Ron Paul: Thank you, thank you very much, what a delight. And thank you, Lew, for the introduction, and congratulations to the Mises institute for 30 great years. You know, it was mentioned about me being in Washington and being a good congressman, and even this evening someone came up and said, “You know, you’re the best congressman in Washington DC”, and I said, “Yea, that’s nice, but the competition isn’t all that great, you know”. So, it’s a relative term, but it is wonderful to be here and it is wonderful to celebrate such an important event. And, I’m delighted to be here with so many friends, colleagues, and supporters. The one thing that I have admonished so many on the campaign trail and in the crowds that we would get out is: this fighting for liberty is very serious business. We don’t know what’s going to happen, and if you dwell on the problems, you can get pretty depressed over this. So I think it’s important. I think what we should really do is continue to do it, but what I advice people is that you got to have some fun doing it, because if you dwell on all the negatives, you can get burned out pretty fast. But Lew has learned this lesson, he puts things together and he has fun and enjoyment, because you don’t know exactly what’s going to happen tomorrow. And I think dealing and associating with like minded people is a great way to do it, and that is the reason why these events are so good; you get to meet people that have the same interests and the same goals even though you’re not dwelling on exactly what is going to happen tomorrow or the next day. Now, the other question that a lot of people ask me about being in Washington – I’ve been in the Congress, off and on, for 23 years – is, “How did you survive, isn’t it very frustrating, how do you put up with these people?” And I said, “I’ve never been frustrated, I just have real low expectations when I go to Washington”.
You know, you just can’t expect to change the world in a day two, but, quite frankly, I’ve been modestly pleased with what has happened. I never dreamed that anybody would pay any attention to what I ever said. I figured that maybe it was in the cards for me to go to Congress, although that was never my goal. I never decided one day I want to run for Congress, and I’m going to go to Congress. Matter of fact, when I told Carol that I was going to run for Congress, she said, “What in the world would you want to do that for?” and, of course, I said, “I need to talk about these things and I need to express all these views, I’ve heard about this monetary policy”. And she said, “Yea, but this is dangerous stuff, you could end up getting elected”. She didn’t know anything about politics so I assured her and said, “I’m not going to get elected, people are not going to be interested in what I tell them”. But her assessment, even back then in the 1970s, was that “People want hear the truth, and they’re going to be impressed and they’re going to end up electing you”. So that was a bit of a disruption, it disrupted my career in medicine. Although, I wasn’t satisfied to stay in Washington for long periods of time, earn credit and seniority and become a chairman of a committee and this sort of thing, so after 7 years of being there, I decided to go back to medicine. Now, you know, there have been a few things in the media that can become pretty disturbing when you’re in politics. Sometimes the media doesn’t treat you all that fairly, you ever noticed that, every once in a while? But it is a real mixed bag out there, some supporters get over the top at times, they almost paint me as a saint. Well, let me tell, I’m not a saint. But on the other side of the point, that article that came out said I was the most corrupt individual in Washington DC, and that’s not true either. So, it is somewhere in between there that counts. But I do have to make a confession: I have contributed to some corruption. Matter of fact, there are two individuals in this audience that participated in this corruption. I got 3 individuals that are really hardcore and they don’t think a whole lot about the government, and they ended up working for the government because I asked them to work on my staff, they took a federal check and were part of the system. But I won’t even name names, one of them runs the Mises Institute, but I won’t mention his name, and the other person used to have this thing called The Remnant Review or something, and nobody knows who he is either. I wouldn’t pick on anybody like that but, of course, there are some rationalizations on how we can do that. I have to do that myself, so that’s obvious. Of course, if I had my way about the kind of congressmen we would have, I would be up there 3 months out of the year, the pay would be about 1/10th of what we get, we could still keep our job, I could have still practiced medicine and still gone to Congress. And that’s the kind of Congress we ought to have.
You know, the last several years, I would say 5 years, my life has changed and I think the freedom movement has changed. And I hope I contributed a little bit, but it took a lot more than that, it took groups like the Mises Institute and many others, it took so many of you who have participated, either directly by teaching and participating in the Mises Institute and contributing money. And this has all been so important. But this campaign for liberty and this whole issue took a dramatic change 5 years ago. And when I meet so many young people, or new people I had not met before, I frequently ask, “When did you get interested, when did you get concerned and pay attention to the campaign?” And, you know, one of the instances that they mentioned the most, if there was one moment, they bring up this subject of this little confrontation with the former mayor of New York City, Giuliani. Does anybody remember that guy? So, Giuliani, who made it into the news the other day, is around but not that much. He still owes a million and a half dollars on his debt from that campaign before, as other candidates that have run for the presidency. But not only did something happen back then in 2008, but as that campaign wound down and it became evident that there was a recession – that so many in this audience knew there really was a recession going on even before it was announced officially by the government that there was a recession going on. But that was dramatic, that was a big event. Although I believe our downturn in the economy started sooner, I believe it started ten years ago. If you look at some pretty good statistics about real income and even real wealth in the stock market, if you want to, you can take it and look at the gold price as a reflection of something very significant going on for 10 years. But it wasn’t recognized by a large number of people until 2008. And that is when something really happened that was different, after that campaign was over, it was the first time I started getting phone calls from so many in the media. They didn’t have to worry about the campaign going on, but there ought to be a very special interests in the Austrian Economics and, also, the many individuals who were able to talk about the bubble formation and why. So there was a lot more credibility gained by all of us by that recession coming and lingering. But it’s dangerous, but it’s also a wonderful opportunity for us to present our case. One of the most common things that I heard during the campaign, especially in this go-around, because we did a little bit better this time because our numbers kept growing and we used to talk about tens of thousands or hundred thousand, but we literally can document millions of people now knowing the Republican primary outside the primary.
But I do get a lot of advice, believe it or not, from various sources. And I get advice from those individuals who are much more conventional Republicans than many of you in this audience, and they’ll come up and they’ll have a smile on their face and they’ll say, “Ron, you know I really like what you do and you’re on the right track to cut this spending and balance this budget, that’s what we really need. But you could do so much better if you would just change your foreign policy”. I mentioned that one time in a college audience and I said, “You know, if I would have changed my foreign policy, how many of you would be here today?” So where the conventional wisdom of the ordinary Republican was that the foreign policy was a disaster, it really has opened up the doors to bring so many more people into our camp. Now we can document the primaries where we probably generated about 1.8 million dollars in the Republican primary, and, quite frankly, the toughest places to sell some of our issues would be in the Republican primary when it comes to the PATRIOT Act, civil liberties and the war position. But, if you go outside the Republican primary, all of a sudden you see a tremendous amount of support. When Carol and I walk through the airports, most of the time people who stop us are not what we would look at and say, “Yea, he looks like a Republican businessman”, we don’t see that. It’s working class people, many times it’s the minorities, and they are very enthusiastic. And usually they come from a different group, and I don’t think the Republican Party has any idea about how attractive the freedom philosophy is, and if they did, it would be wise for them to change their way and appeal to more people with the freedom philosophy. You know, I don’t come down too hard on the media, a lot of people say I should come down hard on the media. But I sort of ignore them, I figure what’s complaining about them going to do. And, besides, there are alternatives, we have educational opportunities, we have the internet and so many other things. But the media really wasn’t quite fair, to tell you the truth.
The other day, they came out and they said that the current Republican team were getting large audiences of 7000 to 9000 people out, and that was great news that they finally got up to those amounts. But just think that when we were in Philadelphia in 2008 in Independence Hall, we had over 5000 people there, young people yelling and screaming in the cold weather, and nobody reported it. This year we went back to Philadelphia and we had a nice turnout. We were expecting a bigger one but it wasn’t bigger this time. But if you think its cold tonight, you should have seen what they had there, it was cold and pouring down and raining, and they still came out because there’s a starvation for the message of liberty, and we should all be enthusiastic about the changes that are occurring in this country and to keep this thing going. The one time I probably should have done a little bit more complaining about the debates was where I was a non-existent person. Somebody added it up when I said, “You know, I don’t think I had that much time tonight”, and he said, “No, you didn’t, you had 89 seconds”. But we were able to turn that around, those 89 seconds probably got more play than the 20 minutes that everybody else got. And, also, I think that got me on a couple of shows, there were two people in the media that generally wanted more fair play, and one was Jay Leno. I think in the in the last 5 years he had me on 4 or 5 times, I think it was 3 times in the last year-and-a-half. And, he is a very nice, decent person, and I do not know exactly where his politics are, but he is one that just thinks that it’s not nice to not treat people fairly. So I always liked him.
But, also, from another spectrum, is Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart did the same thing, he thought about fairness and he was a little bit more honest in his approach. So this is beneficial to be able to turn some of these things around. One of the things that I’ve talked about so much, has been the reception by the young people, the young generation: going to the campuses and getting nice crowds out. And this was not automatic, it took some work and effort and promotion, and I thought the staff did an excellent job. But I had one week where I was at Texas A&M University, which is considered pretty conventional, conservative Republican, and we had a very nice turnout. It wasn’t one of our biggest, but it was good. We were satisfied with 4 to 5 thousand people. But, within that same week, or shortly thereafter, we went to Berkley, and people asked, “What are you going to Berkeley for”. Well, it turned out that was our biggest turnout, 8,500 people came out in Berkeley. And a lot of people made the point about that and said, “Wouldn’t have happened in the 1960s, Berkeley was a different place then”. But this is a different world, this is a different system, we’re seeing the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. We’re seeing the ends of Keynesianism and the beginning of the Austrian School of Economic Thought; that’s what we’re getting to. There was one show where I mentioned Austrian Economics, and I think it was Chris Wallace that had me on that Sunday. And he gave me a nice interview, he was challenging, he first pressed me really good. It was probably the first 20 minutes or so, which was pretty good for Sunday morning. And he challenged me on the hurricane funding; we had just heard that there was a big hurricane in Texas, and we had a big vote to save everybody in Texas from this hurricane, and I voted against the funding. And he said, “What in the world were you doing?”, and actually he gave me time to explain it and he looked at that for not too long and he said, “That sounds like a pretty good explanation, I think I agree with that”. But then he went on to ask, “What’s this business about Austrian Economics?” So he gave me a chance to say a little bit about Austrian Economics, so the message is getting out. Now, even in 2007, or maybe in the beginning of 2008, we were at the University of Michigan, which is not exactly a conservative university. But that was the place I told the story where the young people were out there they had already heard about the Fed and they were yelling and screaming. But that was the place where they started burning Federal Reserve notes, so I thought, “Well, we’re making progress here”. I would throw names out if I mentioned Austrian Economics, and they’d start clapping and cheering. And I mentioned Mises and Mises would draw a cheer, and Rothbard would draw a cheer. But then it got really over the top: one time I mentioned Lew Rockwell and they started cheering “Lew Rockwell”; I mean, what was going on here. Yea, it is a new world, and it’s changing and we should be very pleased with it. But I think the message is so wonderful. I have my limitations, and I know what they are and I get my critics who say, “Why don’t you do it this way, why don’t you say it this way?” and all kinds of suggestions. But the one place where I am very, very confident is the message of liberty, the ones that we have put together and the ones that we generally agree with. That is the correct message, that is the road to peace and prosperity, and nobody can take that away from us.
When I first went to Congress, I spent most of my interest, at the beginning at least, on monetary policy. And so many times I told the story about how the breakdown of the Bretton-Woods Agreement was predicted by the Austrian economist, and it happened. And that was a big event that I got involved in speaking out. But, over the years, I became much more interested in the foreign policy, and I could see how this all came together: why the Federal Reserve is key to the runaway welfare spending and also the war spending. They can’t fight these wars without a Federal Reserve, it’s such a fake and a fraud, and we have to talk about it. But the foreign policy is so devastating to us, it’s devastating to our economy, it’s devastating to the debt, it’s devastating to our civil liberties. And, believe me, these young people are interested in this issue. On the college campuses, that might be the issue. There are several issues that we get loud applauses for, but the anti-war message is applauded by the young people and let’s hope this country wakes up and continues to applaud that issue. But the applause is loud for the Federal Reserve and the Fed and to go after the Fed. But, also, the next thing that we get a lot of response from, is on the privacy issue. It’s your privacy, it’s government secrecy that we have to attack, we have to return your privacy and we have to deal with making sure that this internet isn’t overtaken and regulated by our federal government.
The students have responded in a very favorable manner, and this is what we should be really excited about, because I see there’s a transition going on. But the groundwork has been laid, not by me, I observed and I had called attention to it. But this has being done by institutions like the Mises Institute and other groups and other teachers, there are so many teachers here. How many people here have been participating in lecturing and teaching, and this has being going on for a long time. I frequently mentioned Leonard Read, because Leonard Read had a lot of influence on me when I was trying to find out what was going on. He, at least, could provide the books and the literature for me. But we obviously didn’t have the internet, and certainly the universities weren’t teaching us the right kind of economics. But, today, it is so much more available to us. I felt fortunate in my life to be able to practice medicine for a long time, and sometimes I wished I did a little bit more, but anyway I feel blessed that was able to do this and maintain a family life and participate in medicine as well as in politics. But, over these years I was able to hear what was probably close to Mises’ last lecture, and it was on socialism at the University of Houston. Then, of course, I one time had dinner with Hayek and I got to know Murray Rothbard along with Lew getting to know Murray so well, and I became a good friend of Leonard Reads. So I really feel like I had this opportunity to visit people that maybe today not everybody in the country knows about. But the people in the universities and the young people, in spite of their teachers in many ways, are starting to know these names. And I keep thinking when I would read back and read about Adam Smith and Ricardo and other economist in the past, I feel so lucky that I was able to spend some time with them and to enjoy this. So this is one thing where I believe we are making great progress. You know, when we did our campaigning, there were many times when we believed we were doing better than the reports showed. I don’t know if you would agree, but every once in a while it didn’t look like they always counted the votes. But the votes were important, it was a measuring rod. But let’s say we actually did a lot better than we got credit for, you know what, in the long run it probably doesn’t matter that much. It matters that we know about it and it matters that we’re winning something a lot more important than a single primary where they cheated us out of some votes. Where we’re winning is we are winning the hearts and minds of a whole new generations and that’s why we should celebrate.
Our foreign policy, though, is something that we should be dealing with. That is one issue about which I will be doing various things next year, I have not made any firm decisions, but I’ve had a lot of people talking to me about the different opportunities. But one thing that I will be working on is trying to continue to get information out about what’s really going on in the foreign policy, because I think it is so important and it’s a time bomb waiting. I think our government, including both parties, obviously, has an obsessive compulsive disorder when it comes to Iran. It is literally, to me, like a sickness that they’re able to just well on this bomb that Iran doesn’t have. But just think of what’s happened since 9/11 on the change in policy, now Washington accepts and the American people accept pre-emptive war. It is technically our policy that we can start a war anytime we want, and not only that, but without congressional approval. And what do we have now, what else has happened. The Congress voted and gave approval to the president to use the military to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely and never have a trial. This is really, really bad. And in these wonderful, wonderful debates they have had recently, do they ever bring it up, do you ever have a commentator say, “Hey, what do you think about some of these things, what do you think about Obama’s kill-list?”? They’d say, “Oh, there’s a policy now where the President has a kill-list and he can assassinate anybody he wants, including American citizens”, there’s no discussion like that whatsoever. So this, to me, is a dangerous, dangerous step. Although I see so much good progress, I see also danger on the horizon and it makes it even more crucial that we’re successful in what we’re trying to do. Fortunately, we still have a little bit time, but that time may run out quickly; it may run out in a month, it may run out in a year, it may run out in 5 years. So the more time we have to persuade more people to our side, the better. I do not work on the assumption that all of a sudden we’re going to have a new Congress and we’re going to start repealing, I’ve never believed that for a minute. But that doesn’t mean that things can’t change, things are going to breakdown and then there’s going to be opportunities. And the best thing that probably can happen is when the government totally loses credibility and their money doesn’t work and everybody goes on their own and people become independent and there will be de facto nullification and they will just flat-out ignore the Feds.
And that is a possibility, but the real danger is, they will cling to power, because that is all that they know: clinging to the power and using that power to suppress the people. But I am convinced that we do live in a new era, something different and better than ever before. And, in the history of mankind, I’ve seen things that are different. And it has to do with a better understanding. I think we understand economics now better than they did in the 19th century. In the 20th century, as bad as it was for war, there was economic advancement by the intellectuals on their understanding of economic policy, so we have advanced in economic understanding. One thing that I would like to see in the new era, and this would change everything, and that is, just think of the scientific achievement of man.
Whatever period you go back to, there’s been steady progress, but nothing super. The industrial revolution has been a fantastic stimulus to new developments (scientific and technological developments). And actually the standard of living has gone up for many, not everybody because there are still a lot of people throughout the 20th century who have suffered, and they still do, and more people are starting to suffer. But although technology and science helped in many ways to improve our standard of living, just think of the misuse of technology. The misuse of technology and the science has been taken in the 20th century to become a century of murder and killing and war like we had never seen before. It wasn’t hundreds of thousands, it wasn’t millions, its hundreds of millions of people that we kill each other with all this advancement. So is the human race really improving, or are we stagnating, what has happened to us? Because we’ve never once taken technology and used it to promote peace, and that is what I think is going to be different. We need to do two things, we need to deny one thing to governments – and this needs to be a message spread around the world – and that is to never grant any government the authority to initiate violence against anybody; their own people, or anybody else. If we have that principle, then how do we spread this message and how do we use technology and science? We use the internet, and that is the way to spread the message. And, for once, we will be able, hopefully, to get around the control of the message: the lying and the conniving by the cohesion between those who give us our news and information and the government and the government schools. And this is going to change. Just think of what could happen if we had a magnificent revolution and the magnification of a very healthy movement in this country. Already today, we have the home schooling movement and the private school movement to circumvent what’s going on in our public education. So there’s reason to believe that this is a special time, it is a new era, it is different, but it will not be easy. But it’s going to be better and easier than ever before, because now it isn’t so difficult to talk to people. Lew was telling me that there are quite a few pilot groups of the Mises Institute around the world, and they do communicate with us and we get a lot of messages and a lot of invitations. So this is something that has never happened before, and it is so quick. The one thing that I did get a little personal charge about, I have to admit, was when Romney was campaigning in Poland. I don’t know if anybody saw that, but here’s Romney campaigning in Poland and there’s a big Ron Paul sign out there in Poland. And the Romney people were out there with umbrellas trying to hide it from him, like if he doesn’t see it, everything is going to be okay. As long as he doesn’t see it, it’s okay. But I hope he saw it, to tell you the truth, and I hope he said to himself, “Damn, can I ever get away from that Ron Paul guy?” But there is a lot of good activity going on, and I think this is all so wonderful. But we do have to change our attitude, we need to understand what freedom is all about and what a free society is about.
I am convinced that when people hear the true explanation about what liberty is all about and why you don’t compromise on it, that it is the only message that can bring people together, it is the only message that can bring different people of different persuasions and different personal attitudes and different religious values together. The smaller the government, the better the chance for people to get along. Even in a religious sense, some of the countries where the governments weren’t that strong, there’s many times in our history where Jews and Christians and Muslims actually lived together, until outsiders come in. And right now, we are the outsiders, and that is why it’s our responsibility to do something about these outsiders and change people’s minds and say, “Enough of this, enough of these wars, get our people home and get our troops home. If we want to change the world, set a good example for the world”. But the principle, for me, is non-interventionist. Stay out of intervening. There’s one word, and if I’m not mistaken, I think I had a disagreement with Murray Rothbard on this, and that is because he liked the world “isolationism”. And some people still like it, and I understand why they might like it. But I can tell you, politically, it doesn’t help anybody. Because I am not an isolationist. If you believe in free markets, you don’t want to isolate yourself from the world, you want to engage with the world. It’s just that you want to isolate our weapons and bring our weapons home; that’s what you want to isolate. So that is one area that we should look into and apply these principles. If you apply the principles of liberty and non-interventions, we don’t need to intervene. And our founders understood this: don’t get involved in entangling alliances, don’t get involved in the internal affairs of other nations, mind our own business, trade with people. But, that’s not isolationism to trade and communicate. We have a foreign policy today that is so sad. What we do is, because we are the powerhouse of the world and everybody is intimidated, we go to countries and we tell them, “Look, you do this, and if you do it, we’ll give you a lot of money. And if you don’t, we’re going to bomb you”. And sometimes you take a country like Pakistan, we do both to them, we give them money and we bomb them. And, also, to be tough. See, I didn’t win the presidency because I wasn’t tough enough, I didn’t say, “I will never take anything off the table when it comes to dealing with the Iranians”. Well, they’re lying, because what they’re saying is they’re not going to take a nuclear weapon off the table. But guess what, they take diplomacy off the table. So it makes no sense. But this whole idea about liberty and how it brings people together is wonderful, because it’s the use of liberty. If people who have different lifestyles and different religions and different intellectual pursuits want their liberty, then that brings them together. And I think it answers so many questions. It’s the same way with economic policy, we have had a nation now for over a hundred years where we think there’s two kinds of freedom. You have personal freedom so you can go to your own church and have some civil liberties, and then somebody else defends economic liberty, and they’re usually two different groups. But why do they have to, why shouldn’t liberty be all one thing, why shouldn’t economic liberty and personal liberty be the same thing, and why shouldn’t that give us a sensible foreign policy. It would solve so many problems and it wouldn’t cost us very much money, either. And that is what we should set our goals for.
So, my suggestion for Lew Rockwell is to continue to do exactly what he’s doing, with your help, and for everybody to assume responsibility. When I talk to the young people at campuses, they ask, “What should I do, what should I do?” And I use a lot of clichés from Leonard Reed, I say, “Study and learn and know what’s going on”. But I do put a little bit of a burden on people, and this is a good crowd to put a burden on as well. Because the world isn’t run by a large majority of people, the world has always been run by a small number of people. But if you become knowledgeable enough to come up to a Mises Institute dinner and sit out in the cold and listen to a former member of Congress, I mean, the burden has to be very great on your shoulders. You have more responsibility than the average person that never thinks about these things. Maybe they don’t vote, sometimes they do vote, but they don’t really know what’s going on. And they haven’t figured out that the government’s lying to them, so they listen to this stuff and they feel, “Oh yea, there’s Al-Qaida in Iraq and we have to go to war and we have to do all these things”. So they listen to all this. But our job is to make sure that people seek out the truth. If you take 100% of the people, I don’t think 100% of the people are evil, I think most people are basically inclined to not want to go fight wars. If you’d take a vote even before the Persian Gulf War and these other wars, the large majority of the people say, “No, we don’t want to do it”, but they change their mind because of war propaganda. And this is one healthy thing that’s happening, and this is one healthy thing I see with the young people. They don’t believe their government, they question everything, and they are not going to be bamboozled into believing all this.
So we have this wonderful opportunity if they do not believe the government. And the 5% who are really the evil people, get into position and they want power. Libertarians have a more difficult time because there’s no natural way where we want to have power over people. But those who see the vacuum, want the power over the people, and then they grab it and they get in these positions of authoritarianism and they’re the ones who promote the war and then they lie. And the problem is there are too many people who are naive and gullible. So what we need are our 5% or our 10%, and that’s where we’re gaining on now. You know, we’re living in a time when our time has come and people are willing to listen. It’s a message that’s going to be acceptable. So what we need to do is work on that. And how do you do it, however you know how to do it. You do it on your own, you participate anyway you want, you support the Mises Institute, you start another one. And this is what’s neat about what’s going on, there are so many groups. There have been a couple of groups that are an outgrowth of our campaign, the one group that I really thing is doing a great job is the Young Americans for Liberty group, and these are on campuses. We have now 315 chapters on campuses around the country and they are energizing a lot of people. Now, I don’t know what the number is, but my guess is that YAL is getting close to maybe where the Young Americans for Freedom probably peeked out, and they’re gone. And I think YAL is going to continue to grow. They’ve been instrumental in trying to get young people out. I had made one trip to a campus since the election, and I was a little bit personally curious about what the response would be like since I’m not a candidate and people do like politics and it’s easier to raise money for. And I was wondering what’s it going to be like. So I had a business group invite me to go out to Salt Lake City and I said, “Yea, I’ll come if you can get me on a college campus”. There was a Utah Valley University and that was not too far from where the speaking arrangement was. So we had a rally there and the YAL and different groups got out, and the turnout was great. I mean, we had over 4,000 young people who came out and they were wildly enthusiastic about this message. And, believe me, I don’t talk to them about government loans and government anything, and they still hear my message. And I’ve always been sort-of baffled. I talk about the problems that are serious and unemployment and inflation and the loss of liberties and how we have the federal government arresting American citizens and starting all these wars. And yet so many people will become more optimistic. I can’t tell you how many young people come up and say, “You know, I feel like there’s hope now, I’m optimistic, I never was before. I never wanted to pay attention”, and I think it much be that they want to hear the truth. I think even the bad news is good news in that there is an answer, and that answer is the answer of liberty and that is what we can present. We can do it, we’re on the precipice of a great change into a new era. If we just can get that message out and turn it around and say technology is going to be used not to kill people in a massive way, but to stop these wars and to present the case for liberty.
Thank you very much.