Hulk smash state!

During a 3/14 appearance on CNN's Berman and Bolduin, actor Mark Ruffalo held forth in great, noxious spectacle.

Of the violently rioting George Soros/MoveOn.org-sponsored disrupters hungering for news camera notice at Donald Trump's Chicago rally, the Bernie-pledged actor gave his foul foolishness free rein: "The protesters should be able to protest anywhere they want!"

HR347 enjoyed nearly universal bipartisan support, and was in 2011 signed into law by President Obama. Subject to arrest under it are persons disrupting events within buildings protected by the Secret Service. 

And Secret Service safeguarding is enjoyed by presidential candidates, including Trump. Including at that Chicago rally.

Again, outside, on public properties -- open to protesters, as should be. But inside areas actively protected by the Secret Service -- not open to thuggish disrupters.

Add to that the not inconsequential point that these rallies are private events, often held in areas paid for by the campaign. They aren't public squares.

Despite those tremendous legal and circumstantial distinctions, Ruffalo ranted to the contrary on national television. (Can't let mere reality obstruct Bernie's revolution.)

Now, I am hardly an opponent of political protest. My shoe sole-eroding, sign-hefting resume includes numerous actions on behalf of Ralph Nader, the Green Party, and the original Occupy Wall Street (before it devolved from principled expression into socially trendy, anarchic mishegas with casual toilet habits.) 

The largest mass protest in which I took part was a 2003, half-million strong procession through Washington, DC. We urged against the George W. Bush administration's Iraq invasion. (Trump and Sanders opposed that invasion. Hillary Clinton helped enable it.)

So, I am a firm believer in marching for principle, that mass actions effected in the cause of ideas can educate and inspire greater justice. Strong strides toward fulfillment of the American ideals of equality and fairness were made by grassroots protest leaders.

But Ruffalo is apparently endorsing something quite different: an illicit counterfeit of legitimate American political protest, an ugly sham that would claim philosophical relation to past, noble civil rights and anti-war actions while jeeringly stomping on laws, private property, and opposing views.

He is joined in that disgraceful ambition by Bernie Sanders, George Soros, Black Lives Matter, MoveOn.org, self-designated "anti-imperialist" umbrella group International A.N.S.W.E.R., and a host of smaller-pond anti-American instigators.

The faith article lovingly embraced by these anti-freedom forces is that, as they are themselves convinced of the ethical and moral superiority of their ideas, no contrary ones have legitimate claims to visibilty. 

Of course, one fine test for any idea's worth is contrast with opposing ones. Where there is no competition, any notion can seem sound.

Hollywood Bernie-backer Mark Ruffalo endorsing ideologically churned lawlessness on CNN? 

Bernie's revolution is televised.


(I will admit to a non-political Ruffalo cavil: I feel Edward Norton was vastly superior in the role of Bruce Banner/the Hulk. Norton brought a genuinely affecting, poetically-tenored quality to his dramatic characterization. As Banner, he offered interesting visual contrast to the brobdingnagian Hulk. Ruffalo, though he perhaps makes his best efforts, is merely a lantern jaw of prosaic theatrical capacity. Those who would argue that Ruffalo's box-office receipts demonstrate otherwise confuse commercial viabilty with artistic worth, a not uncommon error.)