Pollster Says Kiev-Style Revolt ‘Coming To America’ Beware N.W.O

Pollster Says Kiev-Style Revolt ‘Coming To America’ Beware N.W.O Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com February 26, 2014

Former presidential advisor says “soft corruption” will lead to domestic disorder Pollster and former presidential advisor Pat Caddell warns that the rise of “soft oppression” and corruption in the United States will facilitate a violent Kiev-style uprising in the streets of America.

“What we’re seeing in the world… in Kiev… is American values at work. These people and the rest of the world are saying ‘we’re not putting up with this and we’ll put our lives on it,’” Caddell told Fox News.

“In this country a populace equally dissatisfied with its political class and its leadership.

We don’t have the same overt oppression, but we have a very soft oppression of complacency and corruption,” he added.

Caddell then made the bold claim that the jaw-dropping scenes of rioting and near civil war witnessed over the past few weeks on the streets of Kiev were coming to America.

“And the American people… what you’re seeing there… they need their own outlet for that…

it is a warning… because it’s coming,” said Caddell.

This isn’t the first time that Caddell has warned that the increasingly corrupt and onerous actions of the federal government are threatening to spark domestic disorder.

Following a 2011 Rasmussen poll which found that just 17 per cent of Americans believe that the U.S. government had the consent of the governed, Caddell asserted that Americans’ lack of confidence in their leadership is so fervent that they are now “pre-revolutionary.”

It would be naive to think that the innumerable riots, mass demonstrations and political uprisings across Europe and the middle east over the past three years have gone unnoticed by the federal government.

As we reported earlier this month, some fear that the U.S. Army’s construction of a $96 million dollar ‘fake town’ in Virginia is part of long standing preparations to drill for martial law in America.

In 2012, an academic study about the future use of the military as a peacekeeping force within the United States written by a retired Army Colonel depicted a shocking scenario in which the U.S. Army is used to restore order to a town that has been seized by Tea Party “insurrectionists”.

The study dovetailed with a leaked U.S. Army manual which revealed plans for the military to carry out “Civil Disturbance Operations” during which troops would be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest.

Fort Hood soldiers are also being taught by their superiors that Christians, Tea Party supporters and anti-abortion activists represent a radical terror threat, mirroring rhetoric backed by the Department of Homeland Security which frames “liberty lovers” as domestic extremists.

The Future Of America: "It's Coming" VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAJdwuRVnN4

IRS Prepared To Enforce Obamacare With Fines And Fees Infowars.com February 26, 2014

Harry Reid and the Democrats are determined to shove this historical monstrosity down your throat The IRS is fully prepared to go after the American people if they neglect their “shared responsibility” under Obamacare, the government enforced mandate designed to enrich large insurance corporations and degrade the quality of healthcare in America.

Provisions of the unconstitutional and authoritarian law will fleece millions who either cannot or will not buy products from state-sanctioned preferred monopolies.

For Americans unable to afford over-priced healthcare the state will parcel out “hardship exemptions” to avoid government penalties and fines meted out by IRS enforcers. Others will receive “tax exemptions” to nudge them in the direction of universal government enforced semi-healthcare.

If you’re really down and out, you might be eligible for Medicaid. This will, of course, require the middle class to surrender even more of its income at gunpoint to an insatiable redistributive state that will hand it out as its politically appointed apparatchiks deem appropriate.

According to the establishment media, only fanatical libertarians and such worry about this burden.

Most Americans, beaten down by decades of taxation and fed an unrelenting and brazen diet of state worship propaganda, are resigned to a new regimen of taxation and government mandates enforced at gunpoint by the IRS and other government agencies.

Because of this resignation and inability to recognize the fact we live in a totalitarian state dressed in the deceptive bunting of democracy, careerist Democrats like Harry Reid are able to stand up and deny reality.

“Despite all that good news, there’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue, but

they’re being told all over America,” said Reid from the floor of the Senate.

“We heard about the evils of Obamacare, about the lives it’s ruining in Republicans’ stump speeches and in ads paid for by oil magnates, the Koch brothers. But in those tales, turned out to be just that: tales, stories made up from whole cloth, lies distorted by the Republicans to grab headlines or make political advertisements,” said an incensed Reid.

Harry Reid Denies All Obamacare 'Horror Stories'; 'All Are Untrue' VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=mSJOLivL-NU Never mind that there is plenty of evidence Obamacare represents a historical failure that will not live up to its promises – from a disastrous website to the inability of the system to enroll customers.

Democrats are vested in participating in a lurid Orwellian illusion that a mega-sweetheart deal delivered to monopolistic insurance corporations is in fact a godsend to the American people.

Supreme Court Expands Police Authority In Home Searches David G. Savage L.A. Times February 26, 2014

The Supreme Court decision, based on a Los Angeles case, says officers may search a residence without a warrant as long as one occupant consents.

Police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents, even if another resident has previously objected, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a Los Angeles case.

The 6-3 ruling, triggered by a Los Angeles Police Department arrest in 2009, gives authorities more leeway to search homes without obtaining a warrant, even when there is no emergency.

The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrate's approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the "very core" of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case began when LAPD officers responded to reports of a street robbery near Venice Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue. They pursued a suspect to an apartment building, heard shouting inside a unit and knocked on the door. Roxanne Rojas opened the door, but her boyfriend, Walter Fernandez, told officers they could not enter without a warrant.

"You don't have any right to come in here. I know my rights," Fernandez shouted from inside the apartment, according to court records.

Fernandez was arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away. An hour later, police returned and searched his apartment, this time with Rojas' consent. They found a shotgun and gangrelated material.

In Tuesday's decision, the high court said Fernandez did not have the right to prevent the search of his apartment once he was gone and Rojas had consented.

In the past, the court has frowned upon most searches of residences except in the case of an emergency or if the police had a warrant from a judge.

But Alito said police were free to search when they get the consent of the only occupant on site.

"A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the 4th Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant," he said in Fernandez vs. California. "Even with modern technological advances, the warrant procedure imposes burdens on the officers who wish to search [and] the magistrate who must review the warrant application."

He also said Rojas, who appeared to have been beaten when police first arrived, should have her own right to consent to a search. "Denying someone in Rojas' position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence," Alito wrote for the court.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Ginsburg in dissent and faulted the court for retreating from the warrant rule.

"Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today's decision tells the police they may dodge it," Ginsburg said.

She noted that in 2006, the court had ruled in a Georgia case that a husband standing in the doorway could block police from searching his home, even if his estranged wife consented. In Tuesday's opinion, the majority said that rule applied only when the co-owner was "physically present" to object.

The voting lineup seemed to track the court's ideological divide and its gender split, with male and female justices taking opposite sides. The six men — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy and Alito — voted to uphold Rojas' consent to the search. The court's three women would have honored Fernandez's objection.

Fernandez was later convicted for his role in the street robbery and sentenced to 14 years in prison.

After the California Supreme Court upheld his conviction, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the search of his apartment.

California’s Smart Phone ‘Kill Switch’ Proposal Going Nationwide?

Steve Watson Infowars.com February 26, 2014

Illinois lawmaker introduces identical legislation A lawmaker in Illinois has introduced a bill that would mandate a ‘kill switch’ in all smart phones, potentially allowing the authorities there to shut them down at will.

The bill, introduced by State Sen. Toi Hutchinson, would require any phone bought or sold in the state to have the technology. Providers would also be mandated to insure smart phones against theft if the phone cannot be rendered completely inoperable.

The legislation is a replica of a bill recently introduced in California, aimed, according to lawmakers, at discouraging theft of phones and black market trading.

Critics have warned, however, that such a system could be abused by government and police in order to stifle dissent.

Even worse, if the system were approved up by one or two states, such as California, manufacturers will undoubtedly push for all states to adopt the technology, to spare themselves more work in producing custom devices for select states.

“California is the largest state in the US, and its laws have in the past become de facto national laws,” notes Joe Mullin, adding that wireless industry trade groups have opposed such measures in the past.

Carriers or phone makers will be granted permission to design their own individual form of ‘kill switch’ hardware or software. However, under the legislation, it must have the ability to prevent phone calls, Internet access and the ability to run apps. It must also not allow a reset of the device to factory settings.

Retailers will also be punished under the legislation, should they offer devices that do not comply.

Companies could face a fine of between $500 and $2,500 per device sold that doesn’t include the technology.

Senators, senior police and local politicians in San Francisco have set about lobbying Apple, Samsung, Google and Microsoft to fit the technology as standard to all devices.

Carriers such as AT&T have been the target of lawsuits from regulators alleging that they are not doing enough to prevent smart phone theft because the re-activations of such devices has proved profitable.

Critics of the new proposal maintain, however, that if a carrier can kill your phone remotely, so then can governments, hackers, and anybody else. A scenario where authorities could hijack the technology to shut down communications in a sensitive area in order to limit photo and streaming video coverage, such as at a demonstration or at the scene of unfolding police brutality, is easy to envisage.

Last month we reported on a Google patent for a system that would alert law enforcement authorities if

a number of photos were taken in one specific location by smartphone users, raising questions as to what level of remote access companies like Google should have to people’s personal devices.

Back in 2012, Apple also filed a patent allowing it to wirelessly disable cameras on iPhones by “forcing certain electronic devices to enter “sleep mode” when entering a sensitive area.”

Protests, political gatherings and other events at which authorities wish to prevent communication, documentation or video streaming could be turned into dead zones by creating a “geofence” around designated locations.

The patent was registered in anticipation of giving police or government the power to impose a “blackout” on all communications during certain times because cellphones can “annoy, frustrate, and even threaten people in sensitive venues.”

In a recent piece, Information Week succinctly summarised the potential dangers of allowing institutionalized control of communications devices: “Mandatory phone kill switches will hasten the arrival of the Surveillance of Everything, an unavoidable consequence of the so-called Internet of Things. Using technology to extend the reach of property rights make as much sense for other objects as it does for phones. But in so doing, individual property rights mingle with social mores and government prerogatives. Nothing is truly yours on someone else’s network….Consider a recent Google patent application, “System and Method for Controlling Mobile Device Operation,” which describes research to help in “correcting occasional human error,” such as when phones have not been silenced in a movie theater.

The thing about kill switches is that they’re a manifestation of digital rights management. In the hands of individuals, perhaps they’re a good idea. But they won’t remain in the hands of individuals. They will be used by companies, organizations, and governments, too. And even when people believe they have control of their kill switches, authorities and hackers can be expected to prove otherwise.”

INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND