Original Articles – Page 6 – Monica Perez Show

Tsarnaev's CIA Connections

May 14, 2013 by Monica

The Wall Street Journal published an article last week reporting that Tamerlan Tsaranaev, the dead “Suspect Number 1” in the Boston Marathon Bombing, was in the Caucasus last year unsuccessfully trying to infiltrate an extreme Islamist mosque and attempting to forge a relationship with a rebel group by offering “to act as a financial go-between … Read more

What Really Happened in Watertown? What if….

May 2, 2013 by Monica

The official narrative of the events of Thursday, April 18, 2013, that led to the death of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the grave injury of Boston Transit Officer Richard Donohue and the wounding and ultimate capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev raises many questions that remain unanswered.
This is the official story…
Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev lured MIT Officer Sean Collier onto campus and shot him five times execution style in his car to take his gun (which ultimately they were unable to remove from his holster) because they only had one hand gun and one pellet gun. This story, however, conflicts with the very clear account by the Watertown Police Chief Ed Deveau that both brothers came out shooting, indicating that they had at least two guns when the firefight in Watertown commenced a short time later. Now, the official story is that only one gun was found at the scene in Watertown, but that new information itself raises a host of questions about the real nature of the “shoot-out,” and of the credibility of Chief Deveau.
After the killing of Officer Collier, the official account continues, Tamerlan Tsarnaev jumped out of an “old sedan,” which was originally reported as a Honda Civic, to hijack a black Mercedes SUV in order to get cash from its driver. The original report of the gas station clerk who gave refuge to the carjacking victim had described him as Caucasian, and as having claimed to be pushed out of his car by hijackers. Later, the carjacking victim was described as Chinese,

Who Is The Man On The Ground?

April 26, 2013 by Monica

At approximately 10:30 pm on Thursday, April 18, 2013, an MIT police officer, Sean Collier, age 27, was shot and killed on campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, while responding to a disturbance. Police believe the Boston Bombing suspects, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev shot the officer five times to get his gun because they only had one gun. It is unclear how many bullets were in Officer Collier’s gun or why the brothers thought the gun would be so valuable they would shoot the officer five times for it and call attention to themselves before their whereabouts were known by police. In the end, the brothers failed to remove the officer’s gun from his holster–their heinous crime was in vain. Mystery continues to surround the death of the MIT officer, however, and the Middlesex DA released today a request for witnesses to the crime.
The first responder to the MIT officer’s call for backup, Officer Collier’s friend and former classmate, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Police Officer Richard Donohue, might have been the only one in a position to illuminate the events as they unfolded in Cambridge that night. By a tragic coincidence, however,

Who Is The Naked Man?

April 22, 2013 by Monica

https://austrogirlblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/tamerlan-tsarnaev-boxing-2006.jpg?w=300
CNN reported last Thursday night that the police had taken two men into custody following a car chase possibly in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing and the killing of a police officer at MIT. During the report, they showed footage shot by CNN of one of the suspects, handcuffed and naked, being walked by police to a police cruiser.
The top video below shows the CNN footage. This was aired Thursday night before the early Friday morning shootout that killed Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Who is the naked man in custody? Is it Tamerlan Tsarnaev? If not, who is he and why isn’t there an official explanation of the arrest? If it is Tsarnaev, why did authorities let him go then engage him in a gunfight?
The critical question is, “Is the naked man Tamerlan Tsarnaev?” Judge for yourself. Before you play the video, compare its frozen image of the naked man with the still photos of Tamerlan Tsarnaev below it. (If you want to get back to that frozen image after you play the video, refresh this page.)

FOX Deliberately Went Easy On Obama

April 17, 2013 by Monica

In August 2011, when I first read The Washington Times article, “Was CIA behind Operation Fast & Furious?,” by Robert Farago and Ralph Dixon, I was waiting on the edge of my seat for the scandal to ignite in the media, at least on the right. From arming the Sinaloa drug cartel, to laundering money for them and allowing their drugs in the country, to attempting a cover-up, the Obama administration was overseeing nefarious activity with all the makings of an Iran-Contra and Watergate combined. When the scandal failed to explode, I started to smell a rat. At first I figured the Republicans were neutered because the roots of the overarching Project Gunrunner reached back into the Bush Administration, but when the media, particularly The Wall Street Journal and FOX News, failed adequately to elucidate the clear distinctions between Bush’s operations and Obama’s and failed to expose Operation Fast & Furious for all that it was, I started to believe the fix was in.
As I saw Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder lie to the Senate then lie about lying then get caught in both lies,

Conservative "Core Principles" or Just Political Expedients?

April 10, 2013 by Monica

Front and center on the opinion page of The Wall Street Journal yesterday was an article titled “A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” and opposite was a full-page article titled “Evangelicals in Push for Immigration Overhaul.” Both articles make great points and are breaths of fresh air from the right, but the timing of this one-eighty makes me like the neo-conservative machine less not more.
A year ago, “defense of marriage” and stopping the “flow of illegals” were sold as inviolable conservative “core principles” by Republican politicians and the media who serve them. These were issues the likes of Karl Rove and Paul Ryan solemnly if not rabidly defended, and they were issues used against traditional conservatives and libertarians like Ron Paul. As any traditional conservative can tell you, however, these are not “core principles” of conservatism–not even neo-conservatism! These issues were intentionally manufactured to polarize voters on a single issue that would get their votes despite being betrayed by the Republican Party on the truly universal conservative principle: fiscal restraint.

Crony Capitalism: How the Sausage Is Made

March 26, 2013 by Monica

It is surprisingly hard for many people to understand that government regulation is often more of a boon to big business than it is a burden to them, but the current debate on minimum wage serves as a simple illustration.
When I saw a recent headline: Costco CEO: Raise The Minimum Wage To More Than $10 Per Hour, my first thought was, “How does this guy benefit from a higher minimum wage?”, and my second thought was, “Aha!” I cracked the code in an instant. Costco I thought, must pay more than $10 per hour already, while its competitors must pay less. That means Costco would not be affected at all by an increase in the minimum wage to $10, while any of its competitors that pay below $10 per hour could see their business models severely impaired. And so it is.
Costco’s minimum salary is $11.50 per hour while Wal-Mart pays new workers only $8. Costco is very light on service and very high on efficiency, with each customer spending much more per visit than Wal-Mart customers. A skillful, efficient workforce is integral to Costco’s business model. On the other hand, Wal-Mart has myriad employees, some of whom do nothing but greet customers, and with lower priced items and higher customer volume, each employee-customer interaction generates only modest revenue to the company. Its larger but lower-cost sales force is the only way for Wal-Mart to keep volume up and prices low.
Costco’s current CEO, Craig Jelinek, as well as its former CEO and founder, James Sinegal, claim that they pay more to their employees because it’s the right thing to do, and it is, but not morally right as they imply, just right for their business model.
Here are the numbers that prove my point

The Moral Hazard of Socialism

March 18, 2013 by Monica

When I first heard that the new pope took the name Francis in an effort to focus the Church on the poor, I thought it could go either way. St. Francis gave up his wealth and lived in poverty, and Franciscan priests take a vow of poverty to this day. Dedicating oneself to the poor is noble, of course, but I have grown skeptical when the poor are invoked as a call to action. I have found that too often the poor are used as an excuse to expand the size and scope of government, while decade after decade we are told we must redouble our efforts in the War on Poverty.

Rand Paul Is "One of the Most Dangerous" Politicians of His Generation

March 12, 2013 by Monica

I stumbled upon an article in The New York Post last week titled “Rand Paul’s Triumph” and was surprised to see something positive about the libertarian senator from Kentucky in a neo-conservative newspaper. The headline gave me hope that perhaps after the last election, the Republican establishment might give up on its egregious trade-your-rights-for-security “core principle.”
I should have known better than to hope when the name of the article’s author, John Podhoretz, rang a bell.
Neo-conservatism was the brainchild of Norman Podhoretz and his protégé Irving Kristol decades ago, and Irving Kristol’s son Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard continues his father’s tradition today. So I suspected that John Podhoretz might be Norman’s son, similarly carrying on his father’s tradition and indeed he is. As a matter of fact, I quickly discovered that Podhoretz is part of the neo-conservative inner sanctum and was actually a co-founder of The Weekly Standard.
Hope does spring eternal, however, so I read on. After gushing with praise over Senator Paul’s intelligence, courage and determination (I was really hooked by then!), Podhoretz delivers his punch:

The logic of Paul’s view is that the United States is the aggressor in the war on Islamist terror rather than a bystander unwillingly drawn into a battle that has not yet been won.
Rand Paul, who turned 50 this year, is one of the most talented politicians of his generation. And one of the most dangerous.

While in my mind nothing justifies a massive attack on civilians like 9/11,

Confessions of a Neo-Conservative: An Exposé (Part 2)

March 2, 2013 by Monica

This is a two-part post. For part one, click here.
Irving Kristol is probably the most well known of the founders of the neo-conservative movement. What is less well known, however, is what that movement really stands for. While the name includes the word conservative, the movement transforms conservatism into a form of prudish socialism that would please no one but its leaders, which is why, in my opinion, they don’t advertize their true goals.
In this two-part blogpost, I cite and comment on a small selection of quotes from Kristol’s definitive book, Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. In part one, I quote Kristol’s strategic call for a “conservative welfare state;” here in part two, I offer some of his more specific ideas.
SOCIAL REFORM: GAINS AND LOSSES (1973)
Although this shocking essay, Social Reform: Gains and Losses, was written decades ago, Kristol chose to include it in this definitive anthology without revision or apology.

One wonders what would happen if all the money spent on Great Society programs had been used to institute, in however modest a way, just two universal reforms: (1) children’s allowance, as already described, and (2) some form of national health insurance? My own surmise is that the country would be in much better shape today. We would all –including the poor among us—feel that we were making progress, and making progress together, rather than at the expense of one another.
Yes such reforms are expensive and technically “wasteful,” in that they distribute benefits to all, needy or not. But to stress this aspect of the matter is to miss the point: Social reform is an inherently political activity, and is to be judged by political, not economic or sociological, criteria. When I say social reform is “political,“ I mean that its purpose is to sustain the polity, to encourage a sense of political community, even of fraternity. To the degree that it succeeds in achieving these ends, a successful social reform—however liberal or radical its original impulse –is conservative in its ultimate effects. Indeed, to take the liberal or radical impulse, which is always with us, and slowly to translate that impulse into enduring institutions which engender larger loyalties is precisely what the art of government, properly understood, is all about.

Is that what you understand government to be about? Is government an institution whose primary purpose is to be an institution? Are radical socialist policies inherently conservative because they engender loyalty to the government? Kristol is not just redefining conservatism here, he is abolishing it! Maybe if we did understand Kristol’s version of “properly understood” government, we would abolish it!