All News

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 ([email protected])

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?

During the Vietnam War, when ambushed and outnumbered by Viet Cong forces, Warrant Officer Kevin “Dasher” Wheatley refused to abandon his wounded mate and chose to go down fighting against impossible odds rather than leave a man behind. This action of selfless gallantry led to a posthumous awarding of Australia’s highest military gallantry medal, the Victoria Cross. Wheatley was a member of the legendary Australian Army Training Team (AATV) and his story is still taught today in the Australian Army as an example of sacrifice, valour and mateship. In addition to the Victoria Cross, in other separate actions this fearless Aussie soldier was also awarded the Silver Star and Medal for Gallantry. The South Vietnamese government also awarded Wheatley the Knight of the National Order of Vietnam, Cross of Gallantry and Military Merit Medal.

The Times

In the world’s leading armies, it was once customary for artillery units to fire a few rounds and then quickly change positions to complicate enemy counter-battery fire. This tactic, known as “shoot and scoot,” aimed to minimise the risk of retaliation. However, Russia’s expanded invasion of Ukraine and the widespread use of small drones by both sides have fundamentally altered this battlefield practice.

Small, highly manoeuvrable, and resistant to jamming, Russia’s most advanced fibre-optic drones have introduced a new dimension to modern warfare. When operated by skilled personnel, these drones can slip into buildings and underground shelters to locate Ukrainian vehicles hidden from conventional surveillance methods.

The omnipresence of surveillance drones along the 800-mile front line of this prolonged conflict means that any vehicle moving in the open is swiftly detected. Artillery units have adapted by tucking their howitzers into well-concealed dugouts or blending them into existing structures between fire missions. This strategy reduces the risk posed by larger, less flexible drones that struggle to navigate confined spaces or deliver precise strikes on hidden targets.

However, first-person-view (FPV) drones—small, lightweight, and controlled remotely through a visor displaying the drone’s live feed—can bypass these defences. Unlike larger reconnaissance drones, FPV drones can fly close to the ground and enter tight spaces where artillery units attempt to hide.

Most FPV drones rely on radio signals for control, making them susceptible to jamming. To counter Ukraine’s highly effective electronic warfare capabilities, Russian drone units have increasingly turned to fibre-optic drones, which maintain a physical connection to their operators via spools of millimetre-thin wire extending over miles.

While fibre-optic drones offer significant advantages, they are not without drawbacks. Their high cost limits their widespread deployment, and their trailing wires, visible under certain conditions, can reveal the operator’s location to enemy forces. Additionally, the wires are prone to tangling, requiring exceptional skill for effective deployment.

Recognising the effectiveness of fibre-optic drones, Ukraine is also investing in the technology, ensuring that the tactical advantage is not one-sided. As both nations refine their drone warfare capabilities, the battle for supremacy in the skies—and in the hidden spaces of the battlefield—continues to evolve.

The shift towards fibre-optic drones underscores a broader trend in modern warfare: the continuous adaptation of tactics in response to emerging technologies. As concealment and electronic countermeasures become less reliable, success on the battlefield increasingly hinges on innovation and operator expertise.

eWise Blog

Australia has long been a strong advocate for global peacekeeping efforts, participating in missions across the Asia-Pacific, Africa, and the Middle East. The recent proposal for a ‘coalition of the willing’ to send a peacekeeping force to Ukraine, including Australian troops, raises significant questions about our role in international conflicts and the potential risks involved.

Peacekeeping is a noble pursuit, but the Ukraine conflict presents unique challenges. Unlike traditional peacekeeping missions, where forces intervene post-conflict to maintain stability, Ukraine remains an active war zone. Deploying troops into such a volatile situation risks transforming peacekeepers into combatants, especially given Russia’s outright rejection of NATO or European forces on Ukrainian soil. This could lead to Australia being drawn into a broader confrontation, which is not in our national interest.

Australia’s history in peacekeeping, from East Timor to the Solomon Islands, has largely involved stabilising regions with limited military opposition. Ukraine is different. A ceasefire or peace deal must first be established before any meaningful peacekeeping mission can be considered. Without clear conditions and an internationally recognised agreement, such a force risks being a political gesture rather than an effective stabilising force.

Moreover, the success of a peacekeeping force hinges on the backing of major global powers. The absence of a strong US security guarantee raises doubts about the viability of this initiative. If European forces find themselves in direct conflict with Russian troops, does Australia have the capacity and political will to stand firm in such a scenario?

Instead of committing troops, Australia should focus on diplomatic efforts, humanitarian aid, and military support through training and logistics. There are numerous ways we can assist Ukraine without putting Australian lives directly in harm’s way.

While Australia must continue to support global peace and security, we must also ensure that our involvement in Ukraine is measured, strategic, and does not compromise our national interests. Peacekeeping should never become a pathway to war.