Thursday, November 1, 2018
What is Quantum Computing? Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty
WIRED has challenged IBM's Dr. Talia Gershon (Senior Manager, Quantum Research) to explain quantum computing to 5 different people; a child, teen, a college student, a grad student and a professional.
Wired
G. Griffin report: Brazil: Far-Right Candidate, Jair Bolsonaro, Won the Presidential Election by a Wide Margin
G. Griffin
See article here
See article here
Germany: Angela Merkel to Step Down as the Leader of Her Party, the Christian Democratic Union, Due to Unpopularity and Mass Immigration..See article here
Four Caravans Are Now on the Move, Rioting at the Mexican Border on Their Way to Invading the US..See article here
Israel Quietly Transferred $250 Million of Sophisticated Spy Systems to Its Secret Ally, Saudi Arabia...See article here
LifeSite, a Pro-Life Christian News Outlet, Says It Was Blacklisted by Its Web Host...See article here
How your money flows out of Washington to non-profit groups that ‘help’ immigrants and refugees
How more of your money flows out of Washington to non-profit groups that ‘help’ immigrants and refugees
Posted by Ann Corcoran on October 31, 2018The grant program is known as the ‘Ethnic Community Self-help Program’ run out of the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (HHS).At one point I followed their activities closely and began a file on it, see here, but too much breaking news pushed the subject to the back burner.First, as you know, nine federal resettlement contractors*** are hired by the US State Department to place refugees in your towns and cities. Their job is to help the refugees settle in and get them signed up for their ‘services.’You also know that the nine are paid by the head to place those refugees, but in addition the Office of Refugee Resettlement doles out many millions more each year to non-profit groups including those nine in the form of discretionary grants.But, what you might not know is that an entire cottage industry of non-profits have sprung up which get federal grants in most cases to benefit their specific ethnic group—Ethnic Community Based Organizations (ECBOs for short).The grants are ostensibly to help the refugees integrate into a community, but one might wonder then why the funding is specific to groups that are maintaining their own cultural identity.If such a helping hand is needed in certain cities, why isn’t the money given to local government agencies to help all ethnic groups, all races and all religions, instead of favoring one ethnic non-profit group over another? Seems to me that the present system creates division rather than integration.Here is what ORR says about the grant program.Pay attention to the list of what you are paying for—getting refugees their resources, building their community, getting them involved in local “civic participation” (aka voting!), and getting local citizens minds right about the immigrants’ presence in the community!In other words, you are paying for ethnic non-profit groups to organize in your community. Remember ACORN? Well these are little ACORNs!(Don’t you just love this deceptive language!)The Ethnic Community Self-Help program supports ethnic community-based organizations in providing refugee populations with critical services to assist them in becoming integrated members of American society.Program DescriptionThe Ethnic Community Self-Help program provides assistance to refugee community-based organizations and other groups that:Address community building
Facilitate cultural adjustment and integration
Deliver mutually supportive functions
Information exchange
Civic participation
Resource enhancement
Orientation and support to new and established refugees
Public education to the larger communityEthnic Community Self-Help programs connect newly arrived refugees to community resources [aka welfare!—ed]. Ethnic Community Self-Help programs target all ORR populations, and all U.S.-based governmental and certified non-profit organizations are eligible to apply.What is up with ORR that much (maybe all!) of their grant information is out of date!
Over the years, I’ve visited ORR and found lists of who was receiving grants and for how much, but that information is not available now.Oh sure, you can get the old ECBO grants list. But those grants have expired. Check it out and see that they passed out nearly $4.5 million to a list of ECBOs around the country. Those grants expired in 2017.So, maybe the Trump Administration has cut out the program?The answer is NO!Just this month the ORR put out a notice of two upcoming grants. One of those is for ECBOs. Although the money is less than in the past—$2 million instead of over $4 million—13 non-profit groups will rake in $100,000-$200,000 each.Here is the information on the ECBO grant offering:An aside: For all of you who have ever tried to get a conservative non-profit group/Tea Party up and running you know that this is one heck of a lot of money. Of course, grants like this are not available to you!When I couldn’t find an up-to-date list of grantees right now, I emailed ORR and was sent the list below. However, it is lacking in information—no grant amounts and no end date—so who knows if these little ACORNS are still enjoying your tax dollars.
Anna Von Reitz: Subject: Yes, He Can and No, He Can't..."Anchor Babies"
From: Anna von Reitz <avannavon@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 30, 2018 5:05 pm
Subject: Yes, He Can and No, He Can't
There is a big flap this morning because President Trump is trying to end the "Anchor Baby" provisions that immigrants and the INS have been abusing, by ending birthright citizenship claims related to "U.S. Citizenship".
Many people have reacted in alarm and thought that this means that he has power to end their birthright claims of nationality and State Citizenship.
The real answer is: yes, he can, and no, he can't.
As President of a corporation, already empowered by over 350 "emergency powers" granted to his Office by the British Territorial United States Congress back in the 1930's and continued by their Successors, Donald J. Trump can do darn near anything in the wide world he wants to do with respect to the day to day operations of that corporation, its subsidiaries, its subcontractors, its employees, its policies, and its statutory "laws".
It was, after all, their policy to allow "Anchor Babies" to provide their families with instant access to our country in the first place, and many would argue an irresponsible policy, too. It is Mr. Trump's job as President to alter corporate policies as necessary to deal with emergencies. The "National Emergency" status as already been declared. He is already in position to move. God bless him. Being born on American soil makes the baby an American, but doesn't (necessarily) make him a "U.S. Citizen".
I have been trying to get exactly this point across for many months.
That said, as President of a foreign corporation, Donald J. Trump has no ability or authorization to tamper with any aspect of American nationality or American State Citizenship. As above, it is entirely possible for a baby born on the soil of California to be a Californian, but there is nothing that makes his Mother or Father a Californian, too. They have already been born on the soil of Honduras or Mexico or wherever else, which establishes their nationality and citizenship obligations, if any.
This idea that they could busload hundreds of women in late pregnancy to the border, offload them like cattle, and then simply wait for them to give birth on American soil and thereby get a free pass for everyone in the family all the way back to the grandparents to become "U.S. citizens" was always crackpot and a means to end run around the Public Law.
It is also a cruelly deceptive means to entrap these people who are seeking freedom in the corporate enslavement racket instead.
Mexicans and Hondurans are not worth as much as slaves in the international slave market, but when they cross our border they magically gain in value astronomically, simply by having the label "U.S. citizen" attached to them. This sets up a situation where both the corporations serving "as" governments can profit by their migration.
All the U.S. Government has to do is provide a cut of the resulting profit to the Honduran or Mexican or other "government" corporation, and they will be happy to send an unending supply of new "U.S. citizens" to our borders. This is profitable for both corporations, because the value of an average "U.S. citizen" is far and away above any welfare costs or benefits the people ever receive, and the "U.S." Inc. can borrow against the value of its "citizenry" in the world slave market, thus providing extra income for the vermin in DC.
That is the dirty reason for all the dirty Democrats supporting mass immigration.
It's also the reason for all the forced immigration of Muslims -- quite apart from the wars in the Middle East -- into Europe.
A German "citizen" is worth a lot more than a Yemen "citizen" and the guilty governments are profiting themselves without regard for the people they are supposed to serve.
I gave a citation yesterday regarding "U.S. citizenship" and got back a response that someone went online and couldn't find it.
First, be aware that if you want to read law you have to go to a Law Library and read the hard copy, and if you want to know what really happened you have to go into the case files. What appears online is often heavily redacted, simplified, and annotated in various ways. Second, it has been profitable to the knaves to hide key citations and they have done so, just as they have burned books and suppressed treaties throughout their history. Third, that's far, far from the only citation giving you the same facts (and more) about the issue of "citizenship".
Here's a few more to cut your teeth on, for all of you who aren't sure that there is a difference between being an American and being a "U.S. citizen":
“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own...” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States”. McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)
“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...” Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383
"On the other hand, there is a significant historical fact in all of this. Clearly, one of the purposes of the 13th and 14th Amendments and of the 1866 act and of section 1982 was to give the Negro citizenship. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1967), 379 F.2d 33, 43.
"The object of the 14th Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 692.
“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”. Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)
“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”. Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)
“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”. Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States”. McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)
“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...” Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383
"On the other hand, there is a significant historical fact in all of this. Clearly, one of the purposes of the 13th and 14th Amendments and of the 1866 act and of section 1982 was to give the Negro citizenship. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1967), 379 F.2d 33, 43.
"The object of the 14th Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 692.
“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”. Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)
“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”. Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)
“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”. Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
----And, always note, that the so-called "Revised Statutes" were never actually enrolled on the Federal Register, that is, never actually "Revised" except for internal corporate use, because those making the revisions never had the power or authority to make them apply generally.
______________________________________________
a BURGLAR who enters your house to give birth to a baby..does that baby then become your responsibility for life
From: Jackie Juntti; W.G.E.N.; via Pastor Lee S Gliddon Jr
This is the missing info that is being ignored in this debate. It is the danger that looms in every piece of legislation when some traitor inserts *footnotes* after the bill has been passed but before it is recorded into law. As I stated in an earlier post - Does a BURGLAR who enters your house and while in your house happens to give birth to a baby IN YOUR HOUSE - does that baby then become your responsibility for life or should that burglar and her baby be prosecuted and removed??
Thanks to Kelleigh Nelson for this important information.
The anchor baby scam was invented 35 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the children born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Unconstitutional poppycock.
Senator Jacob Howard who introduced the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause, said its grant of citizenship would not include persons born in the US who are foreigners or aliens.
Jackie Juntti
WGEN idzrus@earthlink.net
Thanks to Kelleigh Nelson for this important information.
The anchor baby scam was invented 35 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the children born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Unconstitutional poppycock.
Senator Jacob Howard who introduced the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause, said its grant of citizenship would not include persons born in the US who are foreigners or aliens.
Jackie Juntti
WGEN idzrus@earthlink.net
Re: SP/INS: Trump claims the 14th Amendment DOESN'T grant citizenship to 'Anchor Babies' of illegal immigrants
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6338015/Trump-claims-14th-Amendment-DOESNT-grant-citizenship-Anchor-Babies.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6338015/Trump-claims-14th-Amendment-DOESNT-grant-citizenship-Anchor-Babies.html
Trump claims the 14th Amendment DOESN'T grant citizenship to 'Anchor Babies' of illegal immigrants – and cites retired Democratic senator's argument as he predicts Supreme Court will have to decide
PUBLISHED: 10:32 EDT, 31 October 2018 | UPDATED: 10:49 EDT, 31 October 2018
View comments
President Donald Trump doubled down Wednesday on his claim that the U.S. Constitution doesn't grant automatic citizenship to every child born inside the country's borders.
He predicted the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the question, reintroduced the controversial term 'anchor baby' into the national debate and cited a retired Democratic Senate leader to support his argument.
'So-called Birthright Citizenship, which costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens, will be ended one way or the other,' Trump tweeted.
'It is not covered by the 14th Amendment because of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", the president added, before cutting his message off in mid-sentence and pausing for nearly an hour before continuing.
'Harry Reid was right in 1993, before he and the Democrats went insane,' Trump claimed, referring to a now-infamous Senate floor speech in which Reid, a Nevada Democrat and future Senate majority leader, blasted the practice of birthright citizenship.
- President said he wants to sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship
- Trump said the current policy is 'ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end'
- On Wednesday he claimed the Constitution's 14th Amendment has limits
- Trump noted that it applies to people 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S., implying that illegal immigrants don't qualify
- He cited former Democratic Sen. Harry Reid in 1993, complaining that the U.S. offers a citizenship incentive for illegal immigrants to have babies here
- VP Mike Pence says the Supreme Court has been silent on how the Fourteenth Amendment relates to illegal immigrants
- House Speaker Paul Ryan insists Trump can't make a change without Congress or a new constitutional amendment
PUBLISHED: 10:32 EDT, 31 October 2018 | UPDATED: 10:49 EDT, 31 October 2018
View comments
President Donald Trump doubled down Wednesday on his claim that the U.S. Constitution doesn't grant automatic citizenship to every child born inside the country's borders.
He predicted the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the question, reintroduced the controversial term 'anchor baby' into the national debate and cited a retired Democratic Senate leader to support his argument.
'So-called Birthright Citizenship, which costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens, will be ended one way or the other,' Trump tweeted.
'It is not covered by the 14th Amendment because of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", the president added, before cutting his message off in mid-sentence and pausing for nearly an hour before continuing.
'Harry Reid was right in 1993, before he and the Democrats went insane,' Trump claimed, referring to a now-infamous Senate floor speech in which Reid, a Nevada Democrat and future Senate majority leader, blasted the practice of birthright citizenship.
__
+11
President Donald Trump says he wants to end the tradition of conferring U.S. citizenship on babies born inside the country's borders regardless of whether their parents are Americans
+11
President Donald Trump says he wants to end the tradition of conferring U.S. citizenship on babies born inside the country's borders regardless of whether their parents are Americans
__
+11
Trump tweeted Wednesday that the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment only applies to people who aren't 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S. – meaning in his view that babies born to people in the country illegally don't enjoy its benefits
+11The president cited Democrat Harry Reid, who was a Nevada senator in 1993 when he said 'no sane country' would grant automatic citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrant mothers
'If making it easy to be an illegal immigrant isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again,' Reid said in 1993.
'If you break our laws by entering our country without permission to give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides, and that's a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?'
In a typical year about 250,000 illegal immigrants give birth in the U.S., driving conservative Republicans to stoke controversy about their long-term impacts on welfare systems, education costs and other drivers of the national debt.
Current national policy stems from an 1898 Supreme Court ruling, but the high court has never spoken on the question of whether the 14th Amendment covers children born to people inside the U.S. illegally.
On Wednesday Trump suggested Democrats' conversion away from Reid's 1993 positon is tied to the party's acceptance of an 'open borders' philosophy 'which brings massive Crime.'
'Don’t forget the nasty term Anchor Babies,' he added. 'I will keep our Country safe. This case will be settled by the United States Supreme Court!'
+11
Trump tweeted Wednesday that the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment only applies to people who aren't 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S. – meaning in his view that babies born to people in the country illegally don't enjoy its benefits
+11The president cited Democrat Harry Reid, who was a Nevada senator in 1993 when he said 'no sane country' would grant automatic citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrant mothers
'If making it easy to be an illegal immigrant isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again,' Reid said in 1993.
'If you break our laws by entering our country without permission to give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides, and that's a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?'
In a typical year about 250,000 illegal immigrants give birth in the U.S., driving conservative Republicans to stoke controversy about their long-term impacts on welfare systems, education costs and other drivers of the national debt.
Current national policy stems from an 1898 Supreme Court ruling, but the high court has never spoken on the question of whether the 14th Amendment covers children born to people inside the U.S. illegally.
On Wednesday Trump suggested Democrats' conversion away from Reid's 1993 positon is tied to the party's acceptance of an 'open borders' philosophy 'which brings massive Crime.'
'Don’t forget the nasty term Anchor Babies,' he added. 'I will keep our Country safe. This case will be settled by the United States Supreme Court!'
__
+11
'If making it easy to be an illegal immigrant isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again,' Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid said in 1993, years before he became the Senate majority leader
+11
'If making it easy to be an illegal immigrant isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again,' Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid said in 1993, years before he became the Senate majority leader
RELATED ARTICLES
![[]](https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2F1s%2F2018%2F10%2F30%2F19%2F5585666-0-image-m-9_1540926133007.jpg&t=1541037316&ymreqid=4c02e828-a95d-53d3-01bc-a2001a010000&sig=TnaDfZD9BWsR0XMl14lm8g--~C)
![[]](https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2F1s%2F2018%2F10%2F30%2F15%2F5575698-0-image-a-10_1540913473678.jpg&t=1541037316&ymreqid=4c02e828-a95d-53d3-01bc-a2001a010000&sig=Mb.ClulTvXuD1mqiNOacCQ--~C)
![[]](https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F08%2F20%2F19%2F2B87F7C900000578-0-image-m-17_1440094934784.jpg&t=1541037316&ymreqid=4c02e828-a95d-53d3-01bc-a2001a010000&sig=ihh8vSEp.ygCpKKme1xa9A--~C)
![[]](https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F08%2F20%2F01%2F2B81D10700000578-0-image-m-6_1440029672441.jpg&t=1541037316&ymreqid=4c02e828-a95d-53d3-01bc-a2001a010000&sig=Vjmi3v9rTtISbXyTSqaneQ--~C)
--
Pastor Lee S Gliddon Jr
God's Word Christian Ministry
Conservative Patriot > http://conpats.blogspot.com
God's Word Christian Ministry
Conservative Patriot > http://conpats.blogspot.com
Utah Artifacts Links Lady of Elche As An Anunnaki Queen
OOM2
One of the most enigmatic feminine faces of the history of humanity, is without a doubt the one of the Lady of Elche, that dates of the Iberian culture. And although his clothing reflects his high lineage, his identity is unknown. But the enigmas are gradually being cleared and the new hypotheses of the origin of this figure are at least surprising. Does the Lady of Ancient Sumeria come? Or, maybe it was an Anunnaki queen?
A medal found in Utah (in 1966 USA), which has a lady engraved identical to that of Elche, (since the Lady of Elche has the same ritual ear-rings and necklaces), would reveal the connection of both relics, despite the vast distances between Elche and Utah.
Also the earmuffs were representative of Atlantis. In Bolivia (Peru) and in the Andes they have always been a trail of Atlantis, which had a capital on Lake Titicaca, a lake that is in the mountains and with Anunnaki remains. There are legends in the area of Venus men who visited the earth and had that type of earmuffs.
Very interesting link from the medal to the statue...sounds like the mystery only deepens.
Scott C. Waring
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
