Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
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.
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.
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.
Telegram
The Storm
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…
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…
Forwarded from Twitter Relay
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
"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"
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"
Forwarded from Chemtrails (Geoengineering)
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.
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.
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The wolf did not eat the chickens, just ask his witness
Forwarded from Europa Last Battle
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
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!"
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!"
Forwarded from Documentaries
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 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
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from Elon Musk Relay
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
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
Forwarded from Elon Musk Relay
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! 🧛♂️💸
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! 🧛♂️💸
Forwarded from Elon Musk Relay
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!" 😂💸
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!" 😂💸
Forwarded from Elon Musk Relay
🚨🚨60 Minutes pulled in 2 comms consultants who were never actual employees of USAID and presented them as though they were longtime employees who were fired for lack of "loyalty." 🚨 🚨
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from Twitter Relay
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
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
Forwarded from Libs of TikTok
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
German officials say it’s a crime to insult someone online and to repost something that isn’t true.
Forwarded from Elon Musk Relay
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🚨🇺🇸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.
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.
Forwarded from Elon Musk Relay
Why did the fake news focus on Kristina Drye's eye movement?
Because they realized that if they can't find the story, they'll just make one up with her blink rate! 😂📷
Because they realized that if they can't find the story, they'll just make one up with her blink rate! 😂📷
Forwarded from Elon Musk Relay
Why did the 50 CIA officials sign that letter?
Because they wanted to make sure the story had more twists than a spy novel, and "60 Minutes" was just the latest chapter! 📚📷 😆
Because they wanted to make sure the story had more twists than a spy novel, and "60 Minutes" was just the latest chapter! 📚📷 😆
Forwarded from @SecDef
Pete Hegseth
@PeteHegseth
I agree with @JDVance.
Bridge Colby was nominated because he will faithfully implement the President’s policy agenda—unlike many national security appointees in the first term who sought to undermine President Trump.
JD Vance
@JDVance
This is a very bad take from a normally thoughtful person.
Bridge has consistently been correct about the big foreign policy debates of the last 20 years. He was critical of the Iraq War, which made him unemployable in the 2000s era conservative movement. He built a relationship with CNAS when it was one of the few institutions that would even hire a foreign policy realist.
A perceptive writer would ask why a serious realist was shut out of the dominant institutions of the American Right in the late 2000s. Instead this guy says “he’s a democrat.” Sloppy BS.
Park MacDougald
@hpmcd1
I'll take a whack. Tom Cotton is a Republican.
Colby, on the other hand, is a sort of bipartisan establishment type whose roots are in the Obama Democratic Party and who appears to have thrown in with the GOP in the belief (likely true) that he's more likely to become Secretary of State that way. He started out at CNAS, Obama's favorite think tank, supported ¡Jeb! in 2016, and after leaving the first Trump administration returned to CNAS to work under Victoria Nuland—a fact that none of the FoLoW tHe MoNeY types in the replies seem to find interesting at all, despite otherwise seeing Nuland as a Luciferian figure reponsible for Russiagate, Hunter Biden, the Ukraine war, child rape, and rain on the weekend.
So I assume Cotton's objections have more to do with elevating a Democrat than defending a fictional "Bush/Cheney cabal at DOD" that somehow survived the past 16 years of Democratic ascendancy.
Charlie Kirk
@charliekirk11
The effort to undermine President Trump continues in the US Senate
@SenTomCotton
is working behind the scenes to stop Trump’s pick, Elbridge Colby, from getting confirmed at DOD
Colby is one of the most important pieces to stop the Bush/Cheney cabal at DOD
Why is Tom Cotton doing this?
Comment below your theories
🤔
@PeteHegseth
I agree with @JDVance.
Bridge Colby was nominated because he will faithfully implement the President’s policy agenda—unlike many national security appointees in the first term who sought to undermine President Trump.
JD Vance
@JDVance
This is a very bad take from a normally thoughtful person.
Bridge has consistently been correct about the big foreign policy debates of the last 20 years. He was critical of the Iraq War, which made him unemployable in the 2000s era conservative movement. He built a relationship with CNAS when it was one of the few institutions that would even hire a foreign policy realist.
A perceptive writer would ask why a serious realist was shut out of the dominant institutions of the American Right in the late 2000s. Instead this guy says “he’s a democrat.” Sloppy BS.
Park MacDougald
@hpmcd1
I'll take a whack. Tom Cotton is a Republican.
Colby, on the other hand, is a sort of bipartisan establishment type whose roots are in the Obama Democratic Party and who appears to have thrown in with the GOP in the belief (likely true) that he's more likely to become Secretary of State that way. He started out at CNAS, Obama's favorite think tank, supported ¡Jeb! in 2016, and after leaving the first Trump administration returned to CNAS to work under Victoria Nuland—a fact that none of the FoLoW tHe MoNeY types in the replies seem to find interesting at all, despite otherwise seeing Nuland as a Luciferian figure reponsible for Russiagate, Hunter Biden, the Ukraine war, child rape, and rain on the weekend.
So I assume Cotton's objections have more to do with elevating a Democrat than defending a fictional "Bush/Cheney cabal at DOD" that somehow survived the past 16 years of Democratic ascendancy.
Charlie Kirk
@charliekirk11
The effort to undermine President Trump continues in the US Senate
@SenTomCotton
is working behind the scenes to stop Trump’s pick, Elbridge Colby, from getting confirmed at DOD
Colby is one of the most important pieces to stop the Bush/Cheney cabal at DOD
Why is Tom Cotton doing this?
Comment below your theories
🤔
❤1