Archive for April, 2010

Dan Calabrese

I know, I know, this is not about an item in the news, and the book doesn’t even have anything to do with politics (which some of you might find refreshing). But I’ve got two things going on today related to my novel, Powers and Principalities, and while you have to be in the Detroit area to participate in the one, the other is available to everyone via the magic of online streaming.

Our esteemed editor's creepy book.

This afternoon at 5:05 p.m., I’ll be discussing the book on the Paul Edwards Show on WLQV-AM 1500 in Detroit, and you can steam it live from the station’s web site here. And as an added bonus if you tune in, we’ll also be announcing the title of the sequel, which is about half-done and is targeted for a fall 2010 release.

Then, at 7 p.m., for those in the Detroit area,  stop in to the Barnes and Noble at 5th and Main in Royal Oak, where I’ll be signing copies until 9 p.m. or so. This is our second signing, following a very successful first one at the same location.

Now, if you just want to buy the book but don’t want to deal with having to see or hear me, no offense taken in the slightest! Here’s where you can learn more about it and order a copy.

Bob Maistros

See Senator Chris and Congressman Barney.  They want to regulate Mr. Banker.  To regulate is to tell someone what to do.  Then you can hold hearings on TV and say people should go to jail if they do not do what you tell them.  Or even they do and it does not work.  Regulate, Senator Chris and Congressman Barney, regulate!

Let's see ... how am I going to explain this again?

See Mr. Banker. Senator Chris and Congressman Barney tell Mr. Banker he must lend money to poor people to buy houses.  Mr. Banker does not want to lend money to poor people, because poor people cannot pay back the money he lends.  That is because they are poor.  Lend, Mr. Banker, lend! Read the rest of this entry »

Jamie Weinstein

Earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he was retiring from the Supreme Court. It was a shocking announcement. After all, Stevens was only 89 years old.

And we're just getting started.

By all accounts, Stevens is a good and decent man and all of us can thank him for his service, even if we disagreed with his judicial philosophy. But if Stevens can set the standard for retirement age in America, he will be an even more historic figure than just a Supreme Court Justice. He will be known as the man who saved America from its looming entitlement crisis. Now that would be something.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mark Watson

If today’s Justice Department had its way, anyone possessing a magazine depicting the killing of a stolen cow could be prosecuted and sent to prison for five years. It would not matter if the killing was humane or not, for possessing such a depiction would violate federal criminal law.

Rights are rights.

In a Supreme Court decision handed down on Tuesday, which will be largely ignored by all media types, the Justice Department has been thwarted in its extraordinary attempt to undermine the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

An old adage in the law reminds us that bad facts often creates good law. This adage applies to United States vs. Stevens, which declared that the Clinton era law ran afoul of the First Amendment.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bob Maistros

1.  Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey responded last November to the murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood by a military psychiatrist who had made presentations insisting that non-believers in Islam would be decapitated, burned, and have burning oil poured down their throats and had submitted Internet postings defending suicide bombers.  Casey stated:

Whose past comments were "just not appropriate?"

a. “His past comments just were not appropriate.”
b. “(D)iversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength.”
c. That the Army would not give permission for statements such as these to be posted on the Internet.
d. “In most cases these are First Amendment issues, and the (government) vigorously defends people’s First Amendment rights.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Dan Calabrese

Let me see if I have this straight:

In Arizona, they are going to empower the police to question you about whether you are in the country legally, and unlike in the past, they won’t have to first be investigating you on an unrelated crime. So this is sort of like in Michigan, where the cops used to lack the authority to ticket you for not wearing a seat belt unless they stopped you for another offense first.

It's no fun.

Now, if they don’t see that belt firmly in place . . . woooooo wooooooo wooooooo!

And everyone’s upset. The right is upset because of all the illegals traipsing all over the place, because they’re breaking the law. The law, dammit!

The left is upset because the police can go up to people on the basis of suspicion and “demand papers” or some such thing, especially because you’re not likely to be asked unless you’re dark-skinned, and that means the force of the law falls heavily on an Official Left Wing Grievance Group.

Read the rest of this entry »

Brett Noel

cartoon

cartoon

cartooon

cartoon

cartoon

carttoon

cartoon

L\

Large version for newspaper publication

Greyscale version for newspaper publication

Herman Cain

Tax Freedom Day, as defined by the Tax Foundation, has come and gone without much attention from the media this year. It is supposed to be the day we have worked since the beginning of the year to pay our collective tax bill for federal, state and local taxes.

Theoretically, it was on April 9 this year, a little more than a fourth of our sweat equity. Practically, it has not arrived yet.

You might as well.

The Tax Freedom Day (TFD) calculation does not include the deficit for this fiscal year. It does not include the total national debt, nor does it include unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. It also does not include the yet-to-be-determined cost of ObamaCare if it stands up in court.

Read the rest of this entry »

Gregory D. Lee

Never one to miss an opportunity to raise your taxes, regulate your business or get more television exposure, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) now wants to save you from evil airline fees for carry-on baggage.

As the opportunist that he is, Sen. Schumer again smelled an opportunity to stick his nose into someone else’s business as the first to call a press conference to announce that he would create legislation to prohibit Spirit Airlines and the others from charging passengers a fee for carry-on baggage if they didn’t drop the fee. He’s already contacted many of the major airlines and most have committed to not charge a fee for carry-on baggage. Instead, the airlines will just raise their ticket prices.

They need me.

So what’s been accomplished other than more government intervention?

Spirit Airlines announced earlier this month it would charge up to $45 for carry-on baggage – $30 if you pay in advance.

Read the rest of this entry »