Perri Nelson's Website 

A scapegoat at the U.N.

Benon Sevan was indicted by a federal grand jury and an Interpol warrant for his arrest has been issued. It's about time... From the Washington Post:

The former executive director of the United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq was indicted yesterday by a Manhattan federal prosecutor for taking about $160,000 in bribes.

Benon V. Sevan of Cyprus is the third U.N. official to be charged with or convicted of crimes in a federal probe of corruption at the world body. Sevan had overseen a $64 billion program created in December 1996 to permit Iraq to sell oil to buy food and medicine and repay billions in war reparations over its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

...

Sevan's lawyer, Eric L. Lewis, dismissed the charges as "baseless" and said his client is a "scapegoat and a distraction from the United States' own massive failures and mismanagement in Iraq." Lewis said that Sevan -- who served in some of the world's most dangerous capitals during his 40 years at the United Nations -- had previously disclosed the money as a "family gift."

...

The indictment unsealed yesterday affirms some of Volcker's findings, noting that Nadler is alleged to have helped an unnamed co-conspirator "obtain the right to buy Iraqi oil under the oil-for-food program in exchange for commissions from the oil sales, and then allegedly funneled approximately $160,000 of these oil commissions to Sevan."

Of course, he'll get off. It's obvious he's just a scapegoat. No U.N. Official could possibly be corrupt. The U.N. couldn't possibly need reform.

It's no wonder that so many at the U.N. resisted the liberation of Iraq. After all, once the U.S. took over the program after Iraq's liberation their pervasive corruption became clear.

Trackposted to Rightwing Guy, Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Random Yak, The HILL Chronicles, stikNstein... has no mercy, basil's blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck On Stupid, Dumb Ox News, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

State "fair share" law violates federal law

This will get the liberals and the Wal-Mart haters into a frothy lather. From the New York Times:

A federal appeals court ruled today that Maryland violated federal law when it required Wal-Mart Stores to increase spending on employee health insurance, in a decision that appears likely to end a bitter yearlong legal battle that pitted state legislators, organized labor and health care advocates against the nation’s largest retailer.

...

By requiring employers in Maryland to restructure insurance plans, the court found, the law “conflicts” with the intent of the federal labor law, known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA.

The ruling could have wide-ranging implications for the so-called fair share health care legislation under consideration in several states, which has been put on hold while lawmakers awaited a final ruling in the Maryland case. It was not immediately clear whether Maryland officials were planning to appeal the case to the full circuit court or ultimately to the United States Supreme Court.

The lawsuit that overturned the Maryland law was sponsored by the Retail Industry Leaders Association, a Virginia-based trade group of which Wal-Mart is a member.

In an interview, Sandy Kennedy, the trade group’s president, said, “The court has a sent a strong message at states looking at similar bills: these violate federal law.”

This is good news. Skyrocketing health-care insurance costs have nearly bankrupted some major American businesses. They've also put the retirement plans at many companies at risk. Wal-Mart was and is being unfairly targeted by the left for all the wrong reasons.

The argument that Wal-Mart has an obligation to pay a greater percentage of it's costs for health-care benefits for its workers is pretty weak to begin with. Employer provided health-care insurance is a benefit, not a right.

It also conflicts with another of the left's goals: socialized medicine. If the goal is to have government provided health-care for all, then private health-care insurance or employer provided health-care insurance works completely counter to that.

Of course what the leftists seem to have forgotten in this whole tiff with Wal-Mart should leave them red-faced with embarrassment. By arguing that Wal-Mart must pay more for health care because of ballooning Medicaid costs the left has effectively argued that government can't afford socialized medicine.

What will Hillary do?

Trackposted to Rightwing Guy, Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Random Yak, The HILL Chronicles, stikNstein... has no mercy, basil's blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck On Stupid, Dumb Ox News, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Poor excuse for an officer won't get to put war on trial

From the Seattle Times:

In a major blow to the court-martial defense of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, a military judge has ruled that the Fort Lewis Army officer cannot try to justify his refusal to deploy to Iraq by raising questions about the legality of the war.

The ruling released Tuesday sets the stage for a Feb. 5 court-martial trial, where Watada faces up to six years in prison for his failure to join his brigade in Iraq last June and his outspoken attacks on the Bush administration conduct of the war.

Defense attorneys had hoped to argue that the war is illegal, in part, because it violated Army regulations that call for wars to be launched in accordance with the United Nations charter.

Army regulations have nothing to do with launching wars. The Army doesn't launch a war, Congress does. In any case, we've been over this before, the war in Iraq is a legal war. Lt. Watada's little political tirade is what he's on trial for anyway (that's the source of the four "conduct unbecoming" charges). He shouldn't be allowed to continue it in court.

But in a ruling, Lt. Col. John Head said that "whether the war is lawful" is a political question that could not be judged in a military court.

Head, citing federal court precedents, also rejected defense attorneys' claim that Watada's First Amendment rights shielded him from charges relating to his criticism of the war.

Instead, Head ruled that there are limits to the free-speech rights of military personnel and that a military panel should decide whether Watada's criticism of the war amounted to officer misconduct that could have endangered the morale, loyalty and discipline of troops.

"We have been stripped of every defense," said Eric Seitz, a civilian attorney representing Watada. "This is a disciplinary system, not a justice system. Otherwise, we would have been entitled to defend ourselves."

This has always been the case. Lt. Watada is being tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not civilian law. The court-martial may find him not guilty, but that's not too likely at this point. Lt. Watada wanted to use the very offenses he's charged with as a defense against the charges.

That plan has backfired. This weasel will probably get the six years in a military prison that he has coming to him. Even leftist rallies that will try to put the war on trial during his court-martial won't change that.

Cross posted to NWBloggers.com

Trackposted to Rightwing Guy, The Random Yak, Big Dog's Weblog, stikNstein... has no mercy, basil's blog, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Tom Tancredo for President?

Tom Tencredo has decided to form a presidential exploratory committee. From the Washington Post:

"The one thing I heard over and over is that they don't believe the other contenders care about the same things that they do," Tancredo, 61, said.

None of the White House candidates, the five-term lawmaker added, "reflects the grass-roots, majority belief of Americans that our borders must be secured, that employers who hire illegals must be prosecuted, and that no one who has broken our immigration laws should ever be put on a 'pathway to citizenship.' "

I'm going to have to look further into this man's politics. So far he looks like the most acceptable Republican to put his hat in the ring.

He's far better than John McCain, who is conservative in name-only. He's also better than Rudy Giuliani, who's way too much of a social liberal for my tastes.

Some people think Mitt Romney might be a good choice. I don't think so. He's flip-flopped on a few social issues nearly as badly as John Kerry.

Newt Gingrich might be a good candidate, but he's so hated by the left that I don't think he's got much chance of winning.

If Mr. Tancredo's conservative credentials hold up, I think I may have found my candidate.

This is your open trackbacks post for Wednesday, January 17, 2007. If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback.

Just remember the trackback policy.

For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.