The Deep State’s Endgame: Tuesday, November 5
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
FATE, TX – A document containing unproven allegations, some of which could raise defamation concerns if false, and stamped with a warning against distribution, is now at the center of a growing political storm in Fate, Texas, after a student’s testimony revealed it was nonetheless handed out at a public recall event targeting the mayor.
At the March 23, 2026 Fate City Council meeting, Gus Richardson, a local debate student, stepped forward during public comment and described attending a petition signing event tied to the ongoing recall effort against Mayor Andrew Greenberg, Councilman Mark Hatley, Councilman Rick Maneval, and Councilwoman Martha Huffman.
According to Richardson’s testimony, he was provided a document outlining reasons for removing the mayor by individuals he identified as being involved in the recall effort.
The document was marked with a warning that read: “This document is for reference purposes only. Distribution and photographs are strictly prohibited.” Despite the printed warning, Richardson proceeded to photograph the document, and the organizer then removed the document from his hands, Richardson stated.
[Video of presentation of Gus Richardson to Fate City Council]
That contradiction, a document marked for secrecy but distributed in a public setting as reasons for the removal of an elected Mayor, quickly became the focal point of Richardson’s remarks. While Richardson questioned the validity of some of the allegations made in the document, his primary focus was on the process and transparency behind their circulation.
Pipkins Reports has obtained a copy of the document and presents it here as part of this report. We note that notices of, “DISTRIBUTION AND PHOTOGRAPHS ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED”, generally do not carry clear legal enforceability in a public setting.
Notably, one of the document’s central allegations involves the recording of city officials, and it is a matter of public record that Mayor Greenberg did record at least one phone call with Councilwoman Codi Chinn, a recording later released by Pipkins Reports, though the motivations and context surrounding that call remain disputed.
The document itself is structured as a list of allegations under several headings, including “Abuse of Power,” “Charter Violations,” “Texas Ethics Commission Errors,” and “Code of Ethics Violations.” It presents the claims in declarative language, offering no citations, supporting documentation, or sourcing within the text.
Under “Abuse of Power,” the document asserts that Mayor Greenberg secretly recorded city officials and staff for personal benefit, used his position to secure special privileges, and intentionally misled citizens about city governance and charter provisions. It further claims he used his authority for actions benefiting his private interests and threatened board members with removal if they questioned city officials.
Another claim alleges that the mayor allowed what the document describes as “potential electioneering” during a city council meeting, suggesting unequal treatment between certain speakers and regular citizens. Additional points accuse him of interfering in administrative staffing decisions and engaging with city staff without the required council authorization.
The section labeled “Texas Ethics Commission Errors” raises campaign-related concerns, including an allegation that required political advertising disclosures were omitted from campaign signs and that semiannual campaign finance reports were not filed on time in July 2025 and January 2026. It further states that only one of those reports has been remedied, though no official findings from the Texas Ethics Commission are cited in the document itself.
Other portions of the document claim violations of the city’s code of ethics, including representing private interests before the council, and paint a broader picture of what is described as a “lack of transparency.” The final section, labeled “Loss of Confidence,” includes assertions that the mayor has failed to keep citizens informed, does not understand the city charter, and has placed the city at risk of retaliation and lawsuits.
None of the claims included in the document were accompanied by evidence within the material reviewed, and the organizers explanation to Richardson, he states, was that the document “wasn’t verified yet and was simply what they believed.” However, the language used presents the allegations as statements of fact, rather than opinion, a distinction that carries legal implications if the claims cannot be substantiated.
Richardson’s testimony only briefly touched on how be believed the printed allegations were false. Instead, he focused on what he characterized as an inconsistency, that a document warning against distribution was nonetheless handed out to members of the public at an organized event. His remarks, measured in tone, appeared aimed at prompting greater transparency from those involved in the recall effort.
The City Council did not provide a response during the meeting regarding the document or its contents. This is typical of the Public Comments section of the agenda.
Mayor Greenberg’s Comment
Pipkins Reports reached out to Mayor Greenberg for comment. Regarding the document, he stated, “It’s a list of broad accusations without real evidence or specifics, and that’s just not a fair or productive way to have a conversation. If you’re going to make claims, don’t hide behind a command not to take photos or share-if they are strong enough to try to get people upset, they should be strong enough to be share publicly and examined. If someone disagrees with my policies, that’s completely fair, but pushing baseless accusations this way is disappointing.“
Christopher Rains Comment
We also reached out to Christopher Rains, the petition organizer, who it appears was also the person to whom Richardson spoke to. He stated, “It [the conversation] is not how I remember the exchange. I was talking with two people, both combative in nature and upon recognizing that they were not in support tried to exit the exchange as quickly as possible. If I misspoke, I am not above admitting as much. I am not a politician and have no aspirations to become one, I am not afraid to say I am wrong. But, I stated and reiterated many times that I was there because I believe there were charter violations based on my understanding of the charter. He claimed that I said they broke the law, I clarified that I did not believe it was criminally illegal, but a civil violation and morally questionable.“
Ashley Rains was also respectful to our request for comment and provided the following statement: “I was not surprised to see Gus Richardson, or his mother, at the City Council meeting Monday evening. If anything, I was proud and impressed to see Gus in attendance and participating. Proud because I firmly believe it’s imperative that our younger generations become interested and involved in the future of our government, at all levels. Our current political climate may not be where it is today if that had been the case sooner.
I was simultaneously impressed by his willingness to speak publicly on such a controversial topic. Not many young people have the wherewithal or courage to do so. I applaud him for that.
However, I was surprised to hear my name casually mentioned, while presenting as though he was unsure who the gentleman was he speaking with.
Gus and his mother approached our table while I was engaged in conversation with another citizen. But my husband is both cordial and a business professional. He shakes your hand and introduces himself, every time, with every new person we encounter in a mutually respectful setting.
I was unable to join their conversation until the last couple of minutes of their exchange. To hear my name referenced in the speech Gus delivered Monday evening was surprising, as the premise of the delivery seemed to be geared more toward attacking my campaign rather than presenting the facts of the exchange as the truly were.
I still applaud his involvement and courage. I also recognize the true potential he has to offer our society, political or otherwise. But, truthfully, I would’ve preferred to hear the recollection of events delivered less politically and more forthright.“
As the recall effort continues to unfold, the emergence of this document and the circumstances surrounding its distribution are likely to draw increased scrutiny from both the public and those directly involved. Richardson’s testimony has added a new layer to an already contentious political environment, raising questions not only about the claims themselves, but about how information is being presented to voters in the course of the petition process.
For now, the allegations outlined in the document remain unverified, and no formal findings by relevant authorities have been publicly confirmed. As the situation develops, the focus may shift toward greater transparency from all parties involved, particularly as residents weigh the credibility of the information being circulated in connection with the recall effort.
FATE, TX – Voters in Fate may soon face a familiar name on the ballot, but beneath the surface of Allen Robbins’ political comeback lies a record that could reshape how residents view his return. As the May 2026 city council election approaches, Robbins, a former Fate councilman, is seeking another term, bringing with him a documented voting history that raises pointed questions about taxes, fees, and development decisions that directly affected residents’ wallets and the city’s character.
Public records from the City of Fate show that during his previous tenure, Robbins not only introduced a series of consequential motions, but in each instance, those motions ultimately passed the council. The result was a slate of enacted policies that increased costs and advanced higher-density development, leaving a clear legislative footprint for voters to evaluate.
Below are seven key actions tied to Robbins’ record that voters may weigh as they consider his candidacy.
1. Ratifying a Property Tax Increase
Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-036, ratifying a property tax increase embedded in the adopted budget for fiscal year 2023–2024. The motion passed, formally locking in the increased tax burden tied to that budget cycle.
2. Supporting a 5.96 Percent Tax Rate Increase
Robbins also made the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 0-2023-037, setting the property tax rate at $0.26421, an effective increase of approximately 5.96 percent. The council approved the measure, resulting in a higher rate applied to property owners across the city.
3. Approving Increased Solid Waste Fees
Through Ordinance No. O-2023-038, Robbins moved to approve updated rates for solid waste and refuse collection services. The motion passed, leading to increased service charges for residents.
4. Road Fee Adoption
Although introduced by another council member, Robbins voted to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-039, establishing a $3 road fee for both single-family and multi-family residential units. The measure adds a recurring fee impacting nearly all households.
5. Zoning Change with Financial Penalties
Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. O-2023-021, which amended zoning classifications on approximately 3.18 acres from Mixed Use to Mixed Use Transition for a Townhouse Development.
6. Approval of a 179-Unit Townhome Development
Through Resolution No. R-2023-055, Robbins moved to approve a Type III development plan for a 179-unit townhome project on approximately 13.9 acres. The council approved the motion, clearing the way for the higher-density development to proceed.
7. Advancing a Maximum Tax Rate Above Key Thresholds
Robbins also made the motion to approve Resolution No. R-2023-058, setting a maximum tax rate that exceeded both the no-new-revenue rate and the voter-approval rate, within the de minimis threshold allowed under Texas law. The motion passed, advancing the process for adopting the higher rate and triggering required public notices and hearings.
Context and Verification
Each of these actions is documented in official City of Fate council records from 2023. Motions made by a council member are a critical procedural step in municipal governance, and in these cases, each motion successfully resulted in council approval, meaning the policies were not merely proposed, but enacted.
Municipal leaders often justify such decisions as necessary responses to growth, infrastructure demands, and service costs. Fate, like many North Texas communities, has experienced rapid expansion, increasing pressure on roads, utilities, and public services.
The Stakes in 2026
As Robbins seeks a return to office in May 2026, voters are presented with a clear and verifiable record of policy actions that translated into tangible outcomes, higher taxes, new fees, and expanded development density.
Whether those outcomes are viewed as responsible governance or excessive government expansion will likely shape the election.
Opinion: A Pattern, Not an Accident
Seven motions. Seven approvals. One consistent direction.
That pattern is difficult to dismiss as coincidence. Robbins’ record reflects a governing philosophy that leans toward increasing revenue through taxation and fees while accommodating denser residential growth.
Supporters may argue these were necessary decisions in a growing city. That is a fair argument. Growth requires infrastructure, and infrastructure costs money.
But voters should also ask whether every increase was necessary, whether alternatives were explored, and whether the cumulative impact on residents was fully considered.
Because while each individual vote might be explained away, together they tell a broader story, one of a councilman comfortable with expanding both the cost and scope of local government.
In a community like Fate, where many families moved seeking affordability and space, that story carries weight.
And in May 2026, voters will decide whether it carries enough weight to keep Allen Robbins out of office, or return him to it.
TEXAS, 15th Congressional District – A South Texas congressional race, veered into the realm of bizarro when a decades-old video clip resurfaced, casting a blanket over a newly minted Democratic nominee. What should have been a straightforward primary victory became a flashpoint, as a Republican incumbent Monica De La Cruz amplified a controversial video clip of her Democratic opponent, Bobby Pulido.
Tejano singer Bobby Pulido, a well-known figure in Texas music circles, secured the Democratic nomination earlier this month in Texas’ 15th Congressional District, according to results reported by the Texas Secretary of State and coverage from regional outlets including The Texas Tribune. Pulido, who has built a career as a performer with a loyal following across South Texas, entered politics as part of a broader Democratic effort to reclaim the historically competitive district.
His opponent in the general election, Republican Rep. Monica De La Cruz, wasted little time drawing contrasts. Within days of the primary result, De La Cruz reposted a video clip circulating online that appears to show Pulido under a blanket, making suggestive movements that some viewers interpreted as simulating a “sexual act”. The video’s origin is not entirely clear, though it has been described in online discussions as footage from earlier in Pulido’s entertainment career.
De La Cruz’s campaign did not produce the video, but her decision to repost it on social media drew immediate attention. According to archived posts and reporting from local political blogs, the video had already been circulating among political activists before it reached a broader audience through the congresswoman’s platform.
Pulido has not denied that the video depicts him, but allies have characterized the clip as an out-of-context moment from a performance or comedic setting, arguing that it is being weaponized for political gain. As of this writing, Pulido’s campaign has not issued a detailed public statement addressing the specifics of the video, though supporters have pushed back on what they describe as a “smear tactic.”
The 15th Congressional District, which stretches from the Rio Grande Valley northward toward Seguin, has become a political battleground in recent cycles. De La Cruz flipped the seat for Republicans in 2022, defeating Democratic incumbent Vicente Gonzalez after redistricting reshaped the district’s partisan balance. National observers, including Cook Political Report and Sabato’s Crystal Ball, have since rated the district as competitive, making it a target for both parties.
Pulido’s candidacy reflects a Democratic strategy aimed at leveraging cultural recognition and regional identity. As a Tejano artist, he carries name recognition that traditional political candidates often lack, particularly among Hispanic voters who form a majority in the district. His campaign messaging has emphasized economic opportunity, healthcare access, and immigration reform, themes consistent with broader Democratic priorities.
De La Cruz, for her part, has leaned into a law-and-order message and economic conservatism, aligning closely with House Republican leadership. Her campaign website highlights border security, energy independence, and opposition to what she describes as “Washington overreach.”
The resurfaced video has complicated what might otherwise have been a conventional contrast between policy agendas. Political analysts note that such controversies can have unpredictable effects, particularly in districts where personal image and cultural familiarity carry weight.
“Voters often say they want substance, but moments like this can dominate the narrative,” one South Texas political consultant told The Monitor. “The question is whether it sticks, or whether it backfires.”
There is also the matter of tone. While negative campaigning is hardly new, the use of suggestive or potentially embarrassing footage raises questions about where campaigns draw the line. The Federal Election Commission does not regulate the content of political speech in this context, leaving such decisions largely to candidates and, ultimately, voters.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login