Stacey Abrams Blurts Out The Real Reason Why She Opposes Georgia’s Voting Integrity Law
Failed gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who famously refused to concede her election, has been making a name as a “voting rights” activist, particularly in the State of Georgia.
Democrats far and wide credited Abrams with Biden’s win in Georgia, as well as the special election victories of Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock. But how could a red state go so blue so quickly, specifically when all the other souther states went for Trump?
Abrams, who runs a shadowy GOTV group called Fair Fight, recently discussed the Georgia integrity law that provoked widespread fake outrage from Democrats and voting rights groups.
In an interview on PBS, Abrams spilled the beans about why she really opposes the Georgia election law.
“What do you think the impact of those laws could be when you look ahead specifically to the midterm elections?” PBS host Amna Nawaz asked Abrams. “Are you concerned that Democrats could actually lose control of the House and Senate as a result of those?”
“Yes. As a partisan, I am concerned about whether my party, which tends to be over-representative of communities of color, of communities that are disadvantaged and marginalized, that the party to which I pledge allegiance, or at least I have given my fealty, that the party could lose. she said. “But I honestly want us to return to the fundamentals of voting.”
The fundamentals of voting are this: One citizen, one legal vote. Unfortunately, this seems to be a difficult concept for Democrats to grasp, gathering from their opposition to common sense election provisions like voter IDs. The best research available on voter IDs show that they make no difference for registration or voting turnout. An estimated 95% of black citizens who live in Georgia have voter IDs, and they are free for those who request them.
Furthermore, one does not even need photo ID to cast an absentee ballot in Georgia. That doesn’t stop self-described “partisan” activists like Abrams, who leads the supposedly “non-partisan” Fair Fight, from making outrageous claims about basic voting security measures, such as they are equivalent to “Jim Crow 2.0.”
“In a nation like the U.S., with its changing demography, if the response to increased participation by communities of color, by young people, by women, if the response is to restrict their access and impede their participation, that is a very, very strong signal that we are heading in the wrong direction and that our democracy is not safe, it is not sound, and it is not resilient,” she also said.
Abrams, and the partisan media that refuses to challenge her, continues to repeat this non-sensical talking point that measures to ensure one citizen has one vote are “restrictions” on “access” to the election. In a sense, they are right: They are “restrictions” against committing fraud in U.S. elections.
RELATED FROM BECKER NEWS
(TLB) published this article from Becker News as compiled by Kyle Becker.
Emphasis added by (TLB) editors
Header featured image (edited) credit: Joe My God.com
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.