namings reflect a federal embrace of white supremacy that found its most poisonous expression in military installations where black servicemen were deliberately placed under the command of white Southerners — who were said to better "understand" Negroes — and confined to substandard housing, segregated transportation systems and even "colored only" seating in movie houses.

To justify the board's spurious attack, the editors spend paragraphs reciting the arcane and forgotten sins of Civil War generals, along with reminders about the American military's long abandoned racism.  It is, as I said, a mean and silly piece.  (My friend Wolf Howling does an excellent job defending the military against the Times' libelous attack.)  What makes the article noteworthy, rather than just being another nasty attack on the U.S. military from a hard left institution, is the lack of self-awareness.

The Confederacy is long gone, as is Jim Crow, which ended in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.  There is, however, one institution in America that is directly connected to slavery, to the Confederacy, and to Jim Crow.  That institution is the Democrat Party.

The Confederacy and the Democrat party were indistinguishable.  When Stephen Douglas ran against Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the Democrat Party platform explicitly stated that a territory should qualify for admission into the United States "whether its Constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery."  Democrats also adamantly supported the federal Fugitive Slave Law, which required free states to return escaped slaves to their owners:

Resolved, That the enactments of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

The Republican Party, which nominated Abraham Lincoln, was formed specifically to counter the Democrat Party's commitment to slavery.  Lincoln's Democrat opponent in 1860, Stephen A. Douglas, owned a Mississippi plantation (in his wife's name), never condemned slavery's immorality, and held to a states' rights view of slavery that would have allowed it to continue in the South and move into new American territories.

After the Civil War, the South remained single-mindedly Democrat until the old guard of segregationists finally died out.  This was the same old guard, by the way, that Joe Biden, the de facto Democrat Party candidate, cuddled up to during his first decade in the Senate.

Indeed, the Times glosses over lots of its party's racist history.  For example, as part of slamming the military, the editors praise Truman (a Democrat) for integrating the military.  They forget, however, to castigate Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat whose name is all over Washington, D.C.) for segregating the entire federal workforce.

The Times slanders the military, the most integrated institution in America, by resurrecting people whom everyone has forgotten and about whom no one in the military complains.  Meanwhile, the Times' chosen party is the living embodiment of race-obsessed politics.  The Democrat Party ought to have been outlawed in 1865, just as the Nazi Party was outlawed in 1945.

Today is Memorial Day, the day on which we honor the men and women who have given their lives for our country for 245 years. Alternatively, if you're the New York Times' editorial board, this is the day on which you call the American military a white supremacist institution.  It's a mean and silly piece.

The attack is also grotesquely ironic.  The editors have lost track of the fact that their Democrat cheerleading ties them to a party and ideology that have been responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, and racial obsessions since the 1820s.

The latest Times excrescence is entitled "Why Does the U.S. Military Celebrate White Supremacy? It is time to rename bases for American heroes — not racist traitors."  The accompanying illustration is a fusion of a bullet and a Klansman's hood:

This is no mere opinion piece.  Instead, it is a formal statement from the 15-member editorial board (only two of whom are black).  None of the editors served in the military.  All 15 have worked solely in the media, which a few temporary slides into academia.  These are leftist bubble people.

The article begins describing how Dylann Roof's 2015 murder spree in Charleston led to a mostly successful war on the Confederate flag, including in the Marine Corps and at the National Cathedral.  While there's no doubt that some white supremacists still wave that flag, the Times ignores what informed people (such as the teacher Stephen Fry interviews) already know: for most modern Southerners, the Confederate flag has nothing to do with race.

Having bested a flag, the Times identifies its next target: the American military, which it contends is a white supremacist institution because ten installations are named after people whom no one living today remembers:

This same toxic legacy clings to the 10 United States military installations across the South that were named for Confederate Army officers during the first half of the 20th century. Apologists often describe the names as a necessary gesture of reconciliation in the wake of the Civil War. In truth, the namings reflect a federal embrace of white supremacy that found its most poisonous expression in military installations where black servicemen were deliberately placed under the command of white Southerners — who were said to better "understand" Negroes — and confined to substandard housing, segregated transportation systems and even "colored only" seating in movie houses.

To justify the board's spurious attack, the editors spend paragraphs reciting the arcane and forgotten sins of Civil War generals, along with reminders about the American military's long abandoned racism.  It is, as I said, a mean and silly piece.  (My friend Wolf Howling does an excellent job defending the military against the Times' libelous attack.)  What makes the article noteworthy, rather than just being another nasty attack on the U.S. military from a hard left institution, is the lack of self-awareness.

The Confederacy is long gone, as is Jim Crow, which ended in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.  There is, however, one institution in America that is directly connected to slavery, to the Confederacy, and to Jim Crow.  That institution is the Democrat Party.

The Confederacy and the Democrat party were indistinguishable.  When Stephen Douglas ran against Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the Democrat Party platform explicitly stated that a territory should qualify for admission into the United States "whether its Constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery."  Democrats also adamantly supported the federal Fugitive Slave Law, which required free states to return escaped slaves to their owners:

Resolved, That the enactments of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

The Republican Party, which nominated Abraham Lincoln, was formed specifically to counter the Democrat Party's commitment to slavery.  Lincoln's Democrat opponent in 1860, Stephen A. Douglas, owned a Mississippi plantation (in his wife's name), never condemned slavery's immorality, and held to a states' rights view of slavery that would have allowed it to continue in the South and move into new American territories.

After the Civil War, the South remained single-mindedly Democrat until the old guard of segregationists finally died out.  This was the same old guard, by the way, that Joe Biden, the de facto Democrat Party candidate, cuddled up to during his first decade in the Senate.

Indeed, the Times glosses over lots of its party's racist history.  For example, as part of slamming the military, the editors praise Truman (a Democrat) for integrating the military.  They forget, however, to castigate Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat whose name is all over Washington, D.C.) for segregating the entire federal workforce.

The Times slanders the military, the most integrated institution in America, by resurrecting people whom everyone has forgotten and about whom no one in the military complains.  Meanwhile, the Times' chosen party is the living embodiment of race-obsessed politics.  The Democrat Party ought to have been outlawed in 1865, just as the Nazi Party was outlawed in 1945.