Today I visited the Supreme Court to witness Daniel Richard’s oral arguments, which I’m sure will be reported on in great detail in other articles, but I’m going to share a different observation.

It’s about a government trend that I thought stuck to my side of the Merrimack River, but today marks the second time I’ve observed it on the other side and in the same place. It’s the willful limiting of in-person attendance observing the government process, something the state house, the LOB, and Nashua schools that host elections have been doing for quite some time. Coincidence? Read the rest of what I have to say, and YOU decide.

It’s not every day that such a high court accepts a case from a non-lawyer representing himself as a constitutional scholar. Even rarer is when that same pro se litigant gets to have another case heard. That in and of itself ought to generate a lot of public interest, but the SC staff can’t claim ignorance because I was there to observe the first time. I got lost and was late. When I arrived, the “courtroom was full,” and I was directed to the law library. I can’t blame anyone but myself for being late and pleasant employees ushered us to the law library’s comfy furniture and set up the big screen TV to watch the oral arguments livestreaming. Fair enough. What many may not know what that one of the judges had invited a law school class to attend, thus taking up most of the seating. Whether or not that was intended could be debated.

This is no ordinary courtroom with church pews close together. There are 70 fancy wooden armchairs, like one would find in their formal dining room, all generously spaced apart. Wheelchair access, anyone? Why yes, indeed! I could go on about how it was as luxurious as flying first class and void of the obligatory annoying movie theater patron furthest from the aisle that makes everyone stand up to clear the way to the aisle, but you get the picture. In ordinary average attendance situations, that’s great for the attendees.

As to avoid the same thing happening(to me) twice, I got there wicked early to get a seat of my own in the courtroom, and an even larger crowd appeared this time. Before the court was called to order, some of the later arrivals popped in to say hi and socialize, and I learned from one of them that the law library with its big TV was NOT available today because the room was being used for some asbestos mitigation event. Now, intelligent people must ask themselves if that was by design. Does the same person/staff group that schedules court dates also schedule the use of the law library? Was this a clerical oversight, just like ANOTHER court in Concord claims with Frank Staples and the NH9 defendants in booking their hearing times? By the way, the ordinary courthouse is on the other side of the Merrimack River: wink, wink, nod, nod.

On 9/8/21, there was a vax registry hearing scheduled at the DHHS building with Lori Shibinette’s ilk in a room clearly way too small to accommodate the masses who showed up to attend. Keep in mind that this was during the time when people were getting fired for refusing to roll up their sleeves. That was followed by various shenanigans, like rescheduling and changing it to an online event without reasonable notice. Some people drove many miles to attend with many kids in tow.

On 3/30/22, HB 1131 (a school mask bill ultimately vetoed by His Excellency) was scheduled in a tiny room in the LOB for a senate committee hearing. I got there early for a variety of reasons, including one that was very predictable. The lobbyists took all the audience chairs and the senate staffer refused to let anyone stand, all in the name of maximum occupancy. I even gave up my seat to Rep Jose Cambrils at his request because he wanted to stick around for the hearing after introducing a bill he sponsored. On that day, the venue was changed twice, once being to either room 100 or 103 in the state house first floor and then a second time being a big double room upstairs in the LOB. JR took a picture of me at the mic, and it appeared on the front page of the next day’s Union Leader, in which one could clearly see the attendance, thus showing the amount of public interest. Whose fault was it scheduling that little LOB room with about 10-15 chairs? Jeb’s? He was the committee chair and, therefore, a suspect, but perhaps it was some obscure minion.

And let’s talk about elections in Nashua for a moment, not exclusively any train wreck in particular, but you can take your pick what year (city or state) and which of the nine schools that host them. Teachers’ workshops have been scheduled on the same day, resulting in the faculty hogging all the parking that’s supposed to be available to the voters. Whether the fault lies with the NTU or not, let it be known that plenty of would-be voters were seen driving around in circles and giving up after a few trips around the campus. People might make predictable excuses for that, but I’m not buying them.

And let’s not forget about 10/13/21, the day that NH became a Police State! Only 173 people were admitted to that executive council meeting that was in the partitioned-off police academy gymnasium with a fleet of patty wagons wasting valuable floor space behind the curtain. I asked former Rep Tom Lanzara, a fireman, how maximum occupancy is computed. He said it’s a formula involving the number of square feet, the number of fire exits and fire extinguishers in addition to the presence or absence of sprinklers and an on duty fire marshal. When I estimated to Tom that it was about 15,000 square feet that day, he said the number 173 sounded very low and would have to look into that. I never followed up.

The next time there’s a hearing or other event intended to be open to the public and you or people you know are denied admission to, please speak up. Do a 91A RTK inquiry on who’s in charge. Ask for emails and scheduling dates. Do what you have to do to shame the people responsible for blocking access. Enough is enough.

The post A Pattern of Government Behavior in Concord and Beyond appeared first on Granite Grok.

The rage-mongers in the social-justice media like to get out in front of their skis if you take me meaning. Cart before the horse. Tail wagging the dog. It happens often, but this is just embarrassing.

An article from Deadspin’s Carron J. Phillips accused the young child, Holden Armenta, of wearing racist blackface in an article titled, “The NFL needs to speak out against the Kansas City Chiefs fan in Black face, Native headdress.” The child was wearing the team’s colors of red and black and his headdress resembled the team’s 1960s and early ’70s logo.

According to the Daily Caller, the young man’s grandfather “is a member at the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.” His Great-Grandfather “was an elder of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.”

The kid has more Native American in him than Lizard Warren, but then who doesn’t? This makes the Deadspin hit piece an attack on a native American for wearing culturally appropriate gear to a football game where the team name honors his family’s ancient warriors.

And it’s not even about the kid. The whiney SJWs can’t stand that KC refuses to give their Arrowhead logo or the name to something more #woke like the Kansas City Snowflakes, or Groomers, or how about “Social Justice Warriors?”

It irks the left, and I bet those intolerant little troglodytes lose sleep over it – no, that they sleep. But it’s the one that got away. Land-O-Lakes got rid of their Indians but kept the Land. Aunt Jemimah got so SJW pink-slipped that they changed the branding altogether. Uncle Ben lost his gig. Mutual of Omaha dumped their Chief, and the Redskins sent their Indian packing and replaced him with a Commander.

Has Deadspin taken a shot at Taylor Swift for dating Big Chief Travis Kelsey? How dare she date a player on a team with a name like the Chiefs. Or is Swift also too big for them to tackle?

The post Fan Pilloried by Progs for Tribal Face paint and Headdress at ‘Chiefs’ Game Is Descended from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians appeared first on Granite Grok.