From my friends at Townhall:
On Thursday, The New York Post posted an article about a recent statement by Stacey Abrams.
The article reports:
Progressive Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams is facing fierce backlash after a clip surfaced of her declaring that there is “no such thing” as a fetal heartbeat at six weeks — insisting that is just “manufactured sound” designed to control women’s bodies.
“There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks,” the Peach State gubernatorial candidate said at an event in Atlanta on Tuesday.
“It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.”
You could fertilize your garden with that statement. It illustrates a level of ignorance and willingness to lie for political purposes I can’t even imagine.
Just for the record, Medical News Today states:
The heart of a fetus is fully developed by the 10th week of pregnancy.
I don’t understand why killing babies is so important to the Democrat party. I also don’t understand why they are so upset about each state now having the right to make their own laws regarding abortion. That is constitutional in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. Finally, I refuse to think of killing a baby as healthcare.
When you run for office in a state, should the majority of your campaign donations come from that state (from the people who have to live with your policies if you win)? I am not planning to answer that question, I simply put it out there for everyone to think about.
On July 15th, The Washington Free Beacon reported that only 14 percent of the money raised by Stacey Abrams in her race for governor of Georgia came from inside the State of Georgia.
The article reports:
Nearly half the money raised by Abrams’s campaign and leadership committee ($22.7 million) came from donors in three deep-blue states and one liberal territory that wants to be a state but never will: California ($10.2 million), Washington, D.C. ($6.4 million), New York ($3.6 million), and Delaware ($2.5 million). The result is not entirely surprising given that Abrams recently described Georgia as “the worst state in the country to live.”
Those astonishing figures stand in stark contrast to the fundraising numbers posted by Abrams’s opponent, Gov. Brian Kemp (R., Ga.), who has raised most of his campaign funds from in-state donors. More than 83 percent of the $31.5 million raised by Kemp’s campaign and leadership committee came from Georgia residents, the analysis found.
So the takeaway here is that the people inside George want to see Brian Kemp elected and the people outside Georgia want to see Stacey Abrams elected. If you were a voter aware of this fact, who would you vote for?
It will be interesting to see who wins. Can elections really be bought in America?
On Tuesday, The Washington Free Beacon reported that election lawyer Dara Lindenbaum, who is President Biden’s pick to serve on the Federal Election Commission, is representing Stacey Abrams’s nonprofit and Raphael Warnock’s church in a lawsuit that challenged the validity of Georgia’s 2018 election due in part to the state’s use of “unreliable” electronic voting machines. So the electronic voting machines were unreliable in 2018, but reliable in 2020?
The article reports:
In November 2018, election lawyer Dara Lindenbaum signed on to a federal legal complaint on behalf of Abrams’s Fair Fight Action. The complaint challenged the constitutionality of Georgia’s 2018 election, which saw Abrams lose to Republican governor Brian Kemp in a race she never conceded. Warnock’s Ebenezer Baptist Church joined the suit in early 2019, just months before the Democrat entered Georgia’s 2020 Senate race.
There were some changes made to the complaint in December 2020:
According to the complaint, the state of Georgia “grossly mismanaged” the election by depriving “Georgia citizens, and particularly citizens of color, of their fundamental right to vote.” As a result, the complaint said, Georgia’s election “violated the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” The complaint also lamented the use of “insecure and unreliable” electronic voting machines that “lack a paper trail” and thus “cannot be audited”—those machines even “switched” votes from Abrams to Kemp, according to the complaint.
While the lawsuit remains active, Fair Fight and other plaintiffs amended the complaint in December 2020 to remove many of its assertions detailing problematic voting machines. The move came after former president Donald Trump said voting machine irregularities led to his defeat against Biden.
The article concludes:
Prior to her role representing Fair Fight Action, Lindenbaum served as general counsel to Abrams’s 2018 gubernatorial campaign. Abrams lost that race to Kemp by roughly 2 points, but she never conceded her defeat, instead saying the election was “stolen” due to “voter suppression.” In the aftermath of her loss, Abrams launched Fair Fight Action, a nonprofit that says it is “leading the charge to protect voting rights.” Fair Fight’s website touts the group’s “historic civil rights lawsuit in federal court … challenging the gross mismanagement of the 2018 election that discouraged and disenfranchised voters.” Lindenbaum still serves as legal counsel to Fair Fight Action and the group’s political arm, Fair Fight PAC, her Office of Government Ethics disclosure shows.
Neither Fair Fight Action nor Ebenezer Baptist Church returned requests for comment.
This lady does not belong on the Federal Elections Commission.
Yesterday Townhall posted an article about Tuesday’s special election in Georgia.
The article reports:
Georgia Republicans got a big win over Democrats in a special election for a state House seat on Tuesday night. Republican Devan Seabaugh defeated Democrat Priscilla Smith in the election for House District 34 with 63 percent of the vote.
Former Senator Kelly Loeffler (R-GA), who recently launched a nonprofit organization aimed at registering and reaching voters, Greater Georgia, celebrated the GOP’s win. Loeffler’s group played a major role in turning out Republican votes.
The article concludes:
While Republicans saw major turnout and success, failed 2018 gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and her organization, Fair Fight, were handed a loss on Tuesday night.
The 63 percent of the vote is consistent with the 2016 election in that district, when Republican Bert Reeves defeated Democrat Justin Holsomback with a percentage of 63.71 percent to 36.29 percent.
As much as 63 percent is a great percentage, it seems to me that the election simply prevented Stacey Abrams and her organizers from gaining ground.
Breitbart is reporting today on the very successful voter registration campaign that is currently going on in Georgia.
The article reports:
Community organizer and 2016 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the Democrats were going to win the two U.S. Senate seats up in Georgia’s January runoff election.
Republican incumbents Sens. David Perdue (R-GA) and Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) are facing off against Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, respectively.
…Abrams said, “Democrats are prepared to win this election. This is the first runoff where we have the level of investment and engagement that it takes to win a runoff. We know from the numbers we are in a good place. 1.2 million absentee ballots have been requested thus far, and just to put that into context, 1.3 million were requested for all of the general election. Of that 1.2 million, 85,000 of those applications are from voters who does not vote in the general election and disproportionately between 18 and 29 and disproportionately people of color. That signals that we understand that we may need to make a plan to vote and deliver this election.”
It’s interesting that 85,000 of those absentee ballot applications are from people who did not vote in the general election. That seems odd to me. Why have these people suddenly decided to vote, and why did they decide to vote with absentee ballots? I hate to be cynical, but because the largest amount of election fraud takes place in mail-in ballots and absentee ballots, I am more than a little suspicious. Hopefully, the people receiving the requests for the ballots will check the addresses on them to make sure they are legitimate. Right now we have a problem in this country with election fraud. I fear that the runoff election in Georgia may prove to be a further illustration of the election fraud problem.
Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about Cody, a beloved family pet who lived in Atlanta and passed away before President Obama was elected. Cody received a voter registration form by mail on Wednesday.
The article reports:
“If they’re trying to register cats, I’m not quite sure who else they’re trying to register. I don’t know if they’re registering dogs, mice, snakes?” Tims said.
Fox 5 reported the feline was a “DemoCAT.”
The Georgia Secretary of State blamed third-party groups for such activity.
“Third-party groups all over the country are targeting Georgia to help register qualified individuals. This group makes you wonder what these out-of-town activists are really doing. Make no mistake about it, this office is dedicated to investigating all types of fraud,” Brad Raffensperger’s office said.
Cody, of course, lives in the home state of Stacey Abrams, the failed gubernatorial candidate who has since made it her mission to fight voter ID laws.
The Secretary of State’s office told Fox 5 Cody wouldn’t have been allowed to vote “since he did not have a license or state ID.”
It’s not clear if Cody would have been able to cast a ballot in a full vote-by-mail system.
Cody isn’t unique in receiving such mail long after he’s spent his 9th life.
In 2016, Benicia the border collie received an application in Raleigh, North Carolina, according to ABC 7.
“She would have been smart enough to but I don’t think a dog is probably entitled to vote,” owner John Schneider said.
Benecia received a letter from the Voter Participation Center, a nonprofit that sends out mass mailings of voter registration forms.
Unfortunately I suspect there are those among us who would register their family pets for mail-in voting. I have two cats named Abe and Ace. I am sure that they would vote for President Trump. Many of my neighbors have dogs, some of which I am sure would vote for Joe Biden. We already have places where the number of people voting is larger than the voting-age population. Can you imagine the numbers with mail-on voting?
Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about a recent comment made by a CBS news anchor. It is an amazing comment.
The article reports:
CBS This Morning anchor and Barack Obama donor Gayle King gushed over Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams on Tuesday morning, saying the former state legislator and failed gubernatorial candidate is “extremely qualified” to be vice president of the United States.
Abrams is openly lobbying to serve as Joe Biden’s running mate come November, despite never being elected to any office beyond the state legislature. As she touted her voting rights work and “competence and skills and willingness to serve,” King cut in to praise her as ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
“That’s a great nuts and bolts answer because everybody knows you’re extremely qualified,” King said. “I’m looking for something about Stacey Abrams the person. Why is she a good choice and have you had any talks at all with the Biden team?”
What is the world are her qualifications? The article notes that Abrams has never held a position higher than House minority leader in the Georgia legislature. It also notes that she told Elle magazine in an article published April 15 that her credentials for vice president included “25 years in independent study of foreign policy.” Exactly what does that mean?
The article also notes:
Outside of her political career, Abrams is a noted romance novelist, publishing several books under the pen name “Selena Montgomery.” CBS is currently adapting one of her novels, Never Tell, into a TV drama.
Keep in mind that if Joe Biden is the Democrat nominee for President, his choice of running mate is extremely important. The videos Joe Biden is making in his basement don’t show a man who would be able to handle the job of president, so it is likely his vice-president will assume the office sometime during his first term if Joe Biden is elected. Stacy Abrams may be a very nice person, but she has never actually run a business or exhibited leadership skills. Her claim to fame is that the Georgia gubernatorial election was stolen from her by suppressed voter turnout when the numbers actually show increased voter turnout. No objective person looking at her resume would in any way describe her as extremely qualified.
Some people just don’t know how to lose gracefully. Unfortunately, some of them are in the news on a fairly regular basis. Joseph Goebbels said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.” Right now the Democrat party is attempting to prove that theory.
The National Review posted an article today with the following headline, “The Stacey Abrams Myth Becomes the Democratic Catechism.” The article is referring to the fact that despite losing the election for Governor of Georgia, Stacey Abrams has been telling the media at every opportunity that the election was stolen from her. She cites various reasons–racism, voter suppression, etc. Well, that is simply not true, but she keeps repeating the lie.
The article reports:
The claims of voter suppression rest primarily on the fact that as Georgia secretary of state, Kemp enforced a statute passed by a Democratic-majority legislature and signed by a Democratic governor in 1997. It required the voting rolls to be periodically purged to remove names of voters who were dead, or who had moved away or were incarcerated. Under this law, 600,000 names of people who hadn’t voted in the last three elections were removed from the rolls in 2017 by Kemp’s office.
Those who were removed got prior notification in the mail about the impending purge, and they were given a menu of options to retain their registration. Moreover, it took four years to complete the process by which a name was removed. The reason so many names were taken off in 2017 was that a lawsuit by the Georgia NAACP had delayed the routine enforcement of the law for years before the organization eventually lost in the U.S. Supreme Court.
If you assume that most of the 600,000 were Democrats who were denied the right to vote — rather than voters who were deceased or who had moved or been jailed — that gives credibility to Abrams’s story. But there aren’t many people stepping forward since November 2018 to say they were wrongfully removed from the rolls, let alone the tens or hundreds of thousands necessary to substantiate Abrams’s claim that the election was stolen.
The other argument that purportedly backs up the stolen-election claim is that lengthy lines caused by the closing of 212 precincts in the state since 2012 deterred Georgia voters from turning out. But Kemp had nothing to do with that, since all decisions on consolidating voting stations were made by county officials. Which means if there were fewer precincts and longer lines in Democratic-majority counties in Georgia, it was almost certainly due to the decisions made by local Democrats, not Kemp or a national GOP conspiracy.
When examined soberly, Abrams’s claims evaporate. Kemp’s win was no landslide, but his 1.4 percent margin of victory didn’t even give her the right to demand a legal recount. Demographic changes may mean that Georgia is trending away from the red-state status it has had in the last decade, but Stacey Abrams lost because Republicans still can turn out majorities there even in years when the odds favor Democrats.
But by continuing to swear to the lie that the election was stolen, Biden, Buttigieg, and every other Democrat who repeats that claim while paying court to Abrams and hoping to win African-American votes are poisoning the well of American democracy.
What Stacey Abrams is doing is not constructive. If she wants to be Governor of Georgia, she needs to run until she wins or she gets tired of running. Meanwhile, she needs to admit that she lost and move on. Voter roles need to be purged periodically. In North Carolina, we have a number of people well over the age of 100 voting. I question that. I suspect before they purged the voter rolls, Georgia had the same situation.
I can’t imaging the Democrats would be crazy enough to run Stacey Abrams as their candidate for Vice-President in 2020, but stranger things have happened. Why do I think this might be a possibility? Rather than have her run as a failed candidate, Democrats are painting her as someone who had an election stolen from her.
The Washington Free Beacon posted an article yesterday stating that former Attorney General Eric Holder believes that Stacey Abrams won the race for Georgia governor in 2018.
The article reports:
In making that claim, Holder echoed other prominent Democrats in suggesting that Kemp’s role as secretary of state was a factor in the outcome.
“I think the way it was conducted, the – her opponent remaining as secretary of state, basically being the referee until about the last week of the election, certainly gave the appearance of unfairness, and I think it was unfairness.”
Abrams has never conceded the race, and has also maintained on several occasions that she won.
Also speaking to The Root, Abrams placed some blame on media coverage for how the election turned out.
“I would attribute it less to racism and more to a very narrow and immature ability to navigate the story of my campaign,” Abrams said. “I was doing a number of things that were new and different and discomforting to some. But what was worse was that, for a lot of those folks, they could not comprehend how all of these things could be true at the exact same moment. I wouldn’t necessarily ascribe any racial animus as much as I would a lack of—there was some incompetence in the coverage that was problematic.”
When the Democrats lose an election, somehow it is always someone else’s fault (or it is racism). How many times can you cry ‘wolf’ and still be believed?
It’s not easy to give the rebuttal speech to the State of the Union. Chances are that you don’t have a copy of what you are rebutting. I guess you can make changes at the last minute, but the majority of your speech has to be written before you have a clue what it is supposed to be about. It’s not a great place to be. That said, however, I would like to take issue with some of the comments made by Stacey Abrams last night. Much of what she said was only half of the truth, and some of what she said was simply not true.
Time posted a transcript of her speech. I would like to talk about sections of that speech.
Ms. Abrams stated:
Just a few weeks ago, I joined volunteers to distribute meals to furloughed federal workers. They waited in line for a box of food and a sliver of hope since they hadn’t received a paycheck in weeks. Making their livelihoods a pawn for political games is a disgrace. The shutdown was a stunt engineered by the President of the United States, one that defied every tenet of fairness and abandoned not just our people – but our values.
It was nice of her to give out meals, but she failed to mention that all of those furloughed workers received every penny of their back pay. The simply got an extra paid vacation.
She further stated:
In Georgia and around the country, people are striving for a middle class where a salary truly equals economic security. But instead, families’ hopes are being crushed by Republican leadership that ignores real life or just doesn’t understand it. Under the current administration, far too many hard-working Americans are falling behind, living paycheck to paycheck, most without labor unions to protect them from even worse harm.
The Republican tax bill rigged the system against working people. Rather than bringing back jobs, plants are closing, layoffs are looming and wages struggle to keep pace with the actual cost of living.
We owe more to the millions of everyday folks who keep our economy running: like truck drivers forced to buy their own rigs, farmers caught in a trade war, small business owners in search of capital, and domestic workers serving without labor protections. Women and men who could thrive if only they had the support and freedom to do so.
Hasn’t she read the economic numbers? On December 20th, The National Review reported:
A recent Wall Street Journal economic analysis of current jobs reports found that worker wages were starting to rise above inflation and that the biggest percentage gains were showing up in the paychecks of the lowest income workers. In other words, income inequality with respect to take home pay was shrinking.
…Remarkable, too, about this chart is that every group that was least likely to vote for Trump has seen an abnormally large gain in jobs and wages. Our supposed racist president has delivered outsized economic gains for blacks and Hispanics — with both groups now experiencing the lowest unemployment rates in at least a half century. So much for Trump’s policies benefiting only white America. The rich are clearly not “the big winners” from Trump’s economic policies.
Contrast that with the economy when Democrats were in charge:
The poor and unskilled that Mr. Obama was supposed to lift out of poverty saw their incomes fall by 7.4 percent for those with less than a high school diploma and 8.2 percent for those with only a high school diploma. In dollar terms, between the time the Obama recovery began in June 2009 and until June 2014, median black household income fell by nearly $3,000, Hispanic households lost nearly $2,500, and female-headed households lost roughly $1,500. In 2015 and 2016, income gains were thankfully reversed for these demographic groups, but many still lost ground over eight years. The income gains under Mr. Obama were mostly concentrated in those Americans in the top 20 percent of income. This is why the income gap between rich and poor rose nearly every year under Obama.
Ms. Abrams, if you truly cared about the success of the middle and lower classes, you would support the policies of President Trump. President Trump’s economic policies have worked. President Obama’s economic policies failed miserably. I would also like to note that illegal immigration depresses the wages of unskilled workers. The Democrat party sold out the working man a long time ago.
On Friday, The Daily Signal posted an article that provides some background information on Stacey Abrams.
These are some basic facts about Ms. Abrams listed in the article:
1. She ‘Wouldn’t Oppose’ Noncitizen Voting – she did support the idea of non-citizens voting to local elections, but the fact remains that people who are here illegally are breaking the law and should not have voting rights.
2. She Wants to Turn Georgia Blue – that’s not all that unusual, but her approach in somewhat interesting.
3. She Wants to Promote ‘Race and Gender’ Issues – has anyone else noticed that promoting race and gender issues divides us rather than unites us?
4. She Was Endorsed by Planned Parenthood – just for the record, Planned Parenthood receives on average approximately $500 million a year in taxpayer funds. How much of that money is essentially laundered and spent on campaign contributions?
5. She Is ‘Sick and Tired’ of Free Market Role in Health Care – actually health care worked very well until the government got involved – people were taken care of and the cost was not prohibitive.
6. She Says ‘Liberal’ Is a Good Word – that is her privilege.
7. She Says the AR-15 Doesn’t Belong in Civilian Hands – Don’t look for her to support the Second Amendment.
8. She Is a ‘Romance’ Novelist – she writes sexually explicit romance novels under the name of Selena Montgomery.
The comments in bold type are from the article. Other comments are mine.
This is the person the Democrats have chosen to respond to the State of the Union address.
Next week is shaping up to be an interesting week. On Tuesday we will hear President Trump’s State of the Union Address followed by a response given by failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.
On Tuesday Townhall posted an article about the choice of Ms. Abrams.
Some highlights from the article:
Abrams, who believes illegal aliens should be able to vote in elections, refused to concede to duly elected Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and repeatedly accused him of racism.
Interestingly enough, in addition to scheduling President Trump’s address for the coming week, the Democrats have now scheduled February 7 as the date to vote on the confirmation of William Barr as Attorney General, and scheduled acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee for February 8. There is a method to their plan. Part of the method is that the President’s speech is quite likely to be about the amazing economic achievements of his two years in office and he will probably talk about some of the problems on our southern border. The Democrats are looking for a way to blunt any positive impact of the speech.
Yesterday American Greatness posted an article about some aspects of the scheduling.
The article reports:
The committee’s vote is scheduled to take place one day before acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker testifies in front of the House Judiciary Committee on a number of topics, including the Mueller probe; Trump foes claim Whitaker should have recused himself from oversight of the investigation based on some of his past comments, even though a Justice Department ethics review cleared him of any conflicts.
This one-two punch has a purpose: To taint Barr’s impartiality and discredit his office on all matters related to Trump-Russia. Why? Because during his confirmation hearing, Barr agreed—at the behest of Republican senators—to begin his own inquiry into who, why, and how the FBI launched several investigations into Trump’s presidential campaign and, eventually, into the president himself.
As indictments unrelated to Trump-Russia collusion pile up, Republican lawmakers and Trump’s base increasingly are outraged that the culprits behind perhaps the biggest political scandal in American history remain untouched. Barr signaled that the good fortune of these scoundrels could soon take a dramatic shift under his stewardship.
The article notes a very interesting aspect of this whole Russian investigation:
A few days before Barr’s hearing, the New York Times reported that in May 2017, the FBI opened an investigation into the sitting U.S. president purportedly based on suspicions he was a Russian foreign agent. Then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe—whom the Times does not mention by name at any time in the 1,800 words it took to report this information—initiated the probe immediately after Trump fired his predecessor, James Comey.
McCabe was fired last year and now is under criminal investigation for lying to federal agents.
The article concludes:
Other materials of public interest include the initiating documents for Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI’s investigation into four Trump campaign aides—which Comey claimed he never saw—and any details about who at the FBI started the unprecedented counterintelligence and criminal investigation into a sitting U.S. president.
And while he’s at it, and before Mueller’s team is finished, Barr should begin a formal inquiry into why the special counsel’s office scrubbed the iPhones used by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page while they worked for Mueller for a brief time in 2017. The phones and the data contained on those devices are public property. Barr needs to find out why that information was not collected and archived since both FBI officials already were under scrutiny. Destroying potential evidence is a crime.
The enormousness of Barr’s task and the devastating consequences for those involved are now coming into clear view. The timing couldn’t be worse for Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans who are desperate to defeat Trump and the GOP in 2020. That’s why we can expect both parties to whip up more criticism of Barr over the next few months. One hopes he will resist that criticism—and both Trump and Graham need to reassure the new attorney general and the American public that his investigation will receive the same amount of protection that was afforded to the Mueller team.
Get out the popcorn, the show is about to begin.
Today Breitbart posted an article about Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (D). In an interview, Ms. Abrams admitted that a possible outcome of her gun control plans could be that “people would turn their guns in.” That is her opinion. It contradicts the Second Amendment, but that is her opinion.
The article reports:
Abrams began by telling host Jake Tapper that “AR-15s are not necessary on our streets.” She then called for more gun control “semiautomatic weapons” in general. She did not mention that semiautomatic handguns like Glock, Kimber, Ruger, Walther, Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson, Springfield Armory, etc., are the go-to choice for concealed carry and self-defense. Rather, she simply called for new controls for firearms with semiautomatic actions.
Tapper reminded the viewing audience that Abrams co-sponsored Georgia HB 731 on January 2016. He pointed out that Abrams’ co-sponsors admitted the bill would “require gun owners of these particular models to turn their guns in.” (Breitbart News reported that HB 731 designated certain commonly owned semiautomatic firearms as contraband and required the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to seize them from their owners.)
Meanwhile, another Breitbart article shows members of the New Black Panther Party wielding weapons and holding signs supporting Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. I sense a contradiction here.
WSB-TV in Georgia reported yesterday that the State of Georgia is investigating a voter registration group for fraudulent voter registrations. The New Georgia Project has ties to one of the state’s highest ranking Democrats.
The article reports:
A subpoena was sent to the New Georgia Project and its parent organization Third Sector Development on Tuesday.
The organization is a project of the nonprofit organization Third Sector Development, which was founded and is led by House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams.
The subpoena demands all documents be turned over to the State Election Board‘s investigators by Sept. 16.
In a memo sent to county elections officials, Secretary of State Brian Kemp said in recent weeks his office has “received numerous complaints about voter applications submitted by the New Georgia Project.”
Kemp wrote, “Preliminary investigation has revealed significant illegal activities’ including forged voter registration applications, forged signatures on releases, and applications with false or inaccurate information.”
This is one of many reasons why having to show a photo ID when you vote is a good idea.
The article also reports:
New Georgia Project spokesman and senior pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Rev. Dr. Raphael Warnock, also sent a statement to Channel 2 Action News that said, “I am fearful that within our state there are grave voter inequalities in minority communities, and I hope that this investigation by the Secretary of State is not intended to thwart efforts to enfranchise voters.”
No one is attempting to thwart efforts to enfranchise voters. What is being attempted is to secure honest elections. Every vote cast by someone who is not legally entitled to vote cancels out the vote of a legal voter. That is voter disenfranchisement.