Kathy Petersen’s Blog

Rick Perry scares me

Posted in politics by Kathy on August 18, 2011

Quite frankly, Rick Perry scares me. Yes, the Gardasil decision was horrible, but rather than downplay it as “just one misstep… and besides, he apologized!” I look at it as a serious, very serious character issue. As Michelle Malkin pointed out, it is just one example of many that indicate that what Perry says he is for (small govt), and what he actually does are quite different.

Additionally, in 2010, Rick Perry vowed to finish his term as TX governor and as recently as May of this year he affirmed he would NOT run for President. He has broken that pledge.

I have heard of Alex Jones (libertarian political commentator/reporter), but haven’t watched much of him; yet there was this video he made just the other day (also posted below this paragraph), and if Alex Jones is right, then Gardasil wasn’t included in the federal protection for vaccines until Perry, as the first US governor, mandated it, and then federal protection kicked in, insulating Merck from any lawsuits stemming from Gardasil injuries or deaths. Even though the mandate was overturned, the federal protection remains, and that is a HUGE protection of profits for Merck — worth billions — even though it technically “did nothing” because the mandate didn’t kick in. And despite what Perry said this week about “going along with the legislators” and quietly accepting and backing off when they tried to curtail his power grab, he actually was quite defiant at the time. So he sounds even more like someone I couldn’t trust.

Some of Perry’s closest friends and advisors are current, and/or former Merck lobbyists (were current lobbyists at the time of the mandate). So, basically, Rick Perry gave Merck a “get out of lawsuit free” card with his mandate; and quite frankly, vaccine manufacturers **need to be held accountable** when they make dangerous vaccines that injure and kill.

Right now, vaccine manufacturers enjoy immunity from lawsuits from any vaccine damage (including death), PLUS they get all the profits from the sales PLUS they have multiple vaccines mandated/required for things like school and/or day-care attendance — it’s a vaccine manufacturer’s dream!! If you could make a product that you would a) make money from; b) force other people to buy; and c) have freedom from any lawsuits, why WOULDN’T you make such a product, and do everything you could — including buying off politicians — to try to get more people to have to buy your product. That isn’t freedom! — it’s government coercion and crony capitalism!! It’s the antithesis of the Tea Party movement, and stands in stark contrast to everything those of us for small government and parental rights stand for.

Finally, one of my Texas friends was asked for her opinion of Rick Perry, and she said the following (quoted in full):

For what it’s worth (in my opinion) Rick Perry is a golden boy. What I mean by that is regardless of what happens he always seems to come out shining. He always seems to be in the right place at the right time. Texas was once a weak governor government with the lieutenant governor, house and senate having the most power. In 8 years he (Perry) single-handedly took power away from those institutions and made himself a very strong governor. He has the brutish ability to push things through the house and senate. However, I am not aware of a single thing he is actually responsible for -yet he gets all of the credit for it. Somehow he’s managed to become the longest seated governor in the history of the United States. He has the uncanny ability to be likable, yet perhaps more importantly it’s almost impossible to not like him. On occasion he has come across bullish on certain policies (i.e. Remember the HPV vaccine he mandated for all girls under the age of 16) but at the slightest hint of public disapproval he manages to flip-flop and reverse course. I’m not convinced he’s qualified to lead the U.S., but strangely, based on the past 8 years of Texas politics, he may be the best qualified candidate in the race.

Quite frankly, this assessment scares me more than anything else I’ve read. Do we really want a recent “convert” (or possibly, just political posturing, since conservatism gets the votes these days!) who bullies people into submission “leading” this country? He’d get things done, but WHAT might he do? He now claims to be for small government, but he mandated a vaccine for little girls — how much more government intrusion can you get? And he stuck by that decision as recently as last year, and it’s only been since he joined the race that he has disavowed it. Sounds like pandering to me, and I simply don’t trust him to give him the job of President for four years.


MS 2011 Legislature Candidates

Posted in politics by Kathy on June 11, 2011

I was a little perturbed at how difficult it was to find who was running for the MS House and Senate this year. Eventually, I found the two parties’ pages (GOP, Dem) with the information for their own qualifying candidates, and put them together into a spreadsheet. Ahh, finally in one place, who’s running in which district in the 2011 MS elections. [I haven’t found any independent or 3rd-party candidates running, but if you know of any, lemme know and I’ll add them.] And as an added bonus, those qualifying for state races (governor, lieutenant governor, etc.).

Hate Speech

Posted in Uncategorized by Kathy on August 20, 2009

Ok, if a preacher says that homosexual behavior is wrong, even though God says it several times in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, that’s “hate speech,” because it might incite someone to go do something bad to a homosexual. But this guy can say, “We need to exterminate white people,” and it’s not a problem? not hate speech? Oh, come on!

He starts off well enough — he views the problems endemic in the society he was raised in, and made a choice to leave Brooklyn and go to North Carolina. Fine. He and his wife had two of their three children at home with midwives. Excellent! Preach it, brother! He determined to live debt-free, and even built a log house with his own hands debt-free. Awesome! More power to you! He and his wife saw the disease and other negative impact from poor diet, so changed to being vegan, and have been vegans for 30 years. I’m sure that has helped many people overcome disease, obesity, etc., and was a wonderful choice to make (although I do think that some people do need meat for best health — but probably not as much as the average person consumes on a daily basis). When I was on a vegan diet, I felt excellent and lost a lot of weight. I’m getting closer to that diet once again.

Then he gets a little… well… off. I think he has some wonderful insights into the problems of the world, although he views them as solely the problems of black people, and caused solely by white people. From a Biblical perspective, we see that everything God does, Satan wants to mess up. God gave family, Satan attacks the family in a multitude of ways, including teenage promiscuity, easy divorce, easy adultery, etc. God gave sex, Satan attacks sex in a multitude of perversions. God gives food, Satan urges us to eat too much of it, and mess up the God-given food with a bunch of man-made chemicals that are actually harmful although they taste good. That sort of thing. Of course, fallen man can mess up things pretty well all by himself, but we must remember that “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against angels and principalities,” etc. So, our primary enemy is not man nor men, particularly men of different skin colors. Our primary enemy is spiritual — Satan. God made man in His own image, and Satan likes for men to die, regardless of how, where, when, or who, because it is killing God in effigy. Murders of all kinds, including abortion, suicide, suicide bombers, euthanasia, all feed into this.

This man is right when he perceives the high death rate of black people from all different types of problems (abortion, pre-term birth, infant mortality, childhood death, drive-by shootings, gang-land slayings, other types of murder, disease, drugs, etc.) as being orchestrated. But he’s got his head stuck so far up his color that he can’t see that these things affect all of us, and it’s not just “white people” who are in control of all these things. There are some do-gooders that really think that the social experimentation that we have been under for at least the past 70 years, if not even further back to Darwin’s time, or before, is actually beneficial to the people that are under it. It seems plausible — single mothers have a hard time making ends meet, so let’s let them have abortions so they won’t be burdened with a child. Yet abortion carries with it unintended consequences — not least of which is the societal devaluing of human life, partly evidenced by the increased incidence of child abuse. Lack of education leads to poverty, so let’s get everybody education. Well, has that really helped? Are we more or less poor, are we better or worse educated, than we were in the 1930s? I’m not decrying education — but there is a reason people choose to homeschool their children, and for the most part it is because they do not think the education in the public school system is good enough. And they’re right. Homeschooled children consistently outrank public-schooled children in every subject, at every age. A nice idea in theory, but in practice, not so much. The problem is not with making sure that every child is educated — that is still a laudable goal! The problem is the way the children are being educated (or not), and the unintended side effects of the way the current public-school system works. We are seeing a gradual (or not so gradual) consolidation of power into central units — for example, instead of education being on a small, local level with a lot of local accountability, we see education is a federal thing, with all the bureaucracy that entails. This means that they have to take a “one size fits all” mentality to solve the problems — but that doesn’t work, because one size almost never fits all. The problems in Brooklyn are different from the problems in rural Mississippi. This consolidation of power also leads parents to become less involved with their child’s education. My husband teaches school in an area with a high percentage of black kids, and it is a poor school district. He deals with these problems all the time — parents who want their kids to learn, but either don’t help or encourage them at home, or even actively though unconsciously cause problems for their kids by their attitudes and enabling, or disabling. This is happening everywhere, in every aspect of society.

But this guy’s conclusion is completely wrong. In addition to the wild conspiracy theories he spouts from time to time. His conclusion is, [paraphrased] “White people are the problem, so we need to kill all white people. White people are trying to kill us, so let’s exterminate all white people.” Hitler said this about the Jews. I bet David Duke says this about black people. There are plenty of people who will let color, ethnicity, and heritage divide the human race into artificial groups of people, and pit one group against another. The last thing we need is for more fomentation of racial anger, tension, and strife. Rather than focusing anger one against another, the “one solution” he is looking for (which he has decided is to kill all white people) is to fight against the “spiritual powers in high places” — namely, Satan.

The odd thing, though, is that he has figured out and is living the perfect solution, even though he doesn’t recognize it as such: namely, to stop participating in the destruction (however that destruction is coming — whether through eating refined foods, smoking cigarettes, living in debt, killing other people, etc.). But instead of urging people to follow his footsteps into health and financial peace, he’s urging them to kill the “white oppressor.” There are two ways out of oppression — one is to kill the oppressor, and the other is to refuse to be oppressed. He has figured out how to do the latter, so I don’t know why he is pushing the former.

No, you do *not* “need” a TV

Posted in frugal, politics by Kathy on April 8, 2009

Someone on one of my cheapcycle or freecycle lists just posted a request for a TV or DVD player, stating that she “needed” them. Nope. Sorry. That does not qualify as a need. It’s a want, not a need. Learn the difference, people! Maybe if more people had properly separated wants from needs we would not be in the “credit crisis,” “mortgage meltdown,” “stimulus” nightmare. You need food, clothing, shelter, etc. TVs and DVDs are optional items which are luxuries. Argh!

Do you remember “Mama’s Family”?

Posted in politics by Kathy on February 15, 2009

You know — the TV show starring Vicki Lawrence as the hick matriarch of the Harper family. There was one episode in which “Mama” became fed up with the status quo of her town, and particularly the inept or ineffective mayor, so she ran against him in the election. She won, and soon realized she was in over her head. She did not know what she was doing, nor how anything in the town was done. By the end of the episode (and only a few days or a week or two after her inauguration as mayor), she resigned and turned the mayorship back over to the former mayor.

Sometimes a job is harder than it looks.

I’ve been thinking about that episode in conjunction with the current failed Obama presidency. Maybe it’s a little too early and a little too harsh to use the f-word, but I’m not sure what is a better word to describe a President who has had so many high-level appointees having to step down because of tax evasion… er, I mean, tax “problems”… which shows that the vetting process is not very good nor thorough. And this does not mention all the campaign promises he’s broken in just three short weeks — especially this horrible “stimulus” plan that will probably plunge us deeper into a recession. He made much of the fact that he’s chosen three Republicans as Cabinet-level appointees (although one politely declined because he couldn’t support the President in so many areas), and I wonder if it was because he couldn’t find qualified Democrats that could pass scrutiny, so chose honest Republicans, and then whitewashed it to make it look like he was being “bipartisan.” Ha!

Some of the campaign promises he broke were good ones to break. He promised certain things that sounded good, until he learned how much President Bush knew and had to take into account in formulating policies. Apparently, things look and sound different when you’re in the Oval Office!

You know, when Thelma Harper found out that she was way in over her head, she had the guts to admit it and step down. I wonder what Barack Obama will do.

This Economy is one big Ponzi Scheme

Posted in politics by Kathy on February 14, 2009

In my understanding, a “Ponzi Scheme” is basically a pyramid scheme, ultimately destined for failure, because it pays the people at the top by recruiting more people at the bottom; eventually there are no more bottom people to recruit, and the whole scheme collapses under its own weight. That’s what’s happening to the economy.

It’s no longer built on a solid foundation — it’s built on credit and debt. Yet instead of encouraging people to return to cash, and living on their income, the government is encouraging more people to join in this pyramid scheme to increase debt. It is destined to fail, because you can’t borrow your way out of debt.

Unfortunately, the alternative involves more short-term pain, and people are unwilling to do that. So, we’re going to collapse like the Twin Towers, and then we’ll be crushed. And although I’m not an economist, I believe that when it happens, it will be worse than the Great Depression.

Personal Opinion vs. Political Action

Posted in politics by Kathy on January 28, 2009

I listened to a bit of Bill O’Reilly’s radio show yesterday or Monday, and he talked about Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, and several other liberal politicians who claim to be Catholic yet politically support abortion, which is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church. He had on some guy who was also of that same opinion — pro-choice-to-kill and also Catholic — to discuss and defend the point of view of Cuomo, Kennedy, etc.

Basically, the guy said, “As a Catholic, I personally am against abortion — I don’t have abortions, and I don’t participate in abortions — but I don’t want to push my religious views on anyone else, so I think abortion should be legal.” And he said that was how Kennedy as a Senator acted — he was personally opposed to abortion, but would not vote against it, because it was a religious viewpoint.


That’s like Bill Clinton saying, “I smoked, but I didn’t inhale.” Um, yeah. “I’m against the murder of the unborn innocents… but I won’t try to stop you from killing them.”

It’s sort of like the Treasury Secretary who is to be put in charge of making sure WE all pay OUR taxes having dodged paying HIS taxes for years. “I believe that paying taxes is everyone’s duty, I just don’t want to do it myself.”

I’m beginning to see a pattern here.

What next, Ted Bundy as the security guard for a sorority? John Wayne Gacy as a Boys’ Camp Counselor? Jack Kevorkian as a nursing home administrator? Lorena Bobbitt as the head of security of a male sex-offender prison? (Oh, wait, maybe that one is a good idea.)

We’ve already got Hillary No Experience Clinton as Secretary of State; and a tax evader in charge of the Treasury! I’m holding my breath to see what other foxes will be in charge of the various henhouses in this wonderful, hopeful, transparent administration of change that is the Barack Hussein Obama presidency.

“I Hope He Fails”

Posted in patriotism, politics by Kathy on January 23, 2009

I saw a bit of a clip from CNN on Rush Limbaugh’s monologue about Barack Obama in which he said, “I hope he fails.” It was preceeded by Rush’s reasoning behind it — because as a conservative he is politically opposed to practically everything Obama has said he stands for. This shouldn’t be news. Yet somehow it is.

The thing that really got me, though, about this is what Rick Sanchez (who was the CNN talking head in the clip) said: “Isn’t hoping Obama fails equivalent to hoping America fails?” EXCUSE ME???

Now, I’m not much on news, not having a TV, but I do generally keep up with things, especially politics, and I have never once, throughout the entire 8 years of George W. Bush’s presidency, heard anyone but the most right-leaning conservatives (who are instantly brushed aside as unimportant or fatally biased) equate opposing Bush and hoping he failed with opposing our country and hoping it failed. And now we get this idiot blasting Rush for hoping Obama does not succeed in governmentalizing a huge section of the private sector, among other things he mentioned in the clip.

No, Pres. Obama can fail and our country can still succeed, idiot! Being opposed to Obama’s views on abortion, and government intrusion and control, and a host of other things, and hoping that he is not successful in his intentions and desires to bring about those changes which are repugnant to me and a lot of other conservatives, doesn’t mean we hate our country and want our country to fail. In fact, the reverse is true. We see the failures of countries who have gone down the path we’re taking — from capitalism to socialism — and we don’t want to be a part of that. We don’t want our country to fail, which is exactly why we hope that Barack Obama does fail. Because if he is successful in taking America down that path, America will fail. It’s not pesonal; it’s political. We think his politics suck, quite frankly.

I still think that America is the best country on earth. But right now, I feel like I’m on an airplane that’s zooming along in a direction I don’t want to go — it’s headed for Los Angeles when I’m wanting to go to Miami — and I can’t stop it, and I can’t jump off because there’s nowhere else to go, and I’ll get terribly hurt or killed if I try. So, no, I don’t want Obama to successfully steer our airplane to L.A. because I want to end up in Miami. I hope he fails in his attempts to get there, and the airplane veers off-course to Miami. Not because I hate Obama or I hate the airplane (our country), but because it’s going where I don’t want to go.

Hmmm, maybe I was wrong

Posted in politics by Kathy on December 12, 2008

In my last post, I essentially said that the Obama-Blagojevich connection smelled, but that Obama probably did not meet personally with the Governor to discuss who would take the Senate seat, and almost certainly didn’t offer him any graft in exchange for his appointment of the person of Obama’s choice. I may be wrong.

See what I mean?

A smelly situation just got smellier!

Obama and Blagojevich

Posted in politics by Kathy on December 11, 2008

Ok, so the evidence is pretty conclusive that Blagojevich was involved in pay-to-play politics — since he is the only person who can appoint a person to the now-vacant Illinois Senate seat, it seems he was offering it to the highest bidder. Of course, since the seat was vacated by President-elect Obama, the question then becomes, was he involved in it in any way?

The thing that intrigues me most of this is the developing story (and the subsequent denials, “misquotes” and altered memories). Before there was any hint of scandal, one of Obama’s staff said that Obama had been in contact with the Governor (or perhaps this was done through liaisons) on who Obama wanted to fill the vacant seat. No biggee — that is in fact understandable, that if you won the Senate seat fair and square (of course, this is Chicago we’re talking about, so I’m using that term loosely!), that you’d want to have some input or suggestion on who should fill the vacancy, to be best able to represent your constituents — the people who originally elected you to the 6-year term. In other words, it is to be expected that Obama or somebody acting for him would get in contact with the Governor or somebody acting for him and suggest a person to fill the seat, maybe even lobby hard for him or her.

But now Obama (and by that I mean him and those associated with him — his staff and underlings who do business in his name) is saying that he had no contact with the Governor’s office about this. Is that believable? Ok, I guess I can buy that. But why did the first person lie? (Oh, no, I forgot — he just “mis-remembered” that Obama spoke with the Governor concerning who to fill the Senate seat. Yeah.) So if what’s-his-name (Axelrod, was it?) was wrong, it sounds like he was posturing — “Oh, yes, Obama can be in two places at once!” sort of thing — of course he wouldn’t let down his constituents by having no input into who would be chosen to represent them. So, it could be spun that Obama didn’t care enough about the citizens of Illinois to even suggest the most suitable replacement. But what if he did?

See, what’s the big deal about whether or not Obama mentioned a name? If you look at the transcript of the taped conversations, it seems obvious that Blagojevich talked to somebody authorized to speak for Obama, who was acting entirely honest and above-board and never offered any money or position or prestige in exchange for the Senate appointment. This also coincides with what Axelrod was quoted as saying on Nov. 23 — that the President-elect was in contact with the Governor about possible replacements. So, why wouldn’t Obama just say, “Well, of course, as the out-going Senator, I spoke with the Governor of the state to suggest a person (or a few people) who I thought would be the best choices for filling the vacancy”? Why not? It’s believable. In fact, it’s more believable than, “No, I cared so little about the state of Illinois or politics in general that I dropped them like a hot potato as soon as I was declared the winner of the Presidential race.”

If Obama hadn’t talked to Blagojevich about a suitable replacement, why wasn’t there a correction from the Obama camp following the Axelrod interview? That’s one interesting thing to consider.

Another is, if Obama did not talk to Blagojevich, why is it in the transcript that Blagojevich got flaming mad when Obama (or his authorized representative) did not offer anything for the seat? Just from what I read, it sounds like Blagojevich and Obama did not talk one-on-one, but rather that the Governor and possibly the President-elect used intermediaries. Otherwise, Blagojevich wouldn’t have asked what Obama offered, and been so mad when he found out that the answer was “nothing.” So I would say that the transcript clears Obama (and his authorized representatives) of any immediate wrong-doing in the scandal, in that he did not offer any sort of bribe in order to get the person he wanted appointed.

So why the denials? Why the obfuscation? And how to account for the transcript if there was no contact between the two parties at all?

Is it possible that while Obama (or an authorized representative) declined to try to bribe Blagojevich, that if it became public that he was approached by Blagojevich with an expectation of graft, and Obama did not report this, that he could be guilty of breaking some law. Which is a suitable explanation for why there is a denial of any contact, when that is almost not logical (unless Obama and Blagojevich were political enemies — which is possible, if Blagojevich wanted to run for the Presidency and was preempted by Obama; or if there was some other “bad blood” between them that we don’t know of — although they each endorsed the other in their most recent political runs), and in fact is contradicted by both the Axelrod interview and the transcript itself.

So, it’s possible that one of Obama’s underlings talked to one of Blagojevich’s underlings, and the President-elect did not speak personally to the Governor. Then, Obama can truthfully say that he did not speak to the Governor about a replacement. But if your authorized representatives talk to each other, it’s still deceptive to say that you didn’t. But why didn’t Obama just say, “Of course I suggested a person whom I think would best represent the people of the state of Illinois to someone in the Governor’s office, but at no time was there any attempt at corruption”? — unless there was?

Can you imagine the fall-out if somewhere on these tapes is Obama talking to one of Blagojevich’s lackeys in which the lackey starts to hint or even press Obama for some sort of ambassadorship for the Governor or his wife, or something of that nature, in exchange for appointing so-and-so to the vacant Senate seat? Yikes! Talk about being tainted!

And that’s the conclusion the denials have led me to — that Obama or an authorized representative did indeed talk to somebody in the Governor’s office about a Senate replacement, and that Obama did not offer any political exchange, and that if such was suggested, that he declined any graft for the Governor. How much Obama knew and how much he was shielded from knowing about a suggestion of graft can only be known by Obama and any intermediaries. But it stinks. Even if Obama did nothing illegal, it still stinks — and if he was aware of the corruption that was being attempted by Gov. Blagojevich and did nothing….