Imagine the following hypothetical scenario, dear reader. Numerous groups of Mexican terrorists—whom the mainstream media deem “militants”—routinely fire rockets into the southern United States as part of an effort to de-legitimize Texas and compel Americans to give the second-largest state back to Mexico. The Mexican government, meanwhile, is in league with these terrorists, and thus won’t stop them.

Now, here’s the question: Exactly how long would it take the United States to put a stop to this? In how many minutes would the US Army take to northern Mexico to kill and/or capture these brutes? If you ask us, the answer is: Faster than you can say “burrito.”

In addition, we firmly believe that no one in his right mind would consider a targeted strike at such hypothetical Mexican terrorists tantamount to “aggression.” But, naturally, no one in his right mind believes that the lovable scamps in Hamas are in their right mind.

For, as we found out from our pals at The New York Times a scenario somewhat similar to our silly Mexican terrorist idea is occurring in the Gaza Strip. You remember the Gaza Strip: ItÂ’s the part of the Palestinian territories that Israel has returned to the Palestinians, even though Arab propagandists still call it part of the Occupied Territories.

And, as you would expect from those peaceable Palestinians, the inhabitants of Gaza, in addition to engaging in various acts of proto-civil war, regularly launch rockets into Israel in an effort to destroy the Jewish state. Those delightful characters in Professor Sami Al-ArianÂ’s Palestinian Islamic Jihad enjoy using their newly won territory as a base to wipe Israel off the map.

Naturally, the folks in Hamas wonÂ’t put a stop to such machinations. As a result, Greg Myre from the Gray Lady reports:

Israeli ground troops staged their first major operation inside the Gaza Strip since pulling out of the coastal territory last year, ambushing Palestinians late Monday evening as they prepared to fire a rocket, the Israeli military said Tuesday.

So what, you might be wondering, was the reaction of the fellahs in charge of Palestine? Here’s what Andrew Sullivan—in his “weblogging” life and his personal life—would call the “money shot”:

The Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya, condemned “the Israeli policy of aggression against our people.”

Gee: That takes an awful lot of chutzpah, if you ask us. How dare the Israelis stop rockets from killing their people! Why, the nerve of them!

In fact, this argument is so appalling, we sincerely wonder if Prime Minister Haniya could offer it with a straight face. Sure, itÂ’s part of an old Palestinian script: Whatever evil thing you have done, blame America and Israel.

But, God, how could he condemn Israel’s action as “aggression” without cracking a smile?

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.

Readers of this humble “weblog” may well have noticed that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have not discussed the recent political firestorm surrounding illegal immigration. In itself, this is odd: We’re not the types of folk who shy away from hard-hitting issues. Why, we’ve even tackled such incendiary topics as the word “moist.”

Yet, to be honest, dear reader, we havenÂ’t felt particularly inspired to dilate on illegal immigration. We suppose we donÂ’t feel very strongly about it, and informal polling around the office water cooler suggests that most of us find ourselves in the squishy middle on this issue.

And yet a recent article on illegal immigration in the May 1 number of Britain’s left-leaning New Statesman got us sufficiently worked up, and we feel we must take a poke at the subject. Penned by one Andrew Stephen—whose name reads like a rather uninspired porn star’s nom de guerre—the article is curiously titled “The Latino Giant Awakes.”

The Latino Giant? Has Mr. Stephen (or is that Mr. Andrew?) ever seen any Latinos? TheyÂ’re not exactly known for their gigantic size.

Anyway, the sub-header of the article pretty much sums up its author’s modus scribendi: “The new political and economic power of Hispanic immigrants is fuelling an ugly mood of racism in America, where ‘illegals’ are accused of taking healthcare, jobs and housing.”

We particularly savored the use of scare-quotes around the word illegals, as if it were merely a meaningless term. Mr. Stephen explains: “…there is an ugly mood of racism sweeping this country in which the casually brutal word ‘illegal’ is used as a noun, even by the most enlightened, to describe fellow human beings who live and work here but do not have the documentation to do so legally.”

Uh, gee, Mr. Enlightened: What do you propose we call those who live here illegally? What kind of politically-correct moniker can you drum up? How about “citizenally challenged”? Or how does “differently citizened” grab you? You stupid dolt.

Basically, Mr. Stephen uses the issue of illegal immigration to demonstrate that America is a country chock-a-block with racists. More to the point, Mr. Stephen opines that America’s treatment of the “citizenally challenged” is far worse than anything the Brits would concoct.

According to Mr. Stephen: “Nor is there any good reason why America cannot take a limitless number of…immigrants for the foreseeable future: it is a land so huge that there are still only 30 people on average living in each square kilometre, compared with 243 for (say) Britain.” Ah, you see: Americans are odious racists, and the Limeys are not.

We hate to ruin Mr. StephenÂ’s well thought out people-per-square-kilometer thesis, but we have the sneaking suspicion that the issue of illegal immigration is a bit more complicated than the number of people you can fit in rural Idaho. ThereÂ’s this little matter of the economy, Mr. Stephen, and although New Statesman leftists such as yourself donÂ’t know much about it, it winds up being kind of important.

Anyone with a modicum of economic sense wouldn’t write this sentence, Mr. Stephen: “Illegal workers, after all, are needed to do jobs that Americans spurn: housecleaning, fruit-picking, and looking after rich white brats.” No, no, Mr. Stephen: Americans don’t want to do these jobs at ridiculously low wages. If the pay increased, US citizens would be glad to do them.

But, hey, Mr. Stephen, you must be really proud of using a left-wing platform to advance the interests of corporate fat-cats whoÂ’ll pay your beloved illegals starvation wages.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 604 words, total size 4 kb.