It is entirely appropriate that The New York Times, only three days after September 11th, should print two liberal opinions about 'Pearl Harbor 2001': one by the witting liberal Thomas L. Friedman, and the other by the unwitting liberal Ronald Steel.
As the Democratic/Federalist Party has now revealed itself- by running Janet Reno for Governor of Florida -, it is clear that the direction and speed of the march toward a full Socialist Federation of America has certainly picked up.
After the Elian Gonzalez tragedy, Friedman entitled his editorial President Janet Reno. He even confessed to crying in joy over the boy's capture from the arms of his Free Cuban family. Friedman is a very witting liberal indeed. If you want to know in which direction the Democratic/Federalist Party of America is tipping, just read Friedman's commentary.
Janet Reno for President, huh? That certainly gives me pause.
So, Florida will obviously be her first jump of a two-box hopscotch to the Oval Office. Well, if Hilary Clinton can embarrass New Yorkers with her Senatorial race that recruited out of Arkansas, at least Reno was born and raised in the state from which she'll seek the governorship and then the presidency.
Reno has her liberal drones in the press demonizing the Free Cuban community into looking like a tropical Branch Davidian compound - and I have no doubt that Friedman will be there to help her get elected.
This brings me to the substantive issues discussed in Friedman's column entitled Smoking or Non-Smoking?, in which he pushes his Democratic/Federalist social engineering program and dreams of ubermenschen und uberfrauen, a superhuman master race - smoke-free, drug-free, alcohol-free, sexist-free and racist-free.
I'm a smoker. I'm opposed to suing cigarette companies for an addiction I chose to engage in of my own free will. I absolutely loathe professional victims.
Speaking of which, Steel's title (The Weak at War with the Strong) epitomized the quintessentially patronizing liberal attitude toward Islam. The Muslims are the weak. Yeah, right.
The family of Islam controls the West's greatest addiction - oil. By not seeking alternate energy sources, the USA perpetuated its own blackmail. And to call a people's army of Allah weak because the Palestinians don't look all that prosperous in black knit masks is to miss the point of why they're killing us.
To Osama bin Laden, our Judeo-Christian civilization just doesn't take Allah seriously enough. That's why the Twin Towers went down. Not because Abdul doesn't have federal housing.
And Friedman says this is not a war between civilizations. That's almost as ridiculous as his inference that Abraham Lincoln would agree that Osama bin Laden and George Soros "pray to the same God."
This is quintessential 'witting liberalese'.
Queen Bee Reno is now making honey down in Florida. Even Saturday Night Live pitched in to show the world she has a sense of humor. So far, so good, witting liberals!
To be witting, to be aware -- aye, there's the rub. Friedman has passed the point of no return. Between his editorial cheering of Ehud Barak's futile efforts to satiate Yasir Arafat's gluttonous appetite for Israeli cous-cous and his promotion of Reno for President, Friedman makes it unequivocally clear that if you don't vote for the Democrats, terrible things might happen under a Republican President.
What's coming up?
Offshore interests own so much of the Dow Jones that they could hit it with two selling-shots -- many times the cost of two American skyscrapers -- and provoke a Wall Street panic that will look like a financial Hiroshima. I'm not sure who or what is 'wagging the dog' here. Does the Democratic/Federalist Party of the United States run the United Nations? Or is it the other way around?