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

All The News That's Fit To Hit

Now it’s crystal clear.

I read this in the Manchester Paper so you know it must be true:

“She stated that she and her husband ‘decided $1 million of wealth would be available to each of their three children,’” the FEC reported. “Virginia Guinta did not characterize the funds as owned by Rep. Guinta or as having been obtained and maintained in her bank accounts because of any agreement with Rep. Guinta. Thus, when Rep. Guinta sought funds for his federal campaign, Virginia Guinta ‘deducted this amount from his $1 million allotment.’”  http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150603/NEWS06/150609724#sthash.zwTnrLPZ.dpuf

This critical statement is part of the FEC Guinta investigation so you know it must be official.

The illegal money Mama Guinta “forwarded” to Frank Guinta was, as testimony shows, was meant to be “available” to each of “their” three children but it does NOT explicitly say Frank Guinta was one of those children.


That revealing statement by Frank Guinta’s mother does not, I repeat, state that Frank Guinta is one of “their” three children, mentioned in the FEC testimony. So how could Frank Guinta, with a straight face, say that this money was family money available to him?

Now I see the criminality in his original testimony.

In NH words mean things and are a very important part of any political investigation or assassination. I know this from being caught up in the swirling debate over the word ‘domicile’ for 15 years. How was I to know it meant ‘non-resident’? I understand that now.

This is why I depend on the critical writing and investigative skills of the Manchester Paper for day-by-day, hour-by-hour reports on the unfolding scandal regarding the non-family money not-loaned but forwarded illegally to Congressman Frank Guinta by Mama Super Pac Guinta.

Did she file as a super pac by the way? That might be worth a six year investigation.


Still awaiting arraignment in NH for his second known false press release, Carl Robert Gibson, supposedly brought here to NH in 2012 with multi-million dollar CREDO Pac of California to run Frank Guinta out of office, is still a mystery. Who paid this guy if he isn’t in the CREDO Pac FEC filings?

How does he keep his 26? Summit Street, Concord mobile voting domicile where he registered his US Uncut LLC with no visible means of support?

These are the questions The Manchester and Concord Papers don’t want to know - so they will not ask.

Neither does Fergus Cullen, Kelley Ayotte, or Shawn Jasper care about out of state political hit men attacking fellow Republicans.

Democrats are silent as the NH press and RINO’s do the dirty work, beating Frank Guinta with the club he has handed them.

And the Associated Press, duped by Carl Robert Gibson in 2011 by his false General Electric press release – don’t hold a grudge here in NH when he does it again.



Denny, We Hardly Remember Ya.

It would be interesting to see the background of the charges against former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Usually, there are all kinds of tidbits leaked to the press when a Republican is in trouble.

If I had a magic wand to plop on the head of the feds I would ask if the 1980 era offence he is paying someone to keep quiet was possibly dug out of the 900 FBI files Hillary Rodham Clinton had street thug Craig Livingstone steal for her back when she was co-president.

Wouldn’t that be a coincidence?

It is probably more likely than not that is where the details are to be found.

Those 900 FBI files weren’t just laying around her office for nothing. The reward for having them has to outweigh the risk of being caught.

Changing the subject this week from the Clinton payola schemes to a Republican being indicted for anything is good timing - Clinton style timing.



I Have An Armory Room

Never resting in her hatred for the US Constitution this progressive US House member wants to find a way to limit the Second Amendment until and when she and her other progressive friends or Constitution hating judges can eliminate it by other means.

Did I mention she is from New York?


Recently I read an article about progressives in big cities who are building “panic rooms” in their exclusive living spaces.

I sincerely object to people living hundreds of miles away from me having “panic rooms” for self defense if everyone else in that city doesn’t have one. It makes me feel uncomfortable.

Maybe we non-city-dwelling citizen voters should force, by legislation, inner city progressives who have panic rooms to register them and have them submit a set of detailed plans as to where in their living space it is located. Make it public and publish the list of names and locations once a year.

It would be a matter of “fairness” and “change” of pace from the way Congress usually works.

Everyone wants change – everyone should have a panic room.

Unarmed teenagers would be safe from being shot by racist cops if they were in a panic room.

Cops wouldn’t even need guns if everyone had a panic room.

But right now only rich, white progressives in Democrat controlled cities have and are building panic rooms.

I think we need legislation right away. This needs to be fixed.




Here We Are Thanks To NH Courts

Our Concord NH voter awaiting arraignment for election law violations, Carl Robert Gibson, of 26 Summit St. is registered to vote in the following four states, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Connecticut, and New Hampshire.

Apparently, like the New Hampshire Supreme Court, he must be confused by the difference between “residence” and “domicile.”


A "domicile" is a person's true, fixed, and permanent home where a person intends to remain permanently and indefinitely and to which a person has the intention of returning, whenever absent. It is often referred to as "legal residence." A person may be physically present or living in one place but maintain a domicile in another. A person has only one domicile at any point in time.



103 KAR 17:010. Residence.

 Section 1. Resident. "Resident" means any individual domiciled within Kentucky on the last day of the taxable year and includes any individual who spends more than 183 days in Kentucky and maintains a place of abode in Kentucky during this period. All other individuals are nonresidents.

Section 3. Domicile. Generally, a domicile is the place where an individual has established permanent resident. A domicile once obtained continues until a new one is acquired. Domicile is not changed by removal for a definite period or for incidental purposes. To constitute a change, there must be intent to change, actual removal, and a new abode.


Sec. 9-12. Who may be admitted. (a) Each citizen of the United States who has attained the age of eighteen years, and who is a bona fide resident of the town to which the citizen applies for admission as an elector shall, on approval by the registrars of voters or town clerk of the town of residence of such citizen, as prescribed by law, be an elector, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. For purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to have attained the age of eighteen years on the day of the person’s eighteenth birthday and a person shall be deemed to be a bona fide resident of the town to which the citizen applies for admission as an elector if such person’s dwelling unit is located within the geographic boundaries of such town. No mentally incompetent person shall be admitted as an elector.

So just like the recent decision in NH by our State Supreme Court that “residence” and “domicile” have different meanings and a person voting in NH doesn’t have to register their car here or follow any other NH law – well it is all just one big misunderstanding.

What harm could letting people from other states vote in NH do if all they want to do is vote?

Ever hear your progressive friends tell you that?

When the courts pretend that words do not mean what they say and that the intent of a law has no part in the outcome of a decision you have this totally illegal grey area – created by the court.

Here is a simple test:

If I was to ask the NH State Supreme Court if it is legal for Carl Robert Gibson to vote in New Hampshire – what would they say?

(Hint: Take a look at his driver’s license.)


Triple Democrat Poll tax

There is always radio silence when it comes to exposing voter fraud – from the progressive side. They want to steal elections in secret and not take credit.

I can write articles with names, places, details, facts – all the stuff progressives never seem to have in their diatribes and fantasy stories of social justice and equal rights, and they seem to drift away from our comments section. Crickets make more sense than progressives defending voter fraud. They certainly make more noise.

I have a social justice issue in regards to elections that is really a poll tax imposed by liberals and Democrats all over the US.

Here it is. I have been meaning to write about it for some time.

If I want the voter history of a person who votes in the same election I do, let’s say presidential for arguments sake, I have to pay a Democrat Poll Tax.

In most Democrat states if I want the voter history of one specific voter I have to show up in person and have photo ID to file a request for voter information. That means it is financially unavailable and physically impossible to see who voted along side me unless I go to the location the record is in, at my expense, pay for ID, and pay a Democrat poll Tax for the document.

That is actually a Triple Democrat Poll Tax.

What if I don’t have photo ID or “forgot’ it?

About 22,000 “people” who showed up and voted in NH without any ID or other form of identification? They can still vote and remain hidden prom public view (Unless they are out protesting.)

The Democrats have used the courts and laws designed to “help America vote” to steal elections and commit voter fraud wholesale, state by state. That is because they know they can not win without doing it.