‘Employing this level of purposefully lazy gaslighting [is] not surprising, given that it comes from a political party whose strategy for victory relies so heavily on making voting more difficult…’
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) One of corrupt Obama Attorney General Eric Holder‘s first major controversies was his refusal to prosecute members of the radical New Black Panthers over voter intimidation during the 2008 election.
Now, in his ongoing effort to undermine democratic institutions by any means necessary, Holder has flipped the script, claiming—contrary to evidence—that Republicans have undertaken to suppress minority voters.
Joining him in this effort is the human embodiment of sour grapes, failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, notorious for refusing to concede the race to her Republican opponent after court challenges failed to undo the outcome.
Holder and Abrams penned an op-ed, published Wednesday by USA Today, that sought to manipulate readers with a misleading narrative of voter-suppression.
“At the state level, Republicans have passed a raft of laws designed to block, deflect and deny access to the ballot,” the pair claimed, attacking common-sense legislation such as voter ID laws.
Many of those measures to preserve election-integrity—some approved by ballot referendum—were enacted in response to the wave of illegal immigration and rampant concerns of voter fraud during the Obama administration.
But after presenting their dubious evidence, the lying liberal activists then proceeded to dismiss the facts and counterarguments inconveniently working against them as a right-wing “gaslighting” conspiracy.
“Employing this level of purposefully lazy gaslighting of voters who were deprived of their constitutional rights is shocking but not surprising, given that it comes from a political party whose strategy for victory relies so heavily on making voting more difficult,” their op-ed claimed.
Masking Their Motives
To support their outlandish—albeit vague and nondescript—allegations of GOP-coordinated voter suppression, Holder and Abrams cited the Brennan Center, a left-wing think-tank headquartered at New York University.
The Supreme Court justice honored in the center’s name, William J. Brennan, was known for his outspoken liberal views and radical judicial activism after having gaslighted conservative President Dwight D. Eisenhower into placing him on the high court.
“Since 2010, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, 25 states have put heightened voting restrictions in place, almost entirely guided by Republican officials,” the op-ed claimed, falsely framing GOP-led voter-integrity safeguards as a bad thing.
The Brennan Center, which laughably describes itself as “nonpartisan” in its mission statement, is staffed primarily by leftist NYU professors—an already unreliable lot, even if the university’s law school were not receiving millions in kickbacks from mega-donor and current Democratic candidate Michael Bloomberg.
Bloomberg generated controversy after he was revealed to have partnered with another of NYU’s supposed think-tanks, the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center, in order to embed environmental activists, whom he was paying, in the offices of state attorneys general, who then would pursue his personal climate-change agenda.
In its tax documents, the Brennan Center acknowledges that—far from the scholarly, academic facade that its nonprofit shell organization presents—it also manages a “strategic fund” with the goal “to attempt to influence public policy on issues of social justice.”
Likewise, Abrams currently is under investigation by a Georgia ethics commission after tax-sheltered nonprofit groups she founded—which ostensibly were engaged in nonpartisan voter registration—allegedly crossed the line into blatant get-out-the-vote efforts and political funding in violation of the state’s campaign finance laws.
A History of Lies
As if any more confirmation were needed that the op-ed’s claims were false and motivated by the Left’s political agenda, Holder also invoked his discredited work with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.
“These [voter suppression] efforts were aided by gerrymandering of state legislatures in 2011 that locked in their power and a disastrous Supreme Court decision … that gutted federal protections for minority voters,” the op-ed claimed, referencing two of the decisive rebukes Holder has received for his partisan efforts.
The GOP took control of many state legislatures in the 2010 midterm election as a result of voter outrage and backlash against the policies of newly elected President Barack Obama.
After that “shellacking”—one of the largest political turnovers in modern history—Democrats desperately went into damage-control mode, deflecting blame everywhere they could but on their own actions.
Regardless, Obama continued to lead the way to more legislative losses for Democrats at the state and congressional level throughout his divisive presidency.
During the 2016 Democratic National Convention, party power-brokers such as ethically challenged Clinton henchman Terry McAuliffe (then serving as governor of Virginia) and then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., devised the strategy for their newest scapegoat—to blame GOP gerrymandering—and secured the backing from their billionaire patrons to form the NDRC.
The Holder-led organization has targeted more than a dozen red states in the lead-up to the 2020 election, much as it did prior to the 2018 election, with “sue till blue” attempts to use Obama-appointed judges to overturn congressional maps lawfully drawn by GOP state legislatures.
Of course, the utter disingenuousness of the group’s central complaint is underscored by the free pass it gives to egregiously gerrymandered blue-states like California, which has only six Republican congressmen in a delegation of 53.
Shockingly, the NDRC has been largely successful in states like Virginia and North Carolina, despite a devastating Supreme Court decision that rejected federal oversight of “partisan gerrymandering” suits.
They have continued to press their case using specious claims of racism in a bid to maximize Democratic representation by flipping statehouses before the maps are redrawn in 2021.
While Holder loftily claims his mission is about fairness, justice and equity for all, the NDRC’s IRS application for nonprofit status tells a different story.
There, it lists the goal as wanting to “favorably position Democrats for the redistricting process.”
In other words, to force out the GOP majorities in state legislatures and replace them with leftist majorities that may gerrymander according to their own agenda.
If anyone tells you that @EricHolder is “fighting against gerrymandering” and for “fair maps,” just look at the form his organization filed with the IRS. The truth: their mission is to “FAVORABLY POSITION DEMOCRATS FOR THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS.” pic.twitter.com/1f6J2SnIlX
— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) August 22, 2019
Pot and Kettle, Meet the Gas Stove…
Beyond simply misleading the USA Today readers and would-be Democratic voters about their false intentions, Holder and Abrams go a step farther by blaming their fact-checking critics for the very offenses they knowingly committed.
“Recently, Republicans have offered a new argument to deny widespread voter suppression and misdirect the public about their actions,” the pair writes. “They claim that because high numbers of voters of color participated in the 2018 election, voter suppression could not possibly have occurred.”
The op-ed goes meta by accusing the GOP of “gaslighting” the public about its efforts to maintain election integrity, all while Holder and Abrams themselves rely on brazen distortions of fact to psychologically manipulate those in their left-wing cheering section.
“Put simply, an increase in participation does not negate the fact that challenges can also increase,” the op-ed continues. “Indeed, in elections in the past 20 years, the obstacles have grown more complex and harmful, and the injuries are real.”
This attack echoes a common trope deployed by Abrams, who—before, during and after her 2018 gubernatorial defeat—was crying foul with race-baiting claims of an unfair election to cast aspersions on the entire process.
She has since refused to concede the race, even though her opponent, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, won by a decisive margin.
“While more voters of color successfully navigated impediments to registration and ballot access in 2018, we cannot blithely ignore the tens of thousands of others silenced by purges [i.e., legally mandated updates to voter rolls], exact match schemes [requiring the information listed on a voter’s registration to match the information used to verify eligibility] and closed precincts [a money-saving measure in low-turnout areas where absentee ballots remain an option].”
As expected, Holder and Abrams must go out of their way to cherry-pick the facts necessary to levy their wild conspiracies.
That, alone, would be enough to elicit eye-rolls and the occasional gag reflex.
But given the ethical concerns and unscrupulous tactics of both Holder and Abrams—paired with Holder’s past history of violent rhetoric and the well-organized, well-funded legions of unhinged activists at their disposal—these claims must be approached with extreme caution and concern.
The NDRC merged last year with Obama’s campaign arm, Organizing for Action, giving it a vast network of resources and political infrastructure to tap into.
As many saw during the 2016 election, the lead-up to the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and recent efforts at climate activism, hell hath no fury like a brainwashed, left-wing radical scorned.
And already the warning signs of coordinated, tactical violence from the Left are beginning to rear, should the outcome of the 2020 presidential election not swing their way.
Objective: Organized Chaos
Not only are Holder and Abrams paving the way for potential protests and violence from activists, but the Democrats’ efforts, under the guise of making elections more accessible, seem intent on sowing chaos.
Many on the Left are now fighting efforts to even clean up their voter rolls, as mandated under the National Voter Registration Act of the 1990s, in the hopes of creating more confusion at polling places, which they seem confident will work to their benefit.
Meanwhile, far-left states have begun issuing driver’s licenses to noncitizens that are indiscernible from those issued to citizens, and some have sought even to blur the line between citizen and noncitizen by allowing illegals to vote in local elections.
That provides for Democrats a never-ending pipeline of potential voters simply by offering free stuff at taxpayer expense and opening the borders to the ensuing flood of refugees whose countries—even socialist ones—do not offer free stuff.
Why the radical Left would so seek to erode democratic institutions has remained a mystery—with the only logical conclusion being that they hope to weaponize democracy against itself by undermining the electoral system entirely.
What replaces it will be determined by whose violent militias are best equipped to impose martial law.
Is it any wonder, then, that the Left also has been deeply engaged in recent gun-confiscation efforts in formerly red states like Colorado and Virginia, where rural populations might soon wish to rise up against the forces of socialism?