| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/07/2004 09:30:30 PM · #1 |
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 thought 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 inter- preter 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.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 09:38:51 PM · #2 |
Oh Me...when I thought it could not get any worse.I wonder who all knows this (voters)
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 09:44:41 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 10:02:14 PM · #4 |
I see accusations here David, but no facts. Can you provide any? I would be interested in reading them
The source of this article isn't exactly unbiased, in my opinion. Joseph Farah, founder of WorldNetNews, is not exactly neutral here.
Ineteresting fact:
in 1994 collaborated with Rush Limbaugh on the No. 1 New York Times best-seller "See, I Told You So." Rush?? Yep, he's pretty objective.
Here's an interesting article :
Joseph Farah, Crusher of Dissent
Appears to lean a bit to the hard right to me, so until I see some facts, I'm not going to pay much attention to this.
I will give you this though, Teresa is a strange duck, but I don't know about all this.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 10:40:37 PM · #5 |
| It's a crock of right-wing propaganda bull is what it is. |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 11:18:16 PM · #6 |
These accusations are indeed false - the best urban legend site on the web (Snopes.com) refutes them. Take a look at:
//www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/tides.asp |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 09:21:41 AM · #7 |
Did you actualy read the SNOPES information and how/why they say it's false... I have a pretty hard time believing them. I would say acusations = almost all true.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 09:25:44 AM · #8 |
| The right wing propaganda machine continues to crank out its smear campain. |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 09:27:55 AM · #9 |
More proof this is BS: Factcheck.org
You right wingers who keep posting this ridiculous information as truth are continuing to destroy your own reputations and credability.
Message edited by author 2004-08-09 09:32:20. |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 10:10:14 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Did you actualy read the SNOPES information and how/why they say it's false... I have a pretty hard time believing them. I would say acusations = almost all true. |
Maybe this would be easier for you to read then.
//www.tidesfoundation.org/documents/TidesHeinzReponse0804.pdf
or you could read //www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=224 linked from the Heinz foundation web site.
Though I'm sure you'll just assume they are biased by knowing the facts and thus lying to further their left wing agenda.
Never let reality get in the way of a good smear campaign, that's what I say.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 10:38:11 AM · #11 |
Right... Because if I posted a bunch of articles disproving all the links or conspiracy theories about Dick Cheney and all his old companies, THAT WERE WRITTEN BY THE ACCUSED, I'm sure you would actually believe them...
Lets release all her tax records... All the other first ladies (hopefuls) have. Is she too good or above us, or is she just funding too many questionable groups to risk it?
edit: I spell like a 3rd grader :)
Message edited by author 2004-08-09 10:43:09.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 10:44:17 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Right... Because if I posted a bunch of articles disproving all the links or conspiracy theories about Dick Cheney and all his old companies, THAT WERE WRITTEN BY THE ACCUSED, I'm sure you would actually believe them...
Lets release all her tax records... All the other first ladies (hopefuls) have. Is she too good or above us, or is she just funding too many questionable groups to risk it?
edit: I spell like a 3rd grader :) |
Pathetic.. |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 10:53:44 AM · #13 |
Thanks to all for supplying links to sites that detail 'facts' that appear to effectively refute the claims made in the commentary that begins this thread.
There is just one point that I would like to offer - not to support the commentary per-se, but just to expand one's thinking. That point has to do with the so-called "fungible" financing.
Assume the following:
Non-profit group "ABC Foundation" has determined that they will support the following charities for each of the next two years at the listed level:
DEF Charities $100,000
GHI Charities $100,000
JKL Charities $100,000
In year one, a total of 1,000 donors gave a total of $300,000. So, each of the Charities was fully funded as intended, that is, each was given one-third of total donations ( assuming no overhead ).
In year two, the same 1,000 donors gave the same $300,000 in total, but ONE of the donors, Donor ZYX, specified that THEIR $75,000 donation was to be disbursed ONLY to GHI Charities. So, which of the following would you expect to see in the second year
DEF Charities $ 75,000 one-third of undesignated funds, just like in year one
GHI Charities $150,000 one-third of undesignated funds, just like in year one + the designated $75,000
JKL Charities $ 75,000 one-third of undesignated funds, just like in year one
or would you expect that the amounts would be the same as in year one? Namely, instead of disbursing one-third of undesignated donations to EACH charity, they would disburse $100,000 of undesignated donations to each of charities DEF and JKL, and only $25,000 of undesignated donations to charity GHI, then add the $75,000 of designated funds to the disbursement to GHI Charities?
I would be willing to bet that scenario two is the more probable.
So while "technically" the designated money went only to the designated charity, in reality the total disbursement discounted the designated charity by the designated amount, and the others were increased to offset the loss due to designation.
I just offer this as food for thought. If anyone has a desire to designate funds to a particular cause, they, and their favorite causes/charities would be better served if they donate directly to that cause than designate that cause through an organization that disburses funds to a group of smaller charities.
Ron
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 11:46:28 AM · #14 |
That is exactly how the United Way distributes funds, (which is obviously a completely different organisation than the one being discussed) in that if you target a particular recipiant, that amount gets removed from the general pool that they have access to.
It is also exactly the reason I don't contribute at all to the United Way.
It doesn't mean that a particular donor isn't donating exclusively to that particular charity though.
Message edited by author 2004-08-09 11:47:03.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 12:01:45 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Right... Because if I posted a bunch of articles disproving all the links or conspiracy theories about Dick Cheney and all his old companies, THAT WERE WRITTEN BY THE ACCUSED, I'm sure you would actually believe them...
|
what's the relevence of that comment? These articles aren't.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 12:16:10 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
That is exactly how the United Way distributes funds, (which is obviously a completely different organisation than the one being discussed) in that if you target a particular recipiant, that amount gets removed from the general pool that they have access to.
It is also exactly the reason I don't contribute at all to the United Way.
It doesn't mean that a particular donor isn't donating exclusively to that particular charity though. |
No, it doesn't. That's why I pointedly said ( to quote myself ):
""technically" the designated money went only to the designated charity".
However, I believe that the designated charity doesn't derive the intended benefit of the designated donation. Furthermore, I don't believe that the intentions of the other donors are being properly served - they probably believed that their donatins would be "fairly" distributed amongst the individual charities served by the funding group.
Ron
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 12:23:49 PM · #17 |
Mordegon, Your comment was pretty out of line. I'm being very civil and my comment is very appropriate.
Originally posted by Gordon:
what's the relevance of that comment? These articles aren't. |
Alrigh: so the factcheck.org article and the SNOPES.com article are not written by an accused person/group. But look at the facts or resources they use, asking the accused person/group for the truth has been proven a futil effort by the simple known history of politics.
Maxwell King, the President of the Heinz Endowments:
Great, so Heinz (the company) doesn't fund TIDES, I don't think they were ever accused. His title also gives him no oversight power into Mrs. Kerry's money pile, so based on her word he is standing up for her. We all remember how many people got their legs taken out from under them when people like Martha Stewart or Bill Clinton PROMISED them personally the acusations against them were completly false and they then stood up for them in public.
Originally posted by factcheck.org:
King: Neither she nor her foundations has ever funded any of the extremist organizations or unpatriotic causes listed in the email you forwarded. Period. |
If this isn't a sales pitch/political walk around, I don't know what is!
Originally posted by factcheck.org:
Tides itself gives little or no money to several of them |
Great, so by admission they only fund extremist/terrorist related groups a little bit. Any amount is too much on top of the fact that I don't believe there amounts (gut feeling).
I'd go on, but in that entire article, there is no more attempts to prove she didn't donate that money.
The other article was written BY the TIDES group, so of course I'm automatically suspicious, that is extremely reasonable. Both innocent and guilty people always say they are innocent, that makes it hard to draw the line and make a judgment.
There is certainly no information here that makes me think, well maybe I was wrong. I'm also very willing to say I was wrong. I don't think a full release of tax records for the past 10 years is asking a whole lot.
Could you imagine if Laura Bush refused to release her tax information?
Message edited by author 2004-08-09 12:30:52.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 01:32:36 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Furthermore, I don't believe that the intentions of the other donors are being properly served - they probably believed that their donatins would be "fairly" distributed amongst the individual charities served by the funding group.
Ron |
At least in the cases I've seen, organisations are upfront about how they distribute donations. Mainly because legally they have to be. I guess if you just give your money away without paying any attention at all that might be true. The destination gets the money, from people who specifically target them to give the money to them. The organising group manages the transfer of the money.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 01:41:10 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
There is certainly no information here that makes me think, well maybe I was wrong. I'm also very willing to say I was wrong. I don't think a full release of tax records for the past 10 years is asking a whole lot.
|
But the records are already there.
Here for example is the 2003 records for the Tides Foundation. Which is also not the Tides Center, which the Federal Government also provides money to.
//www.tidesfoundation.org/documents/TF_GrantsMade_2003.pdf
and for the last 6 years //www.tidesfoundation.org/form_990.cfm
You can call them if you need more.
Even ignoring the various inaccuraces in the original hoax email about funding, you then still have to actually bother looking at the groups that have been funded, to find out if those further characterisations and accusations are also true. I'm sure you've done your due dilligence there as well.
Message edited by author 2004-08-09 13:48:31.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 02:14:10 PM · #20 |
I'm sure the email "hoax" is not fully correct or may be in fact mostly incorrect, I think most chain emails probable are. I guess what I should have stated early is that I believe in the premis of the charges.
I do not find the idea of Mrs "Kerry" funding extreme left or terrorist friendly (not terrosts directly mind you) groups to be a far fetched one, but instead a very scary and real possibilty. (edit -->) I also feel that it is very probable that the TIDES foundation is involved with funding questionable groups. After all, didn't one of the founders of the group once say that they were there so people could fund groups/people that they were not publicly able to do?
At least I know that Bush is big business friendly. On the other hand, I'm not so sure who Kerry or his wife is supporting behind the scenes, and some of the ones the do support that are known already bother me (but most of those are for pure political reasons on my part).
Message edited by author 2004-08-09 14:18:26.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 02:18:47 PM · #21 |
Right wingers are having panic attacks again !
Go do some photography for change,your portfolios sucks ! |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 02:10:43 AM · #22 |
First it was Hillary, now it's the Heinz lady, deadly Al Queda terrorists posing as the wives of Democratic Presidential candidates.
What's really scary is did you know that Mrs. Bush accidentally killed an ex boyfriend in a car accident two weeks before JFK was assassinated and there are allegations that the president may "asked" an underage girl to have an abortion when he was 25?
So if the Democrats don't bring up those skeletons perhaps we can let their wives alone? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 11:57:20 AM EDT.
