Tag: left winged politics

Good and Bad Protests: It all comes down to free elections

In the realm of global politics, protests serve as a barometer of societal discontent, yet their legitimacy often hinges on the nature of the regime they challenge. Distinguishing between “good” and “bad” protesters requires an examination of context: are they rallying against an elected, representative government, or are they resisting tyrannical rule? This question came into sharp focus during the 2020 protests in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which erupted following the death of George Floyd in police custody on May 25, 2020. These demonstrations, part of the broader Black Lives Matter movement, quickly escalated into widespread unrest, including looting, arson, and clashes with law enforcement, resulting in an estimated $500 million in damages across the Twin Cities area.  In contrast, protests in countries like Venezuela, Hong Kong, and Iran have often been viewed through a different lens by the United States—supported as righteous uprisings against oppressive dictatorships. The key difference lies in the foundational principles of democracy, free will, and self-governance. Protests in the U.S. that aim to undermine policies enacted by a duly elected administration, such as those under President Donald Trump, border on sedition, while those abroad that seek to dismantle authoritarian structures align with American values of liberty and human rights. If we explore these distinctions, delving into historical and contemporary contexts, the role of money and culture in measuring societal value, the mechanics of representative republics versus mob rule, and the perils of communist influences attempting to exploit civil unrest for revolutionary ends.

To understand the Minneapolis protests, one must first grasp their origins and evolution. On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old African American man, was arrested by Minneapolis police officers on suspicion of using a counterfeit $20 bill. During the arrest, Officer Derek Chauvin knelt on Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes, leading to his death, which was ruled a homicide.  Video footage of the incident, captured by bystanders, went viral, igniting outrage over police brutality and systemic racism. Protests began the next day, initially peaceful, with thousands gathering at the site of Floyd’s death on East 38th Street and Chicago Avenue.  However, by May 27, the demonstrations turned violent, with looting at stores like Target and Cub Foods, and arson setting fire to buildings along Lake Street, including the Third Precinct police station, which protesters overran and burned.  Over the following days, the unrest spread to Saint Paul and other cities, leading to 604 arrests, 164 arsons, and two deaths during the initial phase from May 26 to June 7.  The protests were characterized by demands for police reform, but they also included calls to defund or abolish police departments, which critics argued amounted to an assault on established law and order.

These events occurred against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s policies, particularly on immigration and law enforcement, which protesters often decried as oppressive. Trump’s approach emphasized strict border control, including the construction of a border wall and enhanced deportation efforts, aimed at enforcing existing laws passed by Congress.  In Minnesota, a state with significant immigrant communities, some protests intertwined racial justice with immigration issues, portraying federal policies as tools of suppression. Yet, from the perspective of election legitimacy, these protests challenged the outcomes of the 2016 election, where Trump was elected on a platform promising stronger law enforcement and border security. The 2020 election, which saw Trump lose amid widespread mail-in voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic, further fueled debates over electoral integrity. Claims of irregularities, such as unverified mail ballots and changes to voting rules by state officials without legislative approval, led to lawsuits and audits, though courts largely upheld the results.  Protesters in Minneapolis, by seeking to force policy changes through disruption rather than the ballot box, exemplified what some view as seditious behavior—actions that undermine a government chosen by the people.

Sedition, as defined in U.S. law under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, involves conspiring to overthrow or oppose by force the authority of the government or to prevent the execution of its laws.  Historically, sedition laws have been controversial, dating back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which criminalized false statements against the government amid fears of French influence.  These acts were repealed, but similar provisions resurfaced in the Espionage Act of 1917 and its 1918 amendments, targeting anti-war speech during World War I.  In modern times, sedition charges are rare due to First Amendment protections, requiring speech to incite imminent lawless action per Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).  However, the Minneapolis unrest, with its destruction of public property and calls to dismantle police forces enforcing federal and state laws, raised questions about whether such actions crossed into seditious territory. Critics argue that while peaceful protest is protected, violence aimed at policy overthrow bypasses democratic processes, echoing the point that these actions seek to subvert a government “picked by the people.”

Contrast this with protests in Venezuela, where demonstrators have long challenged the authoritarian regime of Nicolás Maduro. Since 2013, Venezuelans have protested against economic collapse, hyperinflation, shortages, and political repression under Maduro’s socialist government, which succeeded Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution.  Major waves occurred in 2014, following the attempted rape of a student and subsequent arrests, leading to 43 deaths and thousands of arrests.  In 2017, protests intensified over Maduro’s attempts to consolidate power, including dissolving the opposition-led National Assembly. By 2019, opposition leader Juan Guaidó declared himself interim president, sparking massive demonstrations against Maduro’s fraudulent re-election in 2018, where voter turnout was artificially inflated and opposition candidates were barred.  The U.S. supported these protests, recognizing Guaidó and imposing sanctions on Maduro’s regime to pressure for democratic restoration.  Unlike Minneapolis, these protests targeted a regime that suppressed elections, jailed opponents, and relied on violence to maintain control, aligning with U.S. interests in promoting self-governance.

Similarly, Hong Kong’s 2019 pro-democracy protests arose from opposition to an extradition bill that would allow transfers to mainland China, threatening the city’s autonomy under the “one country, two systems” framework established in 1997.  Beginning in March 2019, millions marched peacefully, but clashes with police escalated, involving tear gas, rubber bullets, and arrests.  Protesters demanded withdrawal of the bill, an inquiry into police brutality, and universal suffrage for legislative and chief executive elections.  The U.S. condemned China’s crackdown, passing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in November 2019 to support protesters and sanction officials.  These actions were seen as resistance to communist encroachment by the Chinese Communist Party, which imposed a national security law in 2020, leading to mass arrests and the erosion of freedoms. 

In Iran, the 2022 protests following the death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody highlighted resistance to theocratic rule.  Amini, arrested for improper hijab, died on September 16, 2022, sparking nationwide demonstrations led by women removing veils and chanting “Woman, Life, Freedom.”  The regime responded with violence, killing at least 551 protesters, including 68 children, and arresting thousands.  The U.S. supported these protests by easing sanctions on technology to aid communication and condemning the repression.  Unlike U.S. protests, these aimed to dismantle a regime that denies free elections and enforces religious law through brutality.

The U.S. has historically backed such international protests as vehicles for promoting democracy and human rights.  In Venezuela, the Trump administration recognized Guaidó and imposed sanctions to isolate Maduro.  For Hong Kong, bipartisan legislation provided support against Chinese influence.  In Iran, statements and actions affirmed solidarity with protesters seeking freedom.  This aligns with America’s foundational values, where money measures initiative and ownership, fostering a culture of self-reliance and free will. In representative republics, citizens elect officials to enact policies, as in Trump’s immigration agenda, which prioritized enforcement to preserve national sovereignty.  Protests forcing change through violence confuse this with direct democracy, potentially leading to majority tyranny.

Election integrity is central to this distinction. The 2020 U.S. election faced scrutiny over mail-in ballots, with claims of fraud in swing states like Georgia and Pennsylvania.  Audits and lawsuits revealed serious issues.  In contrast, regimes like Maduro’s rig elections, justifying protests as the only recourse.  Elections are rigged in other countries, and its hard to admit that it has been happening in America.  Concern about “mail balls made up in a Walmart parking lot” echoes debates over ballot security, highlighting why preserving electoral processes is vital to prevent insurrection.

Underlying U.S. protests, is communist infiltration via progressive politics.  Historical fears, like McCarthyism in the 1950s, targeted alleged communist subversion.  Today, claims persist of cultural Marxism influencing movements like BLM, seen as platforms to usher in socialism by undermining capitalism and family structures.  In Minneapolis, some viewed protests as exploiting civil rights for communist ends, contrasting with genuine struggles abroad against actual communist dictators.

The difference boils down to intent and system: U.S. protests against elected policies risk sedition, while those abroad against tyranny merit support. Preserving free elections, resisting infiltration, and valuing self-governance ensure America’s republic endures, unlike faraway places lacking such freedoms.

Bibliography

1.  Wikipedia. “George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint_Paul

2.  The New York Times. “George Floyd Protests: A Timeline.” https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-protests-timeline.html

3.  CNN. “How George Floyd’s death reignited a movement.” https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/21/us/gallery/george-floyd-protests-2020-look-back

4.  Wikipedia. “Protests against Nicolás Maduro.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Nicol%C3%A1s_Maduro

5.  Amnesty International. “Human rights in Venezuela.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela

6.  Wikipedia. “2019–2020 Hong Kong protests.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Hong_Kong_protests

7.  Amnesty International. “Hong Kong’s protests explained.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/09/hong-kong-protests-explained

8.  Wikipedia. “Mahsa Amini protests.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests

9.  House of Commons Library. “Two-year anniversary of the Mahsa Amini protests in Iran.” https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/two-year-anniversary-of-the-mahsa-amini-protests-in-iran

10.  U.S. Code. “18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES.” https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=%2Fprelim%40title18%2Fpart1%2Fchapter115

11.  Cornell Law School. “Sedition.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sedition

12.  Wikipedia. “Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

13.  Wikipedia. “McCarthyism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

14.  The Heritage Foundation. “The Secret Communist Movement Inside America.” https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/the-secret-communist-movement-inside-america

Footnotes

1.  For more on the economic impact of the Minneapolis riots, see the Property Claim Services report estimating damages at over $2 billion nationwide.

2.  The U.N. Fact-Finding Mission on Iran documented extrajudicial executions during the 2022 protests.

3.  Historical sedition cases, like the Hollywood Ten, illustrate how fears of communism led to blacklisting in the 1950s.<|control12|>

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Rachel Zegler is Only Part of the Problem: The live action Snow White is a disaster on every level

As I said many times, Disney should have listened.  I wasn’t planning to discuss the new Snow White film, but there is just too much to discuss to ignore.  The Disney stock is never coming back, guys.  Bad decisions lead to failed companies, and Disney has made numerous poor decisions, which it can’t afford.  Sure, out of all the movies released last year, they were the only studio to get a few movies in the billion-dollar club.  But for them these days, as opposed to just a few years ago, their business approach was reckless, and they lost respect for their audience and instead put them in an abusive relationship.  And that is the only thing that can be determined about the horrible decision to cast Rachel Zegler into a live-action remake of the Disney classic, Snow White.  And it pains me to say all this, because I have liked Disney, as a company.  As a vacation destination.  I enjoyed Disney as a company and as a family.  I have wanted nothing more than to see Disney succeed, and my intentions in that direction can be traced back for decades. I have put it in writing.  However, as a large company and an easy target for left-wing politics, they have adopted an extreme political stance, becoming increasingly arrogant, and have inadvertently made people like Rachel Zegler possible.  Zegler is essentially the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of Hollywood actresses, and she has sunk herself with this one before the Snow White remake could even get out of the box with feminist diatribes and anti-Israel messaging in support of Palestinian terrorism.  She is one of the worst members of the radical left, and she didn’t do anything to keep it off people’s minds.  Instead, like an entitled brat, she thought for some reason that she could use her platform to advance her personal beliefs, which at her young age of 23 years old, nobody wants to hear.   What could she possibly know?

Disney spent well more than $300 million on a remake of Snow White that nobody wanted.  It’s a beloved classic that, if you were to remake it, audiences would likely want to see how a cartoon looks in live-action, rather than using live-action to reinterpret classic themes as modern social commentary.  And then to write a script and put it on the screen by committee, the way many studios do these days.  Someone should have pulled Disney aside as a company well before they cast Zegler in the film to play the pure, white Snow White.  There were numerous mistakes made well before the cameras started rolling.  However, Disney, like Zegler, started this process by targeting Rosanne Barr for her political beliefs, and most notably, the actress Gina Carano, who appeared in the Star Wars: The Mandalorian show.  Of course, Rachel Zegler thought she should discuss her radical left-wing politics while doing press for Snow White, as the company itself was promoting that kind of activism.  She’s just a dumb, inexperienced kid, copying the adults around her.  What did she know?  Or what could she be expected to know?  Disney attempted to part ways with Johnny Depp regarding the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, which was a terrible mistake.  Not that Johnny Depp is a good person.  He did call for the killing of President Trump by assassination.  But when it comes to the Hollywood community, most people can agree that he is the character people want to see in any Pirates of the Caribbean movie, and Disney tried to push him out because of the anti-white male stereotypes.  Now that they are in deep financial trouble, they are trying to repair that relationship.  But it’s too late.

The math is obvious: movies like Snow White need to be in the billion-dollar range for box office viability.  However, Snow White only grossed around $43 million in its opening weekend, projecting the film to be a massive loss.  But Rachel Zegler is only part of the problem.  She’s the face of it, and she opened her mouth way too much even a year before the film came out.  Disney re-shot the movie and attempted to address some seriously problematic plot points.  For lots of ridiculous reasons, Disney thinks it needs to reprogram what little girls want to see in a movie, anti-romance stories, and feminist power where the evil witches are made sympathetic, rather than hated.  And that is because these goofy feminists are now running these studios, and they bring their broken politics to these projects and hire a cast that represents their radicalism as if these career movies will hide what’s ruined inside them.  But that’s not what people want to see.  People go to the movies to see hope and a positive reflection of their concerns.  They want to leave a movie feeling good about things, not being lectured to about how they need to change their minds.  Little girls hope that someday they will have a prince who comes and sweeps them off their feet, and that they can produce a nice family and live happily ever after.  The original Snow White was all about love’s first kiss and defeating the evil queen.  Not coming to terms with evil which is ultimately where Disney has fallen short.

There are properties that Disney still owns that are generating a little money, such as the Marvel films, Star Wars, and Avatar, with a few projects on the horizon.  There will still be a few movies here and there that do somewhat well, relative to the rest of the Hollywood industry.  But that is only a shadow of its former self, and once that trust is broken with audiences, it will be lost forever.  There is no way to repair it now.  Disney has made itself an anti-Trump, anti-family entertainment company, and I can say that after just visiting there with my family recently.  I wanted to love the Disney experience.  I had just returned from a week-long trip to Japan and then spent a week with my whole family at Disney World, staying at the wonderful Fort Wilderness resort.  I wanted to like it.  But it was like being in love with a ghost.  The magic had gone from the park; it was obvious to me.  All my kids enjoyed themselves, but to be honest, their favorite part of the entire trip and all the fantastic things we did was the swimming pool at the resort.  I spent a small fortune to give my granddaughter a Disney princess experience, complete with a dress and opportunities at the famous castle, and she thoroughly enjoyed it.  She still talks about it all the time and I spent the money because I wanted her to have a taste of an elevated female experience, as a little girl, of what life might be for her, as opposed to the doubts that are so persistent in little girls worried that they might not be pretty enough, or smart enough to get what they want in life.  Disney’s answer to that is to attack the expectations so that nobody fails.  And that is not what people want, which is why the parks are not as full as they used to be, and why people have stopped seeing Disney movies, are canceling their Disney+ memberships, and are turning to other entertainment options.  Rachel Zegler is a creation of Disney, and their support of people like her is precisely why they are failing now.  And why their stock will never bounce back, which I hate to say.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707