Biden’s Restaurant Rescue Plan Blatantly Discriminates Against White Males

From American Thinker:

White males go to the back of the line in applying for funds to rescue their bars, restaurants, and other venues eligible for federal relief for the impact of the coronavirus lockdown.  This violates the equal protection under the law requirements of the United States Constitution, but it is nonetheless ongoing right now.

John Binder of Breitbart writes:

As part of Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is opening the application process by which owners of restaurant, bars, and other venues can apply for federal relief to help make up for the loss of revenue as a result of economic lockdowns spurred by the Chinese coronavirus crisis.(snip)

The relief, though, is being prioritized based on race, gender, and whether or not business owners are considered “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” White men, for example, who are not Veterans of the United States Armed Forces, are not eligible for “priority period” processing and funding.

Under the guidelines of the RRF, the SBA is giving priority processing and funding to “small business owned by women, veterans, or socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.”

The article links to the government’s Small Business Administration website, where we find this:

Priority groups

  • A small business concern that is at least 51 percent owned by one or more individuals who are:
    • Women, or
    • Veterans, or
    • Socially and economically disadvantaged (see below).
  • Applicants must self-certify on the application that they meet eligibility requirements
  • Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities.
  • Economically disadvantaged individuals are those socially disadvantaged individuals whose ability to compete in the free enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities as compared to others in the same business area who are not socially disadvantaged.

The Small Business Administration clarifies what it means by “socially disadvantaged individuals:”

Individuals who are members of the following groups are presumed to be socially disadvantaged: Black Americans; Hispanic Americans; Native Americans (including Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians); Asian Pacific Americans; or Subcontinent Asian Americans.

In reality, and based on numerous examples I’ve already cited on this blog, white males are subject to “racial or ethnic prejudice… because of their identity…”. Unlike the disadvantages that non-whites supposedly face in America, white males are openly stigmatized by law, federal, state and municipal.

How Orwellian to refer to groups that are explicitly advantaged as “suffering from prejudice.”

I would encourage white restaurant owners to self-identify as “Hispanic” on their applications. I would also advise everybody to specifically patronize white-owned restaurants, and to avoid restaurants that are likely benefiting from unjust government programs. In the past, I’ve enjoyed Vietnamese restaurants, but going forward, I’ll learn how to make my own pho. Mexican food? I can make my own. Italian is looking better all the time.

Thomas Lifson, at American Thinker, believes that this law will be challenged in court. This would be a challenge, because (as I mentioned in a previous post) urban restaurant owners wouldn’t dare file such a lawsuit; to do so would mean boycotts, vandalism and physical threats against them and their families. Hopefully, there are still some restaurant owners in rural America who can safely challenge this law.

This entry was posted in government/corporate discrimination against whites and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.