The Pickering Post
Friday, 14th December 2018

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


Paul Zanetti

Paul Zanetti is a Walkley award winning syndicated cartoonist with over 30 years in the media. He blogs at


So Hillary Clinton is pulling on the tired old sexism, misogyny trick which didn't do much good for Julia. In her book Hard Choices, Hillary says Julia Gillard faced outrageous sexism. The book is being used by Hillary as a lever for her tilt at the US Presidency.

The problem for Hillary is she's just shown herself unfit to be President on a couple of scores.

Hillary wrote that ‘‘women in public life still face an unfair double standard".

"Even leaders like former prime minister Julia Gillard of Australia have faced outrageous sexism which shouldn’t be tolerated in any country," Mrs Clinton wrote.

Mrs Clinton told Ms Gillard to defend herself against allegations from decades past which were being used drag her name through the mud.

When the pair met, Ms Gillard was facing questions over her role in the Australian Workers Union affair dating back to her time as a lawyer with Slater and Gordon in the 1990s.

Mrs Clinton told Ms Gillard: ‘‘You've got to stand up to it and be clear about it and name it for what it is because the temptation is to say, 'Look this is so absurd, it'll die a death’, whereas these things unfortunately don't die a death.’’

Unfortunately for Hillary the events of nearly 20 years are not about 'outrageous sexism'. They're about corrupt (and possibly criminal) conduct.

That corrupt conduct is now under investigation by a Royal Commission, where Julia Gillard secretly established, possibly illegally, an incorporated association for her then union official boyfriend which was used to defraud monies by false invoices for work that was never performed.

Julia Gillard, never opened an office file as required, but in fact kept a secret file (since gone missing). When caught out, she told her law firm partners the association was a 'slush fund'. It had just two members, her boyfriend Bruce Wilson and his underling bagman, Ralph Blewitt. An incorporated association is required by law to have at least five members.

It's illegal to set up an association to be used as a 'slush fund', and a lawyer knows that, and doing so is a breach of two legislated acts.

The WA legislation (where the association was incorporated) explicitly prohibits an association's incorporation if it aims to financially benefit the members and sets out penalties for lodging false or misleading information.

Terry O'Connor QC (former WA anti-corruption and crimes commissioner) believes Julia Gillard's role in drafting rules for the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association, which her boyfriend Bruce Wilson later used for fraudulent purposes, also exposes her to charges under WA's Criminal Code and the Associations Incorporation Act.

Mr O'Connor has based his opinion on Ms Gillard's 1995 explanation to Slater & Gordon, where she then worked, in which she said she had provided advice "that it was better to have an incorporated association, a legal entity" to manage a re-election or "slush" fund for members.

Further, Gillard told the WA Corp. Affairs Commission the proposed association had nothing to do with the union (AWU), even though she applied on behalf of the AWU officials Wilson and Blewitt and the AWU was Slater & Gordon's client, and she applied the second time on S&G letter head, as a partner. Bad enough misleading the Commission (a criminal offence), but worse as a partner of a law firm, clearly aware of the consequences and penalties.

One of the witnesses testifying at the Royal Commission this week, Athol James, was a woodworker who worked on Julia Gillard's Abbotsford house renos. James claims he saw Wilson give cash to Gillard who then paid workers for renos to her house.

Another builder, Konstantinos Spyridis also worked on Julia Gillard's house and says he was paid for renos on Gillard's house by Gillard.

Gillard told her law firm partners she 'could not categorically rule out' that monies from the 'slush fund' didn't pay for her house renos. Yet, in 2012 at her infamous hour-long press conference, when asked who paid for her house renos, Gillard said she paid for them (according to woodworker Athol James, she did pay the workers - with the cash Wilson gave her).

Wilson's bagman, Ralph Blewitt, has already testified at the Royal Commission that he paid $7,000 in cash at Wilson's instructions to builders at Julia's House.

Blewitt claims Gillard was at the front of the house at the time and ushered Blewitt out the back to see Wilson when he arrived with the money to pay the builders.

The noose is tightening each day as more testimonial and documented evidence is tabled at the Royal Commission.

Hillary has done herself a great disservice brushing off as 'outrageous sexism' the real concerns of criminal behaviour of a leader of another country - simply on the basis that leader is a woman.

If it were a man, not doubt it wouldn't be 'sexism'.

And there's the hypocrisy.

Women who seek the ulitmate status of power demand equality, but when they achieve that equality, turn to demand 'special treatment' on the basis of being a female. It's demeaning to them, and demeaning to other women.

That Hillary has grasped at this 'sexism' straw shows she intends to play it for all its worth should she attain the US Presidency - defending her own ineptness and poor judgement with shrill cries of 'misogynist sexists!'

Never mind the facts.

Hell, it worked for Julia...didn't it?


Hillary Clinton, my God! How do these people even have the gall to show their faces in public? No credibility, no morals, no integrity and no ability! Oh wait that reminds me of Julia I did Nooothiing Wrooong! Gillarse!

Did Hilary and Julia argue as to who wore the strap on ? Probably Hilary wins that one as she isn't really the lay back type.

No amount of Viagra would get it up for Bill after looking at that rag and feminazi half bred jew

I hope the US voters check Hillary Rodham Clintons Use By Date... it was somewhere around the time she said this...."My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Hilary might take a look at how Julia fared and see the misogynist horse is a ride to nowhere. She needs a better publicity stunt than that. I remember a Republican comment that he never spoke to Democrat supporters all that often, but he did, he usually ordered fries.

So was Hills. Ever wonder why she never divorced him ;) The Clintons, America's first 'open marriage' President.

Did see that ct. Someone said that he reeked of poop too but it was suggested this was his breath after talking shit all day.

Right on buddy and sooner the better!

Greetings Sheeples, Welcome to CONSPIRACY 105
Today let’s focus on Joe’s Horrific BUDGET.
If it ever gets passed by our Sheennate (Which is NOT looking Likely)
Will the co-payment funded Medical Research be used for Cancer Research?
And, if so,- Will they investigate the use of VITAMIN B17 as a Cure?
The answer is – NO.
Why? Because It WORKS!
Because Cancer is a Multi-Billion $ Industry and Big Pharma doesn’t want a Simple Cheap Solution that Works to undermine their existing money making research programs which DON’T Work.
Vitamin B17 treatments in the “Land of The Free” is BANNED! Under the Quackeries Act and Doctors risk being Struck if they prescribe B17. Fortunately, the Yanks can cross the border into Mexico and receive this Life Saving Treatment.
Similarly in Aussie – You may be able to get it in NSW, but definitely NOT in QLD.
And WHO runs Big Pharma? The Rothchilds for starters. Ha! - The ILLUMINATI strikes AGAIN!
What do THEY care if millions of people die each year?
If they can Murder JFK, Cause WARs in Vietnam and Iraq etc. just to make a Profit, they are capable of Anything.
So don’t Hold your breath waiting for Research into B17 to commence.

Oh Yes – Almost Forgot;
9/11 WAS an Inside Job!

Just think about it. If they cloned Hiccups Clinton with Cristal Milne, you would get a barrow load of manure for your garden.

Anything a fly sees on the wall and reports you can take as gospel.

Hello there again Mr PZ*. Reading info re the Royal Commission at Sydney today has been educational.Mr Jeremy STOLJAR SC is very professional and emphatic*.

Thanks W154. I have been deceived. I also thought DJT was honest.

W, OK, just gotta be careful of some of the posts, and posters on here.

tw, re your comment about SHY and her ABC friend.
That story was put on PP by DJT as a deliberate lie . He confessed he put it up to see how many people would "take the bait" and spread the news. I thought DJT was a reliable PP'er as he worked and survived in the construction industry for a long time, but I now examine his comments carefully.


of the rocky mountains Hotty

Do you really think we will see "big fish" like Gillard, Shorten and Obeid being led away to the cells DJT. or will it only be little "fall" people ?

The trial surfaced again in the news in 2000, when former first lady Hillary Clinton ran for U.S. Senate in the state of New York. Anti-Clinton activists discovered that during the trials, Clinton (then a Yale law student named Hillary Rodham) volunteered to monitor the trial for violations of civil rights, for the American Civil Liberties Union.......

Never let facts spoil your ‘bad’ story
The Australian
June 12, 2014 12:00AM

Greg Sheridan

IN foreign policy terms, Tony Abbott is having an extremely successful trip. But readers of the Fairfax press and listeners to the ABC would not only have no idea about this, they would be hard put to know the basic facts of the trip.

The Prime Minister presided over pretty much the full repair of relations with Indonesia at the start of his trip.

In Europe, he honoured the Australians who died in France in World War I and elevat­ed the heritage of Villers-Breton­neux in the national consciousness. He also had good meetings with Euro­pean leaders.

In Canada, Abbott pioneered an altogether new level of intim­acy with Ottawa.

In the US, he is doing two somewhat unusual things. One, he has taken a substantial business delegation with him. And two, he is making a serious pitch for US investment. The $1 trillion two-way investment relationship between the US and Australia demonstrates how profound an influence the US is on our national life.

The most important aspect of the relationship is the security alli­ance, and that will get a lot of atten­tion when Abbott meets US President Barack Obama.

Our biggest trading partner is China. But mutual investment is a far more intimate thing than trade, especially bulk commodit­ies trade. There is a respectable argu­ment that the total economic relationship with the US is our most important.

However, you would know very little of this from Fairfax (The Australian Financial Review excepted) or the ABC. Melbourne’s The Age, in particular, perhaps now Australia’s weakest and feeb­lest major newspaper, has run a series of front-page stories saying that Australia’s relationship with the US is in jeopardy because Abbott’s view of climate change is different from Obama’s. There is no factual basis to this assertion.

But the worst was its front-page splash on Tuesday, under the headline “Abbott’s global plan to kill carbon pricing”, which was under the strap heading “Centre-right alliance PM seeks to thwart Obama”. This story claimed that Abbott would lead an inte­r­national push to counter moves by Obama to lift the pace of climate change abatement.

The story contained not a single fact, and certainly no quote from Abbott or any Australian official, to support the preposterous notion of an Abbott-led anti-Obama alliance. The Prime Minister’s office tells me flatly that The Age’sstory is not true.

Senior government ministers were astonished because the story is, in their words, “completely inaccurate’’. Abbott is leading no international push to counter Obama. This is just ridiculous.

But this complete falsehood ran for an entire day on the ABC. When I first heard it discussed as established fact on the ABC I thought I must have missed some significant Australian announcement. Only with some work did I discover it was a Fairfax fantasy gleefully rebroadcast, with of course no effort at balance, context or checking, by the ABC.

Indeed, the ABC seems to have lost all sense of restraint, professionalism, fairness or even decency in relation to Abbott, routinely mocking and insulting the Prime Minister, not only in its dreary satire programs, but in what are meant to be serious news and current affairs broadcasts.

However, there is a lesson here for Abbott’s government. It needs to correct blatant factual inaccur­acies within the news cycle as they appear, so that news outlets are at least obliged to run the denials as well as the fantasies.

Abbott and Obama have different rhetoric on climate change but their actions are very, very similar. Abbott will abolish a carbon tax, Obama will not introduce one. With his new announcements, Obama is essentially doing two things. He is cleaning up coal­-fired power stations to make them more efficient and less carbon-inten­sive, just as Australia is. And he is substituting gas for coal. It is the Greens more than anyone who prevent Australia from fully developing our own gas reserves.

This week has seen another colossal episode in ABC and Fairfax climate propaganda, devoid of facts. Here are a few facts.

According to tables developed by Australia’s Environment Department, the US, even with Obama’s latest announcements, will by 2020 have reduced its 1990-level greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent. Australia will have reduced its emissions by 4 per cent over the same period.

Given Australia’s high rate of population and economic growth, and the structure of our economy, that is basically a dead heat. The ABC and other climate change fundamentalists are constantly able to make propaganda out of apparently unflattering comparisons for Australia because of the way each country picks the base year for comparison to present itself in the most flattering light.

Half the ABC’s commentators this week have been talking as though China is committed to a national emissions trading scheme and is phasing out coal. In fact, the seven city- or province- based trading schemes in China give out almost all their carbon permits for free. Yes, for free.

One day, in 50 years time or so, these schemes may mean something. Right now they mean nothing. But Australia, with a carbon price going to $25 a tonne next month, is pilloried by the ABC while China is praised for a scheme that is little more than an idea. China will continue to increase its massive use of coal. India is about to undergo a historic electri­fication process, which will be powered by coal. The Obama White House website predicts a big, long future for coal.

Abbott says countries are moving away from trading schemes. He is right. Not only have Canada, the US and Australia turned their backs on such schemes, but so has Japan, which has put off a national scheme indefinitely and, with Russia, walked away from the Kyoto Two process altogether.

The New Zealand scheme is frequently referred to. Its carbon price is $4.60 a tonne. Most of its emitters have to pay for only every second tonne, so the effective price is a little more than $2, which is more or less nothing.

Here’s a tip for all ABC interview­ers. When a guest tells you another country has a carbon price and is doing more than Australia, ask what price that country puts on carbon and how much of the economy the carbon price covers. That’s if you’re remotely interested in something so utterly mundane as the facts.