[Login / Register]

Menu

Forums

error

This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.

Helen 801 1370 Burnaby	RE: SOUND OFF ON ANY TOPIC YOU WANT TO. 9/25/2013 11:53:35 AM
	Hi everyone This information below sounds really serious. I suppose this could be a hoax but I think it is true. Please check it out and if you find more information about it, please let me know. If you pass this on, you probably will save someone a lot of misery. Helen Could almost mistake this for Queen Anne’s Lace but don’t touch it.. !! Giant weed that burns and blinds spreads across Canada & USA A huge, toxic plant that can burn skin and cause permanent blindness has been found for the first time in eastern Ontario, prompting calls for a federal response to contain the spread of the poisonous plant as fear grows no province is immune. A forestry official confirmed two new findings of giant hogweed last week in Renfrew County , west of Ottawa . It has previously been spotted in Newfoundland , New Brunswick , Quebec , southwestern Ontario , Alberta and British Columbia . About 50 plants were spotted in Toronto's Don Valley two weeks ago. Contact with the weeds clear, watery sap can be very dangerous, Jeff Muzzi, Renfrew County's forestry manager and weed inspector. What it does to you is pretty ugly, said Mr. Muzzi. It causes blisters. Large blisters and permanent scarring. What’s left over looks like a scar from a chemical burn or fire. Even a tiny trace of sap applied to the eye can singe the cornea, causing temporary or permanent blindness, he added. The chemicals in the sap, furocoumarins, are carcinogenic and teratogenic, meaning they can cause cancer and birth defects. Most provinces have not authorized official weed inspectors to destroy the poisonous plant because it does not impinge on agriculture. Mr. Muzzi said he only began eradicating the plant because nobody else would. It’s not really my job, he said. I just thought, somebody better take the bull by the horns here, cause this stuff is really dangerous. Giant hogweed is already rampant in parts of Europe including England , where the rock group Genesis wrote a 1971 ode to the plant and its thick dark warning odour. Native to the Caucasus Region and Central Asia, it was brought to Europe and North America as a botanical curiosity in the 19th and 20th centuries and has spread rapidly. It typically grows on riverbanks, ditches and roadsides. The risk of infection was so high, Mr. Muzzi wore a Tyvek suit, protective goggles, rubber gloves, the whole nine yards, to remove it, he said. Which is really nice in 35-degree weather. The weeds sap, which is found all over the plant, bonds chemically with human skin when exposed to sunlight and, within 48 hours, leads to inflammation, red colouring and itching, weeping blisters and eventually black and purplish scars. It’s those flower heads you want to get rid of, Mr. Muzzi said. I went out, suited up, cut all the flowerheads off and bagged them. Then I nuked the plants with Round-Up. [Wouldn't it make more sense to make a bonfire of them??? If the hogweed doesn't get you, then the cancer caused by Round-Up will, is that it?? ...helen. I do admire that he is doing something about it. If we wait until the government does something, the plant will be growing on our front steps and it will cost a lot more than everyone doing a small part now.] Most susceptible to infection are gardeners, campers and children, who have been known to use the plants large, hollow stems as play telescopes or pea-shooters. If a person takes a weed-whacker to this stuff, they get the sap all over, Mr. Muzzi said. While the weed is on the federal governments official noxious weeds list, there is apparently no national or provincial strategy in place to stop its spread. Guy Baillargeon, a biologist with the Canadian Biodiversity Information Facility, called the weed an emerging problem, not yet a national one. Very few people are aware of it right now, he added. I am not aware that this species is on any provincial list yet. Mr. Baillargeon said a federal plan is in the works to deal with invasive species in general, but not hogweed in particular. I believe the plant has been here long enough that it would now be difficult to eradicate it, Mr. Baillargeon said. So I don’t expect that things will happen overnight. But we need to talk about it. A 2005 study of the plants spread in Canada said it was likely to continue for the next 25 to 100 years with worsening ecological, economic and health effects. National Post OTHER PICTURES OF GIANT HOGWEED � IT GROWS ALONG ROADSIDES, DITCHES ETC Giant Hogweed Leaves Have Jagged Edges As Shown Below Burns Caused By Giant Hogweed Below Just a reminder ... If you ever wish to be taken off of my email list, just let me know and it will be done. ....helen If this email was passed on to you and if you would like to be on my list, please let me know by writing to me at >> zhebee@yahoo.com
	Spend $4 and get back $10 every time you spend. Contact me (Helen) at this email »»» zhebee@yahoo.com
	+0

Mary Evelyn 23244 5352 Strawb...	RE: SOUND OFF ON ANY TOPIC YOU WANT TO. 9/29/2013 12:20:08 AM
	I love reading articles by the many great writers at the Canada Free Press. They are so much more honest and truthful than the majority of our MSM who won't report on important things we the people need to know. This article is a fine example of a reporter asking hard questions, questions I have thought so much about. It still puzzles me how intelligent people can still support this fake and this fraud of a president. Maybe it's apathy or maybe it is stupidity, I don't know but the writing is definitely on the wall, he and his administration are destroying America and unfortunately too many can not or will not see it until it is too late. Maybe the definition of the Rule of Law has changed and I missed it in the flurry of death by a thousand paper cut changes Where is the Rule of Law? By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Friday, September 6, 2013 “A lie can go half way around the world before truth can even put its pants on.” – Mark Twain Where are common sense, logic, critical thinking, belief in God, accountability, and the Rule of Law? Have they been replaced bythe Fabians’ Social Justice Doctrine, controlled chaos, endless corruption, good is bad, evil is good, mindless propaganda, and political correctness? The Rule of Law is the cornerstone of our Republic and, without the Rule of Law, there is tyranny. Sen. Rand Paul wondered about the Rule of Law on the floor of the Senate: “Either we’re a nation of laws or not.” He continued, “If we ignored our own laws, are we in any position to preach to the rest of the world about democracy and the Rule of Law?” (C-SPAN radio 7/31/13) The Rule of Law is necessary for freedom, justice, and equality to prevail, without it we are ruled by a government of men and women who make arbitrary decisions on a whim. When the Rule of Law is not respected, nobody is truly safe from government encroachment, intrusion, and abuse. When ICE agents were ordered by DACA directive to violate federal law in non-deportation policies because of lack of jurisdiction, the ICE agents’ lawyer said, “There has to be a forum in which the rule of law can be restored.” Kris W. Kobach, the lawyer for the ICE union continued, “This is without question a lawless amnesty being imposed upon America. All Americans, regardless of how they feel about the amnesty, should be concerned when a president can flagrantly ignore the law and violate the Constitution.” Has this administration followed the Rule of Law or have they deliberately ignored it? Is this the new norm? In the tsunami of executive orders and laws passed against the wishes of the majority of the American people, was it legal to give Congress and its staffers a 75% subsidy to insulate them from the expensive and harmful effects of Obamacare? Was it legal to give exemptions from the unaffordable Affordable Care Act to special groups and not enforce the law across the board in a timely manner, as it was passed? Was it legal to fire AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin for doing his job and exposing the corruption of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson? Was it legal to hound Republican administration appointees with often-absurd and/or invented accusations while ignoring crass corruption and illegal behavior of Democrat administration appointees? Was it legal to wipe out GM and Chrysler bondholders by ignoring the bondholders “prior claim” and violating bankruptcy laws involving the order of compensation, and giving unions preferred status? Was it legal to give the EPA so much power over Congress that it was able to force administratively the “cap” portion of “cap andtrade?” Was it lawful to declare the Senate in recess in order to make “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board? Has dissolving legislative bodies throughout history not been the hallmark of dictatorships? Was it lawful to decree the Dream Act passed when Congress refused to pass it? Was it legal to ignore the language of the Affordable Care Act and to run federal subsidies for state-run exchanges in states that refused to set up exchanges? Current litigation is underway in the Oklahoma. Was it legal to delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act mandate in spite of the clear terms of the statute? Was it legal to send millions in farm subsidies to dead farmers? Was it legal to sweep under the rug the Benghazi incident in which four Americans died needlessly? Yet we “feel” that it is our duty to get involved in someone else’s civil war because citizens there died and they happen to live under a dictatorship in the proximity of a lot of natural gas? What happened to the Solyndra Criminal Probe investigation? What happened to the many other criminal investigations relating to the “Green Energy” scams? You can hear crickets in the mainstream media. Did the artificially low interest rates purposefully enable out-of-control government spending with cheap money? Did the government pressure the bond rating agencies such as Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch to not downgrade the U.S. debt further? If they did so, was it legal? “The Truth” wants to know because the media is reporting very little. Maybe the definition of the Rule of Law has changed and I missed it in the flurry of death by a thousand paper cut changes. Maybe the new Rule of Law is now the plain clothes police everywhere, who no longer serve and protect since we don’t know who they are to ask for help in an emergency, they just ticket us to death for speeding, or the drones hovering over quiet residential neighborhoods, or the EPA police surprising a few law-abiding miners in Alaska, or the fully geared and assault ready police in the metro, the TSA molesting and irradiating us at airports, or the IRS making sure that we pay all of our taxes, including the Affordable Care Act tax?

	+0

Mary Evelyn 23244 5352 Strawb...	RE: SOUND OFF ON ANY TOPIC YOU WANT TO. 9/29/2013 12:38:45 AM
	Here's something I have thought a lot about. It just strikes me as very convenient that so many people, who were witnesses or somehow involved, are dead and who could have possibly answered some of the concerns that many of us have about all the latest shootings and massacres that have taken place. I've always thought it odd the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was supposedly killed by her son but I for one sincerely doubt we will ever know the truth about that and all the other shootings. There are just too much that has been hidden and not addressed. Media Buries Psychiatric Drug Connection… Posted on 18 September, 2013 Despite every indication that Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis was on SSRI drugs that have been linked to dozens of previous mass shootings, the mainstream media has once again avoided all discussion of the issue, preferring instead to blame the tragedy on a non-existent AR-15 that the gunman didn’t even use. As Mike Adams points out, “This is proof that Aaron Alexis was on psychiatric drugs, because that’s the only treatment currently being offered by the Veterans Administration for mental problems. Alexis’ family members also confirmed to the press that he was being “treated” for his mental health problems. Across the medical industry, “treatment” is the code word for psychiatric drugging.”We now know that Alexis “had been treated since August by the Veterans Administration for his mental problems.” Alexis also suffered from PTSD, blackouts and anger issues – all of which are treated with SSRI drugs. The most common form of treatment for PTSD is Paroxetine, which is listed as the number 3 top violence-causing drug by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP). The Navy Yard shooter was clearly on some form of psychiatric drug, but the media has shown no interest in discovering its identity. Despite it being reported that prescription drugs were found in the apartment of ‘Batman’ shooter James Holmes days after the Aurora massacre, it took nine months to find out exactly what those drugs were. Like Columbine killer Eric Harris, Holmes had been taking Zoloft, another SSRI drug linked with violent outbursts. The length of time it took to find out that Holmes was on Zoloft was partly because the media habitually shows zero interest in pursuing the link between anti-depressants and violence. As the website SSRI Stories profusely documents, there are literally hundreds of examples of mass shootings, murders and other violent episodes that have been committed by individuals on psychiatric drugs over the past three decades. The number of cases is staggering. Why is the corporate media so disinterested in pursuing this clear connection? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the pharmaceutical giants who produce drugs like Zoloft, Prozac and Paxil spend around $2.4 billion dollars a year on direct-to-consumer television advertising every year. By running negative stories about prescription drugs, networks risk losing tens of millions of dollars in ad revenue. While failing to ask questions about what SSRI drugs Aaron Alexis was taking prior to his rampage, the media instead blamed the shooting on assault rifles, even after it had been confirmed that no AR-15 was used by Alexis during the massacre.

	+0

Mary Evelyn 23244 5352 Strawb...	RE: SOUND OFF ON ANY TOPIC YOU WANT TO. 9/29/2013 2:10:25 PM
	Are you ready for ObamaCare home visits? "We're from the government, etcetera, etcetera . . ." This time the left can't say, "That's not in the bill!" It's in the bill. Health and Human Services is making grants to states and agencies who are willing to perform "evidence-based home visits" connected to ObamaCare. What is the purpose of these visits? The grant guidelines don't exactly say, but they do spell out in detail who might receive them: a) Eligible families who reside in communities in need of such services, as identified in the statewide needs assessment required under subsection (b)(1)(A). b) Low-income eligible families. c) Eligible families who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21. d) Eligible families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services. e) Eligible families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment. f) Eligible families that have users of tobacco products in the home. g) Eligible families that are or have children with low student achievement. h) Eligible families with children with developmental delays or disabilities. i) Eligible families who, or that include individuals who, are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces, including such families that have members of the Armed Forces who have had multiple deployments outside of the United States. By "eligible families" they presumably mean eligible for premium subsidies, and that covers a whole lot of people. As for the categories offered here, it seems just about everyone would fit into at least one of them, yes? Why do you need to get a visit from someone connected to ObamaCare because of your child's grades? Tobacco use? Not wise, but not against the law, so why do they need to come and see you about it? Interactions with child welfare services? A serious matter, but what exactly is the reason the federal government wants you to get a visit in connection with ObamaCare? You realize what this is, right? Once the government (or "society" as liberals are fond of saying these days) is responsible for subsidizing your health care, they've got an inherent interest in your lifestyle. They've got a financial stake. If you were just paying the bills yourself, it would affect no one but you. But now that we've got a system of third-party payers mandated and subsidized by the government, it's no longer just your business if you smoke or, I guess, if your kid gets poor grades. You will get a visit! Many of us warned of this sort of thing during the original debates. It's bad enough that an insurance company gets to question you about this stuff, but when someone backed by the force of law can knock on your door and demand to know why you smoke . . . now do you see why Ted Cruz talked all those hours? UPDATE: Some on the left are responding to this by a) claiming the visits are "voluntary"; and b) passing around a Snopes link that claims the story is false. The response to both A and B is the same. The Snopes piece emphasizes that the home visits are not "forced," and that is true, which technically makes it "voluntary" in the sense that you don't have to let them in. But that is misleading and beside the point. It is not "voluntary" in the sense that you call up the government and say, "Hey, I can't quit smoking, is there someone the government can send over?" They reach out to you and seek to arrange a visit. You don't have to agree, but once the government has flagged your home as an issue worthy of a home visit, what happens after you refuse the visit? These are the people who are subsidizing your insurance, and they've just told you they need to speak with you. Yeah, sure, that's "voluntary." It's a great example of how politicians use words to make things sound very different from what they really are.

	+0

Mary Evelyn 23244 5352 Strawb...	RE: SOUND OFF ON ANY TOPIC YOU WANT TO. 9/29/2013 11:47:44 PM
	Until the GOP secures control of the Senate, the House, and the White House, ObamaCare will remain the law of the land. A Very Angry America By Alan Caruba Sunday, September 29, 2013 I have been trying to remember when there was so much anger between the Democrats and Republicans. Or maybe I should say between liberals and conservatives? Or maybe I should say between the Tea Party and the Republican Party? Or maybe I should say those who find the President of the United States a contemptible liar who has diminished a once great superpower to an object of disrespect? There is plenty of anger to go around. The mood of the nation is one of anger from one end of the political spectrum to the other. What is one to make of a White House senior advisor, Dan Pfeiffer, who compared Republicans to arsonists, hostage-takers, and suicide bombers? The Majority Leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, told Republicans that “There’s no need for conversations” telling them to send over a continuing resolution without defunding ObamaCare. He has called Tea Party members of the House “anarchists.” Meanwhile, Republicans who do not want to see the government shut down are labeled “RINOs” (Republicans in Name Only). Instead of keeping the spotlight on the Democrats who foisted ObamaCare on us, we have been watching the Republican Party tear itself apart. As the Wall Street Journal columnist, Kimberly Strassel put it, “The tragic reality is that this vote isn’t shaping up to be all that perilous for the owners of the law. Nobody is even talking about Democrats. Nobody has put an iota of pressure on them for months. Every camera, every microphone has been trained on the GOP.” Her colleague, Daniel Henniger, described the fratricide arising from the dispute over defunding ObamaCare, saying, “This effort has not, for some time now, been about victory. It has become as RedState’s Erick Erickson put it with his usual eloquences, about shining a light on the ‘cockroaches’ in the GOP. Ted Cruz has spent months berating his own side as ‘appeasers’ who care only about ‘being invited to all the right cocktail parties in town.” The result has been a GOP in meltdown while the President happily joined in on Friday calling the Tea Party members in Congress—though not by name—“extremists.” All this has brought to mind Barry Goldwater’s declaration to the Republican Party when he accepted their nomination to run for President in 1964. “Let me remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” He lost by a landslide to the incumbent, President Lyndon B. Johnson. I understood what Goldwater meant, but extremism has never played well in American politics. Indeed, the Constitution is constructed so that any form of extremism can be thwarted by the checks and balances that slow any rush toward ill-considered legislation. That, however, did not work when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and imposed Obamacare on everyone. Those who believe that, even with a Republican majority after the 2014 midterm elections, President Obama would not veto a bill to repeal Obamacare are deluding themselves. Hating Obama is not enough. Understanding how our republic works is essential. The Tea Party came about initially as a protest against ObamaCare and then grew as a grassroots political movement that elected a number of those it supported to the House. It is this bloc of votes that Speaker John Boehner has struggled to work with. In the Senate, Tea Party members include Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Tom Coburn, Marco Rubio, and Pat Toomey. Obama has many faults, but he has proven himself a master manipulator. The current struggle over ObamaCare has played into his hands. That is unfortunate because what the GOP must do between now and the 2014 midterm elections is to focus on defeating those Democrats up for election who have supported Obama. The general anger against ObamaCare will gain in momentum, but if the GOP is seen as a bunch of crazies, it will affect the outcome. That’s the way it played out in 1964. At this writing the possibility of a government shutdown is fifty-fifty. It will be over quickly, but by then the GOP will have dealt itself a disservice. Until the GOP secures control of the Senate, the House, and the White House, ObamaCare will remain the law of the land. That is very bad news for all Americans and the future of America. Meanwhile, it is a good idea to remember that many bad laws have been reversed and repealed. © Alan Caruba, 2013 INFOLINKS_OFF google_ad_section_end

	+0

Like us on Facebook!