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.

Here in Oregon and Washington they have moved to Vote by Mail, so that it's questionable whether Republicans can ever win at the statewide level. It's just a conincedence that in both states the biggest liberal cities always turn in their votes last, and always seem to 'Find' just enough to put the Donkey into the winners circle. That's how Gregoire won - it took three recounts, with King Co. election officials (Dems) "finding" votes in 30 or 40 places, just enought to erase Rossi's 100 vote margin in the third recount and turn the election to the Dem.

If they pull that crap again with Rossi, all hell is going to break loose. . . This time we're not taking it lying down. .

funny thing, I’ve been getting automated calls from a group that is called “Continental” on my caller ID. They claim they are a republican group and are encouraging folks to vote via absent ballot.

This struck me as weird, because in Illinois, dems vote by absentee (the dead, long dead, and those snowbirds who are in AZ), almost overwhelmingly absentee ballots are dem votes, so I was wondering who “Continental” was, their affiliation, and why are they pushing folks to vote absentee.

It just doesn’t add up, but then again, I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Maybe someone can clue me in.

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.

Thanks Jack Black.

>>>Actually, that would play right into their hands. 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.<<<

Actually, no. Once the totalitarian is in power, they actively seek to diminish the military and replace it with a police power answerable only to the party or the personality running the state. This was the pattern in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Maoist China. In all three cases, the party set up state-run police organizations and by-passed the military to control the population.

The problem with the military is that many of those in the military - and not just here - do so out of love for the country and desire to defend their country, while the leftist totalitarian group seeks power for itself. Patriotism stands in the way of the totalitarian. Stalin killed all of the military officers in a purge; the military tried to kill Hitler.

I have the opposite opinion. I don’t think the military would fire on American citizens. On the contrary, I would think you’d see a Pinochet emerge before seeing the army go berserk.

I guess we’ll see. I really hope we’re both wrong. God help us.

its not them that votes..its them that counts the votes....

btw...I've said from 2 years ago that we eastern and central Washington ...mostly conservative voters....should not send our ballots in til the last day...making sure they are postmarked...

that way, when Seattle the crooked beast finally submits their dubious results, they won't know how many votes to "fix" so they can win...

honestly.....that is what they do....they manufactored "provisional" votes or they find votes in drawers etc just to beat the pub..

so let them be guessing on election night....lets not let them know how many votes they need to manufacture...

Seattle is NOT in a different time zone than eastern Washington, and they have just as much help per capita than we do...there is no reason why they should be the last to submit voter counts...

Good news is that most who serve in the military or in the LO positions are center-right and will not support any, and I do repeat any illegal actions.

Twenty years ago I would have agreed with you 100% but since I have been a teacher in the 4th largest school district in the nation for the past 21 years I have seen this result creeping up on the nation almost unnoticed: The school curriculums across the country in almost LOCK STEP have been drilling into impressionable young minds the idea that gun ownership is a "collective right" and not an individual right. This is done across the curriculum in nearly all subjects where social issues are a matter of class discussion or written assignment. As a result the military personnel at ALL levels who graduated from the public schools find their personal values challenged by the mindset of tyranny as it has been poured into their ears for 12 years of high school and for the officers thru another four years of college. They hold onto the mindset almost subconsciously, but they will also obey lawful orders to a man.

Lawful isn't always moral. Example: Look what happens to the few troops who refuse to obey the lawful but immoral order to deploy as UN Peacekeepers under foreign command on foreign soil. Look at the example of SP/4 Michael new. A lot of his peers told him on the sly that they thought he was incredibly brave and right to do what he did (refuse deployment orders) but they won't follow his example. They don't want to risk the same court martial he suffered and lost. What about lawful orders to confiscate the weapons of the citizens of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina? A lot of those troops said that they felt bad doing it but they DID faithfully execute the orders. Those were national guard troops, to be sure. BUT the majority of the nation's combat punch is in the various national guards. That has been true for a number of years now. The FL guard has seen about five tours of Iraq. How do you think the soldiers feel when it comes to being told that by virtue of their training THEY should be the only folks allowed to have guns? That's simple psychology.

The day of the election box being a useful tool to reform our society may be coming to an end, as the Dems seem committed to stealing elections.

Last night, at a civic club meeting I attended, the local GOP congresscritter candidate appealed to the members to vote by early voting pleeease, and volunteer for desperately-needed pollwatching positions on Election Day itself.

The Houston-area Tea Party people just caught an SEIU member with >20,000 fraudulent voter registration cards. In the county Houston is in, that many fraudulent ballots could turn an election four times over.

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).

Idle thought crosses mind ......

If KC pols were so complaisant about putting up with Reds in the 30's and 40's because they were good ballot-box stuffers ..... then did that have something to do with FDR's selecting a Missouri machine pol in Harry Truman to be his VP, when he knew he wouldn't be able to finish his fourth term?

Roosevelt's administration, like Truman's, was eaten up with Reds like Owen Lattimore and Alger Hiss, Henry Wallace and Harry Dexter White.

I have the opposite opinion. I don’t think the military would fire on American citizens. On the contrary, I would think you’d see a Pinochet emerge before seeing the army go berserk.

In 1965, when the Communist PKI was gradually closing in on President "Bung" Sukarno (one of those charismatic, transitional political idiots Communists love to use), CIA people had a quiet word with the Indonesian military, and Col. Suharto took over the government, retired Sukarno, and directed a months-long purge of the PKI. Bodies washed up on Indonesian beaches for months as the army eliminated 800,000 PKI cadres. And that was the end of the Communist movement in Indonesia.

maybe not the military, but the local police would.....look at the increasing amount of violence and retribution the cops have had on people.....they shoot first, then explain....they’ve threatened people who’ve video’d them...

I think what you are referring to is a minority. And in spite of the training the cops get, which equips them far better for civil disorder than you or I are, they are not trained and equipped as active duty military are. There are enough AR 15s around here to keep the local police in total lock down if the populace felt that threatened.

Some of what you mention is more in the order bullying, the victims are essentially defenseless.. The whole equation changes when the victims no longer feel hindered by rules and law. When survival becomes the driving force, these potential victims (armed) are going to look a lot less appetizing to bullying police, which again I think are in the minority in most cases. Corrupt law enforcement administrators that foster and enable that type of behavior on the part of police will have a very different attitude when they know someone could be 250 yards away with an AR 15 aimed at them on their way to the office. What should be kept in mind in these discussions is that intimidation is a two way street.

A lot of good law abiding people in this country have turned the other cheek because they are good people. This has fed the bullying and intimidation by the loony left. *If* they should be finally aroused to the point that they say "enough", a lot of these people on the left are going to quickly crawl back in their holes. Betrayal, not confrontation will become their modus operandi.

That training which makes good soldiers is a coin with two sides. We home schooled and our daughter spend a couple of years in public HS in central FL. Because we refused to let the system intimidate and indoctrinate our kid, I was in frequent close contact with the administrative end of the system. The definitions of right, wrong, moral and INDIVIDUAL responsibility and freedom being pushed on kids have no resemblance to what those of us in grade school in the 50s were taught. Pretty much everything is presented in a collectivist perspective. The good of the group, follow orders, and so on. Responsibility is to group authority, NOT to one's self, one's parents even.

In some areas, kids are questioned about what goes on at home and encouraged to report parental behavior that is deemed incorrect by people in the school system. That ain't tin foil hat talk, it happens.

My daughter graduated in 2000, I can guarantee I am still remembered (not fondly) by more than one administration pencil pushing bureaucrat. Many are nothing more than pompous bullies who don't know how to handle a parent that calmly and methodically gives it back to them, in spades. It still brings a smile to me to recall slicing and dicing a couple of them.

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.