Who is Teresa Heinz Kerry?

Doug Fiedor
Fiedor Report on the News

August 2, 2004

Last Sunday evening, Teresa Heinz Kerry admonished delegates to the Democratic National Convention to restore a more civil tone to American politics. Then, as soon as she was done, she hurried off the stage to scold Colin McNickle, the editorial page editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, telling him to "shove it" for quoting her correctly.(1) Marla Romash, Teresa Heinz Kerry's spokeswoman, told WTAE-TV's Scott Baker, "This was sheer frustration, aimed at a right-wing rag, that has consistently and purposely misrepresented the facts in reporting on Mrs. Kerry and her family."

John Kerry has a butler follow behind him everywhere he goes in case he needs something. Perhaps they will also hire a psychologist for the impulsive Teresa.

Either that, or her uncontrolled mouth is going to help make for a very interesting campaign season.

Teresa Heinz Kerry, is one of the richest women in the U.S. Apparently, though, her real assets are to remain a secret as she files separately from her husband and, so far, refuses to release much financial information.

Newsmax reports that Heinz Kerry paid just over $587,000 in income tax, or just 15.2 percent, on their $5,510,000 million 2003 gross income(2). [Actually, that would be 10.65%, but Newsmax reports 15.2%, which is still very low compared to many of us.] John Kerry, of course, exploits his wife's wealth for his political advantage. For instance, in 1996, she funneled nearly $2 million in a loan to her husband's close Senate reelection campaign. The last-minute cash infusion most certainly meant the difference in Kerry's narrow, 52 percent victory.(3) Then, there was something about an over inflated home loan -- that John could in no way pay back himself -- for this presidential campaign.

There are laws against these flimflam money changing games, but they don't seem to apply to Democrats.

John Kerry likes to make remarks about the Republicans' relationship with big business, but that's totally hypocritical on his part. As the Boston Herald reported a couple weeks ago, the Kerrys have an ongoing relationship with at least one big businessman who will end up in prison.(4)

The Kerrys have had rather extensive financial and personal ties to Enron, the infamous Ken Lay's bankrupt energy firm, documents show. Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry reported more than $250,000 in Enron stock ownership before the firm's 2003 collapse.

According to the Boston Herald, the Heinz family trust bought between $250,000 and $500,000 of stock in December 1995, just days before Heinz Kerry announced Lay would serve as a member of the Heinz Center philanthropy, Kerry's Senate financial disclosure documents show. Lay stayed on the board after Enron's collapse and a Heinz Foundation spokeswoman defended Lay in news reports amid the fraud accusations as having "a good reputation in the environmental community."

Then there's Teresa's propensity for financing far-left activist conspiracies. For instance, she has given the Tides Foundation $4 million to date. The Tides Foundation funds the Ruckus Society(5), that destructive group of anarchists who rioted and looted Seattle during the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting. This year, the Ruckus Society is training protesters to target the Republican Convention.(6) Philadelphia Police Commissioner John Timoney called the radical protesters what they are, "criminal conspirators":

"There's a cadre, if you will, of criminal conspirators who are about the business of planning conspiracies to go in and cause mayhem and cause property damage and cause violence in major cities in America that have large conventions and large numbers of people coming in for one reason or another."

Okay then, if the Ruckus Society is legally a group of "criminal conspirators," what, then, are those who instigate and fund them? Surely they are not the type of people we want in the White House!

At this writing, there are numerous stories going around about one or more of Teresa's foundations contributing to various groups and organizations that, in turn, sent a big chunk of change back to the Kerry campaign.

We can only hope that some of that develops into media stories and criminal charges before next November.

Who is Teresa Heinz Kerry? She is a woman with way too much mouth for a political position and so much extra cash that she thinks she can buy the presidency for her current husband. She is also a far-left socialist sympathizer who would be terrible for land-owners nation wide if she had the power of the White House behind her.

1. http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/3576476/detail.html

2. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/11/225434.shtml

3. http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040726-090231-8443r.htm

4. http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=34958

5. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/main072604.htm

6. http://ruckus.org/


Wrapped in their own version of cognitive dissonance, the liberal national media will not ask any tough questions of the Kerry campaign. So, I guess I'll have to get totally politically incorrect for a moment and ask a question many people are starting to wonder about:

If John Kerry announced tomorrow that he intended to switch to the Socialist or Communist party, how would his platform change? Really, that's not as nasty of a question as it may seem when we study the cold hard facts.

After all, let's face it, not only does it look as if the Democratic Party is using the old communist propaganda techniques to warp the minds of the voters, they are, in fact, using those very same techniques -- albeit, with a few modern twists and improvements. Because, reading their political literature, it is very difficult to tell if the Democratic Party turned into a socialist party or the Democratic Socialists of America took over the Democratic Party. Their platforms and ideals are nearly indistinguishable.

And, in fact, they have a very synergistic relationship.

To start with, the Democratic Socialists of America's (DSA) political action committee is officially urging its members to work for the election of John Kerry in the presidential election.(1)

Frank Llewellyn, national director of the DSA admitted, "Kerry was hardly the first choice of our members.

Most supported Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean in the Democratic primary elections and would be very critical of Senator Kerry's voting record on trade issues, as well as his support for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq; but the most important concern of our members now is to defeat Bush."

Other than the Democratic Party and its various affiliated unions, the DSA is the largest socialist organization in the U.S. and is a part of the Socialist International, an umbrella federation for the world's socialists. The DSA was originally formed to push the Democratic Party to the left. And, as history shows, it has.

Today's Democrats do not like the terms liberal or socialist. Instead, they hide behind the new socialist term, "Progressive."

Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the only admitted card carrying socialist in Congress. Years ago, Sanders started the Congressional Progressive Caucus(2) so others may participate without declaring their motives publicly. For many years, the DSA actually ran the Progressive Caucus web site.

Today, Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Barbra Lee (D-CA) co-chair the Progressive Caucus. Both have long histories of association with socialists, communists and other sorted extremist groups.

Some may think the Progressive Caucus is just a socialist fringe group in Congress, but that's not true at all. For instance, House Democrats voted Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as House Minority Leader. Pelosi has been a card carrying member of the Progressive Caucus for years.

Then comes the Communist Party USA.(3) A couple weeks ago the Communist Party(CPUSA) also announced that it will not run a candidate for president and will not support progressive third-party candidates. Instead the CPUSA said it will support the Democratic Party in an effort to defeat President Bush and the Republican Congress.

Joelle Fishman, chairwoman of the CPUSA political action committee, told the party workers: "Our presidential campaigns in the past were a great opportunity to project our program, and I'm sure we will find ourselves at that point some time in the future. At this moment, we will convey our program best by working with all our might to build the broadest possible coalitions, fronts and networks that can defeat the undemocratic, imperialistic Bush war machine. This is our responsibility to our own class here and internationally."

There is also a Fabian style socialist group in Congress. "The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) leads the New Democrat movement, a national network of elected officials and community leaders whose innovative ideas are modernizing progressive politics for the 21st Century."(4) An active arm of the DLC is the Progressive Policy Institute, "a research and education institute that is a project of the Third Way Foundation Inc.," which is yet another arm of the DLC.(5)

We might add, too, that the Fabian Society(6) in England, a strongly socialist organization, also supports Kerry for president.

This month, The Hill newspaper in Washington published an interesting tidbit on Kerry(7): "Kerry has taken some heat from some observers on both the left and right for his choice. 'Let America Be America' was part of Hughes's 'A New Song,' a pamphlet of often radical poems published by the socialist International Workers Order."

So, back to our question. If John Kerry announced tomorrow that he intended to switch to the Socialist or Communist Party, how would his platform change?

Apparently not much. Not much at all. And, that's just based on what he is saying to get elected. If he continued true to form, if elected, both DSA and CPUSA would be very happy with him. Even Communist China endorsed Kerry.(8)

It's the 75% of Americans who are not socialist or communist (or liberal media) who would be outraged by Kerry's actions.

1. http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

2. http://www.bernie.house.gov/pc/

3. http://www.cpusa.org/

4. http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=86

5. http://www.ppionline.org/

6. http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/net.asp

7. http://www.hillnews.com/under_dome/070604.aspx

8. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/28/141010.shtml


The meeting in Beantown was listed as the Democratic party convention. However, the number of media and gunslingers far exceeded the amount of convention delegates attending. The gunslingers could be pacified with a doughnut or two a day. Not so with the scribbling set.

Reporters tend to get a little testy if they are not provided comfort, free food, booze, and bathrooms -- usually in that order. But, the DNC didn't deliver. First, most media people had to go through security lines. Then, to save a few bucks, the DNC skimped on toilets for the media. On top of that, security would not allow media people to bring booze or food into the convention center, so many reporters watched the convention from the local bars (Hence, the reason some of those stories were written the way they were.) As part of the security, media people were issued an anti-terrorism kit consisting of an evacuation hood, a whistle and a flashlight. Really, that's no joke. . . .

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the Chairman of the Democratic National Convention, admitted to reporters that this is the first Democratic National Convention made up of over 40 percent minority delegates -- political correctness run amok, in other words. I couldn't help but notice that most of them apparently got their work ethic from John Kerry. Almost every time the camera panned the convention hall, I saw many, many empty seats. Of course, those missing delegates could have been busy giving media interviews to the reporters . . . at the bars.

Day one -- yawn -- Clinton, Clinton and Gore lied a while. Not much at all to report there.

All in all, it was really a dreadful first night.

Carter (remember THAT presidency?) actually tried to instruct George Bush on Middle East policy, Gore continued carping about the vote count in 2000, Hillary gave an advertising speech for herself on the way to introducing Bill, and Bill gave a very well delivered liberal litany of lies and half-truths.

Media babblers and scribblers (some sober) act like cheerleaders for the Social-Democratic cause, of course, so reports were glowing. The media rated style over substance, so all the mistruths were overlooked. But, the American people did not agree. Television network ratings were way down. After all, Carter, Gore, Clinton, and Clinton were going to support Kerry -- yawn -- that was expected. So who the hell cares? The result was, network viewers actually decreased when the Clintons appeared.

Howard Dean received a better reception than either of the Clintons. He didn't actually say anything noteworthy, it's just that the delegates were happy to see someone they liked and woke up long enough to give him a long standing ovation.

Day two's highlight was, of course, Teresa.

She got all dolled up in a very bright suit, found her hairbrush and actually used it a little and had someone rub some orange stuff onto various places on her face and neck.

Teresa talked mostly about herself, then a little about her husband. Again, nothing noteworthy. Commentators agreed that was the first time a candidate's wife was given a prime time speaking spot and may well be the last.

Day three, Wednesday, there was a little action when Reverend Al (Sharpton) put on a rip-roaring Saturday Night Live style skit that entertained the crowd for a while.

Oh, and John Edwards spoke, too. Turns out, the Edwards family are quite good speakers. The problem was, John Edwards tried to interject a little substance in with his bright style. Didn't work. He didn't get his facts straight. People noticed.

My favorite was Edwards' proposed a plan to rely on NATO to "build a stable Iraq" and count on "other countries to forgive [Iraq's] enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction."

Someone should have informed the junior senator, who may never win an election again, that the North Atlantic is a bit far from Iraq and NATO, as an organization, was formed to defend Europe, not butt into the politics of the Middle East.

Day four, finally!

Kerry wants everyone to think he wrote his own speech. Ain't true. Terry Edmonds, formally a Clinton speechwriter, and a cast of others, actually wrote most of the speech.

First, though, America had to sit through a Kerry propaganda film because Kerry wanted everyone to know he was in Vietnam for a couple months. The subject matter was rather uninteresting, but the film was well done.

Kerry's speech was just political babble interlaced with a few cheap shots. Generally, it was devoid of any real facts or specifics. Kerry's theme was "help is on the way." Problem is, little of the "help" Kerry promises are things the federal government should even be involved in. Typical Social-Democratic Party stuff, in other words. More of their same old failed policies.

On Fox News, Neil Cavuto summed up the convention correctly: "Damn dull!"



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

Back to Current Edition Citizen Review Archive LINKS Search This Site