Guest Post: NDAA Protests End In Ironic Swarm Of Arrests

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market

NDAA Protests End In Ironic Swarm Of Arrests

The absurdity of America today never ceases to amaze.  In fact, it has become so elaborate that one might even suggest it has reached a kind of poetic symmetry.  When a protest group is willing to stick their necks out to expose the horror of the National Defense Authorization Act and its open door strategy for unconstitutional arrest and indefinite detainment of American citizens, I have to stand up and applaud.  This is the kind of protest we need to see all over the country.  Of course, any establishment system which is willing to dissolve the inherent liberties of its citizens certainly isn't going to stand by quietly while they blatantly point out the injustice.  The Grand Central Terminal action featured in the video below is a perfect example of the swift and immediate stifling of peaceful dissent by an increasingly totalitarian government:

Responses to the event vary.  Most people who have actually been exposed to the facts on the NDAA have expressed utter disgust and fury.  Rightly so.  Some, however, have taken the old elitist mantra, perpetuated effectively by the Neo-Cons in their heyday, that if you are not for the system, then you are a danger to society.  Not surprisingly, there are still plenty of useful idiots out there buzzing about like parasites in search of blood.

For those who would applaud these arrests, and suggest that they are well deserved, I would have to ask very pointedly; why?

Is it right to crush free speech as long as the message is offensive to you personally?  Do peaceful protestors really present a legitimate threat to our national stability?  Are they truly more dangerous than a corrupt government hellbent on assassinating the legal protections of our natural rights which have existed for centuries?  Would any supporter of the jackboot methodology like to explain to me in a coherent manner why they believe their skewed world view should be shielded from sincere questions?  Please, I can't wait to witness the kind of ridiculous mental gymnastics required to make such arguments palatable.  If this kind of ignorance wasn't so destructive, it might actually be entertaining.

The bottom line is, it doesn't matter if these activists were in Grand Central Terminal, on the streets, or busting through the doors of the Oval Office.  While New York authorities will attempt to argue property loopholes in free speech protections for Grand Central, or national security because of the vulnerability of the terminal, really, this has nothing to do with either.  This is about the removal of American voices from a room, and nothing more.   If the message is going to be suppressed by the mainstream media, and shrugged off by representatives, then protesters must go to where the people are, and make the truth heard by whatever means necessary.

Ultimately, activism is about disturbing people's normal mundane routines and shocking them out of their pop-culture stupor, even if for a moment.  If we aren't allowed to do that without constant police intervention, then the First Amendment is not being served, and then, my friends, we have a problem, a problem which should be forced down the throat of government with even more public action.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Dangertime's picture

My question is.....


If he will not support it, then why would he sign it?


Actions matter, words are just wind.

Silver Dreamer's picture

He did support it.  His threat to veto was only because he wanted to make sure it applied to US citizens.  The MSM played a fast one on folks as usual.  Most people fell for it too.

sun tzu's picture

Like obamacare, it will be selectively enforced. Those who vote for him have nothing to fear

francis_sawyer's picture

When he signed it, he & his wife were on the way to a fancy restaurant dinner... That's where the "serious reservations" part comes in to play...

Other "serious reservations" have to do with tee times at Burning Tree CC

DaveyJones's picture

I thought "serious reservations" was the new sign on the citizen camps

Ruffcut's picture

His position and policy are curing many peeps "serious reservations" of buying more guns and ammo.

xela2200's picture

Relax.  Obama had "serious reservations" about signing the NDAA.

Stupid politicians and even stupider people those who fall for this type of statement. He is saying I want to sign, but I don't want to be held accountable. This is not what a true leader does.

Judge Arrow's picture

Serious reservations for a 9 am tee time, indeed!

carguym14's picture

What he meant was he had serious reservations on the golf course- lets get this baby signed!!

edit-beat like a redheaded step child-I am too slow.....

Arkadaba's picture

I came across this great column by Glenn Greenwald (respected in progressive circles) outlining the hypocrisy of the liberal reaction to Ron Paul. I'm passing it along to my liberal friends who seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to Ron Paul:

GuidoFawkes's picture

Obama almost had me fooled. "Serious reservations" my big fat arse. The only reason he gave any push-back at all was because he felt the language didn't give him enough power.

Muddy1's picture


Every US citizen that reads this site has 2 senators, and 1 representative in congress.  Check their voting record on NDAA and them demand an explaination from them as to why they voted for it.

What happened to our right to peacefully assemble guaranteed in the First Ammendment?

Senators who voted for NDAA (scroll down a ways):

Congressional Representatives who voted for NDAA (HR1540):

In Colorado: Senators Bennet (D) and Udall (D), YES, 

Representatives Gardner (R), Lamborn (R), and Perlmutter (R) YES

DeGette (D), Polis (D), Tipton (R), Coffman (R) NO

chdwlch1's picture

Now that the NDAA has passed, I would love to see another bill introduced that states the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights hold greater authority over ALL subsequent bills passed by Congress. In fact, it should be included at the beginning of every new bill and added to every past bill. Any "representative" that voted against this idea would be exposed for what they really are and it would make it simple enough for the average, uninterested American to figure out the true intentions of their elected officials. It sure would help everyone sift through all the BS and double-talk spewing from the mouths of our bought-and-paid-for politicians.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



My Congressman, Kevin Brady, voted for the NDAA.  I am of the opinion that Brady is not a Republican, Kevin Brady is a Fascist.  I will gladly debate him in a public forum on this matter, using his voting record as Exhibit A.


Has your elected representative voted for fascism?

Which of Dr. Lawrence Britt's defining characteristics of a Fascist Regime fit America today?

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military -
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism -
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homo-sexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media -
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security -
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected -
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections -
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Randall Cabot's picture

That guy doesn't look like a Kevin Brady.

BigJim's picture

About the only one I disagree with is #5 - seems to me our governments are becoming less sexist, if anything.

Beard of Zeus's picture

#1 is wrong. There is nothing "Nationalist" about the current regime.

The American regime is globalist-totalitarian.

The US is an IMPERIAL power, NOT a "Nationalist" one.




hedgeless_horseman's picture



#1 Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

What is that red, white, and blue thing in the photo behind Brady and on Obama's lapel?

Silver Dreamer's picture

They may be fascists, but they are definitely the puppets of fascists.  That is without question.  Most of our representatives are these days!

Cathartes Aura's picture

bravo hedgeless_ !!

would that we could all work towards making your debate a reality.

SeanJKerrigan's picture

Good stuff, but just for the record, it's Laurence Britt and he's not a doctor, but an author of the dystopian novel June, 2004.  He wrote this real list in 2004.  Still a valid and fairly complete list though.  Increasingly applicable to the United States as well.

trav7777's picture

Ignoring RP continues:

Note that they do not even MENTION HIM in their results in the headlined 2nd paragraph.  Further down you can see that RP got 4 votes to Mormney's 5 in one of the quoted sections.

You actually have to dig to find out how RP did in any election.

The MSM has decided, and even explicitly stated, that he is "unelectable."  This train we're on will not be allowed to be derailed by anyone.  They will not permit an end to GWOT or WOD or the spy state or the Fed system.  The ONLY difference between the two parties is on WEDGE social issues like gay marriage or abortion.  You are expected to pick a "team" and root for it.  Players may move from the other team to your team from time to time and there is no material difference between, for example, two NFL rivals like BAL and PIT.  They are collections of professional players.  It is certainly possible for the ENTIRE ROSTER of one to go to the other and vice versa and the fans are expected to now cheer for players they previously spat at merely because they put on a different jersey.

The election system is a sham and using "the system" cannot any longer produce success.  We are legitimately looking at a "soft Egypt" where election outcomes unfavorable to the power structure will be rejected by force if necessary.

DCFusor's picture

trav, for once we are in complete and utter agreement.  I just wish this was fiction instead of the truth it is.

Cathartes Aura's picture

while there's much I agree with in your post trav, having repeatedly made the same points about there being virtually no difference between "parties" and the "sports team analogy" with election "season," I did see your subtle message

WEDGE social issues like gay marriage or abortion

here - by using "social" you've very carefully aligned those "issues" as of lesser importance (and gendered tagline) to you, and elevated your rights, which are not at all affected by these "social issues" above those who might be affected.

all the while conveniently ignoring the "wedge" of diminishing rights for all that these "social issues" incrementally address.

I find it of interest that you who constantly make posts against rights for "blacks" or "women" have chosen a side here, particularly given some of the arguments related to those "topics" relative to the candidate you are in favour of.

but yes, of course the MSM is a tool of the elite, and of course electioneering is rigged.  always has been.

msamour's picture

It's looking like bust from my point of view, unfortunately. Ultimately, I believe we need that. As many have said here, there will be no change until the bulk of the population skips 9 meals...

Popo's picture

An illegal arrest is an assault.


An appropriate response to assault is self defense.


Violence when used in self-defense is appropriate and legal.


Ergo,  violently resisting illegal arrest is appropriate and legal.


Furthermore, a police officer operating outside of the law is not afforded the protections of the law or his station.


Ergo, doing violence to a police officer when resisting illegal arrest is appropriate and legal.

Bwahaha WAGFDSMB's picture

Good luck with that in court.

thedrickster's picture

The kangaroo courts aside, he is correct.

MachoMan's picture

Not really.  There is a lot of case law out there materially mitigating the right to violently resist...  There is no fine line, ahead of time, for what will or will not be viewed as inappropriate after the fact.

The other issue, practically speaking, is that the potential arrestor will likely have numerous armed assistants...  which means that should you attempt violent defense, you will be dealt with accordingly (or in a much over-the-top fashion)...  and the assistants will testify against you, if you're lucky enough to make it out alive...  blue shield and all.

thedrickster's picture

What part of the "kangaroo courts" did you miss? Under the Common Law is he not correct?

As for the thin blue line, again this is as it is, not as it should be. I am making a moral judgement; the poster is correct/right.

writingsonthewall's picture

In all western democracies we are all GOVERNED BY CONSENT


As you do not give your consent (in writing) consent is ASSUMED at your birth.


However every western nation has within it's legal history the ultimate right to withdraw that consent (i.e. break the law)


In the UK it's in the Magna carta and has never been repealed - in the US there will be a similar law buried in the constitution / bill of rights.


You need to find it and exercise it.


It's protection against fascism - no majority needed as this would play into the hands of the fascists who rig elections.


Don't worry, your founding fathers were very clever people - they saw this type of event coming.

thedrickster's picture

You are replying to/lecutring the wrong poster.

Incidentally, I believe you are referring to the second amendment to the US constitution, an insurance policy against fascism if you will.

Silver Dreamer's picture

That's an excellent analogy.  I recommend everyone increase their "coverage" then.

trav7777's picture


Most case law establishes conclusively the RIGHT to resist unlawful arrest with deadly force.

Seriously, before speaking, do research.  Caselaw opposite of this premise is in the minority.

thedrickster's picture

Just for fun:


Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 535 (1900): “If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest.”

United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948) “One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.”

trav7777's picture

it is pretty well-established jurisprudence.  I think one state, who the fuck was it, Illinois, recently abrogated that right in their highest state court.  An absurd ruling.

You have the right to resist unlawful arrest, up to an including taking the officer's life.  There was another recent case in another midwest state where they reaffirmed this in unqualified fashion.

thedrickster's picture

It was Indiana that parted with 1000+ years of jurisprudence.

DaveyJones's picture

no, and if you take a moment to think you can see why most jurisdictions have placed a rule much like that outlined by your brethren. Self defense itself has a proportionality rule...and if you take a moment, you can see why.   

MachoMan's picture

Yes Trav, I don't dispute that it's possible to successfully utilize deadly force to defend against an unlawful arrest...  the problem is where legal theory (rubber) meets the real world (road).  For every one case out there where some materially violent act against the state was justified in self defense, there are hundreds (thousands?) where it was not...  In the context of a protest, you WILL NOT be justified in using deadly force or escalating violence...  anything short of kent state, and you're probably going to be shit out of luck...  and even that won't be a cakewalk.  (clearly the facts associated with public activities are going to be very much different than a setting inside your private residence, where you would likely be afforded more leeway).

Not only will you have to hurdle whether the police action was legal, you've got to hurdle whether your response was reasonable under the circumstances...  Practically speaking, this ensures that the risk averse simply get arrested and go about their business in all but the most dire of situations, e.g. police serve a night time warrant on the wrong house and get blasted after failing to knock and announce.  [when you're pulling the trigger, do you know the search is illegal?].  You're arguing the exception not the rule... 

The long dick of the state protrudes farther than the expressly stated length of its power...

DosZap's picture


Cheesy but some examples. Covers Home also.

***Disclaimer*** Check with the ACLU for exactly what the rights are in your state,they vary),ONE thing I have found them good for.

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

Check the case law in THEORY v REALITY.  ;)

1100-TACTICAL-12's picture

Do tese cops not realize that they are serving the darkside of the force? I doubt it most of'em I've ever met are lucky to get their shoes on the right foot.

Think for yourself's picture

Who cares about courts when we know the courts are just as bankrupt as the rest of the system? The only court that matter is that of the Soul. Do what you feel and know is right and you shall go in peace.
Self-defense is not violence, it is protecting your integrity. 

Beard of Zeus's picture

Who says he'll be in court?

Find out the locations and contact details of the globalist mercenaries and imperial troops (and their families), and pick them off one by one.

Be clean, careful, and swift.

Hit-and-run guerrilla tactics.

The imperial mercenaries must come to understand that there is a price to be paid for oppressing the American people. 

138's picture

Or when you're sprayed, tazed or pumped full of 40 cal...