Fake "undecided" voter at Brisbane people's forum one of many

Not surprised by the revelation that a zealous young Labor supporter called Gabrielle Ward purported to be an undecided voter so she could ask a question at the Brisbane people's forum recently. As Bolta remarks, there seems to be a lot of this happening lately, particularly on Q and A.

Certainly confirms what I've long thought. At the beginning of pretty much every episode of that show you'll see that those who claim to vote LNP outnumber the other voter categories. But if you look at the actual audience you'll see that the majority are borderline retarded whippersnappers, smug middle class wankers, and dirty, smelly ol' hippies. And we all know that people in these sad demographics overwhelmingly "dress to the left" (if they can dress themselves, that is).

Inevitably, Q and A audience members' questions will focus mainly on tragic ol' leftie obsessions such as catastrophic climate change, the hideous cruelty of the "race to the bottom" by the major parties on border policy, gay marriage, eeevil Rupert Murdoch, the appalling rise of misogyny in Australia and the countless shortcomings of the puritanical pugilist Tony Abbott.

Sure, I can't actually prove this, but it's pretty bloody obvious that as they enter the venue for the taping a fair whack of the crowd will happily lie about their political allegiance in a brazen attempt to discredit conservative claims of left-wing bias at the national broadcaster. And they do it week in, week out, at numerous venues all over Oz.

My suspicion is that some are young Labor luvvies like Gabrielle Ward. But the vast majority of those engaging in this widespread and repeated con are Greens supporters. Labor types will resort to dishonesty far more easily than normal folk, sure. But at least they do usually have a moral code, even if they don't use it that often. Hard core Greens supporters, on the other hand, lie as easy as breathing. They get off on it, too.

After all, their whole mission is to white-ant Western civilization at every opportunity. They hate the very idea of universal morality -- seeing at as some sort of eeevil white male plot to control women, gays, minorities, and, er, bilbies. So in their tiny, often bong addled minds, when they fob themselves off as conservatives they don't see it for what it truly is: gutlessly telling porkies. Hilariously, they actually believe they're bravely striking a blow for the dispossessed! Makes 'em feel like members of the French Resistance during the Nazi Occupation, or something.

Gawd, what pathetic skulking little weasels they are ...

Julia Gillard now resembling Craig Thomson

Julia Gillard's brazenness is almost beyond belief. There are numerous documents available demonstrating her deeply unethical behaviour as a lawyer for her crooked former beau, yet she continues to claim she did "nothing wrong". Then she hides behind her gender, sliming anyone with genuine and well-founded concerns about her character as sexist and misogynist.

For sheer gall, she's now starting to resemble Craig Thomson. It now appears that her statement that she had complete confidence in him was not motivated solely by political necessity. I think she might have been pretty damn impressed by his utter defiance in the face of so much evidence against him. Seems she was thinking, "Way to go, Thommo. I thought I was the master. But you've actually taught me something -- namely that there's just no limit to how far you can push the envelope when it comes to shameless denials. Also, that it's never too late to go on the front foot and attack your accusers."

Her favoured tactic is to use rhetorical hair splitting to isolate one little word or phrase that is used in an argument against her, misrepresent it, then exaggerate its significance hugely and claim that this is all her opponents ever do because they're horrible people who are out to slime her. 

She did it today by saying that Tony Abbott's claim that she dodgied up the form to get the AWU Workplace Reform Association accepted was false because it hinged on whether the proposed entity was in and of itself a trade union. Obviously it wasn't a trade union, she said, so there was no deception. Therefore, everything he says is the usual smear and innuendo, negativity, etc, etc, ad bloody nauseam.

Obviously, this wasn't the point. The point was that the form she filled in clearly misrepresented its purpose as a slush fund. Therein lay her deception. 

She did the same thing back in August when she zeroed in on The Australian's mistake in using the word "trust" when it should have been "slush" and threatening to sue them. When the paper issued a correction she then crowed about this back-down, deceitfully claiming that it proved that their campaign to link her to the fraud was built on a house of cards.

She's like a barmaid being sprung at work with her hand in the cash register, stuffing the notes down her blouse.

Boss: "Hey, what are you doing? Stop ripping me off!"

Barmaid: "I'm not ripping you off. How dare you accuse me of such a thing?"

Boss: "Yes you are. You're stuffing that cash into your bra."

Barmaid: "Bra ... what bra? I'm not wearing a bra. Liar!"

Boss: "Look it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a bra or not. I've caught you red handed. And I can still see the notes in your cleavage."

Barmaid: "Not only are you a liar. You're looking down my top! Pervert. Sexist! Misogynist!"

Gillard truly is a piece or work. But she can't keep getting away with this forever. 

Julia Gillard slimes and smears Ralph Blewitt

Managed to watch some of that press conference that Gillard gave today in a desperate attempt to make the AWU scandal go away. Lots of non-answers and evasions, of course.

One of the most revealing parts of it was when she was asked if she actually witnessed the signing of the Power of Attorney. It required a very simple answer, yes or no. She couldn't give one. Even some tragic Labor luvvies in the meeja are starting to realize this is a serious issue, and that her constant claim that she "did nothing wrong" just doesn't cut it.

The way she went on the attack against Ralph Blewitt showed how angry and desperate she was. She used her well honed sliming techniques on the former union official:

"Mr Blewitt is a man who has publicly said he was involved in fraud. Mr Blewitt is a man who has sought immunity from prosecution," Ms Gillard said.

"Mr Blewitt is a man who has fled Indonesia to avoid a police interview in relation to land fraud, although he denies wrongdoing in the case. Mr Blewitt says he owes money on another Asian land deal.

"Mr Blewitt admits to using the services of prostitutes in Asia. Mr Blewitt has published lewd and degrading comments - and accompanying photographs - of young women on his Facebook page.

"Mr Blewitt, according to people who know him, has been described as a complete imbecile, an idiot, a stooge, a sexist pig, a liar, and his sister has said he's a crook and rotten to the core.

What has any of that got to do with the facts of the matter? Hell, he could be a serial killing, cannibalistic pedophile for all I care ... Did she witness him signing the document or didn't she?
  
 "His word against mine? Make your mind up."

I think an awful lot of people have made up their minds -- even many within her own party. And not in the way she'd expect ...

Knowing how easily and often this woman lies her word is worth very little indeed. Sure, Blewitt's not the most credible person in the world but he strikes me as being a lot more trustworthy than she is. And people can, and do redeem themselves, after all. Which is exactly what he genuinely seems to be attempting to do in this case. He's been clear, consistent and unequivocal in his claims, while Gillard has been evasive, changing her story repeatedly.

Hell, the Prime Minister of the country comes across as way dodgier than a self-confessed bagman. How sad is that?

Then there's the fact that back in the day Gillard herself was great mates with this "sexist pig". Surely he was the same guy in the nineties? Why did she have anything to do with him then, I wonder ... 

UPDATE: Blewitt responds to the smear. 

Wilson, Gillard, Blewitt and the issue of credibility

Interesting that Bruce Wilson has now broken his silence to defend Julia Gillard. Her supporters are very happy about this, of course. But you've gotta wonder, if she had nothing to do with the AWU fraud then why didn't he do this before? If he had he may well have nipped the issue in the bud and saved her the trouble she's currently experiencing.

It's pretty funny that people like Tony Burke are saying Wilson's is the last word and the issue is officially over. Ha! The story's just getting started, more like ... Wilson was the alleged mastermind behind the fraud. Why would you believe him?

Mr Wilson also rounded on the union bagman Ralph Blewitt, attacking his former mate as a "very risky" person for Ms Gillard's critics to rely on.

"Relying on Ralph to be your star witness is a very, very risky strategy," Mr Wilson said. "It's not one I would be prepared to take."

Talk about the pot and the kettle.

But there's a difference between the two: Apart from the fact that Blewitt was clearly Wilson's underling, Blewitt has made his admissions to the coppers under penalty of perjury. Sure, he could be lying. But he's risking a helluva lot more than Wilson is.

In any case, you don't have to believe either of them. There's enough stuff in the documents to make any curious and rational person suspicious of Gillard's involvement in the fraud.

And we do know that she was very close to these two alleged crooks for a long time. It beggars belief that she didn't have the slightest clue what was going on.

Her "young and naive" defence is comical. And it's so sexist. It relies heavily on the twin stereotypes of diabolically evil, scheming men and saintly, trusting women. The excuse would be pathetic if it came from any woman. But the fact that a leftie feminist is using it makes it too tragic for words. I mean, doesn't your typical leftie feminist pride herself on not being anyone's fool -- least of all a man's? Just shows how hollow that whole ideology is. (Actually, it's a bigger fraud than the one perpetrated on the AWU when you think about it!)