Democrats Prove Once Again Their Goal is to Suppress All Voters Who Disagree With Liberal Ideology

Failed attempts to keep Trump off the ballots in several states conclusively prove two things — and Democrat corruption doesn’t stop there

The preface

It never ceases to amaze us here at The Unsettling Truth when people within the Democratic Party practice their various projections despite how childishly transparent their efforts are.

Case in point, Democrats and Democratic-funded organizations all across America run these ‘get out the vote’ programs which they claim are allegedly geared toward making sure every American is afforded the ability to cast their vote in every election. Most of these even go as far as claiming that their primary focus is on helping ‘often disenfranchised minority voters’ to be heard at the polls.

Of course, any attempt to challenge the nobility or motivations of any of those groups will immediately draw comparisons to the old Jim Crow voter suppression laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that enforced racial segregation and lasted until 1965.

However, it’s important to understand the distinction between those comparisons and the reality we all live in today. We also need to understand that those correlations aren’t being drawn because of any actual analogetic parallels between the archaic and defeated racist Jim Crow Laws and the voting laws and practices currently in existence across the United States.

Instead, we now know that these comparisons are drawn by the Democratic Party and their ideologically controlled media outlets, solely because the term ‘Jim Crow Laws’ typically functions as a primal rallying cry for African American voters, often inciting and evoking them into a call for action.

Unfortunately for Democrats, the rest of us aren’t as ignorant and obtuse as they would like to believe we are. In fact, exactly the opposite has been proven to be true, time and time again.

But, and perhaps even more troubling, there is also a slew of new and incontrovertible evidence that this fraudulent rallying cry is also a well-used tool of the Democratic Party to manipulate the African-American demographic of voters that has long constituted a major element of their voter base.

The functional hypothesis

To be sure, there are several existing situations where we can observe these laughable Democratic voter manipulations. Manipulations that are both poorly disguised to imitate actual attempts to remedy widespread voter disenfranchisement across the country, but instead function as a well-concerted effort to reverse engineer those Jim Crow Laws by systemically disenfranchising anyone and everyone that is most likely not to vote for Democratic candidates.

Those ‘voting groups’, who unilaterally vow that their missions are merely to ‘assist in helping voters make a plan to get registered and to vote in their states,’ demonstrate daily that this well-established and thinly veiled effort to influence and manipulate the voter suppression of anyone not likely to vote Democrat both exists and is plentiful in today’s political spectrum.

Again, this is evidenced by their sudden and indisputable failure to ‘assist’ anyone who makes it known ahead of time that they do not intend to vote for the Democratic candidate(s) — a test that anyone can conduct of their own volition whenever they are inevitably contacted by one of these groups — the same way we did to test this hypothesis.

As previously stated, the tactics that Dems use can easily be proven to only work to facilitate that type of access to voting for people who are most likely to vote for candidates rocking a ‘D’ in front of their names on ballots. In short, when they organize these rallies to bus voters to polling locations, if you happen to let slip that you’re likely to vote for the Libertarian, Independent, or Republican candidates, you’re going to find that regrettably, there isn’t enough room on the bus — even if it’s almost empty. We conducted an empirical experiment to prove this, the results of which we provide in the next sections.

The experiment

We’ve learned through several of our staff and the employees of numerous media outlets we work with that most of the aforementioned voter groups work to identify and engage their target demographic (minority voters living in economically impoverished areas) through their cell phones. Most often, this is done via unsolicited text messages, but occasionally random cold-calling is also used.

Zeroing in on this type of demographic is actually pretty easy since today’s wireless providers each have their own blocks of prefix numbers to issue to new wireless customers signing up for service (prefix numbers are the first three numbers of every telephone number after the area code.

Prefixes are further broken down and assigned to each carrier based on each area code the carrier services.

To isolate our target demographic, in precisely the same way the voting groups do, we identified our target demographic by visiting a town in an impoverished Georgia town that is also home to a very high minority population. We then visited that town’s local Cricket Wireless store where we purchased 24 new lines of service with the wireless company that is owned and operated by AT&T’s prepaid wireless division.

We chose Cricket Wireless for a couple of reasons. Primarily we picked them because theirs is a pre-paid wireless service that is very commonly used by economically challenged people who might not be able to survive the credit checks performed by post-paid contract carriers such as Verizon, T-Mobile, and Cricket’s parent, AT&T Wireless. We also selected them because our preliminary research indicated that the voting groups we were trying to bait had historically demonstrated a clear preference for targeting Cricket’s designated prefixes — as you’ll see, that preliminary research paid off royally.

As we suspected, within a month of opening those 24 cellular accounts with Cricket, 19 of them received unsolicited text messages from ‘voting rights agencies’ while 3 others received cold calls. Only one of the 24 seems to have slipped through the cracks and was never contacted by a voting rights agency. Perhaps even stranger, each initial contact by the voting agencies addressed each telephone line by what we expect was the name of the previous owner of that line. To clarify, none of the initial contacts we received on any of those Cricket lines were anonymous in nature and all were pointed at a person’s specific first name.

Exactly how those agencies got that personal information, or if they were just randomly generating names, remains a mystery.

Bingo! It was exactly the interaction we were hoping to evoke when we began our experiment.

Almost identically, the messages and calls received identified themselves as coming from non-profit voting rights agencies whose only mission was to help voters (like me) make a plan to vote so that our voices would be heard and that the forces at work trying to keep our votes suppressed did not win.

As stated before, each specific contact expressed initial concern about our progress in making a ‘plan’ to vote. After a few playfully ignorant replies from our staff, the agencies explained that a voting plan included the pre-election day voter registration and then the arrangements to make it to our locally designated voting center.

Before being contacted, the plan was that our staff would use 16 of the 24 lines to follow along as if they were interested in receiving the proposed ‘help.’ These 16 would also presume to be interested in voting Democrat.

Conversely, the remaining 8 lines, which turned out to only be 7, would pretend to be hesitant about receiving the proposed assistance. This deliberate reluctance was also part of a separate but related experiment to determine both the lengths these agencies would go to make sure to facilitate and then influence our votes as well as to evaluate the tactics they would employ to do so.

The results

The 16 accounts that offered the least amount of resistance were first asked if they needed help registering to vote. Our staff immediately recognized that this could be what’s referred to as a ‘loaded question.’ That’s because, to register to vote in Georgia, you need to pick a political party affiliation.

Of course, you can select ‘Indepependent,’ ‘Libertarian,’ or any of the other inconsequential political parties available to voters however, this seriously restricts a person’s ability to vote in political primaries in the state and, we believe, couldn't possibly align with these voting organizations' motivations.

If our hypotheses were correct, and these agencies were trying to increase the number of Georgians registering to vote as Democrats, even going as far as to book appointments to take them to the polls to vote, the question of the political ideology of each phone owner would necessarily have to come into play, either directly or indirectly, pretty soon. Otherwise, they could actually be working against their own efforts.

As it turns out, our hypotheses were right on target.

We know this because the ‘agencies’ that reached out to our new phones opted to break the ice regarding political ideology by asking if we needed any help understanding the issues that were at stake in the upcoming elections. Of course, this was too good to let go, so our staff replied ‘yes’ to every query.

As expected, we were then systematically fed a slew of Democratic talking points. Everything from abortion to fighting against ‘insurrectionists,’ was offered as a motivation to vote, without actually coming out and saying we should vote a straight blue ticket. But the real proof wouldn't come until a few of our staff began making comments that waxed favorable to candidates who were not Democrats.

Humorously, once that occurred the ‘agencies’ who were chatting with those 5 phone accounts — and only those 5 accounts — became completely unresponsive to further communications. Meanwhile, the other accounts continued receiving instructions on how to register to vote as well as locations and the schedule of when the polls would be open in their areas. They even went as far as to tell their staff that it was possible that they might be able to arrange transportation directly to the polling locations — get this — if they could recruit and arrange to bring several other registered voters with them to the voting locations.

What this means in the macro

This means that Democrats, posing as voting rights advocates, are actively using manipulative tactics to artificially increase Democratic voter turnout by coercing people, mostly minorities living in impoverished neighborhoods into falsely believing that these agencies are fighting to preserve the voting rights of disenfranchised minority voters around the country.

In reality, these same ‘agencies’ are actually only interested in assisting Democratic voters, and, by completely cutting off contact with potentially anti-Democrat voters, they are actively working to disenfranchise anyone who they feel is more likely to cast a vote for someone other than a Democrat.

One thing this experiment proved conclusively, Democrats aren’t trying to overcome voter suppression, they’re actively working to promote voter suppression of anyone not likely to vote for candidates rocking the ‘big D.’

And that’s the Unsettling Truth!

Some other Incredible stories by The Unsettling Truth: