John Kerry's wife...

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2003
John Kerry's wife...
99
Sat, 08-14-2004 - 5:07pm
Following is a brief background on Mrs. John Kerry . She hates

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 1:31am

<><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


I did NOT express concern over it, I simply made a statement regarding your ridiculous statement that the right is trying to turn our government into a theocracy, by saying that

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 2:02am

<><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 2:10am
Great post!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 2:14am
Keeping keep in mind that you have no use for the documented research and conclusions of the 9/11 Commission, distort what anyone (including Blix) has been saying on record. So I most certainly am not going through the trouble of digging up the links for reference.

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 10:22am
"And to me, it is an incorrect interpretation because he DID serve in the military during that period. So by calling him a draft dodger, you (you meaning anybody) would have to call ever other person who volunteered for service during that time, including Kerry, a draft dodger. And to me, that is not the correct usage of the that term, so it is a smear."

huh?????

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 2:37pm
In terms of Mexicans hating America, I was not speaking of the Mexican immigrants to the US but the Mexicans of Mexico.

Additionally, just because they come here does not mean they like us which is why we have such a huge problem with non-assimilation of the majority of Hispanic immigrants who come here to earn money to send back home.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 4:41pm

There are several reasons some areas that have a problem with Hispanic

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 5:13pm
I don't think that you can rule our disliking the US as one of them unless you are a non-assimlilated Mexican Immigrant yourself.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 9:14pm
No, no, no. 34 nations supplied actual fighting troops, 18 more nations supplied other assistance. I just gave you the figures for forces different countries contributed, we didn't supply 75% of the forces.

But none of this is the point anyway. The purpose of a coalition is legitimacy. We had a UN backed, ME backed coalition in 1991. It's been over a year since "mission accomplished". By now Bush should have gotten more support in the ME. It IS in everybody's best interest that Iraq be a stable nation with a representative form of government. He hasn't because he's such a blowhard that countries are hesitant to deal with him. The backlash these countries will get from their own citizens is too harsh. The perception that this is a US occupation is furthered by Bush's policies and that hurts the troops of other countries as well as our own. That's the problem with a coalition that is 90% American. Even with the supposed turn-over to Allawai, Bremer issued a 97 legal orders just days before the handover took place. He chose the people to put in various offices and then issued orders that they couldn't be replaced for 5 years. Not all of it is bad, but it didn't come from the Iraqi people and that isn't helpful.

Nothing has been done right with Iraq, nothing. It isn't just that the WMD intelligence was hyped, it's that the entire thing has been one debacle after another. Might be why more and more military voters are against this war. 54% in PA think it was the wrong thing. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x12945.xml

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 9:47pm
People are saying the 9/11 report says all kinds of things it doesn't say. I know about the supposed al qaeda connections myself because I researched them a year ago. This stuff is in reports at the CIA, DoD, State, UN, IAEA, and other web sites. Not hard to find.

I've posted most of this, and other links, before.

According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's account in Ron Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty," Iraq was on the agenda at the very first meeting of the National Security Council, just 10 days after President Bush's inauguration in 2001. At that meeting, the president quickly -- and wrongly -- concluded that the U.S. could not do much about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said we should "pull out of that situation," and then turned to a discussion of "how Iraq is destabilizing the region."

“And there's this low boil on Iraq until the day before Thanksgiving, Nov. 21, 2001. This is 72 days after 9/11. This is part of this secret history. President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically, and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, ‘What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.’"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely. We assess that since the suspension of UN inspections in December of 1998, Baghdad has had the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months. Without an inspection monitoring program, however, it is more difficult to determine if Iraq has done so."

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2000.htm

"Still, the commission found no evidence of significant dealings between Iraq and al Qaeda." "Al Qaeda ties to Iran appear to have been much more substantial, according to information disclosed by the commission. An agreement brokered by Sudan in 1991 or 1992 led to Iranian training of senior al Qaeda operatives in explosives, for example. Iran also repeatedly assisted the transit of al Qaeda figures into and out of Iran by agreeing not to stamp their passports. No similar evidence of cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq was cited by the panel."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7336-2004Jul22_2.html

Such a resolution, Bush said, should not suggest that military action is "imminent or unavoidable," only that the United States was speaking with "one voice." October 8, 2002

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/bush.iraq

"In the Netherlands, which also has troops in Iraq, Dutch opposition parties critical of the conflict made significant gains, with losses registered for parties in the conservative coalition government. However, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende managed to stabilize the vote for his Christian Democrats, with his coalition partners suffering the heaviest losses."

http://www.glocom.org/debates/20040617_curtin_europe/

Pages