57 Varieties of Radical Causes:
Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Tax-Exempt Donations
By Ben Johnson
Foreword by David Horowitz
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. The Truth About Tides
2. The Heinz Endowments Come Out of the Closet
3. Saluting Leftist Heroes
4. A Pattern of Politicized Giving
5. Fifty-Seven Shades of Green
6. Brookings: Bucking for Teresa
This impressive and information-filled report by Ben Johnson reveals that Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of the Democratic Party presidential candidate, is a major force in funding the American left – and not just the generic “soft” left, but a left which includes anarchists, socialists, anti-Homeland Security activists, racial dividers, open borders agitators, anti-American activists and pro-terrorist radicals. As the guiding hand of the Heinz Endowments, a position she inherited when her first husband John Heinz was killed in a plane crash, and a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation, Kerry has an important say in the disposition of tax-exempt foundations with $3 billion in assets – or more than all of the major foundations that fund conservative causes combined. Etc. (MORE TO FOLLOW)
From intimations that she is still in love with first husband John Heinz, to the speech she insisted on giving at the Democratic National Convention in which she droned on and on about herself before mentioning her current husband (the one running for president), Maria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry has made headlines a wise candidate (or candidate’s wife) would normally avoid.
By insisting on the spotlight, by demanding her right “to speak her mind,” she has already made herself a campaign issue. Responding to the Bush administration’s (non-existent) attacks on her husband’s patriotism, she called Bush and Cheney “unpatriotic.” She then famously stole the headlines from her husband’s campaign by calling her political opponents “un-American.” When Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter Colin McNickle requested a clarification she responded, “You said something I didn't say, now shove it!” A sympathetic media protected her by focusing on her colorful verbiage, not the fact that videotape had captured the speech and nailed her fib). Kerry caused additional embarrassment when the Boston Herald noted that she had once called Ted Kennedy “a perfect bastard,” a factoid that hit news stands on the eve of Kennedy’s DNC keynote address.
This report does not deal with Teresa Heinz Kerry’s sharp tongue or colorful campaign gaffes. Instead, it focuses on the activities that have occupied her adult life: the tax-exempt giving she has authorized as head of the Heinz Endowments and a board member of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. As chair of the Heinz Family Foundation, chair of the Howard Heinz Endowment, and a board member of the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, she is trustee of more than $1.2 billion in assets and more than $60 million a year in grant monies. Until recently a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, its $1.8 billion in assets gave her a hand in distributing an additional $80 million a year.
It is unsettling to note the radical nature of the organizations she has funded in her capacity as a trustee of these foundations. This is an issue that takes on added importance as she has pledged to continue her role as head of these philanthropies if elected First Lady. Having recently experienced how a strong-willed, politically motivated spouse can affect the policies of elected officials, the American electorate deserves to know what kinds of causes she has supported in the past. This report is intended to fill that gap.
This study begins with the topic that has generated the most heat and least light: her long connection to the shadowy Tides Foundation and Tides Center of San Francisco. It goes on to explore the impressive array of leftwing groups, Teresa Heinz Kerry’s charities have funded including the not-so-charitable organizers of this year’s anti-Republican protesters at the National Convention in New York City. The causes her funding has promoted include anti-Homeland Security advocates, “open borders” lobbyists, anti-American educators, radical feminists and anti-gun zealots. A special section focuses on the immense largesse dispensed to radical environmentalist groups, clearly the cause dearest to Teresa Heinz Kerry’s heart.
It should be noted that even this picture is necessarily incomplete, since Teresa Heinz Kerry has steadfastly refused to release her tax records – a move unprecedented for the spouse of a presidential candidate. In addition to the Howard Heinz and Vira I. Heinz Endowments, Teresa Heinz Kerry heads up the H. John Heinz III Foundation and the Teresa and H. John Heinz III Foundation, but due to their tax status, she is not required to provide detailed records of how they receive their funding – nor to whom they award their grants. These records will only be available when Teresa Heinz Kerry ends her historic lack of disclosure – a disclosure she would never accept from any corporation – and unveils her full financial records to public scrutiny. In addition to providing Americans with needed information about a woman at the center of their political life, it would end what she derides as baseless speculation about her finances. We hope the day will be soon in coming, but until she does, her refusal will lend strength to the suspicion that scrutiny is exactly what she doesn’t want.
Chapter 1: The Truth About Tides
For most people, interest in Teresa Heinz Kerry’s left-wing “philanthropy” was stimulated when media outlets revealed her close association with the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation and its spin-off, the Tides Center. Beginning with an article published by the Capital Research Center’s Tom Randall, several publications made the nation aware of Tides’ leftwing orientation and ties to radical organizations – as well as its connections to President Bush’s political opponents, including the “September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows,” a group of anti-war on terror activists with family ties to 9/11 that protested a five-second clip of 9/11 images in a Bush campaign ad.
Over the last decade, Teresa Heinz Kerry has steered $8.1 million to the Tides Foundation/Tides Center, which has then been funneled to numerous radical groups. When these stories appeared, all identified parties protested their innocence, and a politically sympathetic media has dismissed the allegations as an “urban legend.” But, the facts stubbornly remain.
What is Tides?
The Tides Foundation is a tax-exempt charity established in 1976 by antiwar activist Drummond Pike. It distributes millions of dollars in grants every year to political organizations identified with leftwing causes. Among these are United for Peace and Justice led by pro-Castro activist Leslie Cagan, the far-left National Lawyers Guild, the radical Center for Constitutional Rights and the Council for American Islamic Relations, three of whose executives have been indicted for terrorist activities.
The Tides Foundation and its closely allied Tides Center, distributed nearly $66 million in grants in 2002 alone. The Tides Center was spun off from the Foundation but is also run by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center, the Foundation and two other entities under the Tides roof “collaborate as partners.” It is the technical – but insignificant -- separation between the Tides Foundation and the Tides Center that allowed sympathetic journalists to dismiss the link between Kerry and “Peaceful Tomorrows” as an urban legend. During the last ten years, the Heinz Endowments, which Teresa Heinz Kerry heads, have given the Tides entities $8.1 million in grants. Until February 2001, Kerry was also a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Carnegie has given Tides numerous six-figure grants.
Tides allows donors to anonymously contribute money to a variety of causes -- and thereby avoid public accountability for their donations. The donor simply makes the check out to Tides and instructs the Foundation where to forward the money. Tides does so, often keeping as much as ten percent of the total amount for “charitable advisory fees.” This allows high-profile individuals to fund extremist organizations by “laundering” their money through Tides, leaving no paper trail. Founder Drummond Pike referred to his organization as “a convenient vehicle with squeaky clean books.”
The entities the Tides Foundation has chosen to fund are troubling. The so-called “legal left” (its own referent) has been a prime beneficiary of Tides largesse. One of its principal beneficiaries, for example, is the National Lawyers Guild, which began as a Communist front organization and remains proud of its lineage. Its national convention in October 2003 featured a keynote address from Lynne Stewart, a lawyer specializing in defending terrorists who has been indicted by the Justice Department for providing “material support” to sheik Omar Abdul Rachman, whose group bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six people and injuring more than a thousand.
Stewart is on record supporting terrorism against defenders of “capitalism” and “racism.” "I don't believe in anarchist violence but in directed violence,” she told the NY Times in 1995. “That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions and accompanied by popular support." In her National Lawyers Guild keynote, Stewart said she and her NLG comrades were carrying on a proud tradition of their forebears, past and present:
And modern heroes, dare I mention? Ho and Mao and Lenin, Fidel and Nelson Mandela and John Brown, Ché Guevara…Our quests like theirs are to shake the very foundations of the continents.
More recently, the NLG has endorsed the “March 20 call to End Colonial Occupation from Iraq to Palestine & Everywhere” organized by International ANSWER (a Stalinist front group), and the NLG website has posted a legal petition for “Post-Conviction Relief” for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Along with George Soros and the Ford Foundation, Tides has also funneled tens of thousands of dollars to the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), an organization established by Sixties radicals William Kunstler and Arthur Kinoy. Prior to creating the Center, the two floated a plan to establish a new “Communist Party.” Not surprisingly, the old Communist Party has enjoyed a close relationship with the Center. In 1999, the party publication People’s Weekly World honored CCR Executive Director Ron Daniels alongside a member of the CPUSA national committee. Daniels, who was Deputy Campaign Manager for Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential run and the 1992 presidential candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party, has a longstanding cordial relationship with racist, anti-Semitic “poet laureate” Amiri Baraka.
Echoing Tides’ mission statement, the Center claims it is “committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.” Since 9/11, CCR has channeled its efforts into fighting the Bush administration’s every Homeland Security measure. The Center’s lawyers opposed increasing the government’s ability to wiretap Islamists suspected of plotting terrorism and bemoaned the sequestering of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay as an inexcusable form of “racial profiling.” CCR President Michael Ratner has portrayed American foreign policy as the real cause of 9/11, because it allegedly provoked the terrorists. CCR has also defended Lynne Stewart’s “innocence” in aiding Sheikh Rahman’s Islamic Jihad group and filed an amicus brief on her behalf.
Immediately after 9/11, Tides formed a “9/11 Fund” to advocate a “peaceful national response” to the opening salvos of war. The Foundation replaced the 9/11 Fund with the “Democratic Justice Fund,” which was established with the aid of George Soros’ Open Society Institute. (Soros, a currency speculator and drug legalization advocate is a major contributor to Tides, having donated more than $7 million.)
Tides has also given grant money to the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Ostensibly a “Muslim civil rights group,” CAIR is in fact one of the leading anti-anti-terrorism organizations in the United States. CAIR regularly opposes American efforts to fight terrorism, claiming Homeland Security measures are responsible for an undocumented surge in “hate crimes.”
CAIR officials have reason to fight Bush’s anti-terrorism measures: all too many CAIR officials are on the record supporting terrorist organizations. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad openly stated in 1994, “I am a supporter of the Hamas movement.” Community Affairs Director Bassem K. Khafagi pleaded guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud in connection with terrorist support activities. Randall Royer, a Communications Specialist and Civil Rights Coordinator at CAIR, was arrested along with a group of Islamic radicals in Virginia for allegedly planning violent anti-American jihad. CAIR has defended terrorist “charities” shut down by the Bush administration. CAIR’s abysmal record led Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to observe that its leaders have “intimate links with Hamas…we know CAIR has ties to terrorism.”
Tides established an Iraq Peace Fund and a Peace Strategies Fund to finance the so-called antiwar movement. These projects fueled MoveOn.org, the website that featured two separate commercials portraying President Bush as Adolf Hitler. The antiwar movement often boasted that MoveOn.org and the radical website Indymedia provided them “alternate media coverage.” Indymedia, an enormous news and events bulletin board with local pages in most of the world’s major cities, provided a vital link for radical activists, often with violent agendas, to coordinate their protests. Indymedia received $376,000 from the Tides Foundation.
Turning the Tide for Castro
Tides also runs another “alternative media source,” the Institute for Global Communications, which describes itself as “a project of the Tides Center, a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization.” A leftist communications facilitator, IGC was the leading provider of web technology to the radical left during the 1990s. With Tides money, IGC’s Canadian affiliate –– used an undersea cable to connect Castro’s Cuba to the Internet in 1991., After finding out IGC had established the Internet service for Cuba, Rep. Mario Diaz-Bartlet (R-FL), a Cuban American commented: “When you give money to such an organization, it's because you sympathize with their work. If not, where is her outrage now that she knows?”
The IGC’s website links to such “recommended sites” as the War Resisters League, a radical group which focuses on non-payment of taxes as a form of protest and the equally radical American Friends Service Committee. Most disturbing is its link to Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, a front for the Workers World Party, a Marxist-Leninist vanguard which supports Slobodan Milosevic and North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Il. The IAC is the force behind International ANSWER, which sponsored the major antiwar (and anti-Bush) rallies in the days before Operation Iraqi Freedom.
When ANSWER was outed as a Communist organization in the fall of 2002, Tides beneficiary United for Peace and Justice was created as its “moderate” alternative. UFPJ was created in the offices of People for the American Way, an a organization also funded by Tides at its inception.UFPJ was headed by longtime Communist Party member and pro-Castro activist Leslie Cagan who maintained her membership in the Party after the fall of the Berlin Wall. UFPJ co-founder Medea Benjamin also made the pilgrimage to Castro’s island gulag, saying the contrast with her own country “made it seem like I died and went to heaven.” The Tides-funded “A Better Way Project,” has also coordinated efforts of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War Coalition, another radical group.
The confluence of PAW, Win Without War, George Soros and Tides is a typical example of well-financed, overlapping radical causes uniting to oppose a Republican president. Tides-funded groups have even specifically targeted the Republican National Convention in New York City for violence. Since 1999, the Tides Foundation has donated $150,000 in grants to the Ruckus Society, a violent anarchist group. Along with Medea Benjamin’s Global Exchange, Ruckus wreaked havoc on Seattle during the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting, causing thousands of dollars in property damage through “direct action.” Executive Director John Sellers defended his actions in the pages of Mother Jones, saying, “I think you can be destructive, you can use vandalism strategically.” Ruckus now teaches these techniques to other “activists.” Among the topics taught at Ruckus boot camps are “street blockades,” “police confrontation strategies” and “using the media to your advantage.” Their most recent project is protesting the Republican Party’s 2004 convention …and they are not the only Heinz-funded organization going (see next chapter).
Like the “United Way”?
Teresa Heinz Kerry’s staffer at the Heinz Endowments, Maxwell King, has taken great umbrage at being tied to the Tides Center. After media stories began exposing Heinz’s longstanding relationship to Tides, he responded:
The Heinz Endowments has been accused of using its funding of the Tides Center of Western Pennsylvania to advance a laundry list of partisan causes and fringe political groups…The Heinz Endowments has scrupulously observed both the letter and the spirit of the law barring foundations from partisan activity. That hasn’t changed. These accusations to the contrary are rooted in politics, not fact.
He then claimed Tides supports several causes. “It is no more accurate to suggest that Heinz supports every one of these programs than it is to suggest that someone who contributes to a specific group through the United Way supports the agenda of every other United Way beneficiary.”
The Tides Center describes its political agenda another way. “For more than twenty years, Tides Center has been working with new and emerging charitable organizations who share our mission of striving for positive social change.” (Notice the similarity to the Center for Constitutional Rights’ mission statement.) The Tides Foundation defines this as, “strengthening…the progressive movement through innovative grantmaking.” This agenda hardly bears comparison to that of the United Way.
Teresa Heinz Kerry’s palpable support literally put Tides on the map in Pennsylvania. As part of the $8.1 million Teresa Heinz Kerry has bequeathed to Tides over the last ten years, the combined Heinz Endowments (composed of the Howard Heinz Endowment and the Vira I. Heinz Endowment) donated $1.6 million to establish the Tides Center for Western Pennsylvania, allowing the San Francisco-based Tides Center to set up shop in Pittsburgh.
Tides employees did not see this windfall as a chance to reinvent the Center following the model of the United Way. “They saw it as a great opportunity to encourage a progressive social agenda,” said Jo DeBolt, director of the Tides Center of Western Pennsylvania. Although any non-profit group can apply for Tides’ services, DeBolt says, “We look at mission fit as the No. 1 cut.”
In a field with as much oversight as philanthropy, every grant is weighed with careful deliberation, every associated project plotted with exacting care. In place of apolitical charities that benefit all, Teresa Heinz Kerry has chosen to associate herself with the Tides Center, an organization dedicated to funding the political left. Somehow, Teresa Heinz Kerry has managed to establish a decade-long, intimate financial relationship with a radical nerve center and avoid all scrutiny for having done so. Far from a “red herring,” as her defenders have claimed, Teresa Heinz Kerry’s patronage of such an organization speaks volumes about her judgment and the groups who would have her ear in a John Kerry administration.
Chapter 2: The Heinz Endowments Come Out of the Closet
As the facts outlined above show, allegations that Teresa Heinz Kerry had funneled money to President Bush’s most virulent detractors – including fringe antiwar activists, anti-free trade demonstrators, anarchists, Marxists and “radical queers” – are well-founded. She as accomplished this not only through her benefactions of tTides, but with the immense philanthropic resources at her disposal as the executor of her first husband’s estate.
One example of Teresa Heinz Kerry’s sponsorship of the radical left came just as her John Kerry prepared to announce his candidacy for president. In 2002, the Howard Heinz Endowment gave $100,000 to the Three Rivers Community Foundation “to support the work of grassroots organizations actively engaged in promoting social, racial and economic justice.” Like Tides, TRCF is dedicated to “bringing about progressive social action.” It works to “bridge persistent divisions in society around issues of race, economic status, gender, sexual identity, and disability.” Like Tides, TRCF primarily funds other so-called “grassroots” organizations. But unlike the Tides grants – whose donor interests are veiled – the money Teresa Heinz Kerry gave to Three Rivers was earmarked specifically for these kinds of “grassroots organizations.”
Thomas Merton, R.I.P.
The TRCF website lists the Thomas Merton Center (TMC) as one of the “groups that have received the greatest cumulative total of TRCF funding over the years.” The Roman Catholic monk Thomas Merton had nothing to do with the center’s founding and would be turning in his grave if he saw what it perpetrated in his name. The Thomas Merton Center runs more than 35 left-wing projects, including:
With so many vocal groups under its wing, the Thomas Merton Center is able to hold demonstrations on a regular basis. The TMC took protesters via bus, van and carpool to the April 2002 anti-Israel “peace” rally in Washington, D.C., where participants chanted “Long Live the Intifada!” According to pictures on the TMC website, activists marched alongside International ANSWER, the Socialist Party USA and the National Youth & Student Peace Coalition.
At a February 2003 “peace” rally, supporters carried signs with such messages as “Capitalism is War”; “Fixed Election, Bogus President, Phony War”; “Bush AWOL”; and “Drop Bush, Not Bombs.” They were joined in this march by avowed anarchists in black masks, who provoked confrontations with police. United for Peace and Justice, International ANSWER and Code Pink are also frequent comrades of the Merton activists at antiwar protests. On March 20, 2004, TMC faithful marched alongside Physicians for Social Responsibility (another regular grantee of the Heinz Endowments) in a protest opposing Operation Iraqi Freedom one year after Saddam’s fall.
On June 5, 2004, the TMC protested the teen pranks engaged in by a handful of MPs at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. The far-Left internet site Indymedia described the action thus: “Organized by the Thomas Merton Center's Anti-War Committee, some protesters re-enacted the infamous photos of Abu Ghraib prison abuse.” (“Local Action Shorts,” TheNew People, July/August 2004.
A June 2004 editorial, putatively on “gay liberation,” explained the organization’s radical principles. “As people struggling for liberation, we don’t consider it ‘equality’ if we too can participate in the killing of thousands of innocent people for oil or any other reason…We don’t want to be admitted into the military – we want to abolish it. And we demand an end to America’s imperialistic warmonger tactics.” (The editorial also denounces “capitalistic greed.”) This group approved of (and featured on its website) the “Christianity and Anarchism” conference, a “Renewing the Anarchist Tradition” conference and a “Life After Capitalism” seminar (attended by Lynne Stewart, the Chomskyite Zmag’s Michael Albert, and Wiccan priestess “Starhawk.”)
When not undermining America’s war abroad, the center is at war Homeland Security. TMC played a role in getting Pittsburgh’s city council to adopt an anti-PATRIOT Act resolution demanding “Pittsburgh police refrain from participating in unlawful and illegal searches” – the kind the Supreme Court has declared perfectly legal – “engaging in racial profiling and enforcing immigration laws that are the responsibility of the federal government.” The objective is to make Pittsburgh an “asylum city,” above the decrees of federal immigration law.
Not surprisingly, TMC has a remarkably blasé attitude toward Islamic terrorism. For example, the editorial in the Sept. 2002 issue condemns the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review for noting several suspected terrorists in the Pittsburgh area were affiliated with the local “Attawheed Foundation…a West End Saudi school, Al Andalus [another Muslim group]; and a magazine, ‘Assirat Al-Mustaqeem,’ published between 1991 and 2000, which was said to publish inflammatory pro-terrorist articles…Whatever may have appeared in Assirat a year ago, or five years or ten years ago, appeared in another time. This is now.” Assirat posted fatwas from Muslim clerics blessing jihad operations against infidels, including crashing airplanes into buildings. The government has since ordered the site’s operator, Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, to be deported.
Republican National Convention Protests
As early as February 2004, the Thomas Merton Center planned to send protesters to the Republican National Convention in NYC the following September. They write, “In Pittsburgh, Global Justice Now, a project of the Thomas Merton Center…will be organizing multiple buses for the RNC events while the Pittsburgh Organizing Group (POG) is considering what type of direct action tactics are feasible during the RNC.” They were surprisingly forthright about their intentions: “Every group mobilizing wants to oppose the convention and thousands of people will be in NYC to physically disrupt to the maximum extent possible the functioning of the RNC, but it remains to be seen how diverse approaches can work together in the close quarters of Manhattan.” They also boast of their working relationship with “The NYC Campaign to Demilitarize the Police.” Thus, grant money provided by the wife of the opposition candidate may have gone directly to protesters whose purpose was to disrupt the Republican convention and, in effect, shut down the democratic process.
“We’re Not Fair-Weather Radicals”
Other “grassroots” umbrella groups receiving TRCF (and hence, Heinz) money are the Alliance for Progressive Action The Pittsburgh Coalition to Counter Hate Groups. The Alliance for Progressive Action’s executive director, Linda Wambaugh, knows how to turn out a vocal, angry crowd. She spent 13 years as organizing director of the local Service Employees International Union, the most leftwing of the government unions (its president Andrew Stern is an old SDS, anti-Vietnam war radical). The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette dubbed Wambaugh a “protest pro.” With a background in left-wing agitation, she wasted no time coordinating protests against America’s bombing of Iraq – in 1999, during the Clinton Administration. Also present at the rally against Clinton’s incursion was Molly Rush of the Thomas Merton Center, and Jan Neffke of The Pittsburgh Coalition to Counter Hate Groups. Neffke told the Post-Gazette of her plans to mobilize a “Free Mumia” rally in Philadelphia, the hometown of his victim’s widow. Noting that the same faces turn up at all Pittsburgh rallies, one protest leader summed up, “We’re not fair-weather radicals.”
Shutting Down Christian Media
However, APA is best known for its simultaneous assault on two clauses of the First Amendment: freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In 1999, the APA tried to stifle a local Christian television station – and nearly muffled Christian broadcasters nationwide. When Cornerstone Television tried to swap its FCC license to broadcast on a commercial frequency near Pittsburgh for a non-commercial one, the APA filed a complaint calling the nonprofit station’s programming “highly ideological” and “extremist.” The APA’s challenge resulted in the FCC issuing a ruling that declared that all non-commercial television stations must dedicate one-half of their programming time to “educational” programming – which does not include religious broadcasts of any kind. This would have crippled Christian radio and television stations – which are overwhelmingly conservative – effectively silencing them twelve-hours a day. The ruling generated tremendous opposition and was quickly withdrawn, but for a moment the APA joined with a Democrat-controlled governmental body to silence the entire Christian media. Two years later, Teresa Heinz Kerry funneled money to the funding parent of the would be censor.
Money for “Radical Queers”
The Three Rivers Community Foundation also funds the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Pittsburgh. The GLCC supported the March 20, 2004, protests sponsored by the Thomas Merton Center, posting this notice on its calendar under the heading, “Anti-war call for a Radical Queer/Pink Bloc”: “Resyst [mentioned above] is sending this call out to all radical queers and queer sympathizers to join us in Pittsburgh. Those who see the interconnectedness of all oppressions and struggles and who wish to ensure that a radical queer perspective is heard in the ongoing anti-war movement must join together.”
On November 5, 2003, they invited people to see the Guerrilla Girls. The Guerrilla Girls (who apparently wear gorilla costumes on stage) create leftist/feminist posters, including “George Bush’s Letter to Santa.” In the letter, scribbled in a child’s hand, the Commander-in-Chief asks for “A big flag with lots of stars” and “All the oil in the world.”
The TRCF also funds Prevention Point Pittsburgh, which “began providing needle exchange services once a week” to Steel Town’s junkies.
In other words, TRCF fund numerous front groups, all designed to attract individuals from different backgrounds – including minors and pre-teen children, Islamists, socialists, feminists, homosexuals and drug addicts – then recruit them into radical protests.
Maxwell King grouses that critics accuse his charity of “using its funding…to advance a laundry list of partisan causes and fringe political groups.” Where on earth would they get an idea like that?
Chapter 3: Saluting Radical Leaders
In 1993, Teresa Heinz Kerry decided to create the Heinz Awards “to honor outstanding leaders in areas of great importance” to her late husband, Republican Senator John Heinz. The Heinz Awards Board of Directors – which includes Teresa Heinz Kerry and her son, André Heinz – selects winners in six areas. Winners receive an unrestricted cash prize of $250,000 and a medallion in a ceremony in the nation’s capital.
Paul and Anne Ehrlich. The very first year Teresa Heinz Kerry offered the Heinz Awards, she chose to honor environmental extremists Paul and Anne Ehrlich. The Ehrlich’s were chosen “in recognition of their thoughtful study of difficult environmental issues [and] their commitment to bringing their findings to the attention of policy makers and the public.”
Paul Ehrlich gained notoriety in the 1960s and ’70s, most notably with their book The Population Bomb by predicting an impending ecological apocalypse. Among Ehrlich’s “thoughtful” findings:
· “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines…hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death.” (1968)
· “Smog disasters” in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)
· “I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” (1969)
· “Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.” (1976)
The Heinz Awards also praise the Ehrlichs for “their willingness to suggest solutions.” Glossing over their raving diagnoses, the Heinz Awards website claims, “Their prescriptions, sometimes misrepresented as draconian, are rooted in…Judeo-Christian principles.” In his magnum opus The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich decreed, “We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.” He suggested adding “temporary sterilants” to the water supply but thought “society would probably dissolve before sterilants were added to the water by the government.” Ehrlich called China’s policy of forced abortion “vigorous and effective,” a “grand experiment in the management of population.” Far from Judeo-Christian, Ehrlich’s anti-human positions could better be described as “sacrificing children to Moloch.” Ehrlich’s predictions snared a generation of gullible reporters and hysterical Green activists in the 1970s, who gave his totalitarian prescriptions serious consideration, and apparently still do.
Luis Garden Acosta. Acosta is the 1998 “Human Condition” Award Recipient (with Frances Lucerna) for his work at El Puente. Acosta is founder, president and CEO of El Puente (“The Bridge” in Spanish), a Brooklyn “community organization” founded in the early Eighties. He also has established a high school, the El Puente Academy for Peace and Justice.
Acosta was an early member of the Young Lords Party, the Puerto Rican equivalent of the Black Panthers, a radical and violent street gang. “The 13 Point Program and Platform of the Young Lords Party,” to which Acosta professed allegiance, is worth quoting:
Our Latin Brothers and Sisters, inside and outside the united states [sic.], are oppressed by amerikkkan business. The Chicano people built the Southwest, and we support their right to control their lives and their land…The armed liberation struggles in Latin America are part of the war of Latinos against imperialism…
Acosta has been motivated by this same toxic zeal all his life. El Puente is home to the “CHE Institute” (Community Health & Environment, but Acosta refers to it almost exclusively as the “CHE Institute” for reasons of euphonia). El Puente’s website links to United for Peace and Justice and the Communist Paper, the People’s Weekly World. He should; he’s been favorably covered there.
As Heather MacDonald reported in New York’s City Journal, “El Puente evaluates students on their commitment to ‘social and economic justice.’ The students have demonstrated such commitment by protesting a local incinerator as ‘environmental racism’; as part of El Puente's after-school program, they will soon staff a center intended to help the garment workers' union, UNITE, organize workers.” The school calendar is loaded with protests, grievances and loony-Left commemorations; it records, for instance, that August 7 is “Transgender International Rights and Education Day.”
This mandatory leftwing activism explains why El Puente was a major force in New York’s antiwar (and anti-Bush) protests before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Like the Thomas Merton Center, Acosta leads his underage students in hate-filled, profanity-laden protests where speakers often condemn their own country as “racist,” “imperialist” and “evil.” The New York Post recorded Acosta took a delegation – presumably of his students – to the Feb. 15, 2003, antiwar march in New York City and led them in chanting “War is whack. Get out of Iraq.” El Puente art teacher Noah Jemisin also participated. Another New York publication observed, “The [local] groups [including El Puente] have joined forces with each other and with nationwide organizations such as United for Peace and Justice, the A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) coalition, and Code Pink.” For this, El Puente receives not just nonprofit grants from Heinz, but also federal funding.
Acosta’s students aren’t just graded on their ability to shout shrill antiwar phrases; they’re also evaluated on their ability with a spray paint can. El Puente offers a class teaching students graffiti. Entitled “Hip Hop 101,” students learn how to deface other people’s property in the most artistic, eye-catching way possible. (Break dancing and hip-hop “music” are also discussed.) Such academic ephemera is offered despite the fact that, as MacDonald points out, “The school's average SAT scores in 1997 – 385 in verbal, 363 in math (out of a possible 800 in each) – lagged far behind the city's already abysmal average of 443 in verbal and 464 in math.” A school built out of racialist envy, hostile to the government that funds it and unable to educate the children entrusted to it: this is the travesty Teresa Heinz Kerry wishes to honor and have others emulate?
August Wilson. In the most recent class of Heinz Award winners (2003), playwright August Wilson won the Heinz Award for “Arts and Humanities.” In the words of the Heinz Endowments, Wilson is constantly “stirring us with passion and challenging us to recognize the truths [sic.] about ourselves.” Two years before the award, he stirred passion with an e-mail exchange posted on the Slate website. The exchange began on September 10, 2001. The day after 9/11, Wilson counseled:
To understand the politics we need to look at the origins of the war and understand that it is not a war driven by territorial disputes and fought by standing armies but hatred for our arrogant display of power and our seeming callous indifference to the rest of the word's humanity. Then I think we can, as you say, begin to address “the deeper problems that made for this fanatic hate.”
Earlier in the day, he gave this Solomonic military advice:
I suggest we forgo any military action against a handful of elusive and destructive terrorists and use our resources, and the unconquerable will of the American people, to rebuild the World Trade Center on the exact spot (Phoenix rising from the ashes) as a testament to the resiliency of the American spirit. This, to my mind, would be the truly heroic thing to do.
The next day (9/13), he reaffirmed that America finally got what she had coming:
If, as you say, this act of terrorism says to the world, “You will not live in your dream, you will live in ours,” then it is a reversal of roles. So much of America's policies and practices, its influence on global politics and economics has resulted in us saying the very same thing to the rest of the world. The terrorists may well be responding to the “profound psychic humiliation” of being colonized by another’s ideas.
He also expressed concern the deadly terrorist assault “will fan the flames of patriotism.” These are hard “truths” indeed.
Dr. Julius Richmond. Also in 2003, Teresa Heinz Kerry bestowed the “Public Policy” award on Dr. Julius Richmond, the Surgeon General during Jimmy Carter’s administration. Richmond watched the tragedies of September 11 from the comfort of Castro’s Cuba. He had just finished touring the Stalinist island tyranny with four other physicians – including controversial Clinton Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders – all of whom were reportedly impressed with CastroCare and incensed, not by Castro’s relentless oppression of his populace, but by American foreign policy. When he returned two days after 9/11, his first public statement focused on – condemning the United States’ blockade of Cuba. While hundreds of people extinguished flickering hopes that their loved ones might still be alive inside the rubble of that evil attack, the good doctor called America’s economic Cuban boycott “an immoral and shameful policy.” Richmond was outdone only by Elders, who reportedly said of Cuban health care, “Cuba’s is better. They work at keeping people healthy.”
Ending the embargo of Cuba is a passion of Richmond, a member of the Advisory Board for Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba. (The AHTC website links to the Alliance for Responsible Cuba Policy Foundation, which features pictures of star-struck Rep. John Tanner (D-TN) fawning as Castro “autographs” an American flag.) In May 2004, Richmond signed a letter calling on President Bush to lift trade restrictions against Cuba. The letter reads in part, “Forty-three years of the strongest embargo in our history has resulted in increased hardship for the people of Cuba while making no change whatsoever in the political makeup of the Cuban government. We can no longer support a policy carried out in our name which causes suffering of the most vulnerable – women, children and the elderly.” Richmond’s co-signers include Oliver Stone, Francis Ford Coppola, Dwayne Andreas (of agricultural giant Archer Daniels Midland), Jim Winkler (the General Secretary of the United Methodist Church) and Robert Edgar (General Secretary of the National Council of Churches).
In 2003, Richmond and Clinton Surgeon General David Satcher endorsed the single-payer national health care plan proposed by Physicians for a National Health Program. This is the same health plan endorsed by political savant, Warren Beatty, in his film Bulworth. (“Call it single-payer or Canadian way/Only socialized medicine will ever save the day/Now, let me hear that dirty word: So-o-ocialism!”) The PNHP’s single-payer plan is more socialistic than the “National Health Plan” Jimmy Carter proposed during Richmond’s tenure as Surgeon General in 1979. When the plan’s designers admitted Canadian-style rationing of services would ensue upon its passage, Richmond didn’t bat an eye. He announced his support of single-payer health insurance in 2003, and apart from his very public endorsement – and his steady memos to the president about Cuba – he had lingered in obscurity since the Reagan years. Teresa Heinz Kerry’s award followed that December.
Peter Matthiessen. Kerry recognized the achievements of author, social activist and Zen teacher, Peter Matthiessen, with a Heinz Award in 1999. Primarily a nature writer, as the Heinz press release announcing this award notes Mathiessen also agitates for leftist change. According to the same release, his books In the Spirit of Crazy Horse and Indian Country “clearly challenges state and federal policies destroying [Indian] land and culture.”, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse focuses on the trial of Leonard Peltier, a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM) convicted of shooting two FBI agents at Pine Ridge Reservation in 1975. Matthiessen asked Bill Clinton to pardon Peltier during a private meeting with the president. Peltier’s case, along with that of fellow leftist cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, is a cause celebre on the Left. In 2004, the Peace and Freedom Party selected Peltier as its 2004 presidential candidate.
On December 6, 1997, Matthiessen joined the “International Tribunal for Mumia.” The tribunal was organized by the Marxist group “Refuse and Resist” to “investigate the government’s conspiracy to silence, deny justice to and take the life of Abu-Jamal.” Refuse and Resist is the creation of C. Clark Kissinger, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, a Maoist sect. Kissinger also initiated the “Not In Our Name” antiwar project. Other co-endorsers of the Mumia tribunal included Peltier, Ramsey Clark, the National Lawyers Guild, Panthers United for Revolutionary Education, Jacques Derrida, Cornel West, Angela Davis, Medea Benjamin and Howard Zinn.
At Matthiessen’s suggestion, the Heinz Endowments made a $10,000 endowment to Medea Benjamin’s Global Exchange, an organization that takes citizens on tours of Potemkin villages in foreign lands, to demonstrate the evils of American foreign policy and the wonders of socialism. Teresa Heinz Kerry also honored his request to donate $1,000 to the Earth Island Institute. On September 14, 2001, the Institute’s website bore the headline “U.S. Responds to Terrorist Attacks with Self-Righteous Arrogance.”
Some critics argue it is wrong to hold the Heinz Endowments responsible for what its grant recipients do after they receive their money. There are two replies to this. First, nearly every such action has a string of antecedents. In this case, Earth Island Institute’s founder, David Brower, had denounced the “imperialist” United States in a show of “solidarity environmentalism” with Nicaraguan Sandinista strongman Daniel Ortega in 1989 at the fourth International Congress on the Hope and Fate of the Earth, held in Managua. Brower wrote, “‘[S]olidarity environmentalism’ is the only kind that makes sense…Would George Bush and Margaret Thatcher be able to call themselves environmentalists if the effort to protect the ozone layer and stop global warming was linked to the Third World movement’s demands for a new, more equitable international economic system, an end to the Third World debt, and curbs on the free action of multinational corporations?”
Secondly, Teresa is well acquainted with the Earth Island Institute; she serves Brower on the Advisory Board of the Earth Communications Office (a group she funds). Also on the board are Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Al Gore, Randy Hayes of the violent Rainforest Action Network, Rep. Henry Waxman, Susan Weber of Zero Population Growth, Alex Pachecco of PETA, Tamara Lee Boyer of the National Resources Defense Council (a frequent Heinz grantee), Dr. Henry Kendall of the Union of Concerned Scientists (ditto) and Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund (a frequent grantee on whose board Teresa Heinz Kerry also sits). Hayes of RAN agrees with Brower’s view of capitalism, calling it “an absurd economic system rapidly destroying nature.” In this context, it is disturbing that Teresa Heinz Kerry agreed to distribute monies to this organization, and given its history of denigrating the United States, the Green leopard should not be expected to change its spots.
The second, less elaborate, argument holds that what the grantee does after receiving the grant is the only appropriate measuring stick of the grant’s impact and effectiveness. Philanthropy hopes to change the world; how else is one to define whether a donation has succeeded in doing so? And how else is society to hold the grantee – or the granter – accountable?
Dudley Cocke. Cocke received the 2001 Arts & Humanities award from Heinz. Cocke operates the Roadside Theater in Kentucky and seeks to be the cultural voice of Appalachia. At roughly the same time he received the Heinz Award, Cocke blamed worldwide terrorism on – Ronald Reagan. Of 9/11, he wrote: “A lot of this hatred is based on an ignorance that allows the hater to perceive the United States only in monolithic terms, as a heartless materialist and imperialist state…It is my contention that U.S. arts policy, beginning with the Reagan administration, has played a surprising role helping to create this misperception.” Specifically, “The Reagan administration’s withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1987 signaled to the international community that the U.S. no longer considered itself just one among many of the world’s cultures.” Cocke would have us believe al-Qaeda’s brand of Islamists – who forbid any form of music whatever – bear a hatred borne not out of religious fanaticism, nor even the liberal shibboleth of “poverty and disease,” but of artistic rejection. He continues to champion our return to UNESCO, blithely unaware George W. Bush has already brought this about. Elsewhere, Cocke berated Reagan and other conservatives for daring to question the National Endowment for the Arts’ inalienable right to fund “Piss Christ.” Dismissing their objections, he mused, “Ironically, those attacks were led by our own homegrown religious fundamentalists.” Destroying thousands of lives – launching an unsuccessful bid to mildly reduce government funding for the obscene “art,” what’s the difference?
Peggy Shepard. Shepard won the Heinz Environment Award in 2003. Shepard is the co-founder and executive director of West Harlem Environmental Action, which she inexplicably abbreviates “WE ACT.” (Perhaps she graduated from El Puente.) The Heinz press release dubs Shepard, “An environmental crusader…against a systemic form of racism that threatens to sacrifice the environmental health of poor urban areas.” Continuing her support of non-mainstream activists with a history of illegal protest, Heinz selected Shepard, who began her career in 1988, when she and a group of other protesters “donned gas masks and held up traffic near [a treatment] plant. They were promptly arrested, but not before they had made their point.”
Shepard has become a pioneering activist in the fight against “environmental racism,” the “systemic form of racism” caused by no malice nor design and often brought on by the very conditions civil rights “leadership” sues to create. Shepard and WE ACT’s seemingly only project of note is a multi-year struggle against the Manhattan Transportation Authority. At issue is the fact that six of the MTA’s eight bus depots are located in Northern Manhattan, an area primarily populated by minorities. Shepard alleges (despite the dearth of medical evidence) that diesel exhaust has led to an asthma epidemic among minority children, and this is a form of “environmental racism.” According to WE ACT:
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act states that no agency receiving Federal funds shall administer a program that discriminates against people on the basis of race. If an agency's actions have the effect of discriminating, the agency is in violation of Civil Rights law, even if discrimination is not intentional. “The MTA would not get away with putting the diesel depots and diesel bus parking lots in other neighborhoods in Manhattan,” said Ms. Shepard.
She summed up, “We believe it's discriminatory because [MTA officials] are spending their money to place a disproportionate burden on low income communities and communities of color in New York City.” Inverting forty years of civil rights rhetoric, Shepard interpreted increased government spending in “communities of color” as “discriminatory” – a calamity to be remedied by ratcheting up governmental regulation and expanding public health programs. And awarding financial reparations to aggrieved communities and their legal counsel, like Ms. Shepard. “Environmental racism,” in short, is a gentler term for extortion.
Obviously, cities situate bus depots in those areas most likely to use them, and studies have shown minorities disproportionately avail themselves of public transportation. In other words, Shepard’s group has cried racism and filed a federal lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Transportation, because New York City is too attentive in providing taxpayer-subsidized services to minorities. No good deed goes unpunished.
Gen. George Lee Butler. When does awarding a Public Policy award to a retired U.S. Air Force General and former commander of the Strategic Air Command make people question your commitment to national security? When that general calls for the United States to enact a complete, unilateral destruction of all its nuclear weapons. In 2001, the Heinz Awards selected Butler for its Public Policy award specifically because he believed in nuclear abolition. The press release states, “Despite the fact that his beliefs were frequently not in keeping with official policy, congruent with professional bias or conducive to personal advancement, George Lee Butler has been willing to take the risks required to do what he felt was right. He has made the world a better place by drastically decreasing the numbers of, and the planned uses for, nuclear weapons.” Heinz did not specify what new “planned use” North Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran or the People’s Republic of China have for their nuclear arsenal.
Butler calls for the complete abolition of nuclear weapons within America. Although he now shuns the term “abolition” (since it made people question his sanity), preferring the more sensible term “responsible reductions.” Still, he maintains, “the goal is and must be zero.” He began this call shortly before retiring from the military in 1994, the year North Korea threatened to develop nuclear weapons – or rather, the year Pyongyang began developing nuclear weapons after fooling another gullible arms control advocate named Jimmy Carter.
A few years later, the Marxists lobbed a missile over Japanese airspace and threatened to strike Los Angeles; it is assumed they are capable of carrying out this threat. In a world in which it is impossible to know with certainty when regimes are seeking to attain nuclear weapons, when President Bush is being criticized for launching a pre-emptive war to stop Saddam Hussein’s nuclear design, unilateral nuclear abolition seems an irresponsible course of action.
Carol Gilligan. Gilligan won the Heinz Award for the “Human Condition” in 1997, while she was the Chair of Gender Studies in Harvard University's Graduate School of Education. The award was given, in part, because, according to the Heinz Award’s press release, Gilligan “has transformed assumptions of what it means to be human.” (No small feat.)
Her book In a Different Voice became an overnight classic for the feminist movement, garnering Gilligan Ms. magazine’s “Woman of the Year” award in 1984. In her work, Gilligan claims women lose their voice in patriarchal society, causing adolescent girls to suffer a crippling crisis of self-worth. Men use their “chest” voice, speaking their minds and ordering people around. However, society enculturates women to believe they must use their “head” voice: the flighty purr of a complicit pet. During adolescence, women learn “society” does not “value” their opinions, forcing them to use the “head voice,” and this causes profound withdrawal. The feminist establishment seized upon this pseudo-psychological theorem to invent a “crisis of confidence” leading young women into withdrawal, academic failure, low paying jobs, suicide or (worse yet) marriage. This, they asserted, and not the Sexual Revolution ethics they championed for decades, led to high teen pregnancy rates and low self-worth.
Like Paul Ehrlich’s predictions before her, Gilligan’s assertions have since been turned on their head; more women than men succeed during high school and go on to college. Due to the educational advantage they have over men, one-third of all married women now earn higher salaries than their husbands – and the trend is only expected to increase. This new reality has provoked talk that males are being “left behind.”
In the mid-90s Gilligan discovered the fount of all boys’ problems: separation from their mothers, and femininity in general, during early childhood. This leads to “more stuttering, more bedwetting, more learning problems...when cultural norms pressure [boys] to separate from their mothers.” This is when boys begin to “internalize a patriarchal voice” (which is very bad). These assertions, however, are bereft of any statistical, scientific or empirical data (as is much of Gilligan’s work); they are merely Gilligan’s philosophical projections upon human development.
Ironically, after decades of feminist demands for equal treatment, Gilligan’s radical outlook put women back on a pedestal. In her research, she claimed women were more likely to care about people, whereas men care about abstract principles. Hence, females are more caring and emotive; males have a built-in tendency toward emotional distance and fanaticism. Taken to its logical extreme, this means women are society’s nurturers, men its sadists and pillagers, an idea the feminist establishment readily embraced, despite its corrosive effect on the idea of equality. One can see the effect of this new feminist radicalism in Eve Ensler’s transformation of February 14th from “Valentine’s Day” into “Violence Against Women Day.”
Oddly, like her statistics that prove boys are more likely to stutter if they spend more time in closer proximity to testosterone than estrogen, the data Gilligan used to reach her morality conclusions have not been made available for peer review. Three psychologists at Oberlin College independently administered a Gilligan morality test to male and female students five years after In a Different Voice hit the shelves. Their conclusion? “There were no reliable sex differences...in the directions predicted by Gilligan.”
This has not stopped the Teresa Heinz from lionizing upon Gilligan. Others have followed her example. Jane Fonda donated $12.5 million to Harvard University’s Center on Gender and Education just as Gilligan left Harvard for NYU.
Gilligan has applied her own principles to the political scene as a member of the Ms. Foundation’s Board of Directors. As Kimberly Schuld has noted in her indispensable Guide to Feminist Organizations, “the Ms. Foundation received a Presidential Award for Excellence in Microenterprise Development at the close of the Clinton administration for programs assisting low income women who create their own jobs. By contrast, after the first 100 days of George W. Bush’s presidency, it released a report claiming the president had ‘left women and children behind.’” This partisanship undoubtedly appeals to feminists, as well.
Gilligan did not change “assumptions of what it means to be human.” However, she has changed the original feminist assumption that women and men, though distinct, should be accorded equal dignity.
Paul Gorman. Gorman, who was awarded the1999 Heinz Environment prize, founded the National Religious Partnership for the Environment in 1991. His primary accomplishment has been mobilizing liberal church hierarchs (e.g., Arch-heretic Frank Griswold of the Episcopal Church USA and A. Roy Medley of the American Baptist Church) and well-meaning conservative, religious men (e.g., Bishop Dimitrios of the Greek Orthodox Church) into supporting bad science.
The NRPE’s most recent manifesto, entitled “Earth's Climate Embraces Us All: A Plea From Religion and Science for Action on Global Climate Change,” pontificates, “The wealthier nations of the planet have a solemn moral obligation to help developing countries protect the poor in their midst as they seek to limit greenhouse gas emissions.” This “obligation” stems from the dire consequences of Global Warming, including “more frequent occurrences of heat waves, drought, torrential rains, and floods; global sea level rise of between one-half and three feet; increase of tropical diseases in now-temperate regions; significant reduction in biodiversity.” With the fervor of a street preacher, the clergy calumniate “policies that devalue scientific consensus, withdraw from diplomatic initiative, and seek only voluntary initiatives.”
This certainty is adopted, despite the fact that significant scientific evidence casts doubt on the existence of global warming, while there is no consensus about what the effects of such change might be. As noted above, thirty years ago the world’s “leading” environmental scientists were predicting a new Ice Age; now, even the progenitor of the Global Warming theory has his doubts about the efficacy of limiting so-called “greenhouse gas” emissions.
Laying its junk science aside, the National Religious Partnership for the Environment renders two invaluable services to the political left. These partisan clerics intone the proof-texts of the Green movement in the language of brimstone and redemption, conferring an air of sanctity to the left’s tired agenda. Teresa Heinz, herself a true believer, has made this a priority. The Heinz Endowments have channeled more than a quarter-of-a-million dollars first to the Episcopal Diocese of Bethlehem (ECUSA), then to a group call “Enterprising Environmental Solutions, Inc.” for the “Interfaith Power and Light” program, which teaches opposing the environmentalist political agenda is a sin (indeed, possibly the only sin the Episcopal Church USA still recognizes). Interfaith Power and Light facilitates the environmentalist movement’s goals among liberal Christians, offering “a curriculum, Exploration/Expression, that explores connections between faith, religious spaces, and our environment.” This is often taught to elementary school children during Vacation Bible School in place of…the Bible. For example, summer campers at St. Barnabas Episcopal Church “discovered that the cost of one pizza from choir practice was enough to purchase renewable energy for their building for a month.” Truly, there is rejoicing in Heaven over one capitalist who repenteth.
The Religious Left also gives the Democratic Party a public relations windfall. Numerous polls show Democrats enjoy little support from those who regularly attend religious services. Joining hands in a press conference with the leading lights of the nation’s “mainstream” denominations – whom the media never identify as liberal – provides Democrats cover on “the God issue.” When conservatives point out that most religious conservatives oppose a given bill, the left can point to this coalition with equal fervor, although the size and influence of NCPE is miniscule compared to the Christian Right, another fact generally reported.
The “philanthropic left” seems quite interested in developing an in-house religious presence. The Carnegie Corporation has given tens of thousands of dollars to The Interfaith Alliance, an organization established to counter the political views of the Religious Right. In the waning days of the Clinton administration, when TIA was still in its infancy, the Alliance’s energy was directed to restoring “civility” to political dialogue. That was when the rhetoric of average Americans had begun to match their revulsion of President Clinton’s philistine morality. Now that the left regularly compares our Republican president to Adolf Hitler, castigates him for genocide and brutally questions his intelligence, TIA seems to have lost its interest in decorum.
These themes found expression in John Kerry’s pronouncement, during his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, that “trees are the cathedrals of nature.” That they are. It may even be appropriate to, in Al Gore’s phrase, “revere” nature. But the prophet Jeremiah who lived in a time when fanatics caused a similar idolatry to be in vogue cautioned, “The vanity of their doctrine is wood.”
Marian Wright Edelman. Edelman is the founder of the Children’s Defense Fund. She received the “Human Condition” award in 1995 for her long years of service in the leftist cause. This mentor to Hillary Clinton has achieved mythical status among supplicants of the Great Society. Bill Clinton even awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2000. In 1999, Teresa Heinz Kerry rewarded her programs with $700,000 of Carnegie Corporation grant money.
Edelman has had only one agenda during her many years in activist life: increasing federal spending on social programs and demonizing everyone who stands in her way. One conservative organization described the Children’s Defense Funds’s political orientation:
The CDF's own “Nonpartisan Voting Index” routinely grades liberals such as Sen. Ted Kennedy as 100 percent politically correct. CDF founder Marian Wright Edelman regularly scolds the government for not copying Europe’s socialist programs. On NBC, she pronounced: “We need to talk about the poverty of values of a country that let its children die because we don't provide [national] health insurance.” In 1990, Edelman even attacked liberal Reps. Tom Downey and George Miller for being too conservative on childcare spending, saying they were “willing to rob millions of children.”
The long affinity between Edelman and Hillary Clinton is well known. Clinton once headed the Children’s Defense Fund, and after becoming First Lady returned to its meetings to read part of her book It Takes a Village to Raise a Child (perhaps the least subtle phrase ever concocted by the Nanny State). Yet in the true fashion of the left, Edelman put political conviction above friendship in 1996. That year, she organized the “Stand for Children” rally in Washington, D.C., to oppose Bill Clinton’s welfare reform policy. Numerous far-left organizations attended, including the War Resisters League. In discussing the historic reform, she claimed her friend Clinton’s actions “will leave a moral blot on his presidency and on our nation…It takes no political courage to stand up to 2-month-old babies or to play election-year games of political chicken at preschoolers' expense.” This rhetoric should have sounded familiar to Clinton, who accused Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole of taking food out of the mouths of hungry schoolchildren during the government budget crisis just months before. Applied to two Republicans caricatured by the liberal media, the language stuck. Used in reference to the “first black president,” who boasted that he balanced the budget while increasing social spending and cutting defense, these overwrought lamentations strain credulity.
Since the welfare reform bill was enacted, 2.3 million children have moved out of poverty, and the rate of poverty for black children has reached an historic low. No previous economic expansion since its creation has reduced the number of people utilizing the AFDC program. Yet welfare reform reduced welfare rolls by millions while nearly doubling the employment rate of poor mothers. For this, Edelman charges Republicans and New Democrats with genocide.
Edelman’s constant refrain has been to increase federal spending – but not for every department. In her 1987 book Families in Peril, she wrote, “We must curb the fanatical military weasel and keep it in balance with competing national needs.” National defense is, naturally, the only sector of government she wishes to trim. In 1996, she exhorted Jim Wallis’ leftist religious group Call to Renewal: “Let’s guarantee a job. Let’s guarantee health care and children care. [sic.] Let’s turn this welfare repeal into real welfare reform.” In three sentences she thus endorsed full employment, socialized medicine, federally funded babysitters for all, and infinite welfare benefits for those not inclined to forsake indolence.
Despite the decrease in child poverty during the Reagan era and the independence engendered by the Republican welfare reform bill Dick Morris convinced Bill Clinton to sign, Edelman has not rethought the soundness of her continual requests for bigger, more expensive and more expansive federal bureaucracies to “solve” the problem of poverty.
Cushing Dolbeare, Dolbeare, head of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, was the winner of the 2001 Heinz Human Condition award. Like Edelman, she is a longtime advocate of more federal spending, in her case for housing. She notes that since 1980, “the majority of the members of Congress no longer represent districts where poverty is a significant problem.” Rather than rejoice at expanding national prosperity, she frets this will lead to cuts in welfare spending.
Nor is she above playing with statistics to enhance her point. At a 1999 academic conference, she inflated the extent of the national housing crisis, “It is a problem that goes well up the income scale if you take households that have to pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing.” According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American spent 32 percent of his income on housing in the year 2000. As one might expect, this varies greatly from one region to another, with a higher-than-average percentage of income demanded for housing on the two coasts, less in the nation’s interior. In other words, Dolbeare advocates “socialized housing.”
Her website dubbed April 21, 2004, “MASSIVE CALL-IN DAY TO STOP THE BUDGET CUTS!” (Screaming emphasis in original.) She instructed callers to demand Congress enact “No more draconian cuts in important programs” while distributing “unfair and unpaid-for tax cuts.” The site alleges in fiscal year 2005 “the budget would cut between $2 billion and $11 billion” from Medicaid. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a left-leaning think tank, on the other hand, acknowledges that Medicaid spending would increase from $177 billion to $182 billion. Only in Washington, D.C., can budget increases be called “budget cuts,” and “draconian” ones, at that.
Bernice Johnson Reagon. Lifelong activist, singer and Black History professor Bernice Johnson Reagon received the 2002 Arts and Humanities award from Heinz. Reagon, who is the (Bill and Camille) Cosby Chair Professor of Fine Arts at the Spelman College and a former professor of African-American History, is best known for her 30-year stint with the a cappella protest group “Sweet Honey in the Rock.” Reagon was formerly active with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, where she organized the Freedom Singers. Heinz pays Reagon homage, saying, “she has combined music, a commitment to social justice and academic excellence, and has earned esteem in all three.”
Reagon has embraced a panoply of left-wing causes both in her activism and in her singing repertoire. Analyzing her “wholistic” approach to leftist causes while discussing today’s antiwar movement, she observed: “To say peace is to make it too narrow. There are people who are involved who are very disturbed over our invasion of Iraq; these same people are appalled at the absolute dishonesty and lack of integrity that's been revealed in the economic system.” Call it “solidarity sabotage.” She forthrightly stated, “this is not the country that I want to help support and help build and it is important for me to say it in some way.” In her bid to help build a more peaceful world, she attended the Ruckus/Global Exchange riots in Seattle in 1999, calling their handiwork “a very important effort.”
The National Organization for Women planned to honor Bernice Johnson Reagon on September 9, 2004, at its “Second Annual Intrepid Awards Gala.” Also on the bill was “Vagina Monologues” author Eve Ensler, whose play portrays an adult lesbian’s molestation of a 13-year-old girl (after plying the minor with alcohol) as a beautiful experience for both. Delores Huerta was also slated to receive an Intrepid. Gray Davis appointed Huerta a regent of the University of California although she has never earned a college degree. She is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America committed to racial preferences and other politically correct hierarchies.
James Goodby. The former ambassador to Finland garnered the Heinz Awards’ Public Policy prize in 1994. His 2002 work A Strategy for a Stable Peace gives a view of his powers of insight. He opens the book – published after 9/11 – with the utopian delusion, “The United States, Russia, and all the nations of Europe could eliminate war as a means of settling disputes among themselves. It will not be easy but it is within their reach.” To achieve this goal, he advised the United States to cut its active nuclear weapons inventory by ninety percent.
This boundless confidence in the kindness of strangers is omnipresent in Gooby’s thinking. His lesson from 9/11? Call the French and others. “The attacks in New York and Washington have shown that isolationism and unilateralism are no longer viable options for the United States.” Immediately after 9/11, he advised Bush to conciliate with the Chinese, asking them to make “broader efforts to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction,” an unusual call for the world’s chief proliferator of nuclear weapons and long range missiles to rogue regimes. In making this overture, Goodby writes, “Mr. Bush will have to correct the implications of what his administration has done to portray China as the successor to the Soviet Union,” which is “exaggerated and unproductive.”
As friction over Operation Iraqi Freedom exposed the considerable chinks in Goodby’s U.S.-Russia-EU troika, he insisted the answer to Saddam Hussein’s “decade of defiance” was “Ike-Like Diplomacy Instead of War.” Of course, Ike specialized in “brinksmanship,” threatening to launch a full-scale nuclear attack to force a peace treaty during the Korean Conflict, and again if the Communists continued to threaten the islands of Quemoy and Matsu. But this is not the diplomacy Goodby had in mind. When reality characteristically failed to live up to his expectations, Goodby accused his own Commander-in-Chief of creating a Fortress Amerika. In a Financial Times article, Goodby wrote that under President Bush, “Fear has been used as a basis for curtailing freedom of expression and for questioning legal rights long taken for granted.” On the campaign trail with her husband, Teresa Heinz Kerry must have thought this attack alone worth the $250,000.
George Woodwell. A founder of Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the World Resources Institute (all heavily funded by the Heinz Endowments), Woodwell garnered a Heinz Award in 1996. In the overbearing opening sentence of an August 11, 2004 Boston Globe article, Woodwell seemed to capture the attitude of the Heinz Endowments board: “While we are all preoccupied with an unnecessary war costing billions of dollars and eating up time that might far better be spent on the alleviation of poverty and disease, global climatic disruption gains momentum and moves toward irreversible climatic chaos.”
Ernesto J. Cortés Jr. Cortés received the Public Policy Award in 1997. The citation noted that in 1971, Cortés “moved to Chicago to study at the Saul Alinsky Training Institute…Returning to his native Texas in 1974 under the auspices of Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), Mr. Cortés founded the first IAF affiliate there in his hometown of San Antonio.” Saul Alinsky, a godfather of Sixties radicalism, wrote the book on radical agitation, a thin volume entitled Rules for Radicals. The Marxist Alinsky was Cortés’ formative influence, and Cortés spent years working for Alinsky in Texas. He has since opened an IAF affiliate in Los Angeles. What does his organizing consist of? He wrote in the Boston Review, “Imagine what would happen if, in 75 congressional districts, each candidate attended a meeting with 2,500 to 3,000 organized, registered voters-each of whom was committed to turning out at least ten of their neighbors on election day. What if at those public meetings each candidate was asked to make specific commitments to support an agenda which included…: a commitment to extended day enrichment programs for all children, universal health care, a family wage, long-term job training, affordable housing – the elements necessary to reduce inequality.” His vision of a socialist welfare state fits well with the orientation of other Heinz Award winners.
The composite picture these awards paint is discomfiting. The future their recipients envision is generally one in which a disarmed United States flagellates itself before Islamic fundamentalists for its past “arrogance” and “imperialism,” where tyrants are rewarded and politically correct murderers are set free, where junk science becomes the substance of our public policy discourse and our children’s Sunday school classes, where femininity is hallowed while masculinity is maligned, and where an ever-expanding nanny state is relentlessly harassed by a professional racial grievance industry.
Chapter 4: A Pattern of Politicized Giving
Teresa Heinz Kerry has in fact invested an enormous amount of tax-exempt grant money in “a laundry list of partisan causes and fringe political groups.” In just the few years surveyed here (1998-2003), she has contributed to organizations with explicit anti-American agendas. The grants speak for themselves.
ACLU: The Legal Left after 9/11
For many years, no association has been so identified with the public image of the left as the ACLU. While Teresa Heinz Kerry served as a Carnegie trustee in 2000, that body donated $300,000 to the ACLU Foundation. Since 9/11, the ACLU has crusaded in behalf of al-Qaeda detainees, hindered investigations of suspected terrorists, sowed hysteria about the Patriot Act and smeared Attorney General John Ashcroft’s Justice Department as a foe of the Constitution.
According to the ACLU the Patriot Act authorizes a radical expansion of federal wiretapping and investigative powers. A typical ACLU press release reads, “Under the new Ashcroft guidelines, the FBI can freely infiltrate mosques, churches and synagogues and other houses of worship, listen in on online chat rooms and read message boards even if it has no evidence that a crime might be committed.” However, these guidelines are not “new”; these powers were granted in 1978 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Patriot Act merely allows federal agents to use these investigative tools on terrorists as they have for decades on the Mafia – without waiting for an imminent terrorist attack. Terrorism wiretaps must be approved in court, just like those in a criminal investigation. In short the ACLU’s civil liberties zeal seems to be related to the perceived “victims” terrorists. Ordinary criminals inspired no comparable crusade.
In the post 9/11 period, the ACLU has ruthlessly sued any airline taking extra security steps which caused inconvenience to Muslims, who are responsible for 100% of the terrorist incidents since (and including) the attack on the World Trade Center. To the ACLU, heightened scrutiny of a group from which all post-9/11 terrorists have been recruited is “racial profiling.”
The ACLU also opposes the government’s policy requiring some “temporary visa” holders to register with Immigration Services or face deportation. This policy was drafted to affect only males between the ages of 16 and 25 from nations with known ties to terrorism. Since the government did not equally inconvenience every temporary visa holder in the country (which be beyond its resources), the ACLU has declared the policy “discrimination,” offering legal advice to those affected, organizing protests on their behalf, and harassing government agencies through legal complaints.
The ACLU has leaped to the defense of many terrorists including Sami al-Arian, the indicted chief financier and co-founder of the Palestine Islamic Jihad, responsible for the suicide bombing murders of more than 100 individuals including two American citizens. While a professor al-Arian ran the University of South Florida’s International Institute of Islamic Thought, where he hired fellow terrorists as “assistants,” all the while directing money to PIJ. The ACLU has since sought to interfere with the government’s investigation of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, questioning the scope of federal search warrants. The lawyers even jumped to al-Arian’s defense when he told them his jailers only let him change his underwear once a week. In this denial of a prisoner’s inalienable right to fresh skivvies, the ACLU smells “the disgusting raw exercise of power by John Ashcroft.” The prison denies any wrongdoing, but this has not kept the ACLU from repeating al-Arian’s charges.
The Heinz grant did not go directly to this particular ACLU effort. It was earmarked for the ACLU’s “voting rights project.” But by funding another of the ACLU’s projects, Carnegie frees up the ACLU’s own funds for programs like this. On the other hand, the voting rights project itself supports three agendas most Americans might find offensive: stifling democracy, race-based politics, and bigger government. For example, the “voting rights” project supported the creation of an all-Indian voting district in Montana, because, in the Orwellian wording of its press release, “even though both Rosebud and Lake counties include substantial voting blocs of Indians…their votes are diluted by the white majority.” Here the ACLU is following the jurisprudence of quota maven Lani Guinier, the Harvard professor Bill Clinton unsuccessfully nominated to head his Civil Rights Division in 1993. Guinier believes that not only should minorities have their own congressional districts, but they should retain veto power over any bill passed by a majority of Americans to which they object. This would lead to the Balkanization of the American polity along race lines, which is exactly what the divisive left wants. A by-product of focusing voters on narrowly racial political interests, this proposed reform would help assure the targeted districts would represented by Democrats. (For some reason, these ACLU lawsuits only get filed for heavily Democratic constituencies.)
The ACLU voting rights project also proposes “full public [that is, taxpayer] financing for federal elections.” Putting the money for elections in the hands of the majority political party (which is what this in effect would achieve) is a prescription for ending democracy, not improving it. Thomas Jefferson once said, “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” That nicely summarizes the ACLU proposal.
The ACLU has engaged in a series of controversial court cases questioning most aspects of the president’s Homeland Security policy, litigating for terror suspects, supporting racial preferences and defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which promotes sex between “consenting” adults and children.
Undermining Homeland Security via the Open Borders Lobby
Teresa Heinz Kerry’s charities have steered well over half-a-million dollars to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), one of the premier organizations making up the “open borders” lobby. Carnegie supplied MALDEF with $750,000 in 2000 alone; the Heinz Endowments have also given unrestricted money to MALDEF. MALDEF used this cash in a prolonged effort to erase America’s borders and undermine the nation’s security.
When founded in 1966, MALDEF acted as a public interest law firm looking after the legitimate interests of Mexican-Americans immigrants who had become citizens. However, after a recommendation from the NAACP-Legal Defense and Education Fund, officials at the Ford Foundation met with MALDEF head Peter Tijerina, and gave the tiny organization $2.2 million. Over the ensuing three decades, Ford funded MALDEF with more than $30 million. For twenty years it was for all intents and purposes the sole funder of MALDEF. It used is leverage to transform the organization, moving its headquarters from San Antonio to San Francisco and radicalizing its political agendas.
It was MALDEF, with help from San Francisco’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that neutered California’s popular Proposition 187, which denied non-emergency government services to illegal immigrants. MALDEF also encouraged state governments to accept Mexico’s nearly worthless matrícula ID cards. These cards, which are notoriously easy to forge, are now used as the equivalent of a driver’s license in establishing identities for illegal aliens. MALDEF is working to see even these matrícula cards are freely given to illegal immigrants (not all of whom are of Hispanic extraction), with all the privileges they accord.
Not content with second-rate IDs, the Ford-managed legal group sued the state of Georgia “to expand access to driver’s licenses without regard to immigration status” and succeeded in getting California’s outgoing governor, Gray Davis, to approve a similar policy. Thus, illegal immigrants were given an extra tool to avoid police detection. The possibility that these will help provide cover for Islamist aliens is real and disturbing – but not to MALDEF or Kerry.
She is so untroubled by this activism she has underwritten, through the Heinz Family Foundation, the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. The funds specifically went to the 2001 “Give Liberty a Hand” Awards program in a token gesture of support for MIRA’s agenda. Subsequent winners of the award include Rep. Barney Frank, for his pro-immigrant stance.
MIRA is also engaged in undercutting Homeland Security measures. The year the grant was awarded, MIRA called the Patriot Act “very troubling.” In June 2002, MIRA explicitly told its followers not to comply with federal immigration law:
Please do NOT aid people in applying with INS unless you are familiar with their immigration history and are certain they would not be at risk of deportation by doing so. Always refer clients to an attorney if they are out of status or have a criminal record of any kind. It is very important that we, as service providers, do not put people at risk even as we try to help them. (Emphasis in original.)
Immediately after 9/11 a MIRA press release asked people to “Refer local Arab, Muslim, and affected groups to MIRA.”
MIRA advocates that illegals should be allowed to receive in-state tuition discounts at state universities. The DREAM Act legislation, which MIRA favors would encourage this. MIRA fumes, “President Bush has done nothing to help its passage, in essence, squelching the dreams of immigrant youth throughout the country.”
Teresa Heinz Kerry also oversaw the funding of another Open Borders/anti-Homeland Security group, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc. (CLINIC), distributing a $25,000 grant from Carnegie in 2000 to be used for legal issues regarding immigrants. When the grant was awarded, CLINIC had been defending those detained by the INS. After 9/11, this would take on an entirely new significance. CLINIC continues to represent detainees, now not Mexicans but Islamist radicals suspected of plotting terrorism. It has also launched a media effort to criticize the allegedly “devastating track record on the treatment of immigrants in INS custody.” CLINIC promises, “The immigration policies resulting from September 11th will certainly represent an area of high priority in CLINIC's media work.” Elsewhere, this pillar of the Religious Left works to assure that illegal immigrants – which it describes only as “immigrant laborers” –receive the equal legal protection of labor provided by U.S. law, the same law these illegals broke when entering the country in the first place. It appears CLINIC also hopes to provide illegals the right to vote. CLINIC’s National Immigrant Empowerment Project says it hopes to help immigrants increase “civic participation” – and CLINIC, like the liberal U.S. Catholic Bishops, makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. “Approved projects,” CLINIC says, “have sought to empower immigrants around issues of labor, housing, education, crime reduction, municipal services, immigration, health care and state and federal laws.” (Emphasis added.)
In 1999, Teresa Heinz Kerry allocated $450,000, through Carnegie, to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund’s general fund. According to its introductory booklet, the PRLDEF has filed motions supporting racial preferences and eroding the government’s ability to act only in English. The booklet spells out more PRLDEF causes:
From bringing cases on redistricting in a number of states, to representing the people of Vieques, Puerto Rico in their fight to have the U.S. Navy stop bombing practices on their island; from protecting the labor rights of undocumented Mexican workers to fair wages and treatment on the job, to bringing lawsuits against public universities to assure their access to Latino immigrants, the Fund’s Legal Division continues to fight the good fight.
By assuring university “access to Latino immigrants,” PRLDEF means in-state tuition rates for illegals.
The Howard Heinz Endowment in 2001 similarly donated $200,000 to Pittsburgh’s El Hispano Centro/The Hispanic Center Inc. “to support recruitment and employment services in the Hispanic community.” The Hispanic Center’s focus is to serve “recently arrived families,” attracting new immigrants to the Pittsburgh area. Its “Family Reunification Plan” assists Hispanics who want to bring in their relatives to the United States. The first item listed under “main areas in which The Center can be of assistance” is “Legal, for problems related to immigration.” El Hispano Centro is affiliated with ACORN, a grassroots socialist organization formed by New Left radicals.
Over a five-year period, the Heinz Endowments have given $700,000 to the World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh. WACP has created a Social Studies curriculum for area schoolteachers that blames America country for 9/11 – and even names Osama bin Laden as one of the key forces that will bring an end to America’s superpower status. A handout in the WACP’s lesson plan on “American primacy” tells students America’s days as a superpower are coming to a close – and specifically names Osama bin Laden as our replacement. Students may not see our inevitable slide into obscurity, but:
the long-term trend is unmistakable. Other nations are rising, and non-state actors – ranging from Usama bin Laden to Amnesty International to the International Criminal Court – are increasing in number and acquiring power.
It’s an interesting juxtaposition of organizations – Amnesty International, the World Court and Al-Qaeda.
These words, written before September 11th, would have been outrageous at the time. That the local World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh developed them powered by large grants from Teresa Heinz Kerry, and continue to feature them on the WACP website and in their programmatic efforts three years after the attack on the World Trade Center is more than troubling.
Another curriculum of the Council is its set of lesson plans on WMDs. One student handout informs youngsters that, “American intervention in troubled areas is not so much a way to fend off [foreign/terrorist] threats as it is what stirs them up.” Moreover, “It is hardly likely that Middle Eastern radicals would be hatching schemes like the destruction of the World Trade Center if it had not been identified for so long as the mainstay of Israel…Playing Globocop feeds the urge of aggrieved groups to strike back.” The curriculum offered no alternative views to students.
A handout in the 1999 series blames the spread of Islamic fundamentalism on the West. “European women have invaded Tunisia’s sparkling beaches, parading in topless swimsuits and stimulating a brisk trade in alcohol and prostitution,” children are taught. “That’s why Tunisian women and their husbands are embracing Islamic fundamentalism.” Suicide bombing of innocents? Beheading of captives? Caucasian breasts made them do it.
Another handout from the same year includes the English translation of the Islamic declaration of faith, with a transliteration in Arabic. The handout does not inform its recipients that from a Muslim standpoint, if one pronounces this prayer aloud in its entirety in any language, one has converted to Islam.
The WACP generally produces material uncritical about Islam and ferociously slanted against the secular, Judeao-Christian and democratic West. In January 2002, as the nation debated going into Iraq, the Council mailed a series of glossaries to teachers for use in their classrooms. The first defined the words “distort,” “hearsay,” “propaganda,” “assume,” “insinuate,” “assert,” “speculate,” and finally “fact.” A second defines “ethnocentrism,” “prejudice,” “racism,” “stereotyping,” and “xenophobia.”
The teachers “resource” lists a number of websites educators should consult for further information. Among these are the aforementioned CAIR, the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Council on Islamic Education, the Middle East Policy Council, and Arab World And Islamic Resources.
Dr. John Esposito, former head of the Middle East Studies Association who also advised the Clinton State Department, operates the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. Esposito may be the most influential academic in the area of Middle Eastern Studies. In early 2001, Esposito claimed American officials were too worried about Osama bin Laden. “Focusing on Osama bin Laden risks catapulting one of the many sources of terrorism to center stage, distorting both the diverse international sources and the relevance of one man.”
This is not the only terrorist threat he missed or dismissed. When University of South Florida President Judy Genshaft fired terrorist Sami al-Arian, Esposito wrote her a letter on al-Arian’s behalf. In it, he stated he was “stunned, astonished and saddened” at his friend’s dismissal, as he had known al-Arian to be “a consummate professional.” Esposito excused the charges against al-Arian by noting he “and his family are Palestinians. They have suffered and feel deeply about Palestine and the plight of the Palestinians.”
In keeping with this theme, Esposito once said Hamas – the largest terrorist army in the world -- is not in fact organized around terrorism so much as “honey, cheese-making, and home-based clothing manufacture.” He told an NPR interviewer that Yasser Arafat’s calls to “jihad” simply indicate performing good social actions, like starting a “literacy campaign” or joining the “fight against AIDS.”
Esposito is not the only individual at the Center to provide the media with misinformation on Islamists. When fundamentalist Muslim terrorists began decapitating Americans in Iraq, Esposito’s fellow professor Yvonne Haddad told New York Newsday, “There is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies cutting off a person's head.” Yet the Koran itself refers to this practice:
God revealed His will to the angels, saying: “I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.” (Sura 8, Verse 12)
“When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads.” (Sura 47, Verse 4)
This practice was taught “by all four classical schools of Islamic jurisprudence, across the vast Muslim empire.” Far from unique, the “infidel” population of Muslim Spain often met the same fate as twenty-first century American Nicholas Berg.
The Council on Islamic Education produced the tome Across the Centuries, which presents the major events of Mohammed’s life as fact rather than theology. It notes, for instance, “Jerusalem is where Jesus was crucified and buried, and it was where Muhammad rose to heaven.” (But not, apparently where Jesus was resurrected or Solomon built his Temple.) The history skews heavily toward Muslim society. For instance, the European Middle Ages receive seven pages in the book; the “Village Society in West Africa” segment of the book gets eight. In a class exercise, students are informed, “You and your classmates will become Muslims” and are then told to recite the prayer, “Praise be to Allah, Lord of Creation.”
This is not the first time the Middle East Policy Council and Arab World And Islamic Resources have been paired together. The two worked together in 1999 to produce Arab World Studies Notebook. The MEPC printed the 540-page teachers guide, which was written by AWAIR Executive Director Audrey Park Shabbas. This classroom tool claims Muslims discovered America before Columbus and intermarried with Alogonquin Indians, later rising to the level of chief. This is the stuff of fantasy.
The supplement WACP issued the following September is likewise flawed. The online guide links to the PBS/Frontline “Roots of Terrorism” teachers guide. The browser is immediately greeted on the website by a picture of Muslim protesters holding an enormous billboard reading, “Americans Think! Why You Are Hated All Over The World.” (Emphasis in original.)
“Bring Najaf to New York”
Teresa Heinz Kerry’s dollars have also flowed freely to the propaganda organs of the far-Left. Chief among these is the Independent Media Institute, based in San Francisco, which accepted a $24,500 grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York in the year 2000, while Teresa was still a trustee. The grant was issued “for a media strategy on campaign finance issues at state level.” IMI also receives significant financial backing from the Open Society Institute (George Soros), the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy (Bill Moyers), the Tides Foundation, and Working Assets. IMI is the parent of AlterNet.org, its “progressive” syndication service. The group is currently screening the anti-Fox News “documentary” Outfoxed throughout the San Francisco Bay area.
AlterNet encouraged riots at the 2004 RNC. Reproducing a Naomi Klein story from The Nation, AlterNet headlined her article, “Bring Najaf to New York” (Najaf is an Iraq city stronghold of the terrorist forces). AlterNet advanced her view that the current political climate “means there is only one chance for Americans to express their wholehearted rejection of the ongoing war on Iraq: in the streets outside the Republican National Convention. It's time to bring Najaf to New York.” The site also was home to an exclusive piece by Sixties radical and Communist collaborator Tom Hayden, in which he encouraged RNC protests akin to those he led in 1968, which as the world knows were riots that brought down the presidential campaign of anti-Communist liberal Hubert Humphrey.
Bridging the worlds of anarchy and paranoia, IMI’s project has not-so-subtly accused the Bush administration of murdering its comrades. In a column distributed by AlterNet, Dr. Michael I. Niman lists a half-dozen politicians who died in supposedly mysterious plane accidents (including Senator John Heinz), then intimates all may have been murdered – and that President George W. Bush might even have had Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone assassinated. Writes Niman:
Anyone familiar with my work knows that I’m certainly not a conspiracy theorist. But to be honest, I know I wasn’t alone in my initial reaction at this week’s horrible and tragic news: that being my surprise that Wellstone had lived this long…There is no indication today that Wellstone's death was the result of foul play. What we do know, however, is that Wellstone emerged as the most visible obstacle standing in the way of a draconian political agenda by an unelected government. And now he is conveniently gone. For our government to maintain its credibility at this time, we need an open and accountable independent investigation involving international participation into the death of Paul Wellstone. Hopefully we will find out, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that this was indeed an untimely accident. For the sake of our country, we need to know this.
Reading the above statement, blogger Andrew Sullivan asked, “Should the UN be called in to investigate whether the president of the United States ordered a hit job on a leading senator? This is looney tunes.” Perhaps. But thanks to Teresa Heinz Kerry’s generosity, the insinuation is remarkably well funded.
So, too, is the Proteus Fund, the object of a $325,000 Carnegie grant in 2000 aimed at “strengthening…the Piper Fund.” The Piper Fund, too, promotes campaign finance reform. This program is heavily financed by Tides, the Ford Foundation, Bill Moyers’ Schumann Foundations, Working Assets, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute. Soros, of course, is the financial power behind such Democratic 527 groups (so named because of their tax status) as MoveOn.org and Americans Coming Together. Soros, who has called defeating George W. Bush in 2004 “the central focus of my life,” has pledged $10 million of his own riches to that effort. The irony in having a wholly owned subsidiary of Soros, Moyers and Kerry inveigh against the corruption of the Almighty Dollar should be obvious.
However, campaign finance reform is far from Proteus’ only agenda. Its “Colombe Foundation” is a major antiwar protestor/funder that seeks to “shift from wasteful military spending to investments in programs addressing poverty, environmental degradation and other root causes of violence.” Those receiving money from the Colombe Foundation include United for Peace and Justice, the Tides Center’s September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, another Tides Center project, Mother Jones, The Nation, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Union of Concerned Scientists, Institute for Policy Studies, and the left-wing talk show Democracy Now!
Another media endeavor receiving Bill Moyers, Ford Foundation and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s money is the The American Prospect, a magazine funded by Bill Moyers to provide a voice for the Democratic Party left. TAP received $132,000 from the Carnegie Corporation in 2000. It was a $5.5 million grant from Bill Moyers’ Florence and John Schumann Foundation in 1999 that transformed TAP from an academic journal to a biweekly newsstand publication meant to shape the future of the Democratic Party. Moyers also sits on the board of George Soros’ Open Society Institute.
Editor-at-Large of The American Prospect is Harold Meyerson, Vice-Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America and a veteran radical leftist. One day after 9/11, Meyerson wrote, “even with Tuesday’s attack, our defense budget is still indefensibly high.” An avatar of the hate Bush movement, he described him as “The Most Dangerous President Ever,” saying he most closely resembles Confederate President Jefferson Davis. The subject Carnegie underwrote? “A series of articles and a special issue focused on electoral and campaign finance reform.”
Carnegie provided a half-million-dollar grant to the Center for Defense Information in 1999 for “institutional and program development.” Retired Rear Admiral Gene R. La Rocque founded CDI in 1972. In addition to its activities as a think tank, it also produces “America’s Defense Monitor,” which airs on many PBS affiliates. Throughout the Cold War, CDI took a radical position on disarmament. In 1983, La Rocque went on Soviet television to declare President Ronald Reagan “is not serious about arms control,” a move some thought crossed the line of responsible criticism. Washington Times national security reporter Bill Gertz has commented that spokesmen for the Center, “often reflect the Soviet position on so many things.” One episode of “America’s Defense Monitor,” aired at the height of the Cold War, quoted Marian Wright Edelman’s assertion, “For each missile we cancel, we could eliminate poverty for a year in 92,000 families headed by females. If we cancelled the whole program, we could eliminate poverty for all children in the U.S. twice over and have enough left to send all female heads of low-income families to college for a year!” On these grounds, CDI proposed deep cuts in military spending.
CDI has not been absent from the War on Terror; far from it. CDI Distinguished Military Fellow General Anthony Zinni has made many headlines. In his book Battle Ready, Zinni wrote, “In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption.” On national television, he intimated that “neo-conservatives” (all those he named were Jewish) went to war to secure the position of Israel in the Middle East.
Physicians on the Left
As part of the philanthropic anti-anti-terror war, the Heinz Endowments made two separate, unrestricted grants within three years to Physicians for Social Responsibility, a holdover group of the Sixties disarmament left. PSR, which led the domestic campaign for the United States to unilaterally end nuclear testing during the Cold War (a major goal of the Soviets), has turned its sights on the War on Terrorism.
In addition to actively taking part in the antiwar (and often anti-American) rallies before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom, PSR has endorsed Democratic Rep. Lynne Woolsey’s “SMART Security plan.” Aside from asking for a UN permission slip to deploy American troops, the most important plank in the SMART program is increasing “funding for humanitarian programs, which address the root causes of instability and terrorism, like hunger, illiteracy and unemployment.” This is only slightly more important than supporting “institutions that can bring terrorists to justice, like the International Criminal Court.” The PSR pamphlet fleshes out these proposals. It warns, “the Bush administration’s go-it-alone reliance on military response is doing more harm than good…It’s time we reject the role of go-it-alone policeman of the world.” (Emphasis in original). Then it lays out the final, most important program PSR believes America can take to end the threat of Islamofascist terror: “America needs to invest more at home – on health care for all Americans, rebuilding our schools and education system, creating jobs, and stopping pollution of our air, land and water.” (Emphasis in original.)
Sure, that’ll stop al-Qaeda. The International Criminal Court – is more likely to indict Henry Kissinger than Osama bin Laden, to bring American GIs to their knees than terrorist cells to justice.
PSR founder Helen Caldicott, notorious for her anti-American, pro-Soviet views, contributed a chapter to the book Metal of Dishonor, an anti-nuclear tract published by the International Action Center, Ramsey Clark’s front group for the pro-Milosevic, pro-Kim Jong Il, Workers World Party. Clark who also contributed a chapter to the book has most recently volunteered his services to act as Saddam Hussein’s legal counsel. The PSR opposed the UN’s economic sanctions against Iraq. “Killing children is not a foreign policy,” declaimed Evan Kanter, President of Washington state’s PSR implying that the sanctions supported by the United States were starving Iraqi children (precisely Saddam’s official propaganda line). In fact the United States had supported the Oil for Food Program which was designed to provide $50 billion a year to feed Iraq’s children, but whose good intentions were thwarted by corrupt UN officials working in collusion with Saddam Hussein.
Still fighting the disarmament fight, PSR urges its members to contact Congress and oppose purchasing any new nuclear weapons. Its form letter to Congress scolds, “These programs send a clear ‘do as I say, not as I do’ message to the rest of the world and threaten to undermine the nation’s attempts to stem the world’s appetite for weapons of mass destruction.” PSR has teamed up with the Center for Defense Information to host forums on nuclear disarmament as recently as last year. Rep. Jim McDermott held a reception after that forum. The year before, on the even of war, Democratic Congressmen McDermott, David Bonior and Mike Thompson visited Baghdad, where McDermott declared, “I think the president would mislead the American people.” After Saddam was captured in December of 2003, McDermott told a Seattle radio station that the military triumph was staged, and U.S. servicemen could have gotten the despot “a long time ago if they wanted.” Teresa Heinz Kerry helped underwrite PSR’s efforts to make McDermott into a hero.
The Feminist Left
The Heinz Family Foundation bestowed $2,000 upon the National Women’s Political Caucus “for general operating support.” The National Women’s Political Caucus opposes the Partial Birth Abortion ban (favored by as many as 90 percent of Americans) and takes a hard line against confirming President Bush’s long-filibustered judicial appointees. The Caucus also opposes Ward Connerly’s initiatives to make the nation’s laws colorblind – the original goal of the civil rights movement. The Caucus endorses only women candidates, and only leftwing women candidates, including congresswomen Patty Murray, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynne Woolsey and Zoe Lofgren. As noted above, Patty Murray compared the United States with Osama bin Laden in front of a room of high school students – to Osama’s favor.
Rep. Barbara Lee, D-CA, is a former runner for the Black Panther Party, and former aide to radical Berkeley Congressman Ron Dellums. Lee cast the lone vote against authorizing President Bush to fight al-Qaeda. Speaking on the House floor three days after the al-Qaeda terrorists claimed thousands of American lives, Lee feared President Bush really wanted to “embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target.” She had previously cast the lone vote against a resolution expressing benign support of the troops already fighting (to save Albanian Muslims) in Serbia.
Lee learned her radicalism at the feet of her mentor, Ron Dellums. She served nine years in his office, ultimately rising to the position of Chief-of-Staff. In 1983, Lee conducted a “fact-finding” mission to the pro-Soviet regime of Grenada, later submitting a “report” to Congress personally doctored (at her invitation) by Grenada’s Marxist dictator. A letter written by another Dellums staffer to that dictator – discovered during the liberation of the island by U.S. troops – revealed that besides this Grenada strongman, “The only other person that I know of that [Dellums] expresses such admiration for is Fidel [Castro].” Lee’s own admiration for the Cuban dictator manifested itself shortly after her election to Congress in 1998, when she led a delegation to Cuba. She capped off the journey by calling on President Clinton to end the U.S. boycott of Cuba. Apparently, she could not bring herself to support U.S. servicemen currently in action in Serbia and cannot support striking a terrorist network’s key sponsor-state in self-defense, but she feels compassion for a sadistic Communist dictator.
Maxine Waters, D-CA, has a long history of racialist agitation to her credit. Waters has accused the CIA of selling crack in black neighborhoods during the 1980s, even though the San Jose Mercury-News retracted the story on which she based her allegations for lack of evidence. She defended the racial hatred that led a gang of black hoodlums to nearly murder white truck driver Reginald Denny during the 1992 L.A. Riots, saying, “the anger in my district is … righteous…I’m just as angry as they are.” In September of 1998, Waters wrote a letter of apology to Castro after she had voted in favor of a bill calling on him to turn over former Black Panther Joanne Chesimard. Convicted 25 years earlier of murdering a New Jersey state trooper, she escaped from prison and received refugee status in Havana. While there, she took on a new name which Waters failed to recognize. When Waters learned the woman she’d voted to extradite was a Black Panther murderer, she urged Castro to continue safeguarding Chesimard, because she had been “persecuted for her civil-rights work.”
During the War on Terror, Waters complained that suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay “could not get bail.” On the leftwing radio program “Democracy Now!” she referred to Operation Iraqi Freedom as a “coup d'etat” and stated, “Now we find that we are violating the prisoners. We're treating them worse than so-called Saddam had treated them.” (Emphasis added.)
Rep. Lynne Woolsey, D-CA helped draw up the “SMART Security” plan endorsed by Physicians for Social Responsibility. Woolsey condemned our “unnecessary and unjustified war in Iraq” She declared, “This war has not made us safer, but has squandered scarce resources, has cut short the lives of over 900 American service members, and has dangerously undermined our credibility throughout the world.” She even blamed Saddam Hussein’s murderous intransigence on America’s reluctance to ratify the Kyoto Treaty:
President Bush has sent a message of his own by backing out of the ABM Treaty, refusing to sign the Kyoto treaty, refusing to be a party to the Mine Ban Treaty, withdrawing the U.S. signature to the International Criminal Court, failing to pay off our immense debt to the United Nations, and embracing the use of mini-nukes. Is it any wonder that other nations are not flocking to our side when we ignore the same international standards that we accuse Saddam Hussein of disregarding?
A generous portion of Heinz-controlled charity has gone to radical minority groups. Some claim the Republican Party “disenfranchised” black voters in 2000, others file suit to keep state governments from breaking up gerrymandered minority voting districts, some wish to give convicted felons the right to vote on the assumption that criminals are “political prisoners” and will vote for Democrats. All work against a racially harmonious society.
Some of the Heinz grants have gone to honor black Marxists. One such grant in 2001 went to honor singe and political activist Harry Belafonte. Historian (and former New Leftist) Ronald Radosh has described some of Belafonte’s political causes:
· “In June 2000, Belafonte was a featured speaker at a rally in Castro’s Cuba, honoring the American Soviet spies, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Tears, one observer reported, ‘streaked down’ Belafonte’s face, ‘as he recalled the pain and humiliation his friend [Paul] Robeson had been forced to endure’ in 1950s America. Undoubtedly, he was pleased to hear Cuba presented ‘as an example of keeping the principles the Rosenbergs fought and died for.’
· “In 1997, Belafonte was featured speaker at the 60th Anniversary celebration of the ‘Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade,’ at which he honored these self-proclaimed ‘premature anti-fascists’ who served in the mid-1930s as Stalin's private Comintern army, a battalion (not a brigade) that served as enforcers of Soviet policy during the Spanish Civil War. To Belafonte, nothing had changed since the 1930s. The VALB was still representatives of ‘a truth that engulfed the universe . . . that fascism anywhere is a threat to people everywhere.’
· “Speaking in October 1983 at a ‘World Peace Concert’ run by East Germany's official Communist youth organization, Belafonte gave his blessings to the Soviet-sponsored ‘peace’ campaign pushing unilateral Western disarmament, at a time when the Soviets were putting SS-20 missiles in East Germany.
· “As The New York Times reported, Belafonte ‘attacked the American invasion of Grenada and also criticized the scheduled NATO weapons deployment’ of Pershing 2 missiles in West Germany…deployed to offset the Soviet missile offensive.”
It was shortly after this that Belafonte savagely attacked Colin Powell as a house “slave” of the Bush administration and blocked Condoleeza Rice from speaking at a fundraising dinner for Africare, another organization set to honor him. Most believe Dr. Rice, whose life has been dedicated to fighting first the Soviet menace and then that of Islamofascists, is more worthy of praise than a man who still weeps for American spies.
In early 2001, before Teresa Heinz Kerry left Carnegie’s board, Carnegie gave $400,000 to the general fund of the National Voting Rights Institute. The NVRI describes itself as “a prominent non-partisan legal center in the campaign finance reform field,” presenting campaign finance reform as a “civil rights issue.” It likewise filed legal suit in Massachusetts after state redistricting broke up a formerly racially gerrymandered Latino district. The Heinz Family Foundation also contributed $25,000 to the Idaho Hispanic Caucus “for Latino Vote 2002.” In 2001, IHC asked the Idaho chapter of the ACLU to oppose breaking up similar, racially rigged Congressional districts.
In 2000, the Carnegie Corporation conferred $500,000 on the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law for general “support.” The LCCRUL’s main effort has been assisting the lawsuit NAACP v. Harris against the state of Florida “to address the disproportionate disenfranchisement of black Florida voters on election day.” Of course, testimony has since disclosed those voters turned away 1) were never registered to vote; 2) were no longer registered to vote; or 3) were convicted felons who lost their right to vote under state law. “Felon disenfranchisement” greatly concerns LCCURL. Its website reveals it “filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging Washington state’s felon disenfranchisement law as a violation of the Voting Rights Act.” Washington state law – shared by many other states – decrees that convicted felons lose their right to vote. Using the same tortured logic Peggy Sheppard employs in her “environmental racism” cases, LCCURL claims that since this law disproportionately affects blacks, it is ipso facto racist.
In this effort, they are joined the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Education Fund (which received a comparable amount of Carnegie money in recent years, as well as a modest donation from the Heinz Endowments), People for the American Way, the ACLU and the Advancement Project. In fact, the NAACP-LDEF has made this “racist” disenfranchisement one of its top five goals. This despite the fact that these laws, based upon similar statutes from the Roman Empire, were originally adopted during the colonial era, before black citizens even had the right to vote. Naturally, both the NAACP-LDEF and LCCRUL favor Congressional districts based on race, as well.
Heinz Kerry, through her connection to Carnegie, has financed groups of varying ethnicities that all share the same racialist political agenda. The Native American Rights Fund picked up a general support grant of $450,000 from Carnegie in the year 2000. Executive Director John Echohawk is on the Board of Directors of the Natural Resources Defense Council. NARF proudly participated in the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. At this conference, attendees – led by the Arab states -- attacked the United States and Israel holding them responsible for global racism and “xenophobia.” The conference reached high farce when Fidel Castro thundered the United States should pay reparations to American blacks. In fact Cuba had more African slaves than the entire North American continent, and to this very moment its own citizens are not free. The conference made the United States and Britain – and Europeans generally – responsible for the slave trade, ignoring the much larger Muslim slave trade to the east, and turning a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands of black Africans currently enslaved in Muslim Sudan, Mauritania or Eritrea. Jewish attendees of the conference were spat upon, beaten and summarily dismissed from its hearings. Proceedings reached such levels of anti-Americanism that the U.S. delegation left (except for Rep. Cynthia McKinney, who later alleged President Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11). The Native American Rights Fund was a participant in the proceedings, courtesy of Carnegie.
In addition to demanding reparations from the United States and Britain, NARF has challenged Alaska’s English-Only Law and “filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the cancellation of the pro-football Washington ‘Redskins’ trademark.”
Teresa Heinz Kerry has made numerous grants to underwrite public television’s political programming. She has donated $8.2 million to WQED, Pittsburgh, a sizable chunk of which was designated “for public affairs” programming. This is but the largest budget item for the Heinz Endowment’s financing of public broadcasting’s news programming – much of it pushing a Green agenda. Other examples include:
These media grants have put money into the hands of fellow leftists. A portion of a larger Heinz grant to the Mon Valley Media was designated to produce the video “Terminal Time.” One of the film’s three co-producers is Michael Mateas of Carnegie Mellon University. In his incomprehensible description of his film, Mateas found numerous occasions to quote Lenin, and to praise the Soviet dictatorship (not his term) for the “strong political support given to filmmakers in particular.” (Those they didn’t support, they shot.)
The second co-producer, Steffi Domike, is a lecturer in the Communications Department at Pittsburgh’s Chatham College. The key essay on Ms. Domike’s website is entitled “The Work of (Activist) Art in an Age of Empire.” In it, she reveals that as a young person in Chile, she supported the pro-Castro Marxist Salvador Allende and continues to support “Latin American land reform.” Later, in her own words, she “chose to work here in the U.S., in what activists in the 1960s called the ‘belly of the beast.’” Her work, she writes, includes everything from “revolutionary polemics to rank and file organizing, from television propaganda to tactical media practice and performance.” She also works with a “cyberfeminist” organization. Paul Vanouse, the third co-producer of “Terminal Time,” is Assistant Professor of Art at the University of Buffalo. His portfolio includes such “artwork” as the “Follower” video game, in which the player must kill on command. This “hyperbolic video game…questions the heroic portrayal of authoritarian violence in American pop culture, and the methods of first-world military operations in the post-Vietnam era.”
Chapter Five: Fifty-Seven Shades of Green
No portrait of Teresa Heinz Kerry’s political benefactions would be complete without looking at her role in funding the green political agenda. No other issue so motivates Teresa Heinz Kerry. In fact, she met her second husband at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The majority of her grants at the Heinz Endowments have in some way related to environmental issues. Always applicants for more government, the green nonprofits Teresa has funded stray well outside traditional nature-oriented issues to make partisan “action calls” on Homeland Security measures and foreign policy as well. Another byproduct of her charity is the growing “solidarity environmentalism,” in which conservationists join hands with Third World Marxists in their condemnations of capitalism and Western culture.
The League of Conservation Voters: A Purchased Endorsement?
A central part of the controversy over Teresa Heinz Kerry’s “charitable” giving, along occurred in January 2004 when the League of Conservation Voters endorsed John Kerry for president. As the LCV’s accompanying press release noted, a “primary endorsement before New Hampshire primary [is] unprecedented in [the] organization’s 34-year history.” Nonetheless, LCV president Deb Callahan said they jumped on the Kerry bandwagon early because of his “unparalleled record on environmental issues.” However, the League waited until April of 2000 to support Al Gore, whose support of the green Left’s political agenda is (from LCV’s point of view) without peer.
Gore effectively interred Bill Bradley’s candidacy with a blowout win in the Iowa caucuses in 2000; four years later, John Kerry faced credible challenges from John Edwards, Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman in New Hampshire and beyond. Why the sudden endorsement? Critics point to a $10,000 grant the Heinz Family Foundation made to the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund in 2001. However, Heinz-LCV financial ties to the League actually run much deeper.
Heinz has showered LCV board members with foundation cash. The LCV Board includes officials of such frequent Heinz Endowment grantees as the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Wilderness Society. Board member and “environmental racism” activist Peggy Sheppard, profiled above, was singled out for a Heinz Award. Together, these organizations and individuals have received in excess of $3.8 million as a result of Mrs. Kerry’s noblesse oblige. The LCV has shown its continued appreciation by featuring “Environmental Highlights from Teresa Heinz-Kerry's 2004 Democratic Convention Speech” on its website.
The appearance of electoral impropriety and personal aggrandizement turned a few heads. Far more important, though, is the leftist political agenda Teresa’s green fund promotes – and the effects those policies have had.
DDT: The Green Genocide
The Heinz Endowments have donated more than a half-million dollars over the last five years to celebrate the memory of environmentalist writer Rachel Carson. A modest donation went to the Rachel Carson Homestead Association. (Al Gore visited Carson’s birthplace during the 2000 campaign and has long credited her with sparking his interest in the environment.) More went to the Rachel Carson Institute at Chatham College, and $1,000 to the Silent Spring Institute’s work against breast cancer. The impact of Rachel Carson’s work has been momentous; its effects disastrous.
Silent Spring, Rachel Carson’s 1962 best-selling book, paved the way for the EPA’s ban of DDT use ten years later. The Natural Resources Defense Council compares the book to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It is Rachel Carson’s great achievement and claim have her book listed among the 100 most important books of the 20th Century by the New York Times. Silent Spring was a manifesto warning about the deadly effects of DDT, a pesticide widely sprayed to kill mosquitoes, on plant and animal life, which Carson claimed had caused irrevocable harm producing cancer and genetic defects, and that it had damaged the world food supply. Forty years after the publication of Silent Spring, its findings are largely dismissed by scientists. As Todd Seavey of the American Council on Health and Science has noted:
No DDT-related human fatalities or chronic illnesses have ever been recorded, even among the DDT-soaked workers in anti-malarial programs or among prisoners who were fed DDT as volunteer test subjects — let alone among the 600 million to 1 billion who lived in repeatedly-sprayed dwellings at the height of the substance's use. The only recorded cases of DDT poisoning were from massive accidental or suicidal ingestions, and even in these cases, it was probably the kerosene solvent rather than the DDT itself that caused illness. Reports of injury to birds could not be verified, even when one researcher force-fed DDT-laced worms to baby robins. Reports of fish kills have been greatly exaggerated, resulting from faulty data or aberrant, massive spills or overuse of the chemical that do not hint at a general danger in its use.
Despite these facts, Carson’s book produced a wave of anti-DDT sentiment so strong that the Environmental Protection Agency EPA banned DDT use in the United States and any nation receiving American foreign aid.
Before the appearance of Silent Spring the use of DDT pesticides had eradicated malaria worldwide. Four decades later, the ban has resulted in a pan-African genocide. Two-to-three million people die needlessly from malaria every year, all of them in Third World countries most in the Indian subcontinent and Africa. The World Health Organization reports 2,500 children under the age of five die of malaria every day. In all, the DDT ban has threshed a deadly harvest of 50-90 million African lives. Nearly half-a-billion people contracted malaria in 1999 alone, 90 percent of them in Africa. Young people are among the most susceptible.
The often overlooked economic impact of the disease has also been devastating for Africa. Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs estimates a nation can lose 20 percent of its national economy within 15 years because of the disease’s debilitating spread. First World elites are not exempt from its effects, either; Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” wrote a column about the mind-numbing pain and disorientation of malaria after contracting it in Africa in 2002.
The one proven antidote to rampant malaria is DDT. Prior to the Carson book, the United States and other first world nations were able to use DDT to eradicate this problem. African statistics bear out the chemical’s efficacy. While African malaria rates rose by 1,000 percent continent-wide, the disease decreased 80 percent in KwaZulu Natal, which sprayed DDT. With the rise of West Nile Virus, mosquito control has taken on new importance for Americans, as well. Even 2000 Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader now supports the use of DDT for malaria eradication. President Bush wisely instructed then-EPA Secretary Christine Todd Whitman to sign the Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty in 2001. The POP Treaty allows limited use of the pesticide.
With forty years of hindsight, celebrating Rachel Carson’s misguided book seems the height of reactionary pig-headedness, a monument to never having to say your sorry. Its unproven scientific assertions led to the deaths of tens of millions. But then admitting as much might take away some of the self-righteous confidence of the Green cause. Hence Green radicals like Teresa Heinz Kerry have vested interest in pretending this history never happened.
The actual proponents of the DDT ban foresaw its consequences and in a bizarre testament to their anti-human impulses welcomed them. Dr. Charles Wurster, whose temporary request for a spraying ban in Long Island led to the EPA’s 1972 decision at the international level, was asked if this cessation might kill him. He replied, “Probably – so what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any.” Wurster was chief scientist of the Environmental Defense Fund, one the groups that Teresa Heinz Kerry favors most and on whose board she sits.
Environmentalists Against Homeland Security
Other green organizations oppose economic progress the slower way. Over three years, the Heinz Family Foundation gave the Earth Action Network $25,000, free of any restriction. The EAN is a leading opponent of free trade agreements, particularly the proposal to expand the North American free trade zone to Central America known as CAFTA. President Bush has made a moving case that free trade is the one government policy most likely to raise the standard of living in the Third World. EAN opposes such trade on environmental grounds. However, EAN advocates on a perplexing breadth of issues in no way connected to the environmentalist movement. In addition to traditional environmental concerns – including opposition to trade – EAN has issued “Action Letters” opposing Homeland Security measures and other concerns. These letters bear such titles as “Vital Changes Needed in U.S. Foreign Policy!”; “Missile Defense is wasting billions that could be spent on real security!”; “Don’t Extend USA Patriot Act!;” and “Protect Media Diversity!” They also counsel Americans to “Reverse New FBI Guidelines” and “Protect our Bill of Rights – DO NOT support the ‘VICTORY Act.’” (Emphasis in original.) Even such arcane issues military aid to Indonesia are subjects of action for EAN.
Funding the Green/Red Coalition
In the 1930s, the suppression of Germany’s Communist Party created a unique new hybrid, the “beefsteak Nazi”: brown on the outside, Red on the inside. The beefsteak Nazi was a Marxist who believed his economic theories were close enough to those of the National Socialist Party that he could safely jump ship. The modern equivalent is the Red environmentalist. Having been rebuffed by 70 years of history, Marxist ideologues have not given up the dream; in addition to their influence on college campuses, they have found new vitality as the Green Left has accepted central tenets of their platform. Today, the Green/Red coalition yokes sincere (if misled) environmentalists and those seeking socialism for its own sake – not to mention the increasing number of people, like David Brower, who straddle both movements. Conservation, a positive reaction to the excesses of Gilded Age capitalism whose chief proponent was a Republican president, has since become the convenient cover for advancing a creeping socialist economic model. Teresa Heinz Kerry’s support for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) offers an excellent example.
CELDF has accepted the most extreme anti-capitalist position in its quest to create an environmental Shangri-la. It has also recruited and trained its members to engage in partisan politics. The Howard Heinz Endowment’s explicit instructions, its “legally binding contract,” dedicated $37,000 to “legal and technical support to grassroots organizations on environmental issues” and another $45,00 to the CELDF’s “grassroots litigation support plan for 2002.” Again we see Heinz money being filtered through one organization to aid unnamed “grassroots organizations.” CELDF wrote a large, downloadable file instructing people how to run a political campaign as a member of the Green Party. According to the environmentalists’ website, “CELDF has drafted these manuals to assist grassroots environmental and community groups.”
Sharing David Brower’s “solidarity environmentalism,” the CELDF website links to the book Talking About a Revolution, a collection of 14 interviews with radical leftists like Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, bell hooks [sic.], Howard Zinn, Winona LaDuke, Michael Albert, Peter Kwong, Manning Marable, and Urvashi Vaid.
CELDF’s professed goal is “to eliminate corporate rights”; its co-founder even wrote a legal brief petitioning the nation’s courts to strip corporations of their constitutional legal protections. CELDF supports a “Democracy School” run by the Boston-based “Center for Democracy and the Constitution.” CELDF co-founder Thomas Linzey will teach at the school. The CDC’s motto is “working to end corporate rights that destroy the Earth, our future and the hope of democracy.” Its “Corporate Constitutional Rights Primer” states:
Today the agents perpetuating these violations of our inalienable rights are no longer monarchs, they are large corporations. [sic.] These legal fictions, in principle granted existence only to benefit the public good, have taken over our public institutions, our environment, our government, even our daily thoughts and worldview.
Corporations control “our daily thoughts”? There’s nothing like reasoned debate with the Left. Among other things, this document assures us, modern corporations “avoid taxation and regulation.” Tell Bill Gates he’s exempt from federal taxes, regulations and lawsuits. In 1996, the Code of Federal Regulation ran 124,156 pages spanning 50 volumes. On the contrary, the only tax-exempt entities seeking to shape our “worldview” are organizations like CELDF and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Heinz Endowments.
CELDF is not the only such organization receiving tax-exempt foundation cash. The Vira I. Heinz Endowment assisted the Pennsylvania Environmental Council with $299,000 and furnished an additional $47,000 to the Ohio Environmental Council, this last designated to tamper with “Ohio’s utility deregulation policy” in an effort to persuade Ohio to regulate its policy for the good of Pennsylvania. In 2002, this endowment allocated $100,000 to the group 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania to support “advocacy” for anti-business “Smart Growth” environmentalist policies. At the behest of Heinz Environmental Award winner Florence Robinson, Teresa Heinz Kerry provided $10,000 to the Louisiana Environmental Action Network. LEAN’s “platform,” adopted in 1995, calls on the state government to “Implement an executive order to address Environmental Racism in the state of Louisiana.”
It is clear that Teresa Heinz Kerry’s philanthropic interest is promoting (radical) green politics. Taking into consideration the size, scope and intent of these environmentalist grants, it is clear that political agitation was the foreseeable, desired effect of Teresa Heinz Kerry’s grantmaking. Whether she considered the advantage this would confer upon her husband before making the grants, or whether she’s simply an ideologically driven patron of bad policy based on bad science one can only guess. Motivation means little in politics; effects are what count, and her blank check to the radical greens is directed against the economic system on which this nation is based, the only economic system compatible with human freedom. It is telling that the fall of the Berlin Wall in the late 1980s tore the veil off the carefully constructed Soviet myth, revealing that the most economically regulated societies on earth were also the most ecologically degraded. No good can come of reviving their failures. No infusion of tax-exempt, capitalist cash will sweeten their noxious dreams.
Chapter Six: Brookings: Bucking for Teresa
The Brookings Institution represents a special case in this study. In addition to being a large benefactor of the D.C.-based left-leaning think tank, “Teresa Heinz” (as she is still listed on their website) remains a trustee currently described as “on a leave of absence.” As first lady, she would presumably resume this role along with her philanthropic concerns. Between 1998 and 2002, Teresa Heinz Kerry has donated $1.8 million to the Brookings Institution through the Heinz Endowments and Carnegie. Although Brookings has been a critical voice of liberalism for decades, its criticism of the Bush administration merits special examination due to its close personal and financial ties with a woman whose husband could be the next president of the United States. This is doubly so, because Brookings, a champion of full financial disclosure in politicians, does not reveal its close association with the candidate’s wife during its media appearances.
During the campaign of its patron’s husband, Brookings has continued its attacks on the war policies of his opponent. On President Bush’s Iraq policy, Brookings argued that a preemptive war to topple Saddam Hussein would be misguided and fraught with danger. After America went to war, Brookings supported the troops but never missed an opportunity to deride the postwar situation or call for “internationalizing” the reconstruction. Brookings even defended the Kerry campaign from charges that it was too liberal – all without revealing its own ties to the candidate’s wife. These may well be happenstance occurrences. Or, given Brookings’ reputation, prestige and media access, their analysis may constitute the greatest partisan political dividends Teresa Heinz Kerry has received from all her “non-profit” investments.
As President Bush contemplated taking the nation to war with Iraq, Brookings Institution fellows Philip H. Gordon and Michael E. O'Hanlon issued a Policy Brief on the issue. Weaving an apocalyptic scenario, they warned, “policymakers should be under no illusion that Saddam could be quickly overthrown.”; even mustering troop strength in the region “could easily take half a year.” Any war will bring an “increased risk of triggering terrorist attacks” and “significant American casualties.” However, the Policy Brief hypothesized America would find great diplomatic support for a war, because “The material benefits that would accrue to countries like Turkey, Russia, Jordan, and France if a post-Saddam Iraq could be stabilized would give at least those countries a strong incentive to support the U.S.” (Oops.)
They surmised that any overt attempt at regime change would destabilize Saddam, causing him to react erratically, with a WMD attack the likely effect. In place of this course, the Brookings scholars called for the use of “smarter sanctions,” a policy more destructive to the Iraqi people than war itself. Although the authors acknowledged at least some contact had already occurred between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda, they concluded military intervention would not make America safer. “Instead of incurring these high costs and significant risks,” they concluded, “the United States should…explicitly threaten regime change in response to Iraqi acts of terrorism or aggression.” But with 17 UN resolutions already disregarded by Saddam Hussein, what additional threat would be credible?
They explicitly confront the possibility that Saddam would continue his rogue activities in the face of any verbal threat to desist, but discount it. “[W]hile there is a chance his cooperation with terrorists could succeed in escaping detection, there is a better chance that the United States would be aware of his activities…The United States needs to complement its containment policy by making it unmistakably clear to Saddam Hussein that renewed Iraqi aggression, support for terrorism against the United States or the transfer of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups would lead to a concerted U.S. campaign to overthrow his regime.” But – the conundrum will not go away – how to make a threat “unmistakably clear” that Saddam would have no reason to take seriously given the decade of feckless US and UN threats that preceded it. In other words, the Brookings counsel is really to wait to be attacked before responding. But with chemical, biological and (possibly) nuclear weapons available to Saddam to attack with, what is the rationality of such a choice?
On the other hand, tThe Brookings policy, sans the increased sanctions, closely matches that of John Kerry, down to bringing the French on board.
The Reconstruction of Iraq
After the successful conclusion of the war, Brookings managed to write an estimate of the reconstruction every bit as hysterical as their Policy Brief opposing the war in the first place. Brookings Senior Fellows Roberta Cohen and Michael O’Hanlon began their dispatch of April 14, 2003, thus: “With the Saddam Hussein regime gone, the first priority in Iraq now must be to forestall a humanitarian crisis that threatens to envelop the country in a very short time.” They foresaw an imminent “famine” that will “incite anger against the United States throughout the Muslim world – quite possibly aggravating, rather than alleviating, the global terrorist threat.” They noted Saddam’s humanitarian nutritional program “distribute[d] 400,000 metric tons of food brought in each month under the United Nations oil-for-food program, which is now suspended.” Repeating Democratic Party rhetoric, they wrote, “This is a task for which the Pentagon's war plan clearly did not make adequate preparation.” They also called “the United States an occupying power (whether it likes the label or not).”
Brookings gave much thought to the postwar reconstruction of Iraq, all involving the appeasement of Old Europe and the United Nations. Ivo Daalder caricatured Bush’s postwar strategy as “unilateralism on steroids. It contemplates nothing less than the wholesale takeover of Iraq not just by the American government, but by the Pentagon.” He projected, “the Americanization of the post-war administration will be seen by much of the world – including many Iraqis – as an occupation.” As though nationalism were a factor, either for the Fedayeen, the Shi’ite jihadists entering Iraq from Iran, or the ever-increasing number of al-Qaeda terrorists slipping through Iraq’s porous border with Syria.
Senior Fellow Philip Gordon’s headline said it all: “Give NATO a Role in Post-war Iraq.” This “would be a vital step toward giving our European allies – including Russia – a stake in the successful reconstruction of Iraq…France, Germany, Russia and most of [the] European public…have an almost subconscious stake in our failure.” In other words, President Bush should turn the mission over to those rooting against us.
This is John Kerry’s foreign policy book: America lacks legitimacy when going to war without the UN’s permission. Therefore, the “international community” must confer sanctity upon the mission for it to be acceptable. He has vowed this will be his top goal if elected, to seek absolution from Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin in the hopes his contrition will result in the French Foreign Legion doing penance in Fallujah. This, he believes, will allow Americans to withdraw troops while maintaining a presence in the area. However, terrorists managed to get entire nations to withdraw their troops through such comparatively minor terror efforts as a single kidnapping (and more elaborate ones like the Madrid train bombing). How much would it take to convince the French and Russians to retreat? That is, assuming they could be convinced to show up in the first place?
Probably Brookings scholars would have dissented from President Bush’s policies even if Teresa Heinz Kerry were not a member of the Brookings team, and one of its important benefactors. But Brookings (along with other Kerry grantees) is a major mover in the campaign finance reform debates who would never tolerate “even the appearance of impropriety” from a non-Kerry candidate or politician. Brookings should live up to its own expectations: either identify its close association with Teresa Heinz Kerry in its election and policy commentaries or stop making them.
The beneficiaries of Teresa Heinz Kerry’s abundant tax-free finances over the years have been individuals and organizations of the political left. From rabble-rousing antiwar demonstrators to pro-Islamist teachers, from Green Party candidates to advocates of forced sterilization – a unifying theme of this left has been that America brought the attacks of 9/11 on itself through imperialistic arrogance and corporate “oppression.” Inheriting the enormous sums of money her late husband’s ancestors left to him, she has carved a role for herself as steward of the political fringe. Her motto seems to be “No radical left behind.” As a serendipity, the actions of her beneficiaries have often, directly or indirectly, boosted the political fortunes of her present husband, John Kerry. Just as there is no dividing line between her political interests and her charity, there seems to be little distinction between her self-interests and her public interests. Perhaps what all this suggests is that rather than the campaign finance reform that several of Mrs. Kerry’s benefactions support, and which seem to work in favor of her own partisan agendas, the legislators whom they have targeted should begin to think about a charity finance reform that would apply principles of “full disclosure,” and “truth in donating” to the reformers themselves.
 Axis of Ideology
 Peter Brownfeld, “Heinz Kerry: Cheney ‘Unpatriotic,’” Fox News, May 8, 2004. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119296,00.html.
 David R. Guarino, “Teresa’s Ted K Tirade,” Boston Herald, July 26, 2004. http://news.bostonherald.com/dncConvention/view.bg?articleid=37308.
 Ralph Vartabedian, “Kerry Wife Would Keep Her Philanthropic Role,” Los Angeles Times, April 12, 2004. http://www.latimes.com/la-na-heinz12apr12,1,4925128.story.
 Lynne Stewart, “Law for the People 2003: Demand Democracy,” National Lawyers Guild. October 26, 2003. The original page has disappeared, but the speech is archived at: http://web.archive.org/web/20040211011943re_/www.nlg.org/members/convention/stewart.html
 “March 20 Global Day of Action,” International ANSWER. http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/m20/index.html
 “Free the FBI,” David Horowitz, FrontPage Magazine, June 3, 2002. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1006 Kinoy personally gave Horowitz the plan when Horowitz was editor of the radical publication, Ramparts.
 Roy Rydell, “Honoring our Fighters,” People’s Weekly World, undated. Article archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20000523192055/http://www.dezines.com/nyscpusa/p12w12w99.html
 Annual Report, Center for Constitutional Rights, Fall 2002. http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/funders/images/2002_annual_report.pdf.
 John Perazzo, “CCR: Fifth Column Law Factory,” FrontPage Magazine, July 31, 2002. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2155
 “September 11th,” Center for Constitutional Rights. http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/september_11th.asp
 Oubai Shahbandar, “Dangers of Wahhabism,” Arizona Republic, October 23, 2003. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/eastvalleyopinions/articles/1023selets10233.html
 “A Troubling Influence,” Frank Gaffney, FrontPage Magazine, December 9, 2003. http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=11209&p=1
 “Saudi Dupes,” Stephen Schwartz, New York Post, July 11, 2003. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/274.htm
 Evan McCormick, “Lies, Misinformation and CAIR,” FrontPage Magazine, August 1, 2003. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=9188
 Shahbandar, “Dangers.”
 Luisa Yanez, “Heinz Kerry Charity Assailed, Defended,” Miami Herald, August 11, 2004. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/9367942.htm?1c
 Guenter Lewy, Peace and Revolution: The Moral Crisis of American Pacifism, Erdmann’s, 1988
 Michael Tremoglie, “The ‘Peace’ Movements Korean Connection,” FrontPage Magazine, January 30, 2003. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5802
 Edward Immler, “Tracking Down a Fifth Column Front,” FrontPage Magazine, September 18, 2002. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3181
 John Ritter, “Anti-War Groups Do a Lot with Little,” USA Today, March 30, 2003: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-30-anti-warmoney_x.htm
 David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, Regnery 2004
 Joe Garofoli, “S.F. Woman’s Relentless March for Peace,” San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 26, 2002. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/10/26/MN36571.DTL
 “The Truth About Tides Foundation, Tides Center and the Heinz Endowments,” The Tides Foundation, August 4, 2004. http://www.tidesfoundation.org/press_rel_05.cfm#2
 “Medea Benjamin,” Global Exchange. http://www.globalexchange.org/getInvolved/speakers/12.html
 Lowell Ponte, “Ruckus at the Republic Convention,” August 27, 2003. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14836
 Maxwell King, “The Truth about Heinz and Tides, “ The Heinz Endowments, Summer 2004. http://www.heinz.org/index.asp?loc=K,K2025&title=The%20Truth%20About%20Heinz%20and%20Tides
 “About Us,” The Tides Foundation.
 Linda A. Dickerson, “Perspective: Tides Does Routine Business for Nonprofits,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Feb. 17, 2002: http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/20020217dickerson6.asp
 Jean Pearce, “Code Pinko,” FrontPage Magazine, March 26, 2003: http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6878
 Greg Yardley, “The Fifth International?” FrontPage Magazine, June 26, 2003. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8593
 “John Kerry’s ‘Complaints,’ Wall Street Journal, Feb. 24, 2003. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003115
 For an in-depth account, see my article, “America’s Fifth Column Goes to Iraq,” FrontPage Magazine, July 28, 2003. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9079
 “Mobilization in Washington,” The New People (official center newspaper), May 2002: http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org/The_New_People/May2002/mobilization_in_dc.htm
 Judy Focareta, “Code Pink for Peace,” The New People, Feb. 2004: http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org/The_New_People/February2004/codepink.htm
 “What Does it Mean to Stand Up?” The New People, June 2004: http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org/The_New_People/June2004/what_does_it_mean_to_stand_up.htm
 Matt Novak, “Civil Liberties Resolution Passes By City Council,” The New People, June 2004: http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org/The_New_People/June2004/civil_liberties_resolution_passe.htm
 written by Charles Robindeau. http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org/The_New_People/September2002/From_the_Editor.htm
 Betsy Hiel, “Jury Gets Case of Alleged Terrorism,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, June 2, 2004. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/middleeastreports/hiel/s_196866.html
 Alexander Bradley, “August 29th the World Says No to Bush,” The New People, Feb. 2004: http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org/The_New_People/February2004/rnc.htm
 Jim McKay, “Linda Wambaugh: She Makes the Underpaid Her Business,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 9, 2000. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20000609PersonTen7.asp
 Daniel E. Troy, “The FCC’s Squeeze on Religious Broadcasting,” On the Issues, American Enterprise Institute Online, January 14, 2000. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.11342/pub_detail.asp
 Ralph de Toledano, “The Enviros: Some Notes for the Record,” Insight, Nov. 30, 2001. http://www.insightmag.com/news/2001/12/24/Features/The-Last.Word-154111.shtml
 Stephen Moore, “Body Count: Population and Its Enemies,” National Review, October 25, 1999: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_20_51/ai_56220684
 MacDonald, op. cit.
 Alex Padalka, “Local Peace Activists Mobilize,” Block Magazine, undated. http://www.blockmagazine.com/news/i12v1_news2.html
 http://slate.msn.com/id/2000288/entry/1008284. The full discussion begins at: “The Breakfast Table: John Lahr and August Wilson,” Slate, September 10-13, 2001: http://slate.msn.com/id/2000288/entry/1008250
 “Visiting U.S. Doctors Condemn Washington’s Blockade Of The Island,” Radio Havana, September 13, 2001: http://www.radiohc.org/Distributions/Radio_Havana_English/.2001/2001_sep/Radio_Havana_Cuba-13_September_2001
 “Cuba’s Preventative Health Care Rated High,” Associated Press. September 12, 2001. Reproduced on: http://ciponline.org/cuba/cubainthenews/newsarticles/os101401healthcare.htm. This is a common stance of the gullible Left; in recent years the head of the World Council of Churches has been heard to praise Cuba’s universal health care and national daycare system. Perhaps it’s fitting; Castro has probably sent more people to heaven than she has.
 “Prominent American Leaders Call Upon Administration to Lift All Restrictions on Humanitarian Trade and Travel to Cuba,” Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba,” May 20, 2004: http://www.ahtc.org/Rel-21-14-04.html
 “Universal Health Plan is Endorsed,” Physicians for a National Health Program. August 19, 2003: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/august/universal_health_pla.php
 “Single-Payer FAQ,” Physicians for a National Health Program.April 28, 2003: http://www.physiciansproposal.org/embargoed/angell.html
 John Perazzo, “Maoists for ‘Peace,’” FrontPage Magazine, Feb. 28, 2003. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6392
 Christopher Horner, “Playing Ketchup,” National Review, January 28, 2004. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/horner200401280900.asp
 David Horowitz, Left Illusions, Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 2003. p. 311.
 John Perazzo, “Ford: Sugar Daddy of the Greens,” FrontPage Magazine, Jan. 19, 2004. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11803
 Dudley Cocke, “End Cultural Isolationism,” Community Arts Network website, 2001: http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archive/28cocke.php
 “Title VI Discrimination Complaint Against MTA,” WE ACT, November 15, 2000: http://www.weact.org/pressadvisories/2000_Nov_15.html
 David Cortright, “An Unexpected Calling,” Sojourners, January/February 1999: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9901&article=990110
 Emily Eakin, “Listening for the Voices of Women,” New York Times, March 30, 2002: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/30/arts/30GILL.html?ex=1093752000&en=a6a58d482eb8cd9f&ei=5070
 David Horowitz, Left Illusions, pp. 315-18.
Kimberly Schuld, Guide to Feminist Organizations. Washington, D.C.: Capital Research Center, 2002. p. 37.
 Jeremiah 10:8.
 “Group Headed by Clinton, Shalala Rarely Called Liberal of Asked Tough Questions,” MediaWatch, Feb. 1993. http://www.mediaresearch.org/MainSearch/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=2252&Index=C%3a%5cInetpub%5cmrc2%5cMainSearch%5cEntireSite2&HitCount=6&hits=1235+1236+1237+1477+1478+1479+&SearchForm=C%3a%5cInetpub%5cMRC2%5cMainSearch%5cSearch%5fform%2ehtml
 See Norman Podhoretz’s book Ex-Friends for more on this phenomenon.
 Larry Elder, “Welfare Hypocrites,” FrontPage Magazine, Sept. 6, 2000. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2720
 “Welfare Reform,” Issues 2004: The Candidate’s Briefing Room, Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Issues2004/Welfare.cfm
 “ABC’s Liberal of the Week,” MediaWatch, January 1992. http://www.mediaresearch.org/MainSearch/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=2239&Index=C%3a%5cInetpub%5cmrc2%5cMainSearch%5cEntireSite2&HitCount=3&hits=152c+152d+152e+&SearchForm=C%3a%5cInetpub%5cMRC2%5cMainSearch%5cSearch%5fform%2ehtml
 “Christian Contradiction,” MediaWatch, October 1996. http://www.mediaresearch.org/MainSearch/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=2296&Index=C%3a%5cInetpub%5cmrc2%5cMainSearch%5cEntireSite2&HitCount=3&hits=df6+df7+df8+&SearchForm=C%3a%5cInetpub%5cMRC2%5cMainSearch%5cSearch%5fform%2ehtml
 “Congregations, the Government and Social Justice,” A Brookings Community Development Summit, December 14, 1999: http://www.brook.edu/comm/transcripts/19991214.htm
 Annelena Lobb, “How Does Your Spending Stack Up?” CNN.com website, November 5, 2002: ,http://money.cnn.com/2002/10/24/pf/millionaire/q_millionaire_expenses
 “The President’s FY 2005 Budget Proposal: Overview and Briefing Charts” June 2004: http://www.kff.org/medicaid/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=41995
 Susan Dobra, “Savoring Sweet Honey in the Rock: An Interview with Bernice Johnson Reagon,” Magical Blend, Issue #90: http://www.magicalblend.com/library/readingroom/articles/sweethoney.html
 Kimberly Schuld, “UC’s Radical Regent,” FrontPage Magazine, Oct. 28, 2003. http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10525
 “Goodby Paper Published "Ending the Threat of Nuclear Attack," Sacramento Bee, May 31, 1997. http://www.heinzawards.net/achievementSubDetail.asp?recipientID=40&AchievementID=70
 James Goodby and Damien J. LaVera, “Attacks show U.S. can't stand alone,” Baltimore Sun, Oct. 2, 2001: http://www.heinzawards.net/achievementSubDetail.asp?recipientID=40&AchievementID=68
 James Goodby and Kenneth Weisbrode, “Bush Should Size the Chance to Recast His Ties with China,” International Herald Tribune, Sept. 21, 2001. http://www.heinzawards.net/achievementSubDetail.asp?recipientID=40&AchievementID=69
 James Goodby, “Ike-Like Diplomacy Instead of War,” Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2002: http://www.heinzawards.net/achievementSubDetail.asp?recipientID=40&AchievementID=102
 James Goodby and Kenneth Weisbrode, “Bush’s Corrosive Campaign of Fear,” Financial Times, November 18, 2003: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/fear.htm
 John Perazzo, “The ACLU’s War Against National Security,” FrontPage Magazine, Oct. 8, 2003. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10209
 Jean Pearce, “The ACLU’s War on Homeland Security,” FrontPage Magazine, June 11, 2003. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=8312
 “ACLU and Indian Rights Group Seek to Secure Voting Rights for Montana's Native Americans.” July 7, 1999. http://www.aclu.org/VotingRights/VotingRights.cfm?ID=8607&c=168
 “With Campaign Finance Votes Increasingly Likely, ACLU Says Leading Proposals Are Doomed to Failure,” July 22, 1999. http://www.aclu.org/VotingRights/VotingRights.cfm?ID=8627&c=165
 Arnold Schwarzenegger overturned this law soon after winning California’s 2003 recall election. Details about Ford and MALDEF, a are available in William Hawkins and Erin Anderson’s book The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation’s Security After 9/11, published by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 2004. The article is also online at: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11838
 “Anti-Terrorism Act,” Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, Nov. 7, 2001. http://www.miracoalition.org/USAPatriotFax_alert.html
 “Risk of Deportation When Helping Client Access Immigration Benefits,” Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, July 17, 2002. http://www.miracoalition.org/alert_deportation_6_02.htm
 “In the Aftermath of 9/11,” Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, Sept. 26, 2001. http://www.miracoalition.org/Sept._11_Fax_alert.html
 “Immigrant Leaders Convene to Turn ‘DREAM’ of Immigration Reform into Reality,” Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, July 19, 2004. http://www.miracoalition.org/dnc_dream_press_advisory.htm
 “President Bush and Governor Romney Leave Immigrant Youth Behind,” Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, July 9, 2004. http://www.miracoalition.org/bush_romney_leave_youth_behind.htm
 In 1998’s Ruiz v. Hull. http://www.languageandlaw.org/TEXTS/CASES/RUIZ.HTM
 Teaching Contemporary Global Issues, Vol. 2, “Lesson 1: The Issue of American Primacy,” p. 8. Handout “We’re Number One. Now What?” by Richard N. Haass. http://www.worldaffairspittsburgh.org/1999GlobalIssuesVol2.pdf
 Teaching Contemporary Global Issues, Vol. 1, “Lesson Ten: Weapons of Mass Destruction: Formulating a Policy.” Pp. 41-43. Developed in 1998. http://www.worldaffairspittsburgh.org/1998GlobalIssuesVol1.pdf
 Teaching, Vol. 2, “State and Society: The Influence of Islam,” p. 49. Handout “Islam” by Newsweek.
 Teaching Contemporary Global Issues, Vol. 2. “Lesson 12: The Muslim World: Unity and Diversity.” Developed in 1999, p. 45. http://www.worldaffairspittsburgh.org/1999GlobalIssuesVol2.pdf
 “Understanding the Events of September 11 and the War Against Terrorism,” World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh, January 2002. http://www.worldaffairspittsburgh.org/ResourcesWarTerrorism.pdf
 Erick Stakelbeck, “Embedded Terrorist,” FrontPage Magazine, May 14, 2003. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=7814
 CampusWatch.com, “Esposito: Apologist for Militant Islam,” FrontPage Magazine, Sept. 3, 2002. http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Readarticle.asp?ID=2651
 “WarBlog,” FrontPage Magazine, July 2, 2004. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14066
 Andrew G. Bostom, “The Sacred Muslim Practice of Beheading,” FrontPage Magazine, May 13, 2004. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13371
 Lowell Ponte, “America’s Secret Madrassas,” FrontPage Magazine, Dec. 3, 2003. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11132
 David Yeagley, “The Left Hijacks Indian History,” FrontPage Magazine, April 28, 2004. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13169
 “September 11th and the War on Terror – Lessons and Prospects,” World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh, September 2002. http://www.worldaffairspittsburgh.org/ResourceSuppWeb.pdf
 “Roots of Terrorism: Teachers Guide,” Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/terror
 Andrew Sullivan, “Idiocy of the Week,” Salon.com, October 30, 2002. http://www.salon.com/news/col/sullivan/2002/10/30/wellstone/print.html
 “Grantees,” Colombe Foundation. http://www.proteusfund.org/grantmaking/colombe/grantees
 For more, see my article “’Charitable’ Foundations: ATMs of the Left,” FrontPage Magazine, March 2, 2004. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12423
 Shawn Macomber, “The Washington Post’s New Leftist,” FrontPage Magazine, May 26, 2004. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13533
 “Gen. Zinni: ‘They’ve Screwed Up,’” CBS News, May 21, 2004. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml
 “Endorse SMART Security,” Physicians for Social Responsibility. http://www.psr.org//documents/psr_doc_0/program_4/SMARTSecurityBrochure_Final_10_6.pdf
 “Partisan Sparring Continues,” CBS News, Sept. 30, 2002. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/25/politics/main523301.shtml
 Bill Sammon, “Saddam Capture Staged, McDermott Charges, Washington Times, Dec. 17, 2003. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031216-113956-7240r.htm
 Jay Nordlinger, “Shill Waters,” National Review, Jan. 25, 1999. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_1999_Jan_25/ai_53593178
 Larry Elder, “Rapping with Waters,” FrontPage Magazine, March 29, 2002. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=125
 “Rep. Maxine Waters Calls on Congress Not To Recognize New Haitian Government,” Democracy Now!, May 5, 2004. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/05/1357220
 “Woolsey Statement Regarding Release of 9/11 Commission Report,” July 22, 2004. http://woolsey.house.gov/newsarticle.asp?RecordID=342
 Stephen F. Hayes, “Feeling a Bit Woolsey,” The Weekly Standard, Sept. 25, 2002. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/697pxzzr.asp
 Ron Radosh, “Harry’s Hatreds,” New York Post, Oct. 23, 2002. Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20021105130449/http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/60298.htm
 Lowell Ponte, “Jesse Jackson: A Real Con Man,” FrontPage Magazine, July 18, 2003. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8979
 Douglas A. Berman, “Felon Disenfranchisement in Ohio and Nationwide,” Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/eligibility_felon.html
 Jamie Glazov, “Fidel’s the One Who Owes Reparations,” FrontPage Magazine, Sept. 6, 2001. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=252
 David Horowitz, “A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come,” FrontPage Magazine, Feb. 27, 2002. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1014
 Marvin Hier, “The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism,” FrontPage Magazine, December 30, 2002. Archived at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5240
 Erick Stakelbeck, “Georgia’s Hatemonger Returns,” FrontPage Magazine, July 13, 2004. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14172
 Michael Mateas, “The Recombinant History Project Presents: Terminal Time,” http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~michaelm/publications/NI2002.pdf
 Ron Arnold, “The Heinz Foundations and the Kerry Campaign,” Foundation Watch, April 2004. http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/04_04_FW.pdf
 Todd Seavey, “The DDT Ban Turns 30,” American Council on Health and Science, June 1, 2002. http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp
 Jamie Glazov’s interview with Paul Driessen, “Black Power, Green Death,” FrontPage Magazine, January 30, 2004. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11989
 “Africa Confronts Malaria,” April 25, 2000, BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/724445.stm
 “Africa Confronts Malaria,” April 25, 2000, BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/724445.stm
 Roger Bate, “In Defense of DDT,” National Review, June 3, 2004. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bate200406030904.asp
 The EDF has received several grants from Heinz totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, making it one of the most frequent large-dollar contributors encountered during this study. EDF has greatly moderated its public stance since Dr. Wurster’s statement. Physicians for Social Responsibility also endorses the DDT ban.
 Yesim Yilmaz, “Private Regulation: A Real Alternative for Regulatory Reform,” Cato Policy Analysis No. 303, Policy Analysis, Cato Institute, April 20, 1998, p. 5. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-303.pdf
 She has only recently taken her new husband’s name and formally switched her registration from Republican to Democrat. She told a crowd, “It’s going to be Heinz Kerry now instead of Heinz…but I don’t give a s#*t, you know.”
 Philip H. Gordon and Michael E. O'Hanlon, “Policy Brief #93: Should the War on Terrorism Target Iraq? Implementing a Bush Doctrine on Deterrence,” Brookings Institution, January 2002. http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb93.htm
 Roberta Cohen and Michael E. O’Hanlon, “The Priority in Iraq: Forestalling a Humanitarian Crisis,” Brookings Iraq Report, April 14, 2003: http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/cohenr/20030414.htm
 Ivo Daalder, “Internationalize Post-war Iraq,” Brookings Daily War Report, April 7, 2003: http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/daalder/20030407.htm
 Brookings Daily War Report, April 10, 2003: http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/gordon/20030410.htm
 A younger Kerry once said he “would like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”
Copyright 2003-2005 : DiscoverTheNetwork.org