Finally! Democrats Support Cutting Off the Money

It hasn’t made the national news (except for this column) but for a brief time it looked like Democrats around our nation’s capital were going to accept the fact the federal government can withhold funds from states that don’t cooperate with the feds.

And this wasn’t a mere threat to turn off the spigot; funds for Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia have been cut off.

metro-cartoonYet no Democrats are vowing to fight to the last ditch to get their money. No state attorneys general are rushing to the courthouse hoping to find a federal judge willing to write legislation from the bench. No legal defense funds have been established. No lawyers have been hired. No posters have been printed. And no protestors wielding superglue and PVC pipe have blockaded entrances to buildings.

Why George Ramos wasn’t even thrown out of a news conference for asking impertinent questions.

If you’re thinking now that Trump has vanquished the Sanctuary City movement, it’s time to move on to Obamacare repeal, I have bad news.

Now I’ve got you. You’re wondering what bad news? The question is easily answered by clicking on the link below and reading the entire column on Newsmax.com:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/city-federal-funding-sanctuary/2017/03/01/id/776296/

 

 

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.