UK - DAVID CAMERON'S CASH PEERAGES IS 'LOBBY FODDER'

‘King of Bling’ who gave the Tories £300k is made a Lord: ‘Cash for peerages’ row flares again By Daniel Martin Published: 02:04 AEST, 8 August 2014 The row over ‘cash for peerages’ was reignited last night after it emerged a jewellery tycoon who has handed the Tories more than £300,000 is to be made a Lord. Ranbir Singh Suri – last night nicknamed the ‘King of Bling’ by Labour sources – was nominated by David Cameron. The Prime Minister has already handed out 161 peerages in this parliament. The announcement that another political crony is to be handed a peerage will lead to further calls for the controversial system of patronage which persists in this country to be scrapped. About 20 new peers are expected to be announced today, swelling the total to 850, making the House of Lords bigger than at any time since most of the hereditaries were removed in 1999. And it emerged that the expenses bill for the House of Lords has risen by more than £4million since 2010. According to Lords figures, the cost of peers’ allowances has risen from to £21.6million from £17.2million before the 2010 election. The new peers will increase the bill even further. Based on an average expense claim of £28,000, they could add £600,000 to the bill. Constitutional experts warn that the handing of peerages to dozens of political allies and donors is ‘unsustainable’. Paul Flynn, Labour member of the public administration select committee, said: ‘Our legislature is being prostituted; jobs are being given out to the highest donors. ‘The Lords is overcrowded as it is, only two thirds of them can get in.’ ... Last night Alistair Graham, former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said: ‘It is absurd to keep adding to our overblown second chamber through nominations from the PM – particularly as many of the nominees seem to be big donors to the Conservatives. ‘No other second chamber in the Western World is so large. Every democrat should be pressing for a reform of the House of Lords as a matter of urgency.’ While the very idea of parties cramming the Upper House with political appointees is controversial, the idea that donors should be given seats is even more so. EXTRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2719114/Cameron-make-jewellery-tycoon-gave-Tories-312-000-peer-alongside-Karren-Brady-ex-M-S-boss-Stuart-Rose.html

Lords Reform - 1997–2010

The Labour Party included in its 1997 general election Manifesto a commitment to remove the hereditary peerage from the House of Lords. Their subsequent election victory in 1997 under Tony Blair finally heralded the demise of the traditional House of Lords. The Labour Government introduced legislation to expel all hereditary peers from the Upper House ... House of Lords Act 1999 (see below for its provisions), making the House of Lords predominantly an appointed house.

Since 1999 however, no further reform has taken place.

Overcrowding

The size of the House of Lords has varied greatly throughout its history. From about 50 members in the early 1700s, it increased to a record size of 1,330 in October 1999, before Lords reform reduced it to 669 by March 2000.

In April 2011, a cross-party group of former leading politicians, including many senior members of the House of Lords, called on the Prime Minister David Cameron to stop creating new peers. He had created 117 new peers since becoming prime minister in May 2010, a faster rate of elevation than any PM in British history. The expansion occurred while his government had tried (in vain) to reduce the size of the House of Commons by 50 members, from 650 to 600.

In August 2014, despite there being a seating capacity of only approximately 400 seats in the Lords chamber, the House had 828 members (although of these 54 were not entitled to attend or vote, having been suspended or granted leave of absence). This made the House of Lords the largest parliamentary chamber in any democracy and surpassed in size only by China’s National People’s Congress ...  Baroness Boothroyd  ... criticised successive prime ministers for filling the second chamber with “lobby fodder” in an attempt to help their policies become law. She made her remarks days before a new batch of peers were due to be appointed..

Legislative functions

Legislation, with the exception of money bills, may be introduced in either House.

The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month.

Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.

By a custom that prevailed even before the Parliament Acts, the House of Lords is further restrained insofar as financial bills are concerned. The House of Lords may neither originate a bill concerning taxation or Supply (supply of treasury or exchequer funds), nor amend a bill so as to insert a taxation or Supply-related provision. (The House of Commons, however, often waives its privileges and allows the Upper House to make amendments with financial implications.) Moreover, the Upper House may not amend any Supply Bill. The House of Lords formerly maintained the absolute power to reject a bill relating to revenue or Supply, but this power was curtailed by the Parliament Acts, as aforementioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

Democracy at work in feudal UK.

So David Cameron's aim is probably:

1. thanking his political party's benefactors for their support; and
2. getting them on-board as House of Lords lobbyists, when it comes to the Conservatives proposed legislation getting passed.

Sounds like the entire system should be scrapped.

Another point against Cameron.

Need to get my list up and running somewhere prominent.  LOL

EAST UKRAINE INDEPENDENCE SUPPORTERS - YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Novorossia Division Motorolla YouTube Channel for the above. Believe they are East Ukraine independence supporters (or some of them). Link to their videos on YouTube - HERE. *Cannot understand what is said ... but Google Translate's always handy for checking the text.

UKRAINE - WALL STREET & IMF OWNED

❌ G O O G L E SUCKS UKRAINE WHO'S YOUR DADDY? ▼ UKRAINE ❌ G O O G L E SUCKS ▼ ▼  Outrageous Censorship  ▼ GOOGLE SUCKS ❌ From the names of the files, I would say that this was an image of the US military in Ukraine, followed by an image of Petro Poroshenko made up like a painted whore ... along with an image of the Yankee dollar & Poroshenko cupping his lips, calling out something like: "Yoo-hoo, Yankee, love you long time!" Big Finger to the CIA Coup in Ukraine Finger to Poroshenko Finger to Google Censorship ❌ G O O G L E SUCKS

UKRAINE - Pro US Puppet Government Mercenaries Killing East Ukrainian Independence Supporters

UKRAINE AMERICAN MERCENARIES in the 'Donbas Battalion'  Pro Ukraine (US) puppet government Source - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZaT_X_mc0BI-djXOlfhqWQ This is a US foreigner, among mercenaries fighting on Ukraine soil for the US sponsored Ukraine puppet government, killing East Ukranian independence supporters and no doubt East Ukraine citizens -- for Corporate America.

US AUTO INDUSTRY BAIL-OUT - INVERSIONS - HEDGE FUND WINS

SPECIAL REPORT Obama aides let Delphi avoid taxes with 'inversion' tactic now assailed Zachary R. Mider Bloomberg August 6, 2014 - 12:34 am ET WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama says U.S. corporations that adopt foreign addresses to avoid taxes are unpatriotic. His own administration helped one $20 billion American company do just that. As part of the bailout of the auto industry in 2009, Obama's Treasury Department authorized spending $1.7 billion of government funds to get a bankrupt Michigan parts-maker back on its feet -- as a British company. While executives continue to run Delphi Automotive from a Detroit suburb, the paper headquarters in England potentially reduces the company's U.S. tax bill by as much as $110 million a year. The Obama administration's role in aiding Delphi's escape from the U.S. tax system may complicate the president's new campaign against corporate expatriation. ... Thanks to gaps in a Congressional ban on contracts with inverted companies, his administration continues to award more than $1 billion annually in government business to more than a dozen corporate expats. IRS case The Obama administration is now trying to rescind the tax benefits of the Delphi deal that it helped broker. In June, the Internal Revenue Service told Delphi that the 2009 address change should be disregarded for tax purposes, and that Delphi must pay taxes as a U.S. company. Delphi says in a securities filing that it will "vigorously contest" the IRS's demand. "The recent rise in inversion transactions has the IRS and Treasury and the president understandably rattled, so they're now trying to play catch up," said Julie Roin, a tax professor at University of Chicago Law School. "They were worried about other things in 2009." U.S. companies have been inverting for decades. The pace of departures began to quicken about two years ago, as a series of drugmakers sought to become Irish. The issue caught the attention of lawmakers and the Obama administration this year. ... Rescue loans Facing the worst car market in decades, GM and Chrysler were themselves running out of cash. Some officials said they feared an economic catastrophe if the automakers were forced to liquidate and put hundreds of thousands out of work. In December 2008, the outgoing Bush administration approved $17.4 billion in rescue loans for GM and Chrysler. In February, Obama assembled a task force led by Steven Rattner, a Wall Street financier, to oversee the bailout. The Treasury task force had broad authority at the automakers, because the terms of the government loans propping them up gave it veto power over major decisions. One of the team's first jobs was to fix Delphi. GM still depended on its former subsidiary for crucial parts like steering assemblies. A liquidation of the supplier could end up shutting down many of GM's assembly lines, too. But the team members didn't want GM to dump money into Delphi indefinitely. ... Tax-friendly Luxembourg He doesn't mention one detail of the transaction that was disclosed three weeks after the Platinum agreement in a public court filing: Platinum was considering registering the new Delphi in tax-friendly Luxembourg rather than in the U.S. The following month, Platinum took steps to carry out the plan, dispatching lawyers to register two Luxembourg entities. Both bore the name Platinum used for its Delphi project: Parnassus, the mountain in Greece where, according to legend, the oracle of Delphi issued her prophecies. Meanwhile, GM made its own trip through bankruptcy court to shed its debts. On July 10, 2009, it emerged under the formal control of the Treasury Department, which had swapped some of its debt for stock and now held 61 percent of the shares. [So is this like a govt takeover?] ... Platinum out The deal with Platinum soon ran into trouble. Creditors including Elliott Management, the hedge fund run by New York billionaire Paul E. Singer, said Platinum was buying the company too cheap. [Singer's the Argentina vulture hedge fund guy.] So Elliott and another hedge fund, Greenwich, Connecticut-based Silver Point Capital LP, put in their own bid for the company, offering to swap their debt for new shares. On July 26, 2009, they agreed with GM to cut Platinum out of the deal. In some ways, the Elliott deal was similar to the one Rattner's task force approved the previous month. GM would provide crucial financing for the new company -- a $1.7 billion direct investment in its equity, making it a shareholder alongside the hedge funds. GM would also buy the steering business and other assets for about $1.1 billion. All this spending would depend on the Treasury Department's approval. After it emerged from bankruptcy, GM ended up with $16 billion of Treasury Department funds in a special escrow account that could be tapped only with the government's blessing. Another detail remained the same as well: GM and the hedge funds agreed to register the new Delphi in Luxembourg or another, mutually agreeable foreign country. ... Lower corporate taxes Along with Ireland and the Netherlands, the United Kingdom is becoming increasingly popular with companies seeking to flee the U.S. system. In addition to Pfizer, AbbVie Inc., an Illinois drugmaker with a market value of about $85 billion, announced plans last month to become a U.K. taxpayer. The United Kingdom not only has a lower corporate tax rate -- 21 percent -- than the United States, but it taxes companies only on their domestic earnings. U.S. companies must pay taxes on the profits of their foreign operations -- a major hindrance for Delphi, whose factories are spread around the world. Judge Robert Drain, who approved the sale in bankruptcy court, declined to comment. Spokesmen at Elliott and Silver Point also declined to comment, and Mark Barnhill, a partner at Platinum, didn't respond to requests for comment. ... Hedge funds win The Delphi takeover proved to be a huge win for the hedge funds, and for Treasury-controlled GM. Stripped of its debts and its U.S. tax domicile, the company surged in value. GM sold its stake back to Delphi in 2011, recognizing a $1.6 billion after-tax gain. Elliott did even better, according to the New York Post. Singer's fund turned a $300 million investment into $1.3 billion by the time Delphi sold shares to the public that year, the Post reported at the time.  [OMG!!] After Delphi got its New York Stock Exchange listing in 2011, its stock continued to advance. With a market capitalization of about $20 billion, it's now among the biggest and most profitable U.S. corporate expatriates. Going public required Delphi to switch from partnership to corporate form. Becoming a U.K. corporation, though, would have required an accounting change that could have threatened its eligibility for inclusion in the Standard and Poor's 500 Index of the largest U.S. companies. Instead, Delphi incorporated in the tiny English Channel island of Jersey, a self-governing Crown dependency that didn't require the accounting change. ... http://www.autonews.com/article/20140806/OEM10/308069911/obama-aides-let-delphi-avoid-taxes-with-inversion-tactic-now-assailed

Hedge funds always win!

Go to places to dodge tax:

• Luxemburg
• Ireland
• Netherlands
• UK (21% corporate tax + no tax on foreign earnings)
• Jersey Island

The above is only extracts from the article in Autonews.  Go to link for the whole story.

BOOM BOOM BOOM

Mafia 2 O.S.T. Soundtrack  John Lee Hooker Boom Boom Boom SOURCE - M4CFLY - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PtEsabcUV0

US PASSING SNEAKY CYBER SECURITY LAWS TO GIVE NSA MORE POWER ... & NSA STAFF GO PRIVATE

Ex-NSA chief defends his profitable cyber-security business Published time: August 06, 2014 10:05 Edited time: August 06, 2014 12:43 As the marriage between surveillance and non-governmental cyber-security firms comes under the spotlight, former NSA chief Keith Alexander fends off criticism of his new lucrative business, which he claims will revolutionize cyber-security. Alexander, who recently announced work on a number of “game-changing” patents to propel cyber security forward, sees nothing improper in the practice, as he revealed in a Tuesday interview with the AP. The former NSA head also stands to answer why he failed to share some of his groundbreaking ideas in his time as a government employee. But for Alexander, this seems to be a straightforward pursuit of doing business and making a living. ... The business was rumored to be bringing him a cool $1 million a month, but Alexander has brushed off the figure as inflated. Explaining further why IronNet Cybersecurity is different to how the government uses information, Alexander said that the NSA only had authority to defend secret government networks, whereas his work will be focused on the private sector. The tools and technical reach are at this point unknown, but "If it actually works, this will be worth a lot," he said of his new “behavioral model,” which purports to use sophisticated techniques to catch unconventional hackers. Critics see a number of issues with Alexander’s new venture, IronNet Cybersecurity. Apart from the generally disliked idea of government officials cashing in on sensitive information learned and tools retained from public service, people worry that any type of access to sensitive information by private firms using high-tech tools is not good. Only recently there was a private sector initiative to pool top officials from eight US government agencies to create a council that would defend the banking industry from cyber-attacks. Indeed, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIMFA), the Wall Street group that proposed the council, has retained Alexander’s services. That agreement and others have raised concerns among those who’ve said Alexander may be in the business of disclosing state secrets for any company with a budget big enough to afford his services.  [Conflict of interests? - May have moved on from public service, but does it form a 'conflict of interest' type of problem from mixing it up in the private sector?] Last month, The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted overwhelmingly to approve the new controversial cyber security bill – the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), which SIMFA endorses. Privacy advocates are naturally opposed to the legislation, which lawmakers have been trying to push through for years. They believe that codifying a program to share digital data between the government and private sector would open the private sector up to sensitive information pertaining to millions of Americans. One scornful comment illustrating this came from the World Socialist Website’s Thomas Gaist, who says that “CISA clears the way for virtually unrestrained information sharing between the US government and corporations.” The criticism is not unique to rights groups – government officials occasionally also voice concern. ... Although Alexander’s move into private business has caused concern in some circles, he is traveling an already paved road, being the latest in a line of government, intelligence and security officials who go on to private sector work after an illustrious government career. Some examples include the first secretary for homeland security, Tom Ridge – he now has his own firm; the second homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, also has one; just as the NSA’s previous director, Michael Hayden, who now works with Chertoff. ... http://rt.com/usa/178328-nsa-alexander-cyber-security/

The thing that struck me most in this article is the cyber security bill was voted for approval by the 'Senate Select Committee on Intelligence'.

As Thomas Gaist says, the Cyber Security Information Sharing Act (CSIS) exposes the public to 'unrestrained informatin sharing between the US government and corporations'.  That's creepy.

New to looking at politics and unfamiliar with US politics, but I believe the next step is back to the House of Representatives and to Senate, before a finally rubber stamping by Obama and bringing the proposed legislation into being as law.

...........................................................................

Discussion Draft of CSIS proposed Bill - here.

Wikipedia - CSIS proposed Bill - here.

The Guardian - says Senate giving more powers to NSA in secret - here.

Wikipedia on, former NSA head, Keith Alexander - here.  Military background (now retired).  Introduced the 'collect it all' approach:

believed by Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian to be the model for the comprehensive world-wide mass archiving of communications which NSA had become engaged in by 2013.

Note also:  'stockpiling of zero-days'. Not really sure what this means specifically, but it relates to exploiting unpatched (and unknown) software vulnerabilities ... for spying.

Wired reported:

“In almost all instances, for widely used code, it is in the national interest to eliminate software vulnerabilities rather than to use them for US intelligence collection,” the report reads. “Eliminating the vulnerabilities–’patching’ them–strengthens the security of U.S. Government, critical infrastructure, and other computer systems.”

Obama’s response to his advisers’ review, however, added a major loophole, allowing any zero-day vulnerabilities to be exploited if they have a “clear national security or law enforcement” application.

.. read the article - here - if interested.

Hey, following the Wired link, found this:

This, of course, gives the government wide latitude to remain silent on critical flaws like the recent Heartbleed vulnerability if the NSA, FBI, or other government agencies can justify their exploitation.

A so-called zero-day vulnerability is one that’s unknown to the software vendor and for which no patch therefore exists. The U.S. has long wielded zero-day exploits for espionage and sabotage purposes, but has never publicly stated its policy on their use. Stuxnet, a digital weapon used by the U.S. and Israel to attack Iran’s uranium enrichment program, used five zero-day exploits to spread.

The stuff about US and Israel hacking(?) Iran is pretty interesting.  Why doesn't Iran hack right back?

Anyway, I'm not sure what the fuss is about because it stands to reason that they'd use ANYTHING they can to their advantage.  Why is this surprising?