So, our new speaker is doing something, but he is going to say something to us now. And she is a lawyer and works against the right side. She supports activists on the left side and is going to talk a bit more about what happened about the prohibition from links unten.unitymedia.org. So listen now and afterwards say something and do something. Thank you very much and a great round of applause for Christine and the same from us, from the translation cabin. Here are Franz Tee and Syri. Hello, I was just presented and I'm not going to repeat that. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here about the prohibition of links unten. First of all, lawyers like to talk in shortened version of words. I will try to say every word once and then I will shorten it later on. So if I say BMI, it's Ministerium of the Interior, the German Federal Ministerium of the Interior. And we also will try to translate every word once and then use the abbreviation. I'm here just as one of many lawyers. One colleague is called, as this whole is called, the whole is called Adams, it's Hall A. I want to give an technology disclaimer in advance. The talk is about the information we have till today. Facts may change, we may get more information. So if you want to listen it again, keep this in mind. And just say, hey, that's what they said in the talks, completely different. And furthermore, technology, I'm not technically optimal. That's something other people told me and I read. So please don't ask any technical questions and ask those questions from people who really know about technology. Links unten was a left liberal posting platform and it was prohibited. And something I wanted to say clearly, links unten was, because it doesn't exist anymore, a press media. And it was protected by the press media, by the basic law of press freedom. And that was defined by the Verfassungsgericht, by the most important court in Germany, that exists also on the Internet. And that this is the case and that everybody here should be worried about the state of law. And that you should be worried about this. This is what this talk is about. There's a difference between a Verein and a Vereinigung. Vereinigung is a loose collection of people. Vereine are something that is founded and has a format. And it's written into a register. This is a known act that is perpetrated on purpose. The same happened at the CCC, where this administrative act happened in 1969, because something happened that might have changed the activities of many here significantly. The second criminal act to many important IT hacking attacks were made offence there. At this point the German legal code was ahead of its time. And they had to decide now whether they wanted to become, according to Hunter 29 of the German law, to continue to either be a criminal group or to become a Verein. And the CCC decided the letter. Not every organization or every Verein has this option to become a Verein, because there are a few ways to go against a Vereinigung. If there are more than two people who want to do the same thing, that can also happen without an expressed discussion, what they are going to do, just to work together. In that situation, the Verein's Gesetz can be used for those unincorporated organizations. With these rules, the Verein was disbanded, because it was trying to work against the laws. And by that the Verein was disbanded. This was the first disbursement of a Verein that was not incorporated, that happened so far. In this talk, we are going to talk about three points, which parts of government were used, which methods were used, what was links unten, what is in the media, what is the content, what is the publicum. And finally, was it the first time that somebody did something against left press and what is being done today. This is a BMW. Ah, ihr kennt das Video. You know the video. Warum dieses Bild? Why this image? This image could be a Mercedes as well, or a Porsche. This image is a symbol for the situation we had in the summer of 2017. There is emotion and there has to be an emotion if people look at this in one or the other direction. In the summer of 2017, the situation was very important. If you think about putting the seizure of the media links unten into context, there was militant protests. The police couldn't keep up with it, with the G20 summit in Hamburg. The police controlled people who lived there weeks before, searched for everything. People were controlled a lot, but the same people who lived there could not be defended in a way that was made them feel safe. And there was massive violence by police. I was with a prisoners collection and there were almost nobody who wasn't like hurt or had like broken bones. And there is election time at the end of September. The CDU, the conservatists are afraid of the AfD, the right-wing populists, who are talking about their own core topic of inner security. And the BMI, the Ministry of the Interior, Yes, he is links unten, which gets done by LKR Baden-Württemberg at 25 August by the police. And at the same day, links unten, goes offline. With a press conference, when the Minister of the Interior talked about it, he said, there were problems to shut down the homepage. Which authorities were involved with the ban? Sorry, I have to drink a bit. Firstly, the Ministry of the Interior. Of course, it's banning the fine. It's a repression that's in administrative legislation. But there can be searches and stuff. But it doesn't really fit into the really dry administrative law. If you look at the ban, you see that the Ministry of the Interior saw the problem that links unten was a press medium. But one and a half pages are enough for them to just say, well, links unten is so bad, they can't really be included in the freedom of press. But more important, it would have been to use the telemedia law. Some poster may have been criminal or something and take these down. And they didn't took this way. No Minister of the Interior will stay in front of a camera and say, hello, we deleted 300 posts on links unten. Now celebrate us. And have some police searches and stuff is much more efficient. And we are putting this for the Constitutional Court and everyone has to do it for themselves. Why before the Constitutional Court? Because of the federal authority has done this. And it's a bit boring if lawyers are saying this. But please calculate that every one of these five cases will cost 750 Euro just to bring it before the Court times five. So we now have to pay 3700 Euro. The postage gets claimed. We know this since recently because we only were informed after the fact. But we kind of thought about it with every respect for the Postal Service. I don't think that a letter from my client to me wouldn't need two weeks to deliver. We are also putting in cases in front of the Administrative Court. It's not the Constitutional Court, sorry. Oh, this is costing money as well. E-Mails got seized, meaning the provider gets asked with like a notice by the Court and we don't get told about it and other contents of the mail box and everything that's attached to them gets directed to the authorities. We know from big providers that got this notice. They could have put a case against it. None of those did. And we are putting down cases in front of several Administrative Courts and this will cost 350 Euro for every case. We are still calculating, we are at over 20.000 Euro, just court costs. The Landeskriminalamt Baden-Württemberg, Police Baden-Württemberg, did searches. The way they did these, we are again having cases. It's very costly again. The money of ... They are also seizing money of the event of the Feine at different groups and each has to be sued against. They collect assumed money owned by the Feine. That's really an event that happens to the people. We take notebooks, photos, laptops, mobile phones, servers, everything. We have 80.000 Euro of material seized by the persons. We also sue against this and it again costs 350 Euro per case. What does the local police do? It takes more data. We do not assume that the completely encrypted IT technology is broken in any ways but that might change at some point in the future. We do not assume so, but who knows. Furthermore, they look at the post and the email. Every email is read, every letter is read, everything is read. The breaking into the interior sphere of all the people is astonishing. Another police department surveilled links unten. What does that mean for an internal secret service? They read everything and printed it. They also collected information about those persons. We know that because we try to get the information and we are also suing to get the remainder of the information. Furthermore, G10 information are collected. In Germany, phones, post-surveillance, Internet-Surveillance ist all among these G10 rules. There were observations, so proper spying. All of that, they decided that it was selected. They say that according to secret service information it is apparent that they can also say we think, we want to say but in the end they say we know that we will prohibit links unten whoever also misses the Federal internal secret service they take the information from the local they make their own survey and so they read and print it and they have someone internal and who is a spy in the person, in the group of person. So a person that responds to questions about links unten and we know that because we can read footnotes. That's something they all go into a report but they also take the sticker and the photos and the newspapers and the notebooks and we'll present that to the Ministerium of the Interior to talk about what they really want to say about links unten. If you want to read something from a leaflet or from stickers, that's going to be quite interesting. They work close together with the Lanz-Küminal and the local police because they will try to look at the technical proofs. If they can't find it they will probably ask the Federal police to try to decrypt it. That's what happens. Usually the Federal police will say well, come again in 10 years. There are quite a few different methods of oppression and they are used against links unten but there's one that worked with links unten. Number one, one of the persons was 2005 on the CCC Congress in Berlin and used the SIM card in an event that was able to read the information. Here you can see a Wireshark screenshot. She makes it clear that she does not really understand it but that's something she read about. So thank you very much for those people who tries to explain this to me and then look at my expressionless face. So here we can see this Wireshark screenshot and here there are SMSes that were sent to this information and the silent SMS are used by the police to locate this person. So 2011, 6 years ago this person was interesting for some security agency. Furthermore, KTS, that is a left house that was open for left political organizations. And a video camera was installed or seen in a 300 meters, a video camera was seen in a house that was 300 meters away and this photo was taken with a telephotographic camera and a long-term operation and assumed a listening device. Two people talked about long travel to the sun. In reality it was a travel to a café in France but on the way back they noticed an opened interior part of part of the car and we assumed that there was the installation or the attempted installation or the removal of a tracker inside the car because it was not apparently broken in and there is no data missing. An interesting information, the BKR works like Antifa which is a left-wing organization and they called a boss somewhere and called him, hey, you Nazi, here's the Antifa, we are out here today and we have sent you the outing as a private message. What happens? Shortly after GSG 9 invents Radius Tiazza with an open car where he sat in front of a computer that was unlocked at the time and unencrypted. At the same time, links unten, as far as we know, Tiazza was assumed to have criminal, was created a criminal activity. There are few cases against with this law but because there are really, but it's really interesting for the police to use these because it's a long time and they can do a lot about these laws. They looked at clearly at the computer. In the first tab the personal information of the BKA was opened. The second tab is uninteresting. The third tab is an article in links unten which screenshot posted by Grinserkatze where an internal information from the internal network of the Nazi Forum über Schutzmaßnahmen für das Forum Gedanken machen. Things about protection measures from the Forum. Well, great idea. What do we know about this? Because links unten published it in 2014. They looked at this repression method and published about it. Links unten, press medium is already, by now is missed already. This method shows participants of a Klima camp and on this transparent says here it says our opinion. So, let's look at the history of links unten and we'll see why it's a press organization. The history of India media not of links unten but India begins 1999 with news of the protests on the BTO conference in Seattle. The photo shows the police against it for the first time. Open posting thought was used to write news from first hand news in first position. Nowadays we have Twitter and Periscope in this time we hadn't. This was eight years after the World Wide Web. This was pretty new. Not everyone had this technical possibility to share things online who also want to say something. And the independent media center Seattle was a revolution because everyone could look at this. India media is doing yourself network that always through with police violence with the contents and against the activists. The photo shows Brad Will of EMC New York who got killed by police when casting about the protests in Mexico. The basic principles all the EMCs are different politically and technically in 2008 India media is already ten years old there's not much dynamics and a lot of different opinions. If you read about it you can see that. And the short renaissance by the G8 summit in Heiligenhafen didn't stop that. Their new media blocks are established and all the open posting thought is shared by those as well. 2009 when mobilizing for the NATO GIF against NATO GIF in Strasbourg links unten goes online after one year of discussion of thoughts we have they are not internal these are all self published thoughts of links unten you could if it still existed read and they posted them themselves and made their doings transparent. Other EMCs don't but they gave themselves an acoustic program basic problem but they say they are not like dogmatic in one streaming to still to do it yourself principle from the techniques till the left wing radical hosting everything was put to anonymity and links unten is writing we don't really want to know terror attack threats and the ministry of the interior is saying this is like a clear indication of wrong doings but was what could you read at links unten if you think if you read this you just think there was hatred against the police in the state and manuals for building bombs but when do you ask a landesregierung a state government in 2017 the government says that this home page would give the user including the violent left the possibility to mobilize and share news about it and that's after the ban so that's not the same as what the police said so what we have here this report from 2015 like the funeral of a Hamerskin, a neo nazi who are in the right wing rock scene active and is outing as a fee person, as a spy of the mobilizations against the militancy like people writing about what things they attacked like the train station 2011 so yeah these happened but other news media also share these theory and discussion 2017 a lot of discussion with the G20 summit and leaks 2011 the internal archive of the Deutsche Borschschaft student organization press organization we ask who is the audience it's an online press so most people will just look at it we could say that most of the people going there would be the leftists and posts from links unten are pretty clear about it, 2016 we can quote it in media links unten became the most important left wing radical website in Germany they are visited by thousands of left wing people und here again in 2010 the most primary messages isn't what this was it was of course that all other press press organizations become reader of links unten for example several large German newspapers talk about what they published the MDR about the league of the the chance of the right wing party that should teach everybody what the AFD is thinking about this right wing new right wing party in Germany and more large European large German posts talk about that and the third but not completely unimportant group who consumes links unten are the police and the authorities and we can ask ourselves a few questions who is missing links unten the most which the German police the leader said we hope that they will ask for a lot of money we used to surveil people to find out all the information we used to get links unten not in the media from the internet at really low costs so who misses links unten the most in Sachsen but there is quite a few organizations and reports of their Bremen did not scan their appropriately and who can't lie that strongly anymore this in ministry of Saxonien who told the press some information about who was responsible for an attempted attack but later on it turned out that he wasn't during they still mentioned that but it should be corrected now links unten is not the first repression against left media this part of this really interesting history is I will have to cut this short because of the time because we want to have some time for questions and answers at the end the radical was links radical newspaper till 2002 with different redaction discussed many different parts which was basically links unten but printed the story of the radical is always a story of repression the first case is that the police works against the press freedom a lot of police surveillance actions and researches and then they are surveilled for two years in the 90s they are searched in the Netherlands and what nobody dared to do back then because everybody had something to do was to prohibit this newspaper the authors of the radical was never called a fine and was never prohibited or never banned but they were still oppressed so let's come to nowadays where the people who are banned are taken away what that means today everybody can assume money was taken by the police furthermore the knowledge about nearly all encompassing surveillance that reduces the personal freedom because you have to think about whether a letter arrives or whether you can just talk about the telephone with your mom about family in Turner because it's going to be listened to and every person has to to get this freedom back in front of the courts and that's not only costing a lot of nerves and power but also a lot of money I just told you roughly about the court costs to all the costs that are also associated with that so far we do not know any criminal case but the repression against the radical show that it is possible that a criminal case might come forward that is not only bad for the persons but also very expensive one thing I really want to say is that the prohibition of Lincoln is a president those who run a platform that is clearly oppressed organization is defined as a Verein der Verfassungsschutz der internal secret service und dann die worst method ist schon, obwohl sie eine besser, weniger harsh method sind das kann nur gemacht werden weil es politische Entscheidungen ist ich arbeite gegen ein Victim für ein Mord bei Menschen die ein Mord an Facebook und Facebook war nicht betrachtet für diese Information wenn das Ministerium in Deutschland veranstalten kann es ist sehr flexibel und die Hürtels sind sehr klein ich persönlich glaube, dass die Freepresse für einen öffentlichen und diskussenden Gesellschaften müssen die politischen Magazine schauen aber trotzdem, jede Person hier in diesem Raum soll die Hürtelsen schauen aber auch solidarisch sein mit den wenigen, die es passiert wo viele mehr Menschen sind das ist warum wir schauen in die Zukunft im Moment ist die Repression aber links unten ist ein Symbol für viele Menschen hier und das ist warum harte Zeit die independenten Medien und die Radikale nicht mehr da ist und wir sehen was die Zukunft wird zeigen aber die Menschen, die die finanziellen Menschen helfen können das so tun vielen Dank danke, Christine sehr interessant wir haben fünf Minuten für Q&A bitte die Mikrofonen starten bitte vielen Dank eine Art, die Sie schon antworten mit der Accountnummer wissen Sie wie viel Geld alles das ist? 20.000 für die Karten 60.000 für die Lawyers plus wie viel? 80.000 Geld und Materialdämonen sie müssen ihre ganze Zeit alle wissen wir arbeiten nicht ohne eine PC eine Studie oder so wir haben nicht die Überraschung jetzt mit Lawyers und alles das 60.000 aufwärts das ist ein sehr guter upper middle class Auto das ist da wir haben noch ein paar Fragen die Mikrofonen Hi es ist wirklich interessant dass Sie das Ministerium sagt es ist ein Verein es wäre interessant zu schauen was macht ein Verein ob es ein Verein ist das kann prohibiert werden und die Konkrudente sieht mehr aus wie ein GBR ob es andere Konstruktion gibt dass es ein Verein ist wir helfen das Ministerium ich war unerstaunlich wir haben nicht das Gefühl dass es ein Verein ist ich wollte dir sagen wie das Ministerium gesagt hat zu schauen wie hoch die Börden sind zu sagen wir sind 3 Leute oder ein Verein und wir können jetzt und hat gesagt, dass das Freitag der Presse ist und wir können das nicht tun.  Und ich meine, jeder, der in der Presse arbeitet, Journalisten, Editors, Leute, die es verkaufen, sind alle gefährlich. Oder ein Website, das mirroht oder so. Sie sagen nicht, dass das ein großes Beispiel ist. Wir können es verkaufen. Wir können sagen, dass das Mainstream, das Freitag der Presse, und ich hoffe, dass die Presse das mehr kritisch schauen würde. Sie reden auch über uns, weil was das Kind der Presse ist, nicht wie ein Liter oder eine Terrorist-Organisation, wenn sie es in die Mailbox bekommen.  Ist das nur, weil es ein Editor ist, dass es weniger macht? Es braucht auch auch ein Parteimensionen. Und das hat er auch gesagt, dass sie uns auch checken. Mikrofon Nummer 4, bitte. Ich habe eine andere Frage.  Warum können wir Sie aufheben, wenn wir Vereine arbeiten? Wir sagen, dass es keine Vereine gibt. Die Menschen müssen sich selbst sehen. Vereine sind noch Teil des Vereinsrechtes. Es gibt keine Leadership der unenkooperative Vereine. Sie sind bei Person bei 5 Uhr am Morgen und nehmen alles an. In dieser Situation hat die individuelle Person gegen das zu kämpfen. Die individuellen Personen sind hier zu kämpfen, wenn es nicht eine solidarische Verbindung ist. Ja, eine Frage. Wie geht es um Hilfe mit den Kosten?  Sie kommen aus Österreich? Ja, ich weiß das. Ich habe mich in Österreich gefühlt.  In Deutschland muss man nicht viel Geld haben. Es gibt nichts unentkannter. Es gibt keine Fahrzeuge. Man muss optimistisch sein. Der Herrscher sagt, dass es optimistisch sein kann. Es ist viel leichter mit dir. Die Leute sind viel leichter.   Wer hat gesagt, dass sie in Hamburg zu treffen haben? Das war das Ergebnis, das es alle überführt. Und ohne diese Entscheidung ist das nicht passiert.  Was sagt der Herrscher? Ich weiß nicht, wie sie es treffen. Sie kann auch schieben. Sie kann auch schieben. Sie kann auch schieben. Sie kann auch schieben. Sie kann auch schieben. Sie kann auch schieben. Sie kann auch schieben. Sie kann auch schieben. Sie kann auch schieben. Er wird reachige Castle – als die Autorität zu der Administrative Court, wo der Provider sitzt und sagt, dass es eine Bande der Vereine ist. Und wir schauen an die Gründe.   Einzelneinz, ein großer Provider.    Oder... nicht ledigend? Ich glaube, also... All right.  Of course, the persons who were prohibited, they fight against that, against the organizational court, where they discuss what is more important, that is what is discussed here, or the high order of the freedom of the press. Is it reasonable what you did there? And that's something the case here in Leipzig is. And we are suing against that. And we try to ensure that the same does not happen again with other Laws and with other platforms. But like five people fight for a lot of people, who could do the same thing happen to you. And the question from the Signal Angel, the question is how many cases in this area have been opened as of now? Oh, oh, like, yeah, I don't really know, they're still getting at it more people because we still get notices, but we are at, let's say, like 40 cases. Ja, ja, also ich will das noch mal betonen. Tschuldigung, ich will just want to say, that's not just me, right? How many Lawyers are there? Five, okay. Wir machen mit Mikrofon zwei, bitte. Um. Another thing I want to add is that I have the. It appears that something is done that has been attempted to be done against left alternative structures, whether the government finds an unhörigen hierarchical structure. But there are no leaders, but there's no incorporated structure. But there are a lot of people who you can't work against a few hundred people who published something on Indymedia. But so only those who run the Indymedia or a different example after the G20 protests in Hamburg, where a person was suit for bodily harm, but there's no proof that they did anything of that. They were only part of this demonstration out of which these deeds have happened. I understand you're angry, but where's the question? Ist es okay für dich? Ja klar, ich glaube, dass. Okay, so another answer. What you describe is the run back situation in Hamburg, where a demonstration with the police decided they were attacked with stones.  Viele Leute waren verhörd oder nach der Suche. Ja, ich möchte sagen, das ist etwas, was du auch gesagt hattest. Die Attacks kommen closer.  Und das ist etwas, das ist ein politischer Klima, das sich betrifft. Und wir haben auch die righte Seite in der Gesellschaft. Vielleicht ist es nur ein Vogel. Das bedeutet nicht, dass wir es nur aufhören.    Wie kann diese fünf für alle Anonymusposten auf diesem Website beantworten? Und auf der anderen Seite war die Anonymität der Publikation ein Problem, das diese beklagte wie ein nicht gegen individuelles Thema. Also, ich würde deine Frage ganz klar beantworten. Ich würde deine Frage ganz klar beantworten. Die Frage ist, ja.  Sie konnten nicht so, wie sie nach den Publikationen ging.  Und sie wussten nicht, wie es weiter geht. Es ist nicht nur ein antagonistisches Attack. Wir sind noch vor dem administrativen Court, nicht dem kriminellen Court, hoffentlich. Und wir denken, dass diese Anonymität nicht nur falsch ist, weil sie eine falsche Law benutzen, um nach uns zu gehen. Aber auch, dass man nach jemandem gehen will, weil wir Suspicionen sind, und wir haben nichts mehr. Und wir haben eine Anonymität, weil wir das haben, weil wir die Opinien der interiellen Secret Service haben. Wir haben nichts mehr, was der Judges sagt, wir können nicht sagen. Aber wir können einfach sagen, dass der abstrakte Demokratische Preis wir alle haben, wenn das passiert, ist es hoch. Danke.  Ich habe die Frage auf der linken Seite. Ich brauche eine Donation und eine Probe.  Ist es eine Art und Weise, um es zu bekommen?  Eine Bahnsteigkarte, okay. Nummer 1, bitte. Nummer 1, bitte. Hallo. Du hast es sehr gut erklärt, warum du gegen diese Sache againstst. Wenn ich in der Situation war, würde ich gegen sie kämpfen, weil sie mir gesagt haben, sag mir, das ist eigentlich meine Sache. Bist du in dieser Richtung? Es wäre eine technische Frage. Wenn ich das gemacht habe, würde ich vielleicht denken, das könnte mir passieren. Ich würde so arbeiten.  Wir denken nicht, das sollte auf diesen kleinen Suspitionen passieren. Die zweite Frage ist, sorry, ich kann dir das nicht sagen. Ich bin nur der Lawyer.  Ich glaube, den habe ich übersehen. Auch von mir, vielen Dank für den Vortrag. Und ich würde gerne wissen, ob es noch andere Mittel gibt. Ich möchte wissen, ob es andere Werte gibt, um diese zu helfen. Um eine kritische Gesellschaft zu schaffen, wo sie den Gefühl bekommen, dass sie nicht alleine sind, und wenn das eine Werte von eurem Fenster gibt, kann das viel helfen. Noch mal ein Riesenapplaus. Ein tolles Rundfunk für den Spiegel. Wir sagen auch gut bye von der Translation booth. Wir waren Franz Tee. Sie reden sagen.


Hello friends, I am Sanjay Gupta, in this video I am going to demonstrate you the use of getPixel function which is used to find out color of a particular position. Before starting, you can subscribe my youtube channel by clicking on the link which is available at bottom right corner of this video. You can download my app Techimage that is available on google play. You can connect with me by following these details which are available in front of you. Now coming on to the code, I have included two hydrophys, conio and graphics.h, then inside main function I have declared three variables gd, gm and color. All three variables are of integer type, gd is initialized with detect, it will automatically detect graphics driver, gm is for graphics mode and color is to store the color value which I will be identifying using getPixel function. Then str array is declared which is of character type. Then init graph function is initializing graphics. It has three arguments, first is graphics driver, second graphics mode and third one is a path which is for c, tc and bgi, bgi contains all graphics library, that's why this path is provided here. Now first I am setting the color to green. Now I am calling getPixel function and I am identifying 100 by 100 pixels color that color code value will be stored inside the color variable. Now I am using sprintf function here str, inside double quotes, inside double quotes I have typed this content color value of 100 is and percent d, this percent d will be replaced by the variable color, color will be having a value that will be placed on a percent d position and this complete string will be assigned into str. Now to print this str on console I am using a function out text xy, this will display text on 10, 20 coordinates. Then getCH function will hold the screen, then close graph will deallocate all the graphics which are initialized. Then return type of main is integer, that's why return0 statement is written here. Now I am executing this code. You can see it is showing color value of 100, 100 is 0. So right now background color is black and on 100, 100 coordinate position black color is available and numerical value of black is 0. We can see here I am showing the list of colors to you so that you can identify the values. You can see black color value is 0. Now I will be using red color whose value is 4. For that purpose first I am setting the color into red. Now I will be drawing a circle on 100, 100 coordinate and radius of circle is 50. Now I am applying set fill style, I am filling it with solid fill style and color will be red. Then I am using flood fill on 100, 100 coordinates it will create a boundary of red color. So circle will be drawn in red color, it will be filled with red color. Then green color will be set. Now get pixel will be identifying color of 100, 100 coordinate. So now it will be identifying red color. So I am executing this code. Let's see what happens now. You can see circle is drawn in red color and color value of 100, 100 is now 4. I have already demonstrated you that red color numerical value is 4. So friends with the help of this get pixel function you can identify color of a particular position and that color will be available in a numerical value. So you can display that color value or you can use that color value for any other purpose also. If you want to watch more programming related videos you can subscribe my youtube channel that is sanjaygupta underscore tax school. Thank you for watching this video.


This video is going to talk about the zero property to solve equations. So the zero property says that we have A times B is equal to zero. And the only way to multiply and get zero is something to be zero. So either A is equal to zero or B is equal to zero. So here's an example. X times X plus one. Those are factors and equal to zero. So we set X equals zero, that factor equal to zero. And then the X plus one, we set that factor equal to zero. X equals zero is just zero. But if I subtract one from both sides, I get X equal negative one. And if I check it, you can see that we have, if I put zero in for both those X's, zero times zero plus one. That would be zero times one, but anything times zero is zero. And if we put negative one in for both those X's, negative one times negative one plus one, well there's my zero times negative one. So again, I multiply it by zero, so it's equal to zero. So let's practice. We have two factors here set equal to zero. So we are ready to set our factors equal to zero. So the first one would be X plus five is equal to zero. And if we continue working, we subtract five from both sides. And we find out that X is equal to negative five. That's one of our answers. And then we set two X minus nine equal to zero. So we add nine to both sides. So two X will be equal to our nine. And we divide by two and find out that X is equal to nine over two, or you might say four point five. So what happens though if we don't have factors? Well, if we don't have factors, we need to factor because the property said A times B. It didn't say plus. There was no addition or subtraction in there to give me terms. So we need to factor this. So let's use our little X factor. A is one times B. C, which is 54, gives us 54. And the middle term is negative 15. So factors of negative 54 that will add up to negative 15. It's a positive 54. That means both my numbers are going to be negative. And it happens to be negative nine and negative six at multiply to 54 and add to negative 15. So we have our factors of X minus nine and X minus six. Remember, we can do that because our A was one. So we can just go right to our factors. And that's equal to zero. And now that I have it factored, I'm going to consider, well, what if X minus nine were zero? Then adding nine to both sides, we find out that X is equal to nine. And then we ask ourselves, what happens if X minus six is equal to zero? Well, let's solve for X. So we add six to both sides. And X is equal to positive six. All right, now we have another one to factor. This one has a huge numbers, but I'm looking at that and I can see that it has the greatest common factor of three. That leaves me with Y squared. Negative four Y times three would be negative 12. And negative 32 times three would be negative 96. And that's equal to zero. So I've got my three and it's a Y squared now. So I just need to find factors of 32 that are going to add up to negative four. It's a negative 32 adding up to negative four. So that means I have a negative and a positive. And it would be negative eight and positive four. That gives me negative 32 and I multiply and negative four when I add. Y minus eight Y plus four. And that's equal to zero. So our factors all equal to zero. Now there's no variable here, so we don't have to worry about the three. But when we have a variable, we have to go and find it. So X minus eight is equal to zero. Add eight to both sides. And we find out that Y is equal to eight. And we do the other factor, Y plus four equals zero. Subtract the four from both sides. And now we have Y equal to negative. That's a negative four. Let's see if I can erase part of that. Make it look a little nicer. Y is equal to negative four. All right, now what's the problem with this one is that we don't have it set equal to zero. Because now remembering the property again, it was equal to zero. This must be zero before we can factor. So we need to take the seven X to the other side. We need to subtract it from the two X squared. So we have our two X squared. We need to subtract the seven X from it. And then when we subtract it from itself, we get zero. Now we're ready to factor. So X is the common factor. And that leaves us with two X minus seven. And that's all still equal to zero. All we did was factor the one side. And if we set our factors equal to zero, when it's just X, we find out that X equals zero. And two X minus seven is equal to zero. Add the seven to both sides. And I'm not going to physically do it this time. But adding seven to both sides will give us two X equals seven. And then dividing both sides by two, X is going to be seven over two. So X is either zero or X is seven over two. Now we have two terms on one side and one term on the other. But remember, we would like to keep our Y squared or X squared term, whatever the variable happens to be, positive. Which means I want to take that six Y, actually that six Y squared. And I want to subtract Y from it. And that'll be equal to two. I'm going to move them one at a time. Now I want to subtract the two from both sides. So I have six Y squared minus one Y minus two equal to zero. And I'm ready to factor. So if I have my X factors here, I have six times negative two is negative twelve. And B is negative one. And I need to have opposite signs. So I'll put my negative to the left. And I have negative four positive three because a bigger number needed to be negative to add to negative one. I have to do four terms because A was greater than one. So we have six Y squared. And then we have minus four Y and plus three Y. And then we have our last term, which was negative two. And remember, that's equal to zero. So we factor here. Two Y is a common factor.  And three Y and negative two have nothing in common, but a positive one. And then that just leaves me with three Y minus two. And it's still equal to zero. I'm not completely factored yet. So I'm going to come in here and do my greatest common factor, which is three Y minus two. And then I'm going to have my other factor, which is the two Y and the plus one from the outsides of each of those terms. And then it's still equal to zero. But it's now I have factors and now I'm ready to. I cannot set them equal to zero until I have factors equal to zero. So three Y minus two equals zero. If I add the two to both sides, it cancels on the left hand side and adds two to that side on the right hand side. And if I divide by three, Y is going to be equal to two thirds. And if I take my two Y plus one equal to zero, if I subtract one from both sides, it ends up two Y equal. Negative one. Divide by two and Y is equal to. Negative one.


and Barbuda. Kadeem Larcher from St. Lucia in three. Ja'vorn Dunkley of Jamaica four. Jeremiah Adelie of the Bahamas in five. Algerit Nisbet of St. Kitsunevis in six. Sanjay Weeks of Montserrat in seven. And Amelia Bishop of Grenada goes in lane number eight. There is two to five. Amelia Bishop of Grenada. He gets a large cheer from the crowd. They are hoping he can somehow sneak into this final. The favorite here. Ja'vorn Dunkley of Jamaica. Ten point one seven at his best. That was last season. Has gone 1029 this year. Ja'vorn Dunkley won silver in the under twenty two hundred meters last year. Has left high school early to join the elite performance track club led by Ronaldo Walker to incidentally coached him in high school at St. Elizabeth Technical. And so the transition has been seamless since he's really enjoyed being part of the professional ranks and seeing some of the best athletes in the world. Men and women around him. Sent. Sent on their way. Oh, that was a really quick start from the petition. Nisbet. Dunkley now steps forward. Ja'vorn Dunkley pulls away from the field. Terrific finish as well for Adelie of the Bahamas to get second position. But that was quite a performance from Ja'vorn Dunkley. The ten one seven man gets through qualifying with a serious level of efficiency. Dunkley double medalist last year took gold in the four by one and of course as you said silver in the two hundred. Very efficient, very easy run basically walk them down. Doesn't look thrilled with his time perhaps. It's ten twenty three. I don't know you see in there just pulling away from everybody else. It's maintaining that clean running form. The levers working efficiently. Has time to glance over. See what's happening with the clock. Could stride length. Could stride frequency. Ten point two three with a one point five meter per second wind. Yeah, he looks primed for something here. Jeremiah Adelie ten fifty three just outside his ten fifty personal best for the Bahamas. Bishop at ten fifty nine weeks at ten sixty. Nicarada Clark at ten sixty one. Some really fast times. Larcher at ten sixty six. Very fast semifinal of the under twenty boys one hundred meters and that was one of four. So only the winner guaranteed a spot in the final plus the next four best on times.


Our final speaker this afternoon likely needs a little introduction to most of you. Hopefully, during the course of his two presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012, many of you got to know at least at a distance Ron and Carol Paul. And he's with us here today, a longtime supporter of the Mises Institute. Dr. Ron Paul. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you very much and thank you for that nice welcome. You know, when Lou called and asked me about coming over and visiting with this nice group, I told him there'd be only one condition. I said, you know, I'd like to go and talk to the young people. And I said, as long as you get a group where everybody's under 35, I'll come. And it looks like he's fulfilled his promise. So thank you. You know, over the years I've been introduced different ways, but sometimes I get introduced that I am the husband of Carol Paul. So that is what I am today, husband of Carol Paul. Well, also, we have some special friends with us today. And that's what this program depends on. The Mises Institute depends on friends and the things that I've done politically or educationally. It's been friends like you who have supported us in many, many different ways. But we came over from Houston on Thursday with very close friends who have been friends of ours for 40 years. I'm sorry I had to mention all those years, but it's about 40 years they've been helping and supporting me and the Mises Institute. And that's Carl and Lois Davis. I'm delighted that you were with us today. You know, frequently in the last week, people have been asking me about the election. What did you think about the election? Was there an election? Did anything change? Oh, yeah, yeah, we have Republicans in charge now of the Senate and that's wonderful. Everything is going to be okay now. I said, well, how many did they elect any more neocons in the Senate? Oh, yeah, a few, but that's not too bad because someday it will change all that. So I guess there was an election. I guess there was a turnover and one neat thing is that one group of power mongers out and groups move in. But at least we can find some encouragement there because if you disrupt power, I think there is definitely a benefit from this. But overall elections aren't all that exciting, you know, in the sense of have we seen the changes? It's so often over the years, I've heard the saying goes, this is the most important election in our lifetime.  But it never seems quite that dramatic. But I think because there hasn't been too much competition and they keep asking, well, what can we do to get a lot of third party in and get in competition? And I said, I've been waiting for a second party. But then again, people say, well, you heard it incessantly before the election that I ignored. And they would say, we have to get the vote out. Everybody has to vote. Why? Well, because the best examples for everybody voting is in the Soviet system. 98% of the people voted. And there was a monopoly control over those votes. But they're always saying, but it's irrelevant how many people vote. It's what you're voting for. If you're voting to endorse the status quo, what difference does it really make? And actually in a practical sense, I thought the number of people voting is very interesting. So if you're involved in active politics, this plays a role in it. The first election I was involved in was in 1976. It was a special election. I had to get into the runoff in order to have a chance. And I remember getting into the runoff in a district that had 550,000 people, I needed 13,000 votes. So it was very good that a few people came out. We got our people out and got into the runoff. And quite frankly, if that had not happened, I doubt very much if I'd be here today talking to you. Because that's the way events go. But it is something that people have to make a choice about. I get a lot of questions from young people about being involved in politics. And I think it's very important to be involved. But also to realize that it's the ideas that really count. And on my farewell speech to Congress, which I'm sure there's copies around here, I try to make the point of the difference of being involved in politics and being involved in political activities for special reasons. And that makes all the difference in the world. But we do face, you know, a lot of problems. There is no doubt about it. And like I mentioned in my opening statement, I do like to talk to young people. As far as I'm concerned, everybody is a young person and a young idea to think about liberty in this sense. Liberty is a young idea. I think it's only starting. Of course, some people, what do you mean? It started back there in 1215, didn't it? And yeah, it's very interesting. But that's only a short time ago when you look at the history of man's conditions on the earth. We're talking about millions of years of history. And yet just a such short period of time and really the most important changes occurred probably over the last 240 years. Sure, we had the Magna Carta and there were some gradually, gradual improvements and interest in the cause of liberty. And also it was something that comes, you know, goes back and forth. You get some and you lose some. But certainly the founding of this country and the Constitution, in spite of its many shortcomings, there was a serious attempt to try to advance, you know, the cause of liberty. And unfortunately though, there were some, some of those improvements made. It seemed like since 1913, they've been rather undermined wholesale. So I'd like to repeal 1913 and everything that was passed in that year. Now the title of my talk that I was given is to talk about why freedom, it doesn't come from our government. But the judge has handled that subject so well and I couldn't improve on this. This is a disadvantage to follow somebody, you know, as great as the judge and both his ability and his understanding of the law. So I will talk a little bit about that, but he certainly understands what natural rights are about. And I talk about that frequently and I usually have a phrase, something, well, where do rights come from? In order to include people, I believe in natural rights and I believe in God-given rights. And some people just call it natural rights and they don't want to invoke, as Jefferson did, the Creator. But it is something natural to us. And they're individual, I've so often talked about. One of the problems we face today in this country is there's too much thinking of rights as a collective. And it always annoys me that it's so casual, it's all the time, and the pundits on TV do it endlessly. You know, how did one group vote? I think it's really, you know, a very bigoted way to treat, recovery, how did the black people vote? How did the white people vote? How did Hispanics vote? How did the women vote?  And go on and on and look at all this stuff. And I think that just undermines steadily this whole concept that our rights are individual. We're important because we have those rights and of course have to protect it. So it's very easy to decide what the role of government ought to be. The government's role is not to provide safety and security. The role of government is there to protect our liberties. No more than that. And that's a pretty clear-cut responsibility. Too often, they want perfect safety and they want perfect security and perfect, you know, economic security. And how do they do that? They do that by taking away liberty. And that, of course, is what they've been doing constantly. So where are we today in this effort? It doesn't look good. But it looks so much better since I left Washington. Because I spent a lot of time up there and I gave a speech or two, but nobody came to listen. So when I come to a group like this, then I get encouraged. And if I go to a college campus and see so many young people coming out, I really get encouraged. And I think that's where it's all about. And I think the work of the Mises Institute has just been fantastic. And I think what's going on today is not a national thing. I always claim that if we're going to make progress, it's not a Republican thing. It has to be much broader. Ideas have consequences and we have to infiltrate all the parties and the thought processes. I keep remembering Nixon's statement in 1971, we're all Keynesians now. He was right, we were all Keynesians and we've been living with that. And believe me, about 99% are still Keynesians in Washington, D.C. But things are changing and that makes all the difference in the world and we are certainly in this transition. So there's much, I think, to be optimistic about. Not only has the Mises Institute been around, I would say 30 some years now in early 1980s that I think Lou and I talked about the organization. But today there's been an explosion of interest. There's been a lot of interest all along and I sensed that during the presidential campaigns that all of a sudden in a college crowd they would say spontaneously before I even got to the line about the Federal Reserve say, end the Fed, end the Fed. And I said, hey, wait, I haven't gotten to that line yet. So that came about because of the educational effort. And I do know that this is not something going on in the United States. It's going on around the world and it has to be. The world is engulfed with fiat money, interventionism, economic planning, central banking, militarism, corporatism. Communism has been defeated.  The very vicious entities of the 20th century have been demolished. I just think it tragically took hundreds of millions of deaths to prove the total failure of those authoritarian regimes. But today we have a tremendous opportunity because in the area of ideas, these ideas are spreading because, quite frankly, I get emails and phone calls all the time from around the world and not too long ago I went to Brazil and I was talking to the individual down there that wanted to have me down there and I said, well, you know, I want to find out what he was all about. And he was a well-to-do businessman and he explained to me. He said, well, I said, you know, so often we ask when did you get interested in liberty and who influenced you? So I was asking him a few of these questions. He said, well, he was a well-to-do businessman and doing very well until the crash came and he lost everything. And then he came across the Mises Institute in Austrian economics and he was influenced by that. Not only did he start his own Austrian school down there and a Mises Institute down there, he recovered financially. So it was a wonderful thing to happen and I've been to Chile but there's numerous invitations throughout Europe, Eastern Bloc nations that used to belong to the Soviet system. So I wished I couldn't make all the visits but it tells you that these ideas are alive and well and they're spreading and they can't stop them. You know, as Victor Hugo said, you know, if we see an army coming in, armies can stop another army. Basically it's possible to do this but on ideas, if an idea whose time has come, they cannot be stopped by an army and they will invade the entire world. I think what is wonderful now and why there's so much opportunity is we now live at a point in time in history where it's the end of an era. Yes, maybe the early stages of liberty were talked about the very first time. You know, some citizens of England were able to make King John sign the Magna Carta but we now have a period of time which is, I think, so different. We had a type of an advancement with the Revolution and our Constitution. We've had a setback though for 100 years but I think that's more on the surface and not intellectually speaking because I think the last 30 years there has been a tremendous growth on the ideas of liberty which was opposite of what was happening in the 1930s. In the 1930s, you know, Roosevelt, you could look at his platform, it wasn't all that bad. He was still on the gold standards and balanced budget and limited government and stay out of wars and all these things but guess what, the intellectual community was exactly the opposite and once the predictable depression hit and the problems that we had, they came to light and Keynes won out in that argument. Today, it is different. I believe the undercurrent is freedom and Austrian economics and free markets and property rights and it's spreading like a wildfire and this is the reason why an institution like the Mises Institute and others like this that they deserve the support and people like you make all the difference because a lot of people come up and thank me for doing this and that but the truth is, I can't do anything without support and without help and that's the way it is with an organization like this so we should be very glad that our numbers are growing and some people get discouraged and they say yeah, but we're still so small and we can't take over the government, we can't do this but you know what, you only need about 7% of the population to put it around. Very few people percentage-wise endorse the American Revolution and I think we're getting to those numbers where there's a great number of the people who are influencing the ideas but then again, you still have to have an endorsement or at least an acceptance of these ideas by 51%. 7% or 8% won't carry the day. You have to finally get a majority of people saying it's in their best interest to go along with a new system and they did that for a long time. They did that with socialism and welfare-ism and they've accepted that believing it was in their best interest but the opportunity today is so tremendous because the 20th century gave us such a revelation of the failure of so many of these systems. For instance, I think fiat currencies are on their last legs. We're eventually going to get rid of the Federal Reserve system. I think the militarism of big government is coming to an end, just think right now. We have nuclear missiles all over the Middle East and armies and tanks and all the military power and of course we're the largest power and we throw our weight around and we intimidate people and we say you do it our way and we'll give you a lot of money if you don't, we're going to bomb you and guess what? With all that power and might, right now what is the greatest concern in the whole world for peace? There are like 20, 25,000 individuals they joined a group called ISIS and we're supposed to hide under our beds because they're about to invade us. So I would think if you put it into a proper spectrum, that doesn't mean I'm belittling it, it's not dangerous, it's very, very dangerous but it also means that the numbers are smaller and even a government that has all these nuclear weapons, all these powers, they don't even know what to do. What do we do now? Who's going to fight? Not us, let somebody else fight and they go on and on and then when they do do it, they don't have any moral support for what they're doing. They have no constitutional support from our side, from our government, we don't declare the wars, we don't have a moral standard for it, we have the Bush doctrine which says, well, it's important that we start wars now before they come and hit us. It's the preemptive doctrine. I would say one easy way to get started on correcting this is why don't we just pay attention to the Constitution and don't let our government go to war unless it's a declared war. We have this opportunity, I think the Keynesian economics will fail and central banking is going to fail. This foreign policy of interventionism and big armies, it will fail. But the big question is out there is what's it going to replace? Will the world succumb to accepting total dictatorial powers? That's always a threat. There's always going to be a threat of violence but I think big government is going to shrink. Isn't it wonderful now that we have introduced the notion it's being practiced, the idea of nullification and secession? These are great ideas. So independence, people have been critical of me because I've sort of taken a stand that emphasizes those points and what they want to do is say, oh, you're an American, that means you wouldn't have freed the slaves. A few things like that. But what about the secession of the colonies from the British Empire? That would have been a pretty good declaration of independence and what about the breaking up of the Soviet system? That's not a bad idea and it isn't like we don't still in this world have an example that we could look at and maybe give a little study to it. The more I look at it, the more I admire at least the intent and really the way it's working Switzerland. Why don't we have a national defense policy like Switzerland? But how many people in this room know the name of the president of Switzerland? Nobody knows who it is and I was talking to a Swiss citizen the other day and he says, I said, I'm fascinated that nobody knows the name of your president. He says, well, there's actually seven presidents. You know, there are seven elected to the commission and they vote on somebody who's a president for one year and there's no state department. They have no executive branch and guess what? They have no wars and I am convinced that people don't want a war. The governments want the war for various reasons and they control the media and they build up the war propaganda and we've been living with that for so long. Early on wherever there's a talk of war, the people were against it. That was the way it was with Iraq and the propagandists come out and talk people into it and they're lied to and they're convinced Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon on us and then a year or so ago our president said, you know, that guy had won the Nobel Peace Prize. He said, now that the Iraq war's gone so well we can leave there and the good war, though, that we really had to fight is in Afghanistan and that's been going real well, too. So he says, where should we go now? Oh, Syria's a neat place. Why don't we just go into Syria? We never liked Assad. He's a bad guy and he doesn't have a good reputation. We've got to help the people of Syria. So of course we march in there and drop bombs and that didn't get to do so well and it's getting out of control and this group of ISIS, they end up with all the weapons. So now that we're going back into bombing I just think this is so dramatic. It makes the point so dramatically and that is we decide to go back in and start bombing and the instruction to our bomb, our pilots is first, go and destroy all the American weapons because they were all in the hands of the enemy. So we did that and guess what? This week they're going to vote for another $6 billion for more weapons. When I saw that the instructions were to destroy American weapons I thought, bet the military industrial complex are very pleased today. So they can keep building weapons. So what do we do with this? Perpetual war and all these problems and it's not easy. I think the powerful states will be diminished in power and the people have to speak out and this whole idea of secession and nullification I think that's coming along fine. I think it's worth the attempt to have a piece of paper that tries to restrain the government. That's what the Constitution tried to do but in a way it didn't work. It has failed. Should you give up then, there and totally? Well, no. What if you had individuals who went into the government with the idea that they had some moral principles that the thrust of the Constitution that you shouldn't practice aggression and you should follow the rules. So if you had moral principle individuals didn't believe in a Bush doctrine and that you would try your best not to get involved in war. That would help a whole lot. But that hasn't worked yet. There has not been a spontaneous effort. It seems like it's the people who love power and love war are the ones who positions themselves in this area of influence. But then what is the other thing to do? That is to eventually get rid of these governments that do these things. Of course, that won't be hard. But what else can you do? I think eventually there is no reason why people shouldn't think about being a conscientious objector in a massive sort of way because the refusal to serve in the military right now is a pretty reasonable thing. People say, no, you have to be patriotic. And they say, besides, didn't you serve? Yeah, I was drafted and I went. And the real tragedy is that the 18-year-old or 22-year-old is hardly a movement to resist the power of the state or being thrown in prison for the rest of your life for doing this. But I think that in time this movement can move in that direction where less people will refuse to serve in these aggressive wars and people should be more attuned to not paying for them. It's about time that we go on strike against the militancy of the U.S. government. The other reason why I lean toward optimism is technology. Just think of all the technology of the last 200, 300 years, especially, from the Industrial Revolution on, which is probably, you know, 80 or 90% of advancement of science and all, just a short period of time. Inevitably, all this advancement of technology has gone into the hands of the government to fight more wars and kill more people. So we should get the hands of, get the government's hands out of this business. And I think there's an opportunity for us to take technology now and use it for the cause of liberty. For instance, like the Internet. Do we have to depend on the government stations? Do we have to depend on government TV?  Yeah, sure, they're private. But it's the same news, no matter where you get it. So are we going to do that? Or should we be able to get around it? Yes, we can. The Internet is something unbelievably massive. And of course you say, yeah, but the government's watching us. They know where we're going and what we're going to do. But what about encryption? There has to be people out there are a lot smarter than I am about technology and I can read the stories how private industry is trying to use encryption to defy the government. And what we want is a contest now between private encryption versus government surveillance. And there's no reason why we can't be optimistic enough to think that technology can be used for the cause of peace. And I think this is one of the reasons why our movement is succeeding. It's technology. And how can we talk to people around the world? You know, instantaneously, the other night I did a couple tweets dealing with the election. I had to confess I did watch the election return. And somewhere I was suggesting a few things here at home. I got a few criticisms, but I got a lot of results from around the world. They were interested, you know. So it's instantaneously, instantaneously. And that's what I think is so marvelous. So I really believe there's a lot of room for progress. We have to accept a couple basic principles, the libertarian principle. And it fits my personal religious Christian beliefs. And that is the principle of non-aggression. Why should we ever accept the idea that you can initiate force against somebody else? Oh, because he might hurt himself. We're going to force you to wear your helmet. You might fall down and hit your head and I'll have to pay for your hospital bill. So I'm going to force you to do this and you don't eat right. I'm going to force you to do that. And besides, you might gamble your money and they have all these things that they have to want to do. So I think that now, we have this tremendous opportunity to reverse that trend and it's available to us. So I believe that the whole idea of freedom can be even advanced to the point where it can be achieved not even without government, especially without government because I think that's where it'll come from. But the other important thing about the two basic principles that I try to follow, one of non-aggression and of course the Bastiat principle is fantastic and I think I've gotten a few people to read that book over the years. And that is most people understand that we're not supposed to steal from our neighbor and we're not supposed to hurt our neighbor and fortunately that's still basically understood. But they don't understand that if you and I can't steal from our neighbor, we should never let the government steal the stealing for us. But the other basic principle is that of tolerance and this is the toughest one for a lot of conservatives because tolerance for many people means that you endorse it. But that makes no sense because most Americans endorse the principle except the principle of freedom of religion and principle. So does that mean that the extremists have certain beliefs that you can't stand and you don't tolerate and you think they're bizarre?  And yet so often people say well yeah that's true but what if they do things we don't like? What if they gamble? What if they have personal habits and practices that we don't accept? We have to make them better people and it's the responsibility of the government. Well anytime the government gets in the business of trying to mold behavior anytime that they want to get involved in developing excellence and virtue which should be a personal goal when the government does that they only do it with the tearing up and the usurpation of liberty and that's what they do constantly the do-gooders. They want you have the economic do-gooders and they play on emotions and say oh you don't care you're not a humanitarian you're going to let the people starve. Yeah just look at the world how many people starved under true liberty versus how many people starved under communism and socialism and fascism and how many people suffer now today because of totalitarianism. I believe in a sense that if you are concerned about your fellow man and you have these humanitarian instincts that you care about the maximum help for the maximum number of people you have to believe in a free society you can't have any other option. For me I think the wonderful thing about liberty is that it brings people together because if there's one group that wants liberty for one thing that I don't want to have any part of and another group wants it for somebody else they might have a religious belief or something else it should bring us together if you're going to use liberty you want to get everybody together to defend and promote liberty and then not argue and fight over how a person uses their liberty because it's individual and even if liberty hurts oneself they have to be allowed to do it the worst thing you can do is have a government that wants to protect you against yourself. There's nothing left once the do-gooders get involved in that and we have way too much of that right now. So we have I think a wonderful opportunity I see there's the era an era is ending how fast it's going to go how successful we are I know nobody knows this but I do know that if we don't propagate and promote and expand these ideas not just in the Mises Institute or not just in Texas or not just in the Republican Party or not just in the United States it has to be universal because it's been universal for too long about tyranny of government and people talk to me and they'll say well you're radical we're not going back to the dark ages no I would say tyrannies in the dark ages we want to advance the cause of liberty so it's very modern it's very new and it's delightful there's no reason why we should lose the intellectual fight how can we lose the fight when we talk about allowing people to run their own lives as they see fit have more prosperity and more peace how can we lose this argument basically it's because people want a free lunch now the free lunch was a strong argument and the free lunch or the prosperity came because we did have a fairly free society and therefore we took advantage of it that people concentrated on just forced redistribution and they thought it was in their best interest but it's all behind us there's no more free lunches because this country is totally bankrupt it's all a facade there's one goal and that is the restoration of liberty if they take all our wealth away tomorrow and gave us our liberty believe me we would all recover rather quickly Mises had great advice for us he says it takes two kinds of people to promote a society he says there has to be individuals and I'm sure he included himself because he was people who think in a theoretical terms and these principles they have to put them down but then he said there's another group that has to be able to take that and I like the word that he used he said there's another group that has to take them and make these views palatable to the masses of people and then when they accept that then they move on and that's what we're in the process of doing we will continue to have individuals and explain economics I was so excited in my younger days when I had natural instincts I think we're all naturally libertarians and they beat it out of us but I was so excited I was so excited to discover the Austrian economists because hey they agree with me the whole thing is that they give intellectual support for these views and we're way ahead on this so this to me we're looking for people who will help make these views palatable everybody has a responsibility and I believe so sincerely that a group like this and I know you're all below 35 so you have a lot of time to do this and that is that you have a greater responsibility if you know what's wrong and you're capable and you read and you're convinced I believe you have a greater moral responsibility to do something about it and so often people will come up okay you convince me tell me what I have to do and I have a very simple answer do whatever you want do whatever you think you can do and everybody has another angle they can do things and the people that have gotten involved in the last several years have been very creative so I'm excited about what's happening but I'm not naive there's still going to be a lot of violence but I just want to keep it logo I want to take the power away from the government and let us the people solve the problems thank you very much