Ed Naile, CNHT

Hear Ed Naile every Wednesday morning on WLMW 90.7 FM on the Girard at Large radio show or listen to the archives at Voter Fraud Radio
Friday
Feb222008

Another Big Toothy Grin?

As we come down the final leg of this merciless primary season it may be time to take a quick look at some of the smaller parts of the big picture.

Yea, the NY Times has taken a second look at their former favorite son, John McCain, and decided to stab him in the neck, like we didn’t see that coming, even though McCain did not and never will. Pandering to the liberal press is not paying off for Big John like it has in the past. You see, you can’t, as a Republican presidential candidate, slam Republican Party principals – that is a Republican SENATOR’S job.

And on the even farther left side of things, liberal Democrats – socialists at heart, have been showing Clintons fatigue and are supporting the young messiah of the spoken word, Barak Camelot Obama.

But who is this Barak fella? Other than media adulation and an endless array of promises of CHANGE sermons, what will an Obama reign of change look like?

I know from reading the news that Bill Clinton was the first black president (and he appears from the way he is campaigning for his better half that he doesn’t mind at all a real black man or woman becoming president as long as “Her Highness” never will.).

But will Barak Camelot Obama really, truly be, if elected, the first black president since slippery Bill Clinton? I doubt that very much. Check his centralized planning, and Middle East rhetoric.

I think what we have on our hands is the first “Black Jimmy Carter.”

Double digit inflation and interest rates from meddling in open markets.

A crazy foreign policy crafted by Carter leftovers like Zbignew Gesundheit.

A focus on human rights world wide with a carrot and no stick theme.

Spending, spending, spending.

Oh boy.

Friday
Feb222008

Diving Me Nuts

It looks like you CAN have a bad good idea. Take for instance the new “roundabout” in Keen, NH where the accident and injury level is beyond anything the sales pitch for the "roundabout" project ever mentioned.

This roundabout is not to be placed into the bad old category of “rotaries” built in New England in the fifties. Our peachy Keene roundabout is far superior – except for the carnage and collisions.

The roundabout has a much improved entrance with slower speeds, unlike its old rotary counterpart free for all. Thank you professional planners!

But in a few months something like 46 accidents, some with serious injuries, have occurred in Keene involving the new roundabout. It seems the professional roundabout engineers may not have factored in the middle-finger entitlement attitude of the local drivers darting about this liberal college town. Roundabout does sound like a cool, Earthy name though.

I have a solution! Let’s not feel bad about the roundabout, just change the name.

From now on we can call something more descriptive. How about instead of roundabout we call it a “trail mix”. Now there is a politically correct name for what this new fangled rotary really is – that or a vehicular disaster.

Thursday
Feb142008

You Don't Have To Be Colonel Mustard To Figure This Out

A few columns back I wrote about RSA 91-A and the continuing efforts by the Right to Know Commission to slip a loophole into the law that would allow sequential meetings. I have been writing about this sneaky maneuver for several years and came upon an article in a local newspaper that shows exactly what will be happening all over NH in an accelerated pattern as soon as elected officials find out there are no repercussions to secret meetings.

In this instance I read the news article and spotted what looked like decisions being made by Selectmen in Hillsboro who “voted’ to not renew the Town Administrator’s contract. I went to the Hillsboro Town Hall, got the minutes for myself and knowing nothing else but human nature, 91-A and what was in the newspapers – wrote the story. The Title was Pour Some Coffey For Poor Mr. Coffey.

I sent Mr. Coffey a copy and here is what he wrote back to me with permission to print:

Ed:

You are right on target with what you got out of the minutes. The only exception is that the former selectman, Snair, did not quit but came in third in a three way race which was won by Joseph Collins. As to Snair's dirt on me, I have no idea what he had in mind and in the end neither did his attorney or the LGC. You are (very) probably correct about there being some email or telephone meetings before the January 29 meeting. The Board went into the non-public session for a discussion that "could affect a person's reputation other than a member of the board," very different than the one that considers dismissal, promotion or an evaluation. I knew that I was their subject but expected at some point to meet with the Board. When they came into public session I was in effect to that I was being fired on June 9. So much for granting a courtesy. Asking me to help with my demise seems a bit strange.

My present employment agreement resulted from the settlement of last year's debacle. It requires performance feedback which has never been done. As far I am concerned it is a public record and anyone can obtain a copy of it. I also do not believe that a majority of the Board has read the agreement. The only reason given for my dismissal was a cryptic statement by Collins in the non-public minutes, that he wrote, referring to the need for new eyes and management in the town office. He writes this after praising me for 15 years of success. (I have had two retina reattachments and a laser cataract procedure but I have 20-20 with glasses.) The bottom line is I was fired without a single word said to me about why or any discussion offered by what appears to be a prearranged set up.

The letter mentioned in the minutes never formally existed. It was a draft sent to the Chairman by email for his thoughts. It was never signed and was clearly a draft that I never presented to the Board. It was sent to the Chairman because under the employment agreement I reported to the Chairman, not the Board. My desire was to work through the 2009 town meeting and along the way revise the various town office job descriptions, and my own, and assist in an a transition to a new administrator.

The real issue here is the Board's procedures and violation of law. It starts with RSA 91A ends with some other legal questions, including age discrimination. I share your apparent concern for back room deals and the weakening of 91A, overall you hit the nail on the head.

Please let me know if I can be of any assistance in ensuring RSA 91A does not get weakened.

Jim

So is tampering with 91-A to allow more of this GOOD for municipalities?

The Hillsboro Selectmen obviously passed a letter among each other and secretly met to plan this non-renewal. They could cause a second lawsuit in listing their reason for going into non-public session (legal) to discuss the REPUTATION of a person then coming to a "consensus" to not renew Mr. Coffet's contract but not actually VOTING to do so.

Governor Lynch should veto this latest version of the RTK Commission's Frankenstein legislation if the Senate doesn't kill it for the third time.

Monday
Feb112008

I'll See Your Pledge And Raise You 17%

I was not going to dignify a current liberal scheme for an income tax with a story but it recently became too enticing. I have a weakness for shedding light on the habitat of moonbats.

Take for instance the warrant articles one sees cropping up in New Hampshire municipalities with deliberative sessions preceding Town Meeting. The warrant articles are the brainchild of some disgruntled political activists that normally fellow-travel in different waters but who want a say in town meeting politics. It takes some education and experience to win local to they picked this easy, non-binding avenue. It feels good.

Over the river in Vermont the mirror image of these NH activists are trying to have President Bush arrested by warrant article. In Berkely, California they are going after the Marines. Same old, same old.

This warrant article may appear in your town. They read like this:

RESOLVED: We the citizens of fill in the blank, NH believe in a New Hampshire that is just and fair. The property tax has become unjust and unfair.
State leaders who take a pledge for no new taxes perpetuate higher
and higher property taxes. We call on our State Representatives, our
State Senator and our Governor to reject the 'Pledge', have an open
discussion covering all options, and adopt a revenue system that
lowers property taxes."

There was a citizens petition like this in Grafton and the patriots up there amended it to read:
"RESOLVED: We the citizens of Grafton, NH believe in a New Hampshire
that is just and fair. The property tax has become unjust and unfair.
State leaders who have increased State spending 17% in the last
budget perpetrate higher and higher property taxes. We call on our
State Representatives and our Governor to reduce the irresponsible
spending in Concord, which will lower the property tax burden for the
residents of New Hampshire."

Ouch! How does it feel to have your petitioned warrant article amended to something you did not sign? It was once a great liberal trick to pull on SB2 towns that now has come back to haunt the Birkenstocks. I like the touch of adding the 17% over-spending. It is like a cherry on my Sundae.

In Milford the same old crowd put this non-binding warrant article on the ballot and our pal, Gary Daniels and friends, amended it to be a tad more taxpayer friendly.

An outraged supporter of the tax and spend, anti-pledge article jumped up to defend it by saying it was – are you ready – drum roll please – “A matter of SOCIAL JUSTICE!!!”.

Sorry honey. THE PLEDGE a matter of CIVIL JUSTICE, as in, making elected officials do with what they have, NOT finding ways to buy love and votes.

Monday
Feb112008

No Pandamonium!

Some funs afoot at the next Olympic Games in Bejing - no blathering on by Olympians about human rights or religion. Thank you, Chinese government. Finally, some “peace” and quiet during the games.

This all comes about because of a contract each Olympian will have to sign, found in section 4 - the Chinese magic number for DEATH by the way, of their deal with the Devil host of the next Olympics.

Spout off about human rights and zappo you will be escorted to the next plane back to a civilized country where freedom of speech is admired and thought of fondly – almost like a right or something.

I have not seen first hand the Chinese government’s contract of political silence but I have seen Chapter 51 of the International Olympic Committees rules. Here is what they say in part:

Section 51 of the International Olympic Committee charter; "provides for no kind of demonstration, or political, religious or racial propaganda in the Olympic sites, venues or other areas".

One might think you could fall back on Article 36 of the Chinese Constitution. What you didn’t know communist countries had constitutions? Here is the relevant bit:

Article 36 of China’s constitution declares that citizens “enjoy freedom of religious belief,” and that, “No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. (Except the Fulan Gong religion is illegal in China.)

If I was going to draft a contract to keep Olympians mouths shut about human rights or religion I would draft it something like this:

“No political or religious communication critical of China, Chinese policy, or any Chinese official shall be broadcast except by approved media for any period before, during, or after the Bejing Olympics”.

That is about as close to McCain/Feingold as you can get in this case, and that law is “constitutional”, right?

McCain-Feingold (1) the "electioneering communication" provisions (which required disclosure of, and prohibited the use of corporate and union treasury funds to pay for, broadcast, cable and satellite ads clearly identifying a federal candidate targeted to the candidate's electorate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election),...