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
<><?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
<><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
huh?????
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.
There are several reasons some areas that have a problem with Hispanic
Renee ~~~
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
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