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

In The Distance I Hear A Train Whistle

Confusion reigns after reading through the Governor’s 2008 State Of The State address.

What ever happened to the word BIPARTISAN? How can the little fella fabricate a speech without his favorite word?

There was a whole lot of “I did this” and “we did that” but except for a small introduction of the House and Senate majority leaders – nada on his old pals in the GOP.

Ah but this is a good thing when you look at the train wreck in the making. You might say that Governor Lynch has some moonbats by their silky tails.

I have seen some of the new liberals who were elected in the anti-Iraq tidal wave of goodbye to small government. (It raises one question though. Why is it that Troskyites can never crank up the urge or ability to comb their hair? This is just an observation. It is why I get paid the big bucks to write this stuff.)

So maybe this is a good time to drop the bipartisan nonsense. This is a Democrat deficit after all and it was certainly caused by the Democrat’s state treasury hog trough over feeding. Make that a reckless 17.5% increase in any spending that was not funded by some federal program if you need details.

Left to their silly passions, the new liberal majority in Concord will do the same again this year and I do not think Governor Lynch has the guts to stop them. Governor Benson vetoed a budget he did not like. Governor John Lynch sat on his hands and watched this occur.

The trick for the Democrats will be to float some trial balloons of blame someone else to see if any will stick.

Good luck Governor Lynch. See you in about $200 million more dollars.


Time For New Critters In The Zoo

Anyone who has followed the education funding lawsuits across this country knows that the big three cases that brought New Hampshire into this mess are the 1989-1991Texas, Montana and Kentucky education funding lawsuits, along with a reference to a similar suit in Massachusetts.

45 states have fallen victim to this scheme whereby state supreme courts reinterpret their constitutions in favor of anyone with any faint complaint asking for mandated funding to either “equalize” or provide and “adequate” education. This state interest started after an attempt in California in the late 60’s to make education a fundamental right and unlock voter’s pocketbooks by court order as opposed to ballots.

Now these lawsuits have had a chance to settle the problem of “under funding.” And what have we learned from the endless litigation?

Let’s look at 1989 Kentucky ruling in Rose v. Council for Better Education in which the Kentucky Supreme Court declared education a fundamental right and mandated equitable and adequate funding for public schools. This was the camel’s nose under the tent.

On February 13, 2007 Judge Thomas Wingate of the Franklin Circuit Court dismissed Young v. Williams, Kentucky’s school funding lawsuit. Plaintiffs in the case argued that the school funding system in Kentucky is “inadequate and arbitrarily determined.” The plaintiffs wanted another cost of education study. Judge Wingate said that the Kentucky Constitution’s strong separation of powers clause prevents him from ordering a study. In addition, he ruled that there was no “objective evidence of shortcomings in Kentucky’s education system,” and that the significant improvement in student output measures following the legislative response to Rose is evidence in itself of the adequacy of Kentucky schools.

June 12, 2007, coalition of Kentucky school districts dropped a lawsuit aimed at forcing state lawmakers to spend more money on the schools. (How much have they spent in school funds so far on lawyers?)

I agree Judge Wingate has no power to order the legislature to implement yet another Augenblick type study, in fact he has no power, nor does the State Supreme Court to order the Kentucky Legislature to do anything regarding the legislative branch representing the people of Kentucky. But his statement “significant improvement” is another matter. Kentucky was plagued with phony testing showing improvement after the first of several billions in lawsuit money was pumped into the system. It would be nice to see Judge Wingate’s proof of “significant improvement.”

Then we have Texas where in 2005 the State Supreme Court said this:

"We recognize that the standard of arbitrariness we have applied is very deferential to the Legislature, but as we have explained, we believe that standard is what the Constitution requires. Nevertheless, the standard can be violated. There is substantial evidence, which again the district court credited, that the public education system has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change, whether that change take the form of increased funding, improved efficiencies, or better methods of education . ... But an impending constitutional violation is not an existing one, and it remains to be seen whether the system’s predicted drift toward constitutional inadequacy will be avoided by legislative reaction to widespread calls for changes."

The Texas court wants to retain control but there is the significant problem they have explaining where the money will come from for new school spending and where it has gone since 1989. The Supreme Court in Texas is elected and they have to be careful about whom they order around.

How about Montana? There is a new Democrat Governor there and he has pumped a 26% increase into the K-12 schools and $57 into colleges since 2005 after his election. This is recent 26% is on top of the untold millions “invested by court mandate” since their 1989 Helena suit.

Governor Schweitzer is now desperately calling for some accountability from the school spenders. He wants to see consolidation of administration but that looks a little grim as long as he has the courts in control of the legislature’s job and – his own.

The Montana Quality Education Coalition, the organization that filed an earlier lawsuit, began gathering information in 2007 from districts statewide for use in pressing for a legislative fix before the 2009 regular session. They have not ruled out another suit. Good luck Governor!

Does more money solve education problems?

Do courts have the answers to how education should be funded?

Have schools learned anything other than how to litigate if you can’t educate?

New Hampshire voters can learn from the thirty years of education funding lawsuits and keep the quality of education and life we have here. All we have to do is find and vote for legislators and a governor who will not surrender their obligations as elected officials or trade away our good local schools.


Go Fish

The latest news is the same old news about New Hampshire Fish and game being broke. So what do you think we are going to do about it?

One suggestion, besides a saltwater fishing license, kayak permit, grabbing some rooms and meals taxes, or instituting a hiking fee is to change the name of the commission.

Here is one sample of a new name: The New Hampshire Fish and Wildlife Department. I don’t know, does this sound inspiring enough to gain any momentum and rake in the big bucks?

How about doing what we did recently with another unique New Hampshire entity – the Manchester Airport. Some genius thought that re-naming the Manchester Airport the Manchester Boston Regional Airport would improve its financial situation. The same name game was done in Fitchburg Ma. We must have one big happy family of airports now.

So does the New Hampshire Boston Regional Fish and Wildlife Department moniker have a tempting, outdoorsy feel to it enough to lure into our countryside people we can tax? It doesn’t get me excited but then every time I go to the Manchester Boston Regional Airport I think what a stupid thing it was to associate Boston with New Hampshire. But then I am kind of stodgy like that.

Without new revenue sources the only thing the poor Fish and Game Dept. can do is to try is either new taxes or new and exciting names (looking at cost savings?). Fishing license sales are dropping like a non-lead sinker since they became an expense you need a payday loan for.

I quit buying hunting licenses years ago and only get a fishing license when I take some youngster out to drown a few worms.

But then maybe the people looking at rescuing Fish and Game from bankruptcy aren’t considering overpriced licenses the problem. A spanking new name might just do the trick.



Start Making Noise Taxpayers!

Here we go again.

RSA 91-A, The Right to Know Law, a result of an amendment to our NH Constitution, is under attack  from - the Right to Know Commission.

Sound strange? This is NH remember. What is common sense in the real world is just the opposite in government in Concord.

Here is the scam.

Two attorneys on the RTKC have been working feverishly from the inception of this group to subvert the intent of 91-A by allowing what is NOT ALLOWED! The ultimate object of their desire is to establish, by direct or indirect new language, an amendment to the law which would include “sequential meetings” between public officials.

Meeting sequentially by phone, email, smoke signal, OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER, one on one, without having a quorum assembled or letting the rest of the group know all at once, is the perfect way for a public body to GET THINGS DONE so much easier.

This is exactly what RSA 91-A was created to prevent. It is exactly what the RTKC has been searching for.

And who are these lawyers?

Let’s start with Attorney Peter Smith of Durham who on Thursday this week told the House Judicial Committee reviewing RSA 91-A that if we did not do something soon the COURTS would do it for us. That is a phony scare tactic. Let them. The State Supreme Court never mentioned gutting RSA 91-A when it suggested in Hawkins v. NH HHS that the law should include updated ways to store electronic data. This sequential meeting scheme is purely the creation of some lawyers on the RTKC and the NH Municipal Association.

I believe Attorney Smith is so animated as to make up this court nonsense because he may have a personal issue with sequential meetings.

A few years ago he was subject to much ridicule in the press for, along with the rest of the Durham Town Council he was on, for attempting to hire a new Durham employee by sequential emails between council members. The local papers got hold of some of the emails and printed them for everyone to see. Now he is the one trying to make this legal?

Several of the first incarnations of this commission’s tampering with 91-A actually described how sequential meetings could be held. These attempts were foiled in the State Senate. Now they are back with less specific, sneaky language. Here is how the scam works.

Sequential meetings fly in the face of public disclosure. These secret meetings are not specifically mentioned in RSA 91-A NOW because the current language in the law prevents them. This commission has new language that says "sequential meetings are not to be used to subvert the intent of the law".

In legal mumbo jumbo this clearly means that you can have sequential meetings as long as they do not subvert the law. Any lawyer can drive a truck through RSA 91-A with a willing judge and this language change. NH being NH there is about a 99% willing judge rate when it comes to bucking a school board. Sorry, that is the way it is.

If you want to prevent sequential meetings here is how you do it: “Sequential meetings shall be prohibited.” End of story.

When a judge is faced with “shall be prohibited” and a recent change by the Legislature to ADD that language, taxpayers are protected. Change the law to include even a mention of sequential meetings without a prohibition and you have a neat little loop-hole just like this commission wants.

For the three years the RTKC has been fooling with this law they have shown that the last thing they want to see is the inclusion of prohibitive language.

No State Representative, State Senator, or Governor should vote for this bill’s change until it includes this language.

There are more problems with the bill I will detail in my next article.

CNHT will suggest some real improvements to RSA 91-A if that is the intent of this commission and the legislature. Until then we will oppose any weakening of the Right to Know Law.


Be Prepared

From what I can figure, today, January 17, is the date in 1998 that Matt Drudge went public with the Monica Lewinsky story the major news media tried so hard to cover up.

Thanks Matt.

So on the ten year anniversary of one of the most stunning achievements of the made for television dysfunctional situation tragedy known as the “Clinton Clan” I submit this:

New from RONCO, the William Jefferson Clinton Commemorative Condom Collection!

Just in time to re-live a second Clinton “shot” at the White House, you too can own a set of these latex collector’s items packaged in a quick draw Velcro dispenser which can easily and discreetly be attached to your belt – if you’re wearing pants.

Imagine how handy the quick draw dispenser will be should a thong wearing fat girl bearing a pizza wander into YOUR office! Or if a sobbing underling shows up unexpectedly looking for a pay check, you won’t be fumbling for a dose of presidential protection.

And talk about protection. Each one of these Clinton Commemorative Condoms comes with its own unique “distinguishing characteristic” blended right into our amazing product. No more worrying if some trailer park babe can “identify” the Presidential Unit. She and her lawyers will be the laughing stock of the tabloids this time – not you.

DNA on blue dresses, cigars, Oval Office furniture, White House pages, starlets, limos or foreign dignitaries will be a thing of the past with the Clinton Commemorative Condoms.

Get yours now, each bearing the Presidential Seal of Approval.

And if you order an economy sized box of these amazing, four inch, heavy duty Clinton Commemorative Condoms in the quick draw dispenser RONCO will make this special offer.

Shipped along with the Clinton Condoms will be a personalized “Flying Ashtray Protective Hat,” a $75 dollar value, yours free just for trying our Clinton Commemorative Condoms. This Flying Ashtray Protective Hat may look like any ordinary hard hat but look again! Inside is a set of earplugs designed to cut shrill and annoying voices by 80%!

And if at any time you are unsatisfied with our Clinton Commemorative Condoms – just keep them.

To get your own Clinton Commemorative Condoms and the free Flying Ashtray Protective Hat, a $75 dollar value, just send your Visa or Master Card to 1600 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, California 02190 : attention Rodger.