Monday, March 24, 2008

'Put the blame on Congressional Democrats'

The Democrats have controlled both house of Congress for 15 months now and what do they have to show for it? Record-high gasoline prices for consumers. A teetering stock market. A housing market in rapid decline. Layoffs. Food prices sending millions of Americans to food pantries to feed their families.

All of this is happening under Democratic leadership. And what are the solutions that Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha are offering the American people? None. They're too busy spending billions on Congressional pork projects.

The letter to the editor below was published in The Mercury. The writer makes a good case about how the liberal media keeps blaming Bush for everything under the sun, while giving the Democrats who control Congress a free pass.

If things are bad now, imagine what this country would look like if Democrats also contolled the White House. Recession? Try Depression.

Put the blame on Congressional Democrats

In the Feb. 27 edition of The Mercury, someone (anonymously, of course) had a piece written in Sound Off asking if anyone had seen that fuel oil is up to $3.30 per gallon and therefore 100 gallons would now cost $495.

The person also blamed this on the Republicans and, I'm sure, President Bush. I would imagine he or she said that because the politically correct thing to do at this time in the United States is to blame the Republicans, and in particular President Bush, for all the things with which the liberals don't agree. I will explain in this article how wrong many have become in that way of thinking.

First of all, unless it was done by some new way of mathematics of which most of us are not aware, when you multiply $3.30 by one hundred it adds up to $330 and not $495 as was stated by the anonymous caller. Perhaps this is the root cause of many of the Democrats' problems; they don't even know basic math or English, which could lead to many other problems that I read about when they speak.

Secondly, and this is very important, the president of the United States, no matter who he is, doesn't have final say in decisions that are made for this country. The elected Congress, which is composed of the senators and representatives of both parties, must agree with nearly everything the president wants to do, including when Mr. Bush wanted to go into Iraq and remove the tyrant Saddam Hussein and his WMDs from that country.

Mr. Bush received 100 percent approval from all in Congress, including John Kerry, "Hilarious" Clinton and all the other Democrats, most of which have done an about face and now decry that move. (The WMDs, by the way, were sent to Syria while the United Nations took more than eight months to finally show up and look for them.)

Now that we have lost almost 4,000 people in Iraq, which is less than 7 percent of the total lost in Vietnam, the Democrat-induced war in the 1960s and 70s, the two-faced liberals want to get out of Iraq immediately before the whole job is complete.

There have been very many upgrades in that country, like new schools, roads, etc., that we don't read about in the newspapers because the more popular thing to do is bash the Republicans and never give them their just due credit.

Thirdly, with the price of oil up and the economy down, why is it that the liberals place the blame on Mr. Bush? Unless my memory serves me incorrectly, the Democrats have had control of Congress since January 2007. Before the Democrats were elected, they made all kinds of promises to us once they got control, but here it is only one year later and oil and gasoline prices are at their highest in history, the economy is on a down swing and we're headed for a recession, for the first time in U.S. history we have one out of every 100 people incarcerated, and the price of wheat has gone through the roof! Just try to imagine what the price of a pizza is soon going to cost!

As was stated previously, since the president must get approval for his decisions how can the blame for all those things be put on him? The Democrats are in control now!

It reminds me of how the liberals elected Ed Rendell for governor twice and we all see the wonderful job he's done here in Pennsylvania! Not! He, like most of the other Democrats in office, are out for themselves and couldn’t care less what the taxpayer thinks.

Mr. Bush cares about this country and we can hear it in his voice when he speaks. Rendell cares only about how fat he can line his pockets and how much money he can suck out of us taxpayers. Now he has even gone public and claimed that Pennsylvania voters are racists! What a great governor!

In November, we will have another presidential election, and unless John McCain gets a good running mate I will either vote for Barack Obama or I won't vote. I will pray to my God and Savior if "Hilarious" Clinton gets the Democratic nod that He will have mercy on us because this country will be in big trouble if that happens.

With the Democrats in control of both houses she will become this great country's first dictator and only God Himself will be able to help us, if He chooses. Remember this; the United States is not mentioned anywhere in the final battle of Armageddon, but that's another problem in itself.


1 comment:

Bill Shaw said...

The one flaw I see in Mr. Hillegass' letter is this: Barack Obama will likely become quite the dictator, himself.

Flashback to 1930's Germany to see the effect that a young, bright, energetic person can have on the masses. I see it now in the ads and the tv commercials, people crying (like he's some kind of rock star) and chanting Obama, Obama over and over.

I would beg that Mr. Hillegass consider voting for McCain, regardless of his running mate. The democratic ticket is dangerous, no matter who is the nominee.

If it is Hillary!, then don't be too surprised to see Obama circulate petitions for an Independant spot on November's ticket. He's too caught up in his own hype to quit. Obamessiah has been unleashed on the masses. Hard to reign in that bandwagon.