Intel Update - October 19 - Paperwork and Drones

Hello again everyone and welcome back to the underground this is the Intel update for October 13th through the 19th 2024 so let's get right to it I'm going to spend most of the time today talking about a new story that I did not mention in the wire. But has subsequently become uh kind of a very inflammatory topic over the past week and that is uh the changes that have been observed to DOD directive 52401 so as many of you have probably already seen um there were some changes to to a Department of Defense uh directive that have gotten people a little bit upset because well the implications are are pretty severe uh once we get into it so rather than just coming at this with outrage let's try to be a little bit more open-minded and let's see if we can figure out what this whole thing is about so the very first thing that we need to understand is that there is a trouble with the naming the naming of this document so you might be inclined to see the number 5240 01 and think that it's all just one document this is not true there is a DOD manual 52401 and there is a Department of Defense directive 52401 I don't know why the Department of Defense chose to use the same exact number I think they were probably trying to combine these at some point and we'll get to that in a moment. But the manual the manual one was written in 2016 and it is 56 pages long it is still in effect okay so that document is still in effect I've seen a lot of people and we'll get to this when we come to the factchecking portion right I've seen a lot of people try to say that the manual is what has changed now the manual has not changed 52401 the manual written in 2016 or released in 2016 that has not changed it did not become anything it did not uh transition anything this is the most current version of that what did change is the directive DOD directive 52401 so just to be absolutely clear there is no relationship other than they're kind of on the same topic. But there's no relationship like Doctrine wise between the 2016 manual and the changes we're going to talk about today and you can actually see this on the web page where these documents are actually listed so that you can download them this is the Department of Defense senior intelligence oversight official webpage and you can see at the very bottom here there're two separate documents the only change between them is directive versus manual so just to be absolutely clear the 2016 manual version has not changed since 2016 with a slight caveat I I'll get to that in just a moment uh what has changed is the 2007 directive so there is a DOD directive 52401 2007 edition and there is a DOD directive 52401 2024 4 edition uh that was actually signed uh into effect on September 27th 2024 so that is is what we're talking about here this is an important distinction to make when we get again to the factchecking part so originally the 2007 document was only seven pages uh and the recent version the 2024 version is 22 pages so three times longer right so we can see how this might be a little bit concerning now before we get into why this might be concerning let's take a look at the names again the 2016 manual is titled procedures governing the conduct of Department of Defense intelligence activities makes sense the 2007 directive is simply called it's a directive right so it's not the same format as a manual this is called DOD intelligence activities that's what I I knew it as because this was in effect when I was an Intel guy right that has since changed to a new format so very very loose Theory right to start with is that this is a formatting change from 2007 directive to a more manual type thing so just right off the bat I think that the majority of what this document is is trying to turn this old school old style directive format into a manual okay. And so that's that kind of explains some of the changes because the new format matches the manual so they took the 2007 directive and they're trying to update it to match the manual if that makes any sense so most of the time when you see a DOD directive we go by the number right well this is trying to modernize that and bring it into this new format where we're talking about the title which is the new title is DoD intelligence and intelligence related activities and defense intelligence component assistance to law enforcement agencies and other Civil Authorities so again names and the naming conventions kind of matter and as we can probably tell this has got a whole lot of new stuff in it so let's talk about that so with the understanding that this is probably a formatting change sneaking in a lot of other content let me just cut right to the Chase and tell you guys what I think because for one I would very strongly encourage you guys to read the document okay it's not that long it's only 22 Pages read it and and read the 2007 version as well and compare the two do it on your own I it would take me days to get through it bottom line. Though is that this is concerning but in none of the ways that a lot of the more clickbait kind of content has has talked about so let me explain what I mean by that so skipping forward just a little bit let's take a look at at this quote here the responding with assets with potential for lethality this is the line that's got everybody in a tizzy and I'm sure a lot of people have already talked about this particular paragraph in the context of them trying to say that this authorizes the Department of Defense to kill Americans on American soil in violation of well whole sections of us code right so is this what this says I don't know. But I have a I have a hunch I have a theory and I think I know what this is about but again this is just me purely speculating on this there's no backup to this other than how I understand and my own um history of of kind of interpreting DOD policies so a lot of people are hung up on this section here the responding with athet with potential for lethality because they probably did a contr f for the word lethal and found that in the document and now they're freaking out. But they didn't read the whole document or they just skimmed it and they don't understand how dod directives work so so let's go back to what I think happened what I think this is is this is a Jag officer or some kind of military legal Authority right a lawyer within the military who wrote this this is classic military lawyer speak and I would even go so far as to say because this is how 99% of all policy works in the dod is this was probably a senior officer looking to make a star or looking to make some kind of promotion so they put this in there. But they didn't just put this in there they gave us Clues because I have a very sneaking suspicion based on previous versions of this have been released to the public so if something has to be released to the public or Declassified to release to the public does that not imply that there's probably a classified version of this that's my guess pure speculation my guess is there probably an addendum or something that's classified to this it goes into more detail and my thinking is that that military attorney probably saw that and they're trying to talk around a lot of stuff here so they can't actually say a lot of things which is where you get this very strange assets with the potential for lethality line it doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless you come at it if you try to put yourself in the shoes of the guy who wrote this right if you're just going to say you know lethal Force why not just say lethal Force why assets with the potential for lethality and here's a little bit of other backpocket information so a few years ago it's it's always been kind of publicly contentious for military assets to be used on American soil that's why we have title 10 we have title 50 so as many people know or maybe don't know um most federal troops are not allowed to serve in an active duty component on us soil so there's a difference between title 10 and title 50 orders we saw this with the hurricane Helen thing a lot of active duty guys were sitting there you know sitting on their hands not being able to do anything because they did not have the right title orders they're federal troops they need they need to be put in the service of the state um it goes way back to the Civil War kind of era so again this is a a very big conten interest thing and ever since we started using uh a lot of different kinds of intelligence collection assets maybe you see where we're going with this uh the federal assets being used uh to assist the states has always been a point of contention and it's kind of questionable U legal legally wise at least so with that in mind let's talk about what I think this is referring to I think this is referring to drones I think that this line right here skipping forward a little bit I think this responding with assets with potential for lethality is referring to Armed military drones not the unarmed drones that are used by border patrol agents that's just my theory because that makes a lot of sense not every single drone in the US Arsenal such as this one is capable of of being armed a lot of them they physically cannot put hellfires underneath the wings now a lot of them have been retrofit and things like that. But for the most part you've either got an armed drone or you don't um at least in terms of what I know is current being fielded and used or at least as publicly so so maybe you've got yourself a military unit that has deployed to Afghanistan or Syria or Iraq or the Middle East or somewhere and they've got themselves a nice shiny drone sitting in their hanger at their base they can't use it on us soil because it's legally contentious right um it it doesn't even have to be large scale drones like this it can be smaller ones like the shadow system we got a bunch of old drones sitting in a lot of warehouses for military use and they have nowhere to go so what I think is this is referring to that the drones that have the potential to be armed being used on American soil now do we need to skip right to the end and are we going to say that this is targeting American citizens with drones I don't know we'll talk about that in a moment. But um just me thinking I that's my personal opinions I think that's what this is referring to a lot of people are saying this allows a j6 kind of event to occur again and the troops to be authorized to shoot to kill kind of thing if people want to protest well you know I I think that okay fine valid concern if you want to be concerned about that let's be concerned the right way I hate to break it to people. But on January 6th this was not in effect and troops were still issued live of ammunition okay so troops are already going to kill American citizens if they were given the order to without this being in effect so what's your concern um if you want to be more concerned I'll give you some more uh Doctrine and public here in a moment um. But by and large what I've been trying to research since I saw this kind of Hit the internet is uh one are these concerns valid and two if they are valid have they always been in place I. E are we just learning out are we just learning now that the dod has always had this policy and they're just putting it in a new document rephrasing it so that we're we're now paying attention to it so that I don't have a solid answer to I have a sneaking suspicion that this is has always been the policy because we have other Publications that I'll mention in a moment that kind of you know show this so really the entire ecosystem of executive order 12333 DOD uh directive 52 4.01 the manual 52 4.01 uh there's an NSA regulation uh the there's a bunch of other you know Doctrine and policies and directives these have all been really sketchy over the years like seriously like they're all very sketchy and the been around since the'80s this is not something new this isn't even like patriota stuff this goes back a long way so what is the biggest threat to this right now is this because this document was published am I going to worry about you know my local police department striking my house with a Hellfire not right now because one if they're going to do that they're already going to do that uh. But mostly the biggest concern that I have is scrolling back a little bit in this document right don't hit control F for the word lethal and read the paragraph that came before this paragraph 3.2 which is an entire page showing the permissible assistance basically how the military how active duty military troops can serve local law enforcement capabilities and news flash most of it is intelligence sharing so now maybe the picture starts to become a little bit more clear this is less about another j6 kind of killing Americans you know with rifles kind of thing this is more along the lines of of federal intelligence agencies and law enforcement becoming one with the eventual goal of striking people on us soil with more deliberate assets than just a National Guard uh Rifle right so that's what I think this is about this is where the concern that I have lies it has it's more along the lines of a a deliberate um coordination between the federal and the local law enforcement entities to allow this in the future so just putting myself in the shoes of the dudes who wrote this right if I was a malign actor in in in government right and I thought that the American people were my enemy I work in government the American people are my enemy this is exactly the kind of Regulation I would write because it sets up the ability for me to work with local assets to Target the American citizenry so that's concerning right it really is concerning does it mean that your local sheriff is going to have the ability to drone strike your house not yet. But it's it's setting the groundwork for that to happen now the reason that I say not yet is because the other Publications again which we'll get to in just a moment so again just to kind of summarize what I think this is all about again I'm not an expert not a legal expert for sure. But I do have some experience with this because 52 4.01 the manual at least um we had to memorize that as being intelligence guys right we were actually required to carry around little um business cards with that regulation on it at all times because you're supposed to that's the governing regulation for what intelligence you can collect on American citizens well what does this do this directive now brings together even things like targeting so it's not just intelligence the intelligence Parts the most concerning to me because we've never really had that well of a relationship between national federal active duty intelligence services in the military at least and law enforcement they they don't really talk to one another that much so this sets that up to be possible and legal you know according to the Secretary of Defense at least so the answer to the question did the Pentagon just authorize themselves to use lethal Force against Americans in this document yes probably. However the next question must be asked which is did they already have this Authority. Anyway and the answer to that is yeah probably so again did this document really change anything with regards to the lethal Force stuff not really what it did do. Though is is start to bring together the these assets from a federal level down to a state level down to a local level and make it all like set up the ecosystem for this to work so just to kind of alleviate these concerns. But create other concerns as well you know um did did this did this really change anything not really overall I mean if someone had walked up to a National Guard soldier in on January 6th or really actually January 7th through the the 20th right that period where they're putting tens of thousands of National Guard guys on federal orders in the national capital region right uh did that if someone had walked up to one of those soldiers and one of those soldiers had shot that person in the head it doesn't really matter what the paper says they're dead. Anyway it doesn't really matter what a piece of paper says Rules of Engagement matter more and if the soldiers can say they felt their life was in danger that was within the Rules of Engagement so it would have been legal and pencil whipped either way they don't need this document which was written over a period of years okay to to make that legal right so again Rules of Engagement things like civil support to authorities which we'll get to in a moment again uh that kind of thing is is way more important I think than this now does this mean this document is worthless and is not any good and this is all fake outrage no no it's not all fake outrage it's mostly fake outrage if you're going to be outraged over this be outraged in the right way at least I think which is that The lethality part is not as concerning as yet it's not as concerning yet because there's other things that that talk that cover uh lethal Force the so The lethality line here is not as concerning as the normalization of using Federal assets such as armed drones on us soil and I have a very sneaking suspicion that they're already doing this I have no evidence to support that whatsoever. But it it does make a lot of sense I mean that's if I if I was in government and I was in a decision-making body that's probably what I would do um because there are a lot of really really deliberate and legitimate threats right now and it's kind of a catch22 which we'll get into in a moment. But again this is a very serious thing that warrants a lot more research right and here's why the University of Washington already has a hit piece out on all of the content that has been made look at look at their nice cute little uh flowchart here look they've got a a combination of a bar graph and like a heat map kind of thing going on here like they put some money into this at UW uh specifically not talking about the regulation. But talking about the people talking about the regulation so they're tracking news stories right and they are literally naming names here so if a very sketchy funded Center for an informed public at a American University is tracking this stuff and putting this much effort and funding into this you can bet there's something behind it and there's a little bit of concern and ironically if you read this article and you read this blog post. First of all they keep changing it and second of all they don't really do dispute any of the claims the only thing they dis they they dispute is people conflating the manual versus the directive same number. But you the manual versus the directive that's what they're concerned about and talking about how this all fake news it's not fake news it's just you got to be make sure you're talking about the directive and not the manual again so this level of of concern from an extremely liberal University and a very sketchily funded Institute at this University that should probably tell you all you need to know with how much you should be concerned about this. But just to alleviate some of those concerns more directly do I think this is related to the election um probably maybe indirectly but not specifically they did not write this with this election in mind okay they wrote this over a period of years I know how long these things take to right they couldn't just bang this out over a weekend right now the release of it yeah probably they want to make sure they're getting their ducks in a row for the election. But again it I don't think it has anything to do with the National Guard deployments again there's other regulations and whole sections of the US code that dictate that already what does this do this makes it easier for a military drone to be used at a lower local level now for anybody who has any experience with in the kinetic targeting world you know know this is ridiculously hard to do and it's not something that's going to just pop up overnight so I'm not really concerned about it in the short term. However you got to start somewhere right and this is creating the liaison relationships people are setting up these things the government and local authorities are working together it's more deliberate they're allow. First of all you got to make it legal right legal in terms of a dood directive is that even legal I don't know but either way you've got to set the ground work first so that this this ball can get rolling in due time I personally think the Drone theory is probably the most likely explanation for this it makes the most sense to me with that weird wording um because they're probably trying to allow armed drones to be used uh in a um intelligence collection role for the most part just roll with it for a second if you've got an armed one of these and an unarmed one of these how many do you have that you can use domestically one right well if you make them both legal if you say well we're just going to take the hellfires off the pylons on this one right here and we're going to track a riot in Minneapolis with this one right here. But we're just going to take the hellfires off that makes it legal right well under the previous regulations questionable there's going to be questions there now it's like oh yeah it's fine you know that it makes it a little bit easier for a general or a commander or a police chief to say yeah that's that's fine we can do that um so yeah that's I think what this is what this is mostly about I think it's expanding the number of aerial assets that are available to local law enforcement in a situation where that might be needed now here's the problem with that uh we already kind of have this with regards to the uh combat air patrols that are conducted around the United States do you think we're not like conducting National Defense no we're already using you know whole Air Wings dedicated to you know uh airspace defense right whenever the Russians uh show up off the West Coast the f-22s and f-15s out of Portland take right off and there you go so we have this already. However it's a little bit of a different story if you were to ask that airwing to say hey we're going to need a couple of your f-22s to come fly uh fly circles around this Riot over here that's a little bit questionable as to whether or not it's legal as to whether or not people are going to feel comfortable doing it so what does this regulation do at the very minimum it this regulation makes military commanders mil all the way down to the actual Pilots themselves more comfortable with what they're doing being legal okay and that's not good we do not want the military to feel comfortable doing things like this to the American people. But just to play devil's advocate for a moment and to think outside the box I know that we're all terrified or concerned with the government trying to kill us these days and that's a valid concern. But let's just step broadly for a moment any nation state any government any nation that exists is going to want to have territory defense right you want you know a military to defend your Homeland that's basically one of the only reasons government actually exists in the first place so you want that military to be capable right. But again this is such a catch 22 right so it's such a paradox because you know I think a lot of people would have been really really okay maybe I'm speaking out of turn I don't know. But I think a lot of people would be okay with the military shooting down a hostile aircraft over American soil or preferably before it gets here that would have been really really nice if the Air Force had gone out and shot down some hostile aircraft before it got here okay I'll intelligence collection on it later no no shoot it down first. And then we'll figure out what it is right because we don't know if it has a nuclear Warhead on on board to be honest and we just let that thing get all the way across this country and didn't do anything about it so at that moment in that situation it would have been nice to have a strong Air Force a strong military that can liaz uh with local authorities to make sure they can shoot the thing down and and engage targets that might be you know involving local authorities again in the context of say the Border crisis you know if we've got dudes down at the southern US border and they're standing 5T inside Mexico okay and they're pointing they're pointing a man pad at commercial aircraft I think I would be okay after PID is established and uh Rules of Engagement are adhered to I think I would be okay with the Air Force dropping Hellfire on that guy you know what I mean like I think we would all be a little bit more you know okay with that. But here's the problem again the Paradox is it going to be used that way probably not this is going to be used to target the people who the government thinks are the enemies and not the people who are actually the enemies so again this is one of those things where I know a lot of people don't like talking about it. But look man look at what's going on here you know we deploy tens and tens of thousands of troops to go stand around Washington DC and make sure no one gets anywhere close to public structures right. But we're not going to send that same number of troops to the southern US border or we're not going to send those same number of troops to uh help out with a hurricane so again it's such a such a paradox because you want your government to defend your Homeland and you want them to have the tools needed to do so. But currently is there any government over the past 20 years you know left or right conservative or liberal that has done this that that has had that has approached this uh concept with magnanimity With Honor with dignity and done the right thing for this country I very strongly doubt it so this policy is probably a net negative it really probably is because we all know this is not going to be used in the correct way just because of again this recent history so if the Department of Defense and all those soldiers out there who are looking at this and saying okay cool this allows us to do our job a little bit better and save America a little bit better well for those of you who think that maybe you should understand or try to understand where where most American citizens are coming from from okay most American citizens looked at what has happened over the past four years and they're they're a little bit concerned so if you're you know in the military nowadays you really have to go above and beyond to justify and alleviate the fears that your bosses have created okay so there's a little bit of that a lot of people don't understand the animosity that's there and I think a lot of it is is probably misplaced in some in some cases. But man when you've got things like this you're now turning that same relationship with the military into law enforcement people are scared of cops because cops can kill them at any moment in time and nine times out of 10 they'll get off right well now this you're starting to put that same culture there with the military I think it's probably you know considering how things are going decently prudent for people to you know have a little bit of healthy respect there doesn't mean that you have to go hate law enforcement or hate the military you don't have to do that. But you it would be really really nice is if those in those roles could understand the healthy respect that has to be there there has to be a little bit of healthy respect both ways and there has to be a little bit of distance because when federal laws exist to allow certain kinds of behavior the average citizen I don't care how nice the person is the average citizen has to think about those laws in the back of their head as to what they're able to do so again this is just going to further drive a wedge between the military and the and the citizenry and it's going to drive law enforcement and Military together a lot more and I don't think that's going to end up being very very good for the American people so that's what I think about this sort of thing um it's it's kind of a contentious topic I know a lot of people are not probably not going to um want to engage in the sort of nuance that's needed with this one. But again I don't have any any big answers for this I just think you know there's more to it than just being outraged at your government trying to kill you I mean your government's been trying to kill you for how many years now so does this really change the overall picture of that it makes it a little bit more efficient. But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really change a whole lot and here's why like I mentioned there are resources for you to check out so here is your homework if you are so inclined uh you can read all of these documents yourself the manual itself the one that isn't really being changed at all the 2016 manual read that um the 2016 version is the latest version that I am aware of uh that you can find on their website so this is the most recent version of the manual there is the directive from 2024 read that for sure and the directive from 2007 read that and compare the changes because the 2007 version is radically different than the new one the 2024 version and why is it radic different I think because of these documents so if you want to understand how screwed you have been as an American for a long period of time read these three read executive order 12333 again right on the government website and also read DOD directive 5210.56 this is the governing document for the use of force and you might find some similarities between the intelligence collection document which is now like a you know kinetic targeting document or at least trying to be and this and this directive so read that and see when it was published it was published in 2016. But I think it goes back further than that probably 2011 uh was when the initial document was written but again read what your government is authorized to do to you and if you want to freak out a little bit more or at least um be educated and you're freaking out uh read JP 328 joint publication 3-28 this is defense support of Civil Authorities if there's going to be some Shenanigans going down they're going to have to change this publication because this publication it it describes and goes into detail of how the military can work with local law enforcement and Civil Authorities so if you start seeing new liaison relationships popping up new kinds of Partnerships new kinds of intelligence sharing new kinds of kinetic targeting coming together maybe a little bit this publication is going to have to change this one hasn't been changed since 2018 so if we start seeing changes to JP uh 328 if we start seeing changes to 5210.56 and if we start seeing changes to eo12 333 okay that's when you should be actually like no kidding concerned um that may happen at some point it would probably have to. But my guess and my reason for talking so long on this is that it's probably to do with allowing the use of armed drones on us soil a little more efficiently not necessarily for targeting now. But for the camera so they can use um these kinds of assets more deliberately is it going to work out that way I don't know I mean government policies always end up being the detriment of the American citizenry so we'll have to figure out how this screws us over. But in any case that's what I think about that so let's put that one to bed for now uh it's perfectly okay to be concerned in a reasonable manner that is productive and and helpful at the end of the day just being outraged over what your government is doing to you doesn't really do anything right so this hopefully should trigger a a set of a different mindset and start start um uh allowing people to reexamine how um Federal resources are actually helping them or hurting them and and not jump right to straight antagonism. But start to start to develop that that relationship a little bit different ly if you know what I mean so so again let's uh close this one out for now and move on to the Southeast region again really just wanted to kind of highlight some little tidbits from uh the hurricane Helen recovery it's still continuing there's still a lot of roads out uh they're they're doing their best to to bring things back online um most of the efforts are still volunteer uh the feds are getting a little bit more efficient. But like I wrote in the wire a few days ago they're not really helping too much on the FEMA side of thing um so it it's become really kind of a contentious thing um those false reports of the whole militia scare uh that sort of thing has has hopefully been debunked by now. But mainstream media is still going with it there's no militia concern out there there's really nothing um you've got one or two people have made like very vague threats on Facebook. And then suddenly they deploy armed you know escorts for federal you know resources ridiculous I think they're just using it as an excuse to not do their job so again that has cost us probably about a week or so and you're starting to see a little bit of an you know antagonism building I mean the feds are creating the exact conditions that that that they are are trying to avoid uh allegedly so again everyone seems to be working okay they're working together with each other local resources are working with volunteers who working with the feds it's just the feds are really slow they're usually in the way they're not doing a whole lot and and it's become kind of a problem on the military side of things things are going swimmingly well as far as I can tell some inefficiencies here and there um. But before you know jumping on the whole outrage train again with like specific incidents that you may hear about just wait a couple of days wait a couple of days and see what's going on um for the most part now we're in the recovery stage so again there are uh you know still concerns to you know lifel property sort of thing people are still uh now that cold weather has moved in this has created a whole other set of complications. However we can we can definitely uh spare just a few moments to to rationally think about things when it comes to did this event really happen is this really the way that it is because again you have to remember please remember this above everything else what you're seeing on social media is one person to another one person so you may see a report of somebody being like you know shut out of something or the fed's like you know screwing them over or something like that that's just one person's experience somebody else you know 5 minutes away or you know 50 yards away may have a completely different experience so you have to remember this it's often contradictory and that doesn't mean it doesn't mean that the first person was lying about their experience you just have to realize experiences are compartmentalized very much so in this crisis some people working out of you know Asheville may have infinite problems with FEMA. Whereas you know somebody up closer to the Tennessee Border might have no problems with FEMA because they're just not there right you know you might have other people in different areas have problems with with this or that or the other. And then somebody else 50 miles away something completely different so again don't draw your overall experience of the event by just one person's testimony understand what's going on and understand that you're not really going to have uh a whole of reports that kind of corroborate each other so again the flow of information is is very much a problem now one of the things that's kind of developing is is the overall kind of feeling that in some areas recovery might not happen uh this has been kind of a rumor going around for a few days um and it's it's been spurred on by Roy Cooper the governor uh his his statements uh on the matter stating that basically some areas should not be you know rebuilt so that's caused a lot of concerns how's that shaking out on the ground I don't really know I don't think that there's the attitude of um just intentionally like we're going to stop Aid to this area and just tell this people to leave that's not happening as far as I can tell. But there is kind of the general sentiment of well you know dang it this entire road is missing there's nowhere to put a new road so we're probably just going to have to not build this road here again build another one somewhere else that's that's probably how it's working out in in real life as far as like per individual property no Fidelity on that I'm sure Black Rock will swoop in and do the whole L treatment again. But still right now it's still definitely a recovery sort of thing um what's also been a little bit more Illuminating is the lack of certain kinds of federal assets again something that I've just kind of been thinking about since this Crisis began is you know where are the big industrial efforts to kind of fix the transportation needs uh so we don't have to rely on helicopters so much where where is the Army Corps of Engineers where are the CBS you know from the Navy the Navy guys where are these large combat construction units I mean last time I checked the guys who built the pier you know out there in in Gaza they're not doing anything right now so you know why are we not activating these kinds of resources you know why are we not thinking in terms of building something great uh in terms of some of these roads that are down so far you really just see and Dot guys and improvisation for the most part now I'm not saying you should drop a half million dollar combat Bridge or pontoon Bridge or something for to access five people's houses you know that'd be a waste of resources. But still you got to wonder where's the overall coordination from this they're not treating that they're treating this like it's a hurricane in the coast it's not a hurricane in the coast it's a hurricane in the mountains this sucker kept rotation in the mountains this a big deal and it's a whole different whole different ball game so you know again the general feel feeling of well Federal help is needed much bigger assets are needed we need heavy lift helicopters we need big machinery in many cases. But also the feds kind kind of screw up everything they touch so what do you do I don't know it's it's a mess it's getting better the volunteers are making it better uh a lot of the state guard guys are doing awesome work out there too and making things get a little bit better. But for the most part it's still going to be a mess for a very long period of time so you know I don't know I just get the feeling from a lot of uh the reaction from like the Feds that this is like their first hurricane they've ever responded to like female apparently learn nothing from Katrina they learn nothing from lahina they learn nothing and they haven't implemented any of this stuff either so either way you're going to see a lot of complaints over the next few weeks I'm sure and it's just going to kind of you know be like the whole maii thing I think. But on a much larger scale for sure so switching out to the southwestern region we switch gears quite significantly and and briefly mentioned the na Nationwide meat recall uh this has uh this was this actually started back on October 9th I can't remember if I mentioned it then or now. But it's actually steadily increased now it includes 12 million pounds of meat uh which is a lot considering that uh most of this re most of this um contamination is leria contamination occurred from one Factory and they just spread the contamination everywhere so they keep sampling new places like shipment from this place from a while back and finding leria in it. Even though it's you know so it's expanded quite significantly uh in terms of like the batch numbers they have tested and things like that so again processed foods man you know this kind of thing is is very very common with with prepackaged uh processed foods unfortunately especially stuff that's meant to be fresh uh or decently fresh you know so again something to be concerned with u check out and see if you have any of those processed foods that are on the lists uh you could just Google it and find the list from the USDA uh to see if you have any of that tainted food and. Finally moving out west uh I did not mentioned it in the wire but I should have on Friday a uh EA 18 Growler uh crashed into Mount reneer uh with rescue teams um reaching the crash site yesterday uh and they haven't really said what's going on with the status of the crew first they were missing now it's kind of the general um the general feeling that that uh they were probably two fatalities with this so um again not much information. But the search for the aircraft is over it's on Mount reneer on the Eastern side so uh again very little information but as as we can see this does continue the trend of military Aviation um mishaps incidents accidents uh that have occurred over the past couple of years and. Finally let's jump overseas for a moment to the Far East theater just wanted to briefly touch on the Chinese drills that occurred in the vicinity of Taiwan again this is why cont text is important because you might see these reports of 10 and something aircraft and dozens and dozens of ships off the coast of Taiwan or surrounding Taiwan that's what the mainstream media said surrounding Taiwan they're technically correct. But if you had a calendar uh you'd understand that this was October 10th you know double 10 day for Taiwan kind of it's not like it's not like their independence day. But it's like it it's it celebrates the wuang uprising which kind of led to the development of the nation state of Taiwan so they it's basically like their national holiday or one of their national holidays they have a few uh and China always of course likes to remind them of their fate so to speak uh by doing these big drills around Taiwan on their uh on their holidays um of course this is again a Chinese trick right that's what they're really good at this fifth generation War kind of stuff um so really you have to realize that you have to understand the region a lot better to determine okay is this a pretend drill or is this a is this the real thing since this was not that many ships and not that many aircraft it's just a drill um it would be thousands it would be thousands of ships and thousands of aircraft mobilizing and it's going to take them a little while so again a couple hundred uh aircraft from all around the country um doing these drills it may seem to be scary at first. But uh it'll be a whole lot worse if try decides to militarily go for Taiwan again big if but if they do that's what it'll look like and wrapping things up with the ghost net again I I didn't really get that many reports this time around I think solar weather is still kind of affecting me. But I did get one uh really uh clear report uh from somebody out in Texas which was very strange because I couldn't hear you HF radio is weird right I couldn't hear anybody locally I couldn't hear anybody that I normally hear. But I got this guy very very clearly couple of drop characters here and there but for the most part it it worked out pretty well so again uh still working on version 1.5 of the ghost net uh I will release that as soon as um I I finished some Doctrine writing on it uh. But yeah 1.4 is still the most recent version of that so that's pretty much all I have for today uh here are the sources again for all of you who are concerned about kind of the dod directive thing all of the links for that are in the description so you can easily click them. But they're also going to be on the slides as well so um that's pretty much all I have for today thank you guys all for watching thank you guys for your support and we will. See you next time it has as always fight in the shade.