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.

Shortest Letter in the Bible Solves Illegal Immigration Problem

The New York Times found a vaguely Christian church that merits approval. This is harder than it seems. While the Times sets a low bar for approving mosques — no exploding members in the last six months — standards for Christian approval are much more stringent.

Happily Philadelphia’s Arch Street United Methodist Church is a “reconciling” church, which evidently means reconciling the Bible to embrace leftist cultural fads, rather than changing culture to reconcile with the Bible.

pay-american-maidArch Street is an eager participant in the left wing conspiracy to subvert immigration law. It has joined the “Sanctuary Movement” that harbors illegal aliens on church property. Arch Street’s sanctuary program is starting small. It’s getting its feet wet — is that a slur when writing about Mexicans? — by hosting one illegal: Javier Flores who’s been sleeping on a cot in the basement for the last six weeks.

Secular journalists like nothing better than using the Bible against believers and when pastors are enthusiastic helpers, so much the better.

Rev. Robin Hynicka justifies his rebellion by citing Matthew 25: 34 – 36 and explaining “Jesus said we are to provide hospitality to the stranger.” But Flores has evidently made himself quite at home since he arrived in 1997. He’s been arrested nine times, served a felony prison sentence and was wearing an ankle bracelet when Hynicka offered asylum. Evidently the good reverend offers a no–fault, no–judgment, no–salvation ministry, because Flores’ family isn’t burdened by any marriage obligations.

Immigration? Fornication? It’s all fine with Rev. Hynicka.

Hynicka’s politically motivated reading of the Bible makes perfect sense to ignorant reporters, but it’s important Christians know how wrong he is. Hynicka is a heretic for three important reasons:

  1. The Lord does not reward a criminal class for breaking the law. Eventually judgment always comes.
  2. In the Old Testament when Jews took in strangers they had to obey to all Torah law or they had to leave.
  3. Most important, Hynicka ignores the one book in the New Testament that applies most directly to illegal immigration, because Paul’s solution doesn’t conform to trendy leftist politics.

Cultural Christians like Hynicka and the media both suffer from Mistaken Lazarus Syndrome. The only Lazarus in the Bible was a friend of Jesus that He raised from the dead. Emma Lazarus is not found in the New Testament, although she is frequently disinterred to support obstructing immigration law.

Even that isn’t relevant since “Give me your tired, your poor” was written in reference to a statue not a statute and has no bearing on case law or Commandments.

Paul’s Letter to Philemon makes Hynicka uncomfortable because Paul demonstrates Christians are required to follow the path of truth. The letter concerns Onesimus; a runaway slave who stole from his master and fled to Rome while Paul was imprisoned there.

In contrast to Hynicka’s “come and sin some more” philosophy, Paul converted Onesimus. He repented under Paul’s guidance and became a new man. Then came the hard part. Paul loved Onesimus and, like the freelance landscapers in the 7/11 parking lot, he was useful around the house.

Paul recognized that like all Christians he has personal and public obligations. He fulfilled his personal obligation to Onesimus by introducing him to Christ, changing his life and making him part of his household. Paul’s public obligation was harder. He was required to “render unto Caesar” and obey the law.

Instead of offering Onesimus sanctuary, Paul sent him back to his master, Philemon, with the letter that forms the book. Onesimus faced a penalty much worse than an ankle bracelet and a bus ride. Under Roman law both theft by a slave and running away merited the death penalty. Fortunately, Philemon was a friend and fellow Christian.

The letter acknowledges the violation of the law and the consequent requirement for restitution or recompense. Paul personally offers to pay any damages or compensation owed by Onesimus. Then he asks Philemon as a fellow Christian to greet the returning slave as a brother and to free him.

The request for freedom adheres to God’s law and the decision to grant or not grant it is in accordance with Caesar’s law.

Hynicka’s publicity–seeking solution is true to neither.

The Christian approach to illegal aliens is to personally care for immediate physical needs and then help the illegal to return to their country or put them in contact with immigration authorities. Christians who disagree with immigration law are free to petition the government and vote for politicians who share their views. They are not free to contribute to a growing disrespect for the rule of law.

It’s a course of action that won’t get a fawning profile in the New York Times, but it will put you in accord with the Bible.

Marco Rubio Purges US Tech Workers from STEM to Stern

Rubio milk cartonMarco Rubio (R–Amnesty) claims to be the one GOP candidate who can “bring us together.” Unfortunately, for many of us the meeting is going to be in the unemployment line.

Rubio’s slavish support of H1–B visas mean that more hard–working citizens will be out of work and replaced by cheaper foreign labor hired by law–breaking employers.

Complete details on this blood–boiling scandal are in my Newsmax.com column this week. Please click on the link below BEFORE you vote on Super Tuesday. Thanks.

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/Outsourcing/2016/02/26/id/716346/

 

Government Phone Trees from Hell

I’ve always admired my fellow citizens whose unquenchable optimism leads them to expect to get help when they call a government complaint line.

For me, the term government “complaint line” always creates suspicions regarding sincerity. I can’t help but recall the bumper sticker I once saw on the back of a truck careening through traffic on the Beltway: Don’t Like My Driving? Call 1–800–EAT–S*#T.

I just assume that’s the response I’ll get when calling Uncle Sam, too.

And it will be if you call the IRS for help this tax season, since they are cutting back on “customer service.” But we’re just greedy taxpayers and not people coming here as Jeb Bush says in “an act of love.”

Once their eyes adjust after coming out of the shadows, illegals will be able to call up to three complaint lines including: Customs & Border Patrol, Immigration & Customs Enforcement; and Citizenship & Immigration.

If you’d like to know the cost to install a fourth line for taxpayers incredulous over this waste of money then you need to read the rest of my Newsmax column at:

http://tinyurl.com/lfsreol

You Don’t Have to Be President to Impose Amnesty

Where I live we’ve already had extensive experience with small scale unilateral amnesty for illegal aliens without actual legal authority. Ours came courtesy of a “morally sensitive” police chief who knew much more about illegal aliens than the elected officials who hired him.

Fortunately for us Chief Charlie Deane — Virginia’s foremost practitioner of “ignoring while Hispanic” law enforcement — is voluntarily saying, “Adios, amigos” and retiring. I wish I could say the same for Barack Obama and his unilaterally declared amnesty for almost 2 million illegals.

Deane received quite the sendoff from his fellow travelers at the Washington Post. Members of the morally superior caucus find it newsworthy when someone they assume is conservative and therefore morally backward, say a police officer, turns out to share their enlightened views.

The WaPo editorial proclaimed: “When county officials wanted police to check the immigration status of residents and arrest those who were in the country illegally, he wasn’t afraid to push back at a policy he saw as bigoted and sure to cause problems for law enforcement.”

The Metro section concurred, “When the Prince William Board of County Supervisors jumped into the national immigration debate in 2007 and became one of the first places in the country to require the police department to question residents about their immigration status, Chief Charlie T. Deane thought otherwise.

“He feared cries of racial profiling and losing the trust of the county’s growing immigrant community. His stance angered his bosses on the county board and many residents who thought he was flouting the law…’When this was forced on us, we had no experience with it, and there were legal and moral implications,’ Deane said.”

The policy Deane refers to as being “forced on us” was in truth a law passed by an overwhelming majority of the county board of supervisors and a concept recently ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What’s more, Deane didn’t simply express his opinion as a law enforcement official. He used his power as chief to actively sabotage the implementation of a law supported by the vast majority of citizens here legally.

Since Deane couldn’t persuade the board not to pass the law, he decided to obstruct enforcement until the 2008 election, hoping voters would elect Democrats who prefer coddling illegals. (Note to readers, don’t try this at home, obstruction of justice is a crime if you’re not the chief of police.)

Deane accomplished this by waiting until the entire police department went through training before allowing officers to enforce the law. This took months and is in direct opposition to the procedure in departments where the chief obeys his elected bosses.

Deane was forced to implement Plan B when stubborn voters re–elected Republicans who believe in the rule of law. Chief Sanctimony announced, “…we were going to focus on individuals who had committed crimes, and that we were going to protect crime victims and witnesses regardless of their status, and we were not going to do racial profiling, roadblocks, sweeps or employment investigations.”

This made it crystal clear to patrol officers and supervisors that they would be wise to avoid enthusiastic enforcement of the new law.

Simultaneously Deane began his viaje de apología. The Patron was concerned about the “climate of fear” in the Hispanic community, along with “bigotry and profiling.” He met with “immigrant rights groups” (think aiding and abetting associations) and even has an audiencia with the Mexican consul, who represents a government that actively encourages illegal aliens and works to undermine border enforcement.

But in spite of Deane’s best efforts some illegals were initially captured. The first report on the law’s effectiveness found, “In the majority of cases, [the arrest] was made during a call for service, second to that was traffic for stops (sic).”

So Deane works to dilute the law and restrict enforcement inquiries to individuals placed under arrest, which means illegals caught previously during “a call for service” or traffic stop, would go free in the future.

Progressives were fine with Deane’s unilateral decision that the intensity of law enforcement should vary depending on the individual’s national origin, because all the right people were in agreement.

But I wonder what progressive response would have been if Deane had decided to de–emphasize enforcement of domestic violence and homosexual bullying in the Moslem community because Islam has a different view of women’s roles and the Koran prohibits homosexual conduct?

Do you think worries about “Islamophobia” and encouraging cooperation with anti–terrorism efforts would have persuaded elite opinion to accept this type of arbitrary lack of enforcement? We all know the answer to that.

Charlie has his “Bridge Builder” award from the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and his gold watch from the WaPo. Now maybe my county will get a chief who believes his role is to enforce the law, rather than interpret it. Maybe it will set a precedent for the nation.