Translate

Saturday, February 15, 2025

Vice President JD Vance on the Death of Europe

 




One of the things that I wanted to talk about today is, of course, our shared values. And, you know, it’s great to be back in Germany. As you heard earlier, I was here last year as United States senator. I saw Foreign Secretary David Lammy, and joked that both of us last year had different jobs than we have now. But now it’s time for all of our countries, for all of us who have been fortunate enough to be given political power by our respective peoples, to use it wisely to improve their lives.


And I want to say that I was fortunate in my time here to spend some time outside the walls of this conference over the last 24 hours, and I’ve been so impressed by the hospitality of the people even, of course, as they’re reeling from yesterday’s horrendous attack. The first time I was ever in Munich was with my wife, actually, who’s here with me today, on a personal trip. And I’ve always loved the city of Munich, and I’ve always loved its people.


I just want to say that we’re very moved, and our thoughts and prayers are with Munich and everybody affected by the evil inflicted on this beautiful community. We’re thinking about you, we’re praying for you, and we will certainly be rooting for you in the days and weeks to come.


We gather at this conference, of course, to discuss security. And normally we mean threats to our external security. I see many, many great military leaders gathered here today. But while the Trump administration is very concerned with European security and believes that we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine – and we also believe that it’s important in the coming years for Europe to step up in a big way to provide for its own defense – the threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor. What I worry about is the threat from within. The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values: values shared with the United States of America.

I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don’t go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany too.


Now, these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears. For years we’ve been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy. But when we see European courts cancelling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we’re holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard. And I say ourselves, because I fundamentally believe that we are on the same team.


We must do more than talk about democratic values. We must live them. Now, within living memory of many of you in this room, the cold war positioned defenders of democracy against much more tyrannical forces on this continent. And consider the side in that fight that censored dissidents, that closed churches, that cancelled elections. Were they the good guys? Certainly not.


And thank God they lost the cold war. They lost because they neither valued nor respected all of the extraordinary blessings of liberty, the freedom to surprise, to make mistakes, invent, to build. As it turns out, you can’t mandate innovation or creativity, just as you can’t force people what to think, what to feel, or what to believe. And we believe those things are certainly connected. And unfortunately, when I look at Europe today, it’s sometimes not so clear what happened to some of the cold war’s winners.


I look to Brussels, where EU Commission commissars warned citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest: the moment they spot what they’ve judged to be ‘hateful content’. Or to this very country where police have carried out raids against citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online as part of ‘combating misogyny’ on the internet.


I look to Sweden, where two weeks ago, the government convicted a Christian activist for participating in Quran burnings that resulted in his friend’s murder. And as the judge in his case chillingly noted, Sweden’s laws to supposedly protect free expression do not, in fact, grant – and I’m quoting – a ‘free pass’ to do or say anything without risking offending the group that holds that belief.


And perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons in particular in the crosshairs. A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith Conner, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and an Army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 metres from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes, not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own. After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for, Adam replied simply, it was on behalf of his unborn son.


He and his former girlfriend had aborted years before. Now the officers were not moved. Adam was found guilty of breaking the government’s new Buffer Zones Law, which criminalizes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person’s decision within 200 meters of an abortion facility. He was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution.


Now, I wish I could say that this was a fluke, a one-off, crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person. But no. This last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law. Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thought crime in Britain and across Europe.


Free speech, I fear, is in retreat and in the interests of comedy, my friends, but also in the interest of truth, I will admit that sometimes the loudest voices for censorship have come not from within Europe, but from within my own country, where the prior administration threatened and bullied social media companies to censor so-called misinformation. Misinformation, like, for example, the idea that coronavirus had likely leaked from a laboratory in China. Our own government encouraged private companies to silence people who dared to utter what turned out to be an obvious truth.


So I come here today not just with an observation, but with an offer. And just as the Biden administration seemed desperate to silence people for speaking their minds, so the Trump administration will do precisely the opposite, and I hope that we can work together on that.


In Washington, there is a new sheriff in town. And under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer them in the public square. Now, we’re at the point, of course, that the situation has gotten so bad that this December, Romania straight up cancelled the results of a presidential election based on the flimsy suspicions of an intelligence agency and enormous pressure from its continental neighbors. Now, as I understand it, the argument was that Russian disinformation had infected the Romanian elections. But I’d ask my European friends to have some perspective. You can believe it’s wrong for Russia to buy social media advertisements to influence your elections. We certainly do. You can condemn it on the world stage, even. But if your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with.


Now, the good news is that I happen to think your democracies are substantially less brittle than many people apparently fear.


And I really do believe that allowing our citizens to speak their mind will make them stronger still. Which, of course, brings us back to Munich, where the organisers of this very conference have banned lawmakers representing populist parties on both the left and the right from participating in these conversations. Now, again, we don’t have to agree with everything or anything that people say. But when political leaders represent an important constituency, it is incumbent upon us to at least participate in dialogue with them.


Now, to many of us on the other side of the Atlantic, it looks more and more like old entrenched interests hiding behind ugly Soviet era words like misinformation and disinformation, who simply don’t like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion or, God forbid, vote a different way, or even worse, win an election.


Now, this is a security conference, and I’m sure you all came here prepared to talk about how exactly you intend to increase defense spending over the next few years in line with some new target. And that’s great, because as President Trump has made abundantly clear, he believes that our European friends must play a bigger role in the future of this continent. We don’t think you hear this term ‘burden sharing’, but we think it’s an important part of being in a shared alliance together that the Europeans step up while America focuses on areas of the world that are in great danger.


But let me also ask you, how will you even begin to think through the kinds of budgeting questions if we don’t know what it is that we are defending in the first place? I’ve heard a lot already in my conversations, and I’ve had many, many great conversations with many people gathered here in this room. I’ve heard a lot about what you need to defend yourselves from, and of course that’s important. But what has seemed a little bit less clear to me, and certainly I think to many of the citizens of Europe, is what exactly it is that you’re defending yourselves for. What is the positive vision that animates this shared security compact that we all believe is so important?


I believe deeply that there is no security if you are afraid of the voices, the opinions and the conscience that guide your very own people. Europe faces many challenges. But the crisis this continent faces right now, the crisis I believe we all face together, is one of our own making. If you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people who elected me and elected President Trump. You need democratic mandates to accomplish anything of value in the coming years.


Have we learned nothing that thin mandates produce unstable results? But there is so much of value that can be accomplished with the kind of democratic mandate that I think will come from being more responsive to the voices of your citizens. If you’re going to enjoy competitive economies, if you’re going to enjoy affordable energy and secure supply chains, then you need mandates to govern because you have to make difficult choices to enjoy all of these things.


And of course, we know that very well. In America, you cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail. Whether that’s the leader of the opposition, a humble Christian praying in her own home, or a journalist trying to report the news. Nor can you win one by disregarding your basic electorate on questions like, who gets to be a part of our shared society.


And of all the pressing challenges that the nations represented here face, I believe there is nothing more urgent than mass migration. Today, almost one in five people living in this country moved here from abroad. That is, of course, an all time high. It’s a similar number, by the way, in the United States, also an all time high. The number of immigrants who entered the EU from non-EU countries doubled between 2021 and 2022 alone. And of course, it’s gotten much higher since.


And we know the situation. It didn’t materialize in a vacuum. It’s the result of a series of conscious decisions made by politicians all over the continent, and others across the world, over the span of a decade. We saw the horrors wrought by these decisions yesterday in this very city. And of course, I can’t bring it up again without thinking about the terrible victims who had a beautiful winter day in Munich ruined. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and will remain with them. But why did this happen in the first place?


It’s a terrible story, but it’s one we’ve heard way too many times in Europe, and unfortunately too many times in the United States as well. An asylum seeker, often a young man in his mid-20s, already known to police, rammed a car into a crowd and shatters a community. Unity. How many times must we suffer these appalling setbacks before we change course and take our shared civilization in a new direction? No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants. But you know what they did vote for? In England, they voted for Brexit. And agree or disagree, they voted for it. And more and more all over Europe, they are voting for political leaders who promise to put an end to out-of-control migration. Now, I happen to agree with a lot of these concerns, but you don’t have to agree with me.


I just think that people care about their homes. They care about their dreams. They care about their safety and their capacity to provide for themselves and their children.


And they’re smart. I think this is one of the most important things I’ve learned in my brief time in politics. Contrary to what you might hear, a couple of mountains over in Davos, the citizens of all of our nations don’t generally think of themselves as educated animals or as interchangeable cogs of a global economy. And it’s hardly surprising that they don’t want to be shuffled about or relentlessly ignored by their leaders. And it is the business of democracy to adjudicate these big questions at the ballot box.


I believe that dismissing people, dismissing their concerns or worse yet, shutting down media, shutting down elections or shutting people out of the political process protects nothing. In fact, it is the most surefire way to destroy democracy. Speaking up and expressing opinions isn’t election interference. Even when people express views outside your own country, and even when those people are very influential – and trust me, I say this with all humor – if American democracy can survive ten years of Greta Thunberg’s scolding you guys can survive a few months of Elon Musk.


But what no democracy, American, German or European will survive, is telling millions of voters that their thoughts and concerns, their aspirations, their pleas for relief, are invalid or unworthy of even being considered.


Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There is no room for firewalls. You either uphold the principle or you don’t. Europeans, the people have a voice. European leaders have a choice. And my strong belief is that we do not need to be afraid of the future.


Embrace what your people tell you, even when it’s surprising, even when you don’t agree. And if you do so, you can face the future with certainty and with confidence, knowing that the nation stands behind each of you. And that, to me, is the great magic of democracy. It’s not in these stone buildings or beautiful hotels. It’s not even in the great institutions that we built together as a shared society.


To believe in democracy is to understand that each of our citizens has wisdom and has a voice. And if we refuse to listen to that voice, even our most successful fights will secure very little. As Pope John Paul II, in my view, one of the most extraordinary champions of democracy on this continent or any other, once said, ‘do not be afraid’. We shouldn’t be afraid of our people even when they express views that disagree with their leadership. Thank you all. Good luck to all of you. God bless you.



Sunday, January 5, 2025

Are Israeli safe rooms (mamads) outdated?

 Watched an interesting video in Russian, which was an interview with an Israeli construction engineer, Baruch Yarmolinsky, who says that the concept of mamads is outdated. They were initially designed  in 1991 after the Gulf War when the rockets were Scuds and the high-rises were 7-10 floor tall and mamads were primarily designed against a chemical attack.  Since 1991 both the buildings became taller- up to 30 floors and wars became more intense.


Based on the Ukrainian experience when several missiles hit the same building or it is attacked by a more powerful warhead the buildings catch fire and mamads would become death traps since the staircases are destroyed and there is no way to evacuate. The original function of the mamad was to protect from the blast wave and shrapnel. But even today it is evident that the window metal panes were not thick enough since we have the case when the shrapnel penetrated the window and killed a boy in Ashkelon.  Shelters have always been a better protection than mamads.


Yarmolinsky suggests that they should work on a mamad staircase which would enable people to evacuate ( evacuate where to? In Ukraine they had basements, not so in  Israel). Already 10  years ago he suggested that they should do a pilot  mamad staircase and test it. The relevant authorities accepted the suggestion and did nothing.


I still think that mamads are not useless. They do protect against the blast wave and shrapnel and save lives. As for the intensive war, the Arrow 3/THAAD - Arrow 2  - David’s Sling and Iron Dome have been doing a good job so far. But of course, the best answer would be to destroy the threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran  and with that automatically the threat from Hezbollah,  from the  Houthis, and reduce the one from Hamas jihadists and Palestinian Islamic Jihadists, PIJ. 

  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijWdewOa71o 

Sunday, December 8, 2024

Elica Le Bon: The Real Reason Iran Wants to Destroy Israel

 



16:50 Elica Le Bon  The regime in Iran subscribes to Twelver Shia Islam. So the reason it is called Twelver Shia Islam is because they believe that the descendants of the original prophet Muhammad is not the correct lineage of the prophet, it’s of his son-in-law and cousin. So the Twelfth Imam, which was  prophet Mahdi, so there is a theory called Mahdism. This prophet Mahdi was said to have gone into occultation, he went into hiding around 937 CE. So he’s gone into hiding, he’s gone into occultation and the theory is that the final prophet emerges once  justice and equality has been achieved in the world, and the thing that achieves this justice is that the last drop of blood of Israel falls. So the end of Israel brings back the final prophet.           


Konstantin Kisin:   Ahh, I’ve never heard this. It’s fascinating. So it is a religious thing. That’s a prophecy. So they need to destroy Israel.


Elica Le Bon:   So they need to destroy Israel. Correct. 


  



Thursday, October 3, 2024

Douglas Murray: A Time of War

 Listening to Douglas Murray is what must have felt like listening to Winston Churchill in June 1940 - he radiated clarity, resolve and hope! 




Thursday, September 26, 2024

Ayatollah Khamenei on Hezbollah’s setbacks

 TV7 Israel News from 8:01 into the video: 

 

Jonathan Hessen: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei acknowledged that Hezbollah is sustaining devastating blows.  Nevertheless, in an attempt to up the spirit of its followers, who are experiencing an all-time-low in morale   -  Ayatollah Khamenei insisted that Hezbollah remains victorious. 


 “Yes they are hurting them. Some of the effective and valuable elements of Hezbollah were martyred; it was a loss, but this was not a loss that destroyed Hezbollah. The organizational and human strength of Hezbollah is much more than these words. Their authority, ability and strength are much more than these words to be seriously affected by these losses.. Of course, the loss of a person, especially if he is a commander and has a history of Jihad, is a loss; there is no doubt about it. Therefore, they’ve won so far, and by Allah’s grace and power, the final victory in this battle belongs to the Resistance and the Hezbollah front” 


Khamenei, who is the ultimate decision maker of the Ayatollah regime, went on to assert the Islamic importance to ensure that the land of Israel, which he referred to as “Palestine”, would be reconquered by Muslims. 


“The definite ruling of Sharia is that it is mandatory for everyone to try and help to return Palestine and the Al-Aqsa Mosque to Muslims and to its original owners”


 And while highlighting the importance of the conquest of the land of Israel, Ayatollah Khamenei acknowledged further that Hezbollah is sacrificing itself for Gaza - as it is supposedly waging Jihad ( An Arabic reference for holy war).


“Hezbollah in Lebanon has sacrificed itself for Gaza and puts itself forward in the face of these bitter incidents, it’s doing Jihad for Allah”.


It is further interesting to highlight that the Ayatollah Regime’s  supreme leader also ceased the opportunity to attribute the successes to the involvement of the United States, which has stood behind the State of Israel since the war erupted.


“America  is behind it .The Americans say: we are not involved, we have no information .They are saying the opposite! They know it, they are involved and they need the victory of the Zionist regime . For the upcoming elections the current American government needs to show that it has supported the Zionist regime and won."