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.