Previous month:
August 2016
Next month:
October 2016

September 2016

US Congressional report on Bill Clinton's role in the deaths for profit Indian Aids drugs scandal

Clinton Foundation Report

Here are a few comments from Charles Ortel.


This is worth a close read--Rep. Marsha Blackburn continues to dig into the massive set of public filings issued by the Clinton Foundation and by some of its many affiliates.

The attached report concentrates most upon efforts to "fight HIV/AIDS" internationally that have never, in my view, been validly authorized by the IRS, regulated by government authorities, controlled by independent trustees or audited by competent and informed accounting professionals.
I will be commenting upon this document and adding my own analysis in coming days. 
Analysts of the Blackburn report should note the following facts:
1. Bill Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and others began soliciting funds around July 2002 in the name of the Clinton Foundation "to fight HIV/AIDS"--so far, no verified evidence has been issued that these efforts were first authorized by the IRS.
2. Though the Clinton Foundation omits "audits" for 2000 thropugh 2004 from its main website, these are avaiulable through the Commonwealth of MA AG website. 
3. In March 2004, evidently before receiving IRS authorization to control a legal entity engaged internationally fighting HIV/AIDS, certain individuals created Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative, Inc. ("Old CHAI") in AR on 24 March 2004 and thereafter may have filed an application on Form 1023 with the IRS for federal rax exemption.
4. There is an Annual Report on Form 990 for Old CHAI for 2004 and for 2005--I have both of these documents, as to colleagues. There is no evidence that Old CHAI received a determination letter.
5. The Clinton Foundation omits the purported merger agreement for Old CHAI into the parent that allegedly occurred on 31 December 2005. In my view, this transaction could not have been perfected lawfully inside the U.S. and in the many countries where both entities had been operating, and subsequently operated.
6. There are massive, unexplained discrepancies in amounts recorded as donations by major Clinton Foundation donors from 2004 through 2009, and amounts recorded in Schedule B for the Clinton Foundation. (Bear in mind, I have details of donations issued in the Old CHAI 990s for 2004 and 2005).
7. From 1997, through 2007, the Clinton Foundation still has not disclosed aggregate government grants on its 990s as is strictly required.
8. From 2004, through 2007, the Clinton Foundation has not disclosed details concerning all grants by governments on its NY State CHAR 500 Form (and Schedule 4b) as is strictly required.
9. Amounts disclosed as having been spent by the Clinton Foundation on pharmaceuticals from 2004 through 2009 are far below amounts that government donors (UNITAID, Australia, Norway, others) and private donors (Gates, Children's Investment Fund, others) claim they sent towards the Clinton Foundation for this specific purpose.
10. The application to the IRS on Form 1023 for Clinton Health Access Initiative, Inc. claims incorrectly that it is not a successor organization--this application (unlike the orginal parent and CGI applications) is omitted from the Clinton Foundation portal but available through NY State Charity Bureau Search.
A U.S. public charity must control its foreign operations tightly from a U.S. base:
The record is clear that the Clinton Foundation never has done so--so the headline argument that the Clinton Foundation or CHAI has "done more good than harm" fighting HIV/AIDS internationally seems a stretch.
Many more details are out in the public domain--I will soon begin the process of adding detailed analysis of the entire Clinton Foundation public record (not simply HIV/AIDS), including affiliated charities and including individuals connected to the Clinton Charity network who have derived more than insubstantial private gain.
This is a large, as yet unprosecuted set of charity frauds, hiding in plain sight.
Kind regards,


Our reporter is at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court this morning for Case G12422233

Screen Shot 2016-09-19 at 7.28.31 am

Our correspondent reports just minutes ago (0930)

Michael, I just walked in to court 3 at the Mag Court & said hello to Chris Brown, who was standing out in the waiting area. The vultures are circling...

AT 0945

We've been moved down to Court 1. Kathy's here but we have to await whatever is on the general docket this morning.

At 10.10AM

Last time I saw Chris in the Magistrates' Court was during one of Craig Thomson's hearings, related to charges he had stolen funds from the HSU. Brown, who I understand had been installed as an interim HSU administrator, at the urging, I believe, of Bill Shorten, took the opportunity, during a break in proceedings, to reach over & shake Thomson's hand. Wasn't Chris also on good terms with Michael Williamson? Just one big happy family?

US Daily Caller report on Chinese billionaire Clinton Foundation donor

Links to Sam Dastyari?   CFMEU as per TURC revelations?

Major Clinton Foundation Donor Ensnared In Chinese Vote-Buying Scandal

Photo of Chuck Ross

A Chinese billionaire who has contributed $2 million to the Clinton Foundation and attended a fundraiser at Hillary Clinton’s home in 2013 has been kicked out of China’s National People’s Congress on accusations of bribing his way into office.

The New York Times reports that Wang Wenliang is one of 45 lawmakers from China’s Liaoning province who attained positions in the National People’s Congress by paying for votes.

Xinhua, China’s official news agency, first reported the news.

Wenliang, who is a Chinese citizen with legal permanent resident status in the U.S. controls a vast construction empire with interests across the globe, including here.One of his companies, Rilin Enterprises, donated $2 million to the Clinton Foundation in 2013. That same year, another Wenliang outfit, Dandong Port Co., contributed $120,000 to longtime Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe’s campaign for Virginia governor.

The Clintons hosted a fundraiser at their Washington D.C. residence for McAuliffe on Sept. 30, 2013. Wenliang attended the function.

McAuliffe’s involvement with Wenliang is reportedly at the center of an ongoing federal investigation. CNN reported in May that the Justice Department was looking into whether Wenliang’s donations to McAuliffe broke federal law.

There is also some evidence that Wenliang’s contribution to the Clinton Foundation led to an FBI investigation referral.

While the report did not name the foreign donor, the possible Clinton Foundation probe was discussed at a joint meeting of FBI and Justice Department officials earlier this year at the same time that the McAuliffe investigation was discussed.

The McAuliffe investigation was allowed to proceed while the Clinton Foundation inquiry was vetoed by the DOJ.

Wenliang has another link to Clinton through the State Department.

A Daily Caller investigation revealed that Dandong Port Co., the Wenliang firm that gave to McAuliffe, lobbied Clinton’s State Department in early 2013 on “selected visa issues” for visitors to the U.S. The Chinese firm paid $120,000 to McGuireWoods Consulting, a Washington D.C. lobbying firm that employees several lobbyists who have bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

When the McAuliffe investigation was first revealed, the former Democratic National Committee chairman initially denied knowing Wenliang. But video soon surfaced of him walking into the 2013 Clinton fundraiser with the Chinese billionaire. (REPORT: Hillary Clinton Met Terry McAuliffe’s Mysterious Chinese Donor At Fundraiser At Her Home)

Read more:

Julie Bishop at UN with "underwear intact, can't f*ck me" stepdaughter. Classy.

Screen Shot 2016-09-19 at 3.34.57 am


Julie Bishop'sMedia Statement tells us "with Melinda Gates I will highlight practical efforts to empower women and girls".  She helpfully provides a one click link to the UN and to the pages of the young women she apparently has in mind.

Screen Shot 2016-09-19 at 4.52.21 am
The first woman "Discussing Australia's international strategy for human trafficking & anti-slavery" with Ms Bishop is  the daughter of Ms Bishop's beau and regular UN confidante the "wealthy Melbourne property investor" David Panton.  
That's David with Julie, sitting in on previous deliberations at the United Nations.  David is apparently looking after a few of Australia's trade secrets written on Julie's papers.


One click on the  link Foreign Minister Bishop published might give Melinda Gates and the UN enough women and girl empowerment for a lifetime.

Courtesy of Australia's Minister for Foreign (ahem) Affairs, the world now knows of Ms Paton: 

Screen Shot 2016-09-19 at 4.04.51 am" who told you??? Lol jks happy to report all underwear still intact "

"woahhhh when was that?! No recollection whatsoever "

" flopping dicks out on dfloor "

" do you really love me? "


" Eric has smelly Indian feet"

Conroy resignation speech - Gillard de facto's "corrupt leadership of AWU"

Just on 9PM last Thursday an apparently well lubricated Stephen Conroy tabled the speech below.

Judging by his request for Stealth Mode it's probably best he didn't attempt a speaking role that night.



You may recall our $11BN differences with Senator Conroy.



This extract is from his speech, published in full below.

My friend and confidant Bob Smith, the man who taught me to play golf—my family has not forgiven him for that. Bob saved the AWU from bankruptcy after the corrupt leadership of Bruce Wilson. I remember talking with him often during this period. He was faced with a dire set of circumstances that would have defeated most others but he began the rebuilding of that famous union from the ashes. A pillar of strength for me so many times over so many years. I look forward to sharing many more games of golf in the future.

I also want to thank Tony Sheldon, the National Secretary of the TWU. A committed trade unionist, a passionate advocate for transport workers and someone who gives unflinching support to his friends no matter the cost to himself.

Senator CONROY (VictoriaDeputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (20:53): Could I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate Senator Cormann for his constructive approach to resolving some of the difficult issues. Both sides were involved in a little bit of give and take but the approach taken by Senator Cormann speaks volumes for him. As it is very late, I seek leave to table the rest of my contribution so we can move on.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

You should always go out on top. This week as Captain of the Parliamentary Soccer team I scored a hat trick. It must be time to say farewell.

In 1996 in my first speech in this place I said: "The Labor Party's next challenge is to confront the changing structure of Australia's work force. Technological change is forcing the pace as more people work part time and from home. A new type of poverty is beginning to emerge and its impact will need to be assessed carefully. We are seeing a growing gap between the information rich and the information poor. This has many implications for public policy. How do we ensure that every Australian child has the education including the standard of literacy they need to be able to use the new information technologies? How do we ensure that all Australians have access to the information carriers that will revolutionise the way we learn, work and enjoy ourselves? More practically, what can we do to make sure Australians have the skills and back up they need to be leaders in developing and providing these new technologies?"

There is nothing more fulfilling and no greater privilege than to be in Government and conceive, create and implement a strategy to deliver the economic and social opportunities that technology brings and reach all Australians wherever they live and whatever their backgrounds. The National Broadband Network will remain my greatest contribution.

The concept and plan for the NBN enabled me to meet some truly extraordinary people who have all been deeply involved in the internet debate. I am privileged to have met Professor Larry Smarr, a pioneer of the internet; Professor Jeff Cole whose insights into people and their online habits is world renowned and Larry Irving who created the phrase the Digital Divide.

These three great men inspired me even at the toughest times and I'm proud to count you as my friends.

I have also been able to contribute in other portfolio areas even from opposition. I have championed corporate governance reforms to try and make Boards and Executive Management more accountable to shareholders. Significant amendments to our corporate laws have allowed shareholders to reign in some significant areas of corporate excess.

I was Labor's trade spokesman at the time of the debate of the US FTA. I take pride in the fact that without my active support it would not have passed into law. I would also like to acknowledge the support of Phil Scanlon and the greatest Prime Minister Australia never had, Kim Beazley.

In the Defence portfolio the debate over the construction of Australia's submarine fleet was an enormous challenge. The then Prime Minister had done a deal to buy Japanese submarines and abandon our manufacturing base here in Australia. I was able to lead a campaign to overturn a decision of the National Security Council of Cabinet and protect Australia's national security interests and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Australian families.

As I say farewell I would like to take this opportunity to publically acknowledge the recent retirement of a friend and champion of the trade union movement.

Wayne Mader was the Secretary of the Victorian Branch of the Transport Workers Union (TWU) from 2009-2016. He was a member of the Victorian Branch for 45 years and an elected official for 32 years. I consider it an honour to have served in the TWU with him for the four years before I entered the Senate.

Wayne Mader embodies the true spirit of the trade union movement. He is honest and trustworthy and has always put the interests of his members first.

Wayne is truly the salt of the earth, nobody could ask for a more loyal, decent and generous friend and I want to publically thank him for that. My success in politics has been in no small part due to the unwavering support he has given me over the 25 years we have known each other.

The Victorian Branch of the TWU is now in the safe hands of John Berger and I wish him well and look forward to proudly receiving my 25 year membership from him in a few years time.

Continue reading "Conroy resignation speech - Gillard de facto's "corrupt leadership of AWU"" »

Tony Abbott, Statesman, Lobkowicz Palace, Prague. "Stand Guard on Your Borders"

Screen Shot 2016-09-18 at 7.21.07 pm


17 September 2016


These are fraught time for Europe. Our job is to make them better.

As we meet, Britain gears up to exit the formal structures of the EU, on Europe’s borders, hundreds of thousands of people demand admission.

In Europe’s cities, Islamist fanatics plot carnage.

And in Europe’s east, Russia actively subverts the former Soviet states.

Daunting times indeed: for Europe, for democracy, and for western civilisation.

But as Marshal Foch said at a key moment in the Great War, “my centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack”.

Brexit could diminish both Britain and Europe – there is indeed that possibility – but with goodwill and leadership, it could just as easily herald democratic renewal across this continent.

Brexit and the rise of populism across Europe could be symptoms of a broken consensus – or could prompt centre-right parties to be less politically correct and once more the true champions of the nation state.

The struggle of democracies everywhere to rein in debt and deficit and to boost productivity could herald a long economic decline – or could be what forces political leaders to be more honest with our electorates.

Western liberalism’s diffidence under threat could be a sign of civilizational self-doubt – or just the latest dark before the dawn.

In difficult times, it’s more important than ever to be brave.

We should never lose our faith in the rule of law, personal freedom, representative government and the gravitational pull of the Western way of life.

In this historic city, I am proud to declare that I am for Europe – because western civilisation, now emulated the world-over, remains the highest and the best manifestation of the universal dream of justice, freedom and prosperity.

Our challenge is to be unapologetic advocates for the ways of thinking that have largely created the modern world and have made these the best times in human history, despite all the challenges we now face.

It’s worth remembering that just 35 years ago, fewer than half the world’s people had safe drinking water; now 90 per cent do.

Just 25 years back, 37 per cent of the world’s population lived in absolute poverty; now it’s fewer than 10 per cent.

And in the past quarter century, global GDP per person has advanced as much as in the previous 25,000 years.

We should never let today’s challenges blind us to yesterday’s achievements and to tomorrow’s potential.

Conservatives are proud of what has been achieved; but we want to build on the past, not to re-create it.

Our task is always to make the most of these times, just as our forebears made the most of theirs; confident that we can find a way through our perils, just as they did.

Before leaving Australia, I asked our parliamentary library to survey and report on the post-Brexit literature.

Leaving the European Union, I was told, will mean Britain’s economic impoverishment and political and cultural isolation.

It was said that Britain will become irrelevant while Europe will be better off without its most recalcitrant member – as if such a world-ranging country would suddenly withdraw into its shell and Great Britain become little England.

This is the kind of arrogant tosh that prompted Britons to vote to leave.

After the United States, Britain boasts more Nobel Prize winners than any other country.

For the past decade, Britain has been the fastest growing big economy in Europe; and along with France, has the continent’s most powerful armed forces.

So an EU that tries to punish Britain will end up punishing itself.

Like many of you, I was not a Brexit supporter – I was, if you like, a reluctant remainer – but all of us have to respect the people’s verdict and make the most of it.

In dangerous times, what the world needs is less Europe-wide systems than Europe-wide values; a Europe that’s still united on the most important things like resisting aggression but less theological on secondary things like different national approaches to home affairs.

Obviously, the details of Brexit are up to the British and European negotiators over the next two years.

What’s pretty clear, though, is that everything stays the same, until it’s specifically changed.

No new Brussels directives will automatically apply in the UK and British courts will no longer be subject to European ones.

But – there’s no good reason why British goods should lose tariff free access to Europe or European goods tariff free access to Britain as continental free trade is in everyone’s interests.

There’s no good reason why British credentials should go unrecognised in Europe or European ones in Britain because it’s in everyone’s interests to maximise the useable talent pool.

And there’s no good reason why Britons shouldn’t routinely work in Europe or Europeans routinely work in Britain as like-minded countries benefit from this kind of exchange.

With Britain no longer subsidising the rest of Europe, Germany could also rethink its approach, to the benefit of taxpayers who shouldn’t have to prop-up inefficiency or failure.

Post-Brexit, the main difference, I suspect, will be a visa requirement for non-citizens seeking long-term residence in another country.

That need not end free movement – but it would end uncontrolled movement – and why shouldn’t each country keep the final say over who can enter?

As my country’s former leader John Howard famously put it, “we shall determine who comes to our country and the circumstances under which they come”.

After all, a country or a continent that can’t control who enters its territory will eventually lose control of its future.

In my judgment, it was the prospect of millions of new Europeans from the Middle East and Africa streaming into Britain that pushed the Brexit vote over the line.

Britons aren’t against Europe or against immigration but they voted against losing control.

Uncontrolled immigration didn’t cause Brexit but it did prompt Britons to take back their sovereignty.

Of course, it is a decent and a humane impulse to give a better life to people from wretched places.

But once people have gone beyond their first place of safety, they’re not asylum seekers but would-be economic migrants.

For some years, 500 million Europeans probably could absorb current inflows provided the newcomers were joining in, rather than breaking in.

But a million people coming by boat and almost a million people coming by land last year has the look of a peaceful invasion.

Some of Turkey’s leaders have even urged Muslims to take back parts of Europe; and among the would-be migrants are soldiers of the caliphate bent on mayhem.

Many of those taking to boats across the Mediterranean or clamouring at Europe’s gates look set to join an angry underclass.

Too many are coming, not with gratitude but with grievance, and with the insistence that Europe should make way for them.

Over time, this becomes an existential challenge.

And if Europe won’t meet it – as Brexit shows, as the reimposition of border controls show – individual countries will insist on dealing with it in their own way.

Now Australia is an immigrant nation; we well appreciate that people from Africa and the Middle East have every reason to seek a better life – but they have no right to demand that Europe should provide it to them.

Europe’s navies must do their humanitarian duty and rescue people who might otherwise drown; but taking them onto Italy and Greece just guarantees that more will make this dangerous journey.

So long as people think that arriving in Europe means staying in Europe… they will keep coming.

Sending them to more European countries won’t solve the problem; it will just spread it around.

People in no immediate danger have to be turned back at Europe’s borders.

People intercepted in the Mediterranean have to be returned to their starting point.

This crisis can’t be managed; it has to be resolved.

That’s what Australia did, under my government: we stopped illegal boats at sea and escorted them back to Indonesian waters.

If the boats were scuttled, we had big orange life rafts on hand so that people could safely return from whence they’d come.

I knew the risks to our personnel; I knew the damage this would do to relations with Indonesia; I knew the outcry it would spark from well-meaning activists but it simply had to be done.

Effective border protection is not for the squeamish, but it is absolutely necessary to save lives and to preserve nations.

The truly compassionate thing to do is: stop the boats and stop the deaths – and, for more than two years now, there have been no illegal arrivals by boat in Australia and the drownings have stopped.

And having stopped the boats, we’ve been able to increase our genuine refuge intake because the Australian government has been in charge, not the people smugglers.

Europe’s challenges are on a larger scale and the geography is different but with the right will and organisation there is no reason why there could not be similar success.

What it needs, though, is a conviction among the continent’s leaders that stopping people smuggling, stopping deaths at sea and protecting Europe’s way of life is the right and the moral thing to do.

You have to match the conviction of those demanding entry with the greater conviction that you have a right to say “no”.

What’s needed is an end to self-doubt about the entitlement of European nations, individually and collectively, to keep their character.

My instinct is that those best placed to end this crisis are those with the greatest faith in the Europe of free debate, of scientific enquiry, and of democratic pluralism.

This is the Europe that the world admires and that Britain joined.

The question for all of us, as democratic leaders, is how do we best win the confidence of our people?

Leaders of the centre-right have been good at promoting national security and maximising prosperity; our challenge now is to persuade people that we can equally be trusted to preserve the social fabric.

Part of that is an awareness of the “mystic bonds of union” which hold peoples and nations together.

Modern Europe may well have developed something akin to the old sense of Christendom that can transcend national loyalties.

I’m sure there is, for many people, a European identity – but it invariably co-exists with something older, deeper, and more powerful: a sense of belonging and connectedness shaped by shared values, a common history and the same language.

It’s easy for successful people, for citizens of the world if you like, to underestimate the emotional hold of the nation state that people will still give their lives for.

Of course, we must resist populism but if the sensible centre scoffs at people’s real concerns populism will increase.

The challenge is to engage with people, not to talk down to them, or to insult their intelligence by denying what they can see with their own eyes.

Disapproval of Brussels’ handling of the migration crisis runs as high as 94 per cent of Greeks, 88 per cent of Swedes and 77 per cent of Italians.

Acknowledging people’s concerns about uncontrolled immigration should help to build trust on other changes, especially the economic ones, that have to be accommodated.

Globalisation has made most people richer but it’s made some people poorer and it’s brought some of the problems of the third world into the cities of Europe.

We can’t be indifferent to people’s anxieties when asking them to endure short term specific pain for long term collective gain.

The more clearly we are protecting people’s values and way of life, the more trusted we should be asserting the great Burkean truth that some things must change so that what really counts can stay the same.

There can be more jobs, if we cut the red tape that suffocates business.

There can be higher wages, if we foster productivity.

There can be lower taxes, if we’re disciplined about spending.

There can be more just and humane communities, if live-and-let-live is what we demand of all our citizens.

And we can defeat the challenges to our way of life, if we are as committed to our values as our critics and enemies are to theirs.

At least in Australia, the centre right has stood for economic liberalism and social conservatism: for pragmatic liberalism and for sensitive conservatism, because economic dynamism and social stability are what normally give the most people the best life.

At least in Australia, the centre right has succeeded because it has known what it can and can’t change.

We can’t do much to change climate and we shouldn’t do much to buck markets but what’s the point of government if we can’t secure borders and control immigration?

This is one lesson that my part of the new world might usefully offer to your part of the old one.

Stand guard on your borders and you ease so much of the anxiety that now grips this great continent.