time*treat's Blog

The Gentleman from Texas doesn't think so.

H.R. 1139: Tax Free Tips Act of 2011
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1139

http://www.digtriad.com/news/watercooler/article/178031/176/Florida-Homeowner-Forecloses-On-Bank-Of-America

Or maybe it just wasn't televised. Totally missed to news that Gil Scott-Heron had died.

April 1, 1949 – May 27, 2011

(Well, the net just keeps on widening, doesn't it? Everywhere except the place where the attackers supposedly came from -- Saudi Arabia.)

NEW YORK: Two defectors from Iran's intelligence service have testified that Iranian officials knew in advance about the attacks of September 11, 2001, says a US court filing that seeks damages for Iran's ''direct support for, and sponsorship of, the most deadly act of terrorism in American history''.

One of the defectors also claimed that Iran was involved in designing the attacks, the filing said. The defectors' identities and testimony were not revealed in the filing but were being submitted to a judge under seal, said lawyers who brought the original suit against Iran on behalf of families of dozens of September 11 victims.

The suit says Iran and Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group with close ties to Tehran, helped al-Qaeda with planning the attacks and with the hijackers' training and travel. After the attacks, the suit says, Iran and Hezbollah helped al-Qaeda operatives and their families to escape, in some cases providing them with a safe haven in Iran.

The question of an Iranian connection to the attacks was raised by the national September 11 commission and has long been debated. Al-Qaeda, which adheres to a radical Sunni theology, routinely denounces the Shiite branch of Islam that holds power in Iran, and the terrorist network's branch in Iraq has often made Shiites targets of bombings. But intelligence officials have long believed there has been limited, wary co-operation between al-Qaeda and Iran against the US as a common enemy.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/iran-accused-of-september-11-role-20110520-1ewq7.html

Apparently, Iranian Intel wasn't the only ones who knew.
American intel was informed in August of 2001.

No word yet on whether or not Nurse Nayirah will testify as a witness.

Donald Trump was right; there's no way the GOP is going to nominate someone with consistent, leave-you-(and your money)-alone principles, and a track record of being ... correct.

http://www.khou.com/home/-Texas-politicians-knew-agency-hid-the-amount-of-radiation-in-drinking-water-122205439.html

Newly-released e-mails from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality show the agency’s top commissioners directed staff to continue lowering radiation test results, in defiance of federal EPA rules.

The e-mails and documents, released under order from the Texas Attorney General to KHOU-TV, also show the agency was attempting to help water systems get out of formally violating federal limits for radiation in drinking water. Without a formal violation, the water systems did not have to inform their residents of the increased health risk.

Now, what could have possibly gone wrong?

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/122200374.html

Guess it gives them something to do when (among other indignities) they're not stealing out of your luggage or planting fake dope in it. But, that's all okay because it makes you *f*e*e*l* safe.

It's always a "drill" when they get caught ... or right up until it goes "hot".

This presentation on the monetary system was given in 2007 by Sheikh Imran N. Hosein in Malaysia.... in Malaysia!!

This guy knows more about the American monetary system than many Americans do. Jump to 3:30.

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5) — A 45-year-old man now living in the Bay Area may be the first person ever cured of the deadly disease AIDS, the result of the discovery of an apparent HIV immunity gene.

Timothy Ray Brown tested positive for HIV back in 1995, but has now entered scientific journals as the first man in world history to have that HIV virus completely eliminated from his body in what doctors call a “functional cure.”

Brown was living in Berlin, Germany back in 2007, dealing with HIV and leukemia, when scientists there gave him a bone marrow stem cell transplant that had astounding results.

“I quit taking my HIV medication the day that I got the transplant and haven’t had to take any since,” said Brown, who has been dubbed “The Berlin Patient” by the medical community.

Brown’s amazing progress continues to be monitored by doctors at San Francisco General Hospital and at the University of California at San Francisco medical center.

“I’m cured of HIV. I had HIV but I don’t anymore,” he said, using words that many in the scientific community are cautiously clinging to.

Scientists said Brown received stem cells from a donor who was immune to HIV. In fact, about one percent of Caucasians are immune to HIV. Some researchers think the immunity gene goes back to the Great Plague: people who survived the plague passed their immunity down and their heirs have it today.

full article: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/05/16/apparent-immunity-gene-cures-bay-area-man-of-aids/#

In other news, there are weed-killers available that (supposedly) won't harm your vegetables. Think about that. Well the entire point of engineering your own bio-weapon is that ... well ... nevermind. Problem was 1% selective immunity was a lot lower than they had guestimated and selective immunity was a lot higher in some of the wrong ... um ... places. That's a whole 'nother article. Whoops. Now, they got TWO problems, instead of ONE.

Today's homework assignments: 
1) Boyd Graves
2) House Resolution 15090 (1969)
3) U.S. Patent #4647773

You all let me know when you've had enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.html

Search Allowed if Police Hear Evidence Being Destroyed
By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — The police do not need a warrant to enter a home if they smell burning marijuana (or any reason at all, in some states. ~t*t), knock loudly, announce themselves and hear what they think is the sound of evidence being destroyed, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in an 8-to-1 decision.

The issue as framed by the majority was a narrow one. It assumed there was good reason to think evidence was being destroyed, and asked only whether the conduct of the police had impermissibly caused the destruction.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches by kicking down a door after the occupants of an apartment react to hearing that officers are there by seeming to destroy evidence.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the majority had handed the police an important new tool.

“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

The case, Kentucky v. King, No. 09-1272, arose from a mistake. After seeing a drug deal in a parking lot, police officers in Lexington, Ky., rushed into an apartment complex looking for a suspect who had sold cocaine to an informant.

But the smell of burning marijuana led them to the wrong apartment. After knocking and announcing themselves, they heard sounds from inside the apartment that they said made them fear that evidence was being destroyed. They kicked the door in and found marijuana and cocaine but not the original suspect, who was in a different apartment.

The Kentucky Supreme Court suppressed the evidence, saying that any risk of drugs being destroyed was the result of the decision by the police to knock and announce themselves rather than obtain a warrant.

The United States Supreme Court reversed that decision on Monday, saying the police had acted lawfully and that was all that mattered. The defendant, Hollis D. King, had choices other than destroying evidence, Justice Alito wrote.

He could have chosen not to respond to the knocking in any fashion, Justice Alito wrote. Or he could have come to the door and declined to let the officers enter without a warrant.

“Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame,” Justice Alito wrote.

Justice Alito took pains to say that the majority was not deciding whether an emergency justifying an exception to the warrant requirement — an “exigent circumstance,” in legal jargon — actually existed. He said that the Kentucky Supreme Court “expressed doubt on this issue” and that “any question about whether an exigency actually existed is better addressed” by the state court.

All the United States Supreme Court decided, Justice Alito wrote, was when evidence must be suppressed because the police had created the exigency. Lower courts had approached that question in some five different ways.

The standard announced Monday, Justice Alito wrote, had the virtue of simplicity.

“Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment,” he wrote, “warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed.”

But “there is a strong argument,” Justice Alito added, that evidence would have to be suppressed where the police did more than knock and announce themselves. In general, he wrote, “the exigent circumstances rule should not apply where the police, without a warrant or any legally sound basis for a warrantless entry, threaten that they will enter without permission unless admitted.”

Justice Ginsburg, dissenting, said the majority had taken a wrong turn.

“The urgency must exist, I would rule,” she wrote, “when the police come on the scene, not subsequent to their arrival, prompted by their own conduct.”

Justice Ginsburg then asked a rhetorical question based on the text of the Fourth Amendment.

“How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?” she asked.

http://smargus.com/indiana-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will/

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12^th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.

At this time we are still awaiting comments from several state offices.

However, the spokesperson for the INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL took umbrage at what he referred to as “large” assumptions regarding police power and at this time has no comment. He did however indicate that should the INDIANA Attorney General, Greg Zoeller feel it necessary to make a statement, that this reporter would be included in the distribution of the release.

Of course there's a catch...

http://rtr.org/videos/32430/19499/marine-murdered-by-swat-at-home

Allegedly having "large sums of cash" in your home is enough for the goon squad to pay a visit.
You're supposed to take a chance on who's under the ski-masks before you can defend your home?

As one writer put it,
Don’t you understand that if the bin Ladens of the world can be "brought to justice" by government hit-men who, like their Mafia counterparts, then dump the bodies into the ocean, so can you?

At least AZ doesn't have an ocean. Bin Laden, Demjanjuk, and eventually ... you.
Nah, you'll never be falsely accused or on the business end of one of their many "oops, wrong address" attacks.

One thing I have noticed is that a whole bunch of Bush-bashing* Hope-Change Cheerleaders have been eerily quiet these last two years. The "Few Bad Apples" segment has been M.I.A., too.

^{*not that he didn't deserve it}

~20 mins total. The presentation isn't fancy-studio polished, but the info is 10x
better and more honest than the crap they're broadcasting on tell-a-lie-vision.