Our unelected Prime Minister, Ms. Julia Gillard, is asking for a vote of your confidence on 21 August.

There is no doubting that she is a woman of drive, intellect and work ethic.

Unfortunately, the self-proclaimed ‘Real Julia’ does not stack up with what she has stood for in the past. Portrayed now as a moderate, it is difficult to reconcile this with the extreme left-wing agendas which she has so long championed. If this is something she long ago turned her back on why then, even in the present campaign, were there attempts to censor out any reference to her more recent involvement in advancing an extreme-left agenda?

The vast majority of Australians have a deeply held respect for the core institutions and values on which our country was built, and under which it continues to prosper. The faceless men who organised the coup against Kevin Rudd, installing Ms. Gillard, know that to have any chance of winning the federal election they have to hide her long and recent radical past. They know she must identify with the average Australian who would be turned off by her long held extremely radical views. It's no wonder that these professional assassins and spin doctors have put a lot of effort into portraying her as a moderate, just as they once portrayed Kevin Rudd  as a fiscal conservative (and we all know how that turned out).

The extraordinary mid election announcement, that we will finally see the 'Real Julia’ raises the obvious question, which 'Julia' have we been seeing until now? Is she now just the one with the red hair, or is she still the one with the red agenda?

So who is this 'Real Julia'?  How should the Australian people judge what is a job application for the most powerful position in the country?

Has she earned the nation’s confidence? Are Australians willing to risk their and their family’s future on this?

The faceless men behind her fear that the 'Real Julia' is so far out of line with mainstream Australian views, that she would be un-electable if people knew what she really stands for.

Is this new found moderation one she endorses, or are the faceless men merely applying the appalling strategy of 'the end justifies the means' (or 'whatever it takes')?

She is on the record as declaring that the left can only advance its radical views "by giving strategic support for Labor Governments". Views which would compromise our democracy, hard-won prosperity, and freedoms.

"We need,” she insisted “to recognise the only possibility for major social change is under a long period of Labor administration. Within that administration the left needs to be willing to participate to shape political outcomes, recognising the need to except (sic) often unpalatable compromises in the short term to bolster the prospect of future advance."

It should be made clear that I fully support Ms. Gillard's right, under our functioning democracy, to hold whatever views she likes. What concerns me is whether her current moderate image is no more than one of those unpalatable compromises she refers to , one necessary in 2010 to advance a radical agenda, as she says to “move forward”?

But to 'move forward' to where? Some sort of left-wing utopia?

She has made it clear that she does not believe in God. We know what she openly believed in, from her involvement, even as an MP, in the Socialist Forum.

Curiously, aside from Alan Jones, there seems to be no record of Ms. Gillard being formally asked in this campaign whether she has renounced her previously held and then publicised socialist agenda. And if she has renounced them, precisely when did she do so, how did she do so and what were her reasons?

How were the people she represents informed of this change of heart? Were they not entitled to know that she had become if not a social and fiscal conservative, a moderate? Surely the people of Australia are entitled now to know these crucial facts. It is the duty of the media to find the answers – if they exist.

If she were applying for a routine position she would be asked these questions. We are talking about the most powerful position in this land.

When questioned over her long standing alliance with, and even leadership of various extreme-left organisations, she laughs it off as "a bunch of old cobblers". Unfortunately the timeframe and level of her involvement do not support this.

It is reasonable then to fear that Ms. Gillard is desperately seeking to sweep her past under the rug, highly moderating what the public is exposed to ... damage control at its finest.

A perfect example is Julia Gillard's recent interview with Alan Jones on 2GB. When asked some confronting questions about her socialist past, and apparent recent conversion, she became quite agitated and obviously uncomfortable. Although trying to move on as quickly as possible, Alan Jones quite properly was not put off and, in his unique style, kept pushing.

When it was revealed by a diligent reporter that the transcript posted to the ALP website censored reference to this exchange, it was then corrected. The feeble explanation offered was that it was some oversight in the transcribing process.

So what exactly was Ms. Gillard's real involvement with radical organisations? How long was she involved? And what did they stand for?

In the early 1980's Ms. Gillard had her first introduction into politics, whilst studying law at The University of Adelaide, joining the now-defunct Australian Union of Students (AUS). In 1982, after moving to Melbourne, she was elected National Education Vice-President, and the following year, President.

During this year, the AUS was totally dominated by the extreme-left. She remained as President until early 1984 during which year, moderate Labor, Liberal and Jewish students campaigned vigorously to abolish the AUS. Ms. Gillard and her left-wing colleagues continued to defend the union until it collapsed from lack of funds as more and more students left.

Being elected to take leadership of an organisation, particularly the level of President, surely requires two things. Firstly, it requires a strong belief in what the organisation is espousing, coupled with a strong drive to advance its agenda; and secondly, the strong support of those involved, particularly that of its core leaders.

Some of the outrageous policies that the AUS adopted are detailed below:

• Adopted a policy on prostitution which, in part, said "Prostitution takes many forms and is not only the exchange of money for sex ... Prostitution in marriage is the transaction of sex in return for love, security and housekeeping".
• Supported all varieties of abortion, including during late term pregnancy.
• Asserted that ALL men exercise the threat of rape, ranging from subtle appeals to a woman's mistaken sense of obligation, to direct threats, blackmail and even physical force.
• Declared 1983 to be the International Year of the Lesbian, in an era when globally, issues such as the threat of nuclear conflict were at the forefront of mainstream concern.
• Grudgingly conceded that heterosexual coupling was a legitimate norm on campus.
• Declared that 'All women are oppressed because they are women'.
• Supported the use of self-evaluation (students marking their own work!) in preference to independent, formal assessment by qualified academics. This policy extended to school students.
•  Supported banning any government funding to non-government schools.
• Supported infiltrating objective education programs to manipulate the curriculum, to covertly influence students' perceptions of social order.

Some students tried to ensure that the AUS became a safe and reasonable organisation, reflecting the views of level-headed students. These efforts failed miserably. The organisation was so irreversibly disconnected from mainstream values that it was unable to retain its student membership, who fled in droves.

Here is a sample of some such motions, all of which failed to get the support of the AUS.

• That the AUS and all its officers be directed not to have any contact, condone or endorse any terrorist groups advocating political violence, and that no money be given to any such group in 1984. (AUS Annual Council 1983: Motion N28).
• The AUS rejects the use of unlawful violence as a means of implementing its policies.
• AUS supports the continuation in Australian universities of courses in Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Chemical Engineering.

Why did the AUS not support the study of practical courses such as engineering? By not supporting the above motions, it suggests that some of the AUS' methods were both aggressively militant and inappropriate for a student body.

From any and every perspective, the AUS was a dysfunctional outfit. It communicated poorly with its membership, was out-of-touch with their needs, and could not manage its budget. In her two years of being on the executive, (one of which as President), Ms. Gillard was unable to turn things around. It folded in 1984.

Julia Gillard's involvement with radical organisations did not end with the AUS. In 1984 Ms. Gillard became a prominent member of The Socialist Forum, the parliamentary register of interests stating that she remained a member until 2002 (well into her parliamentary career, which began in 1998). Originally consisting of ex-members of the Victorian branch of Communist Party and some Labor Party members, the forum aimed to create a socialist/feminist society through Labor governments.

The problem we are now faced with is that Julia Gillard is a candidate for the highest political office in the country. Any hindrances to her putting in place her own fringe agenda will no longer exist, once she has the top job.

She has demonstrated over time that she believes 'the end justifies the means'. With little regard for democratic stability, she was a key player in ousting then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Her chameleon-like strategy for social reform, is to get into government at any cost, allowing her to implement her plans.

She will express mainstream views ...

Get mainstream votes ...

Once in power, the risk is that she will bring about a radical agenda. And judging from her slick style, it will be so sly that nobody will notice, until it is too late. Mission accomplished. Unless of course we wake up in time!

*** The views expressed are the personally-held and researched views of the author, in his capacity as a concerned citizen. ***