Friday, January 31, 2014


I have a confession to make. I don’t just like coffee….I have a deep, abiding passion for it.  If you see me without a mug in my hand in the morning, I’m probably near death’s door. The first thing I do in the morning is stagger into the kitchen for java. My well-trained children rarely attempt conversation before my first cup.  My name is Daisy, and I am a coffeeholic.
Coffee with cream and sugar… Iced coffee…Flavored lattes….Espresso… The list goes on and on.

It’s not just me – the nation is coffee-obsessed.  Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, and a host of other shops compete on every street corner, at the malls, and anyplace else they can plug in an espresso machine. There are entire aisles at the grocery store dedicated to nothing but coffee from the far corners of the earth and various flavored creamers to please the palate.
Like nearly everything else that is sold for profit, however, coffee has become tainted. 

Wednesday, January 29, 2014


The following is an article written by Tess Pennington published at Ready Nutrition. She describes 10 non-toxic recipes you can make at home for various cleaning needs including laundry detergent, fabric softener, dishwasher tablets, all-purpose cleaner, drain cleaner, oven cleaner, toilet bowl cleaner, window cleaner, floor cleaner, and furniture polish. A list of ingredients is included for your convenience. I already do the same for cleaning the toilet bowls. For cleaning windows and an all-purpose cleaner, I mix 1 part vinegar to 4 parts water and add a squirt of liquid dish soap and lemon juice if I have some on hand and shake. I have no use for the dishwasher tablets because I wash all dishes by hand. I don't use fabric softeners but I will try the oven cleaner since I've been looking for a non-toxic alternative. For furniture and hardwood floor polish, I buy Murphy Oil Soap from Home Depot. I don't think I could make something for less money.   

green clean

After taking steps to live a more conscious existence, I have found that shopping is overrated. The satisfaction that I find from making my own household products far outweighs buying the “brand of the month.”
My reason to make my own products stem mainly from the ever increasing prices as well as the harmful chemicals present in store bought brands. After using store bought chemicals for years, I noticed my eyes would burn and lungs would hurt after cleaning with them. I knew the chemical cleaners were doing more harm than good, and would much rather preserve my health and not pollute our water supply any further.
I have found many of these homemade cleaners and products use similar ingredients, therefore, purchasing them would be a lucrative investment.
1. Laundry Detergent
  • 1 bar (or 4.5 ounces) of shaved bar soap (a homemade laundry bar, Dr. Bronner’s, Ivory, ZOTE, or Fels-Naptha)
  • 1 cup of Borax
  • 1 cup of washing soda
  1. In a large container, thoroughly stir all ingredients together for 5 minutes and enjoy the results!
  2. Use 1 Tbsp per load (or 2-3 Tbsp for large or heavily soiled loads).

Friday, January 24, 2014



Contributed by Lily Dane of The Daily Sheeple.
The success of Obamacare largely rests on the shoulders of the estimated 2.7 million “young invincibles” whose premiums are needed to subsidize healthcare costs for others. People in the 18 – 35 age group are needed to create a balanced risk pool.
Now a study shows that coverage through the ACA is just not a good deal for those young adults.
The study, conducted by The American Action Forum, concluded that for 86% of that demographic, ACA coverage is just not worth it:
The ACA’s perverse economic incentives are well documented. The law makes health insurance more expensive for many young adults, while at the same time making the decision to go without health coverage exponentially less risky than it previously was. It is impossible to predict how many young adults will ultimately enroll in coverage, but it is clear that many young adult enrollees will be worse off financially if they decide to purchase health insurance.
Health “care” coverage premium costs increased for both males and females in that age bracket:
A 30 year old male can expect premiums for his least costly insurance option to increase on average 260 percent in 2014,while a 30 year old female will see an average increase of 193 percent.
The study sought to find out whether enrolling in Obamacare or remaining uninsured was the most “financially advantageous” for the young invincibles.
Here’s what was discovered:
After accounting for subsidies and cost-sharing, 6 out of 7 uninsured, young adult households will find it financially advantageous to forgo health coverage, and instead pay the mandate penalty and cover their own health care costs. As the penalty increases, that number will drop from 86 percent in 2014 to 71 percent in 2015 and 62 percent in 2016, before ticking back up to 66 percent in 2019. In two additional analyses, using alternate assumptions explained in further detail below, the exact percentages vary, but the overall finding is constant; the majority of uninsured young adults will benefit financially from opting out of coverage in 2014.
The study concluded:
Even after the mandate penalty is fully implemented, a majority of young adult households will find that it is financially advantageous for them to forgo health insurance, pay the mandate penalty, and personally cover their own health care expenses. Even under our third, and most conservative, scenario we still find that in 2019, 41 percent of young adult households will be financially incentivized to forgo health insurance.
Through its insurance market reforms and overly prescriptive benefit design, the ACA makes the decision to purchase health insurance more costly than it previously was for the vast majority of young adults, while at the same time significantly reducing the risks associated with the decision to go without coverage. Whether young adults make the decision to purchase health insurance will depend on many factors, but the perverse economics of the ACA discourages young adults from joining the health insurance system.
The study’s co-author Chris Holt told The Daily Caller:
“We’re talking about a population of people who chose to go without insurance when it was much more dangerous to be without insurance and when insurance actually cost less. So the incentives have changed so that these folks now have less risk in remaining uninsured while the cost of getting insurance is even higher.”
Looks like the Obama administration wasted all that money they spent on the endearing Pajama Boy ads and those oh-so-clever racy ads featuring young folks talking about free birth control and boozing it up. Signing up for the Obamacare Ponzi scheme just isn’t worth it to them.

Lily Dane is a staff writer for The Daily Sheeple. Her goal is to help people to “Wake the Flock Up!”

Wednesday, January 22, 2014


by Brandon Turbeville (Originally published by Activist Post)

With the latest round of hysteria regarding the prevalence of the annual flu season and the “need” for the flu vaccine in full swing, one unaccustomed to reading the details of government statistics and the arguments for or against vaccination might justifiably be terrorized into running to their local vaccine dispensary and rolling up their sleeves. Indeed, the average person encountering the reports of infection, hospitalization, and death will justifiably be stirred into a frenzied state of panic.
The vaccine makers, pharmaceutical companies, and their representatives also known as medical doctors, are, of course, waiting with open arms and needles locked and loaded. With statistics such as “hundreds of thousands” of infections and “tens of thousands of deaths” by the flu virus being repeated ad nauseam, it is understandable why many hapless individuals rush to take toxic vaccines unaware of the hazardous ingredients they contain.
However, what is scarcely examined is whether or not these numbers quoted by mainstream media outlets and the medical industry are, in fact, accurate. Indeed, in most cases, these numbers are simply repeated by various players with little or no adequate challenge ever mounted against them.
Yet, upon closer examination, the statistics being repeated by these outlets are revealed to be nothing more than propaganda. While the flu virus might not be something to ignore, the truth is that the apocalyptic predictions and bio-panic reports constantly shoveled out to the American population are much smaller both in terms of infection and mortality rates.
These vastly reduced amounts of infection are clearly evident when one evaluates the actual numbers of infection confirmed to be caused by the flu virus itself.
First, it is important to point out the difference between Influenza (Flu) and Influenza-like illness. Both the flu and flu-like illnesses reveal themselves by the manifestation of the same symptoms, i.e. fever, runny nose, headache, body aches, etc. Both are caused by viruses. However, the flu is caused, logically, by the influenza virus of which there are three different types (A,B, and C) while flu-like illness is caused by a variety of other viruses.
Unfortunately, the majority of individuals who manifest these symptoms and who make a trip to their medical doctor are diagnosed with the flu, with no further testing to confirm this diagnosis. Thus, while medical doctors and their patients might believe they are witnessing an influx of flu patients, the reality may be that none of these individuals actually have the flu, but, instead, they may be infected with a flu-like illness.
For instance, one need only take a look at the statistics compiled by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to understand that the flu is not the culprit of an annual genocide lurking behind every corner and on the hands of every sniffling person.
The following data lists the year, the number of tested cases of sickness, and the percentage of those tested that turned up positive for the flu, respectively.
1997-1998 99,072 13.05%[1]
1998-1999 102,105 14.21%[2]
1999-2000 106,768 15%
2000-2001 88,598 11%
2001-2002 100,815 15.5%
2002-2003 96,871 11%
2003-2004 130,577 18.9%
2004-2005 157,759 14.9%
2005-2006 179,772 12.1%
2006-2007 179,268 13.2%
2007-2008 225,329 18%
2008-2009 195,744 14%
2009-2010 157,449 21%
2010-2011 256,399 22%
2011-2012 234,456 12%
The average percentage rate of flu virus infection during the 15 years between 1997 and 2012 is 15.05%.*[3]
Clearly, as one can see from the data above, the hype surrounding the flu virus is hyperbolic to say the least. The worst flu season in 15 years yielded just a 22% infection rate, while many of the other years yielded significantly below that. 2002-2003, for instance, only had an 11% infection rate.

Thursday, January 16, 2014



by Melissa Melton

Big Agra giants Monsanto, Dow and Syngenta have flatly denied any negative reproductive effects of the best-selling herbicide glyphosate, stating:
Glyphosate does not cause adverse reproductive effects in adult animals or birth defects in offspring of these adults exposed to glyphosate, even at very high doses.
However, in a 2011 Earth Open Source report, eight researchers question whether or not the industry along with government agencies including the European Union are obscuring information on glyphosate’s links to birth defects:
The public, in contrast, has been kept in the dark by industry and regulators about the ability of glyphosate and Roundup to cause malformations. In addition, the work of independent scientists who have drawn attention to the herbicide’s teratogenic effects has been ignored, denigrated, or dismissed. These actions on the part of industry and regulators have endangered public health. They have also contributed to the growing division between independent and industry science, which in turn erodes public trust in the regulatory process. [emphasis added]
The report cites 2010 research which demonstrated that glyphosate could cause birth defects in frog and chicken embryos even at levels much lower than those commonly used in agriculture today.
While the EU currently has a maximum glyphosate residue limit in place of 20 mg/kg, some soybeans tested there have been found to contain nearly the limit at 17 mg/kg. The study, however, found that dilutions as low as 2.03 mg/kg caused malformations.
The European Union Commission completely dismissed these findings, citing the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, which in turn had used unpublished industry studies to back glyphosate safety claims.
Although this research was delivered to the commission, instead of considering it, the EU quietly delayed glyphosate’s official review (along with 38 other pesticides) until 2015, saving glyphosate from having to meet more stringent pesticide regulations that went into force in 2012.
The report reveals that even industry studies have concluded glyphosate is dangerous and causes malformations:
  • Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses.
  • Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also occur at lower and mid doses.
  • The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations.
  • The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations.
  • The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year its DG SANCO division published its final review report, laying out the basis for the current approval of glyphosate.
In fact, it would appear that the EU has repeatedly dismissed independent findings that glyphosate causes birth defects — as well as a host of other serious issues including cancer, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, and DNA damage, in addition to reproductive and developmental toxicity. Earth Open Source notes that most of these studies are also at low concentrations.
In addition, the report notes that glyphosate was only tested by itself as a standalone ingredient. Roundup contains adjuvants and other supposedly “inert” ingredients in a formulation that was not tested before the product was sold. Studies have shown the combination of glyphosate and these adjuvants is actually substantially more toxic than just glyphosate alone. The new EU regulation would have addressed this, but Monsanto is skirting around it with the EU’s delay of the pesticide’s review.
Earth Open Source researchers are concerned that the commission may not fully re-assess glyphosate’s safety in regard to current science until 2030 now. “The beneficiary will be the pesticide industry; the victim will be public health,” the report surmises.
In response to the delay, the Pesticides Action Network Europe and Greenpeace filed a lawsuit against the EU.
What about glyphosate regulations in the U.S.?
Ha! Are you kidding?
At least the EU is going through the motions to appear to protect the people from unlabeled GMOs and toxic chemicals. Our government continues to show it is straight up owned by corporations, and Big Agra is no exception. Have you seen the revolving door chart for Monsanto and the American government lately?
(Click image to enlarge)
There’s so many people on it, the creators at Occupy Monsanto had to use an eight-point font. Eventually it’ll be so large, it’ll only be able to fit on a billboard.
Just in the six years from 2001 to 2007, use of glyphosate in the U.S. doubled according to the EPA: jumping from 85-90 million pounds to 180-185 million pounds annually. It far outranks all other most commonly used pesticides out there, likely because of the proliferation of glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified crops in this country.
Despite scads of independent studies showing that glyphosate harms the environment and all the living things in it in a multitude of horrible and carnival freak show ways, the EPA recently approved a Monsanto petition to actually raise the allowable limits of glyphosate on crops — in some cases as much as 3,000%Hungry yet?
In fact, the so-called Environmental Protection Agency is so lax in regard to glyphosate, that one wonders if it will soon be approved as a new water additive like fluoride or maybe even used as a new sports drink flavor. The agency already allows 0.7 mg/L or 700 parts per billion in the drinking water as it is. Of course, as the chemical’s use becomes even more ubiquitous, who knows what they’ll decide the new “adequate margin of safety” is on a lifetime of consuming water and food tainted with glyphosate.
That’s right, because this stuff bioaccumulates and studies show the new Roundup Ultra is apparently even more ecotoxicological than glyphosate itself! (Yay for us.)
Hell, Syngenta’s herbicide atrazine has already turned up in 94% of nation’s water supply, and that stuff has been found in studies to turn male frogs into demasculinized hermaphrodites even at low doses, so…
(Read Earth Open Source’s full report “Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?” here.)

Monday, January 13, 2014


The following article is written by Dr. Bill Simpson who practices dentistry in rural Mississippi. Raised on a small farm, he has worked in road construction, roofing, a mobile-home factory, pharmacology research, and as a clinical instructor at a dental school. He and his wife, Judy, are raising two sons and two nephews. He has come to the sad conclusion that his Southern accent will prevent him from achieving his life goal of the lead role in a James Bond movie.

 It was the first for me.
After thirty years of practice as the only dentist in a small town in rural Mississippi, I fired an employee. I’ve had employees retire, employees move on to other jobs, and have had some employees who, by mutual agreement, decide that a dental office wasn’t a good fit for them, but I’ve never had to fire one. I didn’t want to terminate someone that I needed and valued but I really didn’t feel that I had another option.
I hated the experience.
First, a little background. Furniture manufacturing was once the linchpin of the economy in this area. The majority of those jobs are now in China. Then the recession hit. In 2011, the unemployment rate here was 13.5%. In the next county it was 20.1%. Unemployment has decreased slightly but most are still waiting on the recovery. Folks around here don’t talk about income equality; they talk about income, period.
My practice serves lower and middle income patients. I don’t have a high-end, high-fee practice like some dentists in more affluent areas. That is by choice. I grew up in a small town, I love the people in a small town, the sense of familiarity and community. I guess I’ll die in a small town but it is not an easy way of life.  Years ago, my cousin, a Harvard-educated architect, spent the summer here in order to design and build my dental office. As the building neared completion he turned to me and said, “People say that if you can make it in New York City, you can make it anywhere. They’re wrong.” He pointed to the ground. “If you can make it HERE, you can make it anywhere.” So true.
My point is this – I have to run my practice as a business. I have to watch my pennies, compare prices on supplies to find the best deals, run my practice as efficiently as possible. I constantly monitor and manage all aspects of my business so that I can provide a bright, clean, affordable, and safe professional environment for my patients and employees. In spite of all my efforts there are some things I can’t control.
The one expense that has skyrocketed over the last five years is the cost of my employees’ health insurance. Prior to 2009, health insurance premiums grew at a rate comparable to other expenses. Since the Senate passed the Affordable Care Act in 2009, the premiums have increased by almost 65%, this in spite of switching to a plan with a higher deductible. Last month I received notice that they will rise again on January 1st, an increase of 90% since 2009.
This kind of inflation wrecks the balance sheet in a small business. It was painful, but the math told me I would have to fire someone. If I could have kept just half of the premium increase, I could have found a way to keep my employee.
In addition to health insurance, I provide my employees with a retirement plan. Last year I fully funded the plan for my staff. I can’t say the same for myself. I’m 57 years old and I need to sock away as much for retirement as I can but last year I didn’t make enough to fully fund my own retirement plan.
I have raised my fees slightly to compensate but in an area hit hard by the economy, the more I raise fees the harder it is for struggling families to get the care they need.
My staff did not get a raise this year. They won’t next year, either. Their raise will be eaten up by the cost of health insurance. I can’t fund my retirement like I should. I had to fire someone that I didn’t want to lose.
Math is an exact and inflexible science. Numbers do not lie.
And the math is telling me that I can’t afford the Affordable Care Act.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Wednesday, January 8, 2014


If radioactive snow is falling in Missouri, is it safe to assume that much of the snow that is falling on the rest of the country is also radioactive?  What you are about to see is absolutely shocking.  A highly respected YouTube personality known as DutchSinse has released video of himself measuring radiation levels of the snow falling on St. Louis, Missouri.  What he discovered was that he got a reading that was about twice as high as he did on a sunny day when there is no precipitation.  So what in the world could be causing this?  Could Fukushima be to blame?  Is radioactive water originally from Fukushima being picked up in the Pacific and dumped all across the country?  If so, there would seem to be no way to stop this from happening.  Now that highly radioactive water from Fukushima is spreading throughout the entire Pacific Ocean, it is simply impossible to put the “genie back in the bottle” again.  So could this mean that we might have to deal with radioactive rain and snow storms in North America for many years to come?
The YouTube video posted by DutchSinse is getting so much attention that even the Daily Mail is reporting on it…
According to YouTube user, DutchSinse, who posted a video of him taking the Geiger readings in St Louis, the findings mean that ‘small particles of radioactive material are indeed coming down in the precipitation. Past tests show around 30CPM in the same spot on a nice day with no precipitation’.
You can watch the video for yourself below…

Of course this video is very similar to another YouTube video that I discussed just a few days ago.  In that video, a YouTube user measured levels of radiation on California beaches that were five times higher than normal.

Sunday, January 5, 2014


The storm from space courtesy NASA
by Chris Carrington
Originally published at The Daily Sheeple
The news is full of articles about the current winter storm that is gripping much of the country. Deep snow and unprecedented cold, with low-temperature records being broken almost daily. It’s set to last a few more days with another blast of cold blowing in before the weather warms slightly.
Could you cope with this level of cold for a month? Or for three months without respite?
Global cooling is setting in across the Northern Hemisphere. Winters are going to get colder as time moves on. 
Could you survive a storm or bitterly cold conditions that lasted for months at a time?
We all think we would cope, albeit with a little difficulty. As preppers we have stocked up, stored food and water and have a plentiful fuel supply. But how plentiful is plentiful enough ?
Winter storms often result in power outages that can last until the worst of the storm is over, and the supply can be fixed. There is a  possibility that if the bad weather lasted for a couple of months or even longer, that the supply would not be reconnected during that time.
Still think you have enough alternative fuel?
As an example, if you burned just one log an hour, for six months a year, and NOTHING for the rest of the year you will need 4,368 logs to get through the winter.
That’s a lot of wood, and that is the amount you need if you burn ONE log an hour to take the frigid chill off the room. Heating water for drinks, cooking or having a room warm enough for the old, infirm or babies will require much, much more.
I’ve used wood as an example, but regardless of which alternative heat source you chose you are going to need a great deal of it, probably much more than you anticipated.
You can store as much food and water as you like, but it won’t stop you freezing to death.
Dependent on the conditions it’s stored in wood can take up to three years to dry out completely, and we all know that the drier the wood a higher heat output is achieved, something that can make the difference between life and death when the temperature outside is 30 below.
Many of you will be used to dealing with open fires and even off grid living, but those new to prepping, or those who are just starting out with open fires and/or wood burners will have no idea of how much fuel it takes to heat a room or boil enough water for the whole family to have a hot drink.
If you are new to alternative fuel usage I urge you to note how much fuel you use and stockpile accordingly, then triple the amount you have worked out you will need. If you have no idea because you are lucky enough to keep your power supply this winter I strongly suggest you have a practice run. Turn off the heating and use your chosen alternative method for 24 hours.
Underestimating how much fuel it takes to keep warm will kill thousands in a prolonged winter power outage. Many will die of cold and some will succumb to carbon monoxide poisoning.
Every winter we read stories about the unprepared dying from carbon monoxide poisoning. So desperate for heat they have used BBQ’s indoors, or shut off all ventilation routes in an attempt to maximize the heat  from the fuel they have. Deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning will continue to rise as the winter wears on, and in the protracted, bitterly cold winters that many climate scientists are convinced are on the way the numbers will continue to increase.
Just as you check and increase your food supplies then you should check and increase your fuel supplies. Underestimation could quite literally be the death of you, and the rest of your family.