The Iowa House Sub-Committee is currently considering House File 191, aimed at prohibiting geoengineering practices, commonly referred to as "chemtrails." This legislative move was partly inspired by Tennessee's recent law, which has also banned such activities. The bill reflects a growing trend, with many U.S. states now looking into similar regulations. This initiative is not isolated to the U.S.; discussions on geoengineering are also taking place within the European Union, and there have been policy documents from the Biden administration addressing the topic.

The discussion around this bill highlights a concern over potential atmospheric pollution through activities like cloud seeding or weather engineering. Representative Jeff Shipley from District 87 emphasized the importance of Iowa exercising its sovereignty to protect its citizens from these practices, noting that Iowa might be over a decade late in addressing this issue. He referenced U.S. congressional hearings from 2009 and discussions by the Council on Foreign Relations in 2010 about the need for an international framework on geoengineering to combat climate change.

Shipley argued that the lack of clear information on geoengineering justifies an urgent prohibition to gather necessary evidence and data. He urged the Environmental Protection Committee to expedite the process, suggesting that Senate File 142, which he views as a superior legislative document, should be sent to the governor for signing. This action is seen as a necessary step to ensure the health, well-being, and economic prosperity of Iowans are not compromised by these controversial practices.

The sentiment on platforms like X reflects a mix of skepticism and support, with some users expressing disbelief that such concerns are still considered conspiracy theories in 2025, while others applaud states like Iowa for taking proactive steps against what they perceive as the poisoning of the skies.

FUN VAX (Funvax Religious Fundamentalism Vaccine)

https://www.bitchute.com/video/nVFrGYxdu0aC/

Why did J.D. Vance go to the Munich Security Conference?

To remind everyone that while they're worried about external threats, the real danger might be their own leaders canceling elections faster than you can say "chemtrails"!

J.D. Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2025, it's clear that his focus was on critiquing Europe's internal policies, particularly regarding free speech, migration, and democratic values, rather than on confirming or discussing any conspiracy theories like chemtrails. Here’s a summary that aligns with the provided information:

In his speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2025, Vice President J.D. Vance emphasized the shared democratic values between the United States and Europe, expressing concern over what he perceives as a retreat from these values within European nations. He highlighted issues like censorship, the suppression of free speech, and the handling of mass migration as threats from within that could undermine European democracy. Vance did not address or confirm any theories related to chemtrails. Instead, his discourse was centered around political and social issues, urging European leaders to engage with their citizens' concerns to strengthen democratic mandates. His speech was met with a cool reception, as noted by various reports, with attendees focusing more on the expected discussions about the Russia-Ukraine conflict and European security, which Vance only briefly touched upon by mentioning the possibility of a "reasonable settlement" between Russia and Ukraine and calling for increased European defense contributions.

J.D. Vance's Address at the Munich Security Conference 2025: A Call for Upholding Democratic Values

By Freedom of reach is freedom of speech
@colinsdav


On a significant day at the Munich Security Conference in 2025, Vice President of the United States, J.D. Vance, delivered a speech that pivoted away from traditional security concerns to focus on the internal threats to democracy within Europe. Here is a detailed report on his address, highlighting key points, reactions, and implications.

Introduction

J.D. Vance, who previously attended the conference as a U.S. Senator, returned this year in his new role as Vice President, expressing gratitude for the opportunity to speak before such a distinguished audience. His speech commenced with a personal note, reflecting on his visits to Munich and expressing solidarity with the city following a recent attack, setting a tone of empathy and connection with the European people.

Core Themes of the Speech

Shared Democratic Values: Vance emphasized the importance of shared democratic values between the U.S. and Europe, critiquing what he perceives as a retreat from these principles within European nations. He referenced recent events like the annulment of a Romanian presidential election as a concerning precedent.
Threat from Within: Contrary to expectations of focusing on external threats like Russia or China, Vance highlighted internal European issues as his primary concern. He pointed out actions by European governments that he believes undermine democracy, such as censorship, suppression of free speech, and the handling of mass migration.
Examples of Democratic Backsliding: Vance cited several examples to illustrate his point:
Brussels: EU officials warning of shutting down social media during civil unrest.
Germany: Police raids over online comments deemed anti-feminist.
Sweden: Conviction of a Christian activist for participating in protests.
United Kingdom: The case of Adam Smith Connor, convicted for silent prayer near an abortion clinic, highlighting restrictions on personal freedoms and conscience rights.
Comparison with U.S. Policies: Drawing a parallel with U.S. policies under different administrations, Vance acknowledged past American efforts at censorship, notably during the discussion of the origins of the coronavirus. He contrasted this with the Trump administration's current stance, which he described as defending free speech, even for views they might disagree with.
Burden Sharing and European Defense: While touching on the need for Europe to increase its defense spending, Vance questioned the purpose of such defense without a clear commitment to the democratic values it's meant to protect.
Mass Migration: Vance addressed the issue of mass migration, noting it as a significant challenge for Europe. He argued that the scale of migration, which he claims was not democratically mandated, has led to social unrest, using the recent Munich attack as an example.
Call for Democratic Engagement: He urged European leaders to engage with their citizens' concerns, suggesting that ignoring or suppressing these voices could lead to the erosion of democratic principles. Vance emphasized the importance of listening to the electorate, even when their views are controversial or challenging.
Reactions and Reception
The speech received a mixed reception. While some appreciated the focus on internal democratic integrity, others felt it strayed from the conference's traditional focus on external security threats. Notably, Vance's critique of European policies was seen as somewhat ironic given his administration's controversial stances in the U.S. The audience's applause was noted to be sparse, indicating a cool reception to his message.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/IntoShit/918
Conclusion
J.D. Vance's address at the Munich Security Conference in 2025 was a bold statement on the need for Europe to introspect on its democratic practices. By focusing on internal threats rather than external ones, Vance challenged the conference's attendees to consider the health of democracy within their own borders. His speech underscored a call for a return to fundamental democratic values, suggesting that the true strength of a nation lies in its ability to listen to and engage with its citizens, a principle he believes is under threat in both Europe and the United States.

Note: This report is based on the trannoscript of J.D. Vance's speech provided and does not reflect real events or statements made by J.D. Vance, as this scenario is speculative and set in a future year.

"Listening to that speech was like a trip down memory lane, wasn't it?

It's like when we were kids, and big brother was looming with mischief in his eyes. Our go-to move? Cry before the first punch, run to mom, and claim injury pre-emptively. 'Mom, he's gonna hit me!' 😂 Guess some strategies for navigating tough situations stick with us from childhood. #ChildhoodTactics #PoliticalHumor"

Why did Ricki Lake's house think it was at a magic show after the LA fires?

Because it was the only one that got the 'disappearing act' while the trees pulled off the 'survival trick'! 🎩📷<🔥%;">WildfireHumor

Why did the blue objects survive the LA fires unscathed?

Because they were all wearing invisible fireproof capes, courtesy of the Blue Brotherhood! � cape 🔥📷 #BlueMagic #FireResistant #WildfireHumor

The idea of directed energy weapons (DEWs) being involved in the Los Angeles wildfires, including the incident where Ricki Lake's home was destroyed, has been a topic of discussion on social media platforms like X.

Ricki Lake's home in Malibu was indeed destroyed by the Los Angeles fires, specifically the Pacific Palisades fire. Interestingly, while her house was reduced to ruins, the surrounding vegetation, including palm trees, remained intact, which has been noted in various reports and posts on social media platforms like X. This unusual occurrence where only the structure burned down while the natural surroundings were preserved has been a point of discussion.

The wolf did not eat the chickens, just ask his witness

Why did the history book blame Israel for the exodus?

Because it said they were just trying to "turn the page" on the Jewish community in Iraq! 📚📷 #HistoryHumor #BlameGame

Why did the devil refuse to buy my soul, even though I offered to sell it for cheap?

He said, "Sorry, I only deal with souls that have a price tag—but yours is priceless, and I can’t afford it!"

Why did I try to cash my gold receipts at the bank, only to find out they don’t exist?

The teller said, "Sorry, these are just IOUs from the devil—he’s been handing out fake gold ever since people stopped selling their souls for real value!"

Guess I’ll stick to fighting the source of the scam instead of chasing fool’s gold! 👇🤪

https://youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM

💥 The education about money for everyone

The logic flow diagram for the Social Security system looks INSANE. No one person actually knows how it works.

The payment files that move between Social Security and Treasury have significant inconsistencies that are not reconciled. It’s wild.

As a friend of mine described it, this is like an amazing puzzle, uncovering the secrets of an ancient civilization that went extinct … except it’s still around 😂

According to the Social Security database, these are the numbers of people in each age bucket with the death field set to FALSE!

Maybe Twilight is real and there are a lot of vampires collecting Social Security 🤣🤣

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1891403343345389580

Why do we need to worry about Social Security's complex system?

Because if we don't figure it out, we might just find out that those 360-369 year olds are not only still collecting benefits but are also moonlighting as consultants on how to live forever! 🧓💰🎉

And with the death field set to FALSE, it seems like we're all part of an epic saga where the undead are enjoying their retirement, making sure their Social Security checks never bounce! 🧛‍♂️💸

Why can't we retire at 40 with a Social Security surplus?

Because if we did, we'd all be living the dream of a 40-year-old retiree, while Social Security would be like, "You mean you want to retire before I even start collecting from you? That's a good one!" 😂💸

60 Minutes USAID 😂Fake Employees

Defending the Constitution:
The Battle for Unadulterated Free Speech

The erosion of straightforward constitutional principles, especially freedom of speech, through judicial interpretations influenced by societal pressures. I firmly believe, as do many others who remain silent due to fear of repercussions, that we need to return to a literal adherence to the Constitution. The recent incident where a judge hesitated to define what a 'woman' is, while humorous, points to a deeper problem where legal definitions are becoming fluid, often for political reasons.

This isn't just about legal clarity; it's about the broader control exerted by those who also dominate the narrative through media. This control creates an environment where expressing traditional views can lead to ostracism, stifling open discourse. True freedom of speech, as intended by the First Amendment, should protect all thoughts, not just those deemed acceptable by current societal standards.

The reluctance to define terms clearly in law reflects a shift towards reshaping societal norms, which, when combined with media influence, silences the majority who might agree with a more conservative or traditional interpretation. We must fight for a space where dialogue thrives, where the Constitution is upheld in its original intent, ensuring that our foundational freedoms are not just interpreted but preserved. #FreeSpeech #Constitution #LegalClarity #SpeakOut

German officials say it’s a crime to insult someone online and to repost something that isn’t true.

🚨🇺🇸MISLEADING MUCH, 60 MINUTES?

60 Minutes claimed Kristina Drye “was fired this month in the chaotic shutdown of USAID.”

What they didn’t tell you?
Kristina wasn’t a USAID employee - she worked for XLA and Jefferson Partners, providing speechwriting services for USAID Administrator Samantha Power, who resigned.

Another day, another half-truth on prime time.

Source: Jefferson Consulting Group

As executive producer with editorial control, Bill Owens would likely be aware of and approve major editorial decisions, including any deliberate deception. However, such actions would also involve other key staff and could face legal and ethical consequences.

If "60 Minutes" engaged in deliberate deception, legal consequences could include:

Defamation lawsuits: If false information harms someone's reputation, they could sue for libel or slander.
FCC violations: Broadcasting deceptive content could violate Federal Communications Commission rules, leading to fines or license challenges.
Breach of contract: Advertisers or affiliates might sue if deception violates agreements.
Consumer protection laws: Misleading viewers could trigger legal action under false advertising or fraud statutes.
Criminal charges: In extreme cases, intentional fraud could lead to criminal investigations.