When Symbolism Betrays Law: Howard Slams Albanese Over Palestine Recognition

Former Prime Minister John Howard—joined by ex-Foreign Minister Alexander Downer—has launched a scathing attack on the Albanese government's decision to recognise Palestine. Their words? Harsh and unmistakable.

"Reckless and Dangerous" Recognition

Howard and Downer label the recognition move "reckless and dangerous," arguing it breaks international law and undermines Australia’s diplomatic credibility. They accuse Prime Minister Albanese and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke of sacrificing decades of policy based on negotiation in favor of premature political symbolism.

Statehood vs. Legal Standards

Referencing the Montevideo Convention, they point out that Palestine lacks the necessary attributes of a sovereign state: defined territory, effective government, and control across its claimed land. This means the recognition, they argue, is not legal but purely political.

Betraying Trust, Not Just Diplomacy

Australia’s enduring trust-based relationship with Israel, they say, is at stake. Unlike previous Labor figures like Bob Hawke or H.V. Evatt, Albanese is accused of sidelining legal foundations for political convenience. This, the pair argue, is more than poor diplomacy—it’s a betrayal of the rules-based order itself.

Cropping up International Tensions

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn’t hold back either. He labelled Albanese "weak" and warned that the move "betrays Australia’s Jews," accusing the government of appeasement. 

Bottom Line

This moment is more than a diplomatic pivot—it's a crossroad of law versus symbolism, trust versus optics. Recognizing Palestine without the traits of statehood isn’t a peacebuilding step—it’s a political gesture with legal and diplomatic costs.

Read more at;-

• News.com.a
• theaustralian.com.au

Alarming COVID-19 Vaccine Study: Mortality Rates Rise with Each Dose

A recent study from Japan, encompassing data from 14 million individuals, has raised serious concerns about the safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations. The findings suggest a troubling correlation: as the number of vaccine doses increases, so does the mortality rate.

Key Findings of the Study

• Increased Mortality with More Doses: The study indicates that individuals who received multiple doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine experienced higher mortality rates compared to those who received fewer doses.

• Delayed Deaths Post-Vaccination: Notably, the increase in mortality was observed several months after vaccination, raising questions about the long-term effects of the vaccine.

• Excess Deaths Not Attributed to COVID-19: Interestingly, the majority of these excess deaths were not directly linked to COVID-19, suggesting that other factors may be at play.

Government Response and Public Discourse

Despite the gravity of these findings, the Japanese government's response has been underwhelming. There has been no immediate suspension or reevaluation of the mRNA vaccination program. This lack of action raises concerns about transparency and the prioritization of public health.

The media's coverage of the study has also been limited, with many outlets failing to adequately report on the potential implications of these findings. This selective reporting contributes to a broader pattern of underreporting adverse vaccine effects.

Why Aren't We Hearing More About This?

The question arises: why isn't this study receiving the attention it warrants? Given the scale of the research and its potential implications, one would expect a thorough investigation and widespread media coverage. However, the relative silence suggests a reluctance to challenge the prevailing narrative surrounding COVID-19 vaccinations.

This situation underscores the need for independent research, transparent reporting, and open public discourse regarding vaccine safety. The health and well-being of individuals should always be the foremost priority, and any factors that may compromise this must be thoroughly examined and addressed.

https://youtu.be/ABxekx2Rp3Y?si=U3MQ1idJ82GnnN3R

Inconvenient Truths: 5 Climate Experts Push Back Against Alarmist Zealotry

Fear sells. From every fire to freak weather, mainstream media and green activists tell us a climate catastrophe is upon us. But what happens when a group of seasoned climate scientists issues a reality check? That’s precisely what happened—and shockingly, most major outlets barely covered it.

A recent Sky News segment, “‘Grossly exaggerated’: Media gives ‘little attention’ to new bombshell climate report,” spotlighted a U.S. Department of Energy report authored by five esteemed scientists challenging alarmist narratives. Now let’s meet them and see what they actually claimed.

Meet the Voices of Reason

From Iowa Climate Science Education’s coverage, here’s who put their reputations on the line:

1. Professor Emerita Judith Curry – A prolific climate researcher with nearly 200 peer-reviewed papers. Once part of the IPCC, she now argues that risks are often exaggerated. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

2. Dr. Roy Spencer – A NASA Senior Scientist known for leading what’s considered one of the most accurate global temperature measurement systems. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

3. Professor Ross McKitrick – An expert reviewer for multiple UN IPCC reports, offering rigorous analysis of claim versus reality. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

4. Professor John Christie – A former lead author of an IPCC report who contends, “climate models and popular surface temperature datasets overstate real atmospheric changes.” (Wikipedia)

5. Dr. Steven E. Koonin – Physicist, ex-Under Secretary for Science at the Department of Energy under Obama, and vocal critic of media simplification and model limitations. (Wikipedia)

Key Findings: What Challenges the Alarmism?

According to the report and accompanying interviews:

• Climate models are unreliable—“all over the shop”—and often overpredict warming by around 1°C or more, meaning severe impacts may be overstated. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

• Extreme weather trends lack compelling links to climate change—the data do not support the mainstream assertion that climate change causes every storm, drought, or fire. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

• Even using the flawed models, the economic damage of warming is minimal, and aggressive mitigation risks doing more harm than good. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

Media Missing in Action

You’d think a report by five high-profile scientists pushing back on climate hysteria would dominate headlines. Instead? Relative silence.

Media commentators like Andrew Bolt highlighted the omission—calling it “proof that the warming scare is grossly exaggerated”. (ysb.co.NZ, Iowa Climate Science Education)

But mainstream outlets? Either dismissed the report as fringe—like The Guardian and others—or buried it without meaningful discussion. The media continues to favour alarm over analysis. (ysb.co.nz)

Why This Matters—Especially for Australia

• Australia’s emissions are just 1.1% of global CO₂. Even eliminating them entirely changes nothing.

• Yet our energy costs are soaring, industries are shutting, and households—especially the poorest—are hurt by renewable subsidies and regulatory overreach.

• Another state of emergency will only drive more of the economy and commons into the ground, while the actual impact on the global climate remains nil.

Wrap-Up

This isn’t denialism. These are heavyweight scientists demanding honest conversation. Models have limits. Headlines should reflect nuance. And policy should be driven by evidence—not fear.

Let’s stop the narrative-driven panic and insist on reasoned, balanced, and effective climate solutions.

Here is a recent interview of Dr Koonin by Andrew Bolt covering some of these arguments.

Media Bias on Display: A Tale of Two Marches

 We’ve witnessed two major demonstrations recently—the March for Humanity and the March for Australia. Both had fringe elements, both attracted ordinary people—but the media treated them in drastically different ways. 

---

1. The March for Humanity: “Mainly Peaceful” Despite Violent Chants

At the pro-Palestine March for Humanity, violent slogans were openly broadcast:

• “Kill the IDF”

• “Intifada”

• “From the River to the Sea”

These are clear calls for violence—and for the elimination of Israel. Yet mainstream outlets mostly described the event as “mainly peaceful,” glossing over the chants and framing the narrative toward sympathy. Incidentally, so did our Prime Minister!

---

2. The March for Australia: Demonised Despite Marginal Extremists

By contrast, the March for Australia had some extremist figures, including known neo-Nazis and far-right ideologues. Yet many marchers rejected them—some literally turned their backs.
Still, media outlets relentlessly painted the entire rally as an ultra-right, racist mob. Headlines seized on the fringe—ignoring the majority.

Independent media, like Rebel News, delivered another view. Their video, “Forget the Nazis — THESE Aussies Are the REAL Story of Today’s March,” highlights that most participants were neither extremist nor hateful—but rather everyday Australians voicing concerns.

3. Media Double Standards in Action

Here’s the reality:

• One rally featuring violent chants is labeled “peaceful.”

• Another, with extremists marginalised by participants, is branded racist in entirety.

That’s not journalism—it’s narrative crafted to fit bias.

---

4. What the Broader Media Said

• Reuters labeled March for Australia a far-right rally that “propagated hate and community division.” Reuters

• News.com.au focused on clashes and extremist presence, characterising the event as dominated by extremists. News.com.au

• Courier-Mail emphasised nationalist slogans like “take our country back” and clashes with counter-protesters. Courier Mail

Despite this, none of these sources interrogated the March for Humanity with the same fervor over its violent messaging.

---

5. The Bottom Line

Both marches had extremists. Both rallies included ordinary people. Both were reported—but through wildly different lenses.

This glaring imbalance isn’t fair commentary—it’s selective framing. And that distorts the public’s understanding.

---

Want a More Nuanced View?

Check out the Rebel News video “Forget the Nazis — THESE Aussies Are the REAL Story of Today’s March” for a ground-level perspective that mainstream outlets skipped.

We owe it to ourselves to look past headlines—and confront media bias head-on.

Weekly Roundup – Top Articles & Commentary (Week 36, 2025)

 

  

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week;

• War of Words: The Famine That Wasn't
  
• Media Bias on Display: A Tale of Two Marches
  
• Inconvenient Truths:5 Climate Scientists Push Back Against Alarmist Zealotry
  
• Alarming COVID-19 Vaccine Study: Mortality Rate Rises With Each Dose
  
• When Symbolism Betrays Law: Howard Slams Albanese Over Palestine Recognition
  
• Will Lasers make drone swarms ineffective
  

We welcome all feedback, so please feel free to submit your comments or communicate with me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or @grappysb on X.