rosetta moon

Some people say the United States has covertly prepared a new currency for an expanded zone of influence, including the US, Canada and Mexico. The chosen currency has already been prepared and maybe China took an advance payment to take the edge of the US debts racked up on account. This will spell the end of the US dollar and the beginning of a new stage of the new world order – and Obama incidentally will be charged with the job of introducing this unannounced change upon the American people. Was this the real reason behind the mass $700 billion bailout plan which seems to have been of little consequence? Are the citizens of the US being sold a pup within the pretence of democracy? No one knows for certain but we are in for some radical news from the US whether of not Obama wins, this game plan has been in the melting pot for some time.

Its always a tantalising fine line between fact and conspiracy but if we look at the replica amero coins prepared earlier, we see that the purpose was to highlight the issue and alert affected citizens of the effect of non legislated change upon their lives, not unlike the underhanded introduction of federal reserve banking and fractional lending, illegally smudged through the congress in 1913. Should the same pattern of monetary system re-design be effected as this research suggests, people in the US will once again find their privacy and their lives increasingly under the watchful eye of the new round of Big Brothers in Washington and Great Britain.

Daniel Carr is the owner of Designs Computed, LLC. He is the author of the VS3D Virtual Sculptor software which he uses to sculpt designs digitally. Digital designs are converted to physical form using a Computer Numeric Control (CNC) milling/engraving machine. Daniel Carr is also the designer of the actual New York and Rhode Island state quarters for the US Mint. His original design was also adapted for use on the actual Maine state quarter. He prefaced the sale of the fake Amero coins with this interesting statement.

I have received numerous inquiries as to my personal stand on the North American Union (NAU) issue. My goal with these coins is not to endorse a Union of North America or a common “Amero” currency. I fully support the United States Constitution, and I would not welcome (in any form) a diminishment of its provisions. I expect that these coins will help make more people aware of the issue and the possible ramifications. I leave it up to others to decide if they are in favor of, or against a North American Union. And I encourage citizens to voice their approval or disapproval of government plans that impact them.
A currency union, similar to the European Union “Euro” has been proposed for North America. The name of the new currency is the “Amero”. The Wikipedia encyclopedia article has additional details about the “Amero“. This has been the source for many conspiracy theories tied in with other proposals such as the “Canamex Corridor“. These private-issue fantasy pattern coins will be struck as an annual series (until such time as it is no longer legal to do so), starting in the latter part of 2007. Final mintages will be determined by sales. The 2008 issues will be available for ordering during 2008, and none will ever be minted after the end of the year. Some 2008 Amero issues may be withdrawn before the end of the year, and new issues will added later in the year.

And here is an Amero coin that was prepared earlier:

Eric McCrea’s “Micro-National & Fantasy Coin Listings” includes considerable additional information.

For your further study and contemplation:

Our $700 Billion gift to China

Image above sourced from the Jeff Rense website

People are saying that the government does’nt have a grip on the economy and the other important issues we face. But there should be no surprise about the present financial crisis or how we came to be part of it . No surprises that over such a brief period global changes swept in by successive governments of whatever creed.

Where are we now compared to when? Many Australians exhibit a pattern of dependance, on this system of exchange based primarily on debt, growth and the dippy business cycles often described today as ‘the global economy’. We are told that we must be part of this for our success and prosperity but not told exactly why… now many people are saying this level of debt is unwise and especially not conducive to living prosperous and healthy lives.

So its no surprise that governments across the globe have connected through history and these financial networks of federal reserve banks, lessoning the leverage and autonomy of hitherto free and sovereign nations, combining our fate with theirs if the governors so decide. We are told that more regulations of this type will again fix the problem and protect people but people are now saying they have heard all that before. Many people are saying our politicians could be acting for local and national interest and its understandable why more people are saying this. Some are even saying that countries such as Australia should exercise complete control over a debt free currency, so it can be used conveniently and non inflationary as a means of exchange between productive and otherwise desirable entities within the nation.

Here is a brief review of Australia’s Gobble-isation (how we got gobbled up by the world)

Howard 74 – Campbell Enquiry -Banking De-regulation tick.

Hawke 80’s – Trade De-regulations begin tick.

Keating 90’s – Asian integration and banking freedom tick.

Howard 97 – End Game Plan, Free Trade Agreements, RBA changes, APRA appears, global bank rush, non banks and the resources explosion coupled with mass consumerism, imports and a licence to be in debt…heavy debt…tick.

Kevin 07 – More of the same. Global financial co-operation and the transaction of lending without prudential regulation or knowledge,
inheritance of heavily indebted population, gross dependance on imports, continued damage to natural infrastructure through unbridled global access to water, soil and resource assets with very little economic accounting or regulation. Words and slogans but little substance to stated intent to transform the energy intensity and waste of the Australian economy, business environment and the emerged political structures underlying them continually prove themselves not to be acting in the public interest nevertheless governed and suggested by entities outside of the elected and popular nature of the pretended democratic system…tick

If the Australian economy and political structures made sense now or were in reform, this could be of little consequence. But they dont. Energy reform has not occurred and international consortium hold more sway in cabinet than any punter in the street or politician. Public relations now is the norm for such government as we witnessed with Howard and his big ticket green house reforms and major deals to create jobs and eliminate world poverty. The same can be said of the key cabinet folios of energy and resources, water and climate change and environment. All well flushed with grandeur but short on substance, action and micro-economic reform – the easy wins and indications of a reformist government.

In all his tomes the ‘hand picked’ Greenhouse advisor forgot to spell out the details of his own investment folio and then made only fleeting reference to the stupidity of Australian agriculture without spelling out actual reality or a plan worthy of the harsh reality and incessant hammering this land has taken from global growth and non-interventionist governments glossing over these finer details in favour of the bottom line. People are saying that we have had too many consultants reports and studies already, and its now time for sincerity and action…..more and more people are saying that.

The Australian population is largely in debt and still dependant upon the poor system which has been put in place at great expense. It might be time for Australians to ask for transparent and diligent government to put this country and its people first.

Thats what people are saying…

Further fun and information:

Clarke and Dawe on the RBA…this is good

Image by : N.C. Wyeth 1882-1945

Kevin Rudd’s plan to rescue capitalism: essay

This literary jaunt of the PM is rather obamaresque and interesting given that several long term macro economic policy areas such as ‘energy’ and ‘fuel’ have been shyed away from ( Fuelwatch was the canary in the coal mine in terms of this reality).  This is also a government that has enabled the continuance of several old school projects damaging to natural infrastructure ( Gunns Pulp Mill, Brumby water plan, Roxby water rort and so forth) . The PM appears to be attempting to ‘get with the times’, but the attempt is looking feable and political in the context of his enmeshment with the Greenhouse Mafia, which wrapped itself tightly around the Keating and Howard governments.

OPPOSITION Leader Brendan Nelson says comments made by Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) boss Glenn Stevens, defending major banks lifting home loan interest rates above the official cash rate, are borderline “insensitive”. Herald Sun: Brendan Nelson criticises Reserve Bank comments on rate rises

Whether or not Glenn Stevens remarks are ‘insensitive’ or not is entirely missing the point Mr Nelson. The statements are outside of the range of what has traditionally been an institution to regulate ‘independently’ the money supply in Australia. It brings into question recent statements by Rudd to legislate the further independence of the RBA. Nelson’s statement as leader of the opposition is as peculiar as repeated statements by Treasurer Wayne Swan, asking the major banks to show constraint. To hear politicians make emotive statements about banking instead of proactive legislation to claw back de-regulation is quite laughable, unless of course you happen to be an Australian suffering from ‘mortgage stress’.

What we can learn from both Glenn Stevens remarks and the charade of compassion from Wayne Swan, is a form of complicity to aid and abet an industry granted a free licence to wreak financial havoc upon ordinary Australians. We are further learning that the Rudd government has no plans to use standard legislative powers to curb banking powers to protect Australian consumers from predatory activities unleashed in the last 30 years by Coalition and Labor governments. Dont forget it was Paul Keating who contributed major collateral damage as treasurer under Hawke by lifting the ceiling on interest rates on advice/pressure from the Australian Banking Association. Interest rates in Australia are amongst the highest in the world and in the country where the alleged ’sub prime’ crisis is occuring money is almost free by comparison. Christopher Zinn of Choice media correctly points out that Mr Stevens’ comments:

…didn’t address the failure of banks to explain their decision-making on rates. We need to know what is the quantum of the added costs that the banks are facing — what was the tipping point for NAB to put up their rate? If we knew that, we could remind them to put rates back down again when the situation changes

Well said Mr Zinn, the problem we face is that the Reserve Bank, the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, and the Banks restrict themselves to a limited language of cliches, pre-digested for a dulled down public which has for some time been isolated from basic facts and the truth.

The fact is there is no surprises about banking in Australia or for that matter anywhere else in the world. Howard saw to this back in the seventies when he sowed the seeds of de-regulation, Commonwealth Bank privatisation and the entry of new international players including ABN Amro, Rothschilds, Babcock and Brown…the money masters list goes on – fueling and profiting from the wholesale extraction of mineral, soil and water wealth from this country. For the time being the reins of banking have been set free and its difficult to decipher exactly what the RBA does in relation to the new regulator APRA. The last instalment of the banking changes occured in 2006, when all major banks went on-line with a global ‘risk management’ system, Basel 2, which tracks the customer debt of the major banks globally. The privacy implications for this alone are enormous but when you ask the question why our government has enabled private banking details to cross our national boundaries, without consent, you are getting into the nitty gritty of global banking and what it means to Australians.

The appointment of the RBA board is also contentious and occasionally spills into the papers. The government may refer to the RBA as independent but ask who’s making the appointments and who monitors potential conflicts of interest?: Recent case in point:

On Tuesday, November 29, Wayne Swan, the Shadow Treasurer asked of Costello in the first question of Question Time about an apparent statement that Costello made to Gerard (proposed RBA Board ), namely, “I know there’s an issue with the Tax Office but I don’t have a problem with you on the board”. Costello responded that he had no problem with Gerard, noting that “he brings a great understanding of Australian manufacturing industry to the board”, and that the obligatory declaration of interest was “indeed was signed by Mr Gerard”.

But then it gets a bit messy and we see how bent these RBA appointments can easily become:

Later it was said by Swan in the House of Representatives that Gerard’s company was using “tax havens as tax avoidance schemes to the value of $150 million” and that the declaration of interest mentioned was only in regard to his personal affairs and on asking the Treasurer when he knew this, claimed that him actually knowing the information “would breach the secrecy act”. Later Swan revealed that Gerard “and his corporate vehicles” have been “substantial donors” to the Liberal Party. Costello maintained that the Government “[does] not think that supporting the Liberal Party is a disqualification from holding ministerial office, prime ministerial office, Treasury office or other offices in Australia” Wikinewsflash

As ‘mortgage stress’ tightens across Australia we are likely to see a continuation of the same Swan/Stevens charade. A government that has the power to legislate change but is unlikely to intervene given its active role in finance de-regulation spanning back to the Fraser years. The good cop bad cop sideshow will continue and Treasurer Swan will no doubt offer more ridiculous consumer advice (let your fingers do the talking) instead of taking responsibility to manage banking in Australia, in the interest of people. As for the RBA and its directors they will continue to meet once a month and continue to play the political line but they are very unlikely to give much away about the real drivers controlling interest rates in Australia.

Further Information: 

Who Really Owns the RBA? (Reserve Bank of Australia)

In this extraordinary chapter in Australian politics Prime Minister Kevin Rudd continues to downplay his long standing relations with his “Chinese Controller” recently heard bragging of his success at paving his way into Canberra’s corridors of power. Never before has the planned agenda of an aspiring PM been splashed so colorfully across the Australian and World media. As Rudd dodges the all important questions, evidence builds that we may be facing a constitutional crisis, despite the fact the Australian Constitution says very little, as such, about the role of Prime Minister. Nevertheless when ordinary Australians are ignored in favor of questionable tycoons the future of democracy in Australia faces a serious dilemma.

So where are we at with the ‘AustChina Affair’ and what information needs to come forth from the PM to unravel the mysteries of the ‘Chinese Controller’ and good friend of most Australian political parties? Looking at the facts and the key players that have been dangling from the Beijing strings, the media and the parliament have some way to go. Crikey.com recently makes the intriguing claim that AustChina and its infiltration of Australian politics is not ‘impropriety’…

Impropriety: “the quality or condition of being improper; incorrectness. “

…if Crikey can explain what is correct or proper about Australian politicians secretly peddling influence to gain power within a democracy and then failing to declare the true nature of the connections then Crikey! …what can one say about Crikey’s judgement call that corruption within Australian politics is not incorrect?

Here are some questions for Mr Rudd arising so far from the AustChina Affair are:

• Why so soon after your pledge to curb the improper influence of lobbyists are you failing to come clean on your own lobbyist connections and why did you make such a statement of intent in the first place?
• In meeting so soon with your ‘Chinese Controller’ after your election win, why did you downplay the significance of this individual to the media when the facts reveal the connection is neither ‘personal’ or ‘insignificant’. In relation to the favours provided by AustChina what favours in return have been promised to Ian Tang, AustChina, and associated individuals including Stanley Ho?
• What is the purpose behind the register of pecuniary interests? Is it to justify the receipt of goods and services which seem to be based upon currying favours? Is it right to institutionalise the lobbying business via such a mechanism? Given the perception that politicians are unduly influenced by vested groups and given the current scandal are you prepared to legislate in favour of simply not having pecuniary interests to restore public faith in the political process?
• The use of ‘blind trusts’ is another technique by which politicians can legally maintain conflicts of interests. Are you willing to accept that within ‘blind trusts’ conflicts of interest of a hidden nature reside which contribute the same diminishing effect on honest politics? If the answer is yes, are you now prepared to legislate to prevent the inevitable conflicts of interests within the maintenance of ‘blind trusts’?
• And with regard non-pecuniary interests and a priori pecuniary interests are you prepared to establish a system whereby such influences are made available for public scrutiny?
• The money trail. As Prime Minister you make the admission that you were not ‘fully across what Ian Tang does’ yet you and your colleagues have accepted financial sponsorship, airfares and entertainment from a shadowy $1 shelf company? Why were you accepting of funds and services from an individual you apparently knew little about? Do you recommend this as a modus operandi for ministers within your cabinet, elected officials in general, or members of the opposition?
• The media is now accepting and reporting AustChina is a sham company and the website appears to either be a sham or poor judgement. Were you made aware or did you know that military technology companies were being portrayed as supply partners of AustChina? Do you regard this as a breach of Australia’s domestic security? Now that the perception has been raised and Longreach mentioned what is the exact nature of Australia’s trade of military intelligence with China? Can you elaborate if you helped establish any such links in your embassy duties in China or in trips to China during your time as an elected official of the Australian parliament?
• We now learn that National Party influence (John Anderson) assisted Ian Tang to the tune of $25m! Were you aware that Ian Tang was provided these funds and will you explain the basis upon which these funds were made available to Ian Tang given that he is an unknown in the telecommunications industry and an associate of Stanley Ho. Can you confirm if Ian Tangs generosity was in turn taxpayer funded via the now reported offering from John Anderson. Everybody’s Business – Canberra Times
• How do you justify the receipt of financial benefits from those in close association with a gambling/casino magnate Stanley Ho. You state your abhorrence of gambling and the associated lifestyle yet you are prepared to villify the youth of Australia in your rather expensive ‘binge drinking campaign’? Would you agree or disagree that when a Prime Minister demonstrates double standards it lowers the tone of politics in Australia and raises valid questions about your intent?
• If you were not ‘across’ what Ian Tang was doing how did you justify attending and speaking at the launch of the Beijing Friendship Store? Did you speak to Austrade officials at the event and were they ‘across’ the activities of Ian Tang? And what was the purpose in peddling influence at this time when you were part of the shadow ministry of the ALP?
• With regard the AustChina sponsored trip to the Sudan it seems incredible to believe AustChina’s statement that Maggie Zhen was misquoted in her statement that you were a guest of AustChina on that trip. Now, given Ian Tang’s self proclaimed affiliation with the Chinese Military and given that Longreach has not denied any affiliation with AustChina…why were you there? It would seem a long way to go to give the downtrodden people of Darfur a goat when surely with your proximity to the ‘Chinese Controller’ you could have raised the issue of human rights abuses, given your longstanding affililation with China? Or put in terms of Crikey.com… “were you doing AustChina’s bidding in Darfur?”

Given that you have avoided answering these questions in parliament please feel free to answer these questions using the comment feature below.

Another issue arising from the AustChina affair already mentioned is noticeably poor ABC coverage and very light questioning of Kevin Rudd when the opportunity has arisen. The very point was raised with ABC Media Watch in the hope they may have the courage to shine the media spotlight on themselves but surprisingly Media Watch only had this to say:

You’re free to write what you like, of course, but I’m not sure you’d be
justified in claiming that Media Watch is failing in its duty to watch
the ABC by failing (at this point) to prosecute your view that there’s a
gap in the ABC’s coverage of a particular issue. These judgements are
news judgements and are invariably somewhat subjective, different media
outlets adopt a different approach to different stories.

The China issue is a developing and interesting story — as a former
editor of Crikey I’ve been reading it every day with intrest. For the
most part it has been developing incrementally and I’m not convinced
there has been a significant gap in the ABC’s coverage of it. If it
emerged that there is such a problem there is no reason at all why we
woudn’t tackle it. Obviously you’ve formed a view this is indeed the
case, but i’m yet to be convinced.

“Developing and Interesting’ indeed but not worthy of research and reportage by the ABC? Its become apparent that the ABC has become a news follower rather than a news gatherer and a viewing of Media Watch reveals that it now swims in the safe waters of the gutter press rather than tackling any media gaps representing anything of national significance. Its a far cry from the rigorous media examination provided by David Marr and a great shame that Aunty has become so timid when such a role is seriously required of the national broadcaster. Despite the failure of the ABC the AustChina Affair is far from over and the invisible strings of the ‘Chinese Controller’ still dangle dangerously over Australian Democracy.

Further media:

Picture opportunity PM didn’t want with Madam Fu Ying

PM met China’s security chief

Labor suffers from China syndrome

PM Kevin Rudd keeps Lodge talks with Chinese secret

Rudd to lobby (some more) for Beijing – The Australian March 23, 2009

Julie Bishop reminds us with this Hansard record, that Rudd can quickly change his stripes depending upon who is paying the bills:

In a 2005 speech, Mr Rudd said,

“The independent commission of inquiry, established in October 2004 under UN Security Council resolution 1564, concludes that the Sudanese government and its militias have conducted widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population of Darfur. While the report states that the Sudanese government’s abuses do not amount to genocide, it finds that their acts of barbarity include murder, rape and torture and could amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes. The report recommended that the Security Council refer the matter to the International Criminal Court for prosecution. Australia should support this recommendation and begin lobbying Security Council member countries to refer this matter to the ICC.”

(Hansard 14.2.05)

So why in the following year is Rudd accepting expensive champagne from a Chinese company with extensive military arms connections in said country (Sudan) and why did he accepted sponsored travel from said company to said country?

Casino billionaire bankrolls Labor -  Brendan Nicholson – The Age – February 3, 2009

“It beggars belief that Mr Rudd didn’t know about a donation of this size and clearly it was a back-door way of getting money into the federal campaign after they’d had to knock back the donation made directly,” Senator Ronaldson said.  “The whole deal simply doesn’t pass the sniff test.”

What favours does the ALP now owe to Stanley Ho and China? Is it time yet for a Senate enquiry?

Tang’s largesse leaves a bitter taste – SMH – March 2008

Lu Kewen friend Beijing AustChina -More links to the state? (and…Ian Tang is Tang Yui) :

According to an ABR company search ,AustChina Information Technology Pty Ltd is a company whose shareholders are Phil Smith (4 shares @ $1 each) , and Tang Yui (6 shares @ $ 1 each).There are no charges recorded, and hence the company does not appear to have any borrowings.Hence, the company appears to be a corporate shell without the resources to conduct any form of business.

Tang Yui appears to be Ian Tang’s Chinese name. It is a matter of public record that Phil Smith is a shareholder in Beijing AustChina, fully aware of its political contributions(http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23406496-421,00.html?from=public_rss). Phil Smith’s address in Warriewood is also the address of a fibre optic cable business, in which he is infrastrcuture manager(http://www.thehalogengroup.biz/memberdetails.php?id=32.

CONTRARY to what has been reported , Beijing AustChina or at least AustChina Information Technology Pty Ltd’s principal place of business is not a suburban home in Warriewood (see Andrew Robb quoted at http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2194621.htm). According to the ABR company search, AustChina Information Technology Pty Ltd’s registered office and principal place of business is Level 7, 68 Dixon St, Haymarket NSW 2000.

……..

Given the fact that AustChina Information Technology Pty Ltd is a corporate shell, it does appear as if the company was merely a conduit for the financial contributions made to political parties and politicians in Australia, including the current Prime Minister and Treasurer.
Given state ownership if not control over AustChina Information Technology Pty Ltd and related entities it is reasonable to conclude that the funds were provided by the Chinese Government, if not payed under its direction. This was common practise in Malaysia where the ruling UMNO owned and controlled a number of large and small corporate entities.

Recent Media:

Labor’s China Inc is starting to smell fishy – Glenn Milne | July 27, 2009 – The Australian

They don’t like the questions, of course. When I recently asked had the PM ever met Grant in China, I was initially told there would be no answer: “If you have a specific allegation, put it.” To which I politely pointed out that asking if Rudd had ever meet his Brisbane neighbour, fellow club member and political benefactor in China seemed reasonably specific to me.

How long Rudd and his ministers can maintain their stonewall on China Inc remains to be seen. But the depth of involvement and layers of contact run deep…….

“In terms of detail,” Rudd once said of Tang. “I’m not really across what he does.” Tang is a wholly owned subsidiary of Macau gaming figure Stanley Ho. Ho and his associated entities donated $900,000 to the Labor Party in the run-up to the previous election. A US Senate committee hearing named Ho as having “associates” who are “involved in organised crime”. And the US Library of Congress has cited Ho as having links to several illegal activities and the triad group Kong Lok.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25838637-7583,00.html

( A fresh dose of quality journalism in what has been somewhat of a quality news drought, but as this hinges upon Australian Sovereignty, the implications are obviously immense for Australia’s autonomous future, so with such a mountain of evidence, when are the PM and related MP’s  going to step down?)

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is appearing to be one of the most compromised publicly elected officials in the history of Australia. How such a person can offer impartial decision making in a democracy is an important question. Does he plan to represent the interests of ‘Australia’ or is he beholden to promises and obligations extending from his ever expanding folio of global business connections? As recent media reports show there is certainly a need for a parliamentary enquiry to establish whether Kevin Rudd is a fit person to hold office. May be time to check those ministerial guidelines that you rolled out last November Mr Rudd.

A CHINESE company that paid for Kevin Rudd to visit war-torn Sudan 18 months ago has denied it was doing business in the African country at the time.

Mr Rudd was opposition foreign affairs spokesman when Beijing AustChina Technology, a Chinese importer of Australian telecommunications products, paid for him to visit the African nation of Sudan in June and July 2006. AustChina also sponsored trips to Hong Kong and China by Treasurer Wayne Swan, Agriculture Minister Tony Burke and Labor backbencher Bernie Ripoll before last year’s election. But the company denied reports that its executives had travelled with the future prime minister in 2006, describing the claim as “completely false”.

Someones telling ‘porkies’ so one would imagine the Greens and the Democrats would at this point be frothing at the mouth to find out more about the Rudd China connections, where they go, and the implications for Australian Foreign Policy and Domestic Security.

Starting with Beijing AustChina, News Corporation are not exactly correct in describing the entity as a ‘Chinese Importer’. Checking the companies website we find out its in fact a foreign company not Chinese.

Beijing AustChina Technology Ltd is a Beijing-registered, foreign-owned company that is dedicated to providing value-added telecommunication and information technology solutions to the Chinese market place. We specialise in the supply and support of the latest, internationally recognised and successful ICT-related technologies through partnerships with leading Australasian companies. Beijing AustChina facilitates the localisation of these specialised products to meet the specific needs of the Chinese marketplace.

So whats the value add and what are these specific needs of the Chinese marketplace that Kevin Rudd has been so helpful in procuring? The Beijing AustChina site reveals that as well, take for example one of the key partners Longreach:

LongReach Group Limited (ASX Code: LRG) is a leading ASX-listed provider of integrated information and communications technology based products and services to the defence, security and intelligence sectors, as well as to government, telecommunications and corporate customers, both locally and internationally. (AustChina/Longreach/C4i – opposition still dithering in parliament)

Ouch! Might be time to lay your cards on the table Mr Rudd your position as Prime Minister may well be compromised by inadvertently trading military intelligence expertise with a major world power that Australia does not have an official treaty relationship with.

What does Crikey have to say about all this? No elaboration on the military connections but some messy business back home and further indications that this company was set up in Australia contrary to the popular belief of the mainstream media:

Lets start with exactly what is Beijing AustChina Technology, this mysterious company which Christian Kerr revealed in The Australian last week paid for Rudd, Wayne Swan and the hypocritical Tony Burke to take seven business class trips, mostly to China, over the past four years.

Veteran telecom industry players claim never to have heard of Beijing AustChina Technology. The company’s website trumpets that it acts as an agent for a few telco equipment companies but this press report suggests annual turnover is a rather meager $6 million.

The business address appears to lead to a residential address in Warriewood, North Sydney, and they are a $1 company.

However, company founder Ian Tang, who personally chaperoned Rudd and Swan on one China trip in 2004, now turns out to be pushing a $1.3 billion property development backed by Stanley Ho. Ho, of course, is the colourful entrepreneur who controlled Macau’s casinos for decades and handed control to his son Lawrence a couple of years back rather than face probity tests in Australia when the family joined forces with the Packers to create Melco.

NSW Labor has long been up close and personal with gambling, developer and Packer interests, so it should come as no surprise that Morris Iemma lauded Ian Tang when appointing him an honorary Sydney ambassador.

Such an honour followed the rather generous $258,000 in donations to the NSW ALP by Beijing Austchina Technology, payments which coincided with this period of sponsored travel.

Enough already, order in the house! So, when is a Prime Minister not a Prime Minister? Simple: When he’s not a Prime Minister!

Top photo: Rudds ‘Chinese Controller’ Mr Tang works on Whitlam.
Bottom: Australian registered headquarters of Beijing AustChina (note the absence of Chinese flag and the gum trees)

Further reading:

• Aunty (Your ABC) is almost silent on this story? A google search of ‘AustChina’ reveals that our national broadcaster is either asleep on the job or Rudd has censored the ABC for the moment. When ABC does report it gets it wrong as well…AustChina is not a Chinese Company. ABC’s once credible watchdog Media Watch is not sure if I have a case…my analysis of their scant report and innane questioning of key players suggests otherwise – more on this later!
• Crikey.com exclusive
• An unlikely ally points to the truth…. Andrew Bolt and Crikey suddenly see eye to eye?
• Drilling down into the Rudd AustChina connections…C4 yourself!
• Rudd Defends AustChina-sponsored trips…but is not sounding convincing: “It was in November, December, something like that, in Brissie, 10 or 15 minutes, cup of coffee, hello how are you,” Mr Rudd told reporters.
• Chinese businessman’s Canberra links defended “The nature of the conversation was: ‘Hello, how are you? I haven’t seen you for a bit.’ Mr Rudd has jokingly described Mr Tang, who is linked to Macau property and gambling tycoon Stanley Ho, as his “Chinese controller” — although the Prime Minister played down this sobriquet yesterday.
• Techsploder: “Going to Sudan on any business is sensitive enough for the leader of a democratic country, due to the bloody conflict in Darfur. Heading to Sudan sponsored by a Chinese company would seem unwise in the extreme for Rudd, and not a little cynical. A US human rights group says China is the main arms supplier to the Sudanese, with the weapons allegedly used to further the carnage in Darfur. “
• Australia Chinese Connections: Yang said he and Smith discussed increasing trade in “advanced equipment,” and increased exchanges in science and technology, cultural education and health, adding: “I’m proud to say that 90,000 Chinese students are studying in this country. And last year, about 300,000 Chinese came to tour. So in future, there will be more Chinese coming this way.” What “advanced equipment”? and is’nt Simon Crean Trade Minister?
• The Australian: KEVIN Rudd was directly involved in the public launch of a $1.3 billion Beijing retail development backed by Chinese gambling tycoon Stanley Ho and businessman Ian Tang, despite his attempts to play down links with the two men…Over the past week, the Prime Minister has gone out of his way to distance himself from links to both Mr Tang and Mr Ho, insisting he had travelled only in his capacity as Labor’s former foreign affairs spokesman. Mr Rudd has pledged to campaign on problem gambling and professed his “hatred” of poker machines, while being vague about his past links to Mr Ho.
• PM’s ‘bad judgement’ over China trip: “I, together with, I think, others from Austrade and the Australian embassy attended,” he told ABC Radio. Asked if he spoke at the event, he replied: “I believe so. But I speak at many Chinese functions when I am in Beijing, Shanghai or elsewhere in the country.
  
• While Rudd gave the Sudanese a goat the Chinese were giving them bullets and still no explanation from Rudd about confused reports over his actual purpose in Sudan and conflicting remarks from AustChina manager Maggie Zhen? Some straight answers about Sudan and what AustChina was doing there would be helpful. AustChina deputy general manager Maggie Zhen was quoted in a communications industry newsletter as saying that the company was doing business in Sudan in 2006 and Mr Rudd went with them – this was later stated by AustChina to be a misquote by Ms Zhen….
• Business Spectator: Garrett goofs yet again adding to Rudds nightmare: One MP, Peter Garrett, is still director of several private companies. The listing of MP’s interests shows dealings with Chinese entrepreneur, Ian Tang, and his company Beijing AustChina Technology.
• Rudd’s long march to Asia’s heart (SMH) reveals Ian Tang is good friend with Chinese Military: ‘Tang mentioned that to assist his real estate business, he was helping place the children of some officials in Australian colleges, and boasted that thanks to his contacts, he could place a Chinese military helicopter at his guests’ disposal for flights around Beijing.’ – He might want to call on that helicopter to rescue his drowning aussie mates.
• Macau Times – Australian ambassador lends Stanley Ho and Tang a hand: The Age reported that an Australian embassy official in Beijing also tried to smooth the way for Tang and Ho’s development, contacting the city’s Mayor, Wang Qishan, asking for his assistance “so the project can move forward in line with project timelines”.
  “I understand that the project may be experiencing some delays,” said Peter Osborne, Minister (commercial), Australian embassy, Beijing, The Age reported. “The Australian Government has maintained an ongoing interest in this high profile project in the centre of Beijing (and) as you may be aware, the Australian deputy prime minister, the honourable Mark Vaile, MP, visited the project during his December 2006 visit to Beijing.”
• MYSTERY Chinese entrepreneur Ian Tang boasted of his close friendship with Kevin Rudd and applauded Labor’s election victory at a recent function in Beijing. Brisbane Liberal MP Michael Johnson claims Mr Tang – whose firm, Beijing AustChina Technology, has been at the centre of a political storm – also spoke of having good “guanxi” with Mr Rudd.The Chinese term refers to a personal connection in which a person is able to prevail upon another to perform a favour.
• Everybody’s business – Canberra Times – Tang receives big boon from Canberra (PowerTong Network Technology Ltd) : “John Anderson helped our company,” Tang said in a conversation picked up by a television microphone. “We’ve been given $25 million.” So, multi-million dollar assistance from the Australian government to a Chinese company and then, five years later when it was in diabolical trouble on the eve of an election, it donates to the party of the man who facilitated it. Coincidence, surely.
• Rudd loses cool in the house: “Honourable member for Goldstein, the government of which you were a part knew a flaming lot about this company!” he declared, raising his voice at least 10 decibels above the normal speaking range of 60-ish. “The National Party-Liberal Party got 155 grand on the kick. I would suggest that we have here a modest case of double standards!”