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

Who's More Like New Hampshire?

From The Mouth Of Knaves

Currently, in the review of who voted in Dover, NH from other states I was going through the usual places you find people who harbor out of state voters and I came upon this juicy tid bit from the Democrat web page in that city.

They had a very important guest speaker recently and what she says about the Free State Project speaks volumes.


Caitlin Rollo at the April DDC Meeting

Caitlin Rollo from Rollinsford was our special guest speaker at the April meeting of the Dover Democrats. Caitlin is the Research and Political Director Granite State Progress, a progressive advocacy group based in Concord, NH. She is knowledgeable about the Free State Project (FSP) and has done extensive research on them. Caitlin explained that the objective of the FSP, beginning 10 years ago, was to convince 20,000 (they are short of that goal) people to move to NH to change and reduce state government, protect life, liberty, and property.

They provide members assistance with jobs and housing, festivals such as Porkfest, state house tours and gov. training on how to run for office.

Caitlin emphasized the importance to Democrats and other progressives of understanding the FSP; we must know who are members and supporters and how Free Staters' goals differ widely from progressive goals.

This is ironic in so many ways.

Here I am tracking out of state voter scum and the Democrat Committee in Dover is being told they should track Free Staters because their goals are more, can we say this, American, than the Dover Democrats can stand.

Let’s review the goals of the Free State Movement as described by a Free State tracker:

1. “move to NH to change and reduce state government, protect life, liberty, and property.”

2. “They provide members assistance with jobs and housing, festivals such as Porkfest, state house tours and gov. training on how to run for office.”

Since, as Caitlin the Free State tracker says, these goals differ wildly from “progressive goals” which by the way are not always Democrat goals. They are as she says “progressive goals” as in, socialist, Marxists, communist - left wing nut bag goals.

Caitlin lays out exactly what many Democrats should be aware of. The people who run the Democrat Party in most places in America do not share typical, traditional, historic, workable, sensible American goals. They share progressive goals Caitlin can not say out loud at a meeting even in Dover.

By the way, when I am tracking low-life vote thieves who come from other states to steal NH votes I always double check any “Caitlins” I come across no matter how many different ways they spell this wildly popular in 1992 name.

See: Caitlin Ann Legacki, Democrat low-life vote thief who worked for Jeanne Shaheen in NH in 2008.








Judicial Watch's Watchers Were Watching

Judicial watch was in NH on Election Day and they pretty much saw what the State does to ensure Democrats win elections in an otherwise Red State.


(Sorry for the link to Breitbart, which usually shuts down my computer.)

The “loophole” of letting anyone, well not just anyone, but thousands, cast an irretrievable without any form of ID doesn’t really pass the smell test – unless you need fraud to win.

Here is the loophole:

The SoS and NH AG don’t investigate or prosecute voter fraud and any document that might help a citizen prove voter fraud is either non-public (secret) or altered, or claimed to be a mistake by the powers that be.

And NH has activist judges who invent new categories of voters like this:

A student in NH paying out of state tuition, holding an out of state driver’s license, having a legal domicile I another state, and registered to vote in another state, can claim NH just for the purpose of voting – Democrat.

That is a recent ruling by a shopped-for Superior Court Judge who was shipped in from – the NH AG’s Office.

So in an effort to explain this new concept, I offer this loophole:

You can have a “Jury Duty Domicile” in another state because there is no law against it in NH.

I am going to use my parent’s retirement community address in Pennsylvania for “Jury Duty Purposes” only from now on. This is akin to Philadelphia lawyer Jared Steven Cram using his parent’s house in Wilton to vote (Well, they moved but he is still on the Wilton checklist,) election after election.

There is a loophole for ya!

I can’t vote in Pa. because Pa. has loophole-less laws against that or there might be at least ONE non-Obama vote is some Philadelphia Black Panther Wards – but I should be able to at least be on the Philadelphia jury duty list instead of Hillsborough County, NH.

Here is how the “Jury Duty Domicile” works:

When you get called, just show your out of state driver’s license. Jared Steven Cram uses a Pa. license to vote in NH – I use a NH license to get out of jury duty in Pa.

Now that makes sense – to the NH AG and Secretary of State.


Just A Thought

1. It seems the voting public likes the Koch Brothers – whoever they are.

2. I guess there are no coat tails on Hussein Obama’s golf sweater.

3. Conservative Tea Party candidates don’t win polls, just elections.

4. Keep paying those union dues losers, it will pay off some day.

5. Here’s to not listening to the “Let’s get along” narrative.

6. Republicans should vote conservative like there is no tomorrow because there isn’t if they don’t.

7. Suddenly, leftist Democrats sound even crazier than they normally do.

8. How’s that trickle down Socialism working for now ya, libs?

9. All that Hollywood and lefty billionaire money down a rat hole.

10. Now for Warren and Sanders for President!!!!!


Welcome To New Hampshire - You Can Go Home Now

Jeanne Shaheen will have to send some thank you cards to about 6,000 non-resident voters from "Democrat towns" as they call college towns these days.

I wonder if some losing Republican candidates would like to come to one of my voter fraud workshops for a slap in the face.


All The Smarts He Can Summon

Oh how American leftists (Those who run the Democrat Party) always think the last election they won is the last election that will ever be necessary on the long march to Socialism. The appearance of “The Anointed One” who was to transcend race and division would put to pasture the idea that bigger government was a burden on freedom and the American economy. Surely the masses would come around.

And then we had the Newsweek story of the century:

We Are All Socialists Now

By Jon Meacham

Filed:  2/6/09 at 7:00 PM |  3/13/10 at 5:43 PM

The interview was nearly over. On the Fox News Channel last Wednesday evening, Sean Hannity was coming to the end of a segment with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, the chair of the House Republican Conference and a vociferous foe of President Obama's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. How, Pence had asked rhetorically, was $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts going to put people back to work in Indiana? How would $20 million for "fish passage barriers" (a provision to pay for the removal of barriers in rivers and streams so that fish could migrate freely) help create jobs? Hannity could not have agreed more. "It is … the European Socialist Act of 2009," the host said, signing off. "We're counting on you to stop it. Thank you, congressman."

There it was, just before the commercial: the S word, a favorite among conservatives since John McCain began using it during the presidential campaign. (Remember Joe the Plumber? Sadly, so do we.) But it seems strangely beside the point. The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.

We remain a center-right nation in many ways—particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism—but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil and it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.

If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world.

As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.

All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

This is not to say that berets will be all the rage this spring, or that Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one.

The architect of this new era of big government? History has a sense of humor, for the man who laid the foundations for the world Obama now rules is George W. Bush, who moved to bail out the financial sector last autumn with $700 billion.

Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government. The story, as always, is complicated. Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew. But the economy grew just as fast, so government as a percentage of GDP remained about the same. Much of that economic growth was real, but for the past five years or so, it has borne a suspicious resemblance to Bernie Madoff's stock fund. Americans have been living high on borrowed money (the savings rate dropped from 7.6 percent in 1992 to less than zero in 2005) while financiers built castles in the air.

Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending. The catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace.

The Obama administration is caught in a paradox. It must borrow and spend to fix a crisis created by too much borrowing and spending. Having pumped the economy up with a stimulus, the president will have to cut the growth of entitlement spending by holding down health care and retirement costs and still invest in ways that will produce long-term growth. Obama talks of the need for smart government. To get the balance between America and France right, the new president will need all the smarts he can summon.