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

The Meter Is Running In Windsor

On March 28, The Coalition of Windsor Taxpayers made the front page of the Boston Globe - about time. This sad epoch of municipal mismanagement has been simmering in a stew made up of direct democracy, immoral and incompetent elected officials, and an indifferent/impotent state bureaucracy.

This makes many sane people “bueaucrazy.”

But the Windsor Coalition of Taxpayers soldiers on – as does the reporter from the Globe, who has a nice, fat, two inch binder full of spread sheets our girls in the hood put together for her. Apparently, this looks to the Globe like a story worth a series, or maybe someday, a sit-com – if so much was not at stake.

Credibility certainly is at stake for the NH Dept. of Revenue. Our favorite question to the DRA: “How do you set a town tax rate on non-existent town supplied data?” has shifted to: “How long will you wait for the Town of Windsor elected officials to “audit” the non-existent books?” There are things like copies of checks and deposit slips left behind at the bank. How about a peek at those?

It appears that included with the fact that some taxes have not been collected – or accounted for, in some cases going back to 1996, there is the problem of not having what records the Town does have “audited” since a promise to the DRA that they would do so back in October of last year.

We haven’t even been waiting for a real audit either. Apparently we have been held up by a simple “review” of where Windsor’s appropriations went and what properties paid taxes. In a $500,000.00 total budget where only about $150,000.00 is Town spending, it should not be that hard. Something like $175,000.00, without interest, is uncollected so far, from what we can tell.

I would compare the Windsor Coalition of Taxpayers to a steady, clicking, clock, with a big alarm attached. A sand dial they are not. There has been a quiet running of the clock so far, but a year is long enough to wait for state-mandated financial information from the Windsor Selectmen and their attorney, Paul Apple, of the Upton and Hatfield firm.

Does the State of NH have municipal statutes in place for real or for show?

I guess we will find out soon enough.

Keep and eye on The Globe.


No There, There

Not that it matters much but…

Sen. Barack Obama is being labeled by what poses as serious media nowadays for supposedly fabricating a piece of Obama family history because he said the Kennedy clan donated money to bring his father over to the US.

Here is a small part of the the flimsy argument:

WAPO’s Michael Dobbs March 30, 2008

“Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.”

And a copy cat:

MSNBC”s Mike Murray

“The Washington Post caught Obama in an exaggeration about the Kennedy family role in getting his father to America. It turns out the Kennedys were not involved in any Kenyan airlifts until after Obama's father was safely in Hawaii. What is it about politicians trying too hard to be a part of history? Sometimes, there isn't a destiny; that's ok too.”

In the world of charities and fungible dollars, to try to make a story out of this seems a tad weak.

If the gang that brought Daddy Obama to our shores is like any other chaity they were paying 1959 bills with 1960 money. The Kennedy’s dropped s nice big check on Kenyan students. There was no exaggeration by Obama worth mentioning.

This is a politically motivated cheap shot at best.


Thank You Senator Estabrook For Looking Out For The Little Guy

I love to compare other school finance disasters with what the school lobby is trying to ram through New Hampshire’s Legislature. Never do you find a pro-Claremont Funding Scam schemer holding any other state up as an example of how education EQUITY – ooops, we call it ADEQUACY now, works so well.

California was the first state to fall victim to a Claremont type extortion suit in the late 70’s. The schools there went from #1 in the country to a paltry 47th now. (All this with a property, sales, and income tax!)

But there is more! Like they didn’t get spanked enough through suits, bait and switch legislation is also “hurting the children’s” taxpaying parents. Here is how it was set up.

I n November of 2000 , California voters passed a ballot initiative known as Proposition 39, which for the first time, permitted school bonds to be approved with a 55% “super- majority” as an alternative to the historic 66%. They took the bait.

Since the pass age of Proposition 39, Californian’s school construction proponents have had the choice of whether to seek the old 66% supermajority thought special elections, or the new lower hurdle of 55% if they put the bond measure on a regularly scheduled ballot, limit the size of the bond, and agree to abide by several administrative requirements.

Local elections that rely on 55% approval have been very successful, with more than 80% passing!

Prior to 2001, more than 40% of local school bonds failed. From 1998 through November 2006, local bond elections generated $36.1 billion for school facilities.

Of the 931 elections under the two-thirds requirement from 1986 through 2006, 55% succeeded. Of the 393 elections relying on 55% approval between 2001 and 2006, 83% succeeded.

If you want to pass a school bond in California, a good old-fashioned political campaign is all you need – not necessarily a good plan for a new school to sell to voters. Turnout is the key to passing a 20 or 30 year bond, so along with the bricks piling up - so did the bond debt.

Now its 2008 and the State of California is in a financial squeeze of $16 billion dollars. Where do you suppose, frugil NH voter, that much red ink bling is going to come from – seeing as the Govenator borrowed billions to balance the budget last time around?

It looks like the public schools – which now depend on STATE money more than ever, may have to take a slight hit of about $4.8 billion.

And then we have The Granite State.

We have a pending Claremont scam suit promising MORE free state money to offset the dreaded, stable, locally controlled, property tax. (Its all “up there ^” in an alien transport vessel tucked behind the dark side of the moon.)

But this isn’t over!

We have an opportunity to stack up local bond debt in NH just like our friends in California are now going to pay for with a property tax instead of all the free state dollars. It is called:


AN ACT relative to the vote required for passage of school bonds.

SPONSORS: Sen. Estabrook, Dist 21; Sen. Kelly, Dist 10; Rep. M. Smith, Straf 7

COMMITTEE: Public and Municipal Affairs


This bill changes the required majority vote for passage of notes or bonds issued by a school district from 2/3 to 3/5.

Get the picture?


Honey, Does This Fuse Go With My Outfit?

While we wait for the Attorney General’s Office to help the Town of Windsor reverse engineer tax records, or should I say what passes for tax records, it may pay to finally look in on who is running Windsor – or who is supposed to be doing that job.

Enter one - Tom Carlson.

Tom is the head selectman honcho and purveyor of glossy, heartwarming sound bites. Example:

"The Attorney General's office wants to look at this, and we want them to look at it," Carlson said. "This does not mean that anyone has done anything wrong."

Interesting quote Tom, and just for sake of argument and entertainment, say it is true. Then why did the Windsor Coalition of Taxpayers have to go to court to pry what shabby documentation they finally did get from your high-powered attorney - the attorney who has lost cases to Windsor’s pro se litigants twice in two years. You could have simply handed the trash bag full of records to TAXPAYERS without a fight but you chose not to, Selectman Carlson.

Going to court cost taxpayers – that would be about 80% of the people in town, several thousand dollars and even more in terms of your credibility, which is now in doubt.

Another notable quotable from Tom Carlson, the man in charge of Windsor:

"I think this is all about sloppy bookkeeping that's been blown way out of proportion," he said. "But now the errors of the past are being remedied, and we now have a computer system that automatically puts the money where it needs to go."

(Shouldn’t “I think” mean, I HOPE?)

And this from the Union Leader story on March 24: “Though the controversy over the tax books has shaken up this sleepy town of 230 people, Carlson said there is a very clear silver lining to the investigation.”

At this point I think Tom needs some sort of knick name to remember him by. Let’s make it as descriptive as possible. I kinda favor something along the lines of the former Information Minister for Saddam Hussein. Remember that guy? He would report on how the Iraqi’s were winning the war as his information building was being dismembered by American missiles.

I think “Selectman” Tom Carlson is NH’s version of Saddam’s Information Minister.

From this moment on he shall be known as Tom “The Bomb” Carlson. Yes! It’s a fit.

You see, there is a silver lining to this mess.

It should be a few weeks until “Tom The Bomb Carlson” can find some new soothing words to deliver to the taxpayers in Windsor. Only $175,000.00 seems to be “uncollected” going back to 2000 as of now.

Tom The Bomb will be in high-speed spin mode then I’ll bet.


Caution: Written By Typical White Guy

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

So this incident Hillary relates to adoring Democrats isn’t true.

Big deal – it’s the unabashed ability to LIE that counts.

The fact that Hillary will lie about anything at the drop of a hat is what endears her to supporters. I keep trying to tell my friends this and many just don’t get it.

Look at this logically. Hillary has a lock on a certain set of supporters, single women, union members, socialists, and other hardcore Democrat Party members. They love her because she is willing to do what ever it takes to get them what they believe they deserve as a birthright – other people’s money through taxation and regulation.

So what if she is a pathological liar. THAT is a leg up in this game.

Her husband stated to an audience once that he would climb out a ditch with a rifle to defend Israel. Now EVERYONE with two brain cells to rub together knows that brag is a bold faced lie and his cheering fans knew it. They were simply, in a knee-jerk fashion, cheering his unabashed audacity to lie on their behalf – for their pleasure.

Part of the pleasure Clinton supporters feel when watching these two lie in public, over and over, with no percievable repercussions, is how it always infuriates conservatives.

Current Clinton Democrat opponents are none too happy about Clinton lies, as we are seeing in this primary.

Once you have dealt with people like this and learn to accept it as how they are put together, one becomes free of the helpless sounding complaint, “If one of us tried to do this you know what would happen.” When any discussion I’m in turns to a list of Clinton lies its time to find something else to do.

I have better things on my agenda than detailing Clinton lies all day other than to say it is better to observe and understand how they and their supporters operate than complain about it.

Try this:

Hillary lied about being under sniper fire for a reason. She needs to show military and foreign policy experience – she has none - so she lies. This exposes Hillary’s own understanding of a weakness she has. Forget the lie other than it is a red flag flying over the fact that if she had a teaspoon of military or foreign policy experience she would attempt to leverage that teaspoon into a truckload.

So instead of trying to prove in several different ways and to anyone who will listen that Hillary told another lie, seasoned Clinton observers would see this as an opportunity. She has simply used a technique acquired through years of practice to move her image forward towards her goal of becoming President – again.