In 1950, the U.S. took 12 trillion gallons of water from the ground; by 1980 the figure more than doubled and is still increasing at an alarming rate. The Ogallala Aquifer is being depleted at a rate of 12 billion cubic meters (420 billion ft. or 9,729,000 acre feet) per year, amounting to a total depletion to date of a volume equal to the annual flow of 18 Colorado Rivers (4000 cubic feet per second).

Time Magazine reported,” The Ogallala aquifer is being sucked dry! Some estimates say it will dry up in as little as 25 years. Many farmers in the Texas High Plains, which rely particularly on the underground source, are now turning away from irrigated agriculture as they become aware of the hazards of over -pumping. The aquifer stretches from South Dakota through Nebraska, where two-thirds of its water lies, to Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas. For the past three decades, farmers have pumped water out of the Ogallala as if it were inexhaustible. The annual overdraft the amount of water not replenished is nearly equal to the flow of the Colorado River. A report by the engineering firm, Camp, Dresser and McKee, Estimate that by the year 2020 some 5.1 million acres of irrigated land will dry up.

Today, the American Southwest is the most heavily irrigated area in the world, transforming a desert into a veritable Garden of Eden. However, this heavy irrigation may destroy the land by salt seepage. The 1,400 mile long Colorado River is the lifeblood of 11 million people from Denver to San Diego. In fact, 1.5 million acres of prime farm land are irrigated by it today. This magnificent river is being slowly poisoned by salt loading from saline western soils runoff and salt concentration, caused by evaporation and increased use of the river in the seven states it serves. Levels of salt have reached more than 800 milligrams per liter and are expected to reach 1,200 m/l in the near future. The EPA’s maximum safe level for drinking water is 500 parts per million, over 500 ppm is considered unsuitable for drinking. (That translates into teaspoon of salts per gallon of water.) In addition to the depletion of ground water sources, there is less precipitation dropped on the land and more in the ocean, due to shifting air currents and globally changing weather patterns.

WHAT COULD BE WORSE?

As if a decreasing water supply were not bad enough we are now rapidly destroying what little water we have left with hazardous wastes. Toxic chemicals at thousands of hazardous waste sites across the country continue to seep into the nation’s underground, contaminating the land and groundwater, and poisoning the air. The U.S. General Accounting Office says that the Super Fund program will be required to clean up in excess of 10,000 sites, which appears to be at the present time an insurmountable task. Six billion tons of solid and hazardous waste are generated in the United States each year. 400 million pounds of toxins are discharged each year into our waterways by American Industry, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A recent study projects that, at the current pace, it will take between 30 and 35 years and $253 billion dollars to clean up most of the nation’s known and yet-to-be-discovered toxic waste sites. EPA projects that it will have to remediate at least 294,000 hazardous waste sites – and that number could go as high as 355,000.

THE PROTECTIVE APPROACH?

The E.P.A. in implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act, has failed to establish national primary drinking water regulations for organic chemicals. Since 1975, E.P.A. has issued only a very short list of maximum contaminant levels (MCls). The list includes a few pesticides and herbicides, a small number of inorganic chemicals, a standard for coliform bacteria, turbidity, radionuclides, and since 1979, trihalomethanes. A total of 130 priority pollutants.

The startling facts are that there are currently in excess of 100,000 chemicals that have been released to our environment, with roughly 1000 additional chemicals added every year. Yet the EPA only tests about three percent of them. In summary, municipal water utilities are required to test for levels of only 130 or so chemicals when there could be hundreds or even thousands of chemicals present in some in parts per million or billion that could be potentially dangerous to humans. How many compound chemical combinations are possible with a list of 100,000 individual chemicals?

Here is an example of how scary the answer could be. Water utilities add chlorine to the water as a very necessary disinfectant for killing water born viruses and a number of bacteria. Most all city water contains some degree of humic acid formed by decaying plant and animal matter. In addition to chlorine being a known carcinogen, when chlorine comes in contact with humic acid, four more individual carcinogens are created called trihalomethanes (THM’s). Combine just two and get four! Now imagine the possibilities of mixing 10’s of thousands in your drinking water.

Water is the most important single element for supporting life, second only to oxygen. We can live 40 days without food but only about 6 days without water. Water serves three major purposes in our bodies. 1. It controls body temperature; 2. It carries the nutrients in the foods we eat to every cell of our body; and 3. Water replaces bodily fluids such as blood plasma, lymph, digestive juices, bile etc. It washes and bathes every cell of the body, flushing and carrying away waste materials and toxic poisons. If water is so vital to our health and existence, should we not we drink the healthiest water possible? What would that be, you ask? Distilled water.

Examine your own personal goals and find methods to achieve your desires with these valuable quotations about setting goals…

1. “The most important thing about having goals is having one.”
   — Geoffrey F. Abert
2. “It takes a little courage, and a little self-control. And some grim determination, If you want to reach the goal. It takes a deal of striving, and a firm and stern-set chin. No matter what the battle, If you really want to win. There’s no easy path to glory, There’s no road to fame. Life, however we may view it, Is no simple parlor game; But it’s prizes call for fighting, For endurance and for grit; For a rugged disposition and don’t know when to quit.”
   — Anonymous
3. “No set goal achieved satisfies. Success only breeds a new goal. The golden apple devoured has seeds. It is endless.”
   — Bette Davis
4. “A goal is a dream that has an ending. ”
   — Duke Ellington
5. “The timid and fearful first failures dismay, but the stout heart stays trying by night and by day. He values his failures as lessons that teach The one way to get to the goal he would reach.”
   — Edgar A. Guest
6. “Know what you want to do, hold the thought firmly, and do every day what should be done, and every sunset will see you that much nearer to your goal.”
   — Elbert Hubbard
7. “Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.”
   — Thomas Jefferson
8. “It is for us to pray not for tasks equal to our powers, but for powers equal to our tasks, to go forward with a great desire forever beating at the door of our hearts as we travel toward our distant goal.”
   — Helen Keller
9. “A goal properly set is halfway reached.”
   — Abraham Lincoln
10. “It must be borne in mind that the tragedy of life does not lie in not reaching your goal. The tragedy of life lies in having no goal to reach.”
    — Benjamin E. Mays
11. “Each of us has a fire in our hearts for something. It’s our goal in life to find it and to keep it lit.”
    — Mary Lou Retton
12. “Reach high, for stars lie hidden in your soul. Dream deep, for every dream precedes the goal.”
    — Ralph Vaull Starr
13. “We must walk consciously only part way toward our goal, and then leap in the dark to our success.”
    — Henry David Thoreau
14. “Goals are your personal statements of what you are truly willing to do to achieve what you really want to achieve.”
    — Denis Waitley
15. “What you get by achieving your goals is to as important as what you become by achieving your goals.”
    — Zig Ziglar

In the world of sports, all successful sports teams and the successful athletes that make up those teams are successful because of the fundamentals that they practice each and every day of the year.

An MLM distributor’s success is no different. Perhaps you have the same experiences online that I have, in that it seems like everyone is promoting the latest secret to do this and the hidden secret behind that. If the truth may be told, the reason that top earners in MLM/Network Marketing make six, seven, eight plus figures a year is because of the fundamentals they practice each day and not some hidden secret.

No don’t get me wrong, there is information out there that could be considered “secret” to the masses, however, once analysed, that information usually is a fundamental step in business development. The one thing that I have learned in the 25 years that I have been part of the MLM/Network Marketing industry, fundamentals are what will drive your success whether your building your business online or traditionally.

So the formula for an MLM Distributors success is simple, yet not easy to achieve. The formula is as follows:

MLM Distributors Success = the Universal Laws of Attraction + the Law of Averages

Let us explore each of these two areas.

The Universal Laws of Attraction

The Law of Attraction as most of us know by now has been around for hundreds of years and was first published in 1879 by the New York Times.

In 1937, Napoleon Hill published his book entitled, Think and Grow Rich. Throughout the book he talks about the concept of controlling your own thoughts, as well as, the “energy” that thoughts create and their ability through this energy to attract other thoughts. I am of the opinion that what Napoleon Hill was referring to the “law of attraction” when he explained this energy of thoughts.

In 2006, the Law of Attraction became popular to the masses through Rhonda Byrne’s, “The Secret”, but became truly practical to the MLM/Network Marketing community through Mike Dillard’s, “Magnetic Sponsoring” course.

“Essentially, we are hard-wired to find other people attractive or unattractive based on the level of value they have to offer, because we gain a portion of their power/value through association.” – Mike Dillard in Magnetic Sponsoring

There have been many definitions attached to this law, but quite simply put; your thoughts coupled with your consistent actions will determine who you are and what you become. These are the type of people you will attract into your life and business.

The Law of Averages

The law of averages is a natural law and not just a term used in the science of statistics. In the MLM/Network Marketing profession, the law of averages is the law that determines the number of times a presentation is seen is in direct proportion to the number of times that that presentation is shown. In other words, the number of times a prospect becomes a distributor is in direct proportion to the number of times a business opportunity is shown to potential prospects.

So let us get back to the original formula for an MLM distributors success. If one controls their thoughts on a daily basis and takes actions that reflects those thoughts the end result will be that you become what you have been thinking about.

Now that you have become what you are thinking about, your consistent thoughts and actions will attract the type of people who perceive value in what you have to offer. If you attract enough people through the use of adopting the law of averages as discussed above, the end result will be a successful MLM distributor.

Net neutrality was a novel concept, create an open internet where all users are treated alike, from the Big cows to the little chickens. Unfortunately when the internet is more and more being molded by giant monopolies. what really drives this equality or inequality is where the buck stops and not based on any “fair” or “equality” methodology.

The FCC has for the most part failed miserable in its attempts to enforce “Net Neutrality” concepts, and really has done more harm than good to this noble concept… Creating an Internet where All Users Are Created Equal.

Although there is much to do about President Trump’s appointment of Mr. Ajit Varadaraj as the new FCC head, and equally much panic over how Mr. Pai is going to take the internet back to the dark ages, in reality there are different factors that currently control and affect the internet world.

Frankly, for the most part, the internet went from being an open society, when it was in its infancy, to a content ad-based network that is almost 99% influenced, controlled and dominated by 1 or 2 corporate internet giants. With 1 holding 95% of the cards on anything related to search, ad revenue, marketing and general internet content, while the other dominating its social aspect.

Therefore if we want to discuss or proclaim our rights to have an open internet, by placing all of our hope that the FCC or any other government agencies would wave their magic wands and create free and equal access for all, we would have more of an opportunity to tap our heals together and end up in Kansas, Dorthy.

The internet “openness” is dominated by a single defining factor, revenue. The internet model is based upon distributing content that attracts users, who then click on advertisements and thereby generate cash flow. In order for there to truly exist an open and neutral internet, then, the economic influences would have to be completely removed from the picture.

If there existed free non ad-supported content, that is actually useful and not the sorts of the current trend of fake or very exaggerated news articles, and nonsensical ideas distributed as meaningful “blogs”, could only then there exist a truly independent and neutral web.

This boils down to the age-old concept of whose going to flip the bill?

The existence or no existence of Net-Neutrality concepts, or if the current administration completely reverses the last administration’s internet laws, in the end this will really have no meaningful impact over the actual state of net-neutrality, neither by its ISP’s nor its end users.

The internet itself, would have to under go, yet another revolution, where it returns to its initial purpose of being a free, world-wide network for the sharing of content without borders. As long as the revenue ad-based model continues to dominate the internet universe, then no net-neutrality, no net openness and no free information highway could ever exist. The current model simply couldn’t support such neutrality.

Women’s issues abound in today’s society. Working and raising children alone, dating in a cyber world, the glass ceiling, equal pay for equal work, women’s rights, and humanitarian issues, are only a few of the leading topics, in the discussions about things that are important to women today (DuBois & Dumenil, 2005). What seems to be forgotten, or is at least, rarely spoken of, is the issue of women in prison, and why the numbers are rising, at such an alarming rate (Sabol, Couture, & Harrison, 2007).

The American prison population is the largest, in the free world (Bartollas, 2002). Yet, America is still considered, to be the land of the free! How do we maintain our position, as the supporter of individual freedom, when we imprison more people than any other nation, in the Western world (Bartollas, 2002)? Hmmm, how does that work? The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that, one of every fifteen people will serve some type of sentence, in a county, state or federal facility, at some point in their lives (2008). If you take the 23 May 2008 figure, of 304,153,715 people, in the United States, it means that at least 20,276,914 Americans, will be sentenced to a term behind bars, during their lifetime (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). It is common knowledge, that the majority of the prison population, consists of African American males, but, the reality is, that women of all ages and races, are included in these numbers (Bartollas, 2002).

This is why, the most alarming statistic, is the growth of the women’s prison population. The Women in Prison Project, developed by the New York Correctional Association, has published a fact sheet, demonstrating that the number of women in New York prisons alone, increased by 645 percent between the years of 1973 to 2007 (this is not a typo). Truthfully, this is more than a drastic increase, which supports the contention that this has become a critical women’s issue, in today’s world. These women are daughters, sisters, wives, and most importantly they are also mothers, who are trying to raise their children, many of them alone. This fact adds to the crisis of the issue; where do these children go when their mother is arrested and incarcerated?

Logically, many of these children will go to the parents of the women, who are arrested. Unfortunately, these are the same parents that abused or neglected the mother, sending her into early parenthood, confusion, low self esteem, and drug use/abuse, to nullify the pain of her childhood memories (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2007). Now these displaced children, will face the same dysfunctional situations that their mother’s faced, as they grew up (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2007). Why do the courts believe that a person, who failed their own child, will succeed with a grandchild? Ideally, these grandparents have matured, learned from their errors, and improved their parenting skills, before their grandchildren are placed in their home. However, many of them have not changed, and still exhibit the same dysfunctional parenting methods, they used with their own child (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2007). Consequently, the courts must develop a follow up system, to consistently monitor these displaced children, if a repeat of the problems that led the mother to her criminal activities is to be avoided.

The Women In Prison Project, reports that more than 70 percent, of these women are incarcerated for non-violent, drug or property crimes; rather than for a violent, life threatening offense (2007). Consequently, these women are not a danger to the community, in reality; they are more of a danger to themselves, and the children they are trying to bring up, with or without, their fathers. Rather than putting these women into cages, and putting the children into risky situations, including foster care, or group homes; it makes more sense, to provide education, vocational training, life, and parenting skills, to insure their success as parents, and productive members of the community (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2007). Unfortunately, the prison system today, does none of these things. Today’s prisoners, are warehoused and contained, until their release date, at which point they are returned to society, many of them with no supervision of any kind.

It is to this end, that prisoner release and after-care programs are critical. It is difficult to understand, how society seems to expect that upon release from prison, these women are going to be miraculously cured; no longer suffering from drug dependency or low self esteem issues. Society appears to imagine, that these women, will suddenly have the skills, to insure that they can obtain the kind of productive employment that was not available to them, when they were arrested and convicted. Does society truly believe that the punishment of living behind bars, where the women will be faced with unimaginable trauma, and isolation; will suddenly eliminate all of the pain, memories, trials, and tribulations that they endured in their childhood; and that they will miraculously become productive adults when the prison gates swing open? It is said that the true test of sanity is when a person continues to do the same thing but expects a different result each time. Is this not what is happening, when society continues to incarcerate offenders, teaches them nothing, and then releases them back into society in the same or worse condition, than they were in at the time of their first arrest?

Taking a look at what changes, when a woman is sentenced to prison, might help answer some of these questions? The reality is, they lose their children, their homes, any job they might have had, and any property they might have owned, and then they experience isolation, greater than most people, can even imagine (Bartollas, 2002). It is difficult, at best, to imagine the brutality, loneliness, and sense of loss that a woman faces, when they are incarcerated (Bartollas, 2002). Does it really make sense to believe that these things will cure addiction, provide education and life skills, or teach quality parenting skills to these women? No! Sentencing someone to serve time in a prison facility, does nothing to create rehabilitation, or produce restitution, to their victim (Bartollas, 2002). It does provide them with very valuable lessons, in cruelty, better criminal methodology, and creates an anger that is often vented on the children, that they reclaim upon their release (Roberts, 2005). What this does is create yet another generation of American’s who will turn to drugs, alcohol, and violence to shield themselves from their painful past.

Why does this matter? Many more children are affected, displaced, and separated from their custodial parent, when a woman goes to prison, than when a man is sentenced to serve time (NY Correctional Association, 2007). The Women In Prison Project states, that only about “44 percent of the men who are incarcerated actually lived with their children, at the time of their arrest” (NY Correctional Association; pg.1, 2007). It is not a good situation, for the children of any convicted felon, but more children are affected by the imprisonment of a mother, than by the incarceration of a father (NY Correctional Association, 2007). Regardless of whether the child’s mother or father is incarcerated, these children develop their own unique set of childhood issues, because of that incarceration (Siegel & Welsh, 2005). Studies have demonstrated that children, whose father is incarcerated, often try to follow in their father’s footsteps, because, they believe that serving time in prison, is a normal part of becoming a man (Siegel & Welsh, 2005). When a single or custodial mother is incarcerated, not only does the child suffer the loss of a male role model, but they also suffer the loss of their security, nurturing, and most often their primary caregiver (Siegel & Welsh, 2005). The good news is that when the sentence is served, and their parent is released, many of these children are returned to that parent, and everything will be alright, from then on, right? WRONG! Not only, does the child have a new set of issues and problems, they must learn to cope with; the incarcerated parent has suffered the indignities of living in a cage. This often leads to even worse anger issues, which can lead to a return to drug use/abuse and their previous criminal behaviors are subsequently repeated, and may lead to another arrest and period of incarceration (Bartollas, 2002).

There are two ways to earn a release from prison. One way, is to serve the bulk of the time a person is sentenced to, and then earn a release without any supervision, assistance, or support (Bartollas, 2002). Many offender’s feel that this is the better way, because, they are not placed under the control of a parole officer (Bartollas, 2002). The other way to earn a release from prison is to qualify for an early release, called parole (Bartollas, 2002). When an offender is released on parole, ideally they are supported by their parole officer as they reintegrate into the community. The parole officer’s intentions are supposed to be, community safety, and insuring a successful return to society, while providing assistance, guidance, and supervision to their clients (Bartollas, 2002). In this way, the system helps to keep the community safe, while reducing the overwhelming prison population (Bartollas, 2002). Today, however, it appears that many parole officers are so overloaded that simple supervision is nearly all they can manage (Bartollas, 2002). These heavy caseloads create the need for the officer to put in inhumane hours, causing exhaustion and leading to distraction, rather than assistance for their clients (Bartollas, 2002). Consequently, instead of working with their charges; the parole officer, may appear to be, more interested in finding a technical violation, that will allow them to return their charge to prison, thereby reducing their caseload (Bartollas, 2002). To this end, some parole officers, appear to be very strict, with their clients, even insisting that they take any available employment, regardless of whether it provides sufficient income to support the family or not.

Whether an offender serves the bulk of their sentence, and earns an unsupervised release, or is released on parole, there is little, if any help available for them in the community (Bartollas, 2002). If the released offender does not have family waiting, and willing to take them in, and give them a place to live, they could be in serious trouble. Most offenders are released, with a “kick out” fund, of one hundred dollars. They are expected to make this money last; until they find a job, shelter, food, and clothing and to support their daily needs, until they can earn their first paycheck. Anyone who has paid a month rent, gone grocery shopping recently, or tried to get a telephone and electricity turned on, knows how impossible it is to survive, for even one week, let alone the standard two weeks, to a first paycheck, on one hundred dollars. It simply cannot be done.

Consequently these released offenders are often expected to live in homeless shelters, seek assistance on the street, beg for change, or stand in line at a soup kitchen, just to eat, until they can find work, and earn a paycheck. Not to mention that finding work, with the label of “felon,” is harder than just finding work, in today’s unstable economy. How is this mother supposed to reclaim her children when she cannot care for her own needs? How does she shelter and feed them, even if she can get them back? What choice does she have? Many times the only choice that these women see is to return to their criminal activity, and the cycle begins again. How does society expect these women to be proper mothers, care for their children, and stay away from the drugs that numb the feelings of hopelessness and loss when they face these conditions upon their release?

If there is any hope of keeping these women from just returning to the life of drugs, abuse, and crime that they were living when they were arrested, there has to be a program designed to keep them free. This program must teach them basic life skills, educate them, show them ways to earn a living that does not involving criminal activity, and teach them how to handle the responsibilities of parenting, so that their own children do not follow in their footsteps.

This is a serious women’s issue requiring immediate attention. Everyone must become involved in the community corrections programs, donate their time and services to mentor and teach these women a better way. Without programs of this nature there will never be any hope, of dropping the currently out of control rate of incarceration; of America’s daughters, sisters, wives, and mothers. Supporting community corrections, lobbying for better community assistance programs, and helping after-care facilities to acquire the funding and the residences needed to help these women is a full time job for many, and there is still not enough help to make any difference. This article is a challenge to all women, can you help? Can you give a few hours a day to mentor another woman, can you teach someone how to work in a productive environment, or can you teach cooking and parenting skills? If so, then yes, you can help.

Bridge To Tomorrow, Inc. is a fledgling aftercare facility, located in Fort Myers, Florida. They hope to provide housing for released offenders, who will pay rent by helping to provide upkeep and maintenance on the property for the first few months, and then pay a reduced rate rental after that. They want to provide courses in life skills, budgeting, parenting, and simple survival skills to released offenders, so that there is some hope of preventing them from a need to return to criminal behavior. In addition, Bridge To Tomorrow, Inc. hopes to fund scholarships, provide job skills, and even plans to provide a list of employers, who are willing to hire ex-offenders prior to their release from prison, so that the offender has a job, starting the day after their release. Finally, it is important that there are crisis intervention services, mental health services, and drug and alcohol counseling, available to these released offenders. These services are critical so that their transition back into the community, and their transformation to a productive member of society, can be completed with the least amount of trauma possible.

References:

Bartollas, Clemens (2002) _Invitation to Corrections_ Allyn & Bacon, A Pearson

Education Company; 75 Arlington Street, Suite 300; Boston, MA 02116

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008) _Criminal Offenders Statistics_ Summary findings From Corrections facts at a glance; retrieved May 1, 2008; located through search
of Bureau of Justice Statistics summaries, retrieved from main site located at
ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html; the summary page can be located at

Correctional Association of New York (2007) _The Women In Prison Project_
Developed by the Correctional Association of New York; 135 East 15th Street;
New York, NY 1003; retrieved on May 1, 2008; through Google Search; from
correctionalassociation.org/WIPP/publications/Women_In_Prison_Fact_Sheet_2006pdf

DuBois, Ellen C. & Dumenil, Lynn (2005) _Through Women’s Eyes: An American
History_ Bedford/St. Martins; A Pearson Education Company; 75 Arlington Street;
Boston, MA 02116

Kail, Robert V. & Cavanaugh, John C (2007) _Developmental Psychology_ Thomson
Wadsworth; 5191 Natorp Boulevard; Mason, OH 45040

Roberts, Melinda (2005) _Introduction To Psychology_ Kaplan University Online
Manual for Psychology Course in CJ program; 6409 Congress Avenue; Boca Raton,
FL 33487; 1-866-522-7747

Sabol, William J, Ph.D., Couture, Heather, & Harrison, Paige (2007) _Prisoners In
2006_ Bulletin prepared for Bureau of Justice Statistics; authors are BJS statisticians
Retrieved May 1, 2008; Bulletin number NCJ 21916; released December 2007;
Located through Bureau of Justice Statistics site search “women in prison”
From: ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/p06txt; main site located at:

Siegel, Larry J. & Welsh, Brandon C. (2005) _Juvenile Delinquency: The Core_ (2 nd
edition); Thomson Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning Inc; 10 Davis Drive;
Belmont, CA 94002-3098

U.S. Census Bureau (2008) _Population Clocks; U.S. and World_ located on the
U.S. Census Bureau Sources of Population Information page; retrieved on May
23, 2008 from; census.gov/population/www/ from the main page

E = MC2

Our emotion is equal to our thoughts which are within our power to change.

The mind is the control centre of change and we are the embodiment of energy which gives us life and this energy is our life force. In the study of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), this life force is known as Qi and the way it flows within our body is influenced by our mind and likewise, our mind is also affected by it.

Since emotion is a form of energy, we can change our energy by the way we think and our thoughts lead the way for Qi to flow. In other words, where the mind goes, Qi follows.

If we are negative minded, it creates roadblocks that impede the flow of Qi and hold us back from taking action. By channeling our thoughts in a positive way, we unblock the flow of Qi so that our actions can produce positive result. This is because our mind is the control centre of Qi and by changing our pattern of thought, we are breaking down the unconscious barrier that forms our habits. Qi is transformative and the action we take represents such transformation. Our actions likewise become our habits which in turn become the driver of our behaviour. Over the long-term, our character is the result of our behaviour. Each step of the transformation from our thoughts to our character makes way for our Qi to flow in transit. Along the way, we can change our emotion by changing our thought or how we think.

In short, the fastest way to change our thoughts is to control our mind consciously. When we control our mind consciously, Qi follows our thoughts. In other words, the fastest way to change our emotion is to change our thoughts. This is reflected in the Einstein equation E = MC2 in which energy is equals to mass multiply by the speed of light to the power of two. Likewise, we have the conscious power to change our thoughts (M) in order to change our emotional (E) response to a situation. The other factor “C” in the equation stands for “change”.

How does this equation ties in with Chinese Astrology?

There is a branch of study within Chinese Astrology known as The Four Pillars of Destiny. It shines the light on a person’s character and how it leads the way to his or her destiny. By analysing the four pillars based on a person’s birth chart which is derived from his or her birth date, a master can tell the character, the ability, the potential and the future of the individual. The analysis covers all aspects of life which include areas such as career, wealth, health and relationship. These are important factors that fall under the scope of destiny and by knowing who you truly are, you can go with the flow or change the flow of energy in your favour. This is where the equation E = MC2 comes into play. Based on the Four Pillars of Destiny (Ba Zi), the energy within you is represented by the stems and branches within the pillars and they define who you truly are, both consciously and subconsciously.

We are born on a given date which we cannot choose and we do not get to choose our family. This is our fate. Our life force comes into being based on the alignment of the stars and planets during our birth and it is governed by universal energy. And through this universal energy, we can make positive changes in our lives by tapping into our mind which controls our destiny. To put it simply, we have the power to change for the better.

For a personalized reading of your birth chart based on the Four Pillars of Destiny or purchase my latest book “Mind Your Qi, Find Your Luck”, please visit my website at http://www.bazidestiny.yolasite.com.

Over the years, Dave and I have enjoyed using of several unique products that can cause confusion for people who have never used them in the kitchen before. Whenever we talk about them, inevitably, people have questions. Today we have put together a list of 4 items that we personally use frequently, explaining what they are and how to use them.

Clear Jel is a refined cornstarch that reacts better for freezing and canning recipes in particular; cornstarch tends to go cloudy in these situations. Clear Jel is used in the same proportion of cornstarch (1:1) in baking recipes. Like traditional cornstarch and the health store alternatives – arrowroot and potato powder, etc. – this product needs to be combined with the sugar (or flour) called for in the recipe prior to adding to any other ingredients in order to reduce clumps from forming.

Sea salt is healthier than regular table salt; the fact that it requires less processing means it also has a smaller ecological impact. It is a natural source of iodine, which, along with other nutrients, is essential for a healthy sex life. A local herbal consultant once told us that sea salt can also be used in place of Epsom salts in your bathwater.

Tamari is considered to be less salty than soy sauce and is often stocked in health food stores. You can find low-salt versions of both tamari and soy sauce. Tamari sauce, however, has enzymes that aid digestion and promote healthy intestinal bacteria.

Orange Zest, citrus zest or citrus powder are all terms referring to a similar product – to simplify we personally call it ‘citrus zest’. It is used to bring out other flavors and to condition flour. Chop lemon, orange or lime peel and allow to dry (or use a dehydrator) – turn this into a powder using a blender or grinder, and store in the cupboard as you would any spice or herb. 1 Tbsp of fresh zest is equal to 1 tsp. of dried; while 1 Tbsp of fresh zest is equal to 6 Tbsp. juice. As such, this one ingredient in the cupboard offers more ways of reducing grocery costs.

Making your own citrus zest at home is a fantastic way to move toward a more frugal kitchen, while reusing “waste” (the peels). Reducing salt, chemicals and preservatives from your diet, will certainly improve your health too. Hopefully, knowing more about these items will give you the confidence to use them in your kitchen.

You’ve likely heard the ballyhoo after every major cordless phone technology update. This Megahertz and that Gigahertz were all supposed to provide incredible range and amazing clarity. Well, the new-to-the-U.S. DECT cordless phone technology (Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications or 1.9 GHz) really does live up to the hype. Although all DECT 6.0 cordless phones are not created equal, most DECT phone models provide a winning balance between exceptional voice clarity and suitable-to-fantastic range.

Why is DECT so special?

Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications is nothing more than a digital wireless communication technology that operates at 1.9 GHz. It’s popular with manufacturers (a good thing for consumers) because it’s a global standard, enabling them to produce fewer models to satisfy the needs of all countries. In general and all other technology components being equal, the lower the frequency, the longer the physical range you’ll get with your cordless phone. Phones that operate at lower frequencies (remember your old 49 MHz cordless phone from 1988) are also prone to much more interference, which significantly reduces voice clarity. When manufacturers launched phones at the higher frequencies, the opposite occurred as you might expect. Voice clarity improved dramatically with digital 5.8 GHz models, but physical range became a genuine problem…..especially in all the growing number of McMansions in the U.S. Some DECT 6.0 cordless phones can get up to 1000 ft of range from the base outdoors.

Though frequency is only one feature to examine in the search for a cordless phone, a DECT 6.0 phone is the best bet in today’s cordless phone market as long as all included features meet your needs. It’s also dedicated to cordless communication in residential, commercial and public environments, so you’re unlikely to be interfering with other home electronics. Besides premium voice quality and extended range, DECT technology is inherently more efficient with battery life. It’s not uncommon to see some DECT models with up to 12 hours of talk time, which can be ideal for those who work at home.

Which DECT Phone to Select?

First and foremost, look for a global brand you can trust. Because DECT is a global standard – where launching a U.S. product is much less expensive than in the past, you’ll see lots of “import brands” hitting the market. Price points vary depending on brand and features, but most DECT phones are at the same or lower cost than the 5.8 GHz phones they’re succeeding. Consider your usage as well. Will you be using the phone in a home office where you’ll need a headset jack? Surprisingly, only some DECT models have included a headset jack. Will you need multiple handsets? While most models are expandable, be cautious that a few are locked into the one included handset. There are many more features available, but most DECT phones handle core functionality (excellent voice quality and good range) really well. Look for reviews and comparisons online and consider asking your retailer for recommendations.

Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII protects people from employers’ discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. While Title VII only applies to businesses of 15 employees or more, it was crucial legislation for equal opportunity employment. Unfortunately, Title VII has been enacted for nearly 50 years and its stipulations are still not upheld by all employers.

Title VII

Previous to Civil Rights Act, employers were able to discriminate against potential employees for any reason. The segregation of the workforce was not only divided between “white jobs” and “black jobs,” women were excluded in many sectors. Higher paying jobs were almost exclusively performed by white men, and blue collar jobs were occupied predominantly by racial minorities.

Following the legislation outlawing employer discrimination, many employment standards were erased. For example, there were height regulations on being a police officer that excluded almost all women. In an effort to abide by the Civil Rights Act, law enforcement officials did away with the height requirement. Similar accommodations were made in all sectors of the workforce.

Exceptions

Title VII allows employers to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin under certain circumstances when such characteristics are considered a “bona fide occupational requirement,” or a BFOQ. The circumstances surrounding BFOQs require that the characteristic be necessary in order for an employee to perform the job satisfactorily. For example, when a director is casting an actor for the role of a Cuban general, they may discriminate based on a person’s nation of origin.

Situations when BFOQs apply are rare and the requirements surrounding their legality are very strict.

Filing a Complaint

If you have experienced workplace discrimination, there are several options for a course of action. Under Title VII, you can file a complaint with your state’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the Fair Employment Practices Agency (FEPA). You must file a complaint at one of these agencies within 180 days of suspected discrimination in order for it to be valid. These agencies will take up a lawsuit against the employer on your behalf if you do not want to hire a personal attorney.

All my life I’ve been told: There is one God, manifested in three separate, distinct persons. Each is co-equal, co-eternal and neither is greater or lesser than the other. Their glory is co-equal. They never argue and they are always in agreement with each other. Views differ as the Father sending the Spirit through the Son or the Father and the Son both send the Spirit. Each person has their own divine function in agreement with the others.

Well, here are some important things to consider. The terms “trinity” and “triune” are not found in the Bible. There is not even a suggestion that this doctrine is Biblical.

Hundreds of years after Yeshua, Rome attached Bible names to this pagan doctrine, thus warping the identity of the God Christians believe in.

Let us explore the doctrine of the trinity in the light of Scripture and in the historical aspect. Most Encyclopedias and some churches will have a version of the trinity doctrine you can examine.

Some imply that the word “trinity” is not found in Scripture due to the fact the Hebrew language does not have a word for “trinity.”

First, isn’t that a signal in itself? Do you mean to tell me, after several thousand years of Israel and the Lord God being together, the Catholics (now Protestants too) can come along and re-define the identity of the Jewish God? How can we re-write God’s identity “better than” the Jewish language and Scripture already have? Then accuse the Jewish religion for being wrong?

Second, the Hebrew language does have the terminology to express the number “three” and the word “persons” if (and only if) it did describe their God. It doesn’t.

Third, where is God ever referred to as “persons” in the Bible?

Where in the Bible does it ever refer to God as “they”? The Bible does not say anywhere nor even imply that God is three persons yet one God.

Throughout history why have Babylon, Egypt, Rome, Catholics and now Protestants been the main promoters of the doctrine of the trinity and not Israel? This is because the Jewish Religion has one God period. Who do you think Messiah was?

God did not have a kid. That isn’t what Messiah means. The Pharisees weren’t mad because He said He was the son of God, they knew we are all sons of God. They wanted to kill Him because He claimed to be (and was) the Lord God of Israel, the One who led Moses and the Israelites.

We must remember that in the Jewish faith, (whose God we worship) the terms Messiah, Christ, Anointed, Son of God, Son of Man and Emmanuel (God with us) only meant one thing. God had visited and redeemed His people, not that He split into three persons in order to do so.

This is a great point from a prophecy about Messiah. Who does the prophet Micah say will be born in Bethlehem? (Micah 5:2) The Ruler in Israel to be born in Bethlehem (Messiah) whose goings forth are from “old” (before time, Hebrew gedem), from age “everlasting.” (indefinite time, Hebrew olam) Yeshua the Messiah is none other than the Lord God of Israel.

Did you notice Zacharias is calling the baby Yeshua the “Lord God of Israel.” (Luke 1: 67, 68) Messiah the Lord would arrive before he died and he knew it.

It was never question in Scripture if Yeshua was the second member of the trinity. The decision to be made was if He was Yahweh God (Father) performing the prophesied visit of Messiah. (Isaiah 9:6)

Even His name (Yeshua) means (Yahweh Savior, or God saves). Does this shed some light on “I come in my Father’s name”? (John 5:43) What was the Father’s name He came in? Yeshua.

Do you remember the verse you read every Dec. 25th? (Isaiah 9:6) “For unto us a child is born, a son is given… His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The Messiah is called the Father. Phillip asked to see the Father. Yeshua responded, “he that hath seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9)

What about the word “Godhead” in the Bible? There are only three places this word is used. The actual meanings (which are very singular) can be found in your concordance. “That which is divine” in (Acts 17:29) “Divinity” in (Rom. 1:20) “Diety” in (Col. 2:9)

Does the Bible say we have to accept the trinity doctrine without question? (Acts 17:11) (Titus 1:9)
Why do the “explanations” of the trinity leave us even more confused? Explanations such as: the three of them share equal power and equal glory, they never argue with each other or they are always agreement with each other. When we see the three of them in heaven or the three of them relate to each other intimately are other blasphemous statements. The Bible NEVER uses “they” to describe God.

If someone’s explanation of the trinity gets to be such theological, hermeneutical, philosophical, barf-illogical gobbledeegook that you cannot understand it, beware.

The trinity doctrine is impossible to explain. As soon as you use part of a verse to try to prove it, there are other verses that completely disprove the point you just made. Try it sometime, but remember every place you read “God”, it has to mean three persons.

You do not have to go to eight years of seminary to understand the Bible. How did the disciples explain the Gospel so that 3,000 people could understand enough to make a conversion decision in one day? (Acts 2:41)

I have a very learned Catholic neighbor who is now in his late 80’s. He openly admits the doctrine of the trinity isn’t Biblical. I find that fact quite interesting, but I am puzzled why he would remain where he knows more about the Bible than the Institution itself teaches. They would officially disown him for that.

Scripture never compares God to an egg (yolk-white-shell) OR to water (ice-liquid-steam). These examples of the trinity are so lame. Anyway, an egg has two membranes and an umbilicus too, that’s six parts.
When we worship God, do the three of them divide our praise up equally? (Is. 42:8) Does the “three of them” even sound Biblical?

Though correct for leading the Reformation Movement, Martin Luther had been deceived for years on 95 or more points of Roman Catholic teaching. The trinity was not a subject of concern to him. As it turns out, the trinity was the 96th point that Martin Luther did not include in his thesis nailed to the church door.

Let’s not forget John Calvin and Michael Servetus. Servetus was killed at the stake Oct. 27, 1553 in Switzerland for the crime of believing in One God and not in the trinity. Calvin believed in the trinity, but throughout his life he regularly denied the Hebrew Old Testament supported the trinity doctrine at all.

He knew the Hebrew and was honest enough not to misinterpret ‘Elohim’ to try to justify his belief. John Calvin was the principal accuser and chief prosecutor in the trial even though the court did the sentencing. Severtus also knew the Hebrew did not support the trinity, and equated Calvin’s belief in the trinity to that of Cerberus, the mythological three headed dog that guards the gates of hell. This taunting statement and his conviction cost him his earthly life.

Some try to imply ‘Elohim’ denotes the trinity. (Gen. 1:26) If this is true, why are Chemosh (Jud. 11:24), Baal-berith (Jud. 8:33), Dagon (Jud. 16:23), Baal-zebub (2 Ki. 1:2, 3), Nisroch (2 Ki. 19:37) and Ashtoreth (1 Ki. 11:5) all called elohim? Are these pagan gods “three persons yet one god” also, just because of the use of the Hebrew word “elohim”?

And God said, “let us make man in our image”. (Gen. 1:26) If God was talking, wouldn’t whoever He was speaking to (or whoever was listening), certainly not be God? What does the very next verse say? And He made man in His own image. (Gen. 1:27)

Why is God called “the Father” when it was the Holy Spirit that did the conceiving in Mary? (Matt. 1:18, 20) Doesn’t this make the Holy Spirit the Father? But wait, Yeshua said HE was the Father. (John 14:8) Are all three of them the Father? Does “three fathers” even sound Biblical?

God is our only Savior. (Is. 43:3, 10, 11) (Is. 45:21, 22) (Hos. 13:4) Now compare how (Titus 1:3, 4) and (Titus 2:10) refer to our Savior. Obviously the meaning is interchangeable. Yeshua is called “our great God and Savior.” (Titus 2:13)

We all know that God is Spirit. (John 4:24) The Holy Spirit is obviously Spirit. Does this mean there are two Spirit persons within the God of Abraham? Do you have a verse for that?

And what about the verses that speaks of the “Spirit of Christ”? (Rom. 8:9) (Phil. 1:19) (1 Pet. 1:11) Did you notice that the terms “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” are used interchangeably in one sentence? (Rom. 8:9) Does this make three Spirit persons making up the Lord God of Israel? I thought there was just one spirit. (Ephesians 4:4)

We all know that “God was in Messiah, reconciling the world unto Himself”. (2 Cor. 5:19) God was also in the burning bush (Ex. 3:2-4) and in the pillar of a cloud (Ex. 13:21) and in the pillar of fire (Ex. 13:21). Do these added manifestations make Him six persons yet one God in hex-unity?

There is widespread error that all three members of the trinity were present at Yeshua’s baptism. Does this mean that two persons of the trinity (Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit descending) were on the earth while God the Father stayed in the heavens?

But, we know that God was in Messiah reconciling the world unto Himself. (2 Cor. 5:19) Does this mean that all three trinity persons were in Yeshua while He was on earth? Is our God so limited that while as Messiah, He could not make a voice come out of heaven? (Nothing was seen, only heard.) At the same time He caused a visible something to flutter down imitating a dove’s flight. (John 1:32-34) Can God accomplish this without having to be split up into three persons in order to explain it?

Wasn’t this just a vision for John to confirm he was baptizing who he was sent to prepare the way for? (John 1:32) It does not say that any onlookers saw it also.

Historically there is no evidence of the trinity doctrine previous to Babylon (2200-1500 BC). It is also found in the Egyptian worship system (1500-1000 BC). But the trinity was never a part of the Jewish or Christian worship until Rome attached Bible names to pagan doctrines at the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. This is the point in time when Christianity was paganized or paganism was Christianized, whichever is more accurate. When the reformers left the Roman Church, the trinity doctrine was carried along to the Protestant churches without serious examination.

Some have said that the Babylonians and Egyptians had the trinity doctrine because they “must have” stolen it from the Jews. The trinity mystery doctrine had been in use in Babylon for many years before someone began writing the first Scriptures.

And more importantly, the Jews are well known for keeping their One God monotheism pure. Does it seem likely the pagans derived the trinity doctrine for their gods from the Jews, who believe and teach a totally opposite view?

Because of the words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the trinity and baptism doctrines overlap a little. Here are a few references:

Johnson’s New Universal Encyclopedia Vol. 2, Part 1, page 586: The monotheism of the Old and New Testaments is unquestionable.

Johnson’s New Universal Encyclopedia Vol. 10, page 3: The word trinity is not found in the Scriptures and is said to have been first used by Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, in the second century.

Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 15, page 47: In the Scriptures there is NO single term by which the three divine persons are denoted together. (The Catholics admit it is NOT in the Bible)

Word Book Encyclopedia Vol. 16, page 7270: But the doctrine of the three in one is considered to be a mystery for which there is NOT adequate explanation.

Dictionary of the Bible by Scriptures, Vol. 1, page 241: (on baptism) The original form of words was “into the name of Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus”. Baptism into the trinity was a latter development.

New International Encyclopedia Vol. 22, page 476: The trinity doctrine is NOT found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does NOT seek to find it in the Old Testament.

Now God has revealed the second Covenant of Grace as He (still God as Messiah) wishes to be known. The God of the Old Testament is still the SAME God of the New Testament. How did Yeshua respond to the devil’s tempting? (Luke 4:12) (Matt. 4:7) You shall not tempt the Lord your God. Who was the devil tempting? Yeshua, the Lord your God!

Look at the prophecy foretelling John the Baptist announcing the arrival of Messiah. (Isaiah 40:3) Pay particular attention to the terminology used for whom John was announcing. All three of these verses refer to Yeshua the Messiah being the Lord God of Israel. (John 1:23) (Luke 3:4)

How many verses does it take to disprove the false doctrine of the trinity in your mind? We are not grasping at straws here. If we can put a man on the moon and cheese in a can, why can’t we understand the Bible without adding the trinity doctrine to explain it? How’s this for a schoolyard poem? We three persons of trinity be. I am not Him and He is not Me. I am one God yet we all are three. The trinity is Catholic, look it up and see.

There can only be One Mighty God who is our Everlasting Father, Who came as the Son (Messiah) and Who imparts His Spirit upon mankind. (Isaiah 9:6)

What if the Lord wants to know if you worshipped God’s (child) Son, the second member of the trinity named Jesus Christ from Rome? OR did you worship Yeshua the Messiah, the Lord God of Israel manifest in human flesh? If this were to be the criteria for Judgment, it would be a bad day for many! How long waiver ye between these two opinions?

If the God of Israel were three persons, then everywhere in the Bible you read the word “God” would have to mean the three persons forming one God. You will soon find that this does not fit the Scriptures, nor the context, nor the meanings of the verses, and the Lord is never described as “essence.” The unbiblical doctrine of the trinity is a contradiction to God’s Word.

If Yahweh went to a costume party wearing a human Messiah disguise, would He have a different identity, or have split into three persons, or stopped being omnipresent? The $64,000 question is; What was the definition and understanding of God’s identity from 4,000 BC to 100 AD, which includes Messiah, but was previous to Roman influence and domination.

No, you do not have to understand this mysterious, inexplicable unbiblical subject. It isn’t true. Do you think after thousands of years the Lord might have mentioned that He was three separate co-equal persons, if it were true?