4VF News – Daily News Channel – Page 2228

California resolves budget standoff

California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg urges GOP help to break the budget impasse.
The California Senate finally passed the state’s budget on Thursday morning after a marathon session. The legislation received final approval from the state Assembly minutes later.

The budget package addressing a $42 billion deficit passed after lawmakers agreed to demands from a holdout Republican senator. The package includes tax increases, spending cuts and borrowing to close the deficit, reports said. “This is not really a time of celebration, when you think about the difficult decisions that we have been called upon to make,” Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, told colleagues following the vote shortly after 6 a.m. PT. “It is, however, a time of great relief that this crisis is behind, not us, but behind the people of California.” The stalemate over the budget had caused California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to declare a fiscal emergency and send layoff notices to 10,000 state workers. Sen. Abel Maldonado had been one Republican amenable to vote for the measure in exchange for various demands, and lawmakers worked to meet them to get his support. Senators voted for a measure to revise the state’s constitution to permit “open” primaries for legislative, congressional and gubernatorial elections. They also passed another, the removal of a 12-cent additional gas tax increase.

Don’t Miss
CNN/Money: Obama plan to aid 9 million homeowners

California budget crisis jeopardizes 20,000 jobs

KCRA: Schwarzenegger vows no budget talks from scratch

Even though several members didn’t like the open primary plan, they still voted for it to get the budget passed. The Senate worked through the night. All Democrats were prepared to vote for the budget hours earlier, but one more Republican was needed to reach a majority vote, Steinberg said at a news conference just after midnight. “We need one more member. One more member. We need one more,” said Steinberg, raising his voice as he pointed to a large placard with No. 1 written in red. “My door is open for any Republican that wants to put the state first.” U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, also was there Thursday morning and reminded lawmakers that Democrats in the U.S. Senate were able to get just enough Republican votes to pass President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus plan. Interactive: See where the stimulus money is going » “We have to put aside all this ego and put the people of California first,” Boxer said. “The people of California do not deserve the fate they will receive if it is not passed.” Without a new budget, 276 public works projects would have been halted Thursday, an additional 10,000 state workers could have received layoff notices and California might not receive parts of the federal economic stimulus package, lawmakers said. The Republican governor had butted heads for months with the Democratic majority over easing the state’s $11.2 billion revenue shortfall this fiscal year alone. Cuts would save California $750 million for the year. Watch more on California’s budget woes » In Kansas, leaders Wednesday ended a standoff that had delayed tax refunds and state paychecks by agreeing to borrow $225 million from various state accounts, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office said. Republican lawmakers approved moving money into the state’s main account to pay the bills after Gov. Kathleen Sebelius agreed to budget cuts, spokeswoman Brittany Stiffler said. The state resumed processing income tax refunds on Wednesday — they had been suspended last week because of low funds — and state employees’ paychecks will be paid on time Friday, Department of Administration spokesman Gavin Young said. Republicans earlier this week denied the Democratic governor’s request to move the money, saying they could not approve the certificate of indebtedness, also known as internal borrowing, until they knew the state could repay the money by June 30, the end of the fiscal year. However, Republicans said they would be likely to approve the internal borrowing if Sebelius agreed to the Legislature’s proposed budget cuts for the 2009 fiscal year. On Wednesday, she approved about $300 million in budget cuts. “She blinked, and that’s helpful,” Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, a Republican, said Wednesday. Sebelius said, “I’m just sorry we had to have high drama and worry a lot of Kansans about our ability to pay our obligations.” The Kansas Legislature was one of several to meet this week to address budget concerns in a time when 43 states are starting the year short on funds, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“This is an equal-opportunity recession. States in virtually every part of the country are suffering. … Even the energy states are starting to report problems,” Corina Eckl of the National Conference of State Legislatures said. iReport.com: What you’d fix first “For most, it has only gone downhill. They have tried to make up the difference with expanded gambling, with delays of construction projects, with hiring freezes, with fee and tax increases. But almost all of this has failed to regain lost ground, merely serving as a firebreak against worse troubles.” Map: See estimated stimulus benefits by state »

The Quiet American: How the World Sees Obama

At this year’s U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, speaker after Muslim speaker had nothing particularly awful to say about the United States. The Muslims were, in fact, hopeful about, and slightly amazed by, the new American President. Some even wondered aloud what they could do to help him succeed. Anwar Ibrahim, the Malaysian opposition leader, listed the significant gestures that Obama had made toward the Islamic world, from the President’s interview with al-Arabiya television network to the appointment of George Mitchell as Middle East negotiator. Obama had even made reference to “a hadith, which is something not many Islamic leaders do!” Ibrahim added, referring to the sayings of the Prophet that are not included in the Koran. Then Ibrahim went further: “But will the U.S. find credible partners in the Muslim world? … How do we expect the President of the United States to solve our problems when we do nothing?”

It was a rare slash of candor in the annual winter policy-conference festivities — the worthy caravan of world-class bloviation that migrates from the now soiled majesty of the economic wizards at Davos to the Cold War clutch of the Munich Security Conference, to the think-tanky but heartfelt attempts to reach across the cultural chasm at Doha. These conferences were not much fun for Americans during the George W. Bush years, when a solid plurality of the questions began with “How could you” But the U.S. election promised a change, and I attended Munich and Doha this year to find out how the world was reacting to the new Administration. I found the world slightly nonplussed — mildly euphoric, if a bit nervous.

The nerves were rattled by the studied opacity of the official American speakers, who are awaiting the Administration’s policy reviews on Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan before venturing anything interesting. The clearest statement of American intent came from Vice President Joe Biden in Munich, in a speech so important that Biden read it word for word, without Bidenic huzzahs — he didn’t say, for example, “Vladimir Putin, Lord love ‘im!” He did say quietly startling things like “We will listen. We will consult.” And “We will strive to act preventively, not pre-emptively.” And “America will act aggressively against climate change.” He offered an unclenched fist to Iran and a willingness to push “the reset button” with Russia.

This clarion statement of international sanity had a curious effect on its audience: stunned silence, as the assembled Europeans and Russians were confronted with a terrifying new reality. They were out of excuses, especially our NATO allies. If the U.S. was done with thoughtless bellicosity, the peaceable Euros might have to respond more substantively to our requests for them to live up to their pledges in Afghanistan. This seemed the underlying tension in Munich — the split between countries whose troops actually fight in Afghanistan and those whose troops do not. It is a breach to watch, one that could cripple the alliance.

The Catholic Crusade Against a Mythical Abortion Bill

The U.S. Catholic Church’s crusade against the Freedom of Choice Act has all the hallmarks of a well-oiled lobbying campaign. A national postcard campaign is flooding the White House and congressional offices with messages opposing FOCA, and the Catholic bishops have made defeating the abortion rights legislation a top priority. In the most recent effort to stop the bill, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia sent a letter to every member of Congress imploring them to “please oppose FOCA.”

There is only one hitch. Congress isn’t about to pass the Freedom of Choice Act because no such bill has been introduced.

At a time when the United States is gripped by economic uncertainty and faces serious challenges in hot spots around the globe, some American Catholics are finding it both curious and troubling that their church has launched a major campaign against a piece of legislation that doesn’t exist and wouldn’t have much chance of becoming law even if it did. To many critics, it feels like the legislative equivalent of the the Dog That Didn’t Bark.

The campaign against FOCA, which would essentially codify the Roe v. Wade decision by saying the government can’t place limits on abortions performed before viability, began shortly after Barack Obama’s election in November, at the annual general meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops . In a unanimous decision, the bishops voted “to mobilize the resources of the USCCB, dioceses and the entire Catholic community” to oppose the Freedom of Choice Act.

A chain e-mail of unknown origin soon began making its way into Catholic inboxes, warning of an imminent threat to the anti-abortion cause. “For those of you who do not know,” it read, “the Freedom of Choice Act is set to be signed if Congress passes it on January 21-22 of 2009. The FOCA is the next sick chapter in the book of abortion.” The e-mail urged Catholics to say a novena — a devotion of dedicated prayer for nine successive days — beginning on January 11 and ending on Inauguration Day.

When January 22 came and went without a Freedom of Choice Act becoming law, the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities announced a nationwide postcard campaign to blanket congressional offices and the White House with appeals to stop FOCA. Anti-FOCA groups on Facebook soon had more than 150,000 members and added thousands more each day. Priests started preaching against the legislation and churches began circulating petitions to oppose its passage.

In the midst of all this activity, the fact that there was no Freedom of Choice Act before the 111th Congress went largely unnoticed and unmentioned.

A Freedom of Choice Act was first introduced in the 108th and 110th Congresses , by Rep. Jerold Nadler, a New York Democrat. It was developed at a time when the future of Roe was in doubt because it was unclear if George W. Bush would have the opportunity to appoint another justice to the Supreme Court. But FOCA had a hard time gaining traction — even under Democratic control of Congress, the bill was not only never voted on but never made it out of committee. And now abortion rights advocates are breathing easier with Obama in the White House — so much so that when a coalition of 63 organizations sent the Administration its top 15 priorities for reproductive rights and health, FOCA did not even make the list.

Congressional Democrats have also been less than enthusiastic about the proposal. A spokesman for Nadler says that while he expects the legislation will be reintroduced, “it won’t be anytime soon.” Even if FOCA is reintroduced in the current Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has indicated she has no intention of bringing it up for a vote. And even if she did, there are not enough votes in Congress to pass the bill.

In some respects, President Obama only has himself to blame for the current controversy. As a presidential candidate, the then-Senator himself pointed a spotlight on the legislation he co-sponsored when he told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2007 that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.”

But FOCA has also provided ammunition for those on the right who want to paint Obama as “the most pro-abortion president ever.” It’s been less than a month since he took office, but so far the President has given social conservatives little evidence to back up that charge. He did repeal the Mexico City policy banning federal funds to foreign family planning organizations that provide abortion referrals or services — but so did Bill Clinton. At the same time, Obama has directed his Presidential Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to make the issue of abortion reduction one of its top priorities.

Still, FOCA is proving to be the perfect political issue for anti-abortion advocates — and for congressional Republicans, who have taken up the cry as well. Unless and until FOCA is voted on by Congress, they can invoke it as a looming threat. And the longer it remains a dormant issue, the more credit they can take for their own “proactive” efforts to “defeat FOCA,” as a letter from House Republicans to Cardinal Rigali on Tuesday put it.

James Salt, director of organizing for the progressive organization Catholics United, thinks the USCCB has been prodded into focusing on FOCA by misinformation from right-wing groups. “These right-wing organizations are deliberatively misleading people in order to stoke the culture war,” says Salt. “They’re using this as a fundraising tool, as a way to gin up their relevancy. And unfortunately some of these groups have the ear of certain bishops.”

After worried parishioners started contacting Catholics United about the postcard campaign, the group sent out an alert to its supporters telling them that “FOCA is not going anywhere” and urging them to contact their local bishops. “In this time of increasing job layoffs, poverty, and food insecurity across America, we should instead be calling on Catholics to commit increased resources to helping children and families survive the collapsing economy,” read the message.

Some of the USCCB’s own policy staffers are reportedly frustrated by the attention given to FOCA. And a few Catholic officials have even taken the rare step of speaking out to correct misinformation about the issue.

While the USCCB’s literature about FOCA has been generally accurate, the chain e-mail has disseminated a number of false claims, including warnings that the proposal would force Catholic hospitals to shut down and lead to at least 100,000 more abortions each year. Some versions of the e-mail even claimed that FOCA could “result in a future amendment that would force women by law to have abortions in certain situations — and even regulate how many children women are allowed to have.”

In response, Catholic News Service — the official news agency affiliated with the USCCB — ran an article that began, “Internet rumors to the contrary, no Catholic hospital in the United States is in danger of closing because of the Freedom of Choice Act.” Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, told the news agency that the legislation “has never contained anything that would force Catholic hospitals or Catholic personnel to do abortions or to participate in them.” She added, “I don’t believe that FOCA will pass.”

UK woman loses assisted suicide appeal

Debbie Purdy and husband Omar Puente pictured outside the High Court in October 2008.
A British woman who suffers from multiple sclerosis has lost her appeal to clarify Britain’s laws on assisted suicide, a charity working with the woman said Thursday.

But the woman did get a strong hint that anyone who helped her travel to a country where assisted suicide is legal would not be prosecuted. Debbie Purdy, 45, had asked the Court of Appeal to clarify Britain’s laws on assisted suicide — an option she has said she wants if her pain one day becomes unbearable. Under the current laws, Purdy says, it is not clear at which point her husband would be breaking the law if he helped her to travel to an assisted suicide clinic. Purdy was appealing an October ruling by the High Court, which also refused to clarify the laws. Purdy suffers from primary progressive multiple sclerosis, in which symptoms become progressively worse over time. She has said she wants the option to travel abroad to have an assisted death should her condition deteriorate. Under Britain’s current law, Purdy’s husband, Omar Puente, could face 14 years in prison if he accompanies her to a country, such as Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal.

Don’t Miss
MS sufferer challenges suicide ruling

Q&A: Assisted suicide in Britain

Purdy had asked the High Court judges to tell her at what point Puente would be subject to prosecution — whether it would include helping her into a car, sitting with her on the plane to the clinic, or helping her with her bags. In its judgment Thursday, the appeal court did imply Puente would be safe from prosecution. The judges referred to the earlier case of Dan James, a 23-year-old British rugby player who died in an assisted suicide last year. James had been paralyzed from the neck down in a rugby accident. James’ parents, Mark and Julie James, flew with their son to an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland. They faced questions on their return to Britain but were not prosecuted. The court said the decision not to prosecute the Jameses “is illustrative not only of the care with which the issue in these cases would be approached, but also an extremely helpful example of the kind of broad circumstances in which … the ultimate decision would be that a prosecution should not be mounted,” according to an excerpt released by Dignity in Dying, the charity that worked on Purdy’s case. “If the prosecution amounts to an abuse of process, the court will dismiss it,” the court said in its judgment. Purdy said that wording made her feel like she had won her argument, even though she lost the appeal. “I am very grateful for, and respect the ruling of the appeal court,” she said in a statement. “They have done everything they can do to clarify that, given the Dan James judgment, Omar would be unlikely to be prosecuted if he were to accompany me abroad for an assisted death, and we are therefore one step closer to the clarification I need.” Dignity in Dying has said it is important for the British government to distinguish between people who maliciously encourage suicide and those who accompany a loved one abroad to die. Under current law, the 1961 Suicide Act, assisting a suicide is a crime punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. Anyone who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, is liable. Dignity in Dying has said it ultimately wants British law changed to allow the terminally ill the choice of assisted death. To date, no one who has accompanied a loved one to the Swiss clinic Dignitas has been prosecuted, but they have been questioned by police and threatened with prosecution, according to Dignity in Dying. “The courts have done all they can,” said Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying. “They make quite clear that only Parliament has the authority to change the law. If there’s no public interest in prosecuting, there must be a public interest in updating the law to remove doubt.”

Clinton heads to South Korea as missile controversy brews

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton headed for South Korea on Thursday on the third leg of her four-nation tour of Asia.

The visit comes at a time of escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula and after U.S. officials cited evidence that North Korea was gearing up for a launch of a long-range missile. North Korean officials have disputed the claim, saying in the country’s official news agency that Pyongyang was preparing to launch a satellite. But Pyongyang said Thursday that it was ready for an “all-out confrontation” with South Korea, calling President Lee Myung-bak a traitor and accusing him of “frantically inciting hostility” toward North Korea and “kicking up … war hysteria,” North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency said. Seoul called the North’s statement a repeat of past bluster. “It’s seen as an attempt by North Korea to increase uneasiness about security and widen the ideological divide within South Korea,” said Kim Ho-Nyun, a spokesman for the South Korean Unification Ministry.

Don’t Miss
Clinton warns against N. Korean missile launch

Clinton visits Asia to send key message

Bucking tradition, Clinton to head for Asia

AC360 Blog: Hillary Clinton in Asia

Speaking at a news conference with Japanese Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone this week, Clinton warned that a possible North Korean missile launch would be “very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward.” She said the United States is “watching very closely” actions by North Korea. Clinton also said Tuesday that the relationship between the United States and North Korea could improve if North Korea abides by the obligations that it has already entered into, and verifiably and completely eliminates its nuclear program. If that happens, there is “a chance to normalize relations, to enter into a peace treaty rather than an armistice and to expect assistance for the people of North Korea,” she said. Clinton wrapped up her stop in Indonesia on Thursday after meeting with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to “discuss the close and growing partnership with Indonesia and perspectives on common interests in Southeast Asia.”

Clinton left for Asia Sunday on her first overseas trip as secretary of state and is also slated to travel to China. Her trip represents a departure from a diplomatic tradition under which the first overseas trip by the secretary of state in a new administration is to Europe.

Iraqi shoe thrower: Bush’s ‘soulless smile’ set me off

TV reporter Muntadhar al-Zaidi, shown in a file photo, appeared in court to loud applause and cheers.
Muntadher al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist on trial for throwing his shoes last year at then-President George W. Bush, said the former American leader’s "bloodless and soulless smile" and his joking banter provoked him.

Al-Zaidi threw both of his shoes at Bush during a December news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Baghdad. Neither shoe hit the president, and other people in the room quickly knocked al-Zaidi to the ground before security officials arrested him. He explained his actions in an hour-long appearance on Thursday at the Central Criminal Court of Iraq. Asked if anyone pushed or motivated him to do this, al-Zaidi said he was spurred on by the “violations that are committed against the Iraqi people.” “I could only see Bush and feel the blood of the innocents flow under his feet, as he was smiling that smile — as if he had come to bid farewell to Iraq and with the last support and more than 1 million martyrs,” al-Zaidi said. “At that moment, I felt this is the man who killed our nation … the main murderer and the main person responsible for killing our nation.” Watch more on the trial » Speaking in his first public appearance since his arrest two months ago, al-Zaidi told the court he “got emotional and threw the shoe at him” and “the second one was involuntary.” “I had no intention to kill the commander of the occupying forces … even if I had a weapon … I was expressing my inner feelings and those of all the Iraqi people from east to west and north to south and the feelings of hatred they hold for him,” he said. Al-Zaidi told the judge that he had intended to humiliate Bush in the past. As Bush listed the gains made in Iraq during the mid-December news conference, al-Zaidi said he was thinking about the millions of civilians who had been killed, widowed or displaced. He talked about the sanctity of mosques being violated, the rape of women and daily humiliations. “I don’t know what accomplishments he was talking about. The accomplishments I could see were the more than 1 million martyrs and a sea of blood,” al-Zaidi said. “There are more than 5 million Iraqi orphans because of the occupation. … More than a million widows and more than 3 million displaced because of the occupation.” Al-Zaidi also said he was beaten up in front of the prime minister and the world when he was taken from the room where the press conference was held.

Don’t Miss
Shoe-throwing monument removed from Iraqi orphanage

Bush assailant kick-starts sales for shoemaker

Shoe-thrower asks for leniency

CNN Arabic

The trial will resume March 12 while the court asks the Cabinet to clarify whether Bush’s visit was official or not. Al-Zaidi is charged with “assaulting a foreign head of state on an official visit to Iraq.” In December, al-Zaidi’s defense team filed an appeal requesting the charge be changed from “assaulting” to “insulting.” According to the Iraqi penal code, anyone who assaults a foreign head of state is punished by “imprisonment for a term of years,” with the court deciding the sentence. Lawyer Dhiyaa al-Saadi told CNN in December that his client could face 15 years in jail if convicted. Watch more on the incident » On the other hand, insulting a foreign head of state is punishable by a two-year prison sentence and a fine. Dressed in an olive-green suit and black shoes, al-Zaidi entered the courthouse to loud applause and cheers. Some family members and supporters, who were waiting outside, draped an Iraqi flag around his neck. A woman in the crowd shouted, “You hero!” His 6-year-old nephew, Haidar, stood outside the courtroom reciting the poem “Throw the shoe … at the vampire.” As he left, the crowd pressed forward to get close to al-Zaidi, who waved as he was led away. Earlier, lawyer al-Saadi told the al-Baghdadia television network that his client’s “morale is high.” Al-Baghdadia is the journalist’s employer and has been calling for his release.

By tradition, throwing a shoe is the most insulting act in the Arab world. His angry gesture touched a defiant nerve throughout the Arab and Muslim world. He is regarded by many people as a hero, and demonstrators have taken to the streets in the Arab world demanding that he be set free.

Australian fires burn as death toll rises to 208

Forensic teams sift through the remains of a house in Pheasant Creek, north of Melbourne.
The death toll from bushfires in southeastern Australia has risen to 208, the Australian Red Cross said Thursday.

Five fires are still burning across the state of Victoria, a spokeswoman with the Country Fire Authority said. All are contained, but one of the fires spawned a smaller blaze that is actively burning, said the spokeswoman, who asked not to be named, in line with policy. That fire is burning in the area of Narbethong, about an hour north of Melbourne. “Two communities are in that area, we suspect they may be directly impacted by that particular fire,” the spokeswoman said. “Residents in that area are being asked to action their fire plans.” The Red Cross said it has teams in 13 locations across Victoria to help with first aid, food, and personal support. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced a national day of mourning Sunday to honor the victims of the bushfires and recognize the efforts of emergency workers. “This day will give all Australians the chance to reflect and remember this terrible tragedy as an important step in rebuilding these communities,” he said in a statement. The fires have destroyed more than 1,800 homes and displaced about 7,000 people. At the height of the fires, about three dozen separate blazes were burning. A suspect, 39-year-old Brendan Sokaluk, has been arrested on suspicion of setting one of the fatal fires.

Sokaluk is suspected of lighting a fire on February 7. He has been charged with arson causing death, intentionally or recklessly lighting a bush fire, and possessing child pornography, Victoria state police said. The fire Sokaluk is accused of setting killed at least 21 people in Gippsland.

Netanyahu edges towards coalition deal

Netanyahu is thought to be the party leader most likely to form a ruling coalition.
Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu has picked up tentative support that could give him the inside track on forming a coalition government and becoming Israel’s next prime minister.

Avigdor Lieberman of Yisrael Beytenu, a right-wing party, said he would recommend Netanyahu for the post, but only if he promises to form a broad-based coalition government, a spokesman for the Israeli president’s office said Thursday. In last week’s parliamentary elections, no single party won the minimum 61 seats needed to form a government. That means a government of two or more parties is virtually inevitable. The ruling moderate Kadima Party won the most seats in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. But Kadima, led by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, received only one more seat than Netanyahu’s conservative Likud Party. The strong showing of other right-wing parties — including Yisrael Beytenu and the Orthodox Shas movement — is thought to give Netanyahu a better chance of forming a coalition government.

Don’t Miss
Israel centrists maintain lead

Analysis: Mixed message for peace

Full coverage: Israel votes

Israeli President Shimon Peres began consulting with party leaders Wednesday.

Peres has six more days to consult with lawmakers, who will have the opportunity to select a party leader to form the new government. A party leader would need the support of at least 61 Knesset members, which is highly unlikely. Peres probably will have to chose a party leader. To become Israel’s next prime minister, that person must form a coalition within six weeks, or the process will start all over.

Stanford saga prompts run on banks

Customers queue outside the Stanford Group-owned Bank of Antigua in St. John's.
Politicians and banking regulators across Latin American and the Caribbean called for calm Wednesday after panicked investors pulled their money from banks owned by the Stanford Group, whose owner is accused in a multibillion dollar investment and sales fraud scheme.

“This bank does not have any problem, is a healthy financial institution,” Edgar Hernandez Behrens, Venezuela’s superintendent of banks, said of Stanford Bank Venezuela, the state-run ABN news agency reported. An estimated $2.5 billion to $3 billion has been invested in the bank, he said. The bank recorded “extraordinary withdraws” on Tuesday and Wednesday beyond what it can manage, Behrens said, according to ABN. Officials with the Venezuelan Central Bank, the banking superintendent’s office and Stanford Bank huddled on Wednesday to decide how to deal with the problem. A similar scene played out in Antigua, where customers lined up outside Stanford-owned banks to pull their money. The Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday charged financier R. Allen Stanford and three of his companies with orchestrating $9.2 billion in investment and sales fraud. Stanford International Bank, based in Antigua, allegedly acted through a network of Stanford Group Company financial advisers to sell approximately $8 billion of “certificates of deposit” to investors. The SEC also charged SIB chief financial officer James Davis and Laura Pendergest-Holt, chief investment officer of Stanford Financial Group. The third company named in the complaint is investment adviser Stanford Capital Management. SIB’s Web site says its network has $51 billion in deposits and assets under management or advisement, with more than 70,000 clients in 140 countries. In September, Forbes named Stanford No. 205 in its 400 Richest Americans article, saying he was worth more than $2 billion. Stanford has reveled in the high life and sponsored high-stakes cricket matches in the Caribbean. He has citizenship in the United States and Antigua. He was knighted by the Caribbean nation and is known as Sir Allen Stanford. Stanford’s whereabouts are uncertain. CNN made repeated attempts on Wednesday to reach Stanford and his attorneys. There was no response. Some media reports have put him in Antigua, where he has a home, but that couldn’t be confirmed.

British couple, four children in cocaine bust, reports say

Customers queue outside the Stanford Group-owned Bank of Antigua in St. John's.
A British couple has been detained at Margarita Airport in Venezuela after 24 kilograms of cocaine was allegedly found in their luggage, according to press reports.