Why Expecting Subway Passengers to Pay Is Racist

A select group of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) passengers discovered what happens when government ignores the “Broken Windows” theory of policing in favor of the left’s “Let It All Hang Out” philosophy.

Bart with gun Logo“Broken Windows,” introduced by James Wilson and George Kelling, held that a community starts to deteriorate when political leadership de–emphasizes enforcement of “quality of life” ordinances.

Wilson and Kelling used the example of a building with a couple of broken windows. If the windows aren’t repaired, vandals will continue to break windows until there is no glass at all. Failure to repair the first few signals that there won’t be any consequences for breaking more in the future.

Deterioration continues until vandals break into the building and destroy the inside, too.

The social scientists contended the same thing happens in cities. If law enforcement ignores “quality of life” crimes like public urination, drinking in public, littering, graffiti and vandalism then disorder spreads and escalates.

By 1990 William Bratton, chief of New York City’s Transit Police, was tired of supervising the transit equivalent of Subway from Hell so he ordered his troops to crackdown on quality of life offenders. Plainclothes cops started arresting fare jumpers, aggressive panhandlers and vandals. Crime plummeted as a result of enhanced enforcement.

New York’s subway system became safe enough for politicians to ride.

In 2017 BART discovered it, too, has a problem with fare jumpers. The San Francisco Chronicle reports “22,000 people a day may be illegally riding BART for free — and depriving the transit system of as much as $25 million a year.”

For most of us that’s a lot of money, but for some BART board members it was a small price to pay if it kept BART cops from harassing minorities.

BART board member Lateefah Simon — a former fare–jumper herself— is convinced there are just as many upper–income seniors jumping fares as there are minority leapers, but BART cops will someone concentrate their enforcement on “teens, minorities and the homeless.”

“We don’t want to create more problems than we solve,” she explained.

So while the board was dithering a problem created itself.

Five days after Simon pooh–poohed a plan for fare enforcement, a mob hijacked a BART train. As reported by SFGate, “A mob of 40­60 young people streamed onto a BART train in Oakland Saturday night, robbing multiple riders of bags and cell phones and injuring at least two people.

“Juveniles jumped the fare gates and rushed aboard at least two cars of a Dublin-bound train at Coliseum Station shortly before 9:30 p.m. Some members of the group held doors open, stalling the train, while others ran through cars and some robbed and assaulted passengers.”

BART management was contrite: “Before all else, our hearts go out to the passengers who were victims of Saturday’s robbery.”

Once the sympathy was out of the way, BART reverted to best practices for leftists that put a higher priority on political correctness than keeping the peace. It lied.

“Overall, crime has been on the decline, and we want to stress that this robbery is neither reflective of the safety of our system nor of public transportation generally. We strive to provide a safe place for our passengers….”

Only crime isn’t down. Crime is up 22 percent in the first quarter of 2017. In fact crime is so obvious and out of control that acting chief Jeffery Jennings has declared a state of emergency.

Sympathy after the fact would not have been necessary if BART management practiced competence before the incident. Ignoring an obvious and expensive problem like rampant fare jumping only encourages the practitioners to push the limits and escalate their law breaking.

A sensible solution would be to let the data determine where to enforce. I think the term for that is science and the left claims to be the party of science.

The system has cameras in the stations and it can determine which stations are hotspots and at what time incidents occur. This common sense research might have prevented the taking of the BART train, since it occurred right after a juvenile–heavy event ended.

There is no indication the board will even try to mine the data. Adopting a “Broken Windows” policy might result in too many minority arrests, so the board is willing to risk a few broken heads.

I’m not so sure passengers on the Dublin–bound train agree with that choice.

Quality of life laws aren’t designed to inflict discrimination; they’re designed to establish a baseline for public behavior. These laws protect the elderly, the infirm, the young, the female and the wimpy, while restraining the unruly.

Regardless of whether government tolerates broken windows or broken turnstiles, it always leads to broken heads in the end.

Dr. Dao’s Loss Was Our Gain

The saga of former United Airlines customer Dr. David Dao is getting more and more expensive for the airline. According to the Daily Mail, he didn’t get home with all his teeth or his baggage. It seems that although United’s O’Hare Airport staff had time to order Dao beaten, which caused the loss of two teeth, they didn’t have time to take his luggage off the plane before it departed.

Maybe the baggage compartment isn’t subject to being oversold.

After the incident United CEO Oscar Munoz evidently decided to emulate Jim Carrey in the movie “Liar, Liar” and kick his own a**. He issued a number of news releases and endured a series of interviews that only served to illustrate the truth of the old public relations adage: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

First Munoz contended the 69–year–old doctor was “belligerent.” Then Bloomberg reports that Munoz said no United employees would lose their job or be punished in the wake of the incident. “It was a system failure across various areas, so there was never a consideration for firing an employee or anyone around it,” he explained.

Although accurate, the statement doesn’t begin to address all of United’s legal problems. Dao was bumped because of what was termed at the time an “oversold” condition. The contract United customers enter into and never read when they buy a ticket addresses “denied boarding” on an oversold flight. United’s enormous liability problem is Dao wasn’t denied boarding; he was boarded and seated on the aircraft, so the contract provisions no longer applied.

After the initial death–by–streaming the video caused, United clarified the situation. Their particularly aggressive brand of musical chairs wasn’t caused by overbooking. United needed to move a crew of four to Louisville for a flight the next day and Dao was in the fourth seat.

Now there are many examples of passengers being beaten during their commute. An entire train was hijacked in Oakland just this week. But Dao may be the first person in history who was beaten so someone else could commute.

What many people don’t know about the airline business is many, if not most, of their cabin crews don’t live near the airports where they’re assigned. Crews flying out of Louisville may choose to live in a happenin’ city like Chicago, since the airborne commute is free. Dao’s teeth–rattling adventure could well have been the result of a lifestyle choice by the cabin crew in question. A tidbit that will cost even more if the case goes to trial.

The airline’s “system failure” was a pennywise–and–pound–foolish approach to overbooking. United supports the free market when it helps to make money, but dislikes the market when it costs money.

United began the market–based bidding process by offering $400 to passengers, but there were no takers. Then United offered $800. When that didn’t work the bidding was abruptly closed.

The supervisor hadn’t even gone up to the $1,350 maximum compensation required by law when he awarded Dao a free trip to Fist City.

And this is where the doctor’s loss becomes our gain.

Delta Airlines saw the post–knockout $1.4 billion drop in United’s stock price and decided to expand its auction for oversold seats. The Daily Caller reports Delta gate agents can now offer up to $2,000 in compensation and ground supervisors can go up to $9,950.

Now United is following Delta’s lead.

I’m a very satisfied Premier 1K flyer with United and today I received an email acknowledgement from Munoz that admits, “Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.”

To show Dr. Dao didn’t bleed in vain, in the future United “will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000.” Now the only violence in the cabin during an overbooked event will be when passengers didn’t think a volunteer held out for enough money and reduced compensation for the rest of the volunteers.

Even better, United now has a “no–questions–asked” $1,500 reimbursement policy for misplaced baggage. So if Dr. Dao’s new dentures are lost during a future flight he won’t have to supply the baggage supervisor with a cast of his teeth.

This is the most customer–oriented policy change that I can remember in the airline industry and we owe it all to Dr. Dao. I would almost suggest we start a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for the good doctor’s physical therapy and PTSD sessions to demonstrate our gratitude.

But something tells me that after either the settlement talks or the trial concludes, Dr. Dao will have so much money he won’t be participating in any seat auctions regardless of how high the bidding goes.

Trump Looks for Love in All the Wrong Places

If President Trump is disappointed by the outcome of his dalliance with Amanda Knox, wait until he gets a load of what passes for reciprocity from Rep. Hal Rodgers.

This clown caucus is the last place Trump should go to for support.

Amanda Knox is the student that was accused of a particularly gruesome murder in Italy, where she was attending school. Most of us would gravitate toward OJ or Robert Durst if we were going to advocate for someone accused of a messy murder, but maybe Trump thought he already had senior offenders in the bag.

Trump picked the hot coed and tweeted during her appeal trial, “Everyone should boycott Italy if Amanda Knox is not freed – she is totally innocent.”

Fortunately for the Italian tourism board, Knox was found innocent and returned to the US, where she proceeded to display a politician’s gratitude. The Independent reports the accused murderer endorsed the enthusiastic abortion supporter, Hillary Clinton, instead of her Twitter buddy, Trump.

In a column Knox wrote for the West Seattle Herald she observed, “If Obama’s song was a rousing anthem, Clinton’s is a subtle symphony. And Trump, a broken trumpet. [Clinton’s] impending victory represents the triumph of nuance and poise over prejudice and childishness.”

I won’t go out on a limb and contend Trump’s elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts in his proposed budget was to make sure Amanda never received a “writer in residence” grant, but it is an intriguing thought.

Now Trump is looking for love in all the wrong places. I know Trump is new at this, but it’s time to focus. Reaching out to RINOs and Democrats in the White House means asking Ivanka to pass the salt. Doing so in Congress can have serious repercussions with Trump’s base.

How serious? To learn that you’ll have to click on the link below and read the rest of my column at Newsmax.com:

https://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/trump-freedom-caucus-rep-hal-rodgers/2017/04/19/id/785266/

 

United Airlines Package Tours Now Include Hospitalization!

I’m old enough to remember when the United Airlines slogan was: “Fly the Friendly Skies of United.” Now, according to Twitter wag GoodJuJu, the new motto is: “Our Service Will Knock You Out!”

It’s a cinch the passengers on United Express Flight 3411 got more than they bargained for — I knew United was upgrading seating and entertainment on those annoying puddle–jumper jets, but that floor show looked like a Trump rally!

CEO Oscar Munoz’ response to the incident was so inept he may as well have let the cop who cold–cocked the passenger handle the news conferences. At least that guy had some impact. The only mistake Munoz didn’t make was announcing that in the future all United passengers will be required to turn their cell phones off when they get a boarding pass.

Munoz began Unitedsplaining by blaming 69–year–old Dr. David Dao for all the trouble, claiming he was “belligerent.”

Alternate motto: If You Don’t Need a Wheelchair Before You Board, You May Need One After!

As a PR person I could have told Munoz he was going to have trouble selling that when Dr. Dao was an elderly, paid up, sober and seated passenger who just wanted to go home. On Monday a man claiming to be a United Express pilot called the Rush Limbaugh Show and, displaying the same concern for the paying customer that Munoz has, said, “Flying is a privilege.”

For pilots, yes. For passengers, no.

Flying for a passenger is a commercial transaction; not a boon bestowed on an unworthy recipient. In this case the good doctor’s “privilege” was revoked for because plane was overbooked.

Overbooking occurs when the airline sells the same seat more than once. The practice received official approval back when the Civil Aeronautics Board regulated airlines. (You can only sell a single item to multiple buyers when the government approves — think chair in a VA hospital waiting room — otherwise you go to jail.)

Then airlines lost money when a passenger called to make a reservation and didn’t show up, because the booked seat remained empty. This may be hard for modern consumers to believe, but back in those days a passenger would make a reservation and get a seat assignment WITHOUT PAYING A DIME! If he changed his mind at the last minute the airline lost money.

Even if the spontaneous passenger paid before changing his mind, it was easy to get a refund and fly another time.

Meanwhile, the market changed but government hasn’t. Why does that sound familiar? Passengers now pay extra to make a reservation on the phone, many tickets are non–refundable and the ones are refundable have a $250 change fee, plus added fare if the new flight is more expensive.

Even if overbooking was justifiable, United’s implementation wasn’t. Like many corporations United supports the free market when it helps make money, but dislikes the market when it costs money.

Airlines raise prices as flight times approach because the few remaining seats are more valuable, but it wants to put a lid on prices when it needs to buy the seats back. Here United needed four seats and it began the bidding at $400 and a free hotel room with meal vouchers, if the passengers gave up their seats.

That was too low, so the offer was increased to $800.

Still no takers, but instead of going up to $1,200 to see if that would bring demand in line with supply, the airline bypassed the market and decided to use force.

That money–saving decision that cost United $1.4 billion in stock valuation after the public became aware of the incident.

Overbooking, like free checked bags, is a relic of the past. When fans don’t show up for football games the team loses out on parking and concession revenue, but even rapacious Dan Snyder doesn’t overbook Redskins’ games.

If overbooking is allowed to continue it should be as a percentage of the load factor and airlines should be required to keep bidding until passengers relinquish their seats voluntarily, not at gunpoint.

The load factor for domestic flights has been on a steady climb since 2002, when it was 70.4 percent. So far in 2017 the load factor is 84.6 percent. Jet fuel prices are down and ticket sales are up. It’s a wonder United has any frustrations to take out on passengers.

I’ve flown United since it was called Continental. It’s my airline of choice and my frequent flyer level is so high, there’s no chance of me being bumped. But I will say this: In the future if I were a physician, I’d think twice before answering when a flight attendant asks, “Is there a doctor on board?”

Federal Judges Rewrite the 2nd Amendment

The most confusing dependent clause in the history of the nation, at least as far as personal liberty goes, is the one that begins the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The full text of the amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

gun-control-cagle-cartoonTo understand what the Founders meant it helps to understand how much the former colonists disliked a standing army. As far as the Continental Congress was concerned the Revolution could be fought and won using an army composed entirely of citizen volunteers organized into local militia companies.

George Washington, the man actually in charge of the fighting, thought this was madness. He and the Congress had a running battle throughout the war over recruiting, equipping and paying a regular army. Washington believed only a professional, disciplined body of troops armed with military weapons could defeat the British.

Militia units simply wouldn’t stand up to line infantry. Civilians in the colonies usually owned rifles, not muskets. This meant a civilian could fire accurately at longer distances than a smooth–bore musket, but his rate of fire was not as rapid as the easier–loading musket.

Rate of fire, however, was secondary to the main problem with civilian arms: The inability to attach a bayonet to the rifle. Regular infantry charged with fixed bayonets and the men with spears always overwhelmed the men with clubs.

Militia members weren’t forbidden to buy muskets with bayonet lugs on the barrel. It was simply a matter of choice. Civilians would rather shoot a deer at 100 yds. and walk up to claim dinner, as opposed to chasing Bambi down and stabbing him with a bayonet.

As the war progressed militia units were used as skirmishers to pepper British troops with long range fire and then retire behind the regulars as the lines closed. So in the end both Washington and Congress were partially correct.

Once the war concluded under the Articles of Confederation the regular army languished, except for a remnant that manned frontier forts. State militias, again composed of volunteers bringing privately own weapons, provided defense against Indian raids and other disorder.

Before the outbreak of the Civil War there was private militia cavalry and even artillery companies operating without government control.

The role of civilian militia volunteers was codified in the Bill of Rights by the 2nd Amendment and the lasting rancor against a large regular army was found in the 3rd Amendment, which prohibited quartering troops in private homes.

The word “militia” in the 2nd Amendment means the “arms” citizens have a “right” to bear are by definition weapons of war. The Constitution doesn’t give us the right to own a BB gun or participate in paintball conflicts.

The Constitution gives us the right to own and bear light infantry weapons.

That fact escapes all leftist judges. They think government grants the right, when the Constitution obviously holds the right exists independently of government, which shall not infringe upon it.

The case that cannot be made by anyone reading the plain language of the amendment and knowing anything of history is that the 2nd Amendment does not cover weapons that are either military in nature or resemble military weapons.

Yet that is exactly what the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals did when it voted 10–to–4 to uphold an unconstitutional Maryland law that bans ownership of “assault weapons and large–capacity magazines.”

Ignoring “militia,” “arms” and “shall not infringe” the court sounded more like Chief Justice Oprah Winfrey when it concluded, “Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war.”

Only the justices don’t have to extend anything, the 2nd Amendment already protects “weapons of war.” Their job was to stop an obvious infringement upon that right.

Evidently the justices equate a militia to a sort of colonial bowling league. Just as you wouldn’t want bowlers rolling a cannonball down the lane, you wouldn’t want civilians owning a “military style” rifle. The problem with that reasoning is the militia was designed and expected to function in place of a regular military and to fulfill that role civilians must, by necessity, have weapons of a “military nature.”

Enlightened judges may not like the language of the Constitution. They may think the language is outmoded and superseded by modern life. But it is a violation of their oath of office to re–write the document to their liking or ignore provisions with which they disagree.

The Founders wisely provided a mechanism to amend the Constitution. It involves Congress, the states and voting. It does not include 10 politicians in black robes.

Trump Protesters Do Violence to “Peaceful”

The inauguration will be a learning experience for President Trump in more ways than one. To begin with, he’ll see first hand just how hard it will be to re–establish the rule of law in the United States and he will learn just how deep the “resistance” to his administration extends into government.

My fear is Trump’s inauguration will either be an asymmetrical warfare defeat for security forces or a willing surrender. The homeland security apparatus appears to be preparing to prevent an attack by jihadis when the big threat to the ceremony is an attack by jerks.

trump-protestThe mainstream media who vilified and lied about candidate Trump can now hardly wait to cover Trump inauguration protests it helped generate. The Washington Post is fired up, “Planning for protesters is taking up more bandwidth ahead of the quadrennial festivities in the District than at any time in over a decade.”

The focus of security planning should be on people coming to enjoy the inauguration. These citizens should be able to travel to and from the event safely and otherwise undisturbed as they celebrate the victory they worked so hard to produce.

Unfortunately, planning priorities are exactly backwards. I have yet to read a statement by any security functionary, police chief, mayor, congressman or even K–9 dog assuring law–abiding citizens here to witness a peaceful transfer of power that the government will do its best to make sure Trump supporters enjoy the day.

The sentiment seems to be: What did you expect? We voted for Hillary.

Official pronouncements certainly fail to reassure law–abiding Trump voters who plan to attend the festivities. See for yourself what collaborating officialdom says and what a rule–of–law response to disruption should be by clicking the link below and reading the rest of my Newsmax.com Insider column:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/trump-inauguration-protest-illegal/2017/01/17/id/769037/

 

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.

White Reporter Contends Dark–Skinned People Can’t Control Themselves

Samantha Sunne had an authentically gritty New York City experience during a recent visit. She “spent four hours curled in a ball, balancing on a narrow wooden bench…trying to avoid the freezing cinderblock walls and the cold cement floor, splattered with cigarette butts and rotten food.”

This is just the kind of first–hand experience writers used to crave, but Sunne is not too happy about her brush with the NYC justice system.

Maybe it’s because they refused her request for a gluten–free cell.

reagan-crime-sentencesSamantha doesn’t contend she was innocent — the Hillary defense — her contention is the offense is guilty.

Sunne writes in the Washington Post that in the wee hours she was riding the A–train and propped her feet up on the seat in front of her. The next thing she knew it was Eric Garner all over again.

Only Sunne was arrested by a woman, didn’t resist the arrest and, except for exposure to second–hand tobacco products, she was none the worse for wear. But that’s not how she sees it: “I became one more victim of ‘nuisance laws,’ regulations that criminalize small misbehaviors that don’t hurt anyone.”

The left characterizes these ordinances as “nuisance laws” when the statutes only inconvenience lawbreakers. A better term would be “respect your neighbor” laws, but leftists are completely unwilling to make any contribution to public order if doing so has even the slightest influence on their personal preference at that particular moment.

Instead Sunne takes a law designed to keep seats in the NY subway clean and ready for tired behinds and morphs it into yet another sinister plot to keep the black man down.

She explains, “On its face, this might not seem like a big deal — everyone wants clean subways and orderly cities. But criminalizing small acts can have major consequences for nonwhite and low-income people, who are disproportionately arrested and convicted for these infractions.”

How is Samantha’s viewpoint regarding the “nonwhite” population’s adherence to the law any different from that of the Klan? The Klan thinks “people of color” can’t control their sexual urges and Sunne evidently believes minorities lack the self–control necessary to resist the urge to break the law.

It’s just in their nature.

If you ask me Sunne and her fellow traveler’s mindset is the real bigotry. These laws aren’t designed to inflict discrimination on blacks or browns; they are designed to establish a baseline for public behavior.

Besides, even in the Post not everyone is in agreement that enduring a gritty nonchalance toward behavior norms is worth it because the resulting atmosphere makes visits to the big city so much more authentic for leftist tourists.

Natalie De Vincenzi writes, “We need security cameras on all Metro cars…[cameras] could hold accountable the teenagers who threw objects at me on the train.” Now I’m sure Samantha would object and saying throwing objects, as opposed to throwing curses, is assault and not a nuisance.

But that’s the big problem with disorder. It has a tendency to escalate.

Samantha’s delicate feet on the seat are quite a bit different from say Michael Brown’s. I’m sure Samantha would be happy to remove hers when the little old white lady asked, but I’m not sure grandma would even bother to ask Brown.

Public order laws are designed to protect the elderly, the infirm, the young, the female and the wimpy, while restraining the unruly. Politely asking the impolite to behave puts a burden on people that most are too timid to assume. That’s when the government acts.

“Nuisance” laws aren’t like Obamacare. Obamacare makes you buy health insurance or the government penalizes you. “Nuisance” laws don’t require you to polish seats on the subway with anything other than your behind.

Rather than acknowledging how much better city life has been since the implementation of the “Broken Windows” theory of policing, people like Sunne delight in attempting to reverse the major gains made in public safety over the past two decades, by attributing the progress to “flawed and unfair” police tactics.

And by flawed I mean racially–biased, for as patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, racism is the first refuge for the leftist. What’s more, the critics offer no alternatives for replacing police tactics that have saved lives and rescued communities.

Instead these “journalists” are like Tom and Daisy Buchannan in The Great Gatsby, “…careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

Another Way Citizen’s Pay for Illegal Aliens

The Shannon family’s latest unexpected encounter with federal immigration policy couldn’t have come at a more inconvenient time. Here it is almost tax day and my daughter is hit with an unexpected HOLA! bill. That’s HOLA as in Hidden Outlay for Left’s Amnesty.

illegal-alien-path-to-citizenshipMy daughter is driving along in Dallas and as she proceeds through an intersection, her car is T–boned by a red–light–running illegal alien who’s here to cause the car crashes Americans don’t want to cause.

Jessica instantly finds herself wrapped in a soft cushion of government mandates and protection as every airbag on the driver’s side explodes. Once the balloons deflate, she calls 9–1–1.

Dallas is a Sanctuary City and investigating citizen Vs. illegal car crashes is no problemo. Since the INS won’t be involved this time the automovilista doesn’t choose to flee the scene. No driver’s license or other form of legal identification means the officer takes down whatever alias the illegal is using that day and issues Jose two tickets. (Que lastima! More government paperwork!) Those are tickets that will never be paid, but that’s not the officer’s concern.

No need for the tedious exchange of insurance information and arguments over penmanship because the Mexican export not only has an aversion to government documentation, he also eschews insurance company certificates. Leaving the officer free to answer the next call.

The paying begins as Jessica experiences first hand the hidden cost of undermining the rule of law. Here is a brief rundown of some of the expenses imposed on a citizen, first–year school teacher by the Democrat’s plan to change the electorate and the RINO conspiracy to import Central America’s wages.

First, Jessica’s car is totaled. If she’d won the locomotion lottery and been hit by a citizen, their insurance would have paid her deductible. But in a no papers, no policy situation she’s out the entire amount. Next she’ll be spending hours negotiating a deal on a new car. The longer that takes, the more she pays for the rental car she driving in the interim.

Once she makes the deal, it’s time to pay sales and property taxes on her new ride. Taxes Jessica assumed were years away, with a car less than three years old, until she had a personal encounter with Obama’s border policy.

Long term, the accident will be costing her every month in the form of higher insurance rates for a crash she didn’t cause.

This isn’t our family’s first head–on with illegals on wheels. A drunk Mexican illegal killed my dear friend and cycling coach, while she was on her bicycle training a client. After we moved to Virginia another acquaintance from our gym was — you guessed it — killed by a drunk–driving illegal. And a little over a year ago I was rear ended by an anchor baby with no insurance.

My car survived and my daughter did, too, so I’m counting my blessings.

Increased transportation costs aren’t the only HOLA charges. At a nearby elementary school there’s no money for a math specialist, but there are four English as a second language teachers with a fifth on the way.

Residents without children are paying higher property taxes to fund soaring school budgets as our classrooms educate and often feed Honduras’ best.

All this is invisible to Washington and ignored by ethnic enablers already in office because they simply could care less. Citizens who play by the rules are bearing the brunt of the elites’ open border policy.

John “The Apostle” Kasich tells us you can’t deport illegals because “it would break up families.” Marco Amnesty claims “law abiding” illegals will have a chance for permanent residency.

What none of the amnesty supporters tell you is Jessica’s collision buddy qualifies for amnesty under that framework. The two traffic tickets he won’t pay are driving infractions and not criminal violations. As far as Obama and the RINOs are concerned he has the same claim on citizenship as Jessica does.

I’m tired of all the hand–wringing over illegal’s families. How about some outrage over the damage this slow–motion erosion of our American culture is doing? Illegals choose to come here and they can bear the consequences. Citizens certainly have.

As far as I’m concerned if Uncle Sam put a man on the moon, he can return a Mexican to Mexico.

Maine’s Unpretentious First Lady Takes a Real Job

This summer we have an interesting contrast between first ladies at the state government level.

Ann LePage, wife of Maine Gov. Paul LePage is waiting tables, while Maureen McDonnell, wife of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, is waiting to see if she can avoid going to jail.

Maureen McDonnell explains how she lost 40 lbs. by having her portrait painted.

Maureen McDonnell explains how she lost 40 lbs. by having her portrait painted.

The other difference is how members of the political class achieve their desires.

Ann has her heart set on owning a new Toyota RAV 4 and she’s getting it the old fashioned way — by earning the money. Ann is working at McSeagull’s where according to WGME she’s hoping to average the same $28/hr. her daughter earned last summer. On an annual basis that’s $58,240 a year – far in excess of the $15/hr. “living wage” that produces only $31,200 and penalizes initiative. The amount is even close to her husband’s state salary of $70,000.

LePage is charmingly unpretentious and obviously doesn’t suffer from a Hillary–sized ego. I’ve been peering intently at all the photos accompanying the coverage and can’t find a single state trooper or other “security detail” member lurking in the background.

It’s only Ann bustling from table to table.

I’m sure this strikes many as too bourgeois for words. A governor’s wife working in a tourist trap instead of a “think tank” or corporate “community outreach” was obviously so novel it interested the Washington Post.

The next thing you know that wacky Ann will be browsing the aisles at the Dollar Store.

A smart political operator — a “two for the price of one” first lady — would’ve started the LePage Foundation to “make the world a better place.” Initial contributions could have gone to buy something more fitting for a governor’s wife, say a nice black Mercedes SUV, so Ann, as foundation president, could have a stylish way to get around town.

Instead she’s now one of the state’s 10,000 seasonal employees and hoping McSeagull’s owners don’t pull a Trump and replace her with H–2B visa worker from Carjackistan.

I’d like to think Ann is sincere in wanting to work and not engaged in a domestic drama, but it is a fact husband Paul has pushed for a higher salary. He was either feeling the economic pinch or the status pinch, because the mister proposed giving himself an $80,000 raise.

In Virginia the governor makes $175,000, but even that isn’t enough for some.

Take Maureen McDonnell. She had a wish list, too, but her tastes were more upper crust, preferring Bergdorf Goodman and Rolex to Toyota and the “Lobster Chicken Bomb.” Maureen’s sweating out a jail sentence because she decided to get her goodies the old backroom way by swapping political influence for money.

During only one term as first lady, Maureen persuaded an “old family friend” dating back to a few days before the inauguration — to give her and the McDonnell brood almost $200,000.00.

The Post has the totals:

$6,500 Rolex watch

$15,000 Bergdorf Goodman shopping spree

$10,000 wedding gift to daughter Jeanine

$15,000 catering for daughter Cailin’s wedding

$50,000 no–doc loan to Maureen

$70,000 no–doc loan to Bob

Maureen raked in this amazing total and didn’t have to replace a single insole, so take that Ann!

Of course in prison they supply the shoes, so Maureen still won’t be buying Dr. Scholl’s even if the appeal is unsuccessful.

Not all political wives and politicians have Ann Leave’s strong moral compass, so here’s some advice for those tempted to keep up with the Trumps by accepting favors from “old friends” whose arrival coincided with your election.

Your life may not be as lavish, but on the other hand you won’t be sharing a toilet with Maureen McDonnell:

  1. Don’t take a gift from any ‘old friend’ you made after you left high school unless it comes with a receipt, preferably from Walmart.
  2. Don’t buy stock in a ‘friend’s’ hot company if you didn’t know him in high school.
  3. Don’t take a gift from any ‘friend’ who owns a company the SEC, FEC, IRS, FDA or the PTA is investigating.
  4. Don’t hitch a ride on an airplane, yacht or submarine owned by a stranger you met after high school, unless you all chip in for gas.
  5. Don’t accept free vacation housing from a ‘friend’ you met after high school, unless it’s a tent.

Meanwhile let’s close on Laurie Green’s thoughts regarding Ann LePage as told to AP, “I really hate a lot of our politicians nowadays that have the wealth, the money. They have no clue what the average person out in the world is doing.”

But Ann does.