 You know, of course, I've been very interested in Austrian economics. I got interested in the 1960s, and that led me to wanting to speak out about it, and that's why I ran for Congress. But in the 1960s, there were books being written, and they were following up on Henry Haslitz's analysis back in 1945, when he says, you know, the IMF doesn't work. All that pseudo-gold standard Bretton Woods won't work, and he, of course, was right. But by the 1960s, Lou was very much involved, way before the Mises Institute, getting people to write books, and add in these bills, books, and Lou, that's where I got a lot of information in why I said, you know, the time is coming when the Bretton Woods is going to break down. And I guess it was the Sunday night at 8 o'clock, I was sitting in the living room, watching television, a late program, break in, Nixon came in, I'm closing the gold window. And from then on, I said, that was some deal. That was a historic day, and I'm sure everybody in this room knows the significance of August 15, 1971, but that was when I more or less decided, you know, I should speak out more about this. And I think it was about 1970, Mises wasn't well-known, to say he was unknown. But in the Houston newspaper, they had a clip in there, an announcement from the University of Houston, it was about that big, and it said that Van Mises was to give a lecture on socialism at the University of Houston. And that was about it. And I thought, well, you know, maybe I could go hear him speak, you know, this was really an invitation for me. But I was in the middle of my medical practice, and I thought, how am I going to get this worked in? It was an afternoon speech. So I called the only other person in the town that I thought knew who Mises was. And that was another doctor, Dr. Henry May. So I called him up, and he said, oh, that sounds pretty neat. So we conspired, and we talked about canceling and getting some coverage for our medical practices. So we drove the 50 miles up to Houston to go to this lecture. And we found the room, the lecture had just started, so the seats were gone. The room was not very big, but Mises didn't get a large office. He got a little puny office, it was jam-packed, and the other doctor and I had to stand at the door and listen. And we did that, and that was exciting, and that was my introduction, and I got a lot of enthusiasm from that. But you know, one time, not too many years ago, I wrote in one of my little booklets, that little story, and lo and behold at one of the next Mises conference, lo and behold somebody came up to me, another doctor, another member of the Mises Institute, he said, Ron, you're wrong on the dates, you said, you said you heard Mises in 1971, he says it was 1970. And I said, well, I said I wasn't under oath at the time. So we talked about it, I said, how did you know that? And this fellow just happens to be here tonight, and Michael Keller is the doctor who did it. He was not a medical student, I think he was in college. So he came, he says, well, I was the person that got Mises to come to the campus and speak, and he said he picked him up at the airport, so he had a much bigger introduction to Mises. But I found it fascinating because if it was, and I sort of believe that it was 1970 and not 1971, that he probably told me that story, well, 70, that'd be 30, probably 40 years later, we were at a conference together and he came up and told me, I said, that is really fascinating story. So the other fascination I had with the Mises is that after a little bit, Dr. Mises died, Lou got to know Mrs. Mises, and she was a real lady, I really didn't get to know her at all. But she evidently got on one of my mailing lists, and it was a political mailing list, and there was a BRE in there, please help me stay in Congress, and she sent it back to me, and she had a donation in there, and I kicked myself because it was in a check form, and I didn't keep the check. But anyway, on the top of that envelope, she says, thank you for quoting my husband. So that's a fancy souvenir that hopefully someday that will be in the Mises Institute and place it on the wall, because I found it fascinating that she was interested in that manner. So I am fascinated with these coincidences, and the other one that I find fascinating as well, it's not exactly, me, Sien, or educational, it was more political, and that was, you know, when Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, I was the medical doctor in charge on Kelly campus, and he landed at Kelly Air Force Base, and he was there a short period of time because he was making quick stops before the next day, that was the day before he was assassinated. But I remember rushing around trying to get news, there were no radios in the dispensary, no TVs, no internet, and I thought, well, where am I going to get some information? What's really going on here? So I went out into the parking lot. I didn't have a car there because I always rode my bike to work, but there was one person in the car that sat there, was listening to the radio, so I went over and I said, can I listen to the radio with you? So he said, fine, come on, sit in. So we sat there and listened to the horrible, horrible news that we were getting. But a few years later, and that would have been 1963, and I was running, after being out of office for 12 years, I was running again in a very tight race, so I was at a large political Republican convention, like, and I think it was in Tennessee, and it was a large Republican group, and we were sitting there on the patio like having lunch, and everybody had been there a while, but some other individual drove up and got there, came over, and he was late, and I said, let's just sit down here, we can sit down. I said, where are you from? He says, oh, I'm from Texas, and at the time, at that time, we truly were, although I was in the military, I was still thinking about where I would settle, and I said, well, I'm thinking about seriously moving to Texas and opening up my medical practice, because I was in the military in 1960. So we worked it out on the dates, he worked in the medical department, he was a PhD researcher, I knew of him, said hello, but didn't know him. And he said, and he looked at me, and she's whinsing, and all of a sudden he went, I know exactly where you were when John Kennedy was shot, and that was, there had been 63 to 96 that I was running again. So that was a long period of time, but I can still see him jumping up and down, it's unbelievable that we hardly knew anybody, but everybody remembers that spot and time where they are when they heard some terrible news. But coincidences do happen, and sometimes they're very wonderful, and I've had a few of those too where I met people who didn't know him for years, and it's a very exciting meeting them again. But I want to talk a little bit more, of course, about the Mises Institute, a little bit more about Lou, because I mentioned already that he was involved in publications and editing, and a lot of writers who were making these predictions, and they came true, and that was sort of, you know, put me on firm ground because they knew what they were talking about. But I was determined to learn more about Austrian economics. But another thing along the way before I met Lou, probably, and Lou might have to correct me on the dates here because I'm not on the road and I might miss it by a year, but I think it was about 1977 because it was between the time I was in the office a little bit, and then I was re-elected in 78. So in that period of time, Lou, I believe, was like an editor for Dr. Davis, Francis Davis, Oklahoma City, private practice, a great guy. Lou told me one story about him that I found fascinating because he was a hard money man. He liked to go to Las Vegas, but Lou said he had one habit. When he was finished in his visit to Las Vegas, and this was before anybody knew that the price of silver was going to go up, he bought bags and bags of silver dollars, and he paid the astronomical price of a dollar for a dollar. But he knew what was going on and he became a good friend. But another time when Lou and I bumped into each other is in 78, I did get re-elected. I was in in 76 in a special election, had another one, which the evidence shows that I won, but the opposition canceled me, so I didn't win. But I was a little bit upset about that, but we took it to court and we won it and everything, but that's a long story. But the whole thing is, I won in 78, 1978, and I had a call. I had won, but I had not opened up my office yet, and I had a call from Leonard Reed, because I had met Leonard Reed, and obviously Leonard Reed and Lou Rockwell knew each other very well. And Leonard Reed, typically, you know, was the person, he was like, you know, I don't like politics. He says that's not where the answer is, which I agree with him totally, because when young people, after they hear me speech on college campuses, they'll come up and they say, what do I have to do to have to become an MD and run, and how do I run for Congress? I said, don't do it. I always advise them not to do it, but you have to have special desires. I said, it's not the way to go, because people who want to be a congressman generally want to be a congressman, you know, for the wrong reason. So it was that time that Leonard called me, and he was vouching for Lou Rockwell. He said, put him on your staff. This guy's a genius, and he promised me, and I knew Lou, and I knew a good bit about him, but Leonard Reed, you know, also understands politics, and that is how Lou came to work for me in that first tour of duty. And Leonard Reed truly didn't like politics, but he ended up having me at the Fee Foundation to speak, and Lou would work with them, too, and it ended up Dr. Sennholz, a friend of Lou's and Lies, when Sennholz became, you know, the chairman of the Fee Foundation, he had Lou and I on the board at the Fee Foundation. So it was something Lou and I had touched base a lot there, but then the first baffled moment I had with, I never told Lou about this, so Lou, forget about it. No, he, Lou came to me, I would guess it was 1981, and he said, well, I'm going to start the Mises Institute, and told me a little bit about it, and I said, Lou, you're not serious, you can't do that. I said, nobody's ever heard of them. I said, I've been in Congress now for all these years, and I check around, there's only two other individuals that have ever heard of them, the Mises. I said, before I want to go out on a limb with you on the Mises Institute, I want to see your business prime, and that was a necessary of course, and from the very beginning, I thought it was the greatest idea ever, because in many ways, I look at people like Leonard Reed and Lou Rockwell and people in this room as not necessarily being real good about politics, but really instrumental in politics, because I think Lou is very good at politics and political influence, and I think that's what the goal should be, not political power. There's a big difference, political influence is what happens, and I think that is why I really latched on to the support of the Mises Institute, because I wanted an easier job in Washington, I wanted to change people's minds, you know, and I use the same, because I believe it's so strongly, it's the prevailing attitude of the people that determine what kind of a government we have. And of course, that's what Lou was involved in, Leonard Reed was involved in that, changing the prevailing attitudes, and of course it was sad because the prevailing attitudes that we're seeking were once much more popular, and if you go back 100 years or two before that or before the progressive era, there was a pretty strong support, you know, for these views. Never, never total, obviously, but at least it was well known. But what we have seen and witnessed is the deterioration of those beliefs, and yet most of the people in Jeff's talk tonight is, it shows, so there's reason to be hopeful, somebody said, how can you be hopeful with all this stuff that's going on, and you have no easy solution? What makes you think there's no easy solution? What we have resistance to are the people who have already grabbed power, but they're in the minority, and we have a much more authentic, exciting, truthful position to take, and it's not complicated, it's liberty, that is where you'll find your answer. But you know, it was during that time when Lou was at the office there, another thing happened in 1980-82, and that is when the report for the Gold Commission came out. The Gold Commission, that's the only piece of legislation that they would concede and let me have, I introduced a lot of legislation for purposes other than thinking that I would tow the line and file down and they'll pass something. But anyway, it was the Gold Commission report. The Gold Commission was setting up to study Gold in the International Monetary System, and there was an appointment of 17 individuals, but they were appointed by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. There were two token, well I better not say that about myself, there were two people that thought about Gold, and that was Lou Lehrman and myself, and the rest were just typical, you know, Keynesian. There was one person that was really, and Lou probably remember this, the really annoyed by it was this Henry Royce guy. Do you remember him? Henry Royce, I think he was from Minnesota or someplace, but he hated Gold, but he wasn't very confident that he knew what the answer is because he was very nasty, and he was nasty with his Gold Commission because I think he came to the first meeting and left in a huff because he despised it. But he's the one, you'll remember the saying, he says, don't go back on the Gold standard, it is so stupid. He says, I don't know why he was worried about it if he didn't like Gold. He says, you know what's going to happen if you did that? Gold would go to $5 an ounce, and it didn't do that. I think it went in the other direction, but the Gold Commission was passed, and this did, I thought it was instrumental in introducing a notion about Gold, and I think in a successful way. Gold was made illegal in 1934, re-legalized January 1st of 1975, and even by then, up until 71, over 40-some years, American citizens couldn't even own Gold in the great free country of America. You couldn't even buy Gold, so it did change, legalizing Gold. So in a way, you have to say that's a form of repatriation that you can cash in and serve as a whole, you know, holding back the printing presses. But that was done. But I remember the day in 1975, it was not in Congress at that time, but when the Gold was re-legalized, there was a lot of anticipation leading up to that. Most people, like Marketsworth, they anticipate, you know, and they act on the rumor and do the other. So everybody suspected that we would capitulate and be so dangerous and legalize Gold again. So that happened. And many of you, I'm sure, still remember this. On that day, it was legalized. I was in a group, we were having a Gold conference. Most of us really expected Gold to, you know, jump up. American people could buy Gold now, but they had already done that. What happened, they had to compensate for that. But the government wanted to make sure you were punished. Treasury, on that very day, dumped a lot of Gold. And lo and behold, their their prisoners, their customers, or their stooges at the IMF, they dumped Gold too. And then Gold crashed. But as expected, it came back up a little later on. It's just water. But what we were talking about was the Gold commission, you know, met. And during that time, I was invited to have a meeting with Paul Volcker. Paul Volcker was, he was in there to, he was tough and he would raise the rates and crash it down. And by conventional wisdom, he did pull that off. But the interesting part was that when we went to the office, it was an early meeting, like 6.30, 7 o'clock. It was, Lou was my staffer. We went over to the Fed and Volcker's staffer was there. And this was a private meeting. It wasn't a committee meeting. And he had invited me this because we were also working on the Monetary Control Act. And I was opposed to it. And he was a real gentleman about it. He says, come over. I want to just talk with you and visit with you. He wasn't going to badger me or anything else. And we went over there. But this thing with Gold was going on. This is what fascinated me because we were sitting there. Volcker's staffer was there. I was there. Lou was there. And then walked, you know, Paul Volcker. And I knew him. I knew him from committee and all this. So I expected he'd come right over. He had a guest that morning. Come over and shake hand. But his mind was on something else. And guess what his mind was on? What was the price of Gold? He went immediately to his staffer and said, what is the price of Gold? Gold was still assembled to him. I think it's still assembled to the hoodlums that run our monetary system. And I think they're still willing at times when anything is necessary to mess around with it and try to discourage people from buying Gold and these things. And they have all kinds of preparations. You know, and some people say, and they're good people know, say, Ron is overreaction. That's conspiracy stuff. They can't control that at all. Well, they controlled it from 1934 to 1975 at $35 an ounce. I would say that was a bit of control. And then they did that when they legalized it. They manipulated. But it's important to them to do that. So this is the reason that markets are powerful. The markets are what brought down Bretton Woods. It wasn't that we finally got enough votes in Congress. Congress never even paid any attention to it. Matter of fact, the bill in 1976, it was called the IMF bill. And I was on that committee and I was asking questions. They say, well, why do you have to do this? And they say, well, we have to pass this law to make it legal for what we did in 1971. But that's the way they operate. You know, it's sort of like Facebook sending in information and they get the warrants. Why do you need the warrants? Well, we have to justify what we're doing, you know, after they've done it. So that makes me skeptical of government. I don't know about you, but I'm skeptical on everything they say and do. And you know, when we had the commission and we had a report, Anna Schwartz, who was a monitorist, she was sort of the person, the emcee for the committee. And also Dawn Regan was treasurer. So he was sort of our chairman. And I bet Lou remembers the first meeting we went in into the Gold Commission meeting, because there were 17 members and each had staffers and we were around the table. I think we were in the Federal Reserve Board room. And the first thing Regan wanted to do was to make sure no minutes were taken and no visitors. And I think I raised the question, why? He says, well, we don't want you guys talking in here about it. You might affect the price of gold. But I'll tell you what, there was a reporter, a lot of you will remember his name, Robert, I'll think of it in a second, a financial, financial reporter. And he was on our side of this. And he, he wrote about it and he was a credible journalist. And he says that what they're doing is they don't even want to keep records. And you'll not know what they're going to say. But because of this reporter, it got changed and we got the minutes to be opened up. The first meeting, I don't think was recorded. It's only recorded in some of our memories, but they would not let that be recorded. And the commission was passed in 1980. So Regan was president. 81 Carter came in and was it Carter? Yeah, he came in and didn't do anything. So we had to lobby hard just to get the commission started. But it was the report was delivered on in 1982. Same year the Mises Institute was started. And the report, of course, was 90% garbage, except for the part of the dissenting views. By that time we had gotten to know Murray much better. He came and would work with us and he helped research with us and help us do the minority report. So we got to know Murray very well on the monetary report from the commission. But how much good did it do? Who knows? Eventually we did get the meaning of American coins, but not until 1986. And contracts were legalized for what that's worth. The scope was legalized too, which I think serves a purpose. So that's better than not being able to do that. But it should have been automatic. It should have never been tampered with. And it's only because we had a bunch of scoundrels who went to Washington around our government and they did not like the Constitution, so they just ignored it. And that's how we got into so much trouble in Washington. We need to change that as far as I'm concerned. So Murray and Lou got along very well. They even had a report. It was a little bit political and it was interesting. It was called the RRR report, Rothbard Rockwell Report. And it was very, very popular. Lou, that sort of coincided the 10 years I was out of Congress before I went back in. So I guess I'm sure that wasn't related to what it is, to what you did. But Murray was an interesting guy. And Lou could tell you a lot more things about him, but just because I was working with Lou and Murray, they come to mind. And Lou can correct me if I'm not representing things right. But both of them, especially Murray, love to gossip. And they like conspiracy. And I said, what are you guys doing? What kind of standard are you standing? He says, oh, we only believe in conspiracies that are true. And we only gossip that is true. But Murray and Murray would say there would be a tight race. There's a couple of those going on this year. And they're calm, calm, calm, building up name recognition, going through the ritual. And then about the last month, it's happening, I guess right now, that the last month, the ads get nasty. And Lou says, I mean, Murray says, now we're hearing the truth. He liked it. He followed that, but he was very good. Murray, I'm sure would have been very disappointed in, I was disappointed in a lot of us were, because he was so entertaining. He actually loved politics. I mean, he would tinker with politics. But I think people like Lou and all of them, Lou and Leonard Reed, know something that the politicians don't know, that the real clout on politicians is the people who change people's minds. And that is what this organization has been involved in. They've done it for 40 years. They've made a difference. Believe me, there's a lot more than two people that have heard about Mises Institute and Bon Mises as the greatest economist now than there was in 1976 when I first went to Congress. But there's every reason, I think, to be optimistic. I'm optimistic because people say, question I get a lot is, how do you put up with it? How did you go up there all those years? You really didn't pass very much, did you? No, I introduced a lot of legislation, but I had different goals. And they said, yeah, but how did you tolerate it? We know you were working hard to do the things you want to do, but how did you stand it? And I said, well, first, I went there with not real high expectations, so I didn't have to worry about that. But when I first started, I had a conversation with my wife. I had to get permission to do this when I decided I was going to run for Congress after I was really introduced to this. And when I told her that, she said, what are you doing? What are you going to do this for? And I explained just what I was explaining. It's serious. It's monetary policy. It's important history. And it's a place where I can speak out. So she says, well, she says, that is really dangerous. So dangerous. And that was way before conspiracies were going on and everything. She says it's really dangerous, not because of danger to me. She says, you probably get elected. I said, no. I assured her, there's no way with me running against every special interest group, against all the wars, against paper money, and against deficits, and getting rid of the IRS and the FBI and CIA. I said, you can't possibly win that. She says, no, the people are going to believe you and they're going to elect you. So that's how loud. You know, belief and trust is probably one of the most important things. It is a good question, a good practical question. How did I get reelected? Because back in the 60s and 70s, especially, my position was sort of leaned a little bit, libertarian, because I was absolutely opposed to the drug war, believing the nonsense it did and the harm it did on all these things. And the positions I took, sometimes I voted by myself. Did you ever notice that? And I'd vote by myself and I said, they're not going to reelect me. But it turned out instead of being a liability, it actually became a positive thing. Which shocked me, but it was delightful. And I think people need to hear it. And then they'll say, yeah, you know, I agree with that. I think that's finally what woke up some people in our families, you know, in our school system. The parents finally woke up and somebody will stand up and say, this is ridiculous. This lockdown is crazy. It's unconstitutional. They guessed rid of it. And all of a sudden, they would get applause and people would join. So I think that movement is gone. But do I think that we're on the verge of great victory? No. But the door is open for us. Everything I see now. And Daniel and I have our daily program. And frequently he and I share the position when we always want to find out this could happen, we're moving the right direction. And when it's really bad, I say, Daniel will be a little bit more down than I said, Daniel, that's okay. We just gained about 10,000 new viewers because they want to hear the truth. And when they do, they come around. So it's an opportunity. And I think that that is what we have here. And right now, foreign policy, when I went to Congress, I was mainly interested in economics, especially in the monetary policy, seeing how broad that was. It went into every thing of our lives, the budget deficit, the spending, the inflation, and all the things that they were doing. So I was so pleased that we were reaching some people. And I just think the door is open. And so when we, if we get down, Daniel has it done, we say, no, the door is open. People want something done. How I see it in the 60s have been, is very instrumental in my development of my thinking. And because I was drafted, I didn't get too annoyed. I was taken out of a residency, that annoyed me a bit. You know, I was going to go along with it. I wasn't ready to take on anybody, but I didn't endorse the draft. And then the 60s went on. That war went on. And what was it? 68,000 Americans killed. So war and foreign policy has become a big issue for me. And let me tell you, if we straighten out the monetary system and quit fighting wars that are undeclared, this country would become so wealthy and much freer than anybody can imagine. The one thing is, as good as job as all of us have done and continue to do is a bit of responsibility for all of us. I tell myself every day I have to learn something. I have to learn a better way of presenting my case. I thought Leonard Reed was good at this. The way you present what you believe in is important. And the tone is important. Matter of fact, I even adapted to that philosophy in my medical practice. You know, because everything is just not science. Some of the science is understanding people. So it's the way you handle people and how you present the case. And I think that makes a big difference. And that is what's happening. I think the people get to the point where they're looking for some help. It was the prevailing attitude of the people in the 1960s that brought them around and said, stop this war. And a lot of conservatives got hysterical. They're still upset that we went out on the Vietnam War after 10, 15 years. Some of them still think we ought to be in Afghanistan. But they're in the minority. So why aren't we winning? Well, it's a good question. There's a lot of reasons, I think, that prevailing attitude isn't controlled by us. We have influence. We do have one man, one person at a time. And it spreads, for me, more than I ever dreamed it would. I didn't expect, I didn't even expect to get elected. My wife said, no, I didn't expect to. And then I thought, well, I'm going to do what I said I'm going to do. I don't think I can get reelected. But it didn't really hurt. And so many of my constituents would come up and they wanted to take one small step away from me. They said, Ron, I don't agree with everything that you do. But one thing is, we know what you're going to do and you tell us the truth. And that is why they supported me. That's a major part of it. But the other part of it is setting the standard, setting the philosophy, explaining the economics. And that part I find enjoyable. People say, well, why do you go out and talk to all these people? Isn't that hard on you and traveling? I go out for a selfish reason. I go out because it pumps me up. I get value for this, meeting you, seeing you. You're the people. You're the Mises Institute. You're a supporter of good people in Congress. And many of you have probably helped me. So this is important. And especially when I talk to college students, because I don't think they're nearly as bad as they're claimed to be. But they'll come up afterwards and ask me, okay, what do I do? What do I do now? So I said, well, what you want to do is you have to learn the system. That was another reason, become knowledgeable. And if they trust you and respect you, they'll come to you. And you know, I practiced that. So I worked hard. And I did that for 23 years. And I had two other members come to me and actually ask me, oh, yeah, what's the story? No, they will. And I think that that is the difference. People want to believe. But we, as promoters of the cause of liberty, we have to get better at it. But we're behind the eight ball mainly because of the progressives who are in charge now. They're the cultural Marxists. They're the people who have torn this country apart. But the people are now reacting against it. And that means there's an opening for us, but we have to be precise. Our philosophy has to be very positive. And I think that we can have the influence that is necessary. You know, I've been reading a lot lately about the nihilistic views. And the one statement of Nietzsche makes is, the plain truth of things is there is no truth. Let me say that. The plain truth of things is that there is no truth. So what is he doing? He's using truth to defend his position of no truth. So he already admits that there is a truth. But what he's arguing about is who gets to pass out the truth. And it's about who has the final word. So everybody in Congress, they're nihilistic and they are negative people and they're sour-faced people. But they still profess, you know, to be nauseates me at times when they're up there and talking about, well, we need to be over there in Ukraine. We have to defend our Constitution, our liberties. We have to go there and take care of the poor people and all this. At the same time, I remember so clearly when I worked very hard to try to stop the automatic invasion of the Middle East, the Bush years. And that didn't go well, but we had the first major vote in the early 70s. And I was on this committee, foreign policy committee. So it was to give the President blanket authority to fight the war without authority, real legal authority, that he could do it anything he wanted. And it was not a declaration of war. So I put up an amendment. My amendment was that if you're going to do this, you should declare war. It was an amendment to declare war outright. And when I presented my amendment, I said, this amendment is very important, but I'm not going to vote for it. And of course, nobody else was going to vote for it either. But boy, were they upset. And the chairman of the committee election me. He said, Dr. Paul, we know you're a constitutionalist, all that. But that part of the Constitution is an act of nihilistic. We don't follow that part anymore. That tells you an awful lot, because that's exactly what they do with about 99% of their legislation. So that is the reason we have a system, we have a rule of law. And more importantly, we have a higher law that more and more people are talking about, and they should, about knowing the truth. But the truth isn't that you determine what the truth is. You can't decide that's the only truth you have is we will determine what the truth really is. And therefore, that's how you get your dictators, and that's what we have. And, but I think our conditions are going to get much worse. I think the obligation and the responsibility of organizations like the Mesa Institute has grown. And I think that we are who work in this area are very grateful to you who do financially support us. And, you know, one time, one time I sort of took it like, I don't want to, you know, I turned it, turned it the way I think is more proper, that the money is donated not to us, but to donate to promote a cause. And therefore, to get something that you want, it's a shared ability to, to get to get something done. But I think, I think it's like a economic transaction. There, nobody loses each side benefits. But I think when I come, hopefully, some of you sort of bend your, bend a little bit and say, well, we really, we really like that we benefit. You know, you give a positive answer. But I have the same feeling. It's mutual that I gain, I get benefit from it. So I get rewards from that. And if I didn't get it, and you know what, I am convinced these people that I put in the category of nihilists, I think they're the sourest, sour pusses in the world. And all you have to do, I wouldn't never pick on any TV stations. I don't pick on the politicians because they're all the same. But the people on some of these stations, CNN, you know, MSNBC, a few others, just watch them if they happen to be a listener to somebody talking on the other hand. They're, they're, they're a dire and, and they deserve to be. But that, that is the reason why when I finished all my talks on a college campus, where they seem to be more excited than I ever dream they would be. I said, just remember, this is hard work. It's serious. And we have to do it. It is hard work to go out and try to convince people, not to spend more money than we have. And they, they, I said, but in a way, that's exactly what has to happen. You have to be able to go out. And in the end, people have to have fun at it. Because we don't know what tomorrow will bring the next day or the day after, the year after. But we know that one thing will consistently be with us. I tried to figure out and decide when, when the higher law was developed. I've decided it was probably even before Adam and Eve. It's been around. It's instilled in us. And it is getting to know what a higher law is, which is the moral law and natural law. And you don't need a lot of thugs to enforce that law. As a matter of fact, that's exactly the opposite to it. So this, I think, is a wonderful opportunity. But I tell everybody, including this audience, but I don't believe you need to be election on this. When you get involved and do things like this, I hope you have a lot of fun. I hope you have a lot more fun this evening. And thank you very much for being here. And the FBI.