Professional Protesters Play Stupid Games
The crazy lady in Minneapolis had gone to 2 other sites to harrass Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers that same day. I guess when they say '3rd Time Is a Charm' means something.
"You gotta know when to holdem', know when to foldem', know when to walk away, know when to run" ... ~ Kenny Rogers
She rolled the dice ... and LOST!!!
Professional Protesters Play Stupid Games
A recent incident in Minneapolis has reignited a crucial debate about the nature of protest, law and order, and personal responsibility. A woman, identified as a repeat activist, confronted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers—her third such confrontation in a single day. The encounter ended as these situations often do: with her arrest. The online commentary was swift and stark, borrowing from Kenny Rogers’ timeless wisdom in *The Gambler*: “You gotta know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, know when to run.” In this case, the protester, having rolled the dice one too many times, lost.
From a conservative perspective, this episode is not an isolated event but a symptom of a broader cultural malady. It exemplifies the rise of the “professional protester”—individuals who engage in performative civil disobedience not as a last resort of the oppressed, but as a primary vocation, often detached from the practical realities of governance and the rule of law. This phenomenon represents a dangerous shift from earnest civic engagement to theatrical antagonism, and its consequences undermine both social order and the very causes these protesters claim to champion.
The Theater of Grievance vs. The Reality of Law
The central issue here is one of deliberate escalation and disregard for lawful process. ICE officers, whether one agrees with their mission or not, are federal agents carrying out duties mandated by laws passed by Congress. They are not a roving militia but a component of the executive branch’s enforcement apparatus. To seek out and deliberately harass these officers at multiple locations in a single day is not protest; it is a targeted campaign of obstruction and intimidation.
Conservatives believe in the fundamental necessity of a society governed by laws, not by mobs or individual passions. The right to peacefully assemble and petition the government is sacrosanct and enshrined in our First Amendment. This right, however, does not confer a license to block buildings, disrupt lawful operations, or harass public servants performing their sworn duties. There is a profound difference between holding a sign in a public square and actively seeking to impede the function of government. The former is dissent; the latter is often delinquency masquerading as civil rights activism.
The “professional protester” model thrives on blurring this line. Their currency is the viral video clip, the dramatic arrest photo—the “martyrdom” moment designed for social media amplification. The goal is less about persuading the public or changing policy through reasoned discourse and more about staging a spectacle of conflict. In doing so, they treat law enforcement not as fellow citizens in uniform but as props in a political theater piece. This dehumanization is corrosive. It ignores the reality that these officers have a job to do, families to support, and a right to safety while performing their duties.
The Cult of Stupid Games and Stupid Prizes
The adage “play stupid games, win stupid prizes” is a blunt but accurate piece of folk wisdom. It speaks to a core conservative belief in causality and personal accountability. Actions have consequences. If you choose to repeatedly confront and obstruct armed federal agents, the probable consequence is arrest and prosecution. This is not oppression; it is the predictable outcome of a deliberate choice.
A stable society depends on its citizens understanding and respecting this basic social contract. When certain groups are encouraged—by activist networks, partisan media, or a permissive cultural narrative—to believe they are exempt from these consequences because their cause is “just,” it fosters a dangerous entitlement. It creates a class of individuals who believe their moral self-certification places them above the law. This is the antithesis of the equality under the law that is the bedrock of the American system.
The Kenny Rogers lyric cited in the commentary is profoundly apt. It is about strategic judgment, a virtue often absent in the heat of performative activism. Knowing “when to run” isn’t cowardice; it is the prudence of living to fight another day within the bounds of the law and effective strategy. The relentless, confrontational approach disregards this wisdom. It mistakes constant escalation for commitment and views any de-escalation as surrender. This mindset leads to losing battles that never needed to be fought in such a manner, draining energy from more productive, long-term efforts like lobbying, public education campaigns, or judicial challenges.
The Undermining of Legitimate Dissent
Perhaps the most damaging effect of the “professional protester” industry is the cheapening of legitimate, grassroots dissent. When every policy disagreement is met with the same toolkit of staged confrontations and performative outrage, it creates protest fatigue among the general public. Serious citizens with genuine grievances are lumped in with serial harassers and agitators.
For conservatives who may themselves protest federal overreach, state mandates, or other issues, this is particularly frustrating. It allows opponents to dismiss all protest as the work of unhinged or unserious people. It moves the Overton Window away from substantive debate about the scope, scale, and methods of government agencies like ICE, and refocuses the conversation solely on the drama of the confrontation itself. The woman in Minneapolis is no longer a citizen with a viewpoint on immigration policy; she is “the crazy lady” who wouldn’t stop harassing officers. Her cause, whatever its merits, is instantly marginalized by her conduct.
The Path Forward: Principled and Prudent Opposition
Conservatism at its best is not merely about supporting law enforcement uncritically. It is about upholding the rule of law as the indispensable framework for a free society. This framework allows for—indeed, protects—vigorous political debate and change. The proper conservative response to an agency one believes is overstepping or acting unjustly is not to harass its rank-and-file officers but to use the powerful tools our system provides: vote for representatives who will change the law, support lawsuits that challenge unconstitutional actions, engage in public persuasion to shift the consensus, and peacefully picket in designated areas.
The individual in Minneapolis had every right to oppose ICE’s actions. She had no right to persistently obstruct its officers. Her choice to do so resulted in a “stupid prize” that was entirely avoidable. Her story serves as a cautionary tale about the dead end of performative activism. Real, lasting change is built through the hard, unglamorous work of democratic engagement—work that respects the very structures it seeks to reform. It is built by citizens who know not just when to hold ’em, but when to use the legitimate political tools at their disposal, and when to walk away from counterproductive theatrics that serve only to make them the main character in a story of their own defeat.
#Good #Minneapolis #ILLEGALS #Shooting #ICE #Protesters #ReneeNicoleGood