The response to my March 1 article sent my e-mail inbox into spasms. The point of the article was that everyone complains about illegal immigration, but few seem willing to endorse real solutions.

I went on to say that if people were serious about stopping the tidal wave of illegal immigrants, there are many ways it could be accomplished. I then offered a number of rather harsh (by today’s touchy-feely standards) solutions that could be implemented, and followed each of them with the tongue-in-cheek afterthought, “Of course, I myself would never favor such a heartless measure …”

I thought it was a clever touch of sarcasm that readers would enjoy. That said, below is a small – make that very small – sampling of excerpts from reader e-mails that will give you a pretty good idea of just how much they enjoyed it.

“Hey, a–hole. If you like Mexicans so much, and think importing thieves, murderers, drug smugglers and child molesters is a good idea, then I hope your family is destroyed by an illegal rapist, molester or perhaps a drunk Mexican driver.” – James

“Sir, you are an idiot.” – R.R.

“I’ve been an avid reader of your column since you joined the WND lineup … until this column. … [Apparently] you are now in the la-la land of the liberals.” – Mike

“I do not want to ‘press 2 for Espanol.’ I do not want a Mexican or a Hispanic caucus in Congress. I do not want my heritage belittled in the name of Hispanics, Muslims or any other non-American group. … [The] hell with tolerance and diversity. … How do you fail to see the truth?” – W. S.

“After reading your column that asserts that we should just sit back and enjoy the cheap labor as this nation is slowly turned into a Hispanic pi–hole like Mexico is, I have only three words for you: F— off, a–hole.” – K.S.

But enough of this adoring prose. I think you get the idea.

Mind you, I wasn’t offended by being compared to the lower parts of the human anatomy, but to be called a liberal is the cruelest of all blows. In any event, it’s obvious that a lot of readers failed to pick up on my tongue-in-cheek handling of this lightning-rod topic.

That being the case, I will now put away my facetiousness and give straightforwardness a try. The problems that are tearing down our once revered way of Western life exist only because we allow them to exist. At any point in time, they can be extinguished by the implementation of harsh measures.

While most Americans would like to put an end to perceived problems such as “terrorism” and illegal immigration, few of them are willing to endorse the drastic measures necessary to accomplish that end. Measures such as those proposed by WND reader “F.S.”:

“Don’t build a fence. Just put a few squadrons of Apaches on the border around the clock and shoot anything that moves. … Less people will die on the border each year than die now, and they will stop coming. It would only take three or four, and it would be over. … There is something I could add to that, but I will be polite.”

Just having printed this excerpt is guaranteed to bring an avalanche of e-mails from the politically correct, “civilized” crowd. This is the vocal segment of our society that believes such things as:

  1. We should be morally superior to Middle Eastern criminals and afford them both dignity and “constitutional rights.”

  2. We must be humane to those who enter the country illegally, to the point of providing them with driver’s licenses, jobs, health care, Social Security benefits and citizenship for their babies.

  3. We should not only keep the Social Security and Medicare scams going, but increase benefits to everyone – without regard to the mathematical certainty that even the present benefits are guaranteed to bankrupt the U.S. now that the baby boomers are starting to arrive on our nation’s golf courses.

  4. We should not only treat child molesters humanely, but make every effort to “rehabilitate” them.

    … to offer just a short list of examples.

The U.S. is on the verge of civil war between the We-Are-the-World dreamers and those who are focused on defending Western civilization. And because a majority of those in the latter group are unwilling to go along with, let alone demand, drastic solutions, the dreamers are odds-on favorites to prevail. The reality is that not offending or hurting anyone and defending Western civilization against the elements intent on destroying it are conflicting objectives.

The two darkest days in human history were Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, 1945, when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were used as experiments to prove that aggression could be stopped quickly. But the human carnage is only one aspect of the first and only use of an atomic weapon on a major population center. Another aspect is that World War II was over in a matter of days – and Japan’s surrender was unconditional. No more injuries, no more death, no more war.

Of course, one can certainly make a legitimate argument that President Truman didn’t really have to use the atomic bomb, because Japan was trying to surrender anyway. Fair enough. But no one can argue that the bomb didn’t end things quickly – and on America’s terms. Or that the use of the bomb didn’t set the stage for future generations of Japanese to live happy, prosperous lives – as one of America’s closest allies!

(Based on the historical evidence, an outrageous person might suggest that we are but two nukes away from making close allies out of Iran and North Korea.)

I hope my words today were straightforward enough for everyone to understand. As they say, be careful what you wish for, or you may get it. I’ll bet a lot of readers now wish I would stick to being facetious rather than straightforward.

Related special offer:

“State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.