Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Gave Millions to La Raza

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 9, 2010

A 2002 annual report breaking down money doled out by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation reveals the foundation provided a grant to National Council of La Raza. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is arguably the largest “charitable” organization in the world.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave La Raza over $6 million in 2002.



Gates gave $6,661,364 to the racist organization for education, according to the foundation’s website. La Raza has also received financial support from the Ford Foundation. For instance, in 1968, the globalist foundation gave La Raza $600,000, according to research conducted by Philip Brennan.

La Raza’s website admits “the organization receives two-thirds of its funding from corporations and foundations, and the rest from the government.” For the period 1992-1996, the total amount of “gifts, grants and contributions” to La Raza was more than $38 million.

The Ford Foundation has also funded the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). According to Mario Obeldo, former head of MALDEF, “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who does not like it should leave.” In 1998, Obledo was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Clinton.

La Raza’s motto is “For the race everything, outside the race nothing” (“Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada”). La Raza is associated with the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán (MEChA), an organization that espouses Aztec supremacism and irredentism (specifically advocating the annexation of the American Southwest). Mestizo activists believe they have a legal and primordial right to the land and propose that a new nation be created, a Republica del Norte. The primary vehicle for creating this Aztec nation is La Reconquista, a demographic “revolution” that strives to supplant “gringos” in the Southwest with an influx of illegal Mexican immigrants.

According to La Raza, border control is racist. The organization condemns the “step-up [in] immigration law enforcement significantly along the U.S./Mexico border and in the interior of the country” claiming such activities violate the civil rights of Hispanics.

A recent poll conducted by Fox News reveals that most Americans believe the federal government is failing to enforce the country’s immigration laws. In addition, voters are more likely to favor than oppose Arizona’s new immigration law that was blocked by a federal judge last week.

As Kevin Lamb notes, the Gates and Ford foundations, along with the Soros and Rockefeller foundations, have long funded and supported “well-organized ethnic-immigrant lobbies and advocacy groups, which are actively working to transform the U.S. into a borderless society,” a cornerstone of the globalist vision and the end game of world government. La Raza, MEChA, and other so-called Hispanic civil rights organizations calling for an unrestricted flow of illegal immigrants are indispensable for this one-world agenda.

In addition to striving to eliminate borders and destroy the national sovereignty of the United States, Bill Gates has worked tirelessly as a eugenicist dedicated to reduce world population, another key objective of the elite. “First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent,” Gates said during an invitation-only conference held in Long Beach, California, earlier this year.

“In plain English, one of the most powerful men in the world states clearly that he expects vaccines to be used to reduce population growth. When Bill Gates speaks about vaccines, he speaks with authority,” writes F. William Engdahl.

La Raza and MEChA need to take note. The globalist foundations are not primarily concerned with the civil liberties of people in the third world, including Mexico, but are rather determined to exploit them in order to further their one-world and ultimately eugenics depopulation agenda.

Calderon says US arms drive drug violence

Press TV
August 20, 2010

Addressing an anti-narcotics forum on Thursday, Mexican President Felipe Calderon said that the smuggled US arms, which fall into the hands of drug cartels, are used to foster drug violence and have so far claimed thousands of lives.

Calderon described US arms dealers as “greedy and ambitious,” and said their “business is to sell arms to criminals,” AFP reported.

He also lashed out at Washington for failing to control drug addiction in the United States.

“I don’t honestly believe that the United States has made a significant effort to reduce drug addiction, frankly, even though it was announced and despite the goodwill that we have with President Barack Obama,” he said.

Since 2006, Calderon has mobilized nearly 50,000 troops to wage an all-out war against drug violence, which has yielded little success.

Statistics show more than 28,000 people have been killed in drug violence in Mexico over the past four years.

American authorities admit that the US is the biggest consumer of illicit drugs and thereby encourages drug violence.

“We know that the demand for drugs drives much of this illicit trade and that guns purchases in the US are used to facilitate violence here in Mexico,” said US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during her visit to Mexico in March.

Obamas to begin sixth holiday of the year

The Obama family will begin their sixth holiday of the year today, an 11-day sojourn in Martha’s Vineyard, the island destination of the wealthy and well-connected American elite.

By Toby Harnden, Washington
Published: 8:18PM BST 18 Aug 2010

President Barack Obama will be accompanied by his wife Michelle and daughters Malia, 12, and Sasha, nine, and are expected to stay at the historic Blue Heron Farm in Chilmark.

Bill Burton, the deputy White House press secretary, said that the US president was “going to spend a little time recharging his batteries” at the Massachusetts island ahead of the November midterm elections.

Barack Obama to spend holidays in Martha's Vineyard“There will be some hiking, some time at the beach, some time at the ice cream store - all the sort of things you do when you’re at Martha’s Vineyard. You enjoy the people and the good food.”

He is also expected to work on his swing at Mink Meadows golf club in Vineyard Haven and to work out every day, as he did when the First Family visited Martha’s Vineyard last year.

The tally of vacation days for an American president has become a contentious issue in recent years. President Bill Clinton conducted a poll about where best to holiday. President George W. Bush spent a total of 879 days on holiday in his eight years in office, according to Mark Knoller of CBS, the unofficial statistician of the presidency.

Mr Bush was usually working at his Prairie Chapel ranch in Texas, which was named the “Western White House” during his long summers there when he was accompanied by dozens of staff.

Mr Obama’s holidays have been particularly scrutinised in the last year, as he has come under fire for his handling of the US economy as well as the Louisiana oil spill. A poll released this week found that only four in 10 approve of his handling of the economy.

He was questioned last year for choosing to stay on the elitist Martha’s Vineyard during a severe recession, while in July he was criticised for taking his family to Maine rather than visit the Gulf of Mexico coast line. He subsequently took his family to Florida last weekend.

Although he appears to take more holidays than his predecessors, they have usually been very short. His five this year will total just 20 days - he did not accompany his wife and youngest daughter to Marbella, Spain. As well as Florida, Maine, and an 11-day stay in Hawaii over Christmas and New Year, he and his wife spent two days in Asheville, North Carolina in April.

His holidays also tend to be interrupted by major events. During the President’s first holiday of the year in his native Hawaii he spent much of his time grappling with the fallout from the failed terrorist attack by the Christmas Day “underpants bomber”. His last break in Martha’s Vineyard was interrupted by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy.

Why the Wars can’t be Won

Prof. John Kozy
Global Research
August 20, 2010

Edmund Burke’s statement, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it” is frequently cited, but in truth, even history’s obvious lessons are unrecognized by many who know history very well.

There was a time when every school child could recite the Gettysburg Address from memory, especially its famous peroration: “we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” But that resolution has largely gone unfulfilled. So exactly what did the Civil War accomplish?

Most certainly, it preserved the union territorially and abolished slavery—two noteworthy things. But the slaves who were freed, rather than being benefited by their freedom, were left in the lurch, and the prejudicial attitudes of Confederate whites were most likely hardened; they certainly were not softened. So although the war united the nation territorially, it failed to unite its peoples, and that division is still evident today.

After the 2004 Presidential election, The Dallas Morning News ran a feature about this division titled Beyond the Red and Blue. Using the red states that went to President Bush and the blue states that went to Senator Kerry, it pointed out how red and blue states ranked in various categories.

People in red states are less healthy than those in blue states.

People in red states earn less than those in blue states.

People in red states are less educated than those in blue states.

More people in red states live in mobile homes than those in blue states.

The red states have higher birth rates among teens than the blue states.

More people are killed by guns in the red states than in the blue states.

And the Dallas Morning News missed a number of other inferior attributes of the red states.

The red states have higher rates of poverty, both generally and among the elderly, higher rates of crime, both general and violent, have higher rates of infant mortality and divorce, and have fewer physicians per unit of population than do the blue states.

These statistics do not paint a pretty picture. And since the red states are commonly referred to as the conservative heartland, one would think that the people who live in these states would vote against conservative candidates merely on the basis of their own rational, self interests. But they don’t.

There’s an obvious clash here, for the red states are the home of that group that calls itself “moral America.” But how can a moral viewpoint countenance poverty, crime, and infant mortality? What kind of morality is it that doesn’t care for the welfare of people? Just what moral maxim guides the lives of these people? Certainly not the Golden Rule, the Decalogue, or the Second Commandment of Christ. From what I have been able to gather, moral America needs a new moral code. The one it has is, to use a word the members of this group dislike, relative.

So what motivates the conservative nature of the people in the red states? Let’s look at some history.

For a century after the Civil War, the south voted Democratic, but not because the people shared any values in common with the rest of the nation’s Democrats. (Southerners even distinguished themselves from other Democrats by calling themselves “Dixiecrats.”) These people were Democrats merely because the political party of the war and reconstruction was Republican. And when, in the mid-twentieth century, the Democratic Party championed an end to racial discrimination, these life-long Democrats quickly became Republicans, because the Republican party had in the intervening years become reactionary.

What motivates these people even today, though most likely they don’t recognize it, is an unwillingness to accept the results of the Civil War and change the attitudes held before it. When a society inculcates beliefs over a long period of time, those beliefs cannot be changed by a forceful imposition of others. The beliefs once practiced overtly continue to be held covertly. Force is never an effective instrument of conversion. Martyrdom is preferable to surrender, and even promises of a better future are ineffective.

So what did the Civil War really accomplish? It united a nation without uniting its people. The United States of America became one nation indivisible made up of two disunited peoples; it became a nation divided, and the division has spread.

Therein lies a lesson all nations should have learned. By the force of arms, you can compel outward conformity to political institutions and their laws, but you cannot change the antagonistic attitudes of people, that can remain unchanged for decades and longer waiting for opportunities to reassert themselves.

Any astute reader can apply this lesson to the present day’s activities in the Middle East. Neither force nor promises of a future better than the past can win the hearts and minds of people. And soldiers who die in an attempt to change another people’s values always die in vain.

All wars, even when carried on by the strongest of nations against weak opponents, are chancy, and their costs, in every respect, are always much more than anticipated, even putting aside the physical destruction and the lives lost.

Nations that have started wars with the psychological certainty of winning rarely have, and when they have, the results were rarely lasting or those sought. As Gandhi once observed, “Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.”

The Crusaders, fighting under the banner of Christ, could not make Palestine a part of Christendom. France, under Napoleon, conquered most of Europe but lost it all and Napoleon ended up a broken man. Prussian militarism prevailed in the Franco-Prussian War, but in less than a century Germany had lost all. The Austrians in 1914 could not only not subdue the Serbs, the empire and its monarchial form of government were lost. The Germans and Japanese after 1939 and astounding initial successes were reduced to ruin.

But even the winners are losers.

Americans won the Mexican War and acquired the southwestern United States, but that conquest brought with it unfathomable and persistent problems—racial prejudice, discrimination, and an irresolvable problem of immigration and border insecurity. Americans likewise won the falsely justified Spanish American war and acquired a number of colonial states but were unable to hold most of them. The allies won the Second World War, but France and England lost the colonies they were fighting to preserve, and these two powers, which were great before the war, were reduced to minor status (although both still refuse to admit it). Israel has won five wars against various Arab states since 1948, but its welfare and security have not been enhanced, and Arab hatred and intransigence has grown more common.

People need to realize that after a war, things are never the same as they were before, and that even the winners rarely get what they fight for. War is a fool’s errand in pursuit of ephemera.

At the end of World War II, American leaders wrongly assumed that America’s superpower status gave it the means to impose its view of what the world should be like on others everywhere. Then came Korea and the assumption proved false. Despite all of the destruction and death inflicted on the North Koreans, their attitudes went unchanged. The lesson went unlearned. It went unlearned again in Viet Nam, after which Henry Kissinger is reported to have naively said, “I could not believe that a primitive people had no breaking point.” The Vietnamese never broke. Now again Americans are foolishly assuming that the peoples of the Middle East will change their attitudes if enough force is imposed for a long enough time and enough promises of a better future are made. History belies this assumption.

Unfortunately, history teaches its lessons to only those willing to learn, and the American oligarchy shows no signs of having such willingness.

So let’s start singing bye-bye, Miss American Pie

Warring is nothing but a bad way to die!

Nearly Half of United States Considering Arizona-Style Immigration Legislation

Fred Lucas
CNSNews
August 19, 2010

Twenty-two states are now in the process of drafting or seeking to pass legislation similar to Arizona’s law against illegal immigration. This is occurring despite the fact that the Obama administration has filed a lawsuit against the Arizona law and a federal judge has ruled against portions of that law – a ruling that is now being appealed.

Next month, two Rhode Island state lawmakers, a Democrat and a Republican, will travel to Arizona to speak with Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, local sheriffs, and other officials about how to better craft their own bipartisan immigration bill for Rhode Island, which already has been enforcing some federal immigration laws.

Meanwhile, 11 Republican state lawmakers from Colorado traveled to Arizona this week to meet with officials there on how to craft legislation for the Mile High state.

Firearms and the Constitution Versus Treaties

Lesley Swann
Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center
August 19, 2010

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under that Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution

Recently I attended a gun show, where I handed out information material and answered questions on the Tenth Amendment Center. Several people were concerned about the U.S. making a treaty that would gut the U.S. Constitution and potentially take away firearms from law abiding citizens here in the U.S. They argued that the paragraph above from the Constitution places treaty law above the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Our Founders very clearly stated the conditions under which the U.S. Constitution could be amended, or changed, in Article 5. It is quite illogical to conceive that our Founders would write such a brilliant document to be the foundation of our union, only to create a giant backdoor for foreign governments to come in and destroy the liberty we had worked so hard to achieve. In fact, our Founders themselves said otherwise.

“The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution…” – Alexander Hamilton

“I do not conceive that power is given to the President or the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power.” – James Madison

“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

So, when I began re-reading this section of the Constitution I realized that they didn’t leave a backdoor, but in fact were expressly forbidding this type of maneuver in Article VI. The answer to the riddle that confuses many people isn’t to be found in an indecipherable tome on constitutional law, but instead in simple English grammar and a little attention to detail.

In reading through the entire Constitution, you will notice that whenever the Constitution refers to itself the verbiage “this Constitution” is used. The only exceptions to this are the President’s Oath of Office, where the phrase “the Constitution of the United States” is used, and here in the latter part of Article VI. In every other place where you find the word Constitution written in the Constitution itself, it is preceded by the word “this” making it clear that the Constitution is referring to itself. In the President’s Oath of Office the phrase “Constitution of the United States” makes it perfectly clear that the phrase is referring to this Constitution as well.

The Founders were very clear and precise with their use of language in the Constitution, so why do we have “the Constitution” in this case (“any Thing in THE Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”), and “this Constitution” in all other cases where the word is written. The simple answer is that in this case, they were not referring to the United States Constitution at all.

The humble preposition is the key to solving the intent of the Founders in this statement. A prepositional phrase – such as of, to, or in – is a word that can modify and indicate relationships. Prepositional phrases can also modify more than one object. In this case, the prepositional phrase “of any State” refers to both the words “Constitution” and “Laws” that precede the phrase. This means that the final phrase of this clause could rightly be read to mean “any Thing in the Constitution of any State or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Founders weren’t saying that treaties were to be supreme over the U.S. Constitution, but that they could and would take precedence over the state constitutions and laws.

It is clear with a little analysis of the details of the language and grammar used to construct this clause that our Founders were placing treaty law in its rightful place – beneath the supreme law of the land in the form of our U.S. Constitution, but above the laws and constitutions of the states. There is no loophole that can allow international interests to trump the U.S. Constitution, but the treaty must be made in pursuance of our Constitution, just as all laws that Congress makes must be in pursuance of the Constitution.

While some well-meaning (and not-so-well-meaning) politicians may claim that they can legislate via treaty, this clearly was not the intent of our Founders. Will this knowledge stop those who would seek to take our freedoms from shredding the Constitution by attempting to pass such treaties? Probably not. But we can rest firm in the knowledge that our Founders did not give the Federal government the power to usurp the Constitution by treaty, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not treaty law. More importantly, we can use this knowledge as intellectual firepower to stop the enemies of liberty and the Second Amendment from doing so.

Google Plans To Kill Web In Internet Takeover Agenda

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, August 19, 2010

The net-neutrality ending deal with Verizon is just the beginning of Google’s plans to kill the open and free Internet as part of their takeover agenda to completely control the world wide web and force independent media websites, radio and TV shows out of existence for good.

Google’s agreement with Verizon to speed certain Internet content to users opens the door to the complete sterilization of the world wide web as a force for political change. Under Google’s takeover plan, the Internet will closely resemble cable TV, independent voices will be silenced and the entire Internet will be bought up by transnational media giants.

People who want to run a simple blog will be priced out of existence, online TV and radio shows will cease to exist as the Internet is swallowed up by the corporate borg.

True net neutrality means that independent news outlets who attract an audience by telling the truth can compete on an even keel with corporate giants like ABC, CBS and CNN. The Google-Verizon pact will end that level playing field and in turn eliminate everything that is outside of the mainstream.

“A non-neutral Internet means that companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Google can turn the Net into cable TV and pick winners and losers online,” writes Josh Silver. “A problem just for Internet geeks? You wish. All video, radio, phone and other services will soon be delivered through an Internet connection. Ending Net Neutrality would end the revolutionary potential that any website can act as a television or radio network. It would spell the end of our opportunity to wrest access and distribution of media content away from the handful of massive media corporations that currently control the television and radio dial.”

The deal will also split the Internet into a two-tier system, a cyber toll road, where satisfactory speeds and service will only be obtainable by those willing to pay substantial fees.

The pact also gives Google and huge ISPs the leeway to block certain websites on wireless networks, meaning Prison Planet and Infowars will ‘go dark’ for millions of people.

Once Google’s fiercest critics have been silenced for good the company can then set about implementing its CIA-backed total information awareness program, which will scour Twitter accounts, blogs and websites for all sorts of information left by individual users, aiming to use this data to “predict the future” and completely direct and control people’s lives and behavior.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt has announced that Google, in conjunction with the CIA, is set to become the ultimate Big Brother entity that “will know so much about its users that the search engine will be able to help them plan their lives” by constantly tracking their location via smart phones and telling them where to go and what to do.

We have previously reported on Google’s intimate and long standing connections to government spy networks.

There is also no doubt that Google is one of the corporations at the forefront of the government’s drive to use cybersecurity as a pretext for killing the free Internet, having previously worked with the NSA and the CIA.

The recent scandal involving the company’s street view roaming vehicles accessing the wi-fi details of internet users and mapping their online activities has also raised serious questions over intelligence links and abuse of privacy laws.

Check back soon for quotes and screenshots from an important new video in which Alex Jones breaks down Google’s plan to kill the web and explains why it’s the end of the Internet as we know it unless we stand up now and say no.