No, not those DINO’s you remember from your childhood. No characters from Jurassic Park or the Land That Time Forgot, I’m talking about the acronym of “RINO” or as it’s spelled out (Republican In Name Only).

If you are unfamiliar with the term RINO, then the term comes from Republicans who are centrist and end up voting with Democrats on many issues. Think of John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Lisa Merkowski, or Susan Collins. Many of them are Republicans you can’t count on when push comes to shove. Thankfully two of them are gone, but there are still RINO’s lurking within Congress.

But I digress.

The idea of a RINO is one that is abhorrent to Republicans because you never know how they are going to vote when the time comes. If you are a Republican, they are a constant pain because of the fact they are unpredictable. They will forgo their conservative values to vote with Democrats. The main thrust of this name being that they aren’t really Republicans at all, but politicians masquerading as Republicans in red districts to get votes, and then when they get into office they act like Democrats.

Now I know for a moment there was a term “blue dog Democrats” which is simply a more conservative Democrat. That’s not what I’m proposing here. A DINO is essentially a RINO but in reverse (Democrat In Name Only). Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and instead of a RINO looking to get votes in a deep red district, we have someone who is looking to get votes in a deep blue district (e.g. most of California).

Before you think I’m a traitor to the cause, or crazy, let’s think about this logistically and logically for a minute. If we look at some numbers from last August before the recent midterm elections we can see how this strategy might play out. The below numbers are from a study done by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).

California’s 19 million registered voters constitute 75.7% of eligible adults, a slight increase from the registration rate in 2014 (73.3%), the year of the last gubernatorial election. The share of registered voters who are Democrats (44.4%) is up slightly from 2014 (43.4%), while the share of Republicans (25.1%) has declined since 2014 (28.4%). At the same time, the share of voters who say they are independent (also known as “decline to state” or “no party preference”) has been increasing and is now 25.5%, up from 21.2% in 2014. Our surveys indicate that 47% of those we consider most likely to vote are Democrats, 28% are Republicans, and 21% are independents.

Obviously Democrats win the numbers game in California. They have the largest share of voters in California. You can also see Republican voters are slowly declining while Independents are increasing. And you’re saying “So what” everybody knows that already. But let’s look at some numbers that are even more interesting.

In our surveys over the past year, independent likely voters have been more likely to lean Democratic (43%) than Republican (29%); 28% did not lean toward either major party.

Independent voters are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican in California. Even though they can’t be bothered with picking a party, Independents still go for the Democrats by a margin of more than 10%.

So let’s look at this through a prism of pure numbers. We have a Democratic Party that is overwhelming Republicans in sheer numbers, and to make matters worse, Independents favor Democrats over Republicans by a substantial margin.

Now we can sit here and pretend that taking the noble route would be better and try to rebuild and win using the Republican Party, but looking at the numbers, that is one hell of a hill to climb. Instead think of this as a scenario.

Moderate, pro business, tax cutting DINO’s begin running in local races. They have an enormous advantage simply because they have a D next to their name. Add in the boost from Independents who will swing their way and the race should be a cake walk.

This covert operation works even better in California because of the Jungle Primary system that is in place. Democrats usually end up as the top two choices anyway and Republicans are left out in the cold. Leaving the race to two leftists battling over who supports inter-sectional identity politics or whatever. Now add in a DINO, someone who has the goal of actually getting good things done for California, and you may have a race on your hands. Get enough DINO’s up and down the state, and well, you have the start of a covert insurgency operation whereby you weed out the far leftists and return some sanity to California.

Still not feeling it because of your sense of moral obligation? Think it’s underhanded and sneaky to start supporting DINO’s to run in races rather than Republicans? Let me share some food for thought for people who want to sit on the sidelines because of their moral imperatives.

[People who] are passionately committed to a mystical objectivity where passions are suspect… They can be recognized by one of two verbals brands. “We agree with the ends but not the means” or “This is not the time.” The means-and-end moralists or non-doers always end up on their ends without any means.

You know who wrote that? Saul Alinksy. Yes the same Saul Alinsky who wrote Rules for Radicals and was a personal mentor to Hillary Clinton. But he has a point. People who sit by idly because of their morals, usually end up with nothing to show for it but a false sense of superiority.

Alinsky goes on to outline his rules for when the ends justify the means.

1. One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue. 2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. 3. In war the end justifies almost any means. 4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point. 5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa. 6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means. 7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. 8. The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory. 9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical. 10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments. 11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”

There are a lot of rules here, but I’d like you to focus on rules 3, 4, and 8. We are at war here in California. We are being over run by the totalitarian Left. They have complete control all over the state and continue to push forward. When it comes to war, anything goes. Rule number 4, we are at a time when California is in open rebellion against the US. The state continues to march toward socialism and we are helpless to stop it because of voter fraud, a rigged primary system, and a Democratic Party that dwarfs its opponents in size and resources. Finally, rule 8, we are on the brink of imminent defeat. I would argue it has already happened. Any sense of liberty or freedom is essentially dead in California. We are over taxed and over regulated. Defeat has most certainly already arrived.

Is this theory unorthodox? Maybe. Is it used already throughout our political system? Absolutely. There are plenty of people who put a D or an R next to their name simply because the numbers favor them. Politicians switch from Party to Party because they read the polls and see it would be more beneficial to do so. Politicians play this game for their own benefit, why not us?

Democrats hold the Party advantage in California at the moment, why not just get rid of the Party advantage? Political parties are used to divide and conquer the people, maybe its time for the people to use the political parties to divide and conquer for their own benefit.

Maybe the idea of using Saul Alinsky’s advice is too much for you to stomach. Well how about I propose another’s advice to help sway you?

Let me now warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party. The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another. In governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.

This was the advice of George Washington warning the American people against political parties. Political parties are a rouse to herd people into one category or another. Here in California, we are a one party state. This can be an enormous obstacle, or a huge benefit.

Destroy the idea of D vs R in California and scatter it to the winds. Put liberty and freedom up against socialism on even footing. Damn the means to get there. If it means saving California, it is something to consider.