May 13, 2011

Extremists, Radicals and Freestaters – Oh My!!

By Kimberly Morin

Those are the ‘fear mongering’ talking points that seem to come across most New Hampshire Democrats’ lips, tweets, press releases and facebook entries lately regarding legislation being brought forth by the Republicans.  Of course these are the same talking points handed down from the DNC only in the Granite State they add ‘Freestaters’ because those evil, freedom loving Libertarians are such radicals!    The Democrats have no real leg to stand on when it comes to legislation.  Apparently they didn’t get the memo from New Hampshire voters in 2010 when Republicans were voted into the Legislature by a majority.

Granite State Democrats complain that legislation such as repealing RGGI or the passing Right-to-Work legislation are ‘social issues’.  Funny because RGGI does absolutely nothing to help the environment, is a crony capitalist slush fund and costs consumers and businesses even more for electricity costs.  Repealing RGGI will help consumers and businesses by lowering electricity costs and as already stated – have zero, nada, and zilch effect on the environment.

Democrats like to pretend they are for the middle class and workers’ rights yet they are against Right-to-Work legislation which is PRO workers’ rights, giving workers the freedom from being forced to pay union dues or fees.  Since it’s well known that Democrats, including Governor Lynch and those in the New Hampshire State Legislature, are bought and paid for with union dues (which most members disagree with by the way), who exactly are the extremists and radicals – the Republicans who are trying to make the state better for workers and business or the Democrats who want to continue union oppression of workers?

A couple examples from the New Hampshire Democrat Party site:

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley released the following statement on Newt Gingrich’s campaign announcement:

 “…Newt Gingrich’s record of tearing down government – accumulated from nearly four decades in Washington – have made him a darling of extreme fiscal conservatives but not right for Granite Staters who value common sense policies that help those in need over a drown-the-government agenda. Gingrich’s campaign organization, consisting of a vast network of special interests, means he’ll put business first and Granite Staters last.

New Hampshire Senate Republicans Join House Circus and Vote to Reduce Wages, Kill Jobs

“A right-to-work-for-less bill may allow the extremists now in control of the Republican Party to check off an item on their reckless agenda and pay homage to their out of state billionaire contributors, but it will cost New Hampshire workers millions of dollars a year in lower wages and destroy thousands of jobs.”

This is more than amusing since it is extreme Nanny-state government that voters rejected at the ballot box in November.  The votes were not only a referendum on Obama and national Democrats for their far left extremism but on local Democrats as well.  New Hampshire isn’t called the ‘Live Free or Die’ state because it wants to replicate our Nanny state neighbors.  While New Hampshire Democrats use the same talking points handed to them from the DNC that their counterparts in the uber-liberal Massachusetts use, they must understand that Granite Staters are much different breed of people.  New Hampshire is the last bastion of true freedom in New England and the majority of voters have already proven they’d like to keep it that way, no matter how hard the NH Democrat Party seeks to turn it into Massachusetts.  Extremists, Radicals and Freestaters – keep up the good work!

Some facts on Right-to-Work states can be found here.  Democrats refuse to research the fact that Right-to-Work will be extremely beneficial to New Hampshire’s economy and job creation.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , | posted in Democrats, New Hampshire Politics, Progressives

May 11, 2011

Do the Senate Democrats have a clue?

By Kimberly Morin

In a statement released today by the New Hampshire Senate Democrats, they accuse Republicans of focusing on ‘fringe social issues’ rather than economic growth.  Do they have a clue?  As reported by Marc Fortier:

CONCORD – Senate Republicans continue to follow their House colleagues’ lead by focusing on fringe social issues while simultaneously moving to water-down two programs aimed at economic growth and job creation. Today, the Senate passed measures to turn the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority into a powerless study committee and weaken New Hampshire’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
 
“New Hampshire voters sent us to Concord to focus on improving our economy and to foster job growth,” said Sen. Sylvia Larsen (D-Concord). “By watering-down both New Hamsphire’s participation in RGGI and the job creating New Hamsphire Rail Transit Authority, Senate Republicans have instead hindered job growth and turned away opportunities to grow our economy.”

Participation in the RGGI costs New Hampshire residents more money out of their already strapped wallets and does absolutely nothing to help the environment.  Not to mention that the funds extracted from charging utility companies for ‘carbon credits’ have been used to give businesses and special interest groups money that they either don’t need or otherwise would have to find elsewhere.  RGGI does not create jobs, it stifles jobs growth if anything because it adds to the cost of doing business in New Hampshire.  Maybe the Senate Democrats should take a look at how Cap & Trade has failed in Europe before pretending it’s a success here or that it actually stimulates job growth.

All the Senate needs to do in regards to a Rail Transit Authority is take a look at Massachusetts.  New Hampshire is a small state with a small population, it does not need a high speed federal boondoogle rail project that will absolutely cost more than it is estimated (which is one reason most states are refusing to add this to their roster of ‘things to do’) and in the long run will cost the taxpayers much more than the benefit.

What the Senate Democrats refused to acknowledge in their statement is how Governor Lynch vetoed the Right-to-Work bill that was passed by a majority in the legislature.  This bill would absolutely bring economic growth and jobs to New Hampshire but since most Democrats are against it, they simply ignore the facts.  These are not ‘fringe social issues’ as the Democrats stated, they are important issues that affect the people of New Hampshire.  By opting out of RGGI, consumers and businesses save money.  By avoiding Obama’s high speed rail, NH residents again save money.  By vetoing the Right-to-Work bill, Governor Lynch and the Democrats who support his veto, cost New Hampshire economic growth and jobs.  Do the Senate Democrats have a clue?

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , | posted in Democrats, New Hampshire Politics, Republicans

May 11, 2011

Governor Lynch vetoes workers’ right and NH economic growth

By Kimberly Morin
Governor Lynch vetoed the Right-to-Work bill that was passed by a majority in both the New Hampshire House and Senate.   The bill would actually give workers the choice of joining a union or not and no longer allow unions to forcibly extract ‘agency fees’ from those who choose not to be a part of the union (workers can currently ‘opt out’ of the union but they still have to pay a ‘fee’).   The bill gives workers more rights than they currently have under the forced unionism of New Hampshire.  The majority of people in this country are not unionized.  While unions may have served a purpose decades ago, their purpose has ceased to exist other than to rake taxpayers over the coals via public sector unionization (not to mention higher costs to consumers in the private sector).  It has been proven that Right-to-Work states fare much better economically than Forced Union states, especially during hard economic times.   Why Governor Lynch would veto a bill that would help all of New Hampshire is mind boggling.  Is he that indebted to the unions?
 
Continue reading on Examiner.com

Leave a comment | posted in Economy, New Hampshire Politics, Right-to-Work, Unions

May 11, 2011

Obama’s fantasy DREAM Act – votes only please

By Kimberly Morin

Yesterday Obama gave a speech, conveniently, at a border town in Texas.  He was promoting his new campaign issue – the DREAM Act – yet to anyone who has been paying attention to politics the past 3 years, his speech fell flat.  His ‘dream’ is nothing more than more of his broken promises.  There’s this little fact that Obama forgets about his presidency – he had a majority in the House and Senate when he got into office.  Obama squandered his majority rule over a failed stimulus and the epic failure of Obamacare, completely ignoring the pro-amnesty quadrant that helped vote him into office.

Obama had an entire year with a total Democrat majority yet did absolutely nothing to move the DREAM Act forward.  He completely ignored the illegal aliens who voted for him and the pro-amnesty people who voted for him by pushing the DREAM Act to the side.  Now he feigns to actually care about immigration by pushing it as part of his ‘Wrecking The Future’ re-election campaign.  Is Obama speaking out of one side of his mouth again as he did in 2008 to woo Latino voters who are already unhappy with his presidency?

Read more at Examiner

Leave a comment | posted in Election 2012, Elections, Immigration, Obama

May 11, 2011

Are NH State Senators for ‘Green Street’ or their constituents – their vote will tell

By Kimberly Morin

The New Hampshire Senate will be back in session on Wednesday with a slew of various issues on their plate. One issue that is extremely important to the people of New Hampshire is a bill to repeal membership in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (HB519). The House voted with an overwhelming majority to repeal New Hampshire’s membership. It’s now up to the Senate to vote in order to make the bill a veto-proof majority (Governor Lynch, who got New Hampshire into this Initiative, has said he will veto its repeal). There has been no actual benefit to New Hampshire for participating in this Initiative other than raking in millions to hand out to special interests in the name of ‘green energy’.

It’s really quite simple, utilities use energy to provide the state of New Hampshire energy, therefore creating Carbon Dioxide or CO2 emissions, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative forces energy producers to purchase ‘credits’ for the amount of CO2 they emit or expect to emit. The State has a cap on the amount; however, more can always be purchased on the ‘market’ – think ‘Green Street’ rather than Wall Street, only the same ‘green’ dollars are being made by companies like World Energy Solutions who are trading the ‘carbon credits’ for the RGGI. From the NJ Watchdog.org:

The bidders at RGGI auctions include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase and other Wall Street heavyweights. They hope to make big money by speculating on the price of permits, called allowances. Electric power plants are required to obtain an allowance for each ton of CO-2 they emit.

Read more at Examiner

Leave a comment   |  tags: , | posted in New Hampshire Politics

April 18, 2011

Roger Ebert – You’re Fired!

By Kimberly Morin

Originally posted at DRScoundrels April 18, 2011

The premiere of Atlas Shrugged was Friday, April 15th to mixed reviews (not surprising giving Hollywood’s extremely leftist slant) but one stood out that must be ripped apart – not for the opinion – but for the blatant inaccuracies in the review.  This review was written by the know Left Winger Roger Ebert.  No one in their right mind would expect Ebert to write an unbiased review when it comes to a non-liberal leaning movie – it is after all his opinion.  He gets paid to sit on his ass, watch movies and then write his opinion about them.  The problem with Ebert’s review is that he apparently didn’t pay attention to the movie.  He distorts facts and clearly targets ridiculous things in the movie that make him look biased and unprofessional.

Ebert:  I suspect only someone very familiar with Rand’s 1957 novel could understand the film at all, and I doubt they will be happy with it. For the rest of us, it involves a series of business meetings in luxurious retro leather-and-brass board rooms and offices, and restaurants and bedrooms that look borrowed from a hotel no doubt known as the Robber Baron Arms.

Apparently Ebert didn’t actually talk to anyone who had never read the book.  Many people I talked with who never read the book understood what was going on completely (kind of easy since we are basically on the verge of living it in real life).  Everyone I spoke with who had read the book enjoyed the movie – the biggest complaint was that the characters and storylines weren’t developed like in the book but that would have been physically impossible given time constraints.   You’ve got to love Ebert’s injection of his liberal hatred of capitalism and business when he mentions the Robber Baron (this is an entirely different area for which he could be lambasted about as well but would take entirely too long in this space).

Ebert: During these meetings, everybody drinks. More wine is poured and sipped in this film than at a convention of oenophiliacs. There are conversations in English after which I sometimes found myself asking, “What did they just say?” The dialogue seems to have been ripped throbbing with passion from the pages of Investors’ Business Daily. Much of the excitement centers on the tensile strength of steel.

People sip wine at parties and dinner just like in ‘real life’.  They are shown responsibly sipping wine at appropriate times.  Unfortunately for Ebert being outright drunk or drugged up like many Hollyweirdo movies today just isn’t acceptable.  Clearly Ebert doesn’t understand business chatter – that’s why he sits on his ass as a movie reviewer.  Even people who aren’t in business had no complaints about any of this.

Ebert: But you’re thinking, railroads? Yes, although airplanes exist in this future, trains are where it’s at. When I was 6, my Aunt Martha brought me to Chicago to attend the great Railroad Fair of 1948, at which the nation’s rail companies celebrated the wonders that were on the way. They didn’t quite foresee mass air transportation. “Atlas Shrugged” seems to buy into the fair’s glowing vision of the future of trains. Rarely, perhaps never, has television news covered the laying of new railroad track with the breathless urgency of the news channels shown in this movie.

Clearly Ebert missed the part in the movie where gas prices were almost $40/gallon making train transportation much cheaper than any other form.  This is where he starts to go off into la-la land with his facts.  Because of the insane gas prices, which are hurting all forms of the economy, trains are considered the saving grace which is why it is deemed so important by the news outlets in the movie (mind you, he’s exaggerating this point as it is).

Ebert:  There is also a love scene, which is shown not merely from the waist up but from the ears up. The man keeps his shirt on. This may be disappointing for libertarians, who I believe enjoy rumpy-pumpy as much as anyone.

Earth to Ebert – All of the women that I know who watched Atlas Shrugged absolutely noticed that Hank Reardon (Grant Bowler) took his shirt off in the sex scene.  How could anyone miss that?  Another fact that is incorrect from this ‘professional movie reviewer’.  Maybe Ebert is used to the soft porn that comes out of Hollywood such that a sex scene not showing pubic hairs or boobs is deemed abnormal.  Probably a disappointment in Ebert’s case since I’m sure that’s the most action he gets.

Again – it’s Ebert’s opinion and that is his job to provide.  He is entitled to his opinion but he is not entitled to changing the facts which is exactly what he did.  In a job as tough as his, you’d think he’d get that one little detail correct.  Roger Ebert – You’re Fired!

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , | posted in DRScoundrels, Media

April 13, 2011

Ryan responds to Obama’s ridiculous budget ‘solutions’

By Kimberly Morin

If you had the stomach to listen to Obama’s latest debacle of a speech, you would have heard the usual – class warfare, compassion, inherited from Bush, tax increases, fair share yada, yada, yada – yawn (Joe Biden even fell asleep).  The same typical progressive b.s. that Obama spews during any of his speeches only his new buzz word is ‘Winning The Future’.  Of course, most  Americans know that we won’t be winning the future until 2012 when Obama is voted out of office.  It’s really simple – Obama came up with a 2012 budget that increased the deficit by over $1 trillion alone.  There were no serious considerations of budget cuts or entitlement reforms.  There were no serious reforms of any kind even thought we are on the tipping edge of disaster when it comes to spending and outrageous debt and deficit.Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan delivered a plan that will decrease the deficit by $6 trillion over the next 10 years.  While the plan may not be perfect, at least he actually came up with a plan that delves into the real issues causing some of the huge and unsustainable spending in this country.  Obama figured he’d have to pretend to actually care about our unsustainable spending so came out (sort of) with some his own ‘progressive’ ideas on how to cut the federal budget. Of course Obama uses the word ‘scalpel’ which as most know is a tiny instrument to make tiny incisions.  What this country needs, in the words of Republican Tom Coburn, is a ‘chainsaw’ to attack the budget.

Ryan’s response is below in full:

Paul Ryan Responds to President’s Disappointing, Partisan Speech

WASHINGTON – House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan made the following statement after attending the President’s speech on deficit reduction:

“When the President reached out to ask us to attend his speech, we were expecting an olive branch. Instead, his speech was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate to address our fiscal crisis. What we heard today was not fiscal leadership from our commander-in-chief; we heard a political broadside from our campaigner-in-chief.

“Last year, in the absence of a serious budget, the President created a Fiscal Commission. He then ignored its recommendations and omitted any of its major proposals from his budget, and now he wants to delegate leadership to yet another commission to solve a problem he refuses to confront.

“We need leadership, not a doubling down on the politics of the past.  By failing to seriously confront the most predictable economic crisis in our history, this President’s policies are committing our children to a diminished future. We are looking for bipartisan solutions, not partisan rhetoric. When the President is ready to get serious about confronting this challenge, we’ll be here.”

Key Facts About the President’s Speech

General:

  • Counts unspecified savings over 12 years, not the 10-year window by which serious budget proposals are evaluated.
  • Postpones all savings until 2013 – after his reelection campaign.
  • Runs away from the Fiscal Commission’s recommendations on Social Security – puts forward no specific ideas or even a process to force action.
  • Calls for the appointment of another commission, after mostly omitting from his Fiscal Year 2012 Budget any of proposals submitted by the commission he appointed last year.
  • Non-specific framework fails to meet his Fiscal Commission’s own deficit-reduction goals.

Taxes:

  • Proposes to raise taxes on the American people by more than $1 trillion, devastating our fragile economy and stifling job creation.
  • Endorsed the Fiscal Commission’s ideas on taxes, which specifically called for lower tax rates and a broader base, but then called for higher tax rates. Which is it?
  • Government health and retirement programs are growing at more than twice the speed of the economy. At the current rate of spending, revenue would have to rise “by more than 50 percent” just to keep debt at its current level, according to the Government Accountability Office. That means tax increases across-the-board, now and in the future.  

Medicare:

  • Instead of proposing structural reforms that would actually reduce health care costs, the President proposed across-the-board cuts to current seniors’ care.
  • Strictly limits the amount of health care seniors can receive within the existing structure of unsustainable government health care programs.
  • Gives more power to unelected bureaucrats in Washington to determine what treatments seniors should or shouldn’t get, against a backdrop of costs that continue to rise.
  • Conceded that the relentlessly rising cost of health care is the primary reason why the nation is threatened by debt, and implicitly conceded that his health care law failed to solve the problem.
  • Eviscerates the only competitive element anywhere in health-care entitlement programs – the competition amongst Part D prescription-drug plans – which allowed the drug benefit to come in 41 percent under budget.

Medicaid:

  • Acknowledges that the open-ended financing of Medicaid is a crippling financial burden to both states and the federal government, but explicitly rejected the only solution to this problem, which is to give states the freedom they need to design systems that work for the unique needs of their own populations.

Defense:

  • Proposes more cuts on top of $78 billion in cuts included in his own defense budget, which he proposed just two months ago – all at a time when he continues to task the military with new missions.
  • Secretary Gates has said that the military needs 2 percent – 3 percent real growth just to keep executing the missions that DOD has already been assigned.
  • Secretary Gates described deficit reduction plans that let budget targets drive defense policy as “math, not strategy.”

 

Since it has become pretty clear that Obama knows absolutely nothing about the economy other than how to make it worse for the middle class and Americans in general, it’s pretty easy to see who will be ‘winning the future’ and it certainly isn’t the Democrats.  They’ve had since 2007 to actually prove they are useful but have done everything to prove they are not.  When they controlled both the Legislative and Executive branches over the past 3 years, they did absolutely nothing but increase the deficit and make our economy worse.  For any American to believe that Obama and the Democrats will do an ‘about face’ now and actually do anything to ease the spending in this country is complete and utter lunacy.

Note to Obama and pals like Paul Krugman:  FDR’s spending policies turned the Depression into the GREAT Depression.

Leave a comment | posted in Budget, DRScoundrels, Obama, Republicans

March 15, 2011

Voter Fraud in Colorado November elections – House Committee to Investigate

By Kimberly Morin

Originally posted on DRScoundrels March 15, 2011

The Secretary of State of Colorado, Scott Gessler released a study on March 8 that shows a disturbing problem with the Voter Registration process in his state.  The study identified almost 12,000 non-citizens as registered voters in Colorado.  More disturbing is that the study pointed out almost 5,000 non-citizens actually voted in the November 2010 elections.  The Subcommittee on Elections, part of the Committee on House Administration, has decided to follow up on the Colorado study and review measures across the country in order to ‘protect the integrity of our electoral process.’  From the Committee on House Administration’s site :

WASHINGTON – Today, Subcommittee on Elections Chairman Gregg Harper, R-Miss., issued the following statement announcing a review of state voter registration processes after a recent Colorado study revealed that as many as 5,000 non-citizens voted in Colorado during the 2010 elections:

“This report is extremely troubling and cause for a thorough review of the current registration processes implemented across the country, which I guarantee will be a priority for this Subcommittee.  It also calls into question each state’s ability to enforce current voting laws and whether or not we need to pursue additional measures to better protect the integrity of our electoral process.”

According to the study conducted by the Colorado Secretary of State in conjunction with the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles, 11,805 non-citizens registered to vote in the 2010 elections and 4,947 likely voted.  The report also finds that without access to federal citizenship data, the state is unable to identify and remove non-citizens from its voter rolls.

Registering to vote in Colorado can be done via mail, the County Clerks’ offices, the Department of Motor Vehicles or conveniently on the Secretary of State’s website.  The problem seems to be no one is cross-checking to see if a registrant is indeed a non-citizen.  When going to the online voter registration link, it simply asks for a valid Colorado license number.  It’s clear that Colorado provides licenses to non-citizens. It’s also clear that they are not doing some type of cross-check to verify that a licensed driver in Colorado is an actual citizen eligible to vote.  Of course problems are sure to arise with voter fraud.  The table below shows the findings from the SOS’s study:

 

*The sum of this row is greater than the reported total because some people provided more than one type of non-citizen document and appear in the data more than once. There are 211,200 unique     individuals who used a non-citizen credential to obtain or update a driver’s license or voter identification   card.

From the Colorado study:

The Department of State does not know if a person became a citizen after obtaining a driver’s license or identification card. Similarly, a non-citizen may have been improperly registered to vote, but may have later become a citizen and legally voted. For the reasons discussed (in the study), however, it is likely that many of the 4,947 voters were not citizens when they cast their vote in 2010.

 

While 4,947 may not seem like a very large percentage compared to the total number who voted in the 2010 General Election, there have been cases across the country where candidates have won by literally a few votes.  Why do these people think they have the right to vote as non-citizens?  Why is the state allowing them to register to vote without verifying they are indeed legal citizens?  This problem isn’t limited to Colorado.  This is a nationwide problem that is cause for concern in every election.  Protecting the sanctity of our vote is extremely important to the electoral process. 

Many Americans are already disenfranchised with our voting process due to hearing about many cases of voter fraud and believing their vote doesn’t really count. Imagine all the cases that go unnoticed or lack any investigation at all?  With all of the information technology we have today, there should be no excuses for updating Voter Registration databases to instantly know if someone is a legally able to vote.  Just one illegally cast vote that gets by should be enough to investigate and revamp the entire system.

X-Posted at www.anystreet.org and www.modernconservative.com

Leave a comment   |  tags: , | posted in DRScoundrels, Voter Fraud

March 13, 2011

DOJ Forces Dayton to ‘Dumb Down’ Passing Scores and Requirements for African-Americans

By Kimberly Morin

Originally posted on DRScoundrels March 13, 2011

In September of 2008, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Dayton, Ohio stating that they were discriminating against African-Americans based on police exams given (not enough blacks scored high enough to be offered positions) and for requiring entry level firefighters to have EMT-Basic training as well as Firefighter I and II certifications. These requirements applied to all people applying to become firefighters and all police applicants had to take the exams. The exams themselves were not found to be discriminating. Per the DOJ:

The United States’ complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in September 2008, alleges that Dayton’s use of an internally created written examination for screening entry-level police officer applicants, and its use of heightened minimum qualifications for entry-level firefighter applicants, i.e. requiring that applicants have EMT-Basic and Firefighter I and II certifications at the time they apply, resulted in disparate impact on African-Americans. The complaint also alleges that neither practice has been demonstrated by the city of Dayton to be job related and consistent with business necessity, in accordance with the requirements of Title VII. According to the complaint, although the civilian labor force of Dayton is approximately 37 percent African-American, only approximately nine percent of the city’s sworn police officers and less than 3 percent of its sworn firefighters are African–American. In fact, according to the complaint, the percentage of African-Americans in the city’s fire department actually decreased from 7 percent in 1984 to less than 3 percent in 2008.

I called a firefighter I know to ask how difficult EMT-Basic training and Firefighter I & II certification is to get and if they are unreasonable requirements. He told me that the EMT-Basic training is about 120 to 130 hours of training and Firefighter I & II certifications are about 240 hours of training each. He also informed me that many potential firefighters become volunteer firefighters (there are thousands of opportunities across the country) and they receive this training for free, provided by the fire department for which they are volunteering. He said these requirements are anything but unreasonable. In his specific fire department they actually require all applicants to be paramedics so requiring these basic trainings should not be an issue (better not let the DOJ know about that).

This suit was settled in February of 2009 so why is it coming up now in the news? Because there seem to be a large number of police coming of retirement age according to ABC News in Ohio:

March 11, 2011 DAYTON — The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits.

It’s a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam.

Dayton is in desperate need of officers to replace dozens of retirees.  The hiring process was postponed for months because the D.O.J. rejected the original scores provided by the Dayton Civil Service Board, which administers the test.

Under the previous requirements, candidates had to get a 66% on part one of the exam and a 72% on part two.

The D.O.J. approved new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%. That’s the equivalent of an ‘F’ and a ‘D’.

“It becomes a safety issue for the people of our community,” said Dayton Fraternal Order of Police President, Randy Beane. “It becomes a safety issue to have an incompetent officer next to you in a life and death situation.”

“The NAACP does not support individuals failing a test and then having the opportunity to be gainfully employed,” agreed Dayton NAACP President Derrick Foward.

The D.O.J. and Civil Service Board declined Dayton’s News Source’s repeat requests for interviews. The lower standards mean 258 more people passed the test. The city won’t say how many were minorities.

“If you lower the score for any group of people, you’re not getting the best qualified people for the job,” Foward said. “We need to work with the youth and make them interested in becoming law enforcement officers and firefighters,” said Beane. “Break down the barriers whether they are real or perceived, so we can move forward in this community.”

The D.O.J. has forced other police departments across the country to lower testing standards, citing once again that not enough black candidates were passing.

The Dayton Firefighter recruit exam is coming up this summer. The chief said it’s likely the passing score for that test will be lowered as well.Civil Service Board Announces Police Recruit Scores.

So the DOJ is forcing Dayton and many cities across the country to lower standards to allow more minorities to pass exams rather than letting cities hire the most qualified and best to become police officers and firefighters. What about African-Americans who DID pass the exam? What does this say to them? “You worked hard but your ‘brothers’ aren’t as smart as you so we have even the score.” Even the NAACP disagrees with hiring people who fail the exams. This does nothing for the community but bring resentment. What person doesn’t want their police and firefighters to be the best and brightest? These men and women are our cities and towns ‘first responders’. Do you really want to rely on someone to save your life if they got the job because of the color of their skin and a failing ‘passing’ grade or do you want the person to be the best the city has to offer, regardless of gender or race? After all, as taxpayers, you are the ones paying their salaries.

This is similar to the New Haven Firefighters ‘Reverse Discrimination’ case that was brought before the Supreme Court in 2009 in which the New Haven Firefighters finally won justice. A brief recall of the story:

In November and December of 2003 the New Haven Fire Department administered promotional exams for Captain and Lieutenant.

…when the New Haven FD administered the race-neutral tests in November and December of 2003, white firefighters scored so much higher than their black and brown counterparts that very few preferred minorities would have been promoted to the seven open Captain vacancies, nor to the eight open Lieutenant vacancies, if the exam scores were used.

New Haven’s city charter requires that they follow a “rule of three” which requires that each open promotional position be filled from among the top three scorers on the exams.

If the “rule of three” were strictly applied to the 2003 promotional exams, it would have resulted in all of the open Captain and Lieutenant positions being filled by the best-qualified, highest scoring candidates.

Unfortunately the best-qualified, highest scoring candidates turned out to be mostly white.

Oops.

The City Fathers and Mothers of New Haven reacted quickly to this politically unacceptable turn of events. They simply refused to certify the results of their fire department’s race-neutral exams, thus effectively nullifying the results.

A reverse discrimination lawsuit was filed by the mostly white, highest-scoring firefighters who insisted that the race neutral exam scores should be used to promote them.

In essence what the DOJ is doing is saying African-Americans aren’t as smart as Caucasian Americans; therefore, they must be allowed to fail in order to pass. Lowering standards to fulfill some ridiculous Affirmative Action ‘quotas’ or Title VII standards does not help black people, other minorities or women for that matter. Millions of black people, minorities and women across the country are gainfully employed because they worked hard and are the best people for their jobs, not because of some out-dated law stating you must hire people based on race or having a vagina.  The DOJ lawsuit should be an affront to all African-Americans in Dayton as well as all Americans. Rather than lowering the standards, the community should look at why some people score better than others and work on improving that for the future, not harm the community by forcing the Police and Fire Departments to hire those who are not the best applicants.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , | posted in DOJ, DRScoundrels