Monthly Archives: November 2012

In case you have not heard


It is more or less all happening here in Australia. The revelations regarding the AWU scandal have continued.

The SubPrime has in fact misled the Parliament, although she has tried to be careful about making admissions that could totally do her in.

The creature is so angry at Tony Abbott, the Opposition leader, and Julie Bishop the Deputy Opposition leader, yesterday she exclaimed that Tony Abbott must ask the question and she will answer… Yeah right… If Tony was asking the question then the bitch would do another of her screaming banshee rants like the one that she did on misogyny as a means of deflecting from the truth.

To put you in the picture, last week, one of the three involved in a variety of scams returned to Australia where he has been living in order to give a statement to the Victorian police. There were three statements involved. One of the issues being investigated is what is known as a Specific Power of Attorney. It was backdated, and the witness to the signature was not present at the time, but it was signed in front of the beneficiary of the PoA.  There is reason to believe that a crime was committed.

In regard to another matter, that of the AWU – Workers’ Reform Association Inc, there is now sufficient evidence to show that the SubPrime deliberately misled the W.A. Commissioner who is in charge of incorporating Associations. There are several things wrong with the way in which it was incorporated, including it seems the real purpose of the entity. It was used to siphon funds from a construction company by the name of Thiess, who was the vehicle for what is known as BCITF – this was to be funding for workplace training. It was an illegal association in more ways than one, and several hundred thousands were siphoned in this way.

There is a third matter that has not had a lot of air – the Widows and Orphans fund belonging to the miners in Boulder West Australia. It was the SubPrime who used her position as a lawyer working for the law firm involved, who reassured the miners who were being made redundant that the money would be safe with her married lover Bruce Wilson. The money disappeared, however, some money was spent on the purchase of the Kilbarri units.

On top of this, another matter involving Bruce Wilson has arisen. This one is extremely serious, because he had a case of gelignite and starters which he told the union people to use to blow up a smelter. The union people on the site refused to do what he told them. Instead the got rid of the gelignite and hit the other material. The W.A. police are very interested in this story.

Bruce Wilson surfaced at the weekend. Predictably he supported the PM proclaiming her innocence. He was interviewed by someone on the ABC (yep as bad as yours and the BBC), and he inadvertantly helped the case against Gillard. As a result, Nick Styant-Browne, has unredacted some more of the exit interview and it contained the admissions over the setting up of the AWU-WRA.

One of the many issues brought up has been: who were the clients. She claims that her clients were Blewitt and Wilson, but the truth is that the client was the AWU.

There is more of that brown stuff to hit the fan. There are so many people involved in this story who are now in the Parliament, that it is driving the rest of us crazy. These people also have something to hide and they have been unwilling to do the right thing.

We continue to be in a stalemate situation and we are stuck with the worst PM in the history of Australia, as well as a government that is wasteful and making promises that cannot be kept.

Back to the Future – the Profumo Affair


Legal Insurrection has up an interesting post, and I am grateful to Joel because he zapped the old memory banks :). I am actually old enough to remember the headlines about the Profumo Affair in Great Britain. It was all about a call girl by the name of Christine Keeler. If my memory serves me correctly there was another woman involved in the scandal as well.

John Profumo was a Minister in the Harold MacMillan government in Great Britain. He had a pillow friend by the name of Christine Keeler, who was a call girl, and who in turn had a pillow friend who was the naval attache at the Russian embassy. When the affair came to light, and it was believed that Profumo could have been compomised, Profumo swore to the Prime Minister in private and then to the Parliament that he was not involved in an affair. A few months later he had to recant his story. The fallout from this scandal was in fact the end of the MacMillan government, and I think that is when probably one of the worst of the British Prime Ministers (Harold Wilson) came to power.

What has this got to do with the Petreus scandal? I actually think that the outcome of that previous scandal has a lot to do with the outcomes in the Petreus scandal. What was paramount in the criticism of MacMillan and of John Profumo was the fact that the affair could have subjected Profumo to blackmail by third parties who were seeking State secrets. Great Britain has a lot of these spy scandals including one associated with a man called Philby. Here in Australia there have also been some spy scandals including one that involved a Minister in the Whitlam Government in the 1970s (the son of the man at the centre of that scandal hotly denies that what was claimed, and I might add the report came from ASIO, was a lie. He is wrong, the source is impeccable).

Sex scandals involving people in postions such as head of the CIA, head of the Defense Department, Minister of the Crown, Prime Minister, President etc. always have the potential for blackmail. To this I add that even people who are closet gays, such as Lindsay Graham, face blackmail because of their refusal to acknowledge themselves and come out of the closet. It is simply a fact of life, that if you do something that can bring shame, and you think you can hide that action, there will always be someone who knows about it, and is willing to tell others, if you do not do as they say.  This is what I think actually happened to David Petreus in the days immediately after the Benghazi debacle.

Is it possible that the White House did not know about the affair? I think it is next to impossible that the Administration, including Obama or maybe Valerie Jarrett did not know about the affair. Why else would David Petreus have gone along with the crap that was coming out of the White House? David Petreus knew what took place. He knew it was a terror attack, and yet he told that first enquiry the line about a spontaneous protest.

The fuss that was made about the break-in at the Watergate hotel went world wide. Yes I remember bits and pieces of that debacle because it was widely reported in Australian newspapers. Of course it was widely reported because it involved a Republican President. No one in the MSM reported on the John Kennedy affairs when he was President, but those affairs were equally compromising and could have exposed Kennedy to blackmail as well. Not a word was leaked until after President Kennedy was assassinated. The fairytale of the Kennedy Camelot had remained in place for more than 30 years before the real stories were being told. Kennedy was in fact a compromised President.  All the same, the cover-up initiated by Richard Nixon was the thing that was his undoing.

So how should we be viewing this David Petreus affair? Frankly, it is not the sexual aspect of this whole affair that really matters, it is the backgrounds of the players. I have already stated that I am concerned about the other woman and her access to American Generals because that woman is a Lebanese-American. What is her family background? How did she gain so much access to so many generals? What is the possibility that she ended up with information that could have compromised any number of missions in the Middle East, or that she turned over that information to people associated with not just with Al Qaeda, but people who are anti-American? Is she another Valerie Plame?

Jill Kelley snags another General


This part of the story is still developing. The news is that Jill Kelley had correspondence with General Allen, the current commander in Afghanistan.

Jill Kelley is Lebanese-American. This is something that rings my alarm bells. You might wonder why my alarm bells would be going off like that so I will try to explain.

Several years ago when attending Bible Study I came across a really wonderful couple. He was from Lebanon, and she was a Palestinian Christian from Israel. They explained some of the horrors that they faced in the Middle East. Did you know that Christians can be arrested if they carry their own personal Bible going into a Muslim country? Yes, in Saudi Arabia for example Christians are arrested if they are found to possess a Bible. What I did learn is that life can be very tough.

However, I have also learned a few other things, such as the fact that Lebanese Christians, and yes even Syrian Christians have often sided with Muslims against Israel. If you are taking any notice of the civil war in Syria, then you should have observed that the Islamists have been threatening the Christians. It sounds like the same old thing from the Muslims, but I suggest that you need to look a little bit more closely at why Christians are under threat – it is because those same Christians are supporting the Shia Alawite tribe in their dominance of the majority Sunni. In my book that sounds like a very good reason to threaten the Christians during a time of Civil War.

Now back to Jill Kelley. Lebanon remains an unstable country and it is quite natural that many Lebanese fled their homeland coming to Australia and the USA as their favoured destination. This is how Jill’s family ended up in the USA. Think about that for a moment. They have ties to the unrest in the Middle East.

Jill Kelley is in the habit of befriending people at the base in Florida, in particular the Generals who end up leading the troops in Afghanistan. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that she has perhaps been doing a little bit of information gathering? What if Paula Broadwell actually found out about what Jill was doing, and it had nothing to do with a love interest?

I am putting this question out there, not because of any conspiracy theory, but because I believe that something is not right about this whole story, especially when it has now ensared another general.

Blackmail


I am being very bold with the heading because the subject is David Petreus and his alleged affair with Paula Broadwell. I am not about to cast any form of judgement on Petreus, because what he did was rather stupid. A lot of men fall for very pretty women, and Paula is a very attractive woman. I do think that there are underlying issues. The posts at HotAir are somewhat amusing with all of their suggestions – some of the suggestions might be accurate, but the writers are really struggling when coming to terms with the whole scandal.

I am going to comment upon a portion of the latest revelations first because I think that this will lead to something else, and certainly might support my own thoughts as to the timing of the revelation of the affair to the public. This revelation was about a speech given by Jill Broadwell, where she talked about the Libyans that had been held captive and were handed over to the Libyan government. In all of the things that I had read about the terror attack at Benghazi, I do in fact recall the CIA agents making a comment about handing over some Libyan prisoners and they were not happy in having to hand them over. This was public knowledge. In a post today, HotAir made a comment about the same thing, concerning the prisoners. However, the writer at HotAir is making some interesting speculations, and I am not certain that this is the case.  I will say this, when I first saw mention of the Libyan prisoners, I thought that they had been captured during the terror attack… perhaps I was being dumb!!

There seems to be a lot of intrigue in this story. First of all Paula Broadwell is an Intelligence Officer, and she has access to classified material, even if it does not come directly from David Petreus. The story that has been circulating is that Broadwell was having a cat fight with the other woman (who was not involved romantically with Petreus) and had warned her off. The person who has lawyered up is not Paula Broadwell but this other woman. Why? Hmmm…. perhaps it is because she is an American born Lebanese woman!!  Do you think that should ring alarm bells? I am going to assume that her family is Christian Lebanese. I am not going to infer anything about her family background… but let’s face it, a background check via the CIA might be worthwhile. Anyway, Jill Kelley’s relationship with Petreus is interesting because Jill was the one who more or less initiated the friendship… there might be nothing but I keep thinking about the Lebanese background.

Moving on from this tidbit of information is the next tidbit where it turns out that the email sent to Jill Kelley from Paula Broadwell was pretty much harmless. It would barely rate a mention on the richter scale when it comes to threats. However, Kelley talked with a friend who was an FBI agent and told him about the email that she received. He was the one who initiated the investigation. He was the agent who informed Eric Cantor about the matter. As another interesting twist, it seems that this man sent pictures to Jill Kelley of himself topless!! Oh the twists and the turns… but is such information in any way relevant about David Petreus resigning?

Like a lot of other people, I find the timing of the resignation to be questionable. The wording of the announcement from David Petreus is quite intriguing. He has gone on record admitting to the affair and he did this a week before having to go to Congress to testify about what took place in Washington at the time of the attack in Benghazi. I think that there is no such thing as coincidence.

Something else to consider here is that there is no real way that the FBI could be allowed to investigate the head of the CIA without permission from a higher authority. We have no idea as to when people had knowledge of the affair, but like some others I do believe that this affair started when Petreus was in Afghanistan and that it was known. I am going to suggest here that it was known at the highest levels and that it was part of a dirt file, to be used if and when necessary to assert pressure upon Petreus to keep his  mouth shut.

David Petreus is on record as stating that no one in the CIA gave any orders to stand down and to not assist those who were being attacked. That means any such order came from someone else. The only person who can countermand David Petreus is the POTUS. He is the only one who can give such an order. When David Petreus first appeared to give evidence about the attack he went along with the video demonstration story but he was not under oath. This is the point, because this time, whoever gives testimony will be under oath, and he or she must tell the truth about what took place, or face the consequences.

Here then is a possible scenario: David Petreus knows the truth. Prior to the election he was being blackmailed into telling the bogus story about a demonstration against a video (the demonstration did not happen in Benghazi).  It is highly likely that was being held over the head of Petreus was the knowledge of this affair.  The POTUS wanted Petreus to keep up the lie when he was being questioned by Congress again, but this time Petreus was saying NO. Perhaps there were words between the two men, but in the end Petreus resigned rather than lie to Congress.

This still leaves the matter of Jill Kelley.  (to be continued at some future date)

Carlyle you were right – the Election was stolen.


All things considered, especially when the enthusiasm was for the Republicans and Mitt Romney, it is hard to comprehend that Obama won the Presidential Election in 2012. Was it a better ground game? Nope. Everything I had been reading pointed to a Romney win. The number of registered Democrats was down, the number of registered Republicans was up.  The win itself looks like it was a plausible legitimate win, except that so many cases of election fraud have been registered in various ways. From the late surge towards Obama in Ohio, to the gradual win in Florida (because the judge threw out Alan West’s challenge), to the obvious fraud in Pennsylvania, to the fact that people were bused to Wisconsin from Chicago, right down to the voting machines that were flipping to Obama when people were voting for Romney, all of those things add up to massive election fraud.

Here is a partial list of how Republicans were cheated out of a win:

1. Wisconsin – it has been reported that in at least one location bus loads of Democrats turned up on the day and registered themselves to vote. They did not have id, could barely remember the address on the utility bills that they were presenting as proof of address. These Democrats came from Chicago and they were not exactly quiet about the fact.

2. Nevada – one woman was arrested for attempting to vote more than once. She was allegedly a Republican. This made the news. What did not make the news was the fraudulent vote machines. If I read more on Nevada and machines flipping the vote, then I will write about it.

3. North Carolia – this happened in 2010 where machines flipped from the Republican choice to Democrat. I do not think the machines were fixed.

4. Pennsylvania – several Republican election officials were kicked out of the polling station by the Democrats. They were reinstated on a judge’s order, however there was enough time for shenanigans. In every one of those polling places Obama got 100% of the vote. The Republican officials had no way of knowing exactly what took place when they were not present.

5. Ohio – the first whiff of fraud came when Democrats were busing in people who likely did not have the right to vote – the Somali population – on top of that they used interpreters who showed them how to vote Democrat down the ticket. This is illegal. There were reports of machines flipping from Romney to Obama. Then there is the massive swing in Cleveland. It was massive enough to swing the state. I am calling bullshit on that late swing. This happened at a point where ballot stuffing was most likely at the end of the night when Obama was still behind. That swing in Cleveland was sufficient for Obama to win the state. If you look at the map though, you will see that most of Ohio was Red, not Blue.

6. Michigan – yes, there is probably a good reason to be suspicious about machines flipping.

On top of these examples, I think there are other instances where there was fraud. Once again the military were denied the right to vote. The ballots did not arrive on time. How convenient. Then there were those who reported machines that were not functioning so they used paper ballots that were placed in a trash bag!!

Whilst I am only giving an outline I do believe that there is cause to be concerned about the level of fraud in this election. John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon as a result of voter fraud in Chicago. As much as the Democrats complain about George Bush defeating Al Gore, it must be pointed out that the votes in Florida that were in question were in fact fraudulent ballots. Al Franken won his seat in Minnesota by pulling the trick of making challenges, but Al Gore was unsuccessful when he pulled the same trick. The Democrat operatives have been perfecting their fraud over time. However, it is those voting machines that came from Venezuela that sealed the fate of this election.

Technology experts do point out that it is easy to use key logging software in these machines. It is possible to hack the machines and thus alter the result. This is the most likely method used by the Democrats since most people in IT with the skills use those skills in being hackers – such as Anonymous.

It is not the end of the world. What can happen next? Watergate 2.0