Skip to comments.Sneak Preview: The Hijacking of the 2010 Election
Posted on 09/27/2010 9:17:01 AM PDT by Jack Black
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.
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.
In the contest that was held following the obvious vote theft a gay Washington judge ruled that, yes, the GOP had demonstrated that the number of illegal votes cast was greater than the margin of victory, but no, that did not mean a new election should be held because there was no proof how the illegals had voted.
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.
Well, if the “ballot box” is no longer functioning, we have no recourse but the “bullet box”. The libtards may just want to “rethink” their strategy here...
In FL you have to show photo ID.
We have a provisional ballot allowance via a witness.
FL HAD a problem with people crossing county lines but that ended with the centralizing of the voter registration database.
the new fraud is nursing home absenttee ballots.
That statement cracks me up. What a sad and pathetic commentary on what Libertarians are.
I think they should just nuke Kansas City.
Besides, why is Kansas City in Missouri and not Kansas?
Are they all idiots?
(just a sec..... checking Google maps. OOPS. I take that all back. I live in Kansas City.)
Should I be able to get out of a ticket, if I refuse to sign it?
> The libtards may just want to rethink their strategy here...
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.
Armed rebellion against a modern military is a romantic notion at best, and perhaps a suicidal one.
The U.S. military prevailed in Iraq even with BOTH hands tied behind their backs. In Afghanistan, they have both hands tied and a ball and chain around one ankle.
So all the ammo that folks bought over the past few years won’t go to waste after all.
The real 'point' of this article, and any other on vote fraud, is that it's not WHAT RULES are in place, it's WHO is DOING the CHECKING.
This is the case for more than just the reasons of actual voting fraud and "vote counting" fraud. This also relates to the fact that there are simply so many F'ing weak minded people who fall into the indoctrination they receive in government schools and Universities with ongoing "booster shots" through the media and its 24/7 PR.
Yes the socialists steal elections, but its only close enough to steal because there are so many weak people who vote for them. I honestly have no idea how to get around the problem these idiots present other than to make them irrelevant through secession from them.
Lol.. I wonder how many times through the course of human history this exact same sentence was written or spoken. My guess is that it was said prior to every single rebellion that ever took place, anywhere on this planet.
Just a hint: Your approaching this from the wrong angle.
He is by no means popular with the military and the military takes an oath to the Constitution and not the Predident and certainly NOT BHO.
Americans seem oblivious to voter fraud, as one election after another is stolen.
Republicans never do anything about it.
Not unlike the election of "Senator" Franken.
The US army couldn’t win a gorilla type urban war in this country.
It might be able to temporarily subjugate most of the major population centers. But to hold and maintain serious control would require a raw brutality that A) many of the men simply wouldn’t do, and/or B) would inspire an even greater uprising of the population.
Now, I’ll grant you that 95% of liberals would turn in their conservative neighbors for a dime if they thought they could get away with it. Dems have no loyalty and are full of seething hate. But they are cowards and it wouldn’t be long before they started turning up in ditches with bullet holes in their heads..lots of them, if they sold out their fellow countrymen.
I wish my Dad was still alive. This was his area of expertise in the Marines. And he predicted in 1964 that Nam would turn out exactly as it did. I’ll bet he’d have something to say on this.
No, the US military is not going to start lining up dozens of civilians in the town squares of this country and conducting public executions. And that is what it would take to subjugate much of our populace.
I know plenty of Dems here in OK....that are loyal and are not hateful...and would NOT turn in their neighbors. In fact they are Conservative's....but registered Dems.
Personally...I understand it...because they registered like their parents did, and their parents before them.
Just ran into a guy the other day...a man 83 yrs old...that is and has been a Dem...but will register Pubbie this week. Because he wants to vote in the primary...as a Pubbie. BUT, many do not change their party. Couple good friend's of mine remain Dem's....but don't vote that way.
The bigger question to me is how much will vote fraud influence the makeup of the next Congress.
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.
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.
If the election system cannot be trusted, then the country is lost and the only next step is revolution.
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).
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.
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"
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.
It's been happening for a while now. I saw it in 2001. I wonder how long it has been going on?
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.
I have heard this one and I wonder if Chesty also said it: "The poor bastards have us surrounded. Now we can attack in any direction!" Or was that Patton?
> 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.
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.
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.
If that happens, we could very well see the start of the American Revolution, Part 2.
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.
Plus as I had said, President Obama is so hated by the military right now, I have my doubts that they will support in any way, shape or form and are rightly are concerned about their votes.
Missouri City is in Texas.
If they pull that crap again with Rossi, all hell is going to break loose. . . This time we're not taking it lying down. .
Link is broken for me, so here it is:
You mean this story really isn’t Sci-Fi?
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.
I believe that statement to be a damned lie.
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.
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...
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...