Three percent of Philadelphians are in the country illegally So, why didn't that 'sanctuary city' do something to 'regularize' their presence in the US while Joe Biden was in office?

“The population of foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy Philadelphia was 1,603,797 according to the 2020 census, yet the July 1,2023 guesstimate was 1,550,542, a 3.32% loss in residents. Now, The Philadelphia Inquirer is telling us that 47,000 people in the City of Brotherly Love are in the United States illegally, which works out to 3.03% of the population. That’s not a small issue.

Immigration advocates brace for Trump’s Day 1 deportation orders that could target 47,000 in Philadelphia

President-elect Donald Trump has promised mass deportations. That could include thousands of people living in Philadelphia.

by Jeff Gammage and Julia Terruso | Inauguration Day, January 20, 2025 | 5:00 AM EST

President-elect Donald Trump promised increased immigration restrictions and a closed border in the campaign that made him president. His inauguration on Monday could immediately usher in major policy changes that will have ramifications locally.

Trump has pledged to quickly issue a series of orders to toughen and expand federal immigration enforcement by deporting millions of undocumented immigrants, jailing migrant families, repealing birthright citizenship, and targeting sanctuary cities like Philadelphia.

People familiar with one plan told NBC News that Trump intends a major policy reversal concerning ICE, freeing the enforcement agency to arrest immigrants in places where agents have been officially dissuaded from taking action, including churches, schools, and hospitals.

While it’s unclear exactly who might be targeted, the scope, or how the government would carry out large-scale operations, advocates are already bracing for potential impact.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the “advocates” should have been taking steps to get those who wish to come to the United States to do so legally? 3.03% of the population of Philly are here illegally, and the ‘sanctuary’ administration of former Mayor Jim Kenney did nothing to help these people regularize their presence in the country while Joe Biden was in office?

“All of a sudden, the shackles are really off,” said Cris Ramon, senior adviser on immigration for UnidosUS, the national Latino civil rights organization in Washington. “You’re really expanding the ability of ICE to do a lot more enforcement. … It’s going to put a lot of lives in a precarious situation.”

Trump’s immediate actions will likely be a series of executive orders to bolster Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to send a message that the border is closed, according to reporting from Politico.

He has promised an unprecedented campaign to kick out those who lack legal permission to be in the United States — about 13 million people, roughly the population of Pennsylvania. Experts who study immigration say that would be difficult to accomplish, requiring billions in tax dollars and an unrivaled government mobilization to remove several times the number of all those currently held in American jails and prisons.

At the same time, they say, even partial Trump-administration success could cause huge disruption, not only to those who would be arrested and detained, but to the economy and to American civic life as millions of workers, neighbors, and family members are sent out of the country.

How many border crossings have their been? Part of the answer is that we just don’t know, because there were some which were never detected. But they surged under President Biden:

What the Inquirer article doesn’t tell readers is that, had President Biden attempted to regularize immigration, there wouldn’t be 47,000 people in Philadelphia fearing being rounded up and deported. Had Mr Biden issued executive orders to find ways to regularize immigration, something he could have done, given that President Trump had been able to do so during his first term, this issue wouldn’t be an issue. Had Mr Biden done what he should have, perhaps Vice President Kamala Harris Emhoff would be the one preparing to take the oath of office at noon today.

Joe Biden just plain failed.

This country does need immigrants, but we need useful, vetted immigrants. Had President Biden done his job — and I omitted the adjective that occurred to me before the word “job” — we would have had some decent, hard-working people, while people like José Antonio Ibarra would have been excluded . . . and people like nursing student Laken Riley would still be alive.

It’s simple: we should define which immigrants we find acceptable, people who will work and become credits to the community, and exclude the detritus of Latin American gangs, military aged single males, and those in prime crime-committing ages. But no, Mr Bidens and the Democrats wanted to flood the United States with primarily Hispanic immigrants, thinking that they’d eventually be voting for Democrats.

President Trump, who will be inaugurated one hour and twenty minutes after the publication of this post, wouldn’t have Mr Biden’s mess to clean up if our outgoing President had just done his — adjective omitted again — job!

I check Bluesky so you don’t have to! Will Bunch would rather see more killing than Donald Trump win a Nobel Peace Prize

I will admit it: I have spent far too much of the past couple of days in schadenfreude over the apoplexy of the left that Donald Trump is going to be inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States at noon on Monday. Most of the stuff was by people as no named as me, and a lot of it was simply silly beyond belief. Mr Trump moved the inauguration indoors due to the bitterly cold weather forecast for Washington DC, about 20º F, with wind chills in the single digits, so the left have been claiming that it wasn’t the weather, but that the President was afraid, afraid that the number of protesters would outnumber supporters, and that he just wasn’t tough enough, as Presidents John F Kennedy and Barack Hussein Obama had inaugurations outdoors in similarly cold weather.

We might as well face it: the very bitter left will say anything to insult Mr Trump.

More interesting to me was this skeet — a skeet is what a tweet on Bluesky is called — from Will Bunch, the far-left columnist of The Philadelphia Inquirer. Mr Bunch wrote that he literally felt sick to his stomach over the idea that our incoming President was “already Nobel Peace Prize shopping, peering down the aisles of conflict and crisis to gauge the easiest route to capturing the coveted award to adorn the lobby of Mar-a-Lago,” and that The Washington Post’s new contributing columnist, Rahm Emanuel, argued that “even Trump’s fiercest opponents ought to encourage this yen — and even root him on.”

Think about that. The Nobel committee hated the younger President Bush so much that they gave a Peace Prize to President Obama in 2009, when he’d barely taken office, simply for not being President Bush!

That the Nobel committee doesn’t think highly of conservative American presidents is well known: in 1973, they gave the Peace Price to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Vietnamese Communist Le Duc Tho for negotiating the 1973 ceasefire in Vietnam, but pointedly omitted President Richard Nixon, who ordered and approved te negotiations in the first place.

So, for President Trump to win the Nobel Peace Prize would be a tremendously high bar to top. For Mr Trump to win the Nobel Peace Prize, he’d have to do something really dramatic, virtually over-the-top dramatic, to actually produce peace in a violent world. How, I have to ask, would that be a bad thing?

The distinguished Mr Bunch hates President Trump so much that he’d prefer not to see peace, not to see people not being killed, rather than see our incoming President win a Nobel Peace Prize. #TrumpDerangementSyndrome can’t get much more addled than that!

How the severity of the California wildfires is Donald Trump’s fault!

I might be stealing William Teach’s schtick with this one, but it’s too good to pass up.

Burning Teslas in LA Add to Toxic Mix Hindering Wildfire Cleanup

  • Electric cars add a new dimension to the mess left by fires

  • Specialized removal means longer delays for victims

By Eliyahu Kamisher, Laura Curtis, and Kara Carlson | Thursday, January 16, 2025 | 8:16 PM EST | Updated Friday, January 17, 2025 | 8:31 AM EST

As the smoke clears from devastating Los Angeles wildfires, efforts to clean up the affected areas are being complicated by burnt-out electric and hybrid vehicles and home-battery storage systems. Continue reading

It was never about “protecting democracy”.

The left have complained loudly that Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and his support of that wholly radical concept of Freedom of Speech was a horrible, horrible thing, but while conservatives are no longer censored on that social media site, Mr Musk has allowed those on the left the same access they always had.

And thus we have Tristan Snell being able to vent his frustration that former President Donald Trump will become President again at noon on January 20th.

Who is Mr Snell? His self-written Twitter biography states that he is a “Lawyer, commentator, fighter for democracy. Prosecuted Trump University @ NY AG. Author of TAKING DOWN TRUMP. Host of the Tristan Snell Show on Apple + Spotify.” Continue reading

I check Bluesky so you don’t have to Amanda Marcotte loves her some censorship and ordering of society . . . when it comes from the left

My good friend Robert Stacy McCain has frequently written, “I watch CNN” or sometimes MSNBC, “so you don’t have to.” Well, I created an account and check Bluesky, the liberal version of Twitter, so that you don’t have to. And checking this morning I found the very lovely Amanda Marcotte complaining that Mark Zuckerberg, the creator and owner of Facebook, is no longer going to apply liberally-oriented ‘fact checkers’ to posts on Facebook.

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta makeover: MAGA grandpa is about to get much worse

Facebook ditches its fact-checking program in favor of Elon Musk’s army of disinformation zombies

by Amanda Marcotte | Wednesday, January 8, 2025 | 8:00 AM EST

In part because of his goofy appearance and in part because he doesn’t engage in fascist trolling like fellow billionaire Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg is rarely seen as a sinister character in modern American life. But Zuckerberg’s announcement that Facebook and Instagram will soon cease fact-checking is such a stellar model of villainous doublespeak that George Orwell would have thought it was a bit much. Zuckerberg insisted it’s in the name of “free speech” that he must unleash uncontrolled disinformation on his platform, adding, “The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards, once again, prioritizing speech.” Continue reading

Why didn’t the press play its “adversarial role” when it came to Joe Biden?

Our regular readers — both of them — know that I am very much attached to the idea of print newspapers, despite them being slightly updated 18th century technology. I delivered newspapers as a teenager, and with my seriously degraded hearing, watching the news on television is difficult for me; even with close captioning, which is usually poor on live broadcasts, I can miss things. With the printed word, even though by printed I mean words on my computer monitor, not actual paper, I don’t miss much, and if there is a point on which I was confused, I can go back and read it again, to make certain I understood what was written.

So, quite naturally, I was reeled in by this story, that Rob Flaherty, the former deputy campaign manager for Vice President Kamala Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign, claimed there was “just no value” in candidates speaking to mainstream newspapers like The New York Times or Washington Post. Naturally, my mind went to the complaints by people like The Philadelphia Inquirer’s hard left columnist Will Bunch that newspapers specifically, and the credentialed media in general, were not hard enough on former and now future President Donald Trump.

But then came a second paragraph, which destroyed my preconceived notion of what the article was going to say: Continue reading

My local Bishop really, really doesn’t like Donald Trump

The Most Reverend John Stowe, Bishop of Lexington

While I cannot say that I am friends with His Excellency, the Most Reverend John Stowe, O.F.M. Conv., Bishop of Lexington, we are at least acquainted with each other. The Bishop at least recognizes me when he sees me, though I cannot be certain he remembers my name. We have had some pleasant conversations the few times he has visited our small parish.

I have written about him, or at least mentioned him, on this poor site, in 17 previous articles, not always charitably. Bishop Stowe is an excellent homilist, one who can really connect with a congregation, and I have no doubts at all about his faith. But, as a Catholic priest, he chooses the wrong things far too often for me.

Kentucky prelate calls lack of election response from American Church ‘disappointing’

by John Lavenburg | Tuesday, December 3, 2024

NEW YORK – In the month or so since former President Donald Trump was elected to occupy the White House for a second term, the majority of American bishops have either not commented on the election publicly, or issued a generic statement about the importance of civility, unity, and democracy.

That extends to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, where – outside of responses to Trump’s stated plan for mass deportations – not much has been said. Bishop John Stowe, in a recent conversation with Crux, said that reality isn’t surprising considering how American Church leaders have handled the presidency of Joe Biden over the last four years.

“It was not surprising coming from the USCCB. What was surprising was the attitude when Joe Biden was elected, a Catholic president four years ago, and there was such an uproar in the conference about that election, and because of that, I really had no expectation that there would be much said about the Trump election,” said Stowe, the bishop of Lexington in Kentucky.

His Excellency the Bishop does not like former and future President Donald Trump. Speaking in August of 2020, before the 2020 election, the Bishop let us know, let all of his Catholic parishioners know, that he was opposed to President Trump’s re-election. Bishop Stowe was appalled by Mr Trump’s anti-illegal immigration policies, calling them “anti-life.” Continue reading

Are you going to Scarborough Fair? Parsley, sage, rosemary, and hate!

It is entirely possible that I have been, believe it or not, too charitable to our friends on the left. In my recent article, Will Bunch uses his Freedom of Speech and of the Press to tell us that he hates Freedom of Speech and of the Press, I mocked The Philadelphia Inquirer’s far-left columnist Will Bunch for his tirade against MSNBC’s (supposed) journalists, Joe and Mike Scarborough for having gone to Mar-a-Lago and meeting with former and future President Donald Trump. Mr Bunch told his readers about the brave “journalists left who do plan, in a moment of increased risk, to keep asking the tough questions in this muddled new era,” but trashes two (purported) journalists who have gone to cover a story about the next President of the United States as somehow “supplicants,” showing fealty and making obeisance to him. Uhhh, you can’t “keep asking the tough questions” to Mr Trump if you are unwilling to talk to him in the first place.

I would have thought that a journolist, oops, sorry, journalist like Mr Bunch would appreciate freedom of the press and the willingness of journalists to go into hostile territory, to get their stories, to report the news, even from people who didn’t like or respect them. Continue reading

World War III Watch: I’m amazed at how many people actually want war!

August of 1914 saw tens of thousands or men marching off to war, amid cheering throngs, knowing that their brave soldiers would be returning home soon, victorious in what would be called the Great World War. The French managed to stall the invading Germans short of Paris, and the armies dug in for what became four bloody years of stalemated trench warfare. On the eastern front, the German army under General Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff used brilliant tactics and railroading to first engage and destroy the Imperial Russian Second Army and a few days later, the First Army.

Machine guns made a real appearance on the battlefields, and tanks came later. There were air battles, but the airplanes of the time were few and flimsy, and not able to make the deep bombing runs into enemy territory that were seen twenty years later in World War II. Continue reading