The Locke Block

Gross Point War Memorial by radiospike @flickr.com

A new day dawned in America on November 4, 2008. For the first time in America’s history, we now will have an African American President. Now understand, I’m not against having an African American President, if it is the right African American President. I happen to believe that Obama is not the right person for this job.

Obama’s stance on many of the issues that are important to me is totally opposite of my beliefs. For example,

Abortion

My belief is that abortions should only be performed as necessary to save a mother’s life. I believe that life begins at conception. So my belief is that having an abortion because a person does not want the burden of raising a child is killing the unborn living child. I don’t believe it is just a fetus.

Taxes

Obama wants to “spread the wealth.” Remember what he told Joe the Plumber. Personally, I don’t want my money that I work hard for to be taken from me to give to someone who wants to sit on their behind and won’t get out and work. I don’t want my money going to support an “illegal” who does not have the guts or the stamina to go and get his citizenship the way that thousands before him have done. Basically, I don’t want my money to go for ENTITLEMENTS. I believe that I am entitled to work and make a living and keep the money and give it to people who need it in a manner of my own choosing.

Homosexuality

Obama supports homosexual rights. This goes against my believe as well. I don’t believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. I believe that a person chooses to be homosexual and they can choose not to be homosexual.

Obama’s ties to his friends could influence the decisions that he makes.

Terrorism

One’s friends and associates tells a lot about a person. Obama associated with known terrorists. Some names that kept coming up — William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Resko and Rashid Khalidi to name a few.

My concern is that if these are your friends and associates — what does this say about you? Now I know the campaign is over and this has been hashed and rehashed, but I believe that it needs to be kept in the background of everyone’s mind.

Election 2008

Obama has not always been respectful in his comments or actions.

There was a tremendous to-do made about Sarah Palin and her “gaffs” on the interviews that she gave. Nothing was made of Obama and his irreverant “gaffs”.

In watching the last Presidential debate, the smug, arrogant attitude came through when Obama openly laughed at McCain as McCain was trying to make his last stand to appeal to American’s to vote for him.

Just yesterday, Obama referred laughingly to Nancy Reagan and seances.

According to CNN, “When a reporter asked Obama if he had spoken with any ex-presidents since his election on Tuesday, he responded that he had spoken to all former presidents “that are living.”

“I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances,” he said.”

Yes he has apologized, but the question remains… what kind of remark was that to make? A President has to be careful and think before he speaks.

Which brings me to another point…

Have I missed the Inauguration?”

Obama has started holding press conferences with signs “The Office of the President Elect.” He’s giving radio addresses about the economy. Obama’s already acting like he is the President. It’s even been said that he wants to go ahead and be sworn in and evict President Bush. But that’s another post entirely…

Obama just doesn’t have the traditional values or the reverence needed to be the President of this country.

It’s going to be an interesting and busy next four years for the Conservative bloggers. Put The Locke Block on your RSS reader. We’ll be busy here writing on the political news out of Washington.

2 Comments »
Filed under: Barack Obama, Interviews, Office of the President, Political blogging, Sarah Palin, Washington News

(AP/Photo Rick Wilking Pool)

 
The Vice Presidential Debate is now over.

The Vice Presidential Debate is now over.   While many were expecting her to “fall flat on her face”, she did the opposite.  Sarah Palin rose to the top and proved to America that she can handle answering the tough questions.  This was not the Sarah Palin that appeared on ABC and CBS. 

What are the Democratic pundits saying?

Democratic pundits now are saying that she came across as rehearsed.  They are saying that she cannot possibly talk without a script.

They fail to look at their own candidate.  He clearly showed that he was rehearsed and had memorized certain answers.  The amount of statistics that he was quoting at the beginning of the debate almost made one think that he had the questions before the debate.   His answers came across too smoothly.

Confident in her answers

Sarah Palin was confident in her answers.  She did not bow down to the pressure of this debate.  She spoke to Americans by looking directly at the camera, instead of speaking to the Debate Hall like Biden.  The American people are hungry for someone who can represent the average “Joe”.  Sarah Palin brings that to the McCain ticket.

No Comments »
Filed under: Vice Presidential Debate

The Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which should be called “The Wall Street Welfare Act of 2008″, resoundingly failed today in the House of Representatives.  Nancy Pelosi, as usual, opened mouth and inserted her foot by making that five minute partisan speech about whose to blame for this mess.

Democrats and Republicans are blaming each other. The Majority party could have passed this bill, but ninety-five democrats voted against it. The Minority party brought it before the House, and yet only 65 Republicans voted for it, with 133 Republicans voted against it.   The masses have spoken and their representatives did their jobs and listened to the people that they represent for a change. 

The Secretary of the Treasury would be given too much authority in this “Bailout.”

Excerpts from the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 showing some of the authority that the Secretary of the Treasury would be given is as follows:

• (a) EXERCISE OF RIGHTS.—The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection withtroubled assets purchased under this Act.
• (b) MANAGEMENT OF TROUBLED ASSETS.—The Secretary shall have authority to manage troubled assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.
• (c) SALE OF TROUBLED ASSETS.—The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at a
  price determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions, or other financial transactions in regard to, any troubled asset purchased under this Act.
• (e) APPLICATION OF SUNSET TO TROUBLED ASSETS.—The authority of the Secretary to hold any troubled asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 120, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a troubled asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 120, is not subject to the provisions of section 120.

The Secretary is given abundant authority over this money with some oversight.  The oversight for this bill comes in the form of numerous committees which will be created.  The public has become increasingly tired of committees and subcommittees.   

Who gets the money?

The one thing that was accomplished by all the negotiations over this bill is that ACORN was taken out of this bill.  However, the bill does not sufficiently address whether the top executives of these “failing” companies would retain their high bonuses that they would receive for meeting projected quotas for the year.   Where is the protection to the taxpayers that the Government would not be handing out “welfare” to these executives in the form of these high bonuses? 

Will the markets rebound?

The markets have dropped significantly.  Will they rebound?  Is it the doom and gloom that the media is touting?  Who knows for sure?  Are the media personalities preaching doom and gloom because they, themselves, are postured to loose a bundle of money in these failed companies? 

What happened to the days of letting companies fail and be sold to other companies?  We see some of this at work.  Wachovia is being bought by Citibank.  Washington Mutual was bought by J. P. Morgan.  Bank of America takes over Merrill Lynch.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND THEY HAVE SPOKEN AND FOR ONCE THEY WERE HEARD.  THEY DO NOT WANT SOCIALISM INSTEAD OF CAPITALISM. 

No Comments »
Filed under: Bailout, Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Failed Banks, Wall Street

The financial mess that has been created by lending to people who don’t have the means, and probably were never going to have the means to pay back the loan, is egregious.  The policies that were developed by Jimmy Carter in the 1970’s has come back to haunt us today.  The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 helped start all this mess that people are now blaming on the Republicans.  

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

      The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e.The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e.

Clinton Reforms the Reinvestment Act

In an attempt to “reform” the Reinvestment Act, Clinton proposed changes to the Act. In a Press briefing released on December 8, 1993, details were released about Clinton’s proposed changes to the Act.

Secretary Lloyd Bentsen said:

“What we’re seeing is a chance for these men and women out there with dreams being achieved because of the access to more credit. And we think that this regulatory change will make that credit available so we can see more jobs created and deserving Americans see their dreams fulfilled.”

Eugene Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency said:

“This reform package is the product of five long months of consultation and deliberation. Before we made a single decision on proposing reform, we turned to the people to ask what the people thought what the people needed. We walked through South Central Los Angeles, in a predominantly minority neighborhood in New York City to see with our own eyes and to listen with our own ears to what should be done. We talked with representatives of the Navajo Nation; to bankers, large and small banks, inclusive; to poor people in rural North Carolina and elsewhere. We saw and what we heard shaped this reform package.

By replacing paperwork requirements with performance tests, this package would stimulate bank lending, investment and service in low and moderate income communities. This proposal is not about formulas. Community groups and bankers both emphasized the need for flexibility. So this proposal recognizes the diversity of banks and the markets they serve. It reduces the examination burden, particularly on small banks without reducing their obligation to serve their communities; and it recognizes that regular public participation is critical if we are to achieve the goals of the law.

In premise, it sounded like a good idea

In premise, the reform of the Act sounded like a good idea. The words put out to the people of the United States offered hope for people who couldn’t get credit to buy houses. It offered hope to people who wanted to start their own businesses. It offered hope to people that jobs were going to be created.

Time to pay back the loans

In reality, it did help people for a time. But, there were too many loans made to too many people who did not have the means to repay the loans. Banks and lending establishments started doing what they do in the course of their business — selling the bad loans to other establishments and the cycle kept on for several years. Now it’s caught up to those financial firms and the government.

It’s time for all this mess, for lack of a better word, to stop. It’s time to take the time to develop a solution rather than a quick fix. One candidate has halted his campaign to go back to Washington to do what he was elected in the first place to do — work for the people. One candidate calls going back to Washington to work on a solution — injecting presidential politics into the negotiations and says to call him if he is needed. He says that a President should be able to work on more than one thing at a time, and is calling this a diversion from a failing campaign.

Which Candidate Do You Want?

Now I ask you the American people, which candidate do you want in the White House? One that is willing to work on a solution or one that says “Call me if I’m needed”. I know which one I want in the White House, I want a President who is going to work toward the solution. I want one that is willing to stop everything to go find that solution. I don’t want a President who thinks that a Presidential debate is more important than out country’s economy. I want a President that knows what’s important to the people of his country. I want a President that is not on stand-by for a telephone call if needed but is there working for the country.

1 Comment »
Filed under: Bailout, McCain Campaign, Political blogging

Welcome to The Locke Block, an up and coming political blog that states it like it is. 

PNLTexan and JTLocke are conservative Christians who are independent voters.  They vote for the person, not the party.   They will hold nothing back.   They believe in straight talk for the people.  They believe in government for the people, not the politicians.  They believe in fair and balanced reporting.    

Check back often.  Subscribe to their feeds.  Comments will be welcomed.

No Comments »
Filed under: Political blogging