The Ten Commandments Of Liberalism

The Ten Commandments Of Liberalism

John Hawkins | Apr 29, 2014

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/04/29/the-ten-commandments-of-liberalism-n1830696

1) It doesn't matter whether you're yelling at someone who never knew you existed five minutes ago, lying about a conservative because you don't agree with him or even throwing a brick through a strore window, you are always the poor, oppressed victim.

2) By default, liberals can't be racist, sexist, or homophobic by virtue of being liberal. In other words, if a socialist like Hitler were around today, not only would he deny he is anti-Semitic, he'd be calling OTHER PEOPLE anti-Semitic.

3) The only bad, wrong and immoral thing you can do is being judgmental enough to label an activity bad, wrong, or immoral. That makes you sound like Rick Santorum and even if you turn out to be right about a lot of things over the long term, is it worth it if you sound like Rick Santorum?

4) Women, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, gays, Jews, Asians -- pretty much everyone but straight white males -- are weak, hapless, sad victims who are barely capable of tying their own shoes without a liberal writing a government policy that does it for them.

5) There is no such thing as the failure of a liberal policy; there are only well meaning left-wingers doing wonderful things. If they don't turn out as expected, there must be evil, awful conservative Republicans causing it somehow -- probably George W. Bush or alternately, if he's busy planning new wars, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin.

6) Liberalism is a jealous god and it will not tolerate anything, especially Christianity, being put before it. If Jesus wants to be a significant part of your life, He better call for gay marriage and a carbon tax first.

7) It's better to bankrupt a city like Detroit, cause the deaths of millions in Africa by banning DDT, or destroy the American health care system with Obamacare than to be called "mean" for choosing policies based on whether they work or not.

8) Not only should you go ahead and covet your neighbor's possessions, you should encourage other people to do it, too. Then, you should call for the government to take their possessions and redistribute them. After they get done, there may not be much of anything left, but then you'll all be equally poor and miserable and there's a lot to be said for that.

9) Disagreeing with a black Democrat? Racist. Opposing Affirmative Action? Racist. Think we pay out too much in welfare and food stamps? Racist. Don't like the IRS? Racist. Republican? Racist. Wait, what are we talking about? Racist!

10) Money is no object -- taxpayer money, of course, not your own. Your money, you want to keep. But, when other people's money is on the line, it's worth spending any amount, no matter how large, to achieve any good, no matter how small.

UPDATE: Clearing up any Confusion about my Research

Some of the articles that I post will include research.

I take articles in the news highlight key people and organizations, and below the articles show how the Democrats network to makes things happen or not. It’s not by chance. This is not the same Democrat party your grandparents belonged to it has evolved into the liberal party. They have an unbelievable network that I can trace back to about 1908. One of their strongest holds is our schools and our taxes pay to keep them strong. They took over our State Department to control and dumb down our children, as well as plans for population control by involving the United States in war.

This network has gone so long unnoticed that it has seeped into all political parties, foundations, non profits, Hollywood, just like a cancer ravaging the world. Their goal is “One World Government”. When Obama leaves the White House the network will still be there grooming the next President like those before them.

Just because we won World War II, doesn’t mean the Nazi party (liberal party) gave up. They have just found a better way to bring the world to their knees.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Jessica Tuchman Mathews is the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (think tank), a director at the American Friends of Bilderberg (think tank), was an honorary trustee at the Brookings Institution (think tank), the under secretary at the U.S. Department of State, and a 2008 Bilderberg conference participant (think tank).

Ed Griffin’s interview with Norman Dodd in 1982

(The investigation into the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace uncovered the plans for population control by involving the United States in war, and taking over the State Department)

http://www.illuminati-news.com/110106a.htm

Note: Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (think tank), and the Brookings Institution (think tank).

George Soros was the chairman for the Foundation to Promote Open Society.

Rose Gottemoeller was a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (think tank), and is the acting under secretary for the U.S. Department of State.

Andrew Carnegie was the founder of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (think tank), the endowed predecessor schools for the Carnegie Mellon University, the founder of the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh, and the founder of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Teresa Heinz Kerry is a life trustee at the Carnegie Mellon University, a trustee at the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh, an honorary trustee at the Brookings Institution (think tank), and married to John F. Kerry.

John F. Kerry is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, the secretary at the U.S. Department of State for the Barack Obama administration, and Cameron F. Kerry’s brother.

Cameron F. Kerry is John F. Kerry’s brother, and a fellow at the Brookings Institution (think tank).

Martin S. Indyk is the Middle East peace envoy at the U.S. Department of State, was the assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of State, and the VP & director of the Foreign Policy Program for the Brookings Institution (think tank).

Carlos Pascual is a special envoy, international energy affairs, assistant secretary nominee for the U.S. Department of State, and was a VP for the Brookings Institution (think tank).

Diane S. Ravitch was a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (think tank), an assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Education, and is a critic of the Common Core educational standards.

Margaret Spellings was the secretary for the U.S. Department of Education, the architect for the No Child Left Behind Act, and is the U.S. program advisory panel member for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was a funder for the Brookings Institution (think tank), and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

THE STORY OF HOW “AMAZING GRACE” WAS WRITTEN

THE STORY OF HOW “AMAZING GRACE” WAS WRITTEN

By Reverend Samuel Orrin Sewell

Captain John Newton was a slave trader. For decades he loaded his "cargo" in Africa, and delivered it to sugar plantations and other activities supported by slavery. He was getting ready to retire as a wealthy man, but on his final voyage something happened that dramatically changed his life.

A fierce storm began to batter his ship. Captain Newton came up on deck and took the wheel in his own hands. He struggled for hours to save his ship. Close to his widely placed feet there was an air shaft that led down to the "cargo." Slaves were stacked like cord-wood on slave ships, and Captain Newton noticed urgent sounds coming through the air shaft.  Screams of pain from a female voice reached his ears. It soon became obvious that a child was being born right below his feet. The fury of the storm, compounded by stress and fatigue, caused Captain Newton to connect his efforts at saving his ship with the struggle going on just inches below him. Eventually the woman's screaming stopped, but there was no cry of a newborn baby. Captain Newton realized that a baby had just died. His firm grip on the wheel slipped, he fell to the deck unconscious.

The ship began to wallow in the troughs of the waves. The first mate rushed to the deck, grabbed the wheel, and ordered Captain Newton’s unconscious body to be placed in the Captain's cabin. Finally the storm subsided, but for three days Captain Newton was a mad man. He threw things at crew members who attempted to give him food, and seemed to be talking to himself in between periods of weeping and bellowing obscenities at the top of his lungs. Near the end of the third day of his tribulation the crew found him sitting at his desk, writing frenetically. When he had finished writing he called his first mate to come to his cabin. He handed the first mate the words to "Amazing Grace."

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

He reported that the words came to him in a kind of "automatic writing." Later he explained how the words to "Amazing Grace" were revealed to him. "And I saw choirs of Angels, tier after tier, stretching into the sky as far as the eye could see, and they sang to me one beautiful phrase over and over again; It shall not be counted against you. It shall not be counted against you." John Newton became a clergyman in the church of England.

This story has been retold by so many clergy that the facts of the incident are lost in history. Now it is more of a parable than a history lesson.  I can't tell this story without weeping. Even now, after having told it hundreds of time, I began crying while typing. I hope that others hearing the story will be inspired to share the grace of Christ which is freely given even to a "wretch like me."

Amazing Grace Lyrics  John Newton (1725-1807)

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

T'was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come;
'Tis Grace that brought me safe thus far
and Grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promised good to me.
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease;
I shall profess, within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

The following stanza was written by an anonymous author, often replacing the sixth stanza, or inserted as the fourth.

When we've been there ten thousand years
Bright shining as the sun.
We've no less days to sing God's praise
Than when we've first begun.

Chorus:

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

White House Steps Up Effort to Confirm Federal Judges

White House Steps Up Effort to Confirm Federal Judges

By JEREMY W. PETERS APRIL 28, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/us/white-house-steps-up-effort-to-confirm-federal-judges.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

WASHINGTON — With the possibility that Republicans could take the Senate in November, the White House and Senate Democrats are working swiftly to confirm judges to the federal courts in an effort to allow President Obama to leave a lasting liberal imprint on the judiciary.

Adding to the sense of urgency is the possibility that the window in which the president can make the appointments he wants might be closing faster than Democrats would like.

Republicans, still fuming over the change in filibuster rules that ended their ability to block presidential appointments, could shut down the confirmation process any time between now and November, as the minority party has been known to do in election years.

Over the objections of conservatives, Democrats on Monday narrowly won, in a 51-to-40 vote, confirmation of a San Francisco lawyer, Michelle T. Friedland, to fill the last vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The powerful Ninth Circuit, which is based in California and has long been a target for Republicans who have lamented its liberal bent, had not had a full bench in nine years.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Credit Gary Cameron/Reuters

Some Republicans are openly threatening to hold up or halt the confirmation process altogether to deprive the president of his picks — a move that would be disruptive and open the party up to charges of obstruction in the middle of a closely contested battle for control of Congress.

“Part of his legacy should be that he pushed to change the rules and paid a price for it,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said of the president. He added that members of his party were still deeply resentful of Mr. Obama for encouraging Senate Democrats to end the filibuster on all presidential nominations but those to the Supreme Court.

“The Democrats have to think long and hard about this now,” Mr. Graham said. “We’re getting into that time period where traditionally the closer the election, the less activity. We’re likely to be in charge next year. They need to think long and hard about what they’re doing.”

The implications will stretch far beyond the Obama presidency. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush left a lasting mark on the federal courts by appointing young, conservative judges who could sit on the bench and affect policy for decades, and Mr. Obama is seeking to do the same with liberal jurists.

At the White House, three lawyers in the counsel’s office are working full time vetting and processing nominees and potential nominees in an effort that has escalated significantly since the president’s first term. The departing counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, has been working more directly with Democratic senators, urging them to send the White House names of acceptable nominees as quickly as possible. And as soon as the administration learns of a vacancy, the counsel’s office wastes no time compiling a list of possible candidates.

“What we’ve tried to do is turn up the volume, if you will, in the second term,” Ms. Ruemmler said. She noted that the White House was much more focused on legislation during the first term, leaving it less time to devote to judges.

Ms. Ruemmler acknowledged the difficulties that the White House and Senate Democrats were likely to face from Republicans, who have shown little inclination to fast-track any of Mr. Obama’s nominees.

“I have not gotten the feeling from them that there’s a great sense of urgency,” she added, speaking of Senate Republicans. “But we have been working for years to try to get these vacancies filled, and there’s no reason they shouldn’t go through.”

As Mr. Obama contemplates the limited possibility of getting major, legacy-defining pieces of his agenda through a divided Congress, the men and women he is able to name to the federal bench offer a way for him to leave a legacy on policy for a generation or longer.

The departing White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler. Credit Charles Dharapak/Associated Press

But even with the rules changes that significantly limit the minority party’s ability to block nominees, Republicans have procedural maneuvers to exploit. By refusing to consent to votes last year, they forced Mr. Obama to resubmit a slate of nominees, restarting a cumbersome process that required them all to be nominated and processed again.

Republicans have also slowed down confirmations through a Senate custom known as the “blue slip” process, which allows each senator veto power over any judge from his or her state. In Texas, which has 10 vacant federal judgeships and two Republican senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, a federal judge has not been confirmed by the full Senate since April 2012 (though one did recently win approval from the Judiciary Committee and is awaiting a final vote).

After Ms. Friedland’s confirmation, there are 86 vacancies in the federal courts. Mr. Obama has sent 49 nominees to the Senate to fill those slots. Nineteen are pending in the Judiciary Committee, and 30 are awaiting votes by the full Senate.

Conservative groups opposed Ms. Friedland, calling her, for example, “an enemy” of separated powers and limited government and unfit for the bench.

Liberal groups have long struggled to match the motivation and intensity that conservatives have in rallying their faithful around the issue of appointed judges.

“Conservatives accepted decades ago that the selection of federal judges is a 100 percent political process,” said Robert Raben, a political consultant who works with the White House and Democrats on nominees. “Progressives have been very slow to accept that fact.”

Mr. Raben helped form a political action committee called the Committee for a Fair Judiciary, which aims to energize liberal activists and senators on judicial appointments. The group looked at a raft of recent cases challenging abortion restrictions in federal courts, and found that of the nine rulings that upheld those laws or denied an injunction, seven were decided by judges appointed by a Republican president. Of the 13 rulings that struck down or enjoined an anti-abortion law, 10 were decided by judges appointed by a Democrat.

“One just has to be awake and aware to be worried,” said Judith L. Lichtman, a senior adviser to the National Partnership for Women and Families, one of several liberal organizations dedicated to issues like women’s rights, gay rights and the environment that are trying to refocus Democrats’ attention on the courts.

“There is infinite amount of mischief that senators could make, if they so choose, to hold up the democratic process,” Ms. Lichtman added of fears that Republicans could start significantly slowing confirmations.

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Republicans were continuing to examine their options. Asked whether they would eventually cut off confirmations altogether this year, he said, “Obviously, it’s going to happen sometime.”

Kathryn Ruemmler

Kathryn H. Ruemmler is the White House counsel for the Barack Obama administration, was a partner at Latham & Watkins, LLP, and the principal associate deputy attorney general for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Note: David M. Brodsky was a partner at Latham & Watkins, LLP, and is a director at the American Constitution Society.

Open Society Foundations was a funder for the American Constitution Society, the Alliance for Justice, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Center for American Progress.

George Soros is the founder & chairman for the Open Society Foundations, was the chairman for the Foundation to Promote Open Society, and a supporter for the Center for American Progress.

Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, and the Center for American Progress.

Judith L. Lichtman was a director at the American Constitution Society, and is a senior adviser at the National Partnership for Women & Families.

Barbra Streisand Foundation was a funder for the American Constitution Society, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Robert Raben was a director at the American Constitution Society, a director at the Alliance for Justice, Barney Frank’s counsel, the assistant attorney general for the U.S. Department of Justice, and is the president of the Raben Group.

Barney Frank’s counsel was Robert Raben, and his sister is Ann Lewis.

Ann Lewis is Barney Frank’s sister, and was a VP at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Eric H. Holder Jr. was a board member at the American Constitution Society, an intern at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, a partner at Covington & Burling LLP, and is the attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice for the Barack Obama administration.

Michael Chertoff is a senior of counsel at Covington & Burling LLP, was a partner at Latham & Watkins, LLP, a judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and an assistant attorney general for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Alex Kozinski was an attorney at Covington & Burling LLP, and is the chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Jocelyn C. Frye was the general counsel for the National Partnership for Women & Families, the policy & projects director to Michelle Obama for the Barack Obama administration, is Michelle Obama’s Harvard Law school friend, and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Melody C. Barnes was the domestic policy council, director for the Barack Obama administration, the EVP for the Center for American Progress, a principal at the Raben Group, and is Barack Obama’s golf partner.

Raben Group was the lobby firm for the Morehouse School of Medicine, and is the lobby firm for the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund.

Eric H. Holder Jr. is a trustee at the Morehouse School of Medicine, the attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice for the Barack Obama administration, and was an intern at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund.

Louis W. Sullivan was the president of the Morehouse School of Medicine, and is an Oak Bluffs (MA) homeowner.

Vernon E. Jordan Jr. is senior director at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, an Oak Bluffs (MA) homeowner, Valerie B. Jarrett’s great uncle, a director at the American Friends of Bilderberg (think tank), and a 2008 Bilderberg conference participant (think tank).

Valerie B. Jarrett is Vernon E. Jordan Jr’s great niece, the senior adviser for the Barack Obama administration, and a member of the Commercial Club of Chicago.

R. Eden Martin is the president of the Commercial Club of Chicago, and counsel at Sidley Austin LLP

Newton N. Minow is a member of the Commercial Club of Chicago, and a senior counsel at Sidley Austin LLP.

Barack Obama was an intern at Sidley Austin LLP.

Michelle Obama was a lawyer at Sidley Austin LLP, her policy & projects director for the Barack Obama administration was Jocelyn C. Frye.

Jocelyn C. Frye was the policy & projects director to Michelle Obama for the Barack Obama administration, the general counsel for the National Partnership for Women & Families, is Michelle Obama’s Harvard Law school friend, and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Open Society Foundations was a funder for the Center for American Progress, the American Constitution Society, and the Economic Policy Institute.

George Soros is the founder & chairman for the Open Society Foundations, and was a supporter for the Center for American Progress.

Judith L. Lichtman was a director at the American Constitution Society, and is a senior adviser at the National Partnership for Women & Families.

Debra L. Ness is the president of the National Partnership for Women & Families, and a director at the Economic Policy Institute.

NVG was the lobby firm for the National Partnership for Women & Families.

Maria Echaveste is the co-founder & partner for NVG, a board of adviser’s member for the American Constitution Society, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a board member for Priorities USA Action, and was William J. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.

Priorities USA Action was a super PAC supporting the 2012 Barack Obama presidential campaign, and is supporting the 2016 Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign.

George Soros is a co-chair, national finance council at Ready for Hillary.

Connections Everywhere!

by Chrue Blue
April 29th, 2014

“Last week the Hamas terrorist group and Fatah announced that they had agreed to reconcile and will begin discussing the formation of a unity government. The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel. As a response to this news, Israel canceled peace talks with the Palestinians.
On Friday US secretary of State John Kerry warned that the absence of a peace deal with Palestinians could lead Israel towards an apartheid-style situation. He made the comments on Holocaust Remembrance Day.”
Quoted from http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/breaking-john-kerry-releases-clarification-on-his-disgusting-apartheid-comments-on-israel/

Kerry then backed away from his comments, because they became public. He later inferred, that if he would have known those comments would be publicized, he would have chosen different terms. Hmmmmm...so he wasn't repentant for the term, he was embarrassed that they became news! Ahha! I see!!! 
 
Well, then let's take a look at the whole situation. Where was Mr. Kerry; Who was he talking to; and Why was he referencing the Israel situation. This is a very complicated situation and it will take a little time to get all the threads exposed (and this commentary will only barely break the tip of the ice berg off) We must understand clearly what apartheid is: Webster's definition is: (noun) a former social system in South Africa in which black people and people from other racial groups did not have the same political and economic rights as white people and were forced to live separately from white people. 
 
First, where was John Kerry when he made the now public comment about conditions in Israel being 'in danger of becoming apartheid in appearance. '
It will become clearer further on in this column that Mr. Kerry see's the issue in Israel as biased against Muslims living and working in the State of Israel. Kerry apparently doesn't take into consideration that Israel has consistently protected peaceful Muslims living in Israel, and have never denied them equal treatment in medical care when injuries arising from terrorist acts against citizens occurred. Let us confess, here and now, that Islamic aggression has injured and killed Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Should we harken back to how many Muslims were in the Twin Towers when they were destroyed???

Mr. Kerry make this heinous remark at a meeting of the Trilateral Commission. THAT is the bigger indication of what was going on with this comment.

What IS the Trilateral Commission? The Trilateral Comm. was founded in in 1973,by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, and it's foundation was to to foster a New International Economic Order. The point is that there are several international orders who are guided by a single principle: establishing a unified, cohesive global organization of nation-states, with no specific national identity, but only a global identity. The list of organizations that support and actively pursue this concept is so long that I cannot list them all here...but make no mistake, their members are the elite of elites, international corporations and the even more powerful international banking interests. 
The objectives of the so-called new global order people are manifold. Mr. Kerry is an active, long time member of the Trilaterals, as well as a member of (or closely associated with through professional/political relationships) other globalist org's. like the Bilderbergs, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, the Royal Insitute of International Affairs, World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, Aspen Institute, Tavistock Institute, Bohemian Grove, Pilgrim Society, the Round Table groups and many other international business affiliations. 
This is the "brain trust" that is and has been developing the interconnected, interwoven and interdependent global construct whose final objective is world governance. You will notice some familiar names as you read through this piece. The Rockefellers have been an extremely powerful family for over a century...along with other powerful families and their bankers. They have a goal: A Royal Courtisean system, joined with a Monarchy of Crown Heads.
The continuation of the old European Feudal system, except those at the top will be allies with power as their common dynamic.. Kerry is what is euphemistically known as a Royal Courtisean. He has no true regal blood, except in his private fantasy. His “power” comes from his affiliations, governmental, public and private.

“ Actions taken by the Trilateral Commission generally help the banking industry. Jeremiah Novak, writing in the July 1977 issue of Atlantic, said that after international oil prices rose when Nixon set price controls on American domestic oil, many developing countries were required to borrow from banks to buy oil, many of them with doubtful repayment abilities. All told, private multinational banks, particularly Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan, have loaned nearly $52 billion to developing countries. An overhauled IMF would provide another source of credit for these nations, and would take the big private banks off the hook. This proposal is the cornerstone of the Trilateral plan. ” (emphasis inserted, and quoted from: http://www.jeremiahproject.com/newworldorder/nworder07.html)

In 1975, a report was commissioned, written by Michael Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington and Joji Watanuki for the Trilateral Commission, which was later turned into a book titled “The Crisis of Democracy: On the Governability of Democracies”. The report observed the political state of the United States, Europe and Japan and says that in the United States the problems of governance "stem from an excess of democracy" and thus (the report) advocates "to restore the prestige and authority of central government institutions”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crisis_of_Democracy

Did ya get that? The problems of governance arise from an excess of democracy! Well, I agree with that in the vein that a democracy is nothing more than civilized mob rule, not rule of law. Our United states, as a nation, was established as a Sovereign Republic with a set of laws ensconced in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. THAT is rule of law republicanism. A democracy is the twin sister of oligarchy and one step away from Fascism. A Fascist government supports the rights of labor unions and corporate representatives (CEO's, company presidents, etc) to negotiate through a system called Corporatism. Currently, we are wavering between corporatism and collectivism. Corporatism is the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.

The Trilateral Commission is a true form of corporatism and it's mission is to bring all nations into it's corporate government tent...no longer restricting itself to the North America, Western Europe and Japan. So Kerry, being a member of the TC is devoted to global corporatism, and has been part of the socialist Progressive movement for decades.

"Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group; whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called 'the common good'." -- Ayn Rand.
 
So let's take a deeper look: It is very important to fascists, corporatists and collectivists that all schools in the country teach children that the state is the most important thing in the world. It is always a big crime in fascist countries to speak against the leader or ruling party (now think of the IRS scandal of targeting the Tea Party and other conservative groups). In countries led by fascist governments, the government tries to control all areas of life, including work, school, and family life. 
 
The Public Private Partnerships that have been formed over the past 136 years have been a deliberately designed elimination of national sovereignty, especially for the US. The European regalist and monarchical powers were furious that they lost the Revolutionary War and sought a way to regain the vast resources of the New American economy, taxes and fealty to the Crown. They found a way with the Central Bank system. It has been working like clockwork ever since. So how does all this fit with Kerry and the Trilateral Commission? How does all this fit together and why does it matter? Because we need to understand WHAT Kerry said and WHERE he said it to understand how he really meant it. Pay no attention to his reversal statement “I would have chosen a different word”. I seriously doubt it. John Kerry is the consummate elitist and serves his Master Controllers well.

Grab as cup of coffee and a couple of cookies and read on. 
 
This is what the Trilateral Home page says: “ The Commission was originally created in 1973 to bring together experienced leaders within the private sector to discuss issues of global concern at a time when communication and cooperation between Europe, North America, and Asia were lacking. The Commission has grown since its early days to include members from more countries in these regions, and it continues to find that study and dialogue about the pressing problems facing our planet remain as important today as in 1973. Problems and threats have changed, but their importance has only increased due to the more interconnected and interdependent world in which we now live. “ (emphasis inserted) http://www.trilateral.org/

The problem is that they do it behind closed doors without input by Citizens of the nations they seek to control. As an important addition to getting the full impact of how these nefarious organizations work together and the people who inform these “projects” on globalization, please see this piece, which I highly recommend; it is short, but chilling. “Sovereignty and Globalization”, by Richard Haass, President Council on Foreign Relations, Feb 17, 2006 http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/sovereignty-globalisation/p9903

For instance: “ The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded. As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.
Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.” (end of excerpt)

So, if these “leaders of nations” gather together to discuss building consensus' and alliances for the betterment of the world, why is there a distinct division in terms of goals between them, the interests they represent and the People of the nations? Why would Kerry condemn Israel in terms such as apartheid, for wanting to protect itself against violent, aggressive terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah? Not to mention Iran??? Or any other intrusion on it's national sovereign status?

Because the Nation of Israel is an impediment to full implementation of the new global order, these hysterical maniacs want to impose on every normal person on this planet. Becasue they have been working at this for over a century. Because they need to begin to cull the herd. Because they are evil right down to their toenails! What they say in private to each other and what they say in pubic to the People are 2 completely different things. 
 
Let's remember, Kerry didn't realize that the recording of his words would get out. Praise God it did! Those entities that have established a framework for the universal governance of our planet and wish to finally bring it out of the closet in it's fully functional form (and are salivating at the ultimate power and control it gives them, even now) simply cannot help themselves, but to enjoy the bliss their accomplishment is bringing them...

Here is an extremely small sample of US members, alone: (* denotes executive committee)

Sylvia Mathews Burwell, President, Global Development Programs, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA (Now the Sec'y of HHS, after Sebelius)
Dianne Feinstein, Member (D-CA), U.S. Senate (CFR and TC)
Martin S. Feldstein, Member, U.S. President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board; George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA; President Emeritus, National Bureau of Economic Research; former Chairman, U.S. President’s Council of Economic Advisors
(and while we're at it, here's a little quote from the documentary “Inside Job”, which everyone in America who cares about the national security of our country and in opposing the powers raging against us, should see:
Charles Ferguson: (q) Over the last decade, the financial services industries made about $5 billion worth of political contributions in the United States. That's kind of a lot of money. That doesn’t bother you?
Martin Feldstein: (a) No.
Narrative: Martin Feldstein is a professor at Harvard and one of the world's most prominent economists. As President Reagan's chief economic adviser, he was a major architect of deregulation. And from 1988 until 2009, he was on the board of directors of both AIG and AIG Financial Products, which paid him millions of dollars.”
(AIG and AIGFP received billions in the TARP bailout of 2008-9) Deregulation brought We The People untold agony in the thorough confiscation of our personal incomes through egregious taxation. But that's another talk show. These huge corporations, green start-ups gov't linked corporations with no bid contracts received hundreds of billions of dollars in the bailouts, which monies then were funneled to organizations such as labor unions and private executives, who in turn donated billions to campaign funds in PAC's and Super PAC's...it was the most heinous confiscation of the People's wealth there has ever been, except for the fraud known as the IRS and the Federal reserve. The Politicians borrowed “money” from the Fed, put the Taxpayers on the debt-hook for the “money”, gave it to their friends, their friends then gave it back in the form of contributions. It was an enormous shell game. We The People are left with holding the bill.

Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY; former Director, Policy Planning, U. S. Department of State; former Director of Foreign Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution
*Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York, NY; former U.S. Secretary of State; former U.S. Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; Lifetime Trustee, Trilateral Commission (CFR, TC, BB, BG, RIIA, CoR, etc. Kissinger is at the top of the tops; nothing gets done without his intimate knowledge and approval)
Thomas R. Pickering, Vice Chairman, Hills & Company, International Consultants, Washington, DC; former Senior Vice President, International Relations, The Boeing Company, Arlington, VA; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and the United Nations
Charles B. Rangel, Member (D-NY), U.S. House of Representatives
David Rockefeller, Founder, Honorary Chairman, and Lifetime Trustee, Trilateral Commission, New York, NY
John D. Rockefeller IV, Member (D-WV), U.S. Senate
George J. Tenet, Managing Director, Allen & Company, New York, NY; former U.S. Director of Central Intelligence
*Paul A. Volcker, Chairman, President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board; former Chairman, Wolfensohn & Co., Inc., New York; Frederick H. Schultz Professor Emeritus, International Economic Policy, Princeton University; former Chairman, Board of Governors, U.S. Federal Reserve System; Honorary North American Chairman and former North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission
John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer, Center for American Progress, Washington, DC; former Chief of Staff to President William J. Clinton
Condoleezza Rice, Professor of Political Science, Stanford University, and Thomas and Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy, Hoover Institution, Palo Alto, CA; former U. S. Secretary of State; former National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush
William H. Webster, Senior Partner, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Washington, DC; former U.S. Director of Central Intelligence; former Director, U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation; former Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Timothy F. Geithner, U.S. Secretary of  The Treasury
Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations (Yes, THAT Susan Rice who covered up for the criminal dysfunction in the WH and State Dept on Benghazi)
Dennis Ross, Senior Advisor, National Security Council
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director of Policy Planning, U. S. Department of State
Lawrence H. Summers , Director, National Economic Council, The White House
Robert B. Zoellick, President, World Bank 
 
A complete listing of current members (as of May 2010) is here: http://publicintelligence.net/trilateral-commission-complete-membership-list-may-2010/

It's a little hard to get their 2014 membership list. They like their privacy...(here is another interesting look at who was among the members during the past Clinton Administration) http://www.apfn.org/apfn/cfr-members.htm
 
and the list for 2011: http://www.trilateral.org/download/file/TC list 8-11 (5).pdf

Now, we should examine Mr. Kerry's historical position when it comes to the State of Israel, “peace talks” and the entity it concerns, the Arab Muslims (Islam)

Senator Kerry’s record vis-à-vis the State of Israel
Kerry is not a mainstream Democrat,” said Senator Joe Lieberman (D), “just look at his record..;(Boston Herald 1/28/04) Senator John Kerry called Yasser Arafat a “Statesman” and “Role Model,” long after Arafat’s history as responsible for the deaths of both Americans and Israelis was well known (The New War, by Senator John Kerry) Arafat was a horrendous thug terrorist and murderer, responsible for tens of thousands of Jewish deaths.
Senator Kerry told Arab American leaders Israel’s Security Fence was “Counterproductive” and “Harmful.” “We don’t need another barrier to peace.” (Remarks to Arab American Institute, 10/17/03). A leading Arab-American organization, The Arab American Political Action Committee, endorsed Kerry during his presidential run in 2004.

Senator Kerry’s Voting Record on Israel (excerpted from an article linked below, from 2004)
Kerry was not an original co-sponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 81, the Kyl-Feinstein Iran Resolution which sought to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

In 1996, Kerry did not sign on the Iran & Libya Sanctions Act. Forty-four of his colleagues did.
In 1993, Kerry did not sign the Lautenberg/Grassley letter urging the Secretary of State to include Hamas in the State Department’s terrorism report, although 55 other Senators did.
In 2000, Senator Kerry did not co-sponsor the Peace Through Negotiations Act (S. 3250) which warned against a Palestinian unilateral declaration of Independence. Sixty of his colleagues did. Senator Kerry was not the original co-sponsor of a single piece of pro-Israel legislation in his 20 years in the Senate.

In his 1997 book, “The New War”, Kerry who ha(d) the endorsements of both the
Muslim American PAC and the Arab America PAC spoke glowingly of Arafat as
a "statesman" and "role model." The last is correct. Arafat was slaughtering civilians as long ago as the 60s, and thus is a prototype for the current generation of terrorist leaders. In a November 17, 2003, speech to the Arab American Institute, Kerry called Israel’s security barrier, "a barrier to peace." (It is also a great inconvenience for suicide bombers.) When Jewish leaders complained, the Senator reversed himself. But his initial reaction was telling.

Kerry’s chief Middle East (choice for) adviser (was) former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, who: 1) Helped devise the disastrous Olso Accords, 2) Persuaded Clinton that Arafat was a big teddy bear, 3) As ambassador, called for the division of Jerusalem, 4) At the outset of the latest Intifada, insisted that Israel to hold back its army to encourage Arafat (who orchestrated the bloodbath) to deal with the terrorists! and 5) Wants to station U.S. forces in the West Bank and Gaza to cover an Israeli withdrawal.

New Republic editor Martin Peretz charges: "I’ve searched to find one time when Kerry, even candidate Kerry, criticized a U.N. action or statement against Israel. I’ve come up
empty. Nor has he defended Israel against the European Unions continuous
hectoring." 
 
From an Oct 28, 2004 article in FrontPage Magazine, “ the Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed put out a letter urging U.S. Moslems to vote for Kerry, "in the name of Islam." The ex-prime minister exhorted his fellow jihadists on their "duty to ensure that Bush will not be able to determine our fate for four more years." Said he, "There is an obvious connection between the sufferings of the Moslems and the policies and thinking of Bush." Mohamed could have saved his breath. According to a Zogby poll, on November 2, 2004, American Moslems will vote for Kerry by a 10-to-1 margin. (poster's reminder note: This was published back in 2004)

From the Washington Post, Oct 22, 2004: Charles Krauthammer wrote, "Re-engage in the peace process" is precisely what the Europeans, the Russians and the United Nations have been pressuring the United States to do for years. Do you believe any of them have Israel's safety at heart? They would sell out Israel in an instant, and they are pressuring America to do precisely that. 

Bush's sin is that he also insists the Palestinians genuinely accept Israel and replace the corrupt, dictatorial terrorist leadership of Yasser Arafat. John Kerry says he wants to "rejoin the community of nations." There is no issue on which the United States more consistently fails the global test of international consensus than Israel. In July, the U.N. General Assembly declared Israel's defensive fence illegal by a vote of 150 to 6. ""

Additionally in the 2004 race for POTUS, Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) endorses Kerry for President . (poster's note: That should tell you ALOT!

From : 2004 WorldNetDaily.com October 16, 2004,  By Joe Kaufman and Larry Klayman

" An e-mail announcement, dated Oct. 13 was sent out by the president of the Muslim Student Organization of Florida Atlantic University, Asmaa Metwally. It stated the following: "Former Ambassador Osman Siddique, a representative from the John Kerry campaign, will be coming to the Pompano Beach Masjid this coming Saturday, Oct. 16 to rally up the Muslim vote for John Kerry."

CAIR, or the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is an organization that purports to be a harmless civil rights group fighting against discrimination of the Muslim community. Yet, evidence shows that CAIR is nothing more than a militant Islamist organization. CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, an organization that was founded by current Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, himself, has stated that he supports Hamas.""

Pro-Iranian lobby funding Kerry

By Aaron Klein Thursday, October 14, 2004

Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been given to Kerry from the pro-Iranian lobby, possibly influencing the presidential candidate's startling call to provide Tehran with the nuclear fuel it seeks, according to Iran's Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy chairman Aryo Pirouznia. 

 

With top Iranian officials openly calling for the development of nuclear weapons within the next four months and overwhelming intelligence indicating Iran is seeking to create a nuclear arsenal, Kerry has been insisting as president he would provide Tehran with nuclear fuel as long as it is used for peaceful purposes only, a position that has many Middle East analysts baffled.

During the first presidential debate, Kerry said, "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes." The same policy of accommodation toward Iran's nuclear aspirations is clearly outlined on Kerry's campaign website as well. (emphasis inserted) http://www.israel-commentary.org/archives/2004_10.html

I seriously doubt that Mr. Kerry is sorry for using the term apartheid. In fact I think he stopped himself short of saying “sustained Jewish oppression of the Muslim community”...

Former Justice John Paul Stevens: Rewrite the Constitution to End Gun Ownership

Former Justice John Paul Stevens: Rewrite the Constitution to End Gun Ownership

by Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski 28 Apr 2014, 7:15 AM PDT

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/28/Liberal-Supreme-Court-Justice-Talks-Candidly-about-Rewriting-the-Constitution

Justice John Paul Stevens doesn’t believe anyone has the right to own a gun and admits that Americans would need to rewrite the Constitution to make his preference a legal reality. That’s exactly what he thinks should happen.

Throughout his 35-year tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens was a lion of the legal left. He was an unapologetic advocate of the “Living Constitution”— that judges should continually reinterpret the words of the Constitution in accordance with what they, and other elite members of society, decide is the evolving enlightenment of modern society.

Justice Stevens retired in 2010 at the end of the second-longest tenure in Supreme Court history. (The only justice to serve longer is the one he replaced in 1975, William Douglas, with 36 years). Now Justice Stevens has written a book titled Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. The title says it all.

One of the amendments Justice Stevens would like to change is the Second Amendment, which reads, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Justice Stevens believes five words should be added. He would like to add “when serving in the militia,” so the last part would read, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”

This is extraordinarily revealing. It shows that Justice Stevens believes the Constitution should say what he would say if he were writing it, not what the American people decided it would say when they wrote it. That’s a natural instinct for people to want the law to say what they want it to say, but not one that unelected judges can ever be allowed to indulge in our democratic republic.

In its 2008 case D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court held after 60 pages of analysis poring through the congressional record, state ratification conventions, dictionaries, speeches, letters, and other sources from the writing of the Bill of Rights that the Second Amendment secures the rights of law-abiding and peaceable adult citizens to keep and bear firearms unconnected from any type of government service, such as uniformed service in a state-run or federally-run military force. In doing so, the Court struck down a D.C. law that made it illegal to have handguns at home, among other restrictions.

In its 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago, a majority of the Supreme Court again spent dozens of pages exploring the original meaning of both the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to hold that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right that applies as much against state and local governments as it does the federal government. In doing so, the Court struck down Chicago’s ban on having handguns in the home.

Justice Stevens dissented from both decisions and would add these new words about the militia to create the opposite result.

But what is the militia? The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. What did the American people think it referred to regarding the militia?

The Militia Act of 1792—passed the very next year—defines the militia as all able-bodied men ages 18 through 45, except those with a religious objection to using deadly weapons. That’s why when America’s population was 3 million at the time the Constitution was adopted, James Madison wrote that any president who became a tyrant would face an armed militia of 500,000.

That was the number of grown men in the American population. Madison said they would take up arms against any such tyrannical government that refused to hold elections and abide by the will of the voters.

It doesn’t matter if the meaning of “militia” has changed since then, because the Constitution’s meaning does not change. That’s why it’s a written document. It was specifically written so that everyone would know what its words say, which necessarily includes that those words could never change.

When the Constitution needs to be changed (and it sometimes does, such as to end slavery and ensure equal rights for all racial groups), then the American people do so only by adopting an amendment. An amendment adds new words to the Constitution that supersedes anything already there that is inconsistent. Even amending the Constitution does not actually remove any of the words previously there, it just overrides them.

But it turns out there’s no need to change anything regarding “militia,” for two reasons. First, current federal law, 10 U.S.C. § 311, defines the militia of the United States as every able-bodied adult male ages 17-45—which includes people younger than its original definition of 18-45 (and again, except those with a religious objection to carrying weapons)—plus all women in the National Guard. The definition of “militia” under federal law is actually broader now than it was when the Second Amendment became part of the Supreme Law of the Land.

However, the second reason makes the first irrelevant. As the Supreme Court explained in Heller, the words referencing a “militia” are called a “prefatory clause,” which helps explain the meaning of what comes later (called the “operative clause”) but never narrows the reach of the later clause. The operative clause in the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

So the “militia” reference does not narrow the scope of the right to bear arms. Not only that, but the Supreme Court also explored all the other terms in the prefatory clause, explaining that this clause refers to the ability of an armed citizenry able to protect the nation against both foreign invaders and a tyrannical federal government, if any president would attempt to use the military to take over the whole nation. “Well regulated” in 1791 meant well-armed and proficient. The “militia” was the full body of law-abiding citizens. And “necessary to the security of a free state” meant that having such a well-armed citizenry was necessary to keep America free, both from foreign oppression and from domestic oppression.

None of that would restrict gun rights in any event. But even if the prefatory clause did mean something narrower, it would still not alter the guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

That’s why Justice Stevens wants to add new words into the operative clause, to narrow it to only apply to men and women when they are serving in the government as part of the National Guard. It would abolish any right to private gun ownership in the United States.

None of this is exclusively confined to the Second Amendment. Advocates of the “Living Constitution”—most of whom in legal circles would actually be called “consequentialists” or “purposivists”—would make all sorts of changes to the Constitution.

Justice Stevens wants to make at least five other changes as well, as his title Six Amendments suggests. Among other things, he would change the First Amendment to limit political speech, change the Eighth Amendment to forbid the death penalty, and change the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to end sovereign immunity for the states and absolute immunity to state and local elected officials when they don’t follow federal laws.

Just like with the Second Amendment in Heller and McDonald, these are all issues where he argued in dissenting opinions that the Constitution already does all these things the way it’s written. He lost on all those issues, so now he is arguing for what everyone can acknowledge is the legitimate way to make those changes, by changing the words of the Constitution itself.

The interesting twist to this story is that Justice Stevens told NPR, “I think in time that what I have to say about each of these six issues will be accepted as being consistent with what the Framers really intended in the first place,” referring to those who wrote the Constitution.

That’s a remarkable claim. In each of these issues when he lost, the majority opinion spent many pages exploring the original meaning of those constitutional provisions, and the justices ruled the way they did because it was clearly what the Framers meant. For example, private gun ownership was clearly regarded as a fundamental right in 1791, the death penalty was used far more often than today, and organizations had unlimited rights to speak out on candidates and issues during elections.

But that aside, Justice Stevens’ book is revealing about the liberal mindset, a worldview that rejects the principle that the Bill of Rights—including the Second Amendment—is premised on a mistrust of government power. It’s designed to protect the American people from their own government.

This book is a reminder of how much of that government power is wielded by federal judges, and especially the nine justices of the Supreme Court. That is a timely reminder for American voters. The president the American people elect in 2016 will determine the kind of justices that will serve on the Supreme Court for years to come.

Heller and McDonald were both 5-4 decisions. The fate of the Second Amendment—and other fundamental rights—hangs in the balance.

Ken Blackwell is on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association of America and a visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law. Ken Klukowski is senior legal analyst for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

John Paul Stevens

John Paul Stevens is an honorary member of the Union League Club of Chicago, was a justice for the U.S. Supreme Court, a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Richard B. Kapnick was his clerk, Preeta Bansal was his clerk, David Barron was his clerk, Michael J. Gottleib was his clerk, and Kate Shaw was his clerk.

Note: David F. Hamilton is a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Lee H. Hamilton’s nephew, and was a canvasser for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now was the plaintiff in ACORN vs. Illinois State Board of Elections.

Barack Obama was the attorney for ACORN vs. Illinois State Board of Elections, and an intern at Sidley Austin LLP.

Richard B. Kapnick is a senior counsel at Sidley Austin LLP, and was John Paul Stevens’s clerk.

Michelle Obama was a lawyer at Sidley Austin LLP.

Newton N. Minow is a senior counsel at Sidley Austin LLP, and a member of the Commercial Club of Chicago.

R. Eden Martin is counsel at Sidley Austin LLP, and the president of the Commercial Club of Chicago.

Valerie B. Jarrett is a member of the Commercial Club of Chicago, the senior adviser for the Barack Obama administration, Vernon E. Jordan Jr’s great niece, and was a director at the Joyce Foundation.

David Barron was the principal deputy, office legal counsel for the Barack Obama administration, and John Paul Stevens’s clerk.

Michael J. Gottleib is an associate counsel for the Barack Obama administration, and was John Paul Stevens’s clerk.

Kate Shaw is the associate counsel to the president for the Barack Obama administration, was and John Paul Stevens’s clerk.

Joyce Foundation was a funder for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Violence Policy Center, the Aspen Institute (think tank), and the Brookings Institution (think tank).

Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the Aspen Institute (think tank), the Brookings Institution (think tank), the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, and the Sundance Institute.

George Soros was the chairman for the Foundation to Promote Open Society, a contributor for the American Bridge 21st Century, and is the founder & chairman for the Open Society Foundations.

Open Society Foundations was a funder for the American Constitution Society.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the chair for the American Bridge 21st Century, and a trustee at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

James S. Crown is a trustee at the Aspen Institute (think tank), and a member of the Commercial Club of Chicago.

Lester Crown is a member of the Commercial Club of Chicago, and was a lifetime trustee at the Aspen Institute (think tank).

Preeta Bansal is a fellow at the Aspen Institute (think tank), and was John Paul Stevens’s clerk.

Cyrus F. Freidheim Jr. is a member of the Commercial Club of Chicago, and an honorary trustee at the Brookings Institution (think tank).

Lee H. Hamilton is an honorary trustee at the Brookings Institution (think tank), and Judge David F. Hamilton is his nephew.

Vernon E. Jordan Jr. is an honorary trustee at the Brookings Institution (think tank), Valerie B. Jarrett’s great uncle, a director at the American Friends of Bilderberg (think tank), the president emeritus for the Robert Trent Jones Golf Club (Gainesville, VA), and a 2008 Bilderberg conference participant (think tank).

John G. Roberts Jr. is an honorary member of the Robert Trent Jones Golf Club (Gainesville, VA), and the chief justice for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cameron F. Kerry is a fellow at the Brookings Institution (think tank), John F. Kerry’s brother, and was an associate Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

Christopher J. Meade was a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, John Paul Stevens’s clerk, and is the general counsel for the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Cliff Sloan was John Paul Stevens’s clerk, is the Guantanamo Bay envoy for the U.S. Department of State, and a director at the American Constitution Society.

Mario M. Cuomo is a board of adviser’s member for the American Constitution Society, and his daughter is Maria Cuomo Cole.

Maria Cuomo Cole is Mario M. Cuomo’s daughter, a trustee at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and married to Kenneth D. Cole.

Faith Elizabeth Gay is a director at the American Constitution Society, and was an attorney at Sidley Austin LLP.

Richard B. Kapnick is a senior counsel at Sidley Austin LLP, and was John Paul Stevens’s clerk.

Eric H. Holder Jr. was a board member for the American Constitution Society, an intern at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, a partner at Covington & Burling LLP, and is the attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice for the Barack Obama administration.

NRA-ILA (Eric Holders Gun Control History)

http://nraila.org/search.aspx?s=eric%20holder

Michael D. Barnes was a senior of counsel for Covington & Burling LLP, and the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Kenneth D. Cole is married to Maria Cuomo Cole, and a trustee at the Sundance Institute.