BORAX

Stolen Borrowed from Modern Survival Blog by September 25, 2014, by Ken Jorgustin http://ModernSurvivalBlog.com/

Borax is an affordable, natural cleaning, odor eliminating, eco-friendly cleaner that has seemingly endless uses around the home.

Borax is a good prep item (cleaner), it can save you money by using it instead of special purpose cleaners which are much more expensive.

Here are some uses for Borax…

Today there are so many branded cleaners to choose from. Many of these cleaners are marketed towards specific cleanup purposes with their ‘special’ formulas.

Here’s the thing… More profits are made if they convince you that you ‘need’ these special cleaners – the one’s that always seem to be re-formulated, ‘improved’, or ‘advanced’.

The brands are constantly reinventing themselves and offering more choices and formulations, to train you into believing that you need many different types of cleaners, each with their own specific special purpose.

With Borax, you can make your own.

One popular cleaner that was (and still is) used is named BORAX. Borax is a multipurpose powdery cleaner whose ingredient comes from a naturally occurring mineral compound of the element, Boron. Much of the world’s Borax comes from the Rio Tinto Borax mining operation in Boron, California.

The most common brand is “20 Mule Team Borax”. It has primarily been known as a laundry booster for whiter, cleaner clothes, but it has many other household uses. It cleans, disinfects, deodorizes, softens water, and neutralizes many bugs. Lets look at a few borax recipes…

Borax Uses and Recipes

Floor Cleaner (1/3 cup Borax, 1 gallon warm water, squirt of dish washing detergent, splash of ammonia)

Window Cleaner for very dirty windows (1/3 cup Borax, 1 gallon warm water, wash with soft cloth, then rinse using fresh water with soft cloth before drying to minimize streaks)

Toilet Disinfectant and Cleaner (1/2 cup Borax added to basin water, let stand for awhile, then clean with toilet brush)

Car Wash Cleaner (1/8 cup mixed with about 1.5 gallons of water)

Eliminate Urine Odor on mattress – handy for accidents while toilet training a youngster (dampen area, sprinkle and rub in Borax, let dry and vacuum)

Ants (mix equal amounts of Borax and powdered sugar, place near ant problem area – keep away from pets)

Carpet Stains (mix Borax with water to make paste, rub into stain, let dry and vacuum)

Unclog drains (dump 1/2 cup Borax into drain, let stand for 15 minutes, then dump in hot or boiling water )

Prevent Weeds from growing in pavement cracks (sprinkle Borax in cracks)

Garbage Disposer cleaner and sanitizer (dump 1/4 cup Borax into disposer, splash in just a little water and let stand for an hour or so, rinse with hot water)

Tile and Grout Cleaner (sprinkle Borax with just enough water to paste, scrub with brush)

Laundry Booster (add 1/2 cup Borax to wash load for brighter, cleaner, deodorized clothes)

Carpet Powder Deodorizer (sprinkle Borax on carpet, let stand overnight and vacuum)

Flea Killer (sprinkle Borax on carpet, let stand overnight and vacuum)

If you have your own recipes or uses for Borax, leave a comment and let the rest of us know…

BORAX

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane: Blaming the rape victim

The First Street Journal has not always been particularly charitable in our assessment of Pennsylvania’s Attorney General, Kathleen Kane. Mrs Kane is, sort of amusingly, ineptly corrupt, squashing a sting and an investigation into bribery by some members of the Pennsylvania state legislature because, surprise! everyone caught has been a Democrat, an action so egregious that even the editors of The Philadelphia Inquirer complained.

And, to no one’s surprise, she’s at it again!

Kane responds to Rockview rape victim suit in filing, says woman partly responsible for brutal assault
By Lori Falce | lfalce@centredaily.com September 23, 2014 Updated 3 hours ago

Attorney General Kathleen Kane (D-PA)

In a response in federal court to a lawsuit brought by a Rockview state prison clerk brutally raped at work in July 2013, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane asserted that the woman may be partly responsible for her assault.In the documents, Kane defends the state Department of Corrections, the former Rockview superintendent and two employees, arguing, among other things, that there was contributory negligence on the part of the victim.

“Some or all of the damages plaintiff have alleged are in part, or substantially due, to the acts of third parties other than the answering defendants, and/or plaintiff acted in a manner which in whole or in part contributed to the events which led to the damages plaintiff has alleged in her complaint,” Kane wrote.

Omar Best, 37, of Philadelphia, was convicted of the crimes in May. On Sept. 12, he was sentenced in Centre County to life in prison under three-strikes provisions that allow maximum punishment for habitual offenders.

More at the link. But in case you were thinking that, well, the Attorney General has no choice but to defend the state and its interests in court, Mrs Kane, once described as the Democrats’ new “it girl,” decided on her own that she wouldn’t defend the Commonwealth’s ban on same-sex marriage. The Attorney General, an independently elected officeholder in Pennsylvania, has taken the position that she does not have to defend the state in cases with which she disagrees, and that means that she could have decided not to fight this lawsuit, or to have written her response in a manner which alleged contributory negligence due “to the acts of third parties . . . and/or (the) plaintiff.”

You can bet your last shilling that, had the state’s Attorney General been a Republican and filed the identical document, we’d be hearing all sorts of screams “#WarOnWomen” from the Democrats; there’d be no mumbled, “Well, it was just a poor choice of language,” or “It must’ve been written by a low-level male staffer.” Mrs Kane is the Commonwealth’s Attorney General, an office she asked the voters to give her, and she is responsible for everything that comes out of that office. Unfortunately, she is wholly incompetent.

The Pennsylvania gubernatorial race

Corbett hits Wolf hard in first of 3 debates
Thomas Fitzgerald and Amy Worden, Inquirer Staff Writers | Last updated: Tuesday, September 23, 2014, 1:08 AM | Posted: Monday, September 22, 2014, 9:55 PM

HERSHEY, Pa. – Behind in the polls, Gov. Corbett went on offense Monday night in the first televised debate of the Pennsylvania governor’s race, defending himself as a steady steward of taxpayers’ money while characterizing Democrat Tom Wolf as an untested entity with vague promises. . . .

Corbett argued that Wolf’s expensive ambitions would make a tax increase inevitable. “We just have to figure out what it is,” the governor said.

Wolf said he did not have “enough data” to specify at what income level a household would be subject to higher income taxes under his proposal. But he said news reports that it could be as low as $60,000 were wrong.

Really? If Mr Wolf doesn’t have enough information to specify at what level a household would see higher income taxes, how can he say that couldn’t be as low as $60,000? Mr Wolf has been running for governor for over a year now, and he still hasn’t figured it out?

Asked how much more the state should spend on schools, Wolf said he wasn’t sure.

“How much money is that going to take? I don’t know. But it’s not enough to say, we’re going to spend more or we’re going to spend less. What we need to do is say, we need to have a public education system that delivers.”

If Mr Wolf actually has a plan on how to “have a public education system that delivers,” then he ought to know how much money that is going to require. Not knowing how much money it’s going to take is a sure sign that he has no real plan beyond just throwing money at the public schools. How can Pennsylvanians who are actually concerned about the commonwealth’s government and their own tax rates support a candidate who promises to increase taxes, but can’t say by how much or on whom, and who promises to spend more on public education, but can’t tell the voters how much or for what?

Comment rescue: Jason Scott on the Delaware Liberal

Jason Scott, the primary host of the Delaware Liberal, was claiming that The US Middle Class hasn’t gotten a raise during Tom Carper’s tenure in Congress, not that Senator Carper could have done anything about it. In a comment, Mr Scott wrote:

After all these years that realization just hit me as I was writing my last comment. I’m a part of a crazy minority pining for FDR.

Well, actually, he’s got him: a President who, despite his grandiose promises, has overseen an economy which was poor when he entered office and has gotten almost no better through six years, despite his creation of a huge new medical care plan and a stimulus plan funded by massive deficits. President Roosevelt had Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo to create the conditions under which the American economy finally improved — it sure helped our manufacturing base when our industrialized competitors were all busy blowing up each others! — but I’m not certain that ISIS is quite up to filling those two gentlemen’s shoes.

Found on Facebook

One of my Facebook friends posted this article with the comment, “How come the Jews never do this?”

Muslims demand food banks provide pork-free free food section
September 22, 2014 by Joe Saunders

It’s not enough that the food is free.

It’s got to be pork-free, too?

Muslim activists in Minnesota – that’s the heartland (state) that’s sent at least two men to fight on the side of Islamic fascists in Iraq – are demanding their own section in the local food bank so illiterate immigrants can pick up free food that lives up to their expectations.

According to WCCO, the CBS affiliate in the Twin Cities, a group of Somali immigrants marched into Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin’s office last week to demand he do something about the pork and beans and other free foodstuffs that are contaminating the provender.

Because some people think free food is some kind of charity.

“It’s about human rights also, basic human rights to get the proper food and also healthy food,” said Hassan Mohamud, the immigrants’ imam.

Sure it is. It’s also about $150,000 or so, the amount of money WCCO reports would be needed to establish a free food bank that catered – literally – to the immigrants’ tastes. And that’s just to get started. How much it would cost to keep it going hasn’t been determined yet.

More at the link. But, to answer my friend’s question, why aren’t the Jews making similar demands for kosher food at the food banks, it’s because they aren’t at the food banks; they’re out working for a living! From the article again:

Another issue is self-reliance – and maybe a cultural flaw.

Jews and Muslims have pretty similar dietary restrictions, but Jewish temples generally don’t make the news by storming county offices to demand free kosher food for their congregations.

(There might be a clue here about how it is that Israel has flourished over the past 66 years, while oil-rich Muslim states around it fluctuate between cultural stagnation and outright savagery.)

Neither the Editor nor any of the other site authors on The First Street Journal is Jewish, but I will say it again: American Jews are the embodiment of the American dream. They have cultural values which teach their children to study hard in school, to get the best grades, so as to win the best collegiate admissions. In college, they are encouraged to work hard, to win the best post-graduate admissions or entry level jobs if they go out into the business world after earning their baccalaureate degrees. From there, they are encouraged to work hard, to win promotions and better salaries. These are all of the things we say that every American should be doing, working hard to make the most of their talents and opportunities, to get ahead for themselves and their families. And that’s why you don’t see American Jews worrying about what’s kosher at the food banks: they aren’t there in the first place.

Obviously, even among American Jews, there are individuals who don’t meet their cultural norms, who simply don’t work as hard and are not as successful, but they are a far smaller segment of their population than is true about most other cultural and ethnic groups in this country, though Asian-Americans are right up there with American Jews as far as having an economically efficient culture.

Your Editor grew up in a poor family: there were many times that the only food my mother could provide was Campbell’s chicken noodle soup and peanut butter and crackers. But my mother, who never went to school one day beyond high school, worked hard at her entry level job, and was able to get another one, which paid better, and then got raises and promotions because she was hard-working and diligent. She didn’t tell me how to get ahead in life; she provided a living example. And if my mother could do it, if I could do it, there is no reason at all that any healthy person can’t do it. The problem isn’t what food is available in the food banks; the problem is that people are in the food banks in the first place.

About that Keystone XL Pipeline . . .

From The Wall Street Journal:

Dangers Aside, Railways Reshape Crude Market
Shipping Crude by Rail Expands as New Pipelines Hit Headwinds and Train Companies Reap Revenue
By Russell Gold and Chester Dawson | Sept. 21, 2014 10:32 p.m. ET

Railroad tank cars are filled with oil at the Musket Corp. Windsor Crude Terminal in Windsor, Colo. Bloomberg

In May 2008, a locomotive with a grizzly bear painted on its side pulled into a railroad siding next to an abandoned grain elevator in the ghost town of Dore, N.D. The engine, property of the Yellowstone Valley Railroad, hitched up a couple of tank cars of crude from nearby oil wells and set off on a thousand-mile journey to Oklahoma.Dore would never be the same—and neither would the U.S. energy industry. Until then, most oil pumped in North America moved around the continent in pipelines. Suddenly, and just as the oil industry began a period of unprecedented growth, there was an alternative: “crude by rail.”

Today, 1.6 million barrels of oil a day are riding the rails, close to 20% of the total pumped in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration, chugging across plains and over bridges, rumbling through cities and towns on their way to refineries on the coasts and along the Gulf of Mexico. If all the railcars loaded with crude on one day were hitched to a single locomotive, the resulting train would be about 29 miles long.

Initially conceived of as a stopgap measure until pipelines could be constructed, and plagued by high-profile safety problems, crude by rail has nevertheless become a permanent part of the nation’s energy infrastructure, experts say. Even pipeline companies have jumped into the rail business, building terminals to load and unload crude.

Behind the new industry are powerful economics. While it costs a bit more to ship petroleum on trains than through pipelines, railroads have the flexibility to deliver it to wherever it will fetch the highest prices. And capital expenses are far lower. Major railroads’ revenue for hauling crude has jumped from $25.8 million in 2008 to $2.15 billion in 2013, according to federal data.

More at the link.

So, instead of somehow reducing hydrocarbon usage by delaying the Keystone Pipeline permits, and other permits, all that the environmentalist whackos have managed to do is to get crude oil, which we need now, and will need for the foreseeable future, shipped by other means.

But shipment by railroad increases the danger of spills, as trains can have accidents, and uses hydrocarbon fuels, diesel in this case, to move the crude oil.

And, in the meantime, we have the global warming climate change worriers protesting — and leaving tons of garbage behind; how green of them! — while the glitterati show us how concerned they are by marching, after taking a break from a (rented) £400 million, 482 foot yacht.

After a while, I started to wonder: are these people that stupid, or just enormous hypocrites? And then it dawned on me: those two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Is it just hypocrisy which allows the oh-so-concerned liberals to burn the fossil fuels they decry to get to a protest rally against fossil fuels, or are they so stupid that they don’t realize that other people will actually notice what they’ve done?

For What It’s Worth – 1967

Here is a Viet-Nam Protest Song from a group called Buffalo Springfield. Given today’s activities in the Muddled East, our hapless leaders, no direction in the country, the militarized police, I see no difference as to what the lyrics said in 1966-67 and today.

http://videoclip-online.com/video/0021ffba36f2c71c6e1c/Buffalo-Springfield-For-What-It8217s-Worth-1967-Amazing-VideoClip-Online

The only thing worse than this being a lie is if it’s the truth

From the Associated Press, via msn.com:

CIA stops spying on friendly nations in W. Europe

WASHINGTON (AP) — Stung by the backlash over a German caught selling secrets to the U.S. and the revelations of surveillance by the National Security Agency, the CIA has stopped spying on friendly governments in Western Europe, according to current and former U.S. officials.

The pause in decades of espionage was designed to give CIA officers time to examine whether they were being careful enough and to evaluate whether spying on allies is worth running the risk of discovery, said a U.S. official who has been briefed on the situation.

Under the stand-down order, case officers in Europe largely have been forbidden from undertaking “unilateral operations” such as meeting with sources they have recruited within allied governments. Such clandestine meetings are the bedrock of spying.

CIA officers are still allowed to meet with their counterparts in the host country’s intelligence service and conduct joint operations with host country services. Recently, unilateral operations targeting third country nationals — Russians in France, for example — were restarted. But meetings with independent sources in the host country remain on hold, as do new recruitments.

The CIA declined to comment.

OK, let’s be honest here: of course we were spying on our allies, and, thanks to a couple of traitors, Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, we got caught at it. But it’s also true that our allies are spying on us: we know it, and they know it, and we all know that we all know it. It’s simply that our allies haven’t gotten caught at it very ofter, with Jonathan Pollard being the most obvious exception. If we did not spy on each other, we’d be being sloppy.

So, saying that we aren’t going to spy on our allies anymore is either an obvious lie, which our allies won’t believe anyway, though they’ll mouth platitudes about it, or, even worse, it’s the truth, in which case we are going to be derelict in our duty to our own citizens and interests.

Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen and the policies of the President who appointed her

From msn.com:

Yellen says US families need to boost savings
By Martin Crutsinger of Associated Press

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen speaks during a news conference at the Federal Reserve in Washington.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Great Recession showed that a large number of American families are “extraordinarily vulnerable” to financial setbacks because they have few assets to fall back on, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said Thursday.Yellen said a Fed survey found that an unexpected expense of just $400 would force the majority of American families to borrow money, sell something or simply not pay.

“The financial crisis and the Great Recession demonstrated, in a dramatic and unmistakable manner, how extraordinarily vulnerable are the large share of American families with few assets to fall back on,” Yellen said in a Washington speech.

She said the bottom fifth of households by income — about 25 million households — had median net worth in 2013 of just $6,400, and many of these families had nothing saved or negative net worth, meaning their debts were greater than their assets.

Yellen said that the Fed’s 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances, an in-depth analysis of family wealth, found that the next one-fifth of households had a net worth of only $27,900 in 2013 and that both of the bottom two-fifths of households had seen declines in net worth since the Fed’s last survey in 2010. She said one reason for this decline was that incomes for these families had continued to decline.

More at the link.

One wonders: is it possible that, as Dr Yellen stated, that family income had declined due to the policies of the President who appointed her?

Our President speaks about income inequality, but the disparity has gotten far greater under his policies, not lesser:

Income inequality is worse under Obama
The president is getting dangerously close to leaving a legacy of soaring corporate profits and slumping wages.
By The Week Jan 24, 2014 2:33PM

Americans today are very worried about income inequality.

A Gallup poll this month found that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the distribution of income and wealth in the U.S. The disappointment goes across party lines — 54 percent of Republicans are dissatisfied, as well as 70 percent of Independents and 75 percent of Democrats.
And a growing number of people are worried that they can no longer get ahead simply by working hard, suggesting that inequality is becoming more entrenched.

As Paul Krugman argues, this gives Obama a pretty strong mandate to focus on reducing inequality.

But of course, income inequality has actually gotten much worse under Obama’s watch. In Obama’s 2013 inaugural address, he argued that “our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.” But during his presidency, this is precisely what has occurred.

U.S. median household income in June 2013 was 4.4 percent below where it was in June 2009, when the recovery began.

Meanwhile, the top one percent of Americans — those earning above $366,623 a year — have taken 81 percent of the fruits of the recovery. And the top 0.01 percent — earning about $8 million a year — took an astonishing 39 percent of the growth.

Indeed, Obama is getting dangerously close to leaving a legacy of soaring corporate profits and slumping wages; climbing stock prices and high unemployment; and a recovery for the ultra-rich, and not much else for everyone else.

More at the link.

Now, your Editor does not believe that it is the appropriate job of the government to try to change income distribution, but if the government has had any influence on income distribution, it is the business-unfriendly climate produced by the Obama Administration, which puts more and more burdensome economic regulations in place, regulations which inhibit the creation and growth of small businesses. If the median income has decreased, it is, in part, due to the increased number of people who are not earning any income, the increased number of people who do not have jobs. The official unemployment number does not reflect this very well, because it counts only those people who are either working or actively seeking employment as being part of the work force, and ignores the decreased percentage of the working aged population who have simply gotten discouraged and dropped out of the work force entirely.

However, going back to Dr Yellen’s advice that people need to save more, we would point out that that is very wise advice to individuals, but exactly what the government does not want to see happen, because saving more, in a time of stagnant incomes, means spending less, and our economy is driven by consumer spending. In theory, saving more simply means that the banks have more money to lend out to businesses and job creators, but there is no shortage of money to lend right now; there is a shortage of businesses and people who wish to borrow money to create jobs! And part of that is right back on the Democratic policies which discourage small business creation.

So, why does Alison Lundergan Grimes want to be in the Senate?

Just because I now own a house in Kentucky doesn’t mean that I can (legitimately) vote there, which is too bad!

Pathetic Democrat Campaign Ad: ‘I Am Not Barack Obama’
By Brian Anderson | September 15, 2014

With Obama’s approval rating in the toilet, vulnerable democrats and those running in red states are trying desperately to distance themselves from the President and his unpopular policies. Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, who is running against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, has taken this Obama shunning to new heights. In her new campaign ad she wants voters to know she is definitely not Obama.

As if the fact that she’s clearly a white woman wasn’t a dead give away, Grimes desperately wants Kentucky voters to know, “I Am Not Barack Obama.” How pathetic is it when the central theme for a Senate campaign is how unlike the President a candidate can be? It says a lot about Grimes, but even more to the utter terribleness of Obama.

During the ad, Grimes also proclaims, “I disagree with [the president] on guns, coal and the EPA.”

More at the link.

But, for me, the obvious question is: why does Mrs Grimes want to be in the United States Senate, if she disagrees with the President, and with the national Democratic Party, on so many things? Remember, the most important vote a Senator casts is the first vote of the session, the one which determines which party controls the Senate, which party sets the agenda, and which party has the majority on every committee. If Mrs Grimes were to be elected — and she’s currently trailing in the polls, but it’s still a long way until election day — she might disagree with the national Democrats’ positions on coal, on the right to keep and bear arms, and on environmental regulations, but she would be voting to give greater power to the people who do hold those positions.

Kentucky is a poor state, and the Democrats control both the state House of Representatives and the gubernatorial mansion; only the state Senate is controlled by the GOP. But I grew up in Kentucky, and I know the people there: they are conservative, rural Democrats, and the only Democrats who carry their votes in presidential elections are those who have run as conservative Southern Democrats: since 1956, Kentucky has been carried by the Democratic candidate in only 1964 (the landslide defeat of Barry Goldwater), 1976 (supposedly conservative Southern Democrat Jimmy Carter) and Bill Clinton’s two wins in 1992 and 1996.

Mrs Grimes, the current Kentucky Secretary of State, has promised to work for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and states that our country’s energy policies should be dependent upon coal, oil and natural gas, pretty good national Republican policies, but, as a Democrat, who would vote to retain the Democratic majority in the Senate, she would empower precisely those people who oppose a balance budget amendment, and who want to restrict the very energy sources she says she supports, and which contribute to Kentucky’s economy. She says that “We must target burdensome federal regulation of Kentucky’s energy sector, allowing our state to create new middle-class jobs across the state,” but, as a Democrat, she would be casting her votes in support of the President she claims she isn’t, who has authorized so many of the burdensome federal regulations she says she opposes.

I’ve seen, on Facebook, the postings of some of the people I know in Kentucky, who are liberals and strong supporters of President Obama, telling us how great Mrs Grimes is, and why Kentuckians should support her. But Mrs Grimes is busy telling them that no, she’s no great supporter of the President, and that no, she’s no national Democratic liberal. Now, either my (few) liberal Kentucky friends are just totally misguided in their support for Mrs Grimes, or they think, deep down, that their candidate is lying about her supposedly conservative views.