Dozen Arrested For Feeding Homeless In Orlando

Photo Credit Mark
via: GovtSlaves.info
Source:ABCNews
June 19, 2016

Members of the organization Food Not Bombs were in good spirits as they passed out corn on the cob, rice, beans and other vegetarian dishes to the homeless and hungry in an Orlando park. This cheer was interrupted when police officers on bicycles arrived and arrested five of the volunteers.

This is not the first time this scene has played out for members of Food Not Bombs.

Since June 1, a dozen members of the group have been arrested for violating a new Orlando city ordinance that prohibits sharing food with large groups in downtown parks more than twice a year.

The mayor of Orlando even branded them “food terrorists.”

Food Not Bombs is an international political organization that protests war, poverty and the destruction of the environment, according to their website. The group meets to distribute food twice a week in downtown Orlando’s Lake Eola Park.

They won a district court case to prevent the enforcement of the new ordinance , but the decision was overturned in the appellate court.

A spokesperson for the city of Orlando said that the ordinance had its origins in complaints from residents and business owners about trash left after the food distribution, public urination and concerns about crime.

Breaking the Law By Feeding the Homeless

Lake Eola Park is the city’s “crown jewel and a signature part of the city right in the middle of Orlando,” according to the spokesperson. The city says the ordinance is a permit system that allows them to be aware of what is happening and where so that they can provide necessary services such as clean-up.

In regards to Food Not Bombs, the spokesperson says, “We would really like to find a solution and a compromise.”

Continue Reading At: GotvSlaves.info

Florida Couple Forced To Destroy Organic Front-Yard Veggie Garden, Sues City Over Constitutional Rights Violation

Home gardening

Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
June 20, 2016

It’s happening more and more: local government nannies forcing Americans to become reliant on “the system,” and less independent, so that they can control them.

The latest example of this took place in Miami Shores where, as reported by The Associated Press, local government officials forced a South Florida couple to dig up an organic vegetable garden that they had grown in their front yard for 17 years.

Why? Because city council members passed a new ordinance banishing all gardens to back yards. And now the couple is suing, asking a judge to rule that the front yard ban is a violation of their constitutional rights.

As AP noted:

Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts say they dug up the garden in front of their Miami Shores home in August 2013 when town officials threatened to fine them $50 a day if they didn’t. The threatened fine came a few months after the Miami Shores Village Council adopted a new zoning plan for the town of about 10,500 north of Miami.

The couple sued, and at a hearing [recently] their attorney said the ban violates the Florida Constitution in several ways, including improper limits on their private property rights and violation of the equal protection clause by singling out vegetables over other plants.

“We’re not saying you can do anything you want on your property,” attorney Ari Bargil told Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Monica Gordo. “We are simply saying you can grow vegetables on your property and that is protected by the Constitution.”

‘It’s just a garden’

The city argued otherwise. Attorney Richard Sarafan told the court that the new zoning rule was not an irrational decision, and that all homeowners were being treated the same – they had to grow grass, sod or “living ground cover” in their front yards, though the ordinance did not further define that last part. Anyone, he said, can grow a veggie garden in the back yard.

“There certainly is not fundamental right to grow vegetables in your front yard,” Sarafan said. “Aesthetics and uniformity are legitimate government purposes. Not every property can lawfully be used for every purpose.”

Apparently Sarafan and the city elders have never heard of the concepts of freedom and individual liberty. How it is possible to adjudge that the cosmetic appearance of a person’s property – as it pertains to the growing of a vegetable garden – is a legitimate government interest is understandable only to an authoritarian.

Carroll, who went to the hearing, said that the couple wanted to grow vegetables and produce organically, without the use of any pesticides. He also said that throughout the time they grew the garden – which contained about 75 different varieties of vegetables – they never once received any complaints from any neighbors.

“It’s important that we have the right to do something on our own property,” Carroll said. “We’re just trying to grow vegetables.”

It’s not like they’ve got an oil well or a burn pit in the front yard.

The couple is represented by attorneys from a Libertarian nonprofit organization, the Arlington, Virginia-based Institute for Justice, which specializes in privacy rights, school choice and free speech. And, while Gordo had not yet ruled on the matter, both sides said there would likely be an appeal of any decision.

Finally, a victory

This isn’t the first case of its kind. In November 2012 we reported that Orlando, another Florida city, and site of a recent terrorist attack, was attempting to force a resident to get rid of his front yard garden.

According to local reports, Jason Helvingston, who planted a 25 x 25 foot micro-irrigated garden of radishes, wax beans, kale and other veggies, planned to defy the city, saying he didn’t see any problem in trying to grow his own food.

The following January we reported that Jason and his wife, Jennifer, were facing fines of $500 a day if they didn’t dig up their garden. They, too, were represented by the Institute for Justice.

Eventually, Orlando relented [story here].

Read More AT: NaturalNews.com

Orlando Shooter: Deeper Hidden Ties To The FBI?

TruthLies
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
June 13, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

“…Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent who researches national security law at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, told the Times, ‘They’re [the FBI] manufacturing terrorism cases.’” (The New Yorker, June 10, 2016, “Do FBI Stings help fight against ISIS?” by Evan Osnos)

The website Cryptogon has pieced together some interesting facts, and a quite odd “coincidence.” I’m bolstering their work.

First of all, the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, changed his name in 2006. As NBC News notes: “Records also show that he had filed a petition for a name change in 2006 from Omar Mir Seddique to Omar Mir Seddique Mateen.”

Why is that important? Why is his original last name, Seddique, also spelled Siddiqui, significant? Because of a previous terrorism case in Florida, in which the FBI informant’s name was Siddiqui. And because that previous case may have been one of those FBI prop-jobs, where the informant was used to falsely accuse a suspect of a terrorist act. The New Yorker (cited above) has details:

“This is not the first time that the F.B.I. has attracted criticism from national-security experts and civil-liberties groups for generating terrorism cases through sting operations and confidential informants. In ‘The Imam’s Curse,’ published in September, I reported on a Florida family that was accused of providing ‘material support’ to terrorists. In that case, a father, Hafiz Khan, and two of his sons were arrested. The charges against the sons were eventually dropped, but Hafiz Khan was convicted and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. At Khan’s trial, his lawyer, Khurrum Wahid, questioned the reliability of the key [FBI] informant in the case, David Mahmood Siddiqui. Wahid accused Siddiqui, who’d had periods of unemployment, of lying to authorities because his work as a confidential informant was lucrative. For his role in the case, Siddiqui had received a hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars, plus expenses. But in a subsequent interview with the Associated Press, Siddiqui stood by his testimony and motives: ‘I did it for the love of my country, not for money.’”

The website Cryptogon, which pieced this whole story together, comments: “What are the odds that an FBI informant in a [previous] Florida terrorist case shares the same last name as the perpetrator of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history—also in Florida—[Omar Mateen] a lone wolf cop poser with multiple acknowledged contacts with the FBI, who was formerly listed on the terrorist watch list and associated with a suicide bomber… while holding a valid security guard license?”

Indeed.

And in case you think Siddiqui is a common last name, here is a statement from Mooseroots:

“Siddiqui is an uncommon surname in the United States. When the United States Census was taken in 2000, there were about 4,994 individuals with the last name “Siddiqui,” ranking it number 6,281 for all surnames. Historically, the name has been most prevalent in the Southwest, though the name is actually most common in Hawaii. Siddiqui is least common in the southeastern states.”

If for some reason the name Siddiqui throws you off, suppose the last name was, let me make something up, Graposco? A few years ago, an FBI informant in Florida, Graposco, appeared to have falsely accused a man of terrorist acts—and in 2016, another Graposco, who changed that last name to something else, killed 50 people in a Florida nightclub shooting—after having been investigated twice by the FBI? Might that coincidence grab your attention?

Again—the 2016 Orlando shooter had extensive contact with the FBI in 2013 and 2014. The FBI investigated him twice and dropped the investigations. The FBI used an informant in a previous Florida case, and that informant had the same last name as the Orlando shooter. It’s quite possible the previous informant was told to give a false statement which incriminated a man for terrorist acts.

You can say this is a coincidence. Maybe it is. But it seems more than odd. Are the two Siddiqui men connected?

Was the Orlando shooter involved in some kind of FBI plan to mount a terror op that was supposed to be stopped before it went ahead, but wasn’t? Was the Orlando shooter “helped” over the edge from having “radical ideas” to committing mass murder?


I could cite a number of precedents. Here is one I reported on in 2014:

There seems to be a rule: if a terror attack takes place and the FBI investigates it, things are never what they seem.

Federal attorney Andrew C McCarthy prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing case. A review of his book, Willful Blindness, states:

“For the first time, McCarthy intimately reveals the real story behind the FBI’s inability to stop the first World Trade Center bombing even though the bureau had an undercover informant in the operation—the jihadists’ supposed bombmaker.

“In the first sentence of his hard-hitting account, the author sums up the lawyerly—but staggeringly incomprehensive—reason why the FBI pulled its informant out of the terrorist group even as plans were coming to a head on a major attack:

“’Think of the liability!’

“The first rule for government attorneys in counterintelligence in the 1990s was, McCarthy tells us, ‘Avoid accountable failure.’ Thus, when the situation demanded action, the feds copped a CYA posture, the first refuge of the bureaucrat.”

That’s a titanic accusation, coming from a former federal prosecutor.

Yes, the FBI had an informant inside the group that was planning the 1993 WTC bombing that eventually, on February 26, killed 6 people and injured 1042.

His name is Emad Salem, a former Egyptian Army officer. Present whereabouts unknown. Yanking Salem out of the group planning the Bombing was a devastating criminal act on the part of the FBI.

But there is more to the story.

On October 28, 1993, Ralph Blumenthal wrote a piece about Emad Salem for the New York Times: “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast.” It began:

“Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer [Emad Salem] said after the blast.”

Continuing: “The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer [Emad] said.”

The FBI called the “plan” off, but left the planners to their own devices. No “harmless powder.” Instead, real explosives.

The Times article goes on: “The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City’s tallest towers.”

This is a shockingly strong opening for an article in the NY Times. It focuses on the testimony of the informant; it seems to take his side.

Several years after reporter Blumenthal wrote the above piece, I spoke with him and expressed my amazement at the revelations about the FBI—and wondered whether the Times had continued to investigate the scandal.

Blumenthal wasn’t pleased, to say the least. He said I misunderstood the article.

I mentioned the fact that Emad Salem wasn’t called as a prosecution witness in the 1993 WTC Bombing trial.

Of course, why would the Dept. of Justice bring Salem to the stand? Would they want him to blame the FBI for abetting the Bombing?

Again, Blumenthal told me I “didn’t understand.” He became angry and that was the end of the conversation.

I remember thinking: letting the bomb plot go forward…what else do you need for a criminal prosecution of the FBI?

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

__________________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Analyzing Human Actions – Orlando Shooting

“A gun in the hands of a bad man is a very dangerous thing.  A gun in the hands of a good person is no danger to anyone except the bad guys.”
-Charlie Heston

DrugsIllegal.jpg
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
June 12, 2016

The moral fiber of the country will be tested with this latest shooting.

Allegedly, 50 people or so died from this rather unfortunate event.  My condolences definitely go out to those who lost lives, their families & loved ones.

However, let’s put this shooting into context.

The Second Amendment is the Amendment that protects all others, especially vs. tyranny.  Without it, all we would have is the illusion of freedom.  It’s bad enough that people need licenses in most places that allow [allow? – thought we were free?] concealed carry.   Now, the comptrollers, and especially Hillary Clinton will begin wanting to push gun control as she has in the past, and as she’s been expected to do, that’s what Clinton’s do, after all.

So we’ve established what Hillary Clinton will do, which is ask that everyone hand over their firearms.

Ruminate about it.  A criminal carries out a shooting.  But, in the establishment’s warped mind, law-abiding citizens are the ones that should pay the price…

Does that even make sense?  Why should people that did not commit any crimes and are law abiding citizens be punished for what one alleged person did?  That’s preposterous.

To get to the core of the matter, let’s compare some numbers.

As of 2013, according to FactCheck.org, Homicide deaths made up 11,208 of firearm deaths.  That’s nigh 31 people dying daily due to firearm-related homicide carried out by criminals.

Please keep in mind, there are tens of MILLIONS OF FIREARMS in the hands of responsible gun owners.  If all gun owners were problematic, everyday would be hell on Earth in the United States.  Such is not the case however, and hasn’t been countless decades.

In any case, in regards to mindless death, let’s harpoon onto something else that’s been plaguing the populace for decades.

It was reported recently by the British Medical Journal that PREVENTABLE MEDICAL ERRORS ARE THE THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE UNITED STATES.

That, conservatively, adds up to 400,000 deaths a year, EVERY YEAR
.  Or 1096 people dying every day, like clock-work.

Comparing the daily death tolls:

31 people being killed by criminals daily – NOT law abiding citizens.

1096 people being killed by preventable medical errors by the medical establishment.

Yearly:

11,208 deaths from homicides involving firearms.

400,000 deaths from preventable medical errors [conservative estimate].

*** The 400,000 deaths does not include the fact that the medical system injures 1.5 Million more annually, as of 2006***

Of course, we won’t hear the above verifiable facts from the media.  That’s not convenient to the establishment.

But they will surely use a very unfortunate shooting for their gain.  After all, establishment crony Rahm Emanuel said it best, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

Simply stated, they will use that unfortunate event to push every single tyrannical agenda they can, and take away more rights away from the populace.

Knowing what we know, which one is a bigger problem?  The 11,208 yearly deaths via homicide shootings by criminals, or 400,000 yearly deaths from preventable medical errors [conservative estimate] that do not include the 1.5 Million more annually?  The numbers aren’t even close.

If people are getting up in arms about the shooting, why aren’t they up in arms about the hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths by medical doctors?

Simple.  Their reality is carved out by the mainstream media, and they gobble it up without a second thought.  Since most people think the world is what the box tells them, they realize NOT what the box does NOT mention, and they never question it.

Why would they?

Cracking the reality egg would make people come to terms with many uncomfortable circumstances.

An incisive individual would have to come to terms that reality isn’t what they were taught all along.

Thus, as individuals we have a choice, we either see reality for what it is, or we allow others to duplicitously construct a shadow of reality for us.

One reality makes us a slave to the system and all its agendas.

The other allows our freedom.

Which reality do you live in?