Act Two of Solargate

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.” — John Adams

As the Solyndra scandal begins to draw nationwide attention and those in the White House that pushed the $535 million dollar government backed loan begin to squirm another scandal with direct ties to the Obama administration is beginning to surface. This latest scandal involves a company based in Virginia, an air force general, and our global positioning system.

With the White House already reeling over the Solyndra collapse, a new scandal may have erupted today that could make the disappearance of $535 million in taxpayer funds look like a paperwork glitch. Eli Lake starts off his new gig at The Daily Beast with a huge bombshell — an accusation made to members of Congress from a four-star Air Force general that claimed the White House pressured him to change his testimony to boost a big donor to the Democratic Party:

“The four-star Air Force general who oversees U.S. Space Command walked into a highly secured room on Capitol Hill a week ago to give a classified briefing to lawmakers and staff, and dropped a surprise. Pressed by members, Gen. William Shelton said the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to a company tied to a large Democratic donor.

The episode—confirmed by The Daily Beast in interviews with administration officials and the chairman of a congressional oversight committee—is the latest in a string of incidents that have given Republicans sudden fodder for questions about whether the Obama administration is politically interfering in routine government matters that affect donors or fundraisers. Already, the FBI and a House committee are investigating a federal loan guarantee to a now failed solar firm called Solyndra that is tied to a large Obama fundraiser.

Now the Pentagon has been raising concerns about a new wireless project by a satellite broadband company in Virginia called LightSquared, whose majority owner is an investment fund run by Democratic donor Philip Falcone. Gen. Shelton was originally scheduled to testify Aug. 3 to a House committee that the project would interfere with the military’s sensitive Global Positioning Satellite capabilities, which control automated driving directions and missile targeting, among other things.”

“According to officials familiar with the situation, Shelton’s prepared testimony was leaked in advance to the company. And the White House asked the general to alter the testimony to add two points: that the general supported the White House policy to add more broadband for commercial use; and that the Pentagon would try to resolve the questions around LightSquared with testing in just 90 days. Shelton chafed at the intervention, which seemed to soften the Pentagon’s position and might be viewed as helping the company as it tries to get the project launched, the officials said.”

As Eli explains, it’s not unusual to distribute prepared Congressional testimony in draft form to other related agencies before giving the testimony. The review gives everyone a chance to make sure that the facts are correct and the testimony is as accurate as possible. But sending Shelton’s testimony to LightSquared would raise big red flags on its own — let alone the accusation that the White House attempted to dictate Shelton’s testimony to benefit LightSquared and their big donor.

Rep. Mike Turner told Eli that this was definitely an attempt to influence Shelton, bias his testimony, and essentially mislead Congress. And that has a watchdog organization drawing parallels between Shelton’s accusation and the Solyndra collapse:

“Melanie Sloan, who runs the nonpartisan ethics groups Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the emerging allegations about possible White House involvement in LightSquared’s matter seemed to mirror earlier allegations in the Solyndra case.

“With this new set of facts, it starts to sound like a pattern of the White House improperly pressuring people at agencies involving decisions that affect companies tied to donors and fundraisers,” Sloan said. “It’s always a problem when the White House is pressuring anyone’s testimony. I don’t care if you are a four-star [general] or a GS-15 [career employee], you should be giving your true opinion and not an opinion the White House is seeking for political expediency.”

This brewing scandal has also been reported in the Wall Street Journal and on Fox News. According to the Fox report:

“The Virginia-based satellite and broadband communications company has plans to build a nationwide, next-generation, 4G phone network that many, including Shelton, think would seriously hinder the effectiveness of high-precision GPS receiver systems, a product used most commonly by the United States military.

A source familiar with the technology told Fox News that the LightSquared spectrum would be 5 billion times stronger than the military's GPS system, rendering the military's system almost useless.

“Imagine trying to have a telephone conversation while your neighbors are hosting a rock concert,” the source told Fox News. “That’s the situation the military is facing.”

Shelton, in testimony Thursday before a House Armed Services subcommittee, refused to suggest that interference problems could be mitigated, as he allegedly was being pressured to say.

Military training that relies on precision GPS, such as dropping ordnance, potentially could cease to exist in the United States. Many farmers who also rely on the systems would also be affected. It's estimated this system is used by as many as 1 million people.”

A House Armed Services Committee staff member confirmed to Fox News that when asked whether he was pressured to change public testimony he had prepared to for the hearing Thursday, Gen. Shelton said he was "being asked to say things he didn't agree with."

It's unclear who exactly pressured Shelton, but it's possible the culprits are in White House, Department of Defense or the Office of Management and Budget, which each approve military testimony prepared for Congress. The House staff member also told Fox News a copy of Shelton’s prepared testimony was leaked to LightSquared.”

The company also defended its work.

“We understand that some in the telecom sector fear the challenges for their business model that LightSquared presents. It’s also ludicrous to suggest LightSquared’s success depends on political connections. This is a private company that has never taken one dollar in taxpayer money,” chief executive Sanjiv Ahuja said in a statement quoted by the Post.

At the House subcommittee hearing Thursday, which focused on strategic forces and sustaining GPS for national security, Republican Chairman Michael Turner lashed out at the Obama administration for its acceptance of LightSquared proposals. He took aim at FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a longtime basketball buddy of President Obama, for not showing up at the hearing and for granting a waiver to LightSquared on Jan. 26.

"I trust Chairman Genachowski is doing something very important this morning if he couldn't be here to discuss the significant harm to national security that may result from the FCC's action,” Turner said.”

Quite frankly, this would be a lot more blatant and much more troubling. If the White House has been leaning on the military to mislead Congress in order to benefit Democratic donors. That indicates a whole new level of corruption, one that could seriously damage the non-partisan nature of civilian control of the military. If Shelton sticks to this accusation, then Congress needs to hold immediate hearings into who exactly pressured Shelton — and from whom that person took his or her orders.

Like Watergate and so many other scandals connected to the White House the Solyndra debacle will grow as more and more mid-level White House bureaucrats begin blowing the whistle in order to save their own skins. Fox News reported today that At least four other companies have received stimulus funding only to later file for bankruptcy, and two of those were working on alternative energy.

“Solyndra, the solar panel company whose highly publicized failure and consequent investigation by federal authorities has flashed across headlines recently, isn't the only business to go belly up after benefiting from a piece of the $800 billion economic stimulus package passed in 2009. “

Evergreen Solar Inc., indirectly received $5.3 million through a state grant to open a $450 million facility in 2007 that employed roughly 800 people. The company, once a rock star in the solar industry, filed for bankruptcy protection last month, saying it couldn't compete with Chinese rivals without reorganizing. The company intends to focus on building up its manufacturing facility in China.

SpectraWatt, based in Hopewell Junction, N.Y., is also a solar cell company that was spun out of Intel in 2008. In June 2009, SpectraWatt received a $500,000 grant from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as part of the stimulus package. SpectraWatt was one of 13 companies to receive the money to help develop ways to improve solar cells without changing current manufacturing processes.

The company filed for bankruptcy last month, saying it could not compete with its Chinese competitors, which receive "considerable government and financial support."

On Tuesday, Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman wrote an editorial for "USA Today" in which he blamed China in part for the failure of U.S. solar energy manufacturers to compete. “

Democratic strategist James Carville has just one word of advice for President Barack Obama: panic.

Carville said Tuesday’s two special election results are a warning to the White House – and a sign the president must make drastic changes now to stave off the Republican momentum. It’s time to panic, he wrote.

Carville said Democrats are “past sending out talking points” and said he would tell the president, “The time has come to demand a plan of action that requires a complete change from the direction you are headed.”

Carville’s advice: “Fire. Indict. Fight.”

Obama must fire someone – “No – fire a lot of people” — because the current team is just not working, Carville wrote.

No, the current team is not working and that includes the coach. Barack Obama has brought his Chicago community organizing tactics to the White House along with some very inept ideologues. People Van Jones, Valerie Jarred, Cass Sunstein and his wife Samantha Power (the person behind Obama’s intervention in Libya), Timothy Geithner, and Eric Holder.

With his disapproval rating dropping to 40% Obama is approaching the point of no return for incumbent presidents who could not be reelected. This is what Carville and his Democrat buddies fear. If Obama goes down so will they.

While all politics are local there are some exceptions. One of those exceptions is the President of the United States. Representatives and Senators will begin avoiding any association with Obama in fear of being tagged with his policies, ineptness, and corruption. Scandals like Fast and Furious, Solyndra, and the wasteful use of his stimulus programs will become millstones around Democrats necks in 2012. The latest special elections in NY-9 and Reno were just two more of death by a thousand cuts that began with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

In 1968 Lyndon Johnson became so unpopular due to the Vietnam War he was confined to giving speeches on military bases. Yesterday Barack Obama gave a jobs and class warfare speech at North Carolina State University. He was greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of college students who cheered wildly at his class warfare remarks and his request for love. Just one day earlier Obama made a similar pitch at Fort Hayes Arts and Academics High School in Columbus, Ohio. Will Obama be confined to campaigning at college and high school campuses for the next thirteen months as the scandals grow, unemployment remains stuck above 9%, and his popularity continues to wane?

The Ron Paul Train Went Off The Rails This Week

"A universal peace is in the catalogue of events, which will never exist but in the imaginations of visionary philosophers, or in the breasts of benevolent enthusiasts." --James Madison

During the CNN/Tea Party debate in Tampa, Florida on Monday night Ron Paul’s train went off the rails when he engaged in a dust-up with former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum over what Paul had posted on his web site about the 9/11 attacks. On the day after the 10th anniversary of the horrific attacks of September 11th, 2001, Ron Paul let loose with his mindless diatribe about how interventionist U.S. foreign policy was what brought the vile hatred of radical Muslims to our shores.

Regardless of whether you agree with Paul (as I do) that our military shouldn't be spread all over the globe, or whether you agree with Paul (as I do) that nation-building is a quagmire waiting to happen, the idea that a few decades worth of American imperialism (as Paul would call it) provoked radical Islamists into violent actions they would not have otherwise taken is beyond absurd.

His rigorous devotion to fiscal restraint and the Constitution preceded the Tea Party movement, and his ability to motivate young people toward the cause of liberty is endearing. But for all the good that Dr. Paul has done in helping shift the focus of the Republican Party back to one of limited, smaller government, his fervent allegiance to a radical brand of libertarianism is nonetheless concerning.

Regardless of whether you agree with Paul (as I do) that our military shouldn't be spread all over the globe, or whether you agree with Paul (as I do) that nation-building is a quagmire waiting to happen, the idea that a few decades worth of American imperialism (as Paul would call it) provoked radical Islamists into violent actions they would not have otherwise taken is beyond absurd.

For him to even intimate as much reveals that Paul's rigid devotion to libertarian dogma (including strict military isolationism) arrests his ability to consider any other cause of anti-American aggression beyond "we brought it on ourselves." It also demonstrates an embarrassing lack of understanding of the danger radical Islam poses to Western civilization. We already have one president who suffers from such delusion; we certainly don't need another.

In a column posted to his website, Paul suggests that the "real motivation behind the September 11 attacks" was American occupation of foreign, Muslim lands. Even if we grant that Muslim jihadists do not distinguish between American military presence and "occupation," this argument falls woefully short in diagnosing the problem.

Islamic scholar Ibn Warraq explained why, observing:

"It is extraordinary the amount of people who have written about the 11th of September without once mentioning Islam. We must take seriously what the Islamists say to understand their motivation, [that] it is the divinely ordained duty of all Muslims to fight in the literal sense until man-made law has been replaced by God's law, the Sharia, and Islamic law has conquered the entire world."

That is precisely what al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden conveyed in his infamous 2002 open letter to the American people, where he wrote:

"What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you? The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme." Of course, "reigning supreme" means an international, worldwide caliphate where Sharia is forced upon all resisting non-Muslim nations.”

Paul's assessment of the cause of 9/11, then, is incredibly short-sighted. This war against Western civilization is something that has been going on for a thousand years — long before American troops ever occupied a square inch of the Middle East. And withdrawing every single soldier from that part of the world will not pacify those who believe it to be their historic, divinely inspired quest to subjugate all infidels under the banner of jihad.

At a time when European Christians were happily fighting amongst themselves for the remnants of the shattered Roman Empire, they suddenly found themselves beset by another enemy out of the blue--invaders of the "religion of Peace"--- Islam (That was in 711 AD only roughly 100 years after Mohammed founded Islam.) )The Muslim Armies conquered nearly all of Spain and deep into France before they were pushed back past the Pyrenees by Charles Martel (the "Hammer") grandfather of Charlemagne. The poem "The Song of Roland" concerns this period. Constant warfare between Christians an Muslims in Spain continued until the last Muslim City fell in 1492. (I suspect that Fundamentalist Muslim antipathy towards the USA may not be entirely coincidental considering that the final defeat of the Muslims allowed the funding of Columbus' voyage.)

There have been many bin Ladens throughout history. Ibn Josef Teshufin, around 1060 AD, felt the moderate Islamic leaders of occupied Spain were too weak and launched an invasion to strengthen Islamic Fundamentalism and recapture lost territory. There was Suleiman the Great of the Ottoman Empire who launched an invasion of Europe in the 17th Century. There was the Mahdi of Sudan, Mohammed Ahmed who in the 1880's declared himself the "Messiah of Islam" and conquered much of Sudan." Fortunately for Africa, the Mahdi succumbed to illness before he got any further.

All around the world in the 21st Century there are religious conflicts in progress. In over 90% Muslims are an adversary; Jews vs. Muslim, Christians vs. Muslims, Buddhists vs. Muslims, Hindus vs. Muslims, Animists vs. Muslims, Shiite Muslims vs. Sunni Muslims. Coincidence? American interventionism? Really? That radical Islam is ever quiet and peaceful seems more a product of the inability to logistically wage war. Remember when the Taliban reduced two giant historical Hindu statues in Afghanistan to rubble. Was that because of the "Great Satan, America" as well?

If Ron Paul struggles to grasp that, he should consider the words of Mullah Mustapha Kreikar, the leader of a radical Islamist group known as Ansar al-Islam, who confirmed, "The [Muslim] resistance is not only a reaction to the American invasion, it is part of the continuous Islamic struggle since the collapse of the caliphate." The operative words here are "continuous Islamic struggle" and caliphate; words not conditioned upon the location of American military personnel. It is sad that a man who speaks so eloquently about the benefits of human liberty like Dr. Paul does fails miserably to acknowledge the existential threat it faces from global jihad.

As much as Dr. Paul may firmly believe that U.S. foreign policy is responsible for the merciless slaughter of those innocent people ten years ago, he is embarrassingly misguided. Their murder had little to do with our global military presence, and much to do with the words of the Hadith of Bukhari, the text from which the hijackers drew their inspiration: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah."

One wonders how much contact Congressman Paul has had with Muslims. Perhaps it is limited to Keith Ellison and Andre Carson. I have talked to Muslims from the Middle Eastern countries they begin to complain about the Crusades within 30 seconds. In their view Saladin didn't finish the job! Muslims see America as Christian Europe extended. There is no real difference between the two. I've argued that America didn't exist in those days. It doesn't matter. In their eyes America is Christian. To them the Cross is the symbol of the Conqueror and the Oppressor and must be destroyed. Irish nursing nuns working in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to display their crosses. When you enter Saudi Arabia and have a magazine or newspaper with articles or maps of Israel it is confiscated. Even photos of ham or pigs are not allowed to enter the country. And of course a Star of David is taboo.

Ron Paul supporters, like all true believing Libertarians will not suffer any dissenting view or debate. In many ways they are as dogmatic and intolerant of opposing or alternative views as the most committed Marxist. If you don’t believe me just go to some of the conservative sites and look at the comments posted by the Ron Paul true believers. Like all true believers, right or left, when they can’t offer a cogent argument they will viciously post ad hominine attacks on those who do not agree with them.

While Ron Paul, as do other conservative thinkers, promotes the Austrian school of economics and government (as I do) his views on foreign policy leaves a great deal to be desired. We cannot live in an isolationist world where there are people and nations who will not play by the rules and would like to see us destroyed. Free trade will not deter radical Islamist. It has not done so for 1,300 years. Ron Paul is of the rails when it comes to this issue.

As long as our country continues allowing for the rights of conscience and freedom of religious expression, we will remain the targets of the radical Islamists who despise such liberty. Our next president must understand that.

Oh Canada

“Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.” — Ronald Reagan

If you liked the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial you’ll love this latest gambit from our neighbors to the north.

In citing Canada’s abortion laws, an Edmonton appeal court ruled that an Alberta woman who strangled her son with her underwear after secretly giving birth in 2005, will face no guaranteed jail time.

Katrina Effert was sentenced Friday for killing her newborn and then throwing the body over a fence into the neighbor’s yard on April 13, 2005, when she was 19. She was given a three-year suspended sentence by Judge Joanne Veit wherein if she abides by the court’s conditions for the next three years, she will not spend time behind bars. CBC notes the justification given by the judge for such an astounding sentence:

“The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that ‘while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,’ she writes.

The judge noted that infanticide laws and sentencing guidelines were not altered when the government made many changes to the Criminal Code in 2005, which she says shows that Canadians view the law as a ‘fair compromise of all the interests involved.’

‘Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

The CBC report states:

“The Wetaskiwin, Alberta woman convicted of infanticide for killing her newborn son, was given a three-year suspended sentence Friday by an Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench judge.

Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents' home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbor’s yard.

She silently wept as Justice Joanne Veit outlined the reasons for the suspended sentence. Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won't spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.

In her judgment, the judge rejected arguments from the Crown that the single father and the grandparent also face "the same stresses of the mind" as a mother who kills her own baby.”

“In a subsequent report by the CBC Katrina Effert cried in an Edmonton courtroom during her sentencing hearing Thursday as she apologized for killing newborn son more than six years ago:

“I'm sorry for everything that's happened," she said while fighting back tears. "Especially to my family. I put them through so much."

Two years ago, for the second time, a jury found her guilty of murder, but last May the province's highest court decided the jury made a mistake.

In a rare move, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, replacing it with the lesser one of infanticide.

The appeal court said Effert should have been given the benefit of the doubt based on psychiatric evidence.

At the sentencing hearing Thursday Crown prosecutor John Laluk recommended a four-year sentence saying, "We have to remember this is a homicide."

The maximum sentence for infanticide is five years in prison.

Royal said he was "completely taken aback by the crown's position," and asked for a suspended sentence of two to three years to be served in the community.

"What this woman needs is support and understanding," he said. "She doesn't need to be trucked off to the penitentiary".

"This is a very fine young woman who went through a tragic event.

"She seeks understanding from the court, which I suspect will be forthcoming."

Justice Joanne Veit reserved her decision until Friday afternoon.

The Crown is still waiting to hear if the Supreme Court of Canada will hear its appeal of the Alberta Court of Appeal's ruling.”

This is one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice I have ever heard of. I woman murders a living child like a farm yard chicken and throws the body over a fence into a neighbor’s yard and a judge reverses a jury decision convicting her infanticide, a crime that carries a mere five year sentence.

How our progressive dominated society has come to disregard the life of a new-born baby. If we feel it to be an inconvenience it is acceptable to dispose of it like some trash in the house.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee — except for the innocent child.

Yo no hablo inglés

“Our common language is English. And our common task is to ensure that our non-English-speaking children learn this common language.” — William Bennett

Would you hire a math teacher that does not understand Pythagoras' theorem? Or possibly a science teacher that believes dihydrogen monoxide.is a toxic substance. How about a civics teacher that does not know the Constitution of the United States or an English teacher that does not know what a serial comma is.

Well today Arizona is battling with such an issue with English teachers in K-12 schools that have such a heavy accent they cannot be understood. According to a report of April, 2010 in the Wall Street Journal, a report that has gone unnoticed by many in the media, the State of Arizona is pushing school districts to reassign instructors with heavy accents or other shortcomings in their English:

“The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.

“State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators.

The teacher controversy comes amid an increasingly tense debate over immigration. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer this month signed the nation's toughest law to crack down on illegal immigrants. Critics charge that the broader political climate has emboldened state education officials to target immigrant teachers at a time when a budget crisis has forced layoffs.

"This is just one more indication of the incredible anti-immigrant sentiment in the state," said Bruce Merrill, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University who conducts public-opinion research.

Margaret Dugan, deputy superintendent of the state's schools, disagreed, saying that critics were "politicizing the educational environment."

In the 1990s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as part of a broad bilingual-education program. Many were recruited from Latin America.

Then in 2000, voters passed a ballot measure stipulating that instruction be offered only in English. Bilingual teachers who had been instructing in Spanish switched to English.

Ms. Dugan said some schools hadn't been complying with the state law that made English the only language in the classroom. "Our job is to make sure the teachers are highly qualified in fluency of the English language. We know districts that have a fluency problem," she said.”

The Wall Street Journal report continues:

“Arizona's enforcement of fluency standards is based on an interpretation of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. That law states that for a school to receive federal funds, students learning English must be instructed by teachers fluent in the language. Defining fluency is left to each state, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Education said.

"The teacher obviously must be fluent in every aspect of the English language," said Adela Santa Cruz, director of the Arizona education-department office charged with enforcing standards in classes for students with limited English.

The education department has dispatched evaluators to audit teachers across the state on things such as comprehensible pronunciation, correct grammar and good writing.

Teachers that don't pass muster may take classes or other steps to improve their English; if fluency continues to be a problem, Ms. Santa Cruz said, it is up to school districts to decide whether to fire teachers or reassign them to mainstream classes not designated for students still learning to speak English. However, teachers shouldn't continue to work in classes for non-native English speakers.”

Public school teachers with unacceptable English pronunciation and grammar are now being protected by the Obama Administration, which has forced one state to eliminate a fluency monitoring program created to comply with a 2002 federal education law.

Singling out teachers who can’t speak proper English in American schools—funded by taxpayers, no less—discriminates against Hispanics and others who are not native English speakers, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). As a result it violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the teachers must remain in their current position.

Unbelievable as this may seem, it’s a true story reported this week by Arizona’s largest newspaper. Ironically, the state launched the fluency monitoring program to comply with the bipartisan-backed No Child Left Behind Act, which requires states to create standardized tests that show public school students are reaching proficiency in core subjects like English, math and science.

With only a small proportion of low-English proficiency students (reading between the lines they are referring to illegal immigrants) passing the state’s standardized reading test, Arizona education officials started to look at the teachers in those classrooms. They found a common thread in dozens of districts throughout the state; many instructors don’t speak proper English and, in fact, teach in Spanish, using Spanish-language materials. Some have “unacceptably heavy accents” that causes them to mispronounce words. Others use poor English grammar.

Here are some examples of state monitoring reports listed in the article; a teacher who asked her English learners "How do we call it in English?" and teachers who pronounced "levels" as "lebels" and "much" as "mush." Last year a monitor documented teachers who pronounced "the" as "da" and "lives here" as "leeves here."

Protected by the power of their union, no teachers have been fired for fluency issues. They have simply been reassigned and districts are required to develop “corrective-action plans” to improve their English. However a group of teachers took their case to the feds last year, complaining that their accents were getting them removed from classrooms.

This is the sort of issue that makes the Justice Department’s bloated civil rights division salivate. Predictably, the agency took swift action, threatening to file a civil rights lawsuit if Arizona didn’t get rid of its teacher fluency monitoring program. As a result, thousands of children in the state’s taxpayer funded schools are stuck with teachers they probably can’t understand.

The superintendent of Arizona’s public schools (John Huppenthal) says his office will continue encouraging districts to help teachers with flawed English pronunciation or grammar. “Students should be in a class where teachers can articulate,” he said.

According to the Arizona Central Arizona’s teacher accent scrutiny was halted to avoid lawsuit by the Department of Justice:

“Facing a possible civil-rights lawsuit, Arizona has struck an agreement with federal officials to stop monitoring classrooms for mispronounced words and poor grammar from teachers of students still learning the English language.

Instead, the task of testing teachers' fluency in English will fall to school districts and charter schools as part of federal and state legal requirements.

The state's agreement with the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education allows it to avoid further investigation and a possible federal civil-rights lawsuit.

The investigation began after unnamed parties filed a civil-rights complaint in May 2010 alleging that the state's on-site monitoring reports led to teachers being removed from classrooms based on their accents.

In November, federal officials told Arizona that its fluency monitoring may violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against teachers who are Hispanic and others who are not native English speakers.

Under the agreement, the Arizona Department of Education will remove the fluency section from the form used by its monitors who visit classrooms. It also will require schools and districts to file assurances with the state that their teachers are fluent. The state did not admit any wrongdoing.

As a result, federal officials determined there were insufficient facts to establish a civil-rights violation and closed the case.

Despite the agreement to drop fluency from the form, John Huppenthal, Arizona superintendent of public instruction, said his office will continue to instruct state monitors to talk to districts about individual teachers whose English pronunciation or grammar is flawed.

"We still are going to be conscious of these articulation issues," Huppenthal said. "Students should be in a class where teachers can articulate."

State monitoring

Each year, state monitors visit a sampling of classrooms to determine compliance with state and federal laws covering how schools teach children still learning English.

The monitoring of teacher fluency began in 2002 after passage of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

A concern was the low proportion of English-learning students who pass the state's standardized test in reading, writing and math, called AIMS.

Monitors have reported infractions such as teachers instructing in Spanish, using Spanish-language teaching materials or hanging Spanish-language posters on their classroom walls, which are prohibited by Arizona's English-only law.

Monitors also reported that some teachers did not have proper credentials to teach English learners.

The monitors also noted what they considered unacceptably heavy accents that caused some teachers to mispronounce words and teachers using poor English grammar.

In 2007, The Arizona Republic examined reports from the 32 districts monitored that year. State officials found teachers with unacceptable pronunciation and grammar in nine districts.”

Borders, Culture, and Language are the three things that make a nation. Today, in the name of diversity and multiculturalism, we are losing all three. No industrialized nation in the world will pervert its culture, borders and language then we have in the past 40 years. If you live in Germany you must learn proper German. If you live in France you must learn French. If you live in Mexico you must learn Spanish.

In our desire for cheap labor we have allowed an infiltration of illegal immigrants into our country that over the years have had children that are now citizens due to the unintended consequences of the Fourteenth Amendment. These children, who are not proficient in English, are now in our public schools. They are not learning proper English. They are not learning our history and Constitution. They want to transpose their cultures for ours. All of this is being done in the name of diversity and multiculturalism with the support of the race and ethnic pimps who are vying for their votes. This goes for both Democrats and Republicans, but mainly progressive Democrats.

How well prepared will these children be prepared to obtain good paying jobs if they cannot read, write or speak proper English? How well will they be prepared for college even with all of the special considerations they receive? They may get into a college due to the mandated diversity rudiments, but what will they do when they get there except join racial or ethnic radial groups and protest for more entitlements.

As someone who hired people for clerical and technical positions I know how much my firm valued the ability to read and write proper English. We could not tolerate an engineer or clerical assistant who was unable to express themselves succinctly and cogently on paper or in spoken words.

While these measures of diversity may sound humane and kind we are doing these children a tremendous disservice by not demanding they learn proper English grammar, syntax and pronunciation.

In May 2004 Bill Cosby addressed the NAACP with a stern admonishment to those who will not teach African American children to speak proper English. Cosby is quoted in World Net Daily:

"Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids – $500 sneakers for what? And won't spend $200 for 'Hooked on Phonics.'

They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. ... You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth!"

In another example Garrard McClendon, an educator with 18 years’ experience, has written a book entitled Ask or Ax where he echoes Cosby’s comments.

Today where are the Cosbys and McClendons in the Hispanic community? When will they step up and speak for these children instead of pimping for votes?

The Solargate Scandal Grows

“The discipline of desire is the background of character.” — John Locke

Several days ago I reported on the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a manufacturer of solar panels located in Freemont, California. At the time I had suspicions that this was a bigger scandal than was being reported. I had heard a caller on the Mark Levine Show, who claimed to be an employee of Solyndra, stating that the company knew this was a bad deal from the beginning. Of course I had no evidence to back her claim although Levine said he vetted the caller, who was using an anonymous name, off the air and that she was telling the truth.

When I heard the caller I began to think that the Solyndra bankruptcy would grow into a much larger scandal involving crony corporatism in the field of green jobs. President Obama is directly associated with this scandal and as it grows the Republicans will no doubt use it against him.

The Operation Gun Walker scandal has not yet percolated in the mainstream media outside CBS News, though it is only a matter of time that it catches on, given the criminal enterprise the U.S. Government seems complicit in aiding and abetting.

The Solyndra bankruptcy, however, is a scandal taking off like a rocket and directly relevant to Stimulus II. Via Doug Ross comes word that ABC News has uncovered the makings of a very real and potentially damaging scandal for Barack Obama. Ross reports:

“Newly uncovered emails show the White House closely monitored the Energy Department’s deliberations over a $535 million government loan to Solyndra, the politically-connected solar energy firm that recently went bankrupt and is now the subject of a criminal investigation.

The company’s solar panel factory was heralded as a centerpiece of the president’s green energy plan — billed as a way to jump start a promising new industry. And internal emails uncovered by investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee that were shared exclusively with ABC News show the Obama administration was keenly monitoring the progress of the loan, even as analysts were voicing serious concerns about the risk involved. “This deal is NOT ready for prime time,” one White House budget analyst wrote in a March 10, 2009 email, nine days before the administration formally announced the loan.

“If you guys think this is a bad idea, I need to unwind the W[est] W[ing] QUICKLY,” wrote Ronald A. Klain, who was chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, in another email sent March 7, 2009. The “West Wing” is the portion of the White House complex that holds the offices of the president and his top staffers. Klain declined comment to ABC News.”

But no unwinding happened. Barack Obama and Joe Biden stood behind Solyndra even as the company headed toward bankruptcy. Moreso, just three weeks before George Bush left office, the Bush Administration’s Energy Department credit committee unanimously rejected a loan commitment to Solyndra.

But Barack Obama desperately wanted to tout a green jobs initiative. He needed one to make his case for the stimulus’s “green jobs” efforts. So he put his faith in a company that was falling apart. And emails within the White House make clear that despite protestations the administration knew nothing about Solyndra’s financial problems, there were warnings.

The White House just chose to ignore them and throw taxpayer money in Solyndra’s direction.

The ABC Report continues:

“The emails were uncovered by investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which will hold hearings on the Solyndra loan Wednesday. The Republican-led House has been investigating the Obama administration's green energy loan program for months. That probe took on new urgency two weeks ago, when Solyndra abruptly shut its doors and laid off 1,100 employees. Last week, the FBI raided the factory as part of a joint investigation with the Energy Department's inspector general.

"This is not right. This is not good," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., who chairs the House committee that is examining the loan. "It makes you sick to your stomach. This is taxpayer money."

As federal authorities examine whether Solyndra misled the government about its true financial state, the Obama White House is fielding fresh questions over why it pushed so hard for Solyndra. Officials with DOE and the Office of Management and Budget are expected to testify Wednesday. Executives with Solyndra, invited to appear as witnesses, will not attend Wednesday's hearing but have told the House committee they will voluntarily appear next week.

Obama's DOE has said it backed Solyndra as a potential game changer in the clean tech movement, but the company's collapse came after clear warning signs the venture was a high risk from the start.”

The White House has argued that any effort to finance start-up businesses in a relatively new field like solar energy is bound to include risky ventures that could fail. They reject the notion being pushed by Republicans that Solyndra was chosen for political reasons. One of the largest private investors in the deal, Oklahoma billionaire George Kaiser, was also a prominent fundraiser for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

To view the original ABC report by Doug Ross click here.

In a subsequent report ABC has reported that federal agents have raided the homes of the Solyndra executives confiscating documents and computers.

“Federal agents have expanded their examination of the now-bankrupt California solar power company Solyndra, visiting the homes of the company's CEO and two of its executives, examining computer files and documents, iWatch News and ABC News have learned.

Agents visited the homes of CEO Brian Harrison and company founder Chris Gronet and a former executive, according to a source who agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because of the legal sensitivity of the situation.

Gronet, reached at his home Friday morning, did not dispute that his home was visited by federal agents a day earlier.

"I'm sorry," Gronet said, "you probably understand full well that I cannot comment." The third executive could not be immediately reached.

Solyndra spokesman David Miller confirmed agents visited Harrison's home on the same day the FBI and Energy Department Inspector General seized boxes of records from the company's headquarters.”

In the latest report on the Solyndra investigation Fox News reports today:

“According to the House committee, the average review time for White House budget officials screening Energy Department loan guarantees is 28 calendar days. The committee said that for Solyndra, the first such loan guarantee made by the department, the review took just nine days.

Officials expressed concern about the review process in the run-up to the Biden announcement.

One White House budget official asked that the announcement "be postponed." Another email complained about "rushed approvals," and said "we are worried" about Solyndra. However, the announcement went forward as planned

The emails show White House officials repeatedly checking with the Office of Management and Budget on the progress of its review of the loan ahead of the high-profile groundbreaking for the company's new factory.

One email from a budget official referred to "the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra."

With the loss of a traditional Democratic congressional seat in New York’s ninth district to a Republican newcomer by a margin of 54-46 people are finally beginning to see the corruption and incompetence of Barack Obama. My only fear is that as this scandal grows Attorney General Eric Holder will begin to obfuscate this investigation to protect his boss as he has done with the Fast and Furious gun running debacle. Perhaps in a few days someome in the media will dub this scandal Solargate.

CNN/Tea Party Debate, Winners and Losers

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” — Albert Camus

Last night a debate between the candidates for the Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States was held in Tampa, Florida. The debate was sponsored by CNN and the Tea Party and the moderator was Wolf Blitzer of CNN.

Why CNN decided to partner with the Tea Party is a mystery to me when most of their commentators, including Blitzer, have made degrading remarks about the Tea Party movement and have called them racist. I guess garnering viewers and ratings outweighs principles.

Having said that I think it was the best debate so far. Questions were asked by Tea Party advocates and members. The answers to these questions were important to people who would eventually pick the Republican nominee, not to the media that wanted to protect Barack Obama. Of course Blitzer could not help asking a few really stupid follow-on questions hoping to embarrass one or more of the candidates.

Unlike my previous blogs where I shared my raw notes taken during he debate I will evaluate each candidate based on those notes and my overall impressions.

Let’s begin with Mitt Romney. Money did not hurt himself during the debate. His answers on Social Security and Medicare should have been soothing to seniors, especially in Florida a swing state. He had good answers on jobs and immigration and seemed to deflect all criticisms of RomneyCare. Each debate is making this issue move more and more to the background. And as James Carvel once said; “it’s the economy stupid” Romney will stick to the jobs theme. His record for creating jobs during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts is not equal to Perry’s in Texas, but he seems to have the correct answers to challenge Obama.

I liked Romney’s analogy of the telephone to Obama’s energy policy where he compared Obama as trying to drop quarters into a pay phone while the rest of the world is using smart phones.

The one thing I did not like with Romney was his waffling on ObamaCare. He said he would issue an executive order allowing each sate a mandate. The problem with this, as Bachmann pointed out, is that an executive order can be rescinded by the next president. Bachmann is right when she says it must be repealed by law.

Some pundits on the right claim Perry won on points. There were two questions going into Monday's GOP presidential debate, which was sponsored by CNN and the Tea Party Express. First, who would emerge as the victor in the battle between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, the two Republican front-runners, over Social Security. Second, which candidates would elbow their way into the conversation?

After Perry characterized Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" in a debate last week in California at the Reagan Library, Romney tried to pounce on those comments by accusing Perry of trying to kill Social Security. Romney tried to depict Perry as a candidate Democrats could frame as being out of the mainstream, which, according to Romney, would obliterate Republicans in a general election.

On Monday, Perry responded by saying it was a "slam dunk" for "seniors on Social Security and those moving toward it," that the "program will be there for them."

Calling for the system to be reformed, Perry said politicians have not had "the courage to look people in the eye" and tell them that "this is a broken system."

Romney cited heavily from Perry's book, Fed Up, and accused Perry of implying that Social Security was unconstitutional and a failure. At one point, when Romney and Perry were arguing over what the other had written about Social Security in their respective books, they argued over what Perry meant when he accused Romney of saying "it" was criminal. Romney said "it" was criminal for Congress to rob the Social Security trust fund. In making his point, though, Romney looked like a wonkish Al Gore debating against George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential debates, and Perry came away looking steadier than Romney.

Further, in a CNN/Opinion Research Poll that was released on Monday, Perry led the field in the category that asked those polled about a candidate's conviction.

Like with his comments on Social Security, when Perry did not back down from his earlier comments in which he called Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's potential actions to be "almost treasonous," he both appealed to the base and showed a firm resolve, qualities Romney has had trouble with.

"If you are allowing the Fed to be used for political purposes, then it is almost treasonous," Perry said again.

Against Romney, Perry came across as a leader and an executive who had conviction while Romney came across as a politician intent on racking up debating points as if they were Olympic medals.

However, I think Perry was hurt by the business of his mandating young girls to be injected with the HPT vaccine, something he said he regretted and which was overturned by the Texas State Legislature. I also thought his response on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants was weak. I did, however, agree with him that it was a state and Tenth Amendment issue.

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum opened up some wounds on Perry by attacking two of his vulnerabilities: His record on immigration and the executive order he signed which would have mandated that girls in Texas get the HPV vaccine against cervical cancer.

Bachmann said it was "flat out wrong" to have "innocent little 12 year-old girls be forced" to have a "government injection through" an "executive order."

Bachmann then said that Perry was guilty of crony capitalism, a theme former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin railed against in her address in Iowa over Labor Day weekend and which candidates have begun to talk about more since.

According to Bachmann, the drug company that made the vaccine "made millions of dollars because of this mandate," and "[Perry's] former chief of staff was the chief lobbyist for this drug company."

Perry said that the person in question only donated $5,000 to his campaign and he was offended that he was being accused of being bought for essentially $5,000. Bachmann replied that she was offended for the innocent girls that would have been forced to be injected and whose liberties would have been violated by Perry's executive order.

Speaking of girls who have had adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine, Bachmann said, "they don't get a mulligan or do-over."

Jon Huntsman accused Perry of being "treasonous" for saying that the border could not be secured. Huntsman may be right on the border, but I cannot see him catching on with the Tea Party or conservatives. He is just too much like John McCain.

In addition, Rick Santorum, who had a substantive debate talking about his family's immigration experience and needing English as the official language in addition to his past successes as a legislator, not only attacked Perry on immigration but also teamed with Bachmann to slam Perry on his Gardasil executive order.

Santorum told Perry that his policy was wrong and criticized him for thinking it was still right. Santorum said that Perry was implying that he should have gone through the legislature instead of signing an executive order, and that he should have had an "opt-in" policy. According to Santorum, forcing "them to have this inoculation" was wrong policy.

I did not care for the placement of Perry and Romney next to each other and the constant quacking between the two of them got boring and annoying after a while. While they were beating each other up the rest of the candidates were standing their like wooden Indians waiting to be called upon. I wish I would have heard more from Bachmann and Cain.

This all aided Romney, who is not going to win a one-on-one battle against Perry, and whose only chance against him is if the other candidates siphon votes away from the Texas Governor.

In the leadoff debate in South Carolina, Herman Cain starred mainly because he got a lot of time to speak because the field was not as crowded as it is now. Consistently, the more Cain speaks, the more people like him. On Monday, Cain spoke of his compelling background and private sector experience while offering a host of solutions.

In reference to his "9-9-9" plan that calls for a nine percent business flat tax, a nine percent personal income tax, and a nine percent national sales tax, Cain said that he has been told by some people that he could not get the plan passed because he doesn't "know how Washington works." Cain said he replies, "Yes I do [know how Washington works]. It doesn't."

Cain also said that he knew how to be "pro-worker because I come from a working family. My mother was a domestic worker. My Father was a barber, a janitor and a chauffeur, all at the same time. I understand work because that's how I came up."

He was specific on his health care solutions, which included repealing ObamaCare, enacting "loser-pay" laws to help doctors fight frivolous lawsuits, restructure Medicare, and allow for more association-driven health plans like the ones he oversaw when he was head of the National Restaurant Association.

And viewers got to see more of his personality when he said he would "bring a sense of humor" to the White House because "America's too uptight."

Gingrich, on the other hand, resembled the Republican team captain rallying the troops to defeat Obama in 2012. Gingrich convincingly spoke of how a full employment economy was the best way to fix Social Security. He spoke of how individuals and not the government or, necessarily, governors create jobs. He called for a Social Security system in which young workers could choose to have personal accounts. He railed against General Electric and Obama's green jobs subsidies. He recounted what Ronald Reagan used to say about turning on the light for the people so that the people can turn the heat on their congressmen to get their message across. Gingrich said the country needed to focus on Mexico, the Middle East, and the industrial base at home as part of a core foreign policy strategy. He focused on the need to cut out waste from government programs such as Medicare. It was another polished and poised debate performance for Gingrich, who is emerging as one of the GOP's field generals going into 2012.

Ron Paul--who attacked Perry for signing executive orders did not back down from his libertarian beliefs on the economy and health care--and Jon Huntsman gave disjointed performances that left much to be desired.

Ron Paul is just about out of the race. He killed himself with his defense of Osama bin Laden. Paul has a cadre of supporters who are like storm troopers. If you don’t agree with hem they will attack you and call you stupid and ignorant. They have no truck with compromise and do not understand that you cannot change things overnight no matter how right you may be. (See my post on the Overton Window).

I agree with Paul on most of his financial and small government positions, especially his love of Austrian economics. I liked his comparison of our new billion dollar embassy in Baghdad to the Vatican. Some of his positions on foreign policy seem sensible, but to me others are way off the wall. Paul just will not increase his position in the race.

I think Ron Paul missed the ball completely when he attempted to respond to one of those hypothetical left-wing questions from Wolf Blitzer. When asked by Blitzer what he would do for a 26 year-old person who chose not to purchase health insurance and was hospitalized in a coma for six months. Blitzer inferred that Paul would allow him to die because he had no money. Paul stumbled and bumbled around the answer talking about personal responsibility and catastrophic health insurance. A better response would have been: If such a case a occurred no hospital in the United States would allow him to die in the parking lot. They would treat him and then transfer his to a care facility for such cases. If and when he recovered he would be billed by the medical facilities and be expected to pay off his debt. It is not much different than not having automobile insurance or homeowners insurance to protect you against the liabilities you might incur from an accident to another party.

All in all I think he score ended as such:

1. Romney
2. Perry
3. Bachmann
4. Cain
5. Gingrich
6. Santorum
7. Huntsman
8. Paul

The Overton Window

“I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable." —Milton Freidman, Capitalism and Freedom, 1982

You've probably had this experience at some point: You've read about a great new idea for reforming government policy and thought, "This makes so much sense; why don't lawmakers just do it?" But months pass, and you don't hear politicians even discuss the idea, let alone act on it.

There's a reason: Ideas take time to produce changes in policy. This can be frustrating, but it also means that ideas policymakers refuse to countenance now may yet — with patience — become law.

The late Joseph Overton, of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, observed that in a given public policy area, such as education, only a relatively narrow range of potential policies will be considered politically acceptable. This "window" of politically acceptable options is primarily defined not by what politicians prefer, but rather by what they believe they can support and still win re-election. In general, then, the window shifts to include different policy options not when ideas change among politicians, but when ideas change in the society that elects them.

The Overton Window of Political Possibility is a model developed to explain public policy change. When public policies in a given area, such as education or labor, are arranged from freest to least free, only a relatively narrow window of options will be considered politically acceptable. This window of politically acceptable policies is not defined primarily by what politicians would prefer; rather, it is defined by what they believe they can support and still win re-election. Hence, the window shifts to include new policies or exclude old ones not when ideas change among politicians, but when ideas change in the society that elects them.

Imagine, if you will, a yardstick standing on end. On either end are the extreme policy actions for any political issue. Between the ends lie all gradations of policy from one extreme to the other. The yardstick represents the full political spectrum for a particular issue. The essence of the Overton Window is that only a portion of this policy spectrum is within the realm of the politically possible at any time. Regardless of how vigorously a think tank or other group may campaign, only policy initiatives within this window of the politically possible will meet with success. Why is this?

Politicians are constrained by ideas, even if they have no interest in them personally. What they can accomplish, the legislation they can sponsor and support while still achieving political success (i.e. winning reelection or leaving the party strong for their successor), is framed by the set of ideas held by their constituents — the way people think. Politicians have the flexibility to make up their own minds, but negative consequences await the elected officeholder who strays too far. A politician’s success or failure stems from how well they understand and amplify the ideas and ideals held by those who elected them.

The Overton Window reflects what society believes, which can be as easily influenced by truth and facts as it can be by inaccurate or deceptive information. Even mistakes can shift the window. The massive underestimate of Medicare costs probably contributed to the program’s creation in the 1960s. The false belief that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq contributed to support for that war. Click here for an interactive gadget of the Overton Window.

At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office. Overton arranged the spectrum on a vertical axis of “more free” and “less free” in regard to government intervention. When the window moves or expands, ideas can accordingly become more or less politically acceptable. The degrees of acceptance of public ideas can be described roughly as:

• Unthinkable
• Radical
• Acceptable
• Sensible
• Popular
• Policy

The Overton Window is a means of visualizing which ideas define that range of acceptance by where they fall in it. Proponents of policies outside the window seek to persuade or educate the public so that the window either “moves” or expands to encompass them. Opponents of current policies, or similar ones currently within the window, likewise seek to convince people that these should be considered unacceptable. Overton feared that using a left-right scale would politicize the scale.

The example Joe Overton often used to illustrate his window theory was the Michigan school choice issue during the 1980s and ‘90s. The political spectrum for education ranges from full parental choice on the high end to a complete government monopoly without private schools, home schooling, charter schools or any other school choice on the low end. On this spectrum the politically possible range of options was very limited during the 1980s. Politicians could advocate minor, incremental changes for home schooling, and private schools were part of the status quo, but charter schools were definitely out of bounds for a politician to seriously contemplate.

As citizens became aware of education options and their success in other places, the political climate became more favorable and the window of political possibilities in Michigan began to expand to where politicians could advocate home schooling, school choice and even charter schools without losing at the polls. Not only was the upper limit of the window expanded, but the lower boundary has also moved upwards as well — making it politically unwise to push for restrictions on the education freedoms that have been gained.

Home schooling is here to stay, charter schools are well established, and school choice continues to gain ground. In fact, in some parts of Michigan it is now even possible to run for office on a platform that includes the Universal Tuition Tax Credit — another Overton innovation — a situation that was unthinkable just 10 years ago.

Perhaps the Overton Window theory is best summed up by a quote from Milton Friedman in his preface to the 1982 edition of Capitalism and Freedom: "That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable."

A long-term focus on shifting the Overton Window allows a think tank to follow its ideals and perform a genuinely positive public service, instead of being constrained to merely advocating those policies that are currently possible. When the window of political possibilities is moved along the political spectrum, the impossible becomes desirable and the simply desirable becomes imperative. This is the true influence of a think tank — shaping the political climate of future legislative and legal debates by researching, educating, involving and inspiring.

Today there are conservative think tanks such as the CATO Institute, Reason Foundation, Ayn Rand Institute, and the Heritage Foundation that are providing the public with information that is slowly moving the Overton Window in an upwards direction, a direction that would have been out of the question ten years ago. Also the rise of conservative talk radio throughout the country has added its influence to the Window.

Starting in 2009, with the advent of ObamaCare, the Tea Party movement sprung up all across the nation. The influence of the Tea Party movement was felt in the Congressional elections of 2010 with the Republicans, many of the candidates backed by the Tea Party, gained control of the House by picking up some 66 seats. This influence was also made known at the state level with over 650 republicans being elected to state legislatures and state houses across the nation.

In tonight’s CNN/Tea Party debate the first 30 minutes were devoted to the future of Social Security and Medicare. In past years these programs were considered untouchable by career politicians. While talking about the possible collapse of Medicare and Social Security politicians would not put forth any meaningful reform programs simply push the problem down the road. Issues such as means testing and raising the eligibility age were just not politically possible.

Now with the public’s increased knowledge of the issues with these two programs, knowledge that has been driven by the think tanks and radio talkers the Overton Window is beginning to move up the scale from Radical to Acceptable and Sensible and is approaching Popular. In the 2012 presidential campaign each political party will have to put forth solutions for saving these two programs.

There are other issues that are beginning to move up on Overton Window. Issues like Government regulations, government departments, education, government sending and government borrowing. Issues that were mere platitudes on the lips of politicians ten years ago are now demanding firm policy commitments from these same politicians by the public.

Over the past 100 years we have seen the Overton Window drop to the bottom of the scale where the public has been accepting more and more government control on their lives. The politicians have responded to this by creating laws, policies and governmental agencies to exert this control. Agencies such as the EPA, Department of Education, and Department of Energy were created to respond to the public’s need for more government, wealth redistribution, and something called social justice. These were the ideas that were being put forth by the left-wing think tanks, academia, unions, and progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. These politicians were merely giving the public what was acceptable to them in order to remain in power.

Today many conservatives and Libertarians are impatient with the progress being made towards more liberty and less government. They are looking for a candidate on a white horse that can lead them back to strict adherence to the Constitution. While this is a noble and desirable goal we cannot achieve it in one big step. It will take time and effort from conservatives, Libertarians, and Tea Party members to continually push the Overton Window upwards — the politicians will follow your lead.