ARNOLD VETO THIS LEGISLATION

The California Assembly passed a bill on a party-line vote yesterday that would eliminate private health care and force Californians into a single-payer state-run medical system. It now falls to Arnold Schwarzenegger to determine whether he will reverse his previous stand against state-run health care or adopt the Golden State version of HillaryCare (via CQ reader Kurt K):

The Democratic-controlled Legislature is on the verge of sending Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a bill that would create a state-run universal health care system, testing him on an issue that voters rate as one of their top concerns in this election year.

On a largely party-line 43-30 vote, the Assembly approved a bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, that would eliminate private medical insurance plans and establish a statewide health insurance system that would provide coverage to all Californians. The state Senate has already approved the plan once and is expected this week to approve changes that the Assembly made to the bill.

Schwarzenegger has said he opposes a single-payer plan like the one Kuehl's bill would create, but the governor has not offered his own alternatives for fixing the state's health care system. As many as 7 million people are uninsured in the state, and spiraling costs have put pressure on business and consumers. ...

"I don't believe that government should be getting in there and should start running a health care system that is kind of done and worked on by government," Schwarzenegger said in July at a speech at the Commonwealth Club. "I think that what we should do is be a facilitator, to make the health care costs come down. The sad story in America is that our health care costs are too high, that everyone cannot afford health care."

Previous California legislation on workers-comp protection and workplace regulation helped start an exodus of corporate headquarters for better business environments. Creating a whole new bureaucracy for health management and putting rationing decisions in the hands of bureaucrats may start a new exodus of healthy people looking for less-intrusive and less-costly tax regimes. Despite the long wait times for anything but primary care issues in single-payer nations such as Canada and the UK -- the latter of which has to destroy organs for lack of doctors to transplant them -- California wants to add to its already top-heavy bureaucracies and add more budget-busting entitlements to a budget that resembles science fiction.

Hillary Clinton tried to foist the same system onto the entire country, and the nation reacted by ending forty years of Democratic domination in the House. Perhaps the same result could come from this irresponsible social engineering project. When people start to understand that they just created a DMV for health care, California voters may just revolt against the entrenched Democratic power structure. Even the Democratic nominee for goverrnor won't endorse the Kuehl bill. Phil Angelides wanted to push more health-care mandates onto the private sector instead, a bad idea but nowhere near as disastrous as this.

In a move typical of the myopic state legislature, the bill doesn't even address the costs that the new bureaucracy will create. The Assembly noted that it will take several years to implement the mandate -- which means that they're going to pass the buck to another group of legislators. Term limits keeps Assembly members from serving more than six years, which means damned few of the culprits will be around to account for the massive bill that will come. However, they have considered revenue streams for the new regime -- an additional 8 percent on the payroll tax that businesses pay and a 3 point hike on the state income tax. That will come before the sunset of the health-care plans that businesses and their employees buy, creating an overlap of costs -- and that assumes that the revenue stream will be enough to pay for the massive spending necessary for the state-run system.

People around the country may shrug this off, figuring that it's just California. However, don't be surprised to see utopians in your neighborhood heralding the coming Brave New World in the Golden State and agitating for the same system where you live.

ISLAM'S LONG HISTORY OF FORCED CONVERSIONS

By Michelle Malkin

Read Andrew Bostom at Front Page mag today, please:

Forced conversions in Islamic history are not exceptional—they have been the norm, across three continents—Asia, Africa, and Europe—for over 13 centuries. Orders for conversion were decreed under all the early Islamic dynasties—Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Mamluks. Additional extensive examples of forced conversion were recorded under both Seljuk and Ottoman Turkish rule (the latter until its collapse in the 20th century), the Shi’ite Safavid and Qajar dynasties of Persia/Iran, and during the jihad ravages on the Indian subcontinent, beginning with the early 11th century campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni, and recurring under the Delhi Sultanate, and Moghul dynasty until the collapse of Muslim suzerainty in the 18th century following the British conquest of India.

Moreover, during jihad—even the jihad campaigns of the 20th century [i.e., the jihad genocide of the Armenians during World War I, the Moplah jihad in Southern India [1921], the jihad against the Assyrians of Iraq [early 1930s], the jihads against the Chinese of Indonesia and the Christian Ibo of southern Nigeria in the 1960s, and the jihad against the Christians and Animists of the southern Sudan from 1983 to 2001], the (dubious) concept of “no compulsion” (Koran 2:256; which was cited with tragic irony during the Fox reporters “confessional”!), has always been meaningless. A consistent practice was to enslave populations taken from outside the boundaries of the “Dar al Islam”, where Islamic rule (and Law) prevailed. Inevitably fresh non-Muslim slaves, including children, were Islamized within a generation, their ethnic and linguistic origins erased. Two enduring and important mechanisms for this conversion were concubinage and the slave militias—practices still evident in the contemporary jihad waged by the Arab Muslim Khartoum government against the southern Sudanese Christians and Animists. And Julia Duin reported in early 2002 that murderous jihad terror campaigns—including, prominently, forced conversions to Islam—continued to be waged against the Christians of Indonesia’s Moluccan Islands.

Given this enduring (and ignoble) historical legacy, it remains to be seen whether contemporary Muslim religious authorities—particularly those within Palestinian society, and affiliated with Hamas or Fatah—will condemn publicly the forced conversions of the kidnapped Fox reporters. Moreover, will they be joined by a chorus of authoritative voices representing the entire Muslim clerical hierarchy—Sunni and Shi’ite alike—from Mecca and Cairo, Qom and Najaf, to the Muslim advocacy groups in the West (such as CAIR in the United States, and the Muslim Council of Britain in England)—unanimous in their condemnation of this hideous practice, and formalized by a fatwa stating as much? Will such Muslim authorities at least recognize the acute predicament of Centanni and Wiig by issuing a fatwa stating that their “conversion”, being under duress, was not bona fide, condemning in advance any Muslim who might now attack these journalists for “apostasy” from Islam?

But remember: "There is no compulsion" in the Koran and Islam is a "Religion of Peace."

***

La Shawn Barber has a related post: What would you do?

HOW THE MEDIA INFLUENCES ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Election In The Streets
How The Broadcast Networks Promote Illegal Immigration

By Tim Graham, MRC Director of Media Analysis

---

Spurred by a passionate public outcry against the tide of illegal immigration, on December 16, 2005, the House of Representatives passed a bill to curb the flow of illegal aliens and give the federal government more responsibility for detaining and deporting them. On that night, ABC, CBS, and NBC didn’t cover the vote. But when left-wing advocacy groups for illegal aliens organized large protests against the House bill in the spring, as the Senate considered its own immigration bill, the networks suddenly, fervently discovered the issue and gave the advocacy groups not a mere soapbox in the park, but a three-network rollout of free air time. Protest coverage, often one-sided, stood in stark contrast to polling data showing that a stricter approach to illegal immigration was broadly popular in the country.

To determine the tone and balance of network coverage of illegal aliens, MRC analysts evaluated every ABC, CBS, and NBC morning, evening, and magazine show news segment on the immigration debate from the outbreak of protest coverage on March 24, 2006 through May 31, 2006. In 309 stories, analysts found the following trends emerged:

■ While they celebrated "massive" immigration protests with "huge" crowds, the broadcast networks largely avoided scientific polling data that showed the protesters were in an overwhelming minority. The USA Today-Gallup poll asked whether illegal immigration is "out of control" or "not out of control." Fully 81 percent said "out of control." Fox News asked how serious illegal immigration was as a problem: 60 percent said very serious, 30 percent said somewhat serious. That's 90 percent. These polls were never cited by ABC, CBS, or NBC. In contrast to hundreds of words emphasizing a huge "wave" of "pro-immigrant" activism, the networks aired only 16 mentions of nationwide polls on immigration that considered the opinion of non-protesters. Two of them were CBS polls emphasizing support for a "guest worker" program after a long list of conditions.

■ Advocates of opening a wider path to citizenship were almost twice as likely to speak in news stories as advocates of stricter immigration control. Advocates for amnesty and guest-worker programs drew 504 soundbites in the study period, compared to just 257 for tighter border control. (Sixty-nine soundbites were neutral). On the days of pro-illegal-alien rallies, their critics nearly disappeared from the screen. For instance, on the night of April 10, the soundbite count on the three evening newscasts and ABC’s Nightline was 43 to 2 in favor of the protesters. When the debate shifted to Capitol Hill in May, coverage grew more balanced.

■ While conservative labels were common, liberal labels were rarely or never used. In the study period, reporters referred to "conservatives" or "conservative" groups 89 times, most intensely during legislative debate in May, when President Bush was presented as having to "appease" his "conservative" base. NBC’s Matt Lauer even referred to Bush’s base as the "far right." By contrast, the "liberal" label was used only three times – all of them by ABC. CBS and NBC never used the word, even as hard-left protest organizers described the House bill on public radio as full of "horrendous and macabre clauses, fascist clauses."

■ While protests centered on underlining the vital role illegal aliens play in the American economy, the burdens of illegal immigration in added government costs or crime were barely covered. While the networks poured out their air time to the sympathetic stories of hard-working immigrant families, only six out of 309 stories mentioned studies that illegal aliens cost more to governments than they provide in tax dollars. Only six stories gave a mention to the problem of the cost or threat of criminal aliens.

■ The networks have not dropped the word "illegal" in favor of "undocumented" immigrants, although some reporters struggled to adopt clumsy liberal-preferred terminology. Groups like the National Association of Hispanic Journalists have urged their colleagues to never use the word "illegal," but the word was still more than five times more common than "undocumented." In 309 stories, there were 381 uses of the word "illegal," and 73 uses of "undocumented." But some reporters struggled to please: NBC’s Kevin Tibbles actually referred to protests by "those who critics call illegals."

The report concludes with recommendations for a more balanced picture in network news coverage of the immigration debate. Newscasters need to acknowledge that protests, even large ones, are often an incomplete measure of public opinion. Both sides of the debate deserve a chance to speak in news stories, not just voices "emerging from the shadows" that reporters sympathetically promote. On this issue, as well as many others, network newscasts ought to reflect the reality that the political debate is between conservatives and liberals, not conservatives and supposed nonpartisans painted in gauzy terms like "immigrant rights groups" – even as they decried "fascist" opponents.

WHY DEMS CAN'T BE TRUSTED

A huge hat tip goes out to Jack Kelly for his brilliant Sunday column on why Democrats can’t be trusted with national security matters. I’ve read alot of Jack’s stuff over the years and I’ve always been impressed but this might be Jack’s best work yet.

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor illustrates why Democrats cannot be trusted with political power in time of war. Judge Taylor, who is the chief judge of the federal district court in Detroit, ruled Aug. 17 that it is unconstitutional for the National Security Agency to listen in, without warrants, on telephone conversations between terror suspects abroad and people in the United States. Her ruling was praised by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats.

I wrote about Taylor’s ruling last week. I thought it was flimsy then and I’ve seen nothing to change my opinion since. In fact, I’m more convinced now than ever. the fact that Pelosi and Reid think that this was a great ruling is telling.

Let’s not forget what Russ Feingold said about the Democrats filibustering the renewal of the Patriot Act:

“Today’s vote is a great moment for our Constitution and our democracy and a great moment in the fight against terrorism. If you don’t have the confidence of the American people when it comes to this fight against terrorism, if they fear that somehow we’re going too far and going after the rights of law-abiding citizens, it will weaken our ability to win in that all-important battle.”

And Democratic strategists wonder why they lose the national security debate?

President Bush has made mistakes in his conduct of the war on terror. But thanks in part to Judge Taylor’s ruling, voters this November will be asking themselves whether they would rather be governed by a political party that thinks Islamic terror is the greatest threat to Americans, or by a political party which is more concerned about Wal-Mart.
I don’t think Democrats will like their answer.

Jack, I’ll bet a tidy sum of money that they’ll not only not like their answer but that Democrats will be positively beside themselves with their answer.

PAT BUCHANAN: ILLEGAL ALIEN OVERLOAD?

On page 240 of Pat Buchanan’s stunningly logical new book, “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America” (St. Martin’s Press, New York, 2006) appear the following words:

“One of the truly major issues with which America must deal [is] the vast tidal wave of human beings coming from the Third World. There is a fragmentation going on in this country. At what point does cultural, racial diversity become a kind of social anarchy? How do you get national cohesion this way?”

But those are not the words of my friend and political sparring partner Pat Buchanan. They are words he quoted from a 1987 interview in The Christian Science Monitor with Eric Sevareid, the CBS correspondent and close associate of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow.

Only 19 years ago, one of the nation’s most respected public liberals could unself-consciously utter words that today could be a scandalous career ender for a public figure.

And it is around that issue — race, ethnicity, language, culture and immigration — and the problem of talking honestly about it, that Buchanan has constructed his most important book to date.

— Tony Blankley, Pat Buchanan’s “State of Emergency”,
Townhall.com, August 16, 2006

Folks, it is time to start the real discussion about illegal aliens. To date, the debate has been about whether or not we should enforce our laws, should we open the borders or close them. Then we get into the economic costs of illegal aliens and the fact that this has harmed our children, parents and the morality of a nation.

Pat Buchanan is opening up the BIG question, how does the illegal alien flood across our borders affect the future of our nation and the future of freedom? No longer is this a question of 40,000 illegal aliens in California prisons or do we give them drivers licenses. We need to concentrate on the effect of this violence to our laws, in the long term. Yet, this had been discussed twenty years ago, by certified liberals, who sounded like an early day Buchanan. What has changed in the past twenty years?

Could it be that liberals and radicals today so hate America that they prefer to see it destroyed? Note that they seem to prefer Osama to the President. Radicals believe the US military is an out of control gang and that members of the US military are moments away from killing them in their beds in Bel Air or Greenwich (Lamont really doesn’t like a strong military, prefers the French version). Why is it that radicals and US Senators like Kerry, Feingold, Chaffee, Kennedy and especially the Clinton’s have more faith in the United Nations and Kofi Annan then in the US Congress and George Bush?

The issue of illegal aliens is just one part of the puzzle of a terrorist run global government. The United States is the last bulwark of freedom and compassion. If it weren’t for Bush pushing Britain’s Blair, then Saddam would still be killing Iraqis just for the fun of it. We should be looking at the promiscuity of supporters of illegal aliens in the context of world domination, not just this one issue.

The next time you find someone who is for open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, you will most likely find someone who trusts Annan, believes the US is wrong in promoting freedom–just ask Boxer, Stark, Susan Davis, Loretta Sanchez, Phil Angelides. Lets us start looking at this issue in the broader scope of public policy, not as a stand alone issue. I believe that is the message of Pat Buchanan in his new book.

What do you think? Should we open our borders and stop fighting terrorism? Does Kofi Annan provide you more comfort than the US military?

—

Steve Frank is the publisher of California Political News and Views and a Senior Contributor to CaliforniaConservative.org. He is also a consultant currently working on gambling issues and advising other consultants on policy and coalition building.

THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE SLIMES

The San Francisco Chronicle slimes

By Michelle Malkin ·

This is Peter Hartlaub. He is the San Francisco Chronicle's pop-culture critic and "helps cover movies, television and the media," according to his bio. In addition to his newspaper duties, Hartlaub blogs for the paper's "Culture Blog." One of his latest posts is an astonishingly ugly, ad hominem attack on Ann Coulter--emblematic of the unhinged, intolerant Left. And it's posted on a "culture" blog.

The jerk compares Coulter to a horse at a children's zoo. He mocks her weight and her face by linking to sophomoric left-wing bloggers deriding her looks--including this, this, and this. He posts photos he took of the horse alongside photos of Coulter, then sits back and waits for Chronicle blog commenters to pile on. Here are a few screenshots of the post and comments as of 12am Sat. Aug. 26. The post has been up since 2am Wed. Aug. 23:

***

File this one away the next time the journalistic elite attacks bloggers as an unruly, uncivilized mob of hate-mongers in need of adult supervision. Under the guise of "culture" commentary, San Francisco Chronicle staffer/blogger Peter Hartloub displays the true colors of the moonbat mainstream media: slime green. Naturally, the anti-Coulter-obsessed staffers at media industry publication Editor and Publisher think Hartlaub's post is funny.

Do you?

Contact:

Reader representative: If you have comments on The Chronicle's coverage, standards or accuracy, please call Dick Rogers, the readers' representative, at (415) 777-7870. Written comments can be e-mailed to readerrep@sfchronicle.com, faxed to (415) 442-1847, or addressed to Readers' Representative, c/o San Francisco Chronicle, 901 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103.

Letters to the Editor should be addressed to letters@sfchronicle.com. Due to space considerations, only letters of less than 250 words will be considered for publication. Please provide your name and telephone number along with your letter. You will be called if your letter is being considered for publication.

SFGate.com executive:

Peter Negulescu - VP Digital Media pnegulescu @ sfgate.com

***

Related: Mark Finkelstein looks at a Jeff Danziger hit.