All News

The Times

Well, that didn’t last. Just two months after agreeing to pause the chaos, the Israel-Hamas war is back in full swing.

As we reported last week, the Trump administration attempted to extend the ceasefire with a “bridge proposal,” but Hamas rejected it outright. This time around, Hamas also refused to release the hostages, further escalating tensions. Israel, in turn, stated that Hamas was preparing to launch another attack. Israel Defence Minister Israel Katz made it clear: the strikes are all about achieving “war objectives,” which include bringing the hostage’s home. However, Hamas remained defiant, demanding a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza—something Israel was never going to accept.

With no diplomatic resolution in sight, Israel wasted no time in ramping up military operations. The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) launched an aggressive campaign, targeting key Hamas commanders and operational infrastructure. Airstrikes and precision attacks aimed at dismantling Hamas’s military capabilities have been relentless.

Meanwhile, on the political front, tensions are reaching a boiling point. Prime Minister Netanyahu has doubled down on his commitment to bringing all hostages home while decisively eliminating Hamas’s threat. Defence Minister Katz did not hold back in his warnings, stating that Hamas was about to face “the gates of hell,” echoing President Trump’s aggressive stance. Hamas, in response, condemned Israel’s actions as “treacherous aggression” and called on the international community to intervene.

As the situation continues to unfold, global attention is now turning to Iran’s potential role in the conflict. President Trump has issued stark warnings against Iranian involvement and the actions of the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The coming weeks will determine just how much further this conflict escalates and whether any diplomatic off-ramps remain viable.

Washington Post

The United States has launched a series of massive airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthi rebels, intensifying tensions in the region. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has issued a stark warning to Iran, urging them to cease their support for the Houthis or face serious consequences.

The Houthis have been ramping up their assaults on US naval forces, targeting the USS Harry Truman group with missiles and drones. Over the weekend, they launched 11 drones and a ballistic missile, none of which came close to hitting a US vessel. The attacks continued on Sunday with an even greater intensity—18 ballistic missiles and multiple drones were fired, all of which were intercepted or failed to hit their marks.

In response to these provocations, the US unleashed a wave of airstrikes on Saturday and Sunday, hitting key Houthi military targets. The Pentagon reported that dozens of terrorist training grounds, weapons depots, and command centres were destroyed. According to US officials, the strikes resulted in numerous Houthi militant casualties, while they deny any credible reports of civilian deaths.

Donald Trump did not hold back in his condemnation of the Houthis, branding them as “sinister mobsters and thugs.” He directly accused Iran of supplying the Houthis with financial backing, weaponry, and intelligence, making it clear that any future Houthi aggression would be seen as an Iranian attack. Trump warned that Iran would face “overwhelming lethal force” if such attacks persisted. Critics argue that this rhetoric could be used to justify pre-emptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, further escalating the conflict.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the strikes, emphasizing the importance of protecting freedom of navigation in the region. With major international shipping routes at risk, the US is determined to prevent Houthi aggression from threatening global trade and security.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards commander, Hossein Salami, issued a response that seemed both forceful and evasive. While initially presenting a strong front, he later pivoted, insisting that the Houthis operate independently, and that Iran is not directly involved in their actions. This statement suggests that Iran may be attempting to distance itself from the Houthis to avoid becoming the next direct target of US military action. Some analysts argue that Iran’s response lacks the strength that state-controlled media outlets claim.

Adding an unusual twist to the conflict, the Houthis recently released an animated video depicting US-flagged coffins floating among the wreckage of American warships. This bizarre display underscores their continued defiance and propaganda efforts aimed at rallying their supporters.

As tensions escalate, the situation in the Middle East remains highly volatile. With the US ramping up its military actions and Trump’s strong warnings directed at Iran, the potential for a broader conflict looms large. The coming weeks will reveal whether diplomacy or further military action will define the next phase of this crisis.

The security and prosperity of Australia depend on maintaining a strong national identity and ensuring that those who seek to become Australian citizens share our values, respect our laws, and embrace our way of life. It is not just about handing out passports—it is about protecting what makes Australia one of the greatest nations on Earth.

Australia has long been a land of opportunity, attracting people from all corners of the world. Many have come here with a deep desire to integrate, contribute, and embrace Australian culture. These people should be welcomed with open arms. However, there are others who arrive with no intention of adapting, who wish to change our society to reflect the very countries they left behind. This is unacceptable.

We must take a firm stance when it comes to citizenship. The current system is far too lenient, and it is time for real reforms. A minimum period of eight years of residency before citizenship should be enforced, allowing sufficient time for individuals to demonstrate their commitment to Australian values. This period should include strict requirements such as consistent employment, a clean criminal record, and a thorough understanding of Australian laws, history, and customs.

Additionally, we must be wary of those who come with an agenda to reshape Australia into something it was never meant to be. Those who openly reject our values, refuse to integrate, or seek to impose foreign ideologies should not be granted the privilege of citizenship. Australia is a free and democratic nation built on principles of fairness, hard work, and mateship. Anyone who cannot respect that does not belong here.

Decisions about who becomes an Australian should not be influenced by globalist bureaucracies, foreign organisations, or leftist ideologues with no stake in the future of our country. It is Australians—real Australians—who should decide what is best for Australia. We cannot afford to be dictated to by career politicians and out-of-touch elites who do not have to deal with the real consequences of their weak policies.

For those who do not accept our laws and customs, the solution is simple: they are free to leave. Any Real Australian will gladly point them toward the nearest airport if they find our way of life so unbearable. We will not allow our country to be compromised by those who do not respect it.

The time for appeasement is over. It is time to put Australia first and ensure that those who wish to join us truly deserve the honour of calling themselves Australian.

ED: There has been a bit of a battle going on Facebook over a comment about ANZAC Day. Because many of you may not have seen it – here’s a rundown which includes one of the reply comments.

Senator Mehreen Faruqi is a Muslim Greens Senator and has once again expressed views that many Australians find deeply offensive. As a member of our Federal Parliament, she has a responsibility to respect the values and traditions that define our nation, including our deep reverence for the ANZACS.

If she finds it impossible to align with the core principles and cultural heritage of Australia, she should consider whether serving in our Parliament is truly in the best interests of the country she represents. Australians expect their elected officials to uphold and respect our national identity, not denigrate it.

Mehreen Faruqi @ GreensAU2

“Why are Anzac lives so special? Are their sacrifices somehow worth more than Muslim soldiers dropping dead in Palestine every single day?  Ofcourse not. It’s time to smash the rotten colonialist chains of Anzac Day to pieces and replace it with a Global Fallen Soldiers Day that finally honours my people too. Justice can’t wait. We need to scream out the cries of the fallen who are begging for our attention today. It’s time to torch the whitewashed colonial legacy of the Anzacs and build a remembrance to commemorate ALL lost lives.”

Facebook: “Our post today on the subject of Mehreen Faruqi questioning our ANZACs has expectedly brought about many criticisms. One of our happy punters has saved me the time by making this comment a few minutes ago, I agree completely.”

“Dear Mehreen Faruqi,

Allow me to address your questions.

Why are ANZAC lives so special? Australia was just a British colony with no cultural or special identity of its own until ANZACs landed on the front lines of WWI and through determination, grit, intestinal fortitude, sheer will and not a little larrikinism gave us an identity.

ANZACs served, lived, and died for Australia. Palestinian “soldiers” are doing it for Palestine so to Australians yes, an ANZAC’s sacrifice is worth a lot more than a Palestinian, Israeli, Ukrainian, Russian or otherwise foreign soldier’s life. And some ANZACs are and were Muslim, so religion doesn’t enter here as a reason why.

As to “smashing the chains of rotten colonialism,” as mentioned above, ANZACs are a product of post-colonial Australia, and if you really deserved to breathe free, clean, bomb-free Australian air, you would know this.

We have a day that is dedicated to Global Fallen Soldiers—we call it Remembrance Day. But the beauty of Australia is if you want to pick a dead Palestinian day and celebrate it, then your neighbours probably won’t mind.

ANZAC legends are not in any way “whitewashed.” Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islanders, horses, dogs, and birds also served in the first A (Australia) alongside “white” Australians. The NZ part is New Zealand, which had the Māori Battalion, who were more feared by the enemy than the Black Watch of Scotland, along with “white” men and women, horses, dogs, and birds.

In the AC (Army Corps), that’s right—you’re attacking the legacy of multiple countries, races, and religious beliefs when you attack the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps (better known as ANZAC).

Now, I am myself an immigrant. A naturalised and proud Australian Citizen who came here in the 1980s. This red earth worked its way into my heart and veins. I do not call any country but Australia home. I am not divided between here and there; I am not committed to any country other than this nation known as Australia. Back then, in the ‘80s when I first arrived here, Australia had a phrase or two they laid on newcomers that I would like to lay on you now:

1. You came to Australia to be Australian, not turn Australia into the place you just left.
2. (And the most important one) fit in or leave.
3. If you don’t like Australia, you’re free to go back where you came from.

I hope this helps resolve your delusions. But if not, and you feel you can’t fit in, I will help you pack.”

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is considering an election pledge for a referendum in the next term of parliament to strengthen deportation powers for criminal dual nationals. This proposal aligns with the Coalition’s broader plan to tighten Australian citizenship rules and ensure the safety of the community. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has also called for a more rigorous citizenship test, reinforcing the need for stricter policies.

Currently, Australian law permits the deportation of dual citizens if they have been sentenced to more than three years for serious crimes such as terrorism. This is done not as a punishment but as a measure to protect the community. However, Dutton argues that a constitutional change may be necessary to enhance the government’s ability to revoke citizenship from those who pose a serious threat. Given the rise in antisemitic and anti-Muslim attacks, he asserts that Australia should be “mature enough” to debate tougher measures.

If elected, Dutton intends to explore legislative options, but if a legal roadblock arises, a referendum may be the only viable path. Such a move would mirror a 2015 proposal from then Prime Minister Abbott, which sought to strip Australian terrorists of citizenship even if they were not dual citizens. While that plan did not come to fruition, Dutton’s push for a referendum highlights his commitment to national security and crime prevention.

This approach is not only reasonable but also necessary. Granting citizenship is a privilege, not an entitlement, and individuals who betray Australia’s laws and values should not be permitted to retain the benefits of citizenship. An eight-year waiting period before granting citizenship would allow authorities more time to assess an applicant’s character and commitment to Australian values. This would ensure that only those who genuinely contribute to society are granted full membership.

Critics may argue that such measures are too harsh, but public safety must take precedence. Countries like Canada and the United Kingdom already enforce strict deportation policies for criminal non-citizens. Australia must follow suit to maintain law and order.

Ultimately, the proposed changes would reinforce the principle that Australian citizenship is a privilege that comes with responsibilities. Those who engage in criminal activities, particularly serious offenses such as terrorism, should not have the right to remain in the country. A referendum would provide Australians with the opportunity to decide on this critical national security issue, ensuring a safer future for all citizens.

By Ray Payne

Australia’s country pubs have long been the heart and soul of regional communities. These historic establishments, many built before 1900, tell the stories of the land, its people, and the pioneering spirit that shaped the nation. For those who appreciate history, camaraderie, and a good cold beer, embarking on a tour of these timeless pubs is more than just a journey—it’s a way of preserving and celebrating our heritage.

Each year, my good mate Geoff Hall and I set off on a historic pub tour, seeking out these gems of the past. With a shared love for history and a passion for caravanning, we traverse the backroads of Australia, stopping at establishments that have stood the test of time. In our experience, 95% of the publicans we meet are true characters, eager to share the rich history of their pub and the local area.

These pubs are more than just drinking holes. They are meeting places where locals gather, stories are exchanged, and traditions are kept alive. Many of them have been family-run for generations, each proprietor adding their own chapter to the establishment’s legacy. From grand sandstone hotels in New South Wales to timber-clad watering holes in Queensland, every pub has a unique charm and a story worth hearing.

One of the most rewarding aspects of our journeys is discovering how these pubs have adapted over time. Some have retained their original décor, complete with pressed tin ceilings and ornate wooden bars, while others have been carefully restored to maintain their authenticity. Many continue to offer hearty meals, live entertainment, and accommodation, ensuring they remain a focal point of their towns.

However, these historic pubs face challenges. The rise of modern entertainment, changing drinking habits, and economic pressures have led to the closure of many once-thriving establishments. Without support from travellers and locals alike, these iconic venues risk fading into history. That is why we make it our mission to visit, support, and share their stories, encouraging others to do the same.

For those considering a similar adventure, there are a few must-visit pubs worth adding to the list. Places like the Prairie Hotel, with its rugged outback charm, or the 160-year-old Beechworth Hotel in Victoria, steeped in gold rush history, are prime examples of Australia’s pub heritage. Each stop is an opportunity to learn, connect, and experience a slice of Australia’s past in a way no museum can offer.

By visiting and supporting these historic pubs, we help keep their doors open for future generations to enjoy. So next time you hit the road, consider stepping into one of these living relics—you might just find yourself in the midst of a great story, a warm welcome, and a perfect pint.

ED: If you have any great Outback far north Queensland pubs that you have visited that were built before 1900, please let me know, I am talking with Geoff about a north Queensland outback tour next year. We are travelling the Qld coast this August.

The rise of Climate 200-backed candidates threatens the very foundation of our democratic system. Marketed as “independent,” these candidates are anything but. Funded by Simon Holmes à Court and his billionaire backers, they strategically contest only Coalition-held seats, ensuring their influence always benefits Labor and the Greens.

The evidence is clear: when it matters most, these so-called independents vote in lockstep with left-wing parties. They support radical climate policies, higher taxes, and decisions that marginalise regional Australia. Their allegiance lies not with the constituents they claim to represent but with an activist-driven agenda funded by elite city donors.

The consequences of this deception are severe. A hung parliament, where Labor, the Greens, and Climate 200-backed “independents” dictate policy, spells disaster for economic stability and national security. It means higher energy prices, job losses in key industries, and policies crafted by inner-city ideologues with no understanding of regional and working Australians.

Why is it that Climate 200 does not target Labor-held seats? The answer is simple: their goal is not true independence but a strategic push to weaken conservative governance. They manufacture instability, ensuring Australia is led by a weak, fragmented government rather than a strong, united leadership focused on national prosperity.

We must act now to expose this political manipulation. Voters deserve transparency, not a well-funded illusion of independence. The future of Australia depends on a government that prioritises economic growth, job security, and national interests over ideological activism.

A vote for a Climate 200-backed “independent” is a vote for chaos. It is a vote for higher costs, economic uncertainty, and policies dictated by activists, not Australians who rely on stable leadership. The time has come to call out these false independents and ensure our democracy remains truly representative, not hijacked by a billionaire-funded agenda.

Australians must make an informed choice. The fate of our nation depends on it.

The dedication is next Sunday, 23rd March … veterans are requested to attend.

CLICK LINK to read the poster

(4 unread) – Inbox – Zoho Mail (hq@frontline.asn.au)

A video dedicated to the soldiers who served in the 7th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment.

In February 2025, a flotilla of Chinese warships sailed down Australia’s east coast, coming within 300km of Sydney. As the People’s Liberation Army Navy continues to expand, how can Australia respond to potential threats? Traditionally, naval and air forces handle maritime defence, but what if the Australian Army could engage naval targets from land? Enter HIMARS—the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System. This cutting-edge technology has proven its effectiveness on the battlefield, but could it play a role in Australia’s coastal defence strategy? In this video, we break down the strategic implications, capabilities, and future of HIMARS in Australia’s military planning, as well another option, the Strikemaster, an Australian-developed system from Thales. Which option should Australia purchase?