Image 01 Image 03

USA Today Edits Stacey Abrams Op-Ed Supporting Georgia Boycotts After MLB Moved All-Star Game

USA Today Edits Stacey Abrams Op-Ed Supporting Georgia Boycotts After MLB Moved All-Star Game

The media is so protective of Stacey Abrams. It’s disturbing and creepy.

On March 31, Stacey Abrams wrote in USA Today that people need to boycott “to achieve change” in regards to the state’s new voting laws:

“The impassioned response to the racist, classist bill that is now the law of Georgia is to boycott in order to achieve change,” Abrams originally wrote. “Events hosted by major league baseball, world class soccer, college sports and dozens of Hollywood films hang in the balance. At the same time, activists urge Georgians to swear off of hometown products to express our outrage. Until we hear clear, unequivocal statements that show Georgia-based companies get what’s at stake, I can’t argue with an individual’s choice to opt for their competition.”

She continued, “However, one lesson of boycotts is that the pain of deprivation must be shared to be sustainable. Otherwise, those least resilient bear the brunt of these actions; and in the aftermath, they struggle to access the victory. And boycotts are complicated affairs that require a long-term commitment to action. I have no doubt that voters of color, particularly Black voters, are willing to endure the hardships of boycotts. But I don’t think that’s necessary — yet… I ask you to bring your business to Georgia and, if you’re already here, stay and fight. Stay and vote.”

On April 2, Major League Baseball announced its decision to move the all-star game from Atlanta. Four days later, on April 6, MLB decided to play the game in Denver, CO. The all-star game takes place in July.

Fox Business reporter Charlie Gasparino tweeted on April 7 that MLB also chose to boycott Georgia after speaking to Abrams, “which is odd since she has now said she’s against the boycott.”

Well, on April 6, USA Today changed Abrams’ op-ed to make her less sympathetic to boycotts (emphasis mine):

“The impassioned (and understandable) response to the racist, classist bill that is now the law of Georgia is to boycott in order to achieve change. Events that can bring millions of dollars to struggling families hang in the balance. Major League Baseball pulled both its All-Star Game and its draft from Georgia, which could cost our state nearly $100 million in lost revenue,” Abrams’ revisions read. “Rather than accept responsibility for their craven actions, Republican leaders blame me and others who have championed voting rights (and actually read the bill). Their faux outrage is designed to hide the fact that they prioritized making it harder for people of color to vote over the economic well-being of all Georgians. To add to the injury, the failed former president is now calling for cancellation of baseball as the national pastime.”

“Boycotts invariably also cost jobs. To be sustainable, the pain of deprivation must be shared rather than borne by those who are least resilient… I have no doubt that voters of color, particularly Black voters, are willing to endure the hardships of boycotts. But such monetary loss is unlikely to affect the stubborn, frightened Republicans who see voter suppression as their only way to win. Money isn’t quite as seductive as political power to these putative leaders.

Her revised op-ed adds, “Instead of a boycott, I strongly urge other events and productions to do business in Georgia and speak out against our law and similar proposals in other states.”

It got worse for Abrams on April 20 when Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton lashed out at Abrams over her op-ed.

Stacey called out the media, Twitter, and supposed “fact-checkers” who defended Abrams against Cotton despite the evidence.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



You know it’s bad when you need fact-checkers to check the fact-checkers.

Really, we all know the fact-checkers are Progressives who are working “clean up.” They want to shape the conversation. Just like the way CNN tells its views what conservatives are saying (but rarely have an actual conservative on a show) – so they can shape the conversation. They are basically saying — “You don’t have to go look at Conservative Media because we will tell you all the crazy things they have to say – stay here at CNN or MSNBC or NY Tmres or WaPo – so that we can continue to serve you the Kool-aide.”

They never ant their viewers or readers to see any other view without their Progressive filter.


Censor the opposition.
Rewrite history to favor those in power.

USA Today = Soviet PRAVDA.

USA is in early-stage of a totalitarian marxist regime and most people walk around like its business as usual. People are lulled by Propaganda. Never would have thought it’d be so easy to defeat the USA. Liberty dies when people get lazy.

    Ben Kent in reply to Ben Kent. | April 27, 2021 at 5:59 pm

    FYI – USA Today = Soviet Pravda — was supposed to be at the top of the above posting. In which case the next 2 lines would be examples of USA Today acting like Pravda (Censor the opposition and Rewrite history too favor those in power).

    Sorry if anyone was confused by this mistake. I’ll try to avoid mix up lines in the future.

    MattMusson in reply to Ben Kent. | April 28, 2021 at 7:44 am

    They Allowed STACEY to suggest the modifications! She told them what she wanted changed. And, they did!

Hey! Stacey paid somebody good money to write that for her! How dare they edit that nameless person’s work without permission!

Fat_Freddys_Cat | April 27, 2021 at 4:22 pm

Politicians are in the communications business. They are appallingly bad at it.

Abrams is backpedaling to avoid a political backlash from people hurt by the boycott, including minorities trying to keep their businesses afloat in what is already a difficult time. But this backlash was completely predictable by anyone who spent five minutes thinking it through. Abrams apparently can’t be troubled to spend the five minutes.

    “But this backlash was completely predictable by anyone who spent five minutes thinking it through.”

    I think you’re wrong about this. People’s minds work in different ways, and a significant fraction of the population are incapable of understanding the consequences of an action – no matter how much time they spend “thinking it through”. This is not an issue of intelligence. Some of the most foolish people alive are very intelligent.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to gibbie. | April 27, 2021 at 8:16 pm

      I agree, there are very smart people who are completely incapable of applying it in productive ways.

      I was repeatedly hired as a consultant to fix messes their PhD’s created. at the GM Tech Center. It was common for many of those people not to have a shred of innate ability.

      Fat_Freddys_Cat in reply to gibbie. | April 28, 2021 at 8:11 am

      and a significant fraction of the population are incapable of understanding the consequences of an action

      I agree with this, but being a cranky old fart I insist on holding those who purport to be our leaders to a slightly higher standard, i.e. that they be sentient adults.

2smartforlibs | April 27, 2021 at 4:26 pm

Liberal Playbook: If one is too low IQ to do it for themselves the Propgnad Machine is ready and willing to help.

Ministry of Truth strikes again. Guys, Orwell was not writing a how-to guide.

USA, the CNN of print media.

I’m really wondering if Stacey Abrams will run for governor in the next election. I suspect she will lose and then her career as a professional loudmouth will be over. Tough decision!

    henrybowman in reply to NYBruin. | April 27, 2021 at 11:58 pm

    Whatchu talkin’ about, Willis?
    She already DID that in 2018, AND flopped, AND she’s still flapping her mouth.

Revising an opinion in the face of new facts is perfectly acceptable. For USA Today to engage in Stalinist airbrushing is definitely not.

If Abrams wishes to change her mind on this issue of.boycotts then she should publicly do so. Every media organization that doesn’t call out the memory hole treatment of the original op-ed is not being either honest or responsible to it’s readers and viewers.

    ugottabekiddinme in reply to CommoChief. | April 27, 2021 at 6:53 pm

    . . . media organization . . . “honest” or “responsible” ??

    Oh hahahahaha. Stop! Stop! You’re killin’ me!!

      CommoChief in reply to ugottabekiddinme. | April 28, 2021 at 9:21 am

      If you choose to trivialize their actions to the point that you expect this, then so be it. Though by doing so you are normalizing the actions and accepting the acts.

      There are a few members of the legacy media who still try to present a balanced view. Many more who do so in new alternative formats; blogs, podcast and websites such as LI.

Talj about big FAT lies….

They have to protect her – she’s Le Bron James-level stupid.

    How did she ever get a law degree from Yale??

    Hmmmmm, a new credential for those without them First Middle Last, LLS (Le Bron Level Stupid)

    I think I need to contact the history department at Oberlin to see if they have altered the testing in the History department, where a student is allowed to constantly change their answers to keep it up to date. I mean, how can one really take a history test now given that the left is revising the past as they see fit, sort of a poor man’s time travel device.

Hmmm … Pizza Hut comes to mind.

The left isn’t interested in the truth. Only power and money.

Hey marky mark where are you now???? Still lurking around waiting for something you can try to act on?

This is exhibit A as to why we don’t take your fact check sites at face value. This is why you were slapped down here and still can’t admit it. This is why your side is willing to try and fake the narrative and break every ethical boundary of decent society because they believe the ends justify the means. You strike me as someone who still thinks that’s not true…for the moment. Which side will you choose? Will you knowingly turn your back and enable that which your side tries to project onto others? Or will you try to skirt the middle and end up ripped in half?

Nothing good comes of this…for the sides or the middle. And only one side is willing to take it so far that we won’t be able to turn it back. Here’s hoping you don’t end up on the wrong end.

    healthguyfsu in reply to healthguyfsu. | April 27, 2021 at 11:39 pm

    Of course, I called this exhibit A but that’s in a Last in first out queue….there are mountains of other fake fact check debunks that you’ve already ignored or at least pretended didn’t exist.

    henrybowman in reply to healthguyfsu. | April 28, 2021 at 12:00 am

    Why do you care if mark ends up on the wrong end? His end is in Great Britain in the first place.

The Dhimmi-crat media must do their utmost to protect the offspring of Idi Amin and Hillary Clinton.

Taken straight outta the nazi handbook…lie, obfuscate, lie some more, then back pedal surreptitiously and play it exactly like the fake news did with Have Another Cheeseburger Abrams.