The wife of South Africa's intelligence minister has been arrested on drug-dealing charges. Sheryl Cwele, the 50-year-old wife of Siyabonga Cwele, appeared in court charged with conspiring to bring cocaine into the country.
So the wife of the intel minister is smuggling drugs, and he had 'no knowledge' of it. Brilliant, brilliant for an intel chief ...
Mrs Cwele was charged with procuring a woman to collect drugs in Turkey and of getting another woman to smuggle cocaine from Brazil. She remains in custody until her bail application is heard in a week.
Mrs Cwele is facing the charges with Frank Nabolis, a Nigerian national arrested in South Africa in December.
She said told local media she was innocent.
"Pure as the driven, um, snow ..."
Sheryl Cwele's arrest followed that of Tessa Beetge, a South African woman arrested in Brazil in 2008 9.2kg (22lb) of cocaine inside her luggage. Beetge was sentenced to eight years in prison.
Newspaper reports linked Mrs Cwele to Beetge, before she took leave in December from her job as director for health and community services at the Hibiscus Coast Municipality. She returned to work on Thursday, and was arrested at her office on Friday before appearing at Pietermaritzburg High Court.
The National Prosecuting Authority in South Africa said Mrs Cwele faced one count of dealing in dangerous dependency-producing drugs and two counts of incitement to dealing in dangerous dependency-producing drugs, dating back to May and June 2008.
Her husband told a local newspaper he had no knowledge of his wife's alleged drug dealings.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If your giving thought to a possible trial and penalty phase, think of former Mayor Marion Barry. Add on paid leave from the Hibiscus Municipality and a return to business as usual.
#3
The Law
The maximum penalty for drug dealing in South Africa is 25 years. (Since the commencement of the Act nobody in reported cases has been sentenced to 25 years.) The maximum penalty for the possession of drugs is 15 years in prison. Both of these can be coupled with an unlimited fine. Section 7 of the Act dealing with the Prevention of Organised Crime, Act 121 of 1998, makes provision for an obligation to report information regarding the proceeds of crime
Posted by: Uloluter Darling of the Munchkins5034 ||
01/30/2010 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
'Community Services' and 'Name That Party', South African style.
Her husband WAS Minister of Intelligence, promoted to Minister for State Security, '09. So many oxymorons, does 'She returned to work' qualify?
The vice president produced four fresh Bidenisms in a post-State of the Union interview with NBC's Today Show this week.
"Well, you know, look, that's the reason he ran for president, to separate the future from the past."--Explaining to NBC's Meredith Vieira how President Barack Obama hopes to change the culture of Washington, Jan. 28, 2010
"Well, I say, they're going to start to see unemployment grow this spring."--Telling Vieira what jobless Americans can expect in the new year, Jan. 28, 2010
"Had we won that race, what would people be saying? It wouldn't have changed materially one way or another the state of the nation had we won or lost that race. We'd still have 59 votes." --Offering a sunny perspective on the Democratic defeat in the Massachusetts special Senate election and the loss of the party's critical 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Jan. 28, 2010
"A-plus, but then again I'm prejudiced. Let me step back--at least an A [laughter]."--Grading Obama's first State of the Union address with unique Biden-esque charm, Jan. 28, 2010
State Controller John Chiang issued a stern warning Friday about California's cash reserves, telling legislative leaders and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger they must act on nearly $9 billion in budget cuts the governor is seeking by March -- or the state will run out of cash to pay its bills.
Without making those cuts -- which Chiang says will pump $1.3 billion into the state's checking account -- California would be broke by April 1, no fooling.
The state wouldn't climb back to what's considered a safe level of cash on hand, $2.5 billion, until later that month, when tax revenues are expected to begin flowing into Sacramento.
"While our current cash condition is marginally better than it was one year ago," Chiang wrote to leaders, "it is still precarious."
Even with the budget cuts, the state's cash reserve would still be far below that cushion in March and April.
To that end, Chiang is calling for an additional $2 billion in cash-flow "solutions." Looking at previous cash crunches, that could mean some payments, like income tax refunds, would be delayed for a few weeks to keep the cushion intact.
"Call it overdraft insurance," said H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the state Finance Department. He stressed that officials are still huddling over specific solutions.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11134 views]
Top|| File under:
The State issued 450,000 IOUs worth $2.6 billion between July 2 and Sept. 4, 2009 when the IOUs matured. Please note that IOUs stopped accruing interest after Sept. 4.
California Democrats this week resurrected a $200 billion-a-year state-based single-payer health insurance bill. It calls for merging the state's public and private health insurance systems into a single California-run agency. All Californians would be eligible for insurance coverage with the poor receiving subsidized benefits.
The bill does not spell out how California would pay for a program that would cost more than twice the state's $85 billion general fund. That would be left up to an appointed panel and ultimately, voters.
"What my Republican colleagues don't want you to know is that there is absolutely no cost to the general fund from this bill," Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco said. "The bill states very clearly that there will be no implementation until there is a determination of sufficient independent funding."
#4
"'What my Republican colleagues don't want you to know is that there is absolutely no cost to the general fund from this bill,' Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco said."
And then he had trouble getting his nose out the door....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/30/2010 19:13 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Reading the article from payy's link, it seems the D's still don't have a clue about how they got in the budget mess; by subsidies. And this bill would continue down that same road.
Hope the CA-Burgers are making plans to haul ass when the state defaults. Or enough ammo to protect what you got stashed.
Slamdunk by Realclearpolitics!
There's been a remarkable amount of coverage of President Obama's appearance at the House Republican retreat today, but I haven't seen anyone focus on the President's rather stunning admission about the Democrats' health care legislation (Video):
The last thing I will say, though -- let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we've presented -- and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge. [emphasis added]
If we take this statement at face value, President Obama is admitting the the health care bills passed by either the House or Senate (or both) contained provisions which were "snuck in" - presumably by Democratic members and perhaps on behalf of certain lobbyists - that would have in fact prevented people from keeping their current insurance and/or choosing the doctor they want.
This was one of the core debates on health care throughout last year: Would President Obama and the Democrats' legislation allow government to come between citizens and their choice of doctors and insurers? Obama promised it wouldn't. Republicans said it would, and this was one of the aspects of the legislation that led them to characterize it as a government takeover of health care - the same characterization that Obama chastized the GOP for today.
So it's a bit of shock to find out now - from the President himself, no less - that one or both of the bills that passed Congress late last year (the House passed its version in late November, the Senate on Christmas Eve Day) contained language that would have violated this pledge.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/30/2010 13:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Note that the inverse of this has never been well discussed and is just as important.
if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor i
But what about some one (gov't) getting between my insurance company and me? IE right now I have a certain coverage for a certain price, my understanding of this was that gov't would gain many powers over what the insurance company would be able to offer me and at what price. That's as big a problem as telling me what I have to have and from whom I have to get it.
We need to a) get malpractice reform b) get cross state lines insurance and c) allow virtually any coverage combination in a policy.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a policy that only covers things I want to be covered for, rather than the buffet mandated by gov't? e.g. latest requirements for mental health coverage.
Blaming others as usual. That got old a loooong time ago, Bambi.
"Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a policy that only covers things I want to be covered for, rather than the buffet mandated by gov't?"
Or pregnancy coverage for those of us who definitely can't get pregnant (and can prove it).
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/30/2010 15:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
My insurance goes so kids can get pregnant, while their insurance premiums pay for my old-age meds. That's insurance, and it's both good news and bad news, now that i think of it...
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/30/2010 15:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
True Bobby, but, it's dishonest in either case.
That's one of the biggest things driving the Tea Party movement and Scott Brown's election.
#6
Oh, the things you learn when TOTUS isn't around to control the agenda.
Is it me, or didn't he seem to be more arrogant than usual during the questioning and answering by the 'Pubs, yesterday??
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
01/30/2010 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Judging by the slobbering reaction from my friends way out on the far left wing I'd say he was more arrogant than normal and that it had the intended effect on the intended audience.
You saw the same video, but not through the same filter. Your filter is based on reality, their filter is variable and always returns what they want to see or believe.
To paraphrase an old saying: "You can't fix Liberal!".
Posted by: Herman Slusoter6686 ||
01/30/2010 21:41 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Consider it part of Nancy's stimulus package. She's only thinking of the little people. Purchases for the CODEL included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Baileys Irish Crème, Makers Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.
Partay! Where da hos?
Posted by: ed ||
01/30/2010 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wine, eh? I thought San Fran Nan had her own vineyard. You would think she could BYOB for that instead. (I wonder if she drinks her own product, or does Chateau Botox go straight into boxes and Two Buck Chuck?)
#3
The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This is because the vice president can hardly be considered a disinterested partyif his or her boss is forced out of office he or she is next in line for the top job!
What are High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of high crimes and misdemeanors is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord. Several impeachment cases have confused political animosity with genuine crimes. Since Congress, the vortex of partisanship, is responsible for indicting, trying, and convicting public officials, it is necessary for the legislative branch to temporarily cast aside its factional nature and adopt a judicial role.
#6
Yes, she ahs her own vineyard, and that is where she primarily lives...in Napa. That's why her people say it is easier for her to fly in and out of Travis than SFO...she is only 15 minutes from Travis but and hour and a half from SFO. Hmmmmm, aren't you supposed to live in the district you represent?
#1
Flailing about in search of a shiny object with which to distract the rubes. Not a bad plan if you're Obama, after all doing exactly that carried him all the way to the White House. He's no reason to believe it won't work again.
#3
from the same guy, who when speaking last week in Elyria Ohio, said "here in Michigan". A complete moron
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/30/2010 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's a damn shame, but I think its the minority of this country that follows these day-to-day political issues.
I'd say BHO is pandering to the 'dumbed-down' ignorant majority he is appealing to, thus his 'I'm cool' popularity.
We see what goes on, but the majority seem oblivious, especially since BHO owns the MSM that feeds (or with-holds) his BS.
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
01/30/2010 14:40 Comments ||
Top||
#5
the article almost reads like an op-ed from The Onion.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) raised an impressive $2 million in the fourth fundraising quarter, but spent $2.1 million -- even more money than he brought in -- much of it on campaign advertisements designed to improve his profile.
With all that spending, Reid begins the new year with $8.7 million in his campaign account -- a formidable sum, but less money than he banked last September. And the ads have not improved his low popularity back home, with a new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll showing his approval rating down to 36 percent.
Reid still holds a substantial financial edge over his leading Republican opponents. Former state party chairwoman Sue Lowden raised the most money ($800,000) on the Republican side last quarter.
Banker John Chachas, who loaned his campaign $1.3 million, has the most cash-on-hand of all the Republican candidates, with $1.7 million in the bank.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
After all, what's the fun of having a lot of money if ya don't spend it?
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/30/2010 8:59 Comments ||
Top||
#3
took in 2 spent 2.1? Seems runs his campaign the way he runs congress. I'm glad that his campaign doesn't have access to the treasury. (yeah, right)
You have asked Firefox to connect
securely to opensecrets.org, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure.
Normally, when you try to connect securely,
sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are
going to the right place. However, this site's identity can't be verified.
What Should I Do?
If you usually connect to
this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is
trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn't continue.
#7
opensecrets.org is safe. I use them during elections to who funds the candidates.
I just connected using both http:/ and https:/ w/o any warnings. Firefox 3.6.
Posted by: ed ||
01/30/2010 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Reid will probably try to sell this as part of his plan to stimulate the economy. I don't think there is enough money to get him re-elected. The people are on to him.
#9
All that $15Mil he raised in '09 is a result of the 'power' he has as senate leader. He is unlikeable and arrogant, and all that $$ isn't going to change that. The only way he wins is 'cheating' or a scandal against his opponent (a-la 2004 Illinois senate election)
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
01/30/2010 13:55 Comments ||
Top||
Having given himself "a good, solid B-plus" for his first year in office and declaring he would "rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president," President Obama has a lot of people, even in his own party, wondering what on earth constitutes a good performance to his way of thinking.
Jimmy Carter is the only president in over a century who failed to win re-election after taking over from the other party. That presidents usually get re-elected is of little solace to Democrats bracing for losses that could be comparable to the epic midterm election defeats of 1958, 1974, 1982, 1994, and 2006.
Congressional Democrats are hardly blameless on this, but it is the president who sets the agenda and largely runs the show. After his historic election to the presidency, Obama had a lot of political capital. But by opting to push a deeply flawed and insufficiently robust economic stimulus package, one that failed to keep unemployment from rising far higher than the administration expected, Obama committed his first presidential sin. Some observers argue that the $787 billion stimulus package was the biggest the president thought he could get. A far more persuasive argument is that he wanted to save his political capital for causes nearer and dearer to his heart. Making matters worse, the legislation lost credibility because Obama let the stimulus become a Christmas tree for all kinds of pet Democratic projects. Instead of being seen as a much-needed economic shot-in-the-arm, the package was widely viewed as wasteful spending.
The second presidential sin: Instead of immediately pivoting back to the economy when unemployment proved to be worse than anticipated, Obama plowed ahead with health care reform, all but yelling, "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" That enraged voters still more.
The third presidential sin was failure to appreciate the intensely negative public reaction to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, initiated in the waning months of the Bush administration and carried through under Obama, and to the various bailouts and takeovers. In my judgment, these rescue operations were essential because our financial system was teetering on the verge of collapse. But many voters were horrified that the role and reach of government were suddenly expanding exponentially and deficits were skyrocketing. That response -- combined with negative reactions to Democrats' handling of the stimulus, health care, and climate change -- triggered a revolt even among many Americans not already up in arms over the failure to pay more attention to jobs.
Because of his trio of sins, Obama's job-approval ratings dropped more in his first year than those of any other president in recent times. With each of these sins, many congressional Democrats were at least enablers and often willing co-conspirators. Obama may have led them off a cliff, but they seemed determined to go along.
Now Democrats' hold on the House is increasingly precarious. Technically, not enough Democratic seats are in extreme jeopardy for analysts to conclude that the party will lose the chamber. But if Democrats stay on their current downward trajectory, their majority will be history. The retirements that are likely to result from almost any deterioration in the House Democrats' current situation would reduce their chances of maintaining control to 50-50.
In the Senate, the Democrats' 60-seat supermajority is only a memory, of course. And the open Democratic seats in Delaware and North Dakota are now hopeless. Five other Democratic seats are in grave danger: Roland Burris's open seat in Illinois and those of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Unless the political environment changes enormously, Democrats probably can't salvage more than one of the five -- if that. Likewise, Democrats will be lucky to pick up even one of the open Republican seats in Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio. So, a year from now, Democrats could be down to 52 to 54 seats.
Looking further ahead, Senate Democrats will have a combined total of 43 seats at risk in 2012 and 2014, some held by incumbents who barely squeaked into office in the 2006 and 2008 banner elections for Democrats. Republicans, meanwhile, will have to defend only 22 seats, all held by survivors of what for the GOP were elections from hell. All of this means that the odds of a Republican Senate majority in the relatively near future are very high.
Does all this sound like a political landscape shaped by a "B-plus" Democratic president? Perhaps Obama should reconsider his grading system -- or his priorities.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"he would 'rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president'"
Here's a clue, Bambi.
You're going to be a mediocre one-term president.
Even Cahtah will look good compared to you.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/30/2010 0:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
FOX NEWS AM > "GLENN BECK" Show segment > As the DemoLeft has a clear formal SUPER-MAJORITY in the US SENATE, GELNN-MAN'S MATH > says that. contrary to DEM + MEDIA RHETORIC, the GOP cannot stop OBAMACARE, etc. given their aforesame Supermajority [GOP don't matter in terms of Senate seat numbers] + DEM MAJORITY IN HOUSE.
IOW, BECK > Its NOT the REPUBS that are truly stopping or obstructing OBAMA becuz of their basic lack of numbers in curr Congress, BUT RATHER ITS ELECTION-HAPPY/MINDFUL SCARED DEMOCRATS WHOSE STATE-LOCAL CONSTITUENTS ARE IN TURN SCARED OR SERIOUSLY DISLIKE OBAMA'S LEGISLATION.
#3
OOOOOOPSIES, forgot to add GLENN BECK > PRO-DEMOCRAT + INDEPENDENT OR MODERATE-CENTRIST mainstream Americans dislike what they believe is an attempt by POTUS Bammer + Congressional Dems to impose SOCIALIST-STYLE, OVERWHELMING US GOVT. CONTROL OER THEIR PRIVATE HEALTH CARE + ALL THINGS AMERICANA + FREE MARKET.
#6
Because of his trio of sins, Obama's job-approval ratings dropped more in his first year than those of any other president in recent times. With each of these sins, many congressional Democrats were at least enablers and often willing co-conspirators. Obama may have led them off a cliff, but they seemed determined to go along.
Well if Barry suggested you all go out and buy a TOYOTA, knowing what you know now, would you ?
The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt. Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.
The IPCC's report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.
Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.'
Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: That's ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn't in the public sphere.'
However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: I don't have anything to add on glaciers.'
The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change.
Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as voodoo science'.
Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350.
Mr Pallava interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week for Science and asked him why he had decided to overlook the error before the Copenhagen summit. In the taped interview, Mr Pallava asked: I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?'
Dr Pachauri replied: Not at all, not at all. As it happens, we were all terribly preoccupied with a lot of events. We were working round the clock with several things that had to be done in Copenhagen. It was only when the story broke, I think in December, we decided to, well, early this month as a matter of fact, I can give you the exact dates early in January that we decided to go into it and we moved very fast.
And within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never and I can say this categorically ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.'
Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
State Controller John Chiang issued a stern warning Friday about California's cash reserves, telling legislative leaders and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger they must act on nearly $9 billion in budget cuts the governor is seeking by March -- or the state will run out of cash to pay its bills.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) raised an impressive $2 million in the fourth fundraising quarter, but spent $2.1 million -- even more money than he brought in -- much of it on campaign advertisements designed to improve his profile.
