Sneak Preview: The Hijacking of the 2010 Election

Through a combination of massive, Somali-driven voter fraud, stunning Election Board incompetence, and the willful blindness of the Kansas City Star, machine Democrat J.J. Rizzo managed to beat conservative Democrat Will Royster by one vote in a Missouri State House primary on August 3.

There is no Republican running in this heavily Democratic, multi-ethnic Kansas City district. The Democratic nominee will face only a seriously outgunned Libertarian in the November election, and truth be told, Royster may be to the right of the Libertarian.

What the Democratic machine and the Star, which endorsed Rizzo, did not count on was for the intrepid Royster to challenge the election in court. In so doing, he has provided a sneak preview on how a desperate Democratic Party will attempt to neutralize the will of the people this November, and not just in Kansas City.

Royster, a retired Navy fighter pilot and all-around good citizen, asks a fundamental question: "If we won't let Somalis hijack our ships, why do we let them hijack our elections?" As many as a hundred Somalis voted, nearly all of them illegally, likely all of them for Royster's opponent, in a House district in which only 1,300 people showed up to vote.

The trial on September 7 in Jackson County, Missouri Circuit Court revealed several disturbing trends, some of which can be corrected by election day, some of which cannot.

First to testify was Lindy Hobkins, a Republican supervisory election judge. As she related, a group of Somalis came into her Kansas City election site led by one Somali man.

"They were unable to communicate on the most basic levels," said Hobkins of the Somalis. To help his voters along, the leader "left the premises, went outside to where the electioneers are out at the appropriate space allotted for them, and he brought in a sign for Mr. Rizzo." Hobkins continued: he "held it up and pointed at it and said this one, this one, this one."

In a disturbing little twist, David Raymond, the attorney for the Kansas City Election Board, grilled Hobkins as though she were a hostile witness. After she acknowledged that the Somalis were all somehow registered to vote, Raymond asked snidely, "Do you believe these voters should be disenfranchised?"

Hobkins was more than a match for Raymond. She and her husband had been helping refugees resettle. "The biggest deterrent to them becoming citizens, because they all want to be American citizens when they come here," she noted, "is that they do not have a handle on the language to be able to pass the test."

I checked the rules for citizenship. According to the official site for French-speakers (sorry, I don't speak Somali), an individual has to "connaître l'anglais et être au courant de l'histoire et du gouvernement des États-Unis." This translates to "know the English language and be current in the history and government of the United States." I cannot imagine that the requirements for Somalis are any different.

Hobkins knew the law. "How could they be registered to vote," she asked Raymond, "if they did not know how to speak English on any level?" Other than Hobkins, Royster, and Royster's attorney, no one else involved -- the Democratic Party, the Star, the Election Board, the trial judge -- expressed the slightest interest in the answer to this question.

Wendy Jones, an election judge at a separate polling place, provided even more damning testimony. "Did you notice groups of Somali voters entering the premises?" Royster's attorney asked. "Oh my gosh, all day long," she answered. When asked how many voters she saw, Jones answered, "To be honest, more than 50. That's the truth, your honor, more than 50."

According to the law, as the Republican co-director of the Election Board would testify, a person "with a disability or who cannot read or write" must state his disability under oath, sign and date a voter assistance card, and then have two judges sign and date the card. This voter can be assisted only by a judge or by a person the voter has sworn to be a family member. This procedure is usually reserved for the blind or seriously disabled.

Of the fifty-plus Somalis at Jones' polling place, not a single one was asked to sign a voter assistance card despite the fact that they all needed assistance from their "interpreters." Said Jones, "I witnessed myself seeing [the interpreters] fill out the ballots, actually fill out the ballots and actually tell the people ... where to fill it out at, what to sign."

When the interpreters, four of them, were asked why the Somali voters needed help, according to Jones, "Someone said they were blind, some of them said they couldn't read, some of them said they couldn't write. These are the excuses all day long that we had for these four individuals to vote with them and for them."

When Jones appealed to the Democratic supervisory judge for help, he reportedly told her, "You know, we all just want to make a little money here and just get out, just make the best of it and just -- let's go home."

Several other election judges testified, and none of them disputed what Jones and Hobkins said. A little unnerving was that other than Hobkins and Jones, the election judges had a hard time getting their nouns and verbs to agree. The collective ignorance of election law from top to bottom in the Kansas City Election Board stuns the observer.

One Somali did testify. An employee of the Somali Foundation, Abdul Kadir Sheikh told the court, under oath, of course, that he had taken Election Day off work because his wife was expecting a baby that day. Sheikh, allegedly a citizen, said that he had gone to Jones' polling site to vote but could not find his name on the voter rolls and so did not vote.

It just so happened, though, that while at the polling place, another Somali man approached Sheikh and asked for help voting. Sheikh obliged. That was it. As it happened, his baby was not born that day after all. "We didn't have any experience," Shiekh told the court. It was his first child.

One doubts that Sheikh will ever be challenged on his word, but Royster had already collected affidavits from two other poll watchers at that same site. Said one, "I personally witnessed Abdul Kadir Sheikh escort approximately (30) Somali voters into the polling place." A second person saw Sheik "sign their names in the registration book." This person claimed to have seen "more than 30" such people.

At the end of the day, Judge Stephen Nixon, a product of the same machinery that produced the Election Board, ruled against Royster. No new election, no serious recount.

Nixon took the same position that Rizzo's attorney had taken in his question to the Republican co-director. "Should a qualified voter, an American citizen, if you will, should they be disenfranchised, that is, should their vote not count because a judge forgot to initial the ballot[?]" As Nixon saw it, these good Somali citizens should not be "disenfranchised" -- the Democrat word du jour--because of multiple judges' errors. Royster is appealing.

The Kansas City Star has given this challenge only the slightest coverage. And in no article in a print edition has the word "Somali" appeared in relationship to the controversy.

In November, rest assured, the Somali vote and that of others of dubious citizenship will be turned against Republicans. There is a way for readers to fight this. Call your local Election Board today. Sign up to be a judge or a poll watcher. Ask for an inner-city precinct.

And make sure you know the law better than your Democratic counterpart does. It won't be hard.

You make a good point. Permit me then to rephrase that.

Liberals, lefties and their ilk have no loyalty and are full of seething hate.

With that done, I think I am safe in saying that they would turn in conservatives to the Secret Police in a heartbeat.

I have know some libs well for 30 years that are very nice people until their liberal faith is challenged. The hate that bubbles out borders on pathological, IMO.

Like the Bolsheviks, they have control of the military right now, and most of the military will fire on American citizens if ordered to do so or in self-defense. Armed rebellion against a modern military is a romantic notion at best, and perhaps a suicidal one.

I disagree on almost all counts.

#1 I have a friend who's son is a West Point graduate serving in Iraq and who previously did two tours of Afghanistan. The young captain is highly decorated for valor. He is also an atheist and a card carrying liberal who loves Obama and reviles Bush. I asked him that question and he asserted to me that in his INFORMED opinion (and I think he would indeed know) there is no way that the standing army would turn their weapons on the citizenry. Now he can't speak for the various state level guard units. Witness what happened during the gun grabs of Katrina.

#2 100 MILLION gun owners. A huge chunk of them former military and a substantial chunk of those combat veterans. Even if 90% of the gun owners meekly submitted to tyranny that would still leave TEN MILLION hard corps experienced folks with weapons in their hands and an itch to squeeze triggers. Think of the havoc caused in both Iraq and Afghanistan by insurgents. Guerilla warfare favors the guerillas. Think of the Mujahadeen and their Jihad against the USSR. It took a long time but which one left the country whipped? Don't talk to me about STINGERS either! Yeah, we helped with the Soviet HIND-D assault helicopter issue but those old mountain boys already had the Russkies well in hand by the time the famous Charlie Wilson started in the weapons procuring business. The point is, a crushing tyranny is not a fait accompli in such a situation. It would be bloody and it would be long just like the FIRST American Revolution, but in the end, I think we would prevail.

I think that when we talk about the potential for a military enforced tyranny in the US, it is essential to consider not just the fact that we have a well armed populace. The logistics of militarily controlling an area as large as the US have to include stark geographic realities. It is BIG, very big. Terrain is very diverse. Huge amounts of non urban areas. We could have small armies of insurgents (that’s patriots) all over the place. The despots couldn’t support a standing army of sufficient numbers to hold much of the territory outside of major urban areas.

“
Through a combination of massive, Somali-driven voter fraud,...
“

Thanks for posting.
I live in Mid-Missouri and haven’t heard a peep about this.

Not shocking, as I live in a city with the FIRST and premier journalism
school (alma mater of Walter Cronkrite and Mao-apologist Edgar Snow).

I dunno about that. I know that in case of emergency there is an OPLAN to divide the country into seven military districts, each headed by a military governor with full arrest powers and a separate military force under his or her control. How effective they could be would be determined by the willingness of those forces to fire on citizens of the USA. But think of our very own resident author (Travis McGee) and his trilogy EFAD that dealt with almost exactly this scenario. What would be the potential for foreign intervention by UN forces or others? That's the real danger, IMO. YMMV.

SO TRUE. In a recent bull session one of our group (the only hardcore lefty) really lost it: sputtering, eyes bugging out of head ... and suggested we go outside to settle this - all because I pointed out that most of the financial de-regulation he hated was put through by Clinton, not Bush, that Robert Rubin former Goldman chairmain was Clinton's Treasury Secretary, that Clinton reappointed Greenspan, that Larry Summers was a Clinton and now Obama apointee, that the Gov. of New Jersey was a Democrat and former Goldman chairman... so it looked to me like the Dems were just as, or even more, owned by big Wall Street firms.

It was funny, his level of insane hatred just bubbled out of them. Many conservatives are more than willing to admit it when our leaders suck. Bush took a lot of lumps here, an we drive truly corrupt leaders from the field, like Randy Cunningham and Larry Craig.

Dems don't clean up their own house. Libs never will admit that any LibDem (liberal, ok, point taken above there are many historic Dems who aren't like this, like my mom!) have done wrong.

They become enraged and start spouting obscenities and wanting to fight when they are shown facts that contradict their fantasy narrative.

It's fun to watch.

What would be the potential for foreign intervention by UN forces or others? That's the real danger,

Oh, be still my heart!

UN troops in America - a chance to eliminate both Foreign and Domestic enemies at the same time! Excellent. The stuff every redblooded American patriot has been dreaming of since Jane Fonda was still an attractive little whore conspiring with the enemy!

I'm reminded by the quote from Gen. Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller:

"All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time"

I know that in case of emergency there is an OPLAN to divide the country into seven military districts

The US divided into 7 districts? That makes for a great deal of "border" to enforce. Although it has some advantages, it also has drawbacks.

What would be the potential for foreign intervention by UN forces or others?

Not much I would think. At least in the sense of making a strategic military difference. It doesn't seem likely that the French or Dutch or Germans would lend many (if any) troops to a UN "peacekeeping" force deployed in the US. However, I can see Obama getting a small number of forces that could be technically seen as UN involvement. Just enough to make the claim that it is a "multinational force" helping restore order. Complete BS, of course.

OTOH, if we envision an international economic crisis / collapse that enabled Obama to justify martial law or such, it seems unlikely that anyone in the EU would be in the condition to loan out troops. The $hit will be hitting the fan everywhere in the west.

Actually google civlian disarmament and 29 Palms. Most of the “trigger pullers” in the military are “like us”. They probably would NOT obey illegal orders to fire on or disarm US patriots. While any attempt by libtards who through deception have temporarily taken control of our country may be messy it wouldn’t go the way they would wish. IMHO. I think they fully realize this and the last thing they would do is let things slide that direction. They are bluffing on a VERY bad hand.

THe last time they had this kind of power they let a couple “little things” like Ruby Ridge and Waco get out of hand. I don’t know if you recall but I do. There was a “tax protestor” who was holed up out in Wyoming or one of those “empty Western states” and the FBI, et. al. had his place surrounded and the media was on it 24/7 like it was gonna be another Ruby Ridge. There were folks descending on the FBI by the hundreds from all directions. It was hilarious (but in a very dangerous way). THe FBI had roadblocks on all the roads a few miles away from the guy’s place and the “patriots” had roadblocks on the same roads just outside the cordon the FBI put up. It was like Americans were telling the gummint, “You may have HIM ‘bottled up’, but WE have YOU.” Crap like Ruby Ridge stopped happening after this little event.

Who were our allies in the UN Peacekeeping (what a misnomer) force during the ill fated Somali operation in the 1990s? Remember which army assisted the 10th MTN extract the Rangers & Delta? Pakistan? Of course the UN couldn't make any strategic military difference but that's never the point in those operations. They are never there to actually help in any crisis. They run their own agenda. That agenda is always contrary to American interests. Once we invite the UN into this country we'll never be rid of them. Talk about immigrants doing the jobs Americans refuse! These are the military jobs our own forces would probably always categorically refuse: Interrogation and handling prisoners. Suppose Obama sought help elsewhere than NATO? What about OAS? I'm sure Mexico would love to help regulate lands they have always seen as being historically theirs anyway. Nobody would be in 100% control of the massive amount of territory offered by our country. In such an extreme situation I could see mass relocations under martial law to the vicinity of the bigger cities from the rural areas. Consolidate and control. I mean it's all just conjecture anyway, but I could see it happening. The historical precedent is there in our own history. How many "Peacekeeping" missions have our own forces participated in on foreign soil? What is to say there could never be reciprocity by the UN to come here in a moment of "need?"

> There was a “tax protestor” who was holed up out in
> Wyoming or one of those “empty Western states” and the
> FBI, et. al. had his place surrounded and the media was
> on it 24/7 like it was gonna be another Ruby Ridge.

Yes, I do remember this, albeit dimly.

More recently, there was a tax protester holed up in his house up here in New Hamshire. It ended peacefully, but it was very tense for a time. There was no call to arms among the populace, though.

These are the military jobs our own forces would probably always categorically refuse: Interrogation and handling prisoners.

That is a good point. So are some of the others.

it's all just conjecture anyway

Conjecture yes. But the fact that intelligent people see a need to discuss it seriously tells me that it is more than just an idle academic discussion. Many of us have a legitimate fear of things like this happening.

Another point. We can debate the manner in which various scenarios might play out, how successful a military suppression could be. But most here would agree on one thing. The current crop of socialists in DC would do it in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.

I know a Democrat that has openly admitted he wold like to see all political parties other than the Democrats made illegal. He wasn't being academic, nor was he being facetious.

We can debate the manner in which various scenarios might play out, how successful a military suppression could be. But most here would agree on one thing. The current crop of socialists in DC would do it in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.

100% spot on correct. In the sentences I underlined above lies the fundamental and only difference between socialists and communists: Use of force to accomplish the agenda.

I know a Democrat that has openly admitted he wold like to see all political parties other than the Democrats made illegal. He wasn't being academic, nor was he being facetious.

I have heard Democrats utter similar statements and in doing so it always frightens me to the extent that not only do they not see a danger in those views, but they think we're the dangerous enemies for our will to challenge the tyranny to the extent of lethal combat. They could never do that themselves. They have to rely on police and military entities. Oppression by proxy is still oppression. I fundamentally believe that is the reason the democratic party so unilaterally embraces gun control, because they see our access to firearms as the primary obstacle to their ultimate goals.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.