Sibby Online

Now we know the problem

Now we know America’s biggest problem in facing the Islamic Fascists in the Middle East and across the entire world…the Presidents of the United States does not understand the enemy, or if he does, then he is not being straight with the American people nor the rest of the world:

President George Bush has repeated his belief all religions, "whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God" – an assertion that caused outrage among evangelical leaders when he said it in November 2003.

Bush made the statement Friday in an interview with Al Arabiya reporter Elie Nakouzi.

Al Arabiya is Al Jazeerah's top competitor in the Mideast.

As the president and Nakouzi walked from the Oval Office to the Map Room in the White House residence, Nazouki asked, "But I want to tell you – and I hope this doesn't bother you at all – that in the Islamic world they think that President Bush is an enemy of Islam – that he wants to destroy their religion, what they believe in. Is that in any way true, Mr. President?"

"No, it's not," said Bush. "I've heard that, and it just shows [sic] to show a couple of things: One, that the radicals have done a good job of propagandizing. In other words, they've spread the word that this really isn't peaceful people versus radical people or terrorists, this is really about the America not liking Islam.

"Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren't religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that – we had a person blow up our – blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people.

The President does not understand that the God of the Bible is not Allah. Here is a link to the life story of Mark Gabriel, an Islamic scholar who knows that Islam promotes evil. Here is his message to Muslims:

I have never stopped crying for my Muslim people, whom I left behind, asking the Lord to deliver them from the darkness of Islam. As you read the pages of this book, you will come to understand how great this darkness is. It is the teachings of Islam that have produced terrorists who seem capable of any kind of evil in the name of Allah. Now the whole world wants to understand what Islam teaches. A great amount of misinformation has been shared in the media and on the Internet. My goal is to help you see plainly why these people do what they do. I don’t want to motivate you to anger, however. I want to motivate you to believe—to believe for the fall of Islam and the release of its captives, in Jesus’ name.

For more here is a link containing YouTube footage of Mark Gabriel’s message.

Stop with the globalist agenda

A few in Congress is standing up to the idea of a North American Union:

Twenty-two members of the U.S. House of Representatives – 21 Republicans and a Democrat [Not Representative Sandlin] – are urging President Bush to back off his North American integration efforts when he attends the third summit meeting on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America next week in Montebello, Quebec.

They make it clear that continuing any such agenda at this point would be disregarding growing apprehension in Congress about the plans.

"As you travel to Montebello, Canada later this month for a summit with your Canadian and Mexican counterparts, we want you to be aware of serious and growing concerns in the U.S. Congress about the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) you launched with these nations in 2005," the letter said.

While the letter authors express their support for the president's "desire to promote good relations with our neighbors to the north and south," they are worried about the secretive manner in which SPP is being conducted and concerned it "may actually undermine our security and sovereignty."

"For instance," the letter said, "measures that would make it easier to move goods and people across borders could have the effect of further weakening this country's ability to secure its frontiers and prevent illegal immigration."

The letter also cited documents obtained by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act Request that suggest, "Such secretiveness seems not to be accidental."

WND was among the first news organizations to obtain and publish the agenda and the list of attendees for a secret North American Forum meeting held at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel in Banff, Alberta, Canada, from September 12-14, 2006. The meeting was closed to the press and the documents obtained by WND were marked "Internal Document, Not for Public Release."

Rove moved GOP to the left?

That according to this:

One of the architects of the Reagan Revolution calls the announcement of Karl Rove's departure from the White House "good news for conservatives."

"We may have a more conservative Bush presidency with Rove back in Texas," said Richard Viguerie, author of "Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause."

Viguerie – who invented the idea of using direct mail as a means of going over the heads of what he considered to be a biased establishment press – said that as Bush's chief political adviser, Rove was a "master in the care and feeding of conservative leaders, keeping them mostly silent as the Republican Party moved left during the Bush presidency."

"He used the usual carrot and stick to do this. The carrot was access to the White House, and conservative leaders proved just as vulnerable as others to the lure of a photo op with the president, lunch in the West Wing or a returned phone call from Karl Rove," Viguerie explained. "The stick was fear – speak out, and not only will you lose any hope of access, you will be branded as an extremist, or someone who's helping the Democrats by speaking out."

Viguerie charged that by using both carrot and stick, Rove silenced or gained the support of most conservative leaders as Bush and congressional Republicans "greatly expanded the size and reach of the federal government."

The expansion, he said, included the "No Child Left Behind" education bill, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, prescription drug benefits, nation-building on a scale never attempted before, farm subsidies, steel tariffs and massive federal deficits.

NCLB, advances big government

The Argus Leader has a report on the latest results from the No Child Left Behind program. Here is the intro:

The scarlet letter in education these days is an "R."

It stands for restructuring - the purgatory that schools fall into if they fail to meet testing goals six straight years under the No Child Left Behind law.

Nationwide, about 2,300 schools - including 19 in South Dakota - are either in restructuring or are a year away, according to a database the U.S. Education Department gave to The Associated Press.

Some on the list are planning for such drastic action as removing the principal and reassigning staff members because smaller changes, such as tutoring, have not corrected problems revealed in annual testing.

Rebecca Hagelin exposes what is wrong with NCLB:

NCLB fundamentally undermines the principles of parental choice and local control. As Heritage Foundation education analyst Dan Lips explains in a new paper:

The Bush administration's original blueprint for NCLB included some valuable reform principles, such as reducing bureaucracy, promoting state flexibility and expanding parental choice in education. However, those valuable reform ideas were either watered down or eliminated during the legislative process on Capitol Hill in 2001. The bill that emerged from Congress greatly expanded federal power in education while doing little to eliminate bureaucracy, restore state and local control of education, or empower parents.

Sure, those who measure success by how much money is spent are pleased (though they always clamor for more). Federal spending on education has jumped considerably. The White House's budget request for Fiscal Year 2008 would boost NCLB spending to $24.4 billion, a 41 percent increase over Fiscal Year 2001 levels. Again (in case you missed it the first time) – they are requesting a spending increase of 41 percent!

And this Marc Rotterman column adds on to the big government agenda of Bush and Rove:

Many conservatives also were alarmed when Bush and Rove went on their big government expansion spree by siding with Ted Kennedy on "No Child Left Behind" and the arm twisting that went on by Tom Delay the President’s water carrier for big government in the House by the passage of the Prescription Drug bill arguably the largest expansion of government since the New Deal.

Seeing an a mandate with 51% of the vote Bush and Rove rolled the dice and spent their political capital by making reform of social security their "signature issue" for the start of the President’s second term.

At the time many conservatives questioned the sequencing of the president’s legislative agenda and would have preferred that the Bush administration lead with making the tax cuts permanent.

This time, lets pick a GOP candidate who truly believes in a limited government.

Secure Our Borders Now

First Thomas Sowell exposes these lies:

Both political parties know what is going on and both parties choose to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Neither wants to risk losing the Hispanic vote, though it is doubtful whether all Hispanics are in favor of open borders.

The net result has been empty promises about controlling the border, paired with various schemes to legalize the illegal immigrants, and washed down with fraudulent statements that insult our intelligence.

The first of these frauds is the argument that the economy "needs" illegal immigrants to fill "jobs that Americans won't take." Both parts of this argument ignore the most obvious three-letter word that is left out: Pay.

Virtually any job is a job that Americans will not take, if the pay is low enough. Nor is there any reason for pay to rise if illegal immigrants are available at low pay.

Then there is the "family reunification" fraud which claims that we cannot in good conscience keep out the families of illegal immigrants who are living in the United States but must let those families reunite.

With all the nations on the face of the earth, why is the United States of America the only country in which someone can be united with his family? Illegal immigrants can reunite with their families back where they came from.

The grand fraud of all is the claim that we must have "comprehensive" immigration reform -- that is, simultaneously deal with border control and the legal status of illegal immigrants already here.

There is no logical reason why these two issues must be dealt with together, though there are political reasons why elected officials want to do so. Passing border laws described as "tough" gives Congress political cover when they legalize the illegals.

It allows Congress to be on both sides of the issue, which is where most politicians want to be on most issues.

From the standpoint of the country, however, it is urgently important that the two issues be taken up separately, with border control being proven to be established first.

And Michael Steele agrees:

When House Republicans passed legislation last December that secured our borders and put a premium on strict enforcement of our immigration laws, the American people had hope that their elected leaders had heard their demands.

Sadly, the legislation that is currently leading the debate in Washington shows our Senators have turned a deaf ear to the public. Despite last week’s action stopping it from coming to the Senate floor for a final vote, efforts are being made to tinker around the edges with this legislation and pass it later this year.

The better course of action is for our elected leaders to follow the no-nonsense direction being called for by hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens: Secure Our Borders Now!

The current Senate legislation is a mirror image of the approach passed by Congress in 1986 when it forced on us amnesty for illegal immigrants in exchange for border security.

The result of that misguided approach then is an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States now.

The American people are fed up and won’t be misled again. This Congress will be judged on their actions, not their words.

President Bush, do your job and do it now…secure our borders. Stop with your plan to create the "New World Order".

Mr. President, do your job

Here is another screw up from President Bush:

Opponents of the controversial immigration deal forged by the White House and a bipartisan group of senators in private meetings "don't want to do what's right for America," President Bush said in a speech today.

"The fundamental question is, will elected officials have the courage necessary to put a comprehensive immigration plan in place," Bush told students and instructors at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga.

The president argued the proposal, which offers a path to citizenship for the more than 12 million illegal immigrants, will make "it more likely we can enforce our border—and at the same time uphold the great immigrant tradition of the United States of America."

Yes, we already have a system that has created a "great immigrant tradition of the United States of America". So do your job Mr. President and enforce the law. Hold the "illegal immigrants" accountable to the law, and allow those immigrants who want to come to America "legally" the same privilege that we have done in the past. Giving amnesty to those who are violating the law is not doing "right for America".

Another Bush screw-up in the making?

From WorldNetDaily:

President Bush is reportedly expected to nominate longtime prosecutor Noel Hillman to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals less than a week after a congressional report criticized the then-justice Department official for "incomplete and misleading" assurances to the court during Sandy Berger's 2005 plea bargain for taking classified documents.

Hillman, a newly appointed federal judge in New Jersey, most recently served as lead Justice Department prosecutor against Jack Abramoff in the Capitol Hill lobbying scandal. During his tenure with Justice, Hillman oversaw the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s 2000 campaign finances, indicting and prosecuting her finance director, David Rosen, for filing false reports. Rosen was acquitted in 2005.

WND has reported on the civil action against Clinton related to those charges.

Hillman also served as former chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section during the prosecution of Berger, President Clinton’s former national security advisor, for removing classified documents from the National Archive.

WND has reported that Clinton signed the letter authorizing Berger's access to the classified documents that later came up missing.

Berger pleaded guilty in April 2005 to one misdemeanor count of removing a classified document and was given two years probation, 100 hours of community service, a $50,000 fine and revocation of his security clearance for three years.

In accepting the plea, Hillman assured the court that Berger did not have an intent to hide any of the documents or conceal facts from the 9/11 Commission and that "nothing was lost to the public or the process."

But a report on the investigation into Berger's removal of documents, issued this week by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, identifies multiple occasions when Berger had access to original copies of classified documents for which there were no other copies or which had never been inventoried.

The report singled out Hillman for his "incomplete and misleading" assurances that the Justice Department had accounted for all documents Berger had handled and that all materials had been forwarded to the 9/11 Commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The report states:

• There is no basis for concluding Berger did not remove original documents responsive to 9/11 Commission requests during the May 30, 2002 and July 18, 2003 visits to the National Archives. Nevertheless, the Justice Department's representations to the 9/11 Commission left the impression that Berger's document theft was limited to what he admitted taking.
• The public statements of the former chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, Noel Hillman, were incomplete and misleading. Because Berger had access to original documents on May 30, 2002 and July 18, 2003, there is no basis for his statement that "nothing was lost to the public or the process."
• The 9/11 Commission relied on assurances from the Department of Justice that a full and complete production was made, and that no original or any other responsive documents were withheld. No one told the 9/11 Commission that Berger had access to original documents. The 9/11 Commission was specifically interested in the office files of White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, and never was told that Berger had access to Clarke's original office files on May 30, 2002 and July 18, 2003.

Berger's actions "compromised national security much more than originally disclosed," Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, ranking Republican member of the committee that produced the report, said.

"It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience," Davis said.

Sources have told the Newark Star-Ledger that Bush is committed to the nomination of Hillman to fill the slot vacated last year by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

"It's pretty close. It's what the White House wants to do." one knowledgeable source who asked not to be identified told the paper.

Hillman enjoyed the backing of New Jersey Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg for his recent appointment to the federal bench and would need it again for the appointment to the appeals court.

The White House reportedly declined to select an ideologically conservative nominee. Senate rules allow Lautenberg and Menendez to block consideration of a New Jersey judicial nominee they oppose.

More on Bush abandoning conservatives

This time it is Melanie Morgan:

The country is buzzing about Rush Limbaugh's post-election comments that he felt liberated now that he would no longer have to shill for those who had not earned his unequivocal support.

Limbaugh said, "I feel liberated, ladies and gentlemen, because I feel like I don't have to carry the water for people that I think don't deserve to have their water carried."

Limbaugh's success as a talk-radio host comes from his incredible talent at analyzing the lay of the land, breaking down the issues of the day for his audience and seeing things that most people miss when sizing up a news story or political debate.

For the past few years, Rush has grown increasingly disenchanted with Republicans in Congress and inside the Bush administration who repeatedly put their own personal and political interests ahead of the interests of this nation.

Yet, Rush was delicate in his criticisms of Republican missteps, given that these were divisions within the Republican family. He preferred instead to cajole, prod and encourage GOP decision-makers to follow the path of conservatism so as to lead this nation to greener pastures. He tried to explain that by doing so they would ultimately also advance their own personal ambitions and be rewarded for such good work.

Unfortunately, many Republicans in the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill have had other ideas about the future for this nation, and too often Bush and his Republican colleagues in Congress rebuffed conservative solutions to the problems facing America.

You know the issues of betrayal that have angered conservative activists the most: amnesty plans for illegal aliens, massive federal spending, multiple corruption scandals, the prescription drug plan, Harriet Miers, etc.

Bush screw ups continue

Jerome Corsi hits the nail on the head (read the whole thing):

Richard Viguerie wisely writes in his new book "Conservatives Betrayed": "When conservatives are unhappy, bad things happen to the Republican Party."

George W. Bush, like his father before him, has now been repudiated by the voters.

What is being billed as a "vote of no confidence" should properly be seen for what it is – a complete failure of Bush to advance Ronald Reagan’s dream of a Republican Party founded on principles of moral values, limited government and adherence to the Constitution.

Unlike his father, George W. Bush will now have two years of a lame duck presidency to ride out, dogged by constant legislative investigations and fighting the prospect of impeachment.

What I am concerned about is that the Bush administration will continue to move to the political left, further capitulating to the Democrats in Congress. Truly, it was stunning to hear President Bush in his press conference the day after the '06 Bloodbath that now with a Democratic Congress in place he could finally get his comprehensive immigration reform passed.

Mr. President, conservatives do not want a guest-worker program, regardless how you package the deal. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would be well advised not to ruin his presidential prospects with conservatives by championing yet another immigration bill with far leftists such as Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.

The tragedy of Bush's second term is that his true liberal, globalist tendencies have become all too apparent. In the aftermath of the election debacle, conservatives are debating whether a Reagan Revolution can be replanted in a centrist Republican Party gone adrift under President Bush's mismanagement in the first two years of his second term.

In 2004, Bush was re-elected by a moral conservative majority that rejected John Kerry as unfit for command. In the second term, Bush had a chance to establish himself as one of America's best presidents, had he just governed as the conservative voters presumed he would.

But beginning with the nomination of Harriet Miers, the president proceeded to insult and ignore his conservative base.

Why Bush is not popular

According to this book, Democrats don’t like Bush because he is a Republican and the base of the Republican Party don’t like him because he is not a conservative:

George W. Bush is widely considered -- by liberals -- to be one of the most politically conservative presidents in history. But many on the right have a different perspective. Among the latter are Bruce Bartlett, a highly respected Republican economist and an alumnus of the Reagan White House, who in 2000 was an eager supporter of George W. Bush (and even helped to craft the President's early tax cuts) but has since become disillusioned by his big-spending, government-expanding ways. Now, in Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, Bartlett attacks the Bush administration's economic performance root and branch -- showing how Bush has made no effort to restrain the growth of government, greatly increased domestic spending, created a new entitlement program for prescription drugs, failed to veto a single bill, and expanded both the size and scope of government in many ways quite apart from national defense and homeland security. Bartlett also explains why the Bush policies will have serious economic consequences for the country - and possibly fatal political consequences for the GOP.