It’s become clear that today’s Democratic Party and its media handmaidens see George Orwell’s novel “1984” not as a cautionary tale but as a how-to guide. Unfortunately for their efforts to rewrite history, the Internet is forever, or at least it will be as long as we can keep total control of it out of the hands of the Silicon Valley socialist billionaires.

Case in point: USA Today’s attempt to sneak one past the public by letting Stacey Abrams alter an op-ed that ran on March 31st, condemning Georgia’s new election integrity law. In the original, she wrote, “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.”

But then, the MLB Commissioner announced on April 2nd that the All-Star Game was being moved out of Atlanta (to the much-whiter city of Denver), costing local workers and business owners, most of them black, $100 million in lost revenues. Needless to say, that would not make someone who promoted boycotts very popular with voters, particularly not someone with dreams of running for Governor.

And so…Abracadabra! Abrams’ archived column has magically changed! Now, it includes an attack on Republicans, accusing them of not caring about the monetary loss from boycotts as long as they can suppress the minority vote. And that quote above now reads, “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.” Congrats, USA Today: Winston Smith himself couldn’t have done a better job.

USA Today claims that Abrams updated the column two weeks earlier and the delay in acknowledging the rewrite was an “oversight.” That sounds suspiciously like the excuse Facebook and Twitter use whenever they ban a conservative for no good reason and get called out for it publically. Besides, two weeks earlier was still AFTER the MLB boycott was announced.

USA Today’s excuse doesn’t answer the question of why Abrams or anyone else should be allowed to rewrite an op-ed that’s already been published to make themselves look better in light of subsequent events. If papers started rewriting all their old editorials to fix everything they ever got wrong, the New York Times editors would be spending more time rewriting old op-eds than writing new ones. Which, come to think of it, might be a better use of their time.