In recent years, the term “RINO” (Republican in Name Only) has taken on new meaning, particularly as a label for individuals within the GOP who have steadfastly opposed the populist movement led by former President Donald Trump. As the 2024 election cycle approaches, a notable group of these “Never Trump” Republicans—figures like Dick and Liz Cheney, George Bush, Mike Pence, John Bolton, Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, Lisa Murkowski, and the disbanded yet outspoken Lincoln Project—have taken their defection to new heights, publicly declaring their intent to support Kamala Harris, the Democratic frontrunner, for president. By doing so, they have effectively cemented their irrelevance within the modern GOP, ensuring that their influence will continue to dwindle in a party that has transformed far beyond the neoconservative days of the Bush administration.

The Irreversible Break

The decision to endorse Harris over Trump is nothing short of an existential crisis for these figures. While many of them have long been estranged from the Trump wing of the party, this outright endorsement of the opposition signals their final break from the GOP’s base. Figures such as Dick and Liz Cheney, who once represented the hawkish, interventionist wing of the Republican Party, are now seen as relics of a bygone era. Their support for Harris, a staunch progressive, reveals just how disconnected they’ve become from the conservative grassroots.

Liz Cheney’s anti-Trump crusade reached its zenith with her prominent role on the January 6th Committee, where she sought to portray Trump as a danger to democracy. While this earned her accolades from the left, it led to her resounding defeat in Wyoming’s Republican primary, where her loyalty to the party’s base was called into question. Her father’s legacy as Vice President under George W. Bush may have carried weight during the War on Terror, but in today’s GOP, a party increasingly focused on America First policies, the Cheney name is synonymous with the establishment—a faction that has lost its grip on power.

George Bush: A Distant Memory

The Bush dynasty, once a dominant force in Republican politics, now finds itself in the political wilderness. George W. Bush’s silence during the Trump presidency spoke volumes, but his recent endorsement of Kamala Harris underscores how far he has drifted from the conservative movement that once championed his leadership. Many conservative voters see the Bush years as a period of misguided wars and unchecked spending, and the former president’s support for a Democratic candidate further alienates him from a party that has moved in a dramatically different direction.

Mike Pence and John Bolton: From Allies to Pariahs

Mike Pence, once Trump’s loyal vice president, finds himself in a political no man’s land. His refusal to challenge the 2020 election results earned him the ire of many Trump supporters, and his subsequent political moves, including his Harris endorsement, have isolated him even further. Pence’s traditional conservative stance on issues like abortion may resonate with some in the GOP, but his unwillingness to embrace the populist tide means his future within the party is bleak.

John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor, has long been a polarizing figure. His neoconservative worldview, shaped by a belief in American interventionism abroad, is a stark contrast to the America First approach that now defines the GOP. Bolton’s endorsement of Harris is unsurprising, given his public spats with Trump, but it only serves to highlight how out of touch he is with a Republican base that no longer prioritizes endless wars and nation-building.

Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, and Lisa Murkowski: The Party’s Outcasts

Mitt Romney, the senator from Utah and 2012 Republican presidential nominee, has spent much of the Trump era positioning himself as the GOP’s moral conscience. His votes to impeach Trump and his consistent criticism of the former president have made him a pariah within the party. Romney’s decision to back Harris all but guarantees that he will have no future influence in shaping the GOP’s policy or direction.

Adam Kinzinger, another vocal critic of Trump, has followed a similar trajectory. Once a rising star in the GOP, Kinzinger’s tenure on the January 6th Committee and his constant bashing of Trump’s influence on the party led to his political demise. His exit from Congress was more of a resignation than a defeat, but his endorsement of Harris signals that he, too, has no intention of aligning with the future of the Republican Party.

Lisa Murkowski, the senator from Alaska, has long walked a fine line between maintaining her seat and placating a Republican base that has increasingly viewed her as too moderate. Her vote to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial alienated her from the GOP electorate, and her support for Harris solidifies her position as an outsider within the party.

The Lincoln Project: A Failed Experiment

Perhaps the most glaring example of political irrelevance is The Lincoln Project, the group of disaffected Republicans that formed in opposition to Trump. While initially heralded by the media as a principled stand against the populist takeover of the GOP, the organization quickly descended into scandal and disarray. Its members—George Conway, Steve Schmidt, John Weaver, Rick Wilson, Jennifer Horn, Ron Steslow, Reed Galen, and Mike Madrid—have not only failed to sway Republican voters but have also been engulfed by internal turmoil, sexual harassment scandals, and allegations of financial mismanagement.

The Lincoln Project’s endorsement of Harris is more of a desperate attempt to stay relevant than a meaningful political statement. Their influence has waned to the point that they are now more popular with MSNBC viewers than with actual Republican voters. Their vocal support for a Democratic candidate only serves to remind the GOP base that they no longer belong within the party’s tent.

The GOP’s Future: Unwavering Loyalty to the Base

The transformation of the Republican Party over the past decade has been nothing short of revolutionary. What was once a party led by establishment figures like the Bushes, Romneys, and Cheneys has now become a movement driven by a populist, nationalist base. The issues that animate the GOP today—securing the southern border, protecting American jobs, limiting government overreach, and standing up to the radical left—are completely at odds with the worldview of the RINO Republicans who are now backing Kamala Harris.

By choosing to support Harris, these figures have all but guaranteed their permanent exclusion from any future Republican administration. Their influence has been reduced to the occasional appearance on cable news, where they are paraded as “reasonable” Republicans willing to buck their party’s leadership. But within the actual GOP, their voices carry no weight. The Republican Party is no longer a party of compromise with the left—it is a party of conviction, driven by a desire to restore American greatness and reject the globalist, interventionist policies of the past.

A New Era for the GOP

As the 2024 election looms, the irrelevance of the Never Trump Republicans becomes increasingly apparent. Their endorsement of Kamala Harris is not a principled stand but a final act of desperation from a faction that has lost its influence and power. The future of the Republican Party belongs to those who are willing to fight for the interests of the American people, not those who seek the approval of the media or the Washington elite. In the end, the RINO Republicans have chosen their path, and it is one that leads far away from the heart of the GOP.

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation on September 17, 2024, that effectively muzzles the First Amendment under the guise of curbing “deepfake” technology. The new law, touted as the nation’s most aggressive stance on AI-generated content, makes it illegal to use artificial intelligence to create parody images, videos, or audio impersonations of political candidates in the run-up to elections. While the law claims to address the growing concern of misinformation in political campaigns, it’s a direct assault on a core element of free speech: political satire.

The Move Against Free Speech

Governor Newsom’s decision comes after a public spat with Elon Musk, owner of the social media platform X. The conflict began when Musk shared an AI-altered video of Vice President Kamala Harris. Newsom rebuked Musk and swiftly vowed to push for legislation that would prevent such content from being shared in California. True to his word, the bill was signed into law and is set to take effect before the November 2024 elections.

The law allows courts to issue injunctions against the distribution of intentionally deceptive political content, including satirical deepfakes, during election season. Penalties can also be levied on individuals or entities that share such content. Newsom, in a conversation with Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, dismissed the idea that the law was politically motivated, stating, “I could care less if it was Harris or Trump. It was just wrong on every level.”

However, the implication of this law is clear—it limits the ability of citizens, commentators, and even comedians to use AI for political satire, parody, and commentary. While Newsom and his allies frame the legislation as a safeguard against misinformation, this is a direct violation of the First Amendment, which has long protected satire as a form of political expression.

What’s Really at Stake?

At first glance, combating AI-generated misinformation might seem like a noble cause. With deepfakes becoming increasingly sophisticated, the potential for misleading voters is a legitimate concern. But the problem arises when the state begins to overreach, dictating the boundaries of acceptable speech. Political parody has always played a critical role in American democracy, serving as a tool to mock, criticize, and hold the powerful accountable. From the lampooning of Richard Nixon in “All in the Family” to “Saturday Night Live’s” biting satire of both Democratic and Republican politicians, parody has been a vital form of political expression.

This new California law threatens to blur the line between deceptive manipulation and political satire, chilling a form of speech that has been constitutionally protected for over two centuries. As Elon Musk pointed out, “Parody is legal in America.” But in Newsom’s California, it appears that may no longer be the case—at least when AI is involved.

The Broader Implications

The passage of this law is part of a broader, troubling trend in which powerful figures in government seek to control the flow of information under the guise of protecting “truth” and “democracy.” With this legislation, California now leads the charge in cracking down on AI-generated content, but this could easily set a dangerous precedent for other states to follow. If laws like this are allowed to proliferate, it would mark the beginning of a slippery slope, where freedom of expression becomes increasingly curtailed in the digital age.

Even more alarming is the timing. Newsom’s law takes effect before the 2024 elections, a critical moment in American politics. Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, who carried the bill, admitted the law was written with the explicit intent of targeting content in the 2024 cycle, referring to it as the nation’s “first AI election.” Under the pretext of shielding election officials and candidates from targeted misinformation, this law effectively curtails the ability of voters to engage with and criticize political figures in new and creative ways.

Political Satire or Misinformation?

The key issue here is defining what constitutes “misinformation.” While deepfakes that genuinely deceive voters are problematic, this law takes aim at all AI-generated content, even when it is clearly marked as parody or satire. Political figures, especially during campaigns, have always been subject to scrutiny, mockery, and impersonation. Satirical images and videos often draw attention to important issues, shaping public opinion through humor. By prohibiting AI-generated content in this realm, the law conflates misleading information with the use of humor and satire, undermining the spirit of the First Amendment.

The dangers of deepfake technology are real, but the solution to this issue cannot be the heavy hand of government dictating what kinds of content are permissible. As it stands, existing defamation laws are already sufficient to address cases where deepfakes cross the line from satire into malicious deception. Yet, the California law treats all AI-generated political content as a threat, removing the essential nuance that distinguishes satire from falsehood.

Newsom’s Long Battle with Elon Musk

This latest law also highlights the ongoing feud between Governor Newsom and Elon Musk. What began as a disagreement over COVID-19 lockdowns has escalated into a broader clash over free speech and the role of tech companies in moderating content. Musk has been a vocal critic of California’s regulatory environment, especially as the state continues to push for more control over tech platforms and the content they host.

In response to this law, it is not hard to imagine that Musk and others will challenge it in court, arguing that it oversteps the constitutional protections of free speech. Musk’s platform, X, could become a battleground for legal challenges, especially since the law allows users to flag content for removal, putting tech companies in the difficult position of adjudicating what constitutes “misleading” political content.

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.