#115 Election 2024 Breaking Point: US Military Authorized to Kill Civilians — DHS’s New Domestic Terrorism Warning

Roninbasics.com | Protect yourself from the harmful effects of modern technology. 

Welcome to The Adams Archive, where we uncover the hidden truths that shape the world you live in. Hosted by Austin Adams, this podcast digs into real government documents, directives, and secretive policies that influence your life in ways most people don't realize. From domestic surveillance to military power, we expose how these institutions quietly expand their control under the guise of "national security" and "public safety."

 

Summary: At The Adams Archive, we break down complex issues and provide you with the facts that the mainstream avoids. Each episode analyzes real documents and events that expose how governments and corporations work behind the scenes to control narratives and limit your freedoms. With a focus on newly released government directives, we help you understand how these policies affect your everyday life—and what you can do to stay informed.

• Government Surveillance
  Explore how government surveillance, particularly through the Patriot Act, has expanded its reach to monitor average citizens. We break down how AI-driven technology and new legislative tactics allow institutions to categorize dissent as "extremism." Learn how speaking your mind could land you on a domestic watchlist.

• Election 2024: DOD Directive 5240.01 & DHS Homeland Threat Assessment
  This episode takes an alarming look at the DOD Directive 5240.01, which authorizes the US military to use lethal force on civilians during times of unrest. Alongside the DHS Homeland Threat Assessment 2025, we reveal how these new policies target domestic threats and set the stage for unprecedented government control as the 2024 election approaches.

• Weaponized Policies
  We expose how policies designed to protect have been twisted to suppress rights and civil liberties. Learn how new directives allow for military intervention during civil unrest, and how these powers could be used against citizens. This isn’t just about national security—it’s about control.

• Tech & Disinformation
  Discover how AI is used to manipulate information, control global narratives, and spread disinformation. Governments and corporations use these tools to shape public opinion and stifle dissent. We break down the role of emerging technologies in this dangerous new frontier.

Call to Action: Don’t miss out—subscribe to The Adams Archive today to stay informed on the topics that really matter. Follow us on YouTube, Substack, and social media to dive deeper into each episode. Your support means everything—together, we can uncover the truth behind government policies and safeguard our freedoms.

All the Links:
Access all our platforms here: https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams

----more----

Full Transcription

  All right, so if we go down to 3. 4e in this document, it talks about the use of deadly force. And it's essentially what you would expect. If there's an imminent danger, or if he or she is not for a moment pointing a weapon at a person, for example. So even if you're not pointing a weapon at them, he or she has a weapon within reach, or is running for cover carrying a weapon,  they can shoot you. 

Civilians. So if you're, I don't know,  open carrying,  and they think that you pose any type of threat, they can just shoot you.  Civilians, the military,  during civil unrest, right?  DoD recognizes and respects paramount value of all human life if less than valuable or less than deadly force can be reasonably expected to accomplish the same result without reasonably increasing the danger to armed DoD personnel. 

Deadly force is justified when there is a reasonable belief  that the person,  the subject of such force, poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to a person Or under the circumstances described in the 3. 4e. So essentially what it's saying is  any and all circumstances, if you have a weapon, if you're open carrying, which you have the right to do,  or even if you're concealed carrying and somehow they know that you're holding that weapon or have that weapon in the vicinity of you, they could shoot you if they think that you pose any type of threat,  you know, the laws that were designed to  be weaponized against our enemies. 

is now being weaponized against us. So if we go to the document that I'm talking about now, right? So we have those two DoD directives. We understand that. But this is also something I want to point and draw your attention to is, and this is the last thing of this document, then we'll move to the actual National Terrorist Advisory document,  which is the USD and I and S approval.

So it says, so this is how they actually get the soldiers. This is the approval process. Um,  if the requested personnel exceeds 20 people,  then you have to But if it's less than 20 armed military soldiers authorized to use deadly force, you don't.  You don't.  Within the United States of America.  Or, if the duration of the requested  assistance exceeds 30 days, so you don't even need approval.

If you get 20 soldiers for 29 days,  You don't even need a DOD approval. You don't need to have the Secretary of Defense  approve the request. You can just go right around them. Go to the military. They'll send you 20 soldiers for 29 days. And then you can request it again for another 29 days that are authorized to use lethal force on civilians. 

Now let's see who they're concerned about, because that's what the DECCS document talks about, or Concerned about, but who, who they're going to start to say poses a risk, right? Now, this document isn't just about that. This talks about foreign foreign enemies as well, and some election interference from Russia and China and what these people are trying to, this isn't just about American citizens, but a large portion of it is  a large portion of it is. 

All right,  let me go ahead and switch this here. So you guys can watch  what I'm looking at.  Not that.  All right. So  here we go. Here's your document.  Now, if you're on YouTube, you can follow along and actually look at this with us.  Uh, let's make that a little bit bigger for you.  Okay,  here we go. 

Here is the document office of intelligence  and analysis,  Homeland threat assessment, Homeland security 2025. All right. So here is your table of contents talks about the border talks. There's the executive summary.  Um, but let's go down and look  at some of the stuff that I have outlined here. Um, now if you want this document, I'll send it to you.

Uh, head over to my Instagram, I'll be posting some videos of this.  And there'll be a keyword that you can comment that I'll send you both of these.  You can also just look up the name of the document on Google and find it yourself, but yeah.  Alright, so it says public safety and security. Alright, this is page one. 

It says over the next year, domestic and foreign violent extremists, the harmful effects of illegal drugs in adversarial states, seek to exacerbate our divisions, as well as silence criticism for diaspora communities, will pose a threat to public safety and security on the homeland. Specifically, we expect the threat of, threat environment in the United States over the next year will remain high due to a confluence of factors.

These factors include violent extremist responses to domestic, socio political developments, and the 2024 election cycle.  Concurrently, adversarial states are Intent on sowing distrust in our institutions, as well as confusion and division in our communities through their maligned influence campaigns, with some actors seeking to boost these efforts during the 2024 election cycle. 

These state actors will violate our rule of law and undermine freedom of speech in their efforts to suppress dissidents living in the United States.  So what, what it's, What the conversation is that they're having there is like, Oh, it's these violent extremists. It's these foreign adversaries. It's these terrorists out there.

And over here,  terrorists that are sowing dis sowing, uh, distrust in our institutions. No.  No, you know, what's sowing distrust in our institutions, the lying  that's happened over the last four years, you know, what's sowing distrust in our institutions, the continued corruption, and the continued crossover between corporatism and politics, you know, you know, what's sowing distrust in our system, how almost every single one of the high level people in our our government right now are going to find themselves a high level executive position at the organizations that funded them, whether they're foreign or international.

Or domestic to use their terms,  right? They're going to, their son's going to be on the Chinese energy board or Ukrainian oil board. Oh yeah. Look at Biden and Pelosi and all of these, these individuals who are powerful, powerful people in our government who have their children on the boards of foreign companies that are state run companies. 

By our adversaries. Maybe that's what's destroying this, this, this sowing distrust in the institutions. Maybe it's your lack of response to the  terrible situations that it happened in Lahaina or in North Carolina or in Florida.  Maybe it's your lack of care surrounding the inflation that's happening.

Maybe it's one of those things. Maybe that's what's sowing distrust is that you're distrustful.  Not the fact that foreign and domestic violent extremists have thoughts on political ideologies.  So  there's that summary. Let's move on.  Um, so it says that, uh, and actually we should probably go to the bottom here because what, one thing that I found to be unique in this document is that they, in the national advisory, the national terrorist advisory bulletins, they used to say the full words. 

What you'll find in this document is they use all of these acronyms to try and make it so that you can't screenshot this and post it without context. So, So what you'll see is there's these DVE, the HVEs, the FTOs, the,  all of these specific  acronyms. So I'm going to show you first what those acronyms mean, and then we'll go back to the portion that I just had up there for you. 

And here they are. Okay. Definitions and contextual notes. An FTO is a forest, uh, forest, is a foreign terrorist or terrorist organization. So FTO, foreign terrorists.  DVE.  Domestic violent extremist. Okay. So let's look at the definition of that, which it says is an individual. So a domestic violent extremist, a DVE is an individual based and operating primarily within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration  from a foreign domestic or foreign terrorist group or other foreign power who seeks to further political or social goals wholly, or in part through unethical law or unethical acts, unlawful acts.

Oh my gosh. I'm sorry. Early in the morning, unlawful acts of force or violence, the mere advocacy of political and social positions, political activism, or use of strong language and rhetoric or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics alone does not constitute violent extremism. It may be constitutionally productive, maybe.

Oh, you don't you think that the advocacy of political and social positions or political activism or use of strong rhetoric.  Yeah, that is absolutely protected under the Constitution.  Maybe constitutionally protected. DVEs can fit within one or multiple categories of ideological motivation and can span a broad range of groups or movements. 

INA.  Utilizes this term synonymously with domestic terrorist.  So your, the mere advocacy may be constitutionally protected, but we're still going to label you as a violent extremist, and they may still use the word domestic terrorist. 

So, this is important when we go back and we look at the conversations that we're having. Now, when we look at HVE, HVE is homegrown violent extremist. It's a person with, of any citizenship who has lived or operated primarily in the United States or its territories who advocates, is engaged in, or is preparing to engage in ideologically motivated terrorist activities, including providing support to terrorism.

In furtherance, Of political or social objectives promoted by a foreign terrorist organization. Um,  but is acting independently of direction by a foreign terrorist organization.  HVS are distinct from traditional domestic terrorists who engage in unlawful acts of violence to intimidate civilian populations or attempt to influence domestic policy without direction or influence from a foreign act. 

Okay. So they're saying these people have opinions, right? They haven't the word violent violence. is not in any of these things. Like there's, um, who engage in unlawful acts of violence to intimidate civilian populations. Okay. So there's one mention of violence  throughout that entire definition. You do not have to be violent.

You do not have to be extremist. You have to hold an ideology that they don't like, which may be constitutionally protected to fall into one of these two categories.  Now it also defines, it also defines conspiracy theorist.  Or a conspiracy theory.  So Homeland Security defines a conspiracy theory, which is defined as a subset of narratives in which the ultimate cause of an event is believed to be due to a malevolent plot by multiple actors working together or as an effort  to explain some event or practice by reference to the event.

To the mechanizations of powerful people who attempt to conceal their role, or at least until their aims are accomplished as per the national counterterrorism innovation technology and education center, a DHS center of excellence. DHS does not hold a position on the veracity of the claims associated with these theories. 

So what they're saying is if you believe. There's any number of group of people who is trying to conceal their identity  that has worked together to cause an event that is a conspiracy theory.  And we can write you off and we can put you into a document where we can now put you on a list. 

Crazy. This is their definition of a conspiracy theory. So if you hold the belief that any number of people, three, four, five powerful people  did anything to cause an event  and then tried to conceal their position during that event, which has happened multiple  Always, forever, in history, in every event,  then you are now considered a citizen.

A conspiracy theorist.  And now that becomes important, right? This isn't just conspiracy theory in your bio, right?  Uh, this is important because then they can utilize this document and say, here's how we're going to weaponize the department of justice against you.  So now that we have that background, let's go back up to the document. 

All right. So.  Terrorism.  So it says that foreign, so there's some foreign stuff or some domestic stuff. I'm just going to walk you through line by line in the document. Um, some of the foreign stuff, it says foreign terrorist organization inspired homegrown violent extremists. So inspired by terrorists, but homegrown will remain high,  right?

So homegrown violent extremists. The threat will continue to be characterized primarily by lone offenders or small cells motivated to violence by a combination of racial, religious, gender,  or anti government grievances, conspiracy theorists, and personalized factors. We are particularly concerned about the likelihood of violent motivation by developing domestic and global events,  including the 2024 election cycle and the ongoing Israel Hamas conflict.

So what you have to notice there is when they say conspiracy theorists. And then they say the election cycle, right? If you say anything about the election, not being fair.  not being right, not being accurate,  you can now be a labeled a homegrown violent extremist, because that can be tied to some bigger plot, even if you have no violent actions,  because what you have to understand about the document and why this document is important is because what they're essentially establishing is the ground rules for their organization,  the ground rules for if you say this, right, if you say this thing, 

if you say this,  We think you're going to this. So we're going to do this, right? If you do, if you think they're say this,  we think that you're going to do this. And so we can do all of this to stop you, even though you didn't do any of it yet,  preemptively or reasonable belief, right?  Words are important. 

So when you understand that they're, they can use any, anything within their power, if they can  Label you as this DVE or HVE, the Domestic Violent Extremist, or Homegrown Violent Extremist. The second that you say anything about one of these things, right? Global events, like the election cycle, right?

Talking about things like conspiracy theorists, where people plot to do bad things, like they always have. 

gender ideology, racial,  political, right? I like how they include gender in there. Like, oh, okay, let's use the Department of Justice and lethal force to protect the trans people because their sexual kinks want them to dress up. 

All right.  Moving on, a number of violent extremists embrace multiple, sometimes competing motivations, challenging our ability to identify their political, their potential targets in advance because their pre attack statements online are often unrelated or only loosely related to the targets they ultimately choose.

So what they're saying there is  If you're say anything about anything that we don't like, we can then correlate it back to this entire list of things and say that, oh, because you say you don't agree with women in men's sports, you're now going to enact in a terrorist attack on Jewish populations,  right?

So if this, then this, so we can this. Right? If you say something about gender ideology, we believe that you fall into this potential category to do some Jewish violent, or attack on, violent attack on Jewish groups. So we can then do all of this in between to surveil you.  It says, Between September 23 and September 24, or July 2024, DVEs driven by anti government, racial, or gender related motivations have conducted at least four attacks in the homeland, one of which resulted in a death.

Like, do you know how much government overreach we're getting for one death here?  Between September and July  one death, and they're going to weaponize.  The Department of Defense,  U. S. law enforcement at least disrupted seven additional DVE plots, two HVE plots, and again, I'm not saying that this stuff doesn't happen, I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to  maybe not even surveil people domestically, right, that wasn't what was supposed to be allowed until the Patriot Act, I'm not saying that they shouldn't  be able to do their job though, and their job is to figure out where is a terrorist attack going to come from, and there has been domestic terrorist attacks.

I'm  Most of the domestic terrorist attacks have been against Donald Trump.  not against  literally any other government official.  So unless they're speaking about, Oh, if you know, I highly doubt they're using this to surveil liberals with blue hair at, you know, some furry event. No, it's, it's being weaponized against the right. 

But again, they have to be able to do their job. I'm sure there are, you know, there's been like the Boston bombing and there's been other historical events that I would love for these people to stop and and nothing against these people if they're surveilling me right now for talking about furries,  but like I know you got to do your job.

I know people who have been in positions in these organizations,  and I appreciate what you do,  but when it's weaponized against the American people  for nothing other than posing a political posting a political opinion online.  So that you can utilize these overreaching government tools  to then surveil their private life that is not constitutional,  right?

The Patriot Act is not constitutional.  And now this type of document allows you to overreach beyond what should be allowed  for, for a complete Orwellian government. State of government.  So if you say anything about this category of things, a list of probably 100 words that they have in the Department of Defense and Homeland Security, if you say any word like this, it triggers AI to pick up your profile.

And now they have you on a list somewhere. And now they can use the Patriot Act to listen into your phone microphone and use AI to scrape your conversations and search your conversations for any of the jokes that you make with your wife in private.  It shouldn't be a lot,  right? You should still be able to do your job.

And I think you can still do your job by monitoring it. with a sniper rifle and not an RPG, right? Or a nuke, essentially, right? You don't need to monitor millions and millions and millions of Americans to find the one that's sitting there posting online talking about how they want to  enact some violent act on a school or shoot up some mosque, right?

Like, You don't need all of that. You don't need that power to do that.  Now, let's look at some other portions here. 

As we move down this document.  The next portion I'd like to point out is biological. So this is just interesting to me over the last year foreign and domestic extremists online expressed interest in using DNA modification. So okay, so so I've heard this one several times recently, this is a very recent event.

And this is something that I've talked about before, when you've used 23 and me,  you are giving your DNA to a entity that will then sell that data to foreign and domestic. 

Governments  or companies like BlackRock, right? Now what they can do with that DNA, the technology has been devised. Iran has tried this. China has tried this. There's evidence there. There's been, uh, I was listening to a Senator yesterday talk about on the Sean Ryan podcast, how China has been trying to develop a biological weapon that only attacks  childbearing age individuals. 

So here's another example of that in this document where it says, We expect threat actors to continue to explore emerging and advanced technologies to aid their efforts in developing and carrying out chemical and biological attacks. Over the last year, this document says, Foreign and domestic extremists online expressed interest in using DNA modification to develop biological weapons to target specific individuals. 

So if you want women between the age of this and this, if you want certain ethnic minorities, if you want certain or majorities, you want a certain gender, you want a certain age group, you want a certain background, whatever it is, you can splice DNA down and see, Hey, I want this new COVID quote unquote, but much more deadly to attack men who are fighting age between the ages of 18 and 45  decimate the men between 15 to 45. 

They can do that. And that's what this document is outlining here. So when you're giving your DNA to these organizations, they can even target it down to the individual,  right? They could release some massive flu virus,  and they want to target 15 DNA strands  and have it be lethal against, A hundred people, 150 people, they can manipulate that  virus to do that. 

It also says, we also remain concerned about the potential for threat actors to use unmanned aircraft systems in chemical and biological attacks due to the continued advancement of UAS technology and the growing availability of UAS. So saying that people are going to use drones to drop these types of things. 

All right, now it moves into influence operations and transnational repression.  All right, so Russia will likely continue to use traditional state sponsored media. For example, over the past year, Russian influence actors have amplified stories regarding U. S. migration flows to stoke discord in the United States.

Like no,  that wasn't Russia, that was you. Like maybe this should be talking about how the Harris and Biden campaign let in 22 million illegals.  Maybe we should be talking about that being the reason that these stories are amplified, not Russia.  We should be having that conversation. You shouldn't be mad at the messenger, right?

Even if they're amplifying those conversations, be like, Hey, look at how  ridiculous the United States is for letting in all of these terrorists. We're not going to do that. 

It's just funny that to me that they want to point out these foreign countries acting like, Oh, we didn't do anything wrong. It's because they, they said it. They're mad. They're just trying to make you mad at us. It's like playing the, the, you know, your parents are divorced, right? Your parents are divorced.

And one parent's like, Hey,  you know, like mom, mom won't let me, you know, I don't know where I'm going with that, but you see the point  you get the idea. It's not Russia's fault that you let in 22 million illegals. It's your fault,  and they just pointed it out, so maybe, just don't do that.  This is over the last year, Iranian information operations have focused on weakening U.

S. public support of Israel and Israel's response to Iranian information operations have focused on weakening U. S. public support of Israel and Israel's response to October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks. These efforts have included leveraging ongoing protests regarding the conflict, posing as online protests. 

And encouraging protests prior to the 2020 U. S. presidential election, Iran attempted to amplify divisive narratives to incite violence, influence the U. S. electorate and degrade trust in electoral processes. And like, yeah, for sure. They're probably doing that. And so is Israel,  right? Go check out AIPAC.

Maybe we should be talking about AIPAC in here and their influence on, on domestic senators and congressmen and.  Presidents, dare I say.  Uh, another one that I found to be interesting here was that they talk about the People's Republic of China and their disinformation campaigns. Hmm. And it says that they seek to exploit U.

S. disasters. So the U. S. Homeland Security is saying that China's the reason  China is exploiting U. S. disasters just as it did when it blamed Hawaii wildfires on U. S. military activity and may also reduce trust in the U. S. institutions and officials and dissuade survivors to pursue legal recovery or federal recovery response and support.

Yeah. I don't think that it was  just China. China. Pointing out that direct energy weapons are real and could have been the result of, or could have resulted in Lahaina.  I don't think it's just China pointing out that we have weather modification, that there's literal patents on Google that you can search on all of this technology.

Like,  again, stop trying to blame the foreign entity for something that isn't real.  is very real and a possibility.  It also says the Department of Justice indicted seven Chinese based Chinese nationals for their involvement in a PRC backed criminal hacking group targeting U. S. based critics, businesses, and political officials in malicious cyber operations intended to intimidate and silence dissidents and steal from their businesses. 

All right, uh, moving on.  Okay, so this is probably the most interesting part of this here. And this talks about threat is likely to focus on the election cycle, right? This is all about the election. 

Now, some of the most interesting parts of this, I'll read through for you that I highlighted. Again, if you want this document, as I highlighted it and all of my annotations, you can just head over to my Instagram. Once this is posted, you'll be able to request it from my comment section. All right. So one of the first things here is that, uh, let's just read it from the top so we can get into this better.

Part of the paragraph, our electoral processes are an attractive target for threat actors, and we expect many will seek to influence the 2024 election cycle. While some others may seek to access or interfere with election systems, while law enforcement is still investigating their motives behind the apparent assassination attempts on a former US president.

These incidents highlight the magnitude of the threat surrounding the election cycle.  Now, here we go. Some Domestic violence, some domestic violent extremists, particularly those voted motivated by anti government or partisan issues will likely view a wide range of targets  indirectly and directly associated with elections as viable targets for violence with the intent of instilling fear among voters, candidates, and election workers.

What would be the means to that? Like what would be the end there? Why would they do that? Why, if you're an anti government or  if you're motivated by partisan issues. Well, that's the more important one, right? Anti government or partisan issues, right? If you're anti government, we can now  say that, Oh, you're probably going to attack polling areas, right?

You're probably going to go to the local  polling area and, and bomb them or whatever, right? You're probably going to do that if you're anti government.  Like,  no.  No, I think you're just bad at your job, in that  federalism is generally not helpful, and all it's done is caused a bloated taxation system and leached from American citizens and given all of our money to foreign entities to fight wars that we shouldn't be in. 

That's why I'm anti government, and I'm not going to attack anybody as a result. But just because I state that opinion, they can now put me on a list to then say that, oh, I'm going to go attack a polling area. Like,  so stupid. Uh, some DVEs, particularly those motivated by anti government or partisan issues, will likely view a wide, okay, we just said that, um,  instilling fear among voters, candidates, and election workers, as well as disrupting election processes leading up to or after the November election.

So leading up to, And after like, we're not putting any end to this, right? There's no cycle here. We're like, maybe for the next three to four months, we should be highly focusing on people who say that the government's bad at their job,  or doesn't have the right motivations.  Nope,  door after  foreign state affiliated cyber to actors and cyber criminals, almost certainly.

So this is this one I found really interesting too, because they point out the fact that people are going to try to, like state affiliated cyber actors and cyber criminals, and they're  are most likely going to try to change votes using technology, hack into the voting systems, and change votes. But then they say something which I find to be hilarious here too.

So foreign state affiliated cyber actors and cyber criminals almost certainly will view network infrastructure that supports US elections as attractive targets. However,  there was no reporting to suggest that foreign adversary targets of such systems have ever prevented any eligible voter from casting a ballot. 

Compromise the integrity of any ballots, cast or disrupted the ability to tabulate votes or transmit election results in a timely manner,  right? So they're definitely going to target.  These polling stations. They're definitely going to try to hack in and change votes, but there's no evidence ever that that's ever occurred ever to anyone ever.

We promise,  right?  So what they're stating there is like, again, laying the groundwork. They're saying that  almost certainly,  almost certainly  will target  the network infrastructure that supports elections to try and change votes, but then they follow that up with There was no reporting, however, to suggest that foreign adversary targeting of such systems has ever prevented any eligible voter ever from casting a ballot, or compromise the integrity of the, because if they say, this has happened, we know what's happened, they've changed votes, we know they've changed votes,  then what?

Right? Like, then what? Then we know the election system is compromised, and they can't say that, but what they can say is that we know for certain  They're going to target this and try to hack into it and try to change votes.  But there's no evidence ever that it's ever happened ever, right? But almost certainly they're going to try to do it. 

Found that one to be interesting.  All right, moving on. It says, in particular, anti government, anti authority DVEs, many of whom likely will be inspired by partisan policy grievances or conspiracy theories will pose the most significant threat. So this is under the guise. So it says we expect the DVEs to post the most significant threat to government officials, voters, elections related personnel and infrastructure, including polling places.

So ballot dropbox locations, voter registration sites, campaign events, political party offices, and vote counting sites in particular anti government. Like if you're anti government, you're not trying to stop people from voting. You're not trying to  blow up a,  a dropbox for voted, you know, like for votes. 

You're not.  You're just not participating. I'm not playing this game. The game's stupid. It's, it's all rigged, right?  But again, they have to throw that in there. So if you believe that people conspire, right, conspiracy theories, or you believe that the government's not good at what they do, and this may be too large,  Any one of those things, you pose the most significant threat. 

We have also recently observed a rise in disruptive tactics, targeting election officials, like those observed in past election cycles, including hoax, bomb threats, swatting, doxing, and mailing  white powder letters, intended to instill fear. Like I'm not saying that doesn't happen. I'm sure that does happen.

I'm sure there's some pieces of shit that will try to, I don't know, intimidate voters not to vote,  whatever.  But the fact that they're calling out anybody who believes that a small or large group will conspire and conceal their identity. To do something that you wouldn't want them to do as the American public. 

Now you're a conspiracy theorist. And if you believe the government is bad at what they do. If you've heard my bowling alley story when I was in the military, they are generally bad at what they do. Uh, you know, and I've heard this too, do you know who's not bad at what they do? The intelligence agencies.

They're the ones who hire the Harvard graduates and Oxford alumni and MIT this and all those are, they come off as very stupid when they put out those secret service agents that looked like they did when Trump was there. But that was on purpose.  Right, the people that are actually in the Department of Defense, at the highest levels of these three letter agencies, they're not unintelligent.

They're not ignorant. They're not stupid.  Right?  But,  most of the government is. Right. It's not all the DMV, but a lot of it's the DMV,  uh, online users and forms frequently frequented by some DVS have increasingly called for violence linked to the 2024 election cycle and seek to promote violence  in response to politically and socially disruptive topics like immigration, abortion rights, and LGBTQIA issues or significant current events. 

Let's talk about that one.