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.

In the world of political journalism, where every detail is scrutinized and every claim dissected, it’s easy to be swept up by sensational stories—especially when they involve political figures whose policies you fundamentally oppose. Recently, I came across a bizarre and troubling article that claimed Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ newly announced running mate, had been involved in a disturbing incident back in 1995. The story, which alleged that Walz was hospitalized after ingesting horse semen, seemed too strange to be true. And as it turns out, it was.

I’ll admit, at first glance, the details of the story seemed plausible enough to warrant further investigation. The article was purportedly from a 1995 issue of the West Point Daily News, and it claimed that Walz had been treated at “West Point General Hospital” by a “Dr. Amanda Thompson.” Given Walz’s track record and my own disdain for his destructive policies, I wanted to believe that this story would reveal yet another example of his poor judgment. But as a journalist committed to the truth, I knew I had to verify the information before passing it on to my readers.

The Hoax Unveiled

As I dug deeper into the story, it quickly became clear that something was amiss. There is no record of a West Point Daily News ever existing, nor is there any hospital named “West Point General” in West Point, Nebraska. The supposed physician, “Dr. Amanda Thompson,” is also a complete fabrication with no medical credentials or history in the area. The more I looked into the details, the more the entire story began to fall apart.

The image of the newspaper article circulating online was revealed to be a poorly executed forgery. The photo of Walz included in the piece was desaturated, an effect that would not have been possible in a black-and-white newspaper from 1995. Further inspection showed that the layout of the newspaper used a digital background commonly found on the website Scribed, strongly indicating that the article was a modern creation rather than an authentic piece of journalism from the past.

Adding to the absurdity, the fake newspaper also featured a real article titled “International Moose Count Underway” by Bob O’bobston—an actual story that was published on September 16, 2020. The presence of a 2020 article in a supposedly 1995 newspaper was the final nail in the coffin, confirming that the entire scandal was nothing more than a hoax designed to deceive.

A Commitment to the Truth

Despite my personal and political disdain for Tim Walz and everything he stands for, I am a conservative journalist first and foremost. My commitment to the truth outweighs any desire to see my ideological opponents discredited by any means necessary. We conservatives pride ourselves on being better than the leftist journalists who often resort to fabricating stories or bending the truth to suit their agenda. Our opinions may be strong, but they must be grounded in facts. This is the foundation of credible journalism.

This incident underscores the importance of verification in journalism. It would have been easy to take the fabricated story at face value and use it as fodder to criticize Walz further. But doing so would have compromised my integrity and the trust my readers place in me. Our role as journalists is not to regurgitate sensational stories without evidence but to dig deeper, to uncover the truth, and to report it—no matter how inconvenient it may be to our own beliefs.

The Danger of Fake News

The rapid spread of this false story on social media highlights the dangers of fake news. In today’s digital age, misinformation can travel faster than ever, and once a lie takes hold, it can be difficult to undo the damage. For a brief moment, even I was nearly taken in by this hoax, which serves as a reminder that none of us are immune to the allure of a sensational headline.

However, as conservative journalists, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. We can’t afford to make up stories or spread unverified information like some of our counterparts on the left. Our opinions are powerful tools for shaping public discourse, but they must always be supported by verifiable facts. When we stray from this principle, we undermine our credibility and weaken our position in the ongoing battle for truth.

A Lesson in Integrity

The exposure of this hoax should be a wake-up call to everyone involved in political journalism. For those of us who consider ourselves conservative journalists, it’s a reminder of our duty to maintain the highest standards of accuracy and integrity. We can—and should—express our opinions within the context of our reporting, but those opinions must be grounded in reality. When we allow ourselves to be swayed by falsehoods, we become no better than the very people we criticize.

This incident has reinforced my resolve to remain steadfast in my commitment to the truth. No matter how much I disagree with Tim Walz and his policies, I will not stoop to the level of spreading lies to score political points. We must be better than that. We must be vigilant, skeptical, and above all, honest in our reporting.

The truth matters. It is the foundation of a free and informed society. And as long as I have a platform to write from, I will continue to fight for it, even if the left doesn’t.

In a democracy, the voice of the people is paramount, yet the growing influence of corporations threatens to drown out the voices of individual citizens. The proposed “Corporations Are Not People Act” addresses this critical issue by reaffirming that constitutional rights, such as free speech, are intended for living, breathing individuals, not corporate entities. This legislation is essential to safeguard our democratic principles, ensuring that political contributions and lobbying efforts are driven by the will of the people, not by corporate interests.

The core stipulations of this Act are straightforward yet powerful. It unequivocally states that corporations are not protected by the Constitution as living persons, thereby eliminating their claim to free speech rights. Moreover, it prohibits all corporate financial contributions to political campaigns and Political Action Committees (PACs), and bans corporate lobbying efforts aimed at Congress. Instead, only natural persons who are citizens and at least 18 years of age may contribute to political campaigns or PACs, with a maximum contribution limit of $10,000 per election period.

The urgency of this legislation cannot be overstated. Corporate influence in politics has reached unprecedented levels, undermining the democratic process and skewing policy decisions in favor of those with the deepest pockets. By enacting the “Corporations Are Not People Act,” we can restore the integrity of our elections and ensure that elected officials are accountable to their constituents, not corporate donors.

We call on our lawmakers to sponsor and champion this legislation. It is time to reclaim our democracy and reaffirm that it is the people, not corporations, who hold the ultimate power in our nation. This Act is not just a legal necessity but a moral imperative, vital for the health and future of our democratic system. Let us take this crucial step together, ensuring that every citizen’s voice is heard and valued equally in the halls of power.

Corporations Are Not People Act

Title I: General Provisions

Section 101: Short Title

This Act may be cited as the “Corporations Are Not People Act.”

Section 102: Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to clarify the distinction between corporations and natural persons, ensuring that constitutional rights intended for living individuals are not extended to corporations, and to regulate corporate influence in political processes.

Title II: Legal Definitions

Section 201: Definitions

For the purposes of this Act:

• Corporation: Any entity established under the laws of the United States or any state, including but not limited to companies, associations, partnerships, and other similar entities.
• Natural Person: A living, breathing human being.
• Political Campaign: An organized effort to influence the decision-making process within a specific group, particularly regarding the election of candidates to public office.
• Political Action Committee (PAC): An organization that raises money privately to influence elections or legislation, particularly at the federal level.
• Lobbying: Any attempt by individuals or private interest groups to influence the decisions of government, typically in the legislative or executive branches.

Title III: Constitutional Clarifications

Section 301: Corporations as Legal Entities

Corporations are recognized as legal entities but are not natural persons. Therefore, they do not possess constitutional rights afforded to natural persons under the U.S. Constitution.

Section 302: Free Speech Rights

Corporations do not have free speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The protections of free speech are reserved for natural persons.

Title IV: Political Contributions and Expenditures

Section 401: Prohibition on Corporate Contributions

Corporations are prohibited from contributing any financial resources, directly or indirectly, to any political campaign, candidate, or Political Action Committee (PAC).

Section 402: Restrictions on Individual Contributions

Only natural persons who are citizens of the United States and 18 years of age or older may contribute to political campaigns or PACs.

• Contributions by individuals shall not exceed $10,000 to any single political candidate or PAC during any election period.
• An election period is defined as the time from the official announcement of a candidate’s campaign until the conclusion of the election.

Section 403: Enforcement and Penalties

• Any corporation found in violation of Section 401 shall be subject to fines equal to twice the amount of the illegal contribution.
• Individuals found in violation of Section 402 shall be subject to fines and potential imprisonment, as determined by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Title V: Lobbying Restrictions

Section 501: Prohibition on Corporate Lobbying

Corporations are prohibited from engaging in lobbying activities directed at members of Congress or federal agencies.

Section 502: Individual Lobbying

Lobbying activities are only permitted by natural persons who must register with the appropriate regulatory body and adhere to all disclosure requirements.

Section 503: Enforcement and Penalties

• Corporations found in violation of Section 501 shall be subject to fines and restrictions on future business operations with the federal government.
• Individuals who fail to register or disclose lobbying activities as required under Section 502 shall be subject to fines and potential imprisonment.

Title VI: Implementation and Review

Section 601: Implementation Timeline

This Act shall take effect 180 days after its enactment to allow for necessary adjustments and compliance measures.

Section 602: Review and Report

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) shall review the implementation of this Act and submit a report to Congress within two years of its enactment, including recommendations for any necessary amendments or additional legislation.

Section 603: Severability

If any provision of this Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of its provisions to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected.

Title VII: Miscellaneous Provisions

Section 701: Amendments to Other Laws

Any laws or provisions in conflict with this Act are hereby amended to the extent of the conflict to ensure consistency with the provisions of this Act.

Section 702: Rulemaking Authority

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) shall have the authority to promulgate regulations to implement and enforce the provisions of this Act.

Section 703: Authorization of Appropriations

Such sums as may be necessary are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to carry out the provisions of this Act.

This proposed legislative framework seeks to reinforce the distinction between corporations and natural persons, ensuring that constitutional rights and political influence are reserved for living individuals. By restricting corporate contributions and lobbying activities, the “Corporations Are Not People Act” aims to reduce corporate influence in politics and enhance the integrity of the democratic process.