John Kerry's wife...
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 08-14-2004 - 5:07pm |
being called that, by the way:
Maria Teresa Thiersten Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry. Married Senator Kerry in 1995. She only took his name eighteen months ago and she is an "interesting" paradox of conflicts.
If you think John Kerry was scary, he doesn't hold a candle to his wife. Maria Teresa Thiersten Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry was born in Mozambique, the daughter of a Portuguese physician, was educated in Switzerland and South Africa. Fluent in five languages, she was working as a United Nations interpreter in Geneva in the mid-60's when she met a "handsome" young American, H. John Heinz, III, who worked at a bank in Geneva. He told her his family was "in the food business."
They were married in 1966 and returned to Pittsburgh where his
family ran the giant H. J. Heinz food company. He was elected to the US House
of Representatives in 1971, and in 1976 he was elected to the first of
three terms in the United States Senate. (A Republican, he wrote a burning
diatribe against some of the causes backed by young House member John
Kerry.)
Several years later, in 1991, he was killed when his plane collided
with a Sun Oil Company helicopter over a Philadelphia suburb. The
senator, his pilot and copilot, and both of Sun's helicopter pilots were killed.
He was survived by his wife, Teresa, and their three young sons.
Four years later, having inherited Heinz's $500 million fortune,
she married Senator John Forbes Kerry, the liberal then-junior senator from
Massachusetts. She became a registered Democrat and the process of her
radicalization was set in motion.
Heinz Kerry is not shy about telling people that she required Kerry
to sign a prenuptial agreement before they were married John Kerry may not
have check writing privileges on the Heinz catsup and pickle fortune,
but he is certainly a willing and uncomplaining beneficiary of it. A lot of hard-earned money, made through many years of hawking catsup, mustard, and pickles, has fallen into the hands of two people who despise successful entrepreneurship and who believe in the confiscatory redistribution of wealth.
So how does Mrs. Heinz Kerry spend John Heinz's money? Just one example: According to the G2 Bulletin, an online intelligence newsletter of WorldNetDaily, in the years between 1995-2001 she gave more than $4 million to an organization called the Tides Foundation. And what does the Tides Foundation do with John Heinz's money? They support numerous antiwar groups, including Ramsey Clark's International Action Center. Clark has offered to defend Saddam Hussein when he's tried.
They support the Democratic Justice Fund, a joint venture of the
Tides Foundation and billionaire hate-monger George Soros. The Democratic
Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration from "terrorist"
states. They support the Council for American-Islamic Relations, whose
leaders are known to have close ties to the terrorist group, Hamas.
They support the National Lawyers Guild, organized as a communist
front during the Cold War era. One of their attorneys, Lynne Stewart, has
been arrested for helping a client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate
with terror cells in Egypt. He is the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
They support the "Barrio Warriors," a radical Hispanic group whose
primary goal is to return all of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and
Texas to Mexico.
These are but a few of the radical groups that benefit, through the
anonymity provided by the Tides Foundation, from the generosity of our
would-be first lady, the wealthy widow of Republican senator John
Heinz, and now the wife of the Democratic senator who aspires to be the 44th
President of the United States.
Aiding and supporting our enemies is not good for America,
regardless of your political views.
If voters will open their eyes, educate themselves and see the real
Teresa Heinz Kerry, they will not appreciate her position as ultra rich
fairy godmother of the radical left. They will not want to imagine her
laying her head on a pillow each night inches away from the President
of the United States.
Hopefully they love this country enough to decide that the only way
these two will ever be allowed into the White House is with an engraved
invitation in hand.

Pages
<<"Dems have been smearing Bush ever since he came into office">>.... YES! I came to this board right after the 2000 elections and my eyes are still recovering from the hateful smears re Bush even before he took office.
Bev
Bev
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Bev
Edited 8/17/2004 9:51 am ET ET by bgs3
Edited 8/17/2004 9:53 am ET ET by bgs3
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/smear
Definition:
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Saying he lied about the intelligence is a valid point of debate, some people really think that he did based on the evidence.
Did you see F 911? Or are you just saying that based on what you've heard? I don't consider showing actual clips of Bush to be a smear. And MM narration was not accusatory, it was along the lines of "what was he thinking while he sat there?" That's not a smear. That's a discussion of Bush's performance as pres, something we are supposed to be doing.
As for Bush's intelligence, I believe a pres should have a certian level of intelligence & I am worried that Bush does not meet my minimum standard. I'm not going around posting that he has an IQ of let's say, 78 or something, that would be a smear, because it isn't a verified fact. But discussing whether or not he is smart enuf for the job, that's fair game, we want a pres who is.
Saying Bush was a draft dodger is the interpretation of many people about anyone who went into the guard with a family connection getting you in. I resent that heartily, especially since my friend who did serve is still dead today, & might be alive if someone else had done their fair share. For all I know, if my friend had served beside Kerry, Kerry might have saved him, but not Bush for sure.
Whereas saying Kerry owns Heinz factories overseas is an outright lie, he doesn't, never did, & saying it in such a way as to point out he says he's against outsourcing & this proves he is a hypoctite is a smear, because it's all based on lies. That's just one example. Starting out with a blatant lie & building on that to assault his character is a smear.
Try starting out with the truth to build your case, not lies.
< Oh really? You don't consider people calling Bush "Shrub" smearing him? You don't consider people lying saying Bush lied about the intelligence, smearing him? You don't consider people saying Bush "stole" the election, smearing him? You don't consider all the garbage the Michael Moore says and produces about Bush, smearing him? You don't consider people making fun of his intelligence, smearing him? You don't consider saying Bush was a draft dodger, smearing him? I could go on and on, so yes, the smearing is on BOTH sides. Open your eyes, and you can see it, just as I can see smear coming from the Right. >
Are those your words or not???
Smearing Bush with lies? Do tell. All ears.
Do you carry your bucket of sand with you, or do you prefer horse blinders?
The world DOES hate us. Our Olympian athletes have been asked not to wear anything to identify them as Americans in the Olympic village. Overseas travellers are advised to pretend they're Canadian. Have you missed the millions in the streets protesting our actions? Oh yeah, they don't show that on Fauxnews. We're contributing over 90% of the money and troops to Iraq. We didn't pay for ANY of GW1. If that isn't alone, I don't know what is. But still, it isn't playing on anybody's fears, what's to be afraid of? It's outrage that George Bush has squandered the goodwill the world had towards us after 9/11, goodwill that could have changed the dynamics of the world and brought everyone together against terrorists instead of against us. Stupid, pointless waste. All for a war on Iraq, who had no WMD, no connection to 9/11, and no operational connection to al qaeda. Stupid. Those aren't smears, those are cold hard facts. Because we love our country and know we're so much better than this.
We're probably debating semantics here .... but I think there is a difference between attacking a person's character and questioning whether they have the intelligence required for the job they are supposed to be performing. President Clinton had questionable character, without a doubt (or a complete lack thereof, say some of us ;-) ). But I don't recall too many people questioning his intelligence -- even those who disagreed with his politics. There is a difference.
Bev
Pages