Kamala Harris has now been installed as the Democratic candidate for the 2024 presidential election, effectively replacing Joe Biden without a single vote cast by the American people. In normal times, this usurp of democracy would send shockwaves through the political landscape, raising questions about the integrity of the democratic process and the lengths to which the deep state will go to maintain control.

The Quiet Removal of Biden

The signs were there for months, if not years. Joe Biden, already struggling under the weight of his responsibilities as president, had become an increasing liability for the Democratic Party. Whispers about his cognitive decline had grown louder, and public appearances that once showcased a capable leader had turned into fodder for criticism and doubt. But once the decline was presented in full view of the American public at the debate with Donald Trump, the power brokers knew that the people would not accept the delusion of another Biden victory … the gig was up. So the decision was made behind closed doors to remove Biden from the ballot.

The official story presented by the party is one of a natural and necessary transition—a passing of the torch to the next generation of leadership. But the reality is far more concerning. Biden’s removal from the 2024 ticket was not the result of a fair and open democratic process. Instead, it was orchestrated by party elites and deep state operatives who feared that a Biden campaign, in light of his declining health and public perception, would be an insurmountable obstacle to retaining power. Presenting a Trump victory would become more important than maintaining any perception of democracy.

Kamala Harris: The Deep State’s Choice

With Biden out of the picture, Kamala Harris was swiftly installed as the Democratic candidate. This decision was made for a variety of reasons, most importantly, money. They needed a pseudo-legitimate excuse to take the campaign money from Biden. Choosing Harris would make it an easier sell to the public. Harris, who has consistently polled lower than Biden among key demographics, was not chosen by the people but by a select group of power brokers who believe she is the key to continuing their control over the nation’s future.

Harris’s installation as the candidate was the result of months of careful planning and behind-the-scenes maneuvering. The deep state, recognizing the need for a candidate who could be more easily controlled and who would continue to advance its agenda, saw Harris as the perfect figurehead. While the Democrat party needed her to secure the money. With her in place, they could ensure that the policies and strategies implemented during Biden’s presidency would continue unchallenged.

Rigging the Input, Not the Machines

In past elections, they used the real-time analytics from the voting machines to determine the number of fraudulent ballots they would need to bring in. In 2024, they will no longer concern themselves with analytics or trying to beat Trump by a “plausible” number of votes, they will simply flood the system with as many fraudulent votes as they can muster … right from the start. The goal is to preclude the possibility of Trump ever being in the lead. By controlling the flow and distribution of ballots, those behind the scenes can achieve the desired outcome without ever touching a voting machine.

This strategy involves a complex web of tactics, including the use of mail-in ballots, drop boxes, and ballot harvesting. But at the core of this approach lies a critical component: building a vast pool of potential voters whose identities can be exploited to cast fraudulent ballots.

The deep state and its allies have embarked on an aggressive campaign to expand the pool of registered voters, from which they can later draw to manufacture the ballots needed to tip the scales in their favor. This effort is far-reaching, targeting various segments of the population through tailored strategies designed to maximize registration numbers—often without the individual’s full awareness of how their information might be used.

1. College Campuses: One of the prime targets for this voter registration drive is college campuses. With millions of students scattered across the country, many of whom are first-time voters, college campuses present a fertile ground for expanding the voter rolls. Registration drives on campuses are often presented as civic engagement initiatives, but behind the scenes, they serve a dual purpose. By registering students en masse, many of whom are transient and move frequently, the deep state creates a pool of voters who may be less likely to follow up on their ballots or even be aware that a ballot was cast in their name. When it’s all over, the media will report how remarkable, and exciting, that so many young people are choosing to engage in politics … but it’s all an illusion.
2. Healthcare Providers and Elderly Patients: Another key tactic involves enlisting the help of doctors and healthcare providers, particularly those who care for elderly patients. These patients, many of whom may be in assisted living facilities or suffering from cognitive decline, become prime targets for voter registration. The HHS now has specific codes that Doctors must use to note that they asked their patients if they wanted to register to vote. Doctors are now encouraged to assist their patients in registering to vote, often under the guise of ensuring their voices are heard. However, once these elderly individuals are registered, their ballots can be easily manipulated or even cast without their knowledge, especially if they are no longer mentally capable of voting on their own.
3. Targeting Youth Through Digital Platforms: Young people, who are more likely to engage with digital content than traditional forms of media, are another focus of the registration campaign. Through targeted ads on platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, the deep state and its allies run campaigns that encourage young people to register to vote. These ads are often framed as non-partisan get-out-the-vote efforts, but the real goal is to flood the voter rolls with names that can later be used to generate fraudulent ballots. The transient nature of youth voters, many of whom may register in one state and move to another, creates opportunities for multiple ballots to be cast in their names across different states.
4. Mass Mailings and Door-to-Door Canvassing: In addition to digital and healthcare-focused efforts, there is a concerted push to register voters through mass mailings and door-to-door canvassing. These methods, while seemingly innocuous, have the potential to generate vast numbers of registrations that can later be exploited. Canvassers, often working for non-profit organizations with ties to the deep state, are trained to encourage individuals to register, sometimes using misleading or deceptive tactics. Once registered, these voters’ information is fed into a database that can be accessed to create the ballots needed to sway the election.

Manipulating the Ballot Process

Once the pool of voters has been sufficiently expanded, the next step is sending out ballots in mass. Harvesters will then collect the ballots, fill them out, and then send them in. The result will be what appears to be an organic, legitimate set of ballots fed into the system. For the “dead people” vote, those ballots are likely to be printed and completed already, and sitting in a warehouse, ready to be fed into the system as early voting. On election night, Harris will immediately jump to the top of the results as the mail in ballots will be calculated first.

As the 2024 election approaches, the stakes could not be higher. A second Trump presidency would pose an existential threat to the deep state and its allies. With Trump back in office, the risk of exposure and dismantling of the deep state’s operations becomes all too real. For this reason, every possible measure is being taken to ensure that Kamala Harris not only wins the election but does so convincingly.

But the deep state faces a new challenge: how to secure a Harris victory in a way that doesn’t trigger widespread backlash or expose the methods used to achieve it. The removal of Biden from the ticket was a calculated risk, but it also opened the door to questions and doubts about the legitimacy of Harris’s candidacy. To counter this, the deep state is doubling down on its efforts to control the narrative and suppress any dissenting voices.

Democrats “Contingency Plan”

In the event that all attempts to manipulate the 2024 election fail and Donald Trump wins a second term, the Democrats have prepared a contingency plan that centers around invoking Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the “Insurrection Clause.” This clause disqualifies former government officials from holding office if they engaged in insurrection or rebellion after taking an oath to support the Constitution. Democrats argue that Trump’s alleged role in inciting the events of January 6, 2021, which they classify as an insurrection, makes him ineligible to serve as president again. This strategy is viewed as a last-resort effort to prevent Trump from assuming office on January 20, 2025, should he win the election.

Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) has been a vocal proponent of this plan, warning that the invocation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment on January 6, 2025, could potentially lead to civil unrest or even civil war. Raskin suggests that Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, were a direct attempt to undermine democracy and that preventing him from returning to the White House is not only justified but necessary to protect the nation. In anticipation of the potential backlash, Raskin has called for Democratic members of Congress to be given bodyguards, highlighting the seriousness of the situation and the possible violent response from Trump supporters.

For Raskin’s plan to succeed, it would require the support of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This presents a significant challenge, as achieving such a majority would necessitate substantial bipartisan cooperation, particularly from Republican members of Congress. With the current composition of Congress—212 Democrats and 220 Republicans in the House, and 47 Democrats, 4 Independents voting with Democrats, and 49 Republicans in the Senate—Raskin’s plan hinges on whether enough Republicans, particularly those labeled as “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only), would be willing to join Democrats in disqualifying Trump.

This contingency plan has reportedly been in the works for several years, reflecting a broader strategy by some within the Democratic Party to ensure that Trump does not return to the White House under any circumstances. This approach underscores the deep divisions within the country and the lengths to which some are willing to go to prevent Trump’s re-election.

The Implications for American Democracy

As the nation heads into the 2024 election, the American people must ask themselves whether they are willing to accept a candidate chosen for them by elites, or whether they will demand a return to a system where the people’s voice truly matters. The deep state has shown its hand, and now it is up to the citizens of this country to decide what kind of future they want for themselves and for generations to come.

In the end, the 2024 election will not just be a contest between two candidates but a battle between good vs evil. The choice before the American people is not just about who will occupy the White House but whether they are willing to stand up against a system that seeks to control and manipulate them. Kamala Harris may have been installed as the candidate, but the power to determine the future still lies in the hands of the people—if they are willing to take it. The concept of being “too big to rig” is now more critical than ever. By overwhelming the system with a massive turnout of freedom-loving MAGA supporters, the American people can push back against the deep state’s efforts, ensuring that no amount of manipulation or rigging can silence their collective voice. The future of the republic depends on it.

As Vice President Kamala Harris steps into the 2024 presidential race as the Democratic nominee, her record as California’s top prosecutor has once again come under intense scrutiny. The very policies she once enforced, sending nearly 2,000 individuals (mostly black men) to state prisons on marijuana-related charges, starkly contrast with her current position advocating for marijuana legalization. This glaring inconsistency has raised questions about the sincerity of her political evolution and the implications it holds for her potential presidency.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

During her tenure as California’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2016, Kamala Harris oversaw the prosecution of 1,974 individuals for marijuana-related offenses, according to a report by the Washington Free Beacon. These prosecutions were part of a broader enforcement strategy that disproportionately affected minority communities, a reality that Harris herself has acknowledged in more recent years. Yet, despite this acknowledgment, the disconnect between her actions as a prosecutor and her rhetoric as a politician cannot be ignored.

Harris has since positioned herself as a champion of criminal justice reform, aligning with President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign promises to end incarceration for drug use and decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. This pivot, however, raises questions about whether her newfound stance is a genuine change of heart or a calculated move to align with the progressive wing of her party.

A History of Harsh Enforcement

Kamala Harris’s record as Attorney General extends beyond marijuana prosecutions. She also defended controversial cases, such as that of prosecutor Robert Murray, who falsified a confession in a 2015 case. Despite the dismissal of the indictment due to this falsification, Harris’s administration appealed the decision, arguing that only physical brutality could justify such a dismissal. This decision was widely criticized, highlighting a troubling aspect of her prosecutorial approach: a steadfast defense of convictions, even when they were tainted by misconduct.

Moreover, while Harris did mandate body cameras for officers working directly with her office, this policy did not extend to all law enforcement officers across the state. This selective application of accountability measures further underscores the inconsistencies in her approach to criminal justice.

The Hypocrisy of Marijuana Prosecutions

The most glaring contradiction in Kamala Harris’s record lies in her personal history with marijuana. In a 2019 interview, she openly admitted to having smoked marijuana in her youth, even laughing about it. This admission, juxtaposed against her role in incarcerating nearly 2,000 people for similar behavior, has not gone unnoticed.

During the 2019 Democratic primary debates, Harris was confronted by then-Representative Tulsi Gabbard, who accused her of hypocrisy. “She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana,” Gabbard stated, referencing Harris’s own admission. The exchange was a pivotal moment in the debate, bringing Harris’s prosecutorial record into the spotlight and raising doubts about her commitment to the principles she now espouses.

Harris’s response to the accusation was dismissive, framing the criticism as mere political attacks. “This is the work I’ve done. Am I going to take hits? Of course,” she said. Yet, this response failed to address the core issue: the discrepancy between her past actions and current positions.

The Impact on Minority Communities

The war on drugs, particularly marijuana enforcement, has long been criticized for its disproportionate impact on minority communities. Harris’s record as Attorney General is no exception. The nearly 2,000 marijuana-related incarcerations under her watch were part of a broader pattern of punitive measures that disproportionately targeted African American and Latino communities.

Harris has since acknowledged these disparities, noting that Black Americans are four times more likely than white Americans to be arrested for marijuana possession. However, acknowledging the problem does not erase the impact of her past actions. The individuals who were incarcerated under her watch, many of whom were likely to be young men of color, have had their lives irrevocably altered by the criminal justice system. For these individuals and their families, Harris’s shift in position may seem too little, too late.

A Convenient Evolution?

As Harris positions herself as a progressive leader in the fight for criminal justice reform, it is essential to question the sincerity of this evolution. Her record suggests that her commitment to reform may be more about political expediency than genuine conviction. After all, her shift on marijuana policy only emerged as the political winds changed, particularly as she sought the Democratic nomination in 2020 and now, the presidency in 2024.

Erik Altieri, the Executive Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), described Harris’s stance on marijuana as “problematic,” arguing that her views on the drug would not qualify as progressive. Indeed, while Harris now champions marijuana legalization, her past actions tell a different story—one of a prosecutor who vigorously enforced laws that disproportionately harmed the very communities she now claims to protect.

The Political Ramifications

As the Democratic nominee for president, Kamala Harris faces a significant challenge in reconciling her past with her present. While she has successfully navigated criticism thus far, her record as California’s Attorney General remains a potent issue that could alienate key voter demographics, particularly young voters and minority communities who are increasingly supportive of marijuana legalization and broader criminal justice reform.

Donald Trump and his campaign will likely seize upon this vulnerability, painting Harris as a hypocrite who cannot be trusted to lead on issues of justice and equality. For voters who are disillusioned with the political establishment, Harris’s perceived inconsistency may reinforce their skepticism about her candidacy.

As Harris campaigns for the highest office in the land, these contradictions will undoubtedly continue to be a focal point of discussion. Whether voters will ultimately see her evolution as a sign of growth or a matter of political convenience remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: Kamala Harris’s past will be a central issue in the 2024 presidential race, and the American people deserve a clear and honest accounting of her record before they cast their votes.

In the political landscape of Texas, where power is often concentrated within entrenched party lines, the race for House District 137 is shaping up to be a curious exception. For the fourth time, incumbent Democrat Gene Wu will face off against Libertarian Lee Sharp in what has become a familiar contest in the heavily Democratic district west of Houston.

The absence of a Republican candidate underscores the deep blue character of District 137. The last time a Republican appeared on the ballot here was in 2016 when Kendall Baker took a shot at unseating Wu. Since then, the race has been a two-man show, with Wu and Sharp vying for the seat in every election cycle since 2018.

The Incumbent: Gene Wu

Gene Wu, a Chinese-American lawyer and politician, has represented District 137 since 2013. Wu, a former prosecutor for Harris County, has made a name for himself as one of the most liberal voices in the Texas House of Representatives. As a member of the Juvenile Justice and Family Issues Committee and the House Committee on Appropriations, Wu has aligned himself with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, advocating for policies that reflect his strong support for environmental regulations, juvenile justice reform, and expanding government reach.

Wu’s tenure in the Texas House has been marked by his consistent focus on liberal causes. Following his first legislative session, he received accolades from organizations like the Sierra Club for his environmental advocacy, earning their New Leadership in Environmental Protection Award. However, his legislative record also highlights a disconnect between his priorities and the everyday concerns of his constituents.

In 2022, Wu secured 76% of the vote against Sharp’s 24%. This was a slight dip from his previous victories in 2020 and 2018, where he won 81.5% and 88.3% of the vote, respectively. Despite his dominant performance, these numbers reveal a growing, albeit modest, dissatisfaction among voters—a dissatisfaction that Lee Sharp is banking on.

The Challenger: Lee Sharp

Lee Sharp, an IT consultant with global experience, is the quintessential outsider candidate. Unlike Wu, Sharp is not a career politician. His background is in technology, not law or government. And this, according to Sharp, is precisely what makes him the better choice for District 137.

Sharp’s decision to run for office was born out of frustration with the status quo. As he told Ballotpedia, “One day when I was upset about what my elected officials were doing (which is not that unusual), I found out one of them was running unopposed. That just would not stand. What incentive would they have to care about our issues if no one even cared to run against him?”

Since entering the race, Sharp has positioned himself as the voice of change—a stark contrast to the “lifelong politicians” he criticizes. His campaign is built on three key messages: the need for representatives who understand the real-life challenges of their constituents, the elimination of government waste, and the promotion of unity in a diverse community.

A Campaign of Principle Over Popularity

Sharp’s campaign is far from conventional. With only 207 followers on his official Facebook page and no posts since October 2023, Sharp’s social media presence is minimal at best. His website, www.leewsharp.com, features little more than a splash page with non-functional “Sign Up” and “Donate” buttons. For a candidate who has run four times, this glaring lack of seriousness and professionalism raises questions about his commitment and capability to mount an effective campaign.

Sharp is passionate about several key policy areas, most notably government accountability and the elimination of wasteful spending. He is particularly critical of the current state of government housing, which he argues benefits wealthy investors like Warren Buffett rather than the people who truly need assistance. Sharp advocates for direct assistance to those in need, which he believes would create competition in the housing market and eliminate the persistent issue of slums in the district.

Another cornerstone of Sharp’s platform is the accountability of law enforcement and public officials. He calls for the end of qualified immunity, which he argues allows police officers to escape consequences for misconduct. Sharp proposes that officers carry individually paid malpractice insurance, similar to doctors, to ensure that only those fit to serve remain on the force. This, he argues, would not only improve the quality of policing but also restore public trust in law enforcement.

A New Kind of Representative

Sharp’s critique of career politicians extends to his views on the qualifications for public office. He questions the value of prior government experience, pointing out that in any other field, a history of failure would not be seen as an asset. “We need new people, and we need people who have other experience than government and law,” Sharp says. His vision for the Texas legislature includes professionals from diverse fields such as IT, medicine, and insurance—individuals who bring practical, real-world experience to the table.

The Road Ahead

The 2024 race for District 137 is shaping up to be another David vs. Goliath battle. Gene Wu, with his established political machine and strong ties to liberal advocacy groups, faces a determined opponent in Lee Sharp, who is running on a platform of principled change and government accountability.

For voters in District 137, the choice is clear: a continuation of the status quo under a politician who has been in office for over a decade, or a chance to elect a true outsider with a fresh perspective on governance.

In a district where Republican candidates are a distant memory, Lee Sharp represents the only alternative to the progressive policies of Gene Wu. As election day approaches, it remains to be seen whether Sharp’s message will resonate with enough voters to finally break the Democratic stranglehold on District 137.