Ordering Dinner With a Side of Sanctimony

A nationwide group of restaurants is now offering diners a chance to stick it to the man while simultaneously putting the fork to their tofu. Those of you who’ve wanted to join a great moral crusade, but never got around to cleaning up the basement and inviting a Syrian “refugee” to move in, can now eat locally and be served globally.

Restaurant Opportunities Centers United has launched a “Sanctuary Restaurant” movement for eatery owners who want to stay current with the latest moral–posturing on illegal immigration.

Now diners in New York, Minneapolis, Detroit, Boston, Oakland, California and Ann Arbor, MN may encounter a sign in their local bistro that reads, “Sanctuary Restaurant: A place at the table for everyone.”

I suppose if the establishment adheres to a dining policy that’s anything like Obama’s immigration policy, the sign means when an illegal sits down at your table for lunch, you’ll be picking up the tab.

This is why I like eating at Red Robin. Management doesn’t spend time trying to demonstrate its empathy and there’s an E–Verify sign on the front door that means everyone working in the restaurant is legally in the US.

That certainly isn’t the case even in non–“sanctuary restaurants.” A diner at a Virginia Chipotle would have a better chance of sharing a meal with Hillary Clinton than being served by a citizen.

According to WNYW, “Roughly 80 restaurants are participating” in this low–level criminal conspiracy to harbor lawbreakers and obstruct justice. The idea is to publically position management as social justice warriors, while privately protecting their profit margin by keeping their illegals working for wages citizens won’t accept.

At least 1.3 million illegals are working in the restaurant industry and the wage exploiters hiring them tell Washington they need a “robust pool of workers,” which really means a cheap pool of workers. Just like Georgia plantation owners, whoops, make that commercial farmers warn that fruit will rot in the fields if they can’t pay Juarez wages to Juan, restaurant owners predict food will sit uncooked and unserved if diners expect to be attended by citizens.

Naturally, that’s not how participants describe the conspiracy. Oh–so–compassionate backers want Trump to “alleviate the fear of deportation and other harassment” for illegals. The goal is to “protect” the illegals, but from what? Heartburn? E.coli? Paying for Trump’s wall? Their authority to write policy ends with the menu.

Instead they come off sounding like the prayer in Luke 18:11 where the Pharisee loudly proclaims: “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers or deportation supporters.”

I wonder if dining–while–smug patrons have thought their choice though. Patronizing a business harboring criminals has a potential downside. Management may draw the line at breaking immigration law, but there’s no evidence the staff won’t be tempted to branch out. Once they’ve violated the border, what’s a little identity theft or trafficking in stolen credit card numbers?

And if management opposes sending the help back to their home countries, what’s the policy on sending a bad meal back to the kitchen?

One thing is different in “sanctuary restaurants.” Instead of giving patrons a signaling device that glows and vibrates when their table is ready, the staff carries the black box and the premises clear out if an ICE agent enters

“Sanctuary restaurants” give the staff “know your rights training” and webinars on how to demand the feds produce some paperwork before a raid. The conspirators are also supposed to adopt “anti–discrimination policies” that I suppose mean if a Trump supporter mistakenly wanders in and orders in English he has a 50–50 chance of being served.

The fact that an organization supporting millions of illegal aliens, who continue to defy the law, can describe enforcing immigration law as “harassment” and publically recruit other businesses to join the conspiracy, without any fear of legal repercussion, is a stark indication of how official support for the rule of law has collapsed in favor of the rule of feelings.

Illegal immigration may be the hope for the future of the Democrat party and the secret shame of RINO Republicans, but I can guarantee you his promise to enforce the law is one of the main reasons Trump won.

Aside from waiting for food that’s never served, the other bugaboo of the anti–deportation crowd is higher prices. They claim if xenophobes insist on forcing restaurants to hire citizens, then prices are going up, because those sorts of people won’t work for Karjackistan wages.

For me, that’s no deterrent at all. If the choice is between paying a buck more for a hamburger or doing away with press one for English,” well, here’s your dollar.

Advertisements

Eric Cantor Picked the Wrong Base

Speaker John Boehner is among those mystified by Eric Cantor's loss.

Speaker John Boehner is among those mystified by Eric Cantor’s loss.

It’s no mystery why Eric Cantor lost his primary last Tuesday. He simply failed to turn out his new Hispanic base. And Cantor is not completely to blame for this failure, because events outside his control were also working against him.

On the day of the vote many members of his new voting block, Futuro Ciudadnos for Cantor couldn’t votar because they were waiting outside the local bus stations and airports to be reunited with younger members of their extended family. It’s really a shame Cantor lost because footage of these tearful reunions would have made great feel–good television spots in November, as long as the crew made sure no weeping taxpayers could be seen in the back of the frame.

[CULTURAL SENSITIVITY NOTE REGARDING OUR NEW NEIGHBORS: When Gringos send their unaccompanied minors to visit the ex, they complicate the process with needless rules and bureaucracy. On United Airlines — my carrier of choice — parents pay a fee of $150 each way for an unaccompanied minor, on top of what the airfare cost. The parent or guardian is required to arrive early at the airport, with photo identification and contact information and the same info regarding the person meeting little Belgium at his destination.

The child gets an I.D. badge and experiences the tender mercies of the TSA, which may include being felt up. When boarding the plane, flight attendants greet him personally, escort him to his seat and buckle him in. At the destination a United employee meets your child and escorts him to the arrivals area where the identification of the ex is checked closely to make sure there is an exact match with the data supplied before the child boarded.

Once the paperwork is complete, Belgium is handed over.

Futuro cuidadnos in need of an anchor adolescent have a much simpler system. First of all it’s a one-way trip. Jesusito — who can be a son, cousin, uncle, nephew, foster child, drinking buddy or fellow gang member — is tossed on the nearest autobus heading for El Norte. His documentation, if any, consists of tattoos and a handwritten note listing the town where his ‘relatives’ are living in the shadows doing the work US business won’t pay citizens enough to do.

Once he arrives at the border he wades, rides, walks, sneaks, jumps or runs across. If he’s not lucky enough to be captured immediately by the Border Patrol, Jesusito must track one down and inform the CBP officer of his rights and what services the officer needs to provide to avoid a UN investigation.

On the United flight the unaccompanied minor gets a bag of pretzels.

At INS Daycare Jesusito gets food, a bed, his diaper changed (only if necessary), a shower, entertainment, visits from befuddled Members of Congress and transportation that will reunite him with the family whose deportation he will prevent in the future. And it’s all free! Well, free for Jesusito since the taxpayers are footing the bill.]

So it’s no wonder Cantor lost with that kind of distraction affecting his base. Of course there is no guarantee Eric would have won even without the interference of the infant invasion. His new amigos aren’t known for displays of gratitude, in fact amnesty advocates invaded Cantor’s ‘Victory Celebration’ after he lost demanding legislation he was in no position to pass after the polls closed.

Now that he’s no longer a political factor the rumors of how hard it was to work with Cantor’s arrogant staff start to surface. This is plausible. Cantor was House Majority Leader, so he gets funding for two sets of staff members: The Congressional staff and the majority leader’s staff. I used to work for a majority leader and in DC this officer holder is not a mere congressman or representative. People address him as ‘leader’ and do so with a straight face. It’s like ruling in your own private North Korea without the really bad hair and mass starvation.

You can imagine what a shock it must have been to go back to the district were voters not only didn’t call him ‘leader,’ they asked impertinent questions and wanted college recommendations for their kids.

The same goes for the staff. In DC everyone treads lightly around these pencil necks because they have Cantor’s ear and can make your political life miserable. But they, too get no respect when some rube from Virginia calls wondering where her Social Security check is and why her son can’t get full disability after that unfortunate explosion in the meth lab.

The only portion of Cantor’s new base that came through for him was the big business money that allowed him to outspend opponent Dave Brat by 25–to–1.

Which reminds me: How many of you took my excellent advice shared here and contributed to Brat’s campaign BEFORE he won? I feel like one of those guys that bought Apple stock before Steve started using deodorant and came back to save the company.

Cantor is another one of those too–clever–by–half politicians that outgrew their voters and made the fatal mistake of letting the voters know it. His focus–group tested language and his amnesty triangulation — conservative enough to confuse the district, but not so much that the US Chamber of Commerce, agriculture lobbyists and HB–1 visa proponents would shut off the money spigot — had one fatal flaw. Clinton, the inventor of triangulation, did his in the general election, not the primary.

Brat’s campaign and his fund raising just got him over the threshold of credibility and angry voters did the rest. But Brat should take care that Cantor’s defeat doesn’t go to his head. When an incumbent loses the vast majority of voters don’t vote for the winner, they vote against the incumbent. Brat just happened to reap the whirlwind.

He must still continue to make the case for his ideas and build strong ties with the district before November.

In the meantime conservatives can enjoy watching the amnesty lobby explain how illegal immigration had absolutely nothing to do with Cantor’s loss. In fact, if Cantor had only come out stronger for amnesty and Chipotle has closed early on the day of the primary, he would still be the Congressman.

It’s like trying to explain that Noah’s flood didn’t wipe out the earth’s population. The root cause was lack of oxygen and no Corps of Engineers.