Maybe this book was written before the 'revolt'.

Right now, there is a huge revolt going on in the Republican Party.

It started over the pork-barrel spending, budget deficit problems.

It was exacerbated over the illegal immigration issue.

In either case, this book is grossly outdated opinion or they are as "disconnected" as Bush.

Here is an article from the former bedrock of Bush's base:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------​------

A good summation why Bush and the GOP have lost my support for anything they do but the war effort, and a good indictment for impeachment - due the Chief Law Enforcement Officer is derelict in duty to secure our borders - during a time of war.


© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

"We cannot kick people out who have been here for awhile."

That's what President Bush said last week.

And he means it.

That is his policy toward those who have broken into our country, defied our immigration laws, cheapened our way of life and driven a stake through the heart of what it means to be an American.

This is amnesty, no matter what the president says.

If we "can't kick people out who have been here for awhile," then we have no alternative but to forgive and forget they broke the law.

What other possibility is there? How else can one define amnesty?

By making this ludicrous, untrue declaration, Bush has once again waved the white flag of surrender to the hordes who continue to invade our country. He has thrown out the welcome mat for more illegal entry.

Though no statistics are yet available, you can be sure this sign of weakness in leadership was a great encouragement to those still seeking to break into America. Every time this guy opens his mouth on this issue, more illegals make their way across the Rio Grande seeing what could be their last chance to get in, what could be the last wave of an open-door policy by the U.S.

Bush is a lame duck, and he doesn't care. He doesn't care what continued illegal immigration will do to his country. He doesn't care what it will do to his legacy. He doesn't care what it will do to his party in November and in 2008.

He's serving some other master. He's got some other agenda. He's carrying out his father's promise to usher America into a New World Order.

Can I ask some simple questions? What does it mean that we can't kick out people who have been here for awhile? Why is that? What does "for awhile" mean?

Where does Bush get off making such a statement? He was elected and sworn into office to enforce the law of the land. The law of the land is clear on what happens to lawbreakers. They are punished. Those who break immigration laws are deported. There are no special provisions in the law for those who have been here "for awhile," whatever that means.

How does he get away with this kind of trash talk?

I understand he is speaking his mind. I understand he is advocating a viewpoint. But when the president's viewpoint runs contrary to the law of the land, there is no question that he is obligated to enforce the laws, not ignore them, not subvert them, not undermine them.

If Bush wants to change the laws, he is welcome to try. But while he remains president, he is sworn to execute the current laws – whether he likes them or not.

So far, Bush has found little support among the people for his promotion of amnesty. Yet he continues to promote it. Again, whatever his objectives, he is welcome to try. But he defies the Constitution, the Congress, his oath of office, the rule of law and the will of the people when he refuses to enforce the law.

Bush is recklessly irresponsible on immigration. He's like a spoiled child who refuses to do the right thing simply because he has staked out a position against it.

He has no credibility on his primary mission as president – protecting the American people and defending the homeland – as he continues to promote the idea that anyone and everyone is welcome in the U.S.

Bush's behavior can no longer be confused with political tone deafness. He's got an agenda he is promoting. It is not a traditional American agenda. It is an internationalist agenda. It is a multinational corporate agenda. It is an elitist agenda.

It has never been more obvious than it is today.


Link: [link to wnd.com]
________