We all know the far left will do almost anything to advance its agenda. To them, creating a more “progressive” society justifies a multitude of sins. It is why they have no problem with using violence, doxing, deception, and other tactics to crush their opposition. But they do not seem to have realized that their “ends justify the means” approach could very easily backfire if it goes to the extreme.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki, on Thursday, defended those who released the addresses of the Supreme Court justices believed to be voting to overturn Roe v. Wade. The development occurred after a draft opinion from the court was leaked to the public. The document indicated the court’s ruling would once again allow states to make their own decisions on how to handle the abortion issue.
Psaki did not seem particularly troubled by the doxing of the judges, saying that the Biden administration understands the “passion” behind the pro-abortion protests that were set to occur at their homes. However, she did insist that the demonstrators keep their protests “peaceful.”
“Peaceful protest is not extreme,” she said in response to a question from Fox News’ Peter Doocy. “I think our view here is that peaceful protest, there’s a long history in the United States, in the country, of that, and we certainly encourage people to keep it peaceful and not resort to any level of violence.”
Doocy pressed the issue, asking Psaki if she believes the protesters should limit their demonstrations to the Supreme Court and not “to go into residential neighborhoods in Virginia and Maryland.” He noted that the operatives had posted a map of the Washington metropolitan area “with the home addresses of the Supreme Court Justices” and asked if this would be “the kind of thing this president wants to help your side make their point.”
“I think the president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document,” Psaki replied. “We obviously want people’s privacy to be respected. We want people to protest peacefully if they want to protest. That is certainly what the president’s view would be.”
Psaki pivoted, pointing out that these folks are protesting because they fear losing their “fundamental rights” and that they are “scared.”
“I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest. I want — we want it, of course, to be peaceful, and certainly, the president would want people’s privacy to be respected, but I think we shouldn’t lose the point here,” she said. “The reason people are protesting is because women across the country are worried about their fundamental rights that have been law for 50 years — their rights to make choices about their own bodies and their own healthcare are at risk. That’s why people are protesting. They’re unhappy. They’re scared.”
Psaki and the rest of the left are playing a very dangerous game. They are making suggestions that could be disastrous if drawn out to their logical conclusions. Doxing people and encouraging passionate protests at their places of residence over a particularly controversial issue is a recipe for disaster. What would happen if some pro-abortion nutjob decided to take things too far? What if they caused physical harm – or even death – to one of our Supreme Court justices?
Many on the left don’t seem to be considering this possibility. For starters, a lot of these folks would not care. In fact, some might even think it is justified. But they are also not thinking about how this could actually harm their cause.
If someone uses violence to protest the potential overturn of Roe v. Wade, it would likely work against their agenda. The nation, most of which approves strong restrictions on abortions, would not view it as a justifiable act of violence. The electorate would not look favorably on those who, intentionally or unintentionally, egged it on. Moreover, the fact that Democrats and members of the activist media would likely try to defend or downplay it afterward won’t help either.
The Democrats’ political future is already in peril. They don’t need the populace to have yet another reason to vote against them in November’s congressional elections. An act of violence at a Supreme Court justice’s home wouldn’t exactly be a boon to the party. Perhaps if they are unwilling to consider the immorality of encouraging behavior that could lead to violence, they might be more amenable to looking at how it would affect them politically? It is possible – but we probably shouldn’t hold our breath on this one.
