Ron Paul: We Are Reaching A Point Of No Return

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
, ,
1

<img style=“width: 125px; height: 190px; float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;” src=“https://peakprosperity.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/51-peaUO4OL.SX326_BO1204203200.jpg” alt="“Ron Paul Book: The Revolution At Ten Years” />Dr. Ron Paul has long been a leading voice for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, civil liberty, and non-interventionist foreign policies.

Dr. Paul served as the US Representative for Texas’s 27th Congressional District from 1976 to 1985. He then represented the 14th district from 1977 to 2013. He ran for the office of US President, three times, most recently in the 2012 Republican primaries. Dr. Paul also had a long career as an OBGYN over which he delivered more than 4,000 babies.

The recent author of the book, The Revolution At Ten Years, Dr. Paul looks ahead at the future of the movement he helped launch – tackling central planning, the military empire, cultural Marxism, the surveillance state, the deep state, and the real threats from these institutions to our civil liberties.

As a multi-term member of Congress, Dr. Paul knows the players and policies responsible for the growing unfairness and inequality now rampant in society. He does not expect the offenders will reform willingly. Instead, he predicts the system will collapse under its own unsustainability – offering a rare and valuable chance then for more sound and fair solutions to prevail:

Wealth doesn’t come from the creation of money, especially a fiat system. With too much fiat money and all this credit, eventually the economy becomes exhausted and engulfed with debt and mal-investments. The treatment for this is a correction; you have to allow the debt to be liquidated. You have to get rid of the mal-investment and you have and to allow real economic growth to start all over again. But that wasn’t permitted in ’08 and ’09, which is why there’s been stagnation. It's hard to believe that today we have negative interest rates -- real rates are negative and people still aren’t grabbing them up! A shortage of money isn't the problem here; rather, it’s a shortage of understanding market conditions.

We’re over-taxed and over-regulated. This is resulting in a destructive system that has divided the country into two groups: those who haven’t recovered from the Great Financial Crisis versus those who are getting very rich because they’re on the receiving end of the new money created by the Federal Reserve. The people who get to create the credit get to distribute the credit, which always results in a situation where money becomes unfairly distributed, as its allocation is no longer dependent on productivity.

We haven’t changed anything. We still have a system where we encourage people to borrow money, that debt doesn’t matter, and we’re not going to cut taxes, and we’re not even going to admit that we spend too much money. Nobody can cut anything – that’s why Washington is at a stalemate. A lot of people don’t like Obamacare, but there’s enough people who do like it. Once it has been implemented, it’s very hard to get rid of a program. I also don’t think that the proposed tax reforms will actually lower taxes. They never do. Our politicians won’t admit where the real problem lies: overspending, monetizing the debt, taking over the whole world through the monetary system, financing wars, financing welfare and the military industrial complex. It’s going to continue until this whole thing comes apart.

The eventual event will be driven by the marketplace. When it comes undone, they will no longer be able to prop things up just by printing more money. If we have a sharp downturn and they decide, “Well, QE didn’t work because it wasn’t enough.” and they double QE, there’ll be a point of no return and all confidence will be lost. We’ll dump the dollar. Interest rates will go up instead of down. That will make all the difference in the world because it will be unsustainable and create real challenges for the dollar remaining the reserve currency. When the dollar no longer serves as the world’s key currency, that’s when the ballgame will be over.


Click the play button below to listen to Chris’ interview with Dr. Ron Paul (29m:56s).

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://peakprosperity.com/ron-paul-we-are-reaching-a-point-of-no-return/

2

…to get to sit in on a conversation between two of the brightest, most integrity-driven thought leaders of our time. Thank-you Dr. Paul, for all that you have done to educate the public, and for showing that it actually is possible for a politician to be an honorable human being.

3

Ron Paul hit it out of the park (for me) when he talked about his “core principle.” To me, a core principle is what a person follows when nobody is looking. What is it that makes your actions do your talking? Words are cheap, but actions speak volumes.
When Ron Paul burst on the national political scene in the '80s, I thought he was a Texas nut job. Of course, I was highly influenced by the media constantly denigrating him. It wasn’t until after 9/11 that I actually listened to his words and (and actions) for what they were. I’ve been a fan ever since.
We may pull through this next recession like we did the last one - doubling down on QE. Will we be able to get through the next recession (or the one after that) the same way? Eventually, the system will fail because all the promises that have been made can’t be afforded. At that point, systems will break down - perhaps catastrophically.You won’t be able to rely on social security or Medicare or any other of the myriad promises. What will you do?
What will help you succeed is your core principles. When others see you adhering steadfastly to these principles, it gains their trust. With trust comes the opportunity for cooperation. Cooperation can lead to mutually beneficial outcomes. That is the currency of the future. Cultivate it now while the status is still quo.
Grover

4

Equal opportunity economic arguments not withstanding.
Perhaps naming ones party in connection to a myth is not wise. Unless it reveals more about the true nature of it (“progress” [sic])
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12266
(teaser for history buffs: why did just about every southern farmer have a dog named ‘Rattler’?)

5

Slavery was one of the most lucrative enterprises invented in human history
Profits up to 1700%
The ethics of their investments was not something that thought about.
We’re doing the same thing when we send out $ to
Wall Street.

6

Slavery was one of the most lucrative enterprises invented in human history
Profits up to 1700%
The ethics of their investments was not something they thought about.
We’re doing the same thing nowadays when we send our $ to
Wall Street.

7

The saddest part of the whole interview was the overwhelming sense that there is no one/thing that can change the direction this process usually follows. History, again, is replete with examples of the logical outcomes. It has been said. " the meek shall inherit the earth". Unfortunately, it is the bold that will be the executors and will squirrel away what they can until they’re found out. “C’est la guerre”
http://www.businessinsider.com/all-transactions-to-be-conducted-in-the-presence-of-a-tax-collector-2012-4

8

And living off fossil fuels is in a way the enslavement of past life. We are thriving grave robbers. C’est la vie.

9

The article in that link starts by saying that at least half of voting Americans voted against Obama. He won 51.1% of the popular vote in 2012 and 52.9% in 2008. Am I missing something?

10

I heard lots of talk about Liberty from Dr. Paul and reducing regulations. Does he truly want to allow big business the right to ignore water and air quality regulations, safety and worker protections? What regulations does he want to void? Liberty is following his rules of personal behavior.? He spoke in a lot of generalities without specific examples.

11
spotted turtle wrote:
I heard lots of talk about Liberty from Dr. Paul and reducing regulations. Does he truly want to allow big business the right to ignore water and air quality regulations, safety and worker protections? What regulations does he want to void? Liberty is following his rules of personal behavior.? He spoke in a lot of generalities without specific examples.
It is hard to identify all the specifics and build cases for removing regulations in a half hour podcast. If you are truly curious, you can search the web to find more detailed proposals. You mentioned water and air quality regulations along with safety and worker protections. If I held you to the same standard as you held Dr. Paul, I'd conclude that these are the only items you are concerned about. Instead, I'll assume that these are just examples of issues that are important to you. I also enjoy clean water and clean air. I'm not so big on safety and worker protections (more below.) To me, it boils down to a compromise. Regulations cost money - the more onerous, the more expensive. How much are you willing to pay to get satisfactory results? Who should pay the cost? Who really pays the cost? I'm not sure what a graphical representation would look like (straight line, convex, concave, or ???) but as your tax load increases, you get to keep less of your paycheck for your efforts. When the tax load is small, any improvement in the underlying problem is easy to justify with increased taxes. Eventually, enough of these justifiable "straws" get thrown on camel's back to break it. What happens when enough people decide it is better to live off the social safety nets because it isn't worth the effort to work? So, who should pay the cost of regulations? Regulations are instituted because some entity abused their societal responsibilities. It doesn't matter if it is dumping raw sewage or burning toxic chemicals or any other problem. The citizenry are up in arms and demand that regulations get instituted. Those regulations then get applied to all similar industries, regardless of whether they abused their societal responsibilities or not. It costs companies to prove compliance with regulations. Theoretically, the industry pays for it. If they can't pass on the costs to the consumer, it eats into profits. If profits evaporate, the industry bankrupts or moves to foreign shores. There goes employment. Who really pays? Once a government agency gets established, the number one job of those in the agency is to maintain the need for the agency. Why would an agency solve a problem that puts the agency out of business? (A great example is the US Department of Energy.) The worst part is that we're not paying the whole costs at the time those costs are incurred. That means that all the government costs more than we think. Look at government pensions for a prime example. If enough were set aside to actuarially pay these pensions, there wouldn't be an issue. Saxplayer links stories daily to show how ubiquitous the problem is. Since it is an issue in almost every level of government, those costs haven't been adequately collected. Who really pays? As the tax load increases, people have incentive to creatively avoid paying those taxes. (If taxes are low enough, it isn't worth trying to cheat.) Government has to get more information and track more so they can collect more to pay for government services. Ever wonder why the NSA collects all this information on all of us? I abhor that my e-mails, this post, my phone calls, etc. are collected and analyzed. Doesn't the Bill of Rights protect me from unreasonable searches? Who really pays? When is enough enough? All of us have to pay more and have government intrude into aspects of our lives to pay for all these "well meaning" bloated regulations. It will get worse because of all the backdated costs (pensions.) So, we have to pay for current regulations while we still pay for past regulations. It's kind of like "The Little Shop of Horrors" on steroids. I said that I'm not so big on safety and worker protection. Why should I have to pay for safety devices that I don't want? Shouldn't workers be responsible for their own safety? Crab fishing in the Bering Sea is much more dangerous than shuffling papers in an office. Crab fishermen should evaluate the situation for themselves and determine if their compensation adequately addresses safety issues. Oh, that's right - more taxes mean they have to take more risks and work longer to make a profit. Who really pays? Horse Safety for Children | Tack n' Talk​Grover
12

The epoxy that lubricates the wheels of progress.

13
spotted turtle wrote:
I heard lots of talk about Liberty from Dr. Paul and reducing regulations. Does he truly want to allow big business the right to ignore water and air quality regulations, safety and worker protections? What regulations does he want to void? Liberty is following his rules of personal behavior.? He spoke in a lot of generalities without specific examples.
I agree, I admire Dr. Paul for what he does and I think it's great that he tries to awaken people to the scam that has been perpetrated against us, but the problem I find with the Libertarian movement on a whole is that it is big on theory and moral platitudes, but sorely lacking in actual specific policies rooted in demonstrated real-world ecological and industrial processes underlying the physical underpinnings supporting humanity. Invariably, the "proof" of various Libertarian / Austrian economic principles comes from Thought Experiments. A Thought Experiment is what comes first in the scientific method -- an idea / hypothesis is postulated and from this, experiments or real-world analysis MUST be performed to validate or invalidate that hypothesis (but it can never be PROVEN). Libertarians generally don't move beyond Thought Experiments, and that is the problem here. The problem with basing policy on a Thought Experiment is that the real world can always present some other unforeseen factor which completely changes and invalidates the outcome of that Thought Experiment. "Oh we we didn't think about that in our Thought Experiment; oops". This is why real world analysis is critical to good policy formation, because the real world is the only place that's going to tell you if you have overlooked something critical which throws your Thought Experiment for a loop. This is also why I can debate endlessly in circles with Libertarians and never get anywhere because no matter how much real-world evidence I present, they don't value it. I recall once debating with a Libertarian who was arguing that socialism doesn't work. I would tend to agree in general with this sentiment although I think it's much more complicated than how it is typically presented. I pointed out how some of the most prosperous, fair and sustainable countries in the world are in Scandinavia (certainly not utopias; I'm not going to delude myself, but they are definitely successful), and that they have a system that most would describe as being somewhat socialist. His response was that socialism only works in Scandinavia because it works there, but it wouldn't work in America, and he didn't expand beyond that. LOL, so there you go Libertarians, you have real-world evidence beyond an imaginary Thought Experiment suggesting that leaning towards Socialism is not always necessarily a bad thing but this guy just simply flatly denied it. That's Thought Experiments for you... I dislike dualistic polarized thinking and the eternal "socialism vs. free markets" debate is the epitome of this. As if something as complicated as ecosystems and human society can be boiled down to a simple one-dimensional slider scale between free markets on one end and government regulation on the other. The real world is orders of magnitude more complex than this. But the captured media and educational system in the West likes perpetuating this flawed polarized thinking, because it serves their interests -- the interests of the elites. If the elites want fewer regulations to help further their banking scams and make more corporate profit, they can invoke Libertarian anti-regulation sentiments to justify it. If they want more regulations in other areas to make it difficult for opposing forces to gain traction or to suppress the population, then they can use socialist sentiments to justify it. And in both cases, Libertarians and Socialists will be able to point the finger and say how the opposing view's dogma resulted in some bad policy or law being implemented... because it's true!!!! But ultimately, both approaches fail because they fail to address the underlying problem -- that our democratic processes have been captured and corrupted by a group of extremely wealthy and powerful sociopathic elites. This is generally what happens to societies historically, and it has happened to us as well. The underlying root cause of our problems has little to do with socialism, capitalism, free markets or regulations. As I always say, it's easy to criticize a failed system, but much harder to put forth actual specific policies that would result in a better system and prevent reversion back to the rotten old system again. As a perfect example, Libertarians like to use the Liberty and free markets we used to enjoy one or two hundred years ago as evidence that we should emulate this system today. Look at what America became and all the growth that these free policies promoted!!!! But the real driver of America's success back then was actually the sea of natural resources that North America presented and the growth which it facilitated, the Industrial Revolution which provided the technology to use these resources, and the relatively low human population. Now that resources have peaked and are on their decline, these policies won't have the same results and I would argue would have disastrous consequences if implemented today. Is this fact captured in any Libertarian's though experiment? I think this may be why Libertarianism tends to attract young people as Dr. Paul pointed out in his interview -- because it appeals to wide-eyed, idealistic world views which young people tend to have before they become older and wiser to the complexities of the real world. I would also suggest that this may be one of the reasons Libertarianism can only seem to gain so much political traction, because most people understand that it is too simplistic. This is too bad because I think that it does have a lot of good things to say.
14

Excellent points. I, too, admire Ron Paul’s willingness to question the system. I am also skeptical – active-minded in Ayn Rand’s parlance – about the real world consequences of living in a “libertarian” world. Both (Ayn) Rand and Ron Paul have diagnosed the problem, but as you say, the real world consequences are yet to be tested.
As an aside, I found it interesting to find out where Ron Paul’s office is located. Go to his website and do a search of the physical address on the site. He is certainly not a pretentious person and I admire him for it.

15

Mark_BC,
I’ve read your post a couple of times and I can’t grasp your intent other than praising Dr. Paul for foolishly trying to raise awareness about the scam being perpetrated against us - foolish because it won’t work. I do have to agree with you about the biggest problem with our system is that the elites have captured and corrupted our democratic system.
I do have a thought experiment for you. If the sociopathic elites have captured the system, why wouldn’t they promote Libertarianism as a way to game the system more? After all, with fewer regulations, they’d have a field day … or would they? Obviously, the elites (who have captured and corrupted our system) have significant advantage with the system we have - or we wouldn’t have it (since they captured and corrupted it.) Regulations gum up the system and make getting approval for the simplest task difficult, time consuming, and expensive. Large corporations can more easily address these bureaucratic morasses than small startups. That’s why they LOVE regulations - it keeps the competition down. Competition is more expensive for the big boyz.

Mark_BC wrote:
As I always say, it's easy to criticize a failed system, but much harder to put forth actual specific policies that would result in a better system and prevent reversion back to the rotten old system again.
It is easy to criticize a system (which you did) but I didn't read anything about specific policies that would result in a better system. Did I miss something? Should I assume that was just a platitude? Do you have any specific policies that you'd like to share?
Mark_BC wrote:
I think this may be why Libertarianism tends to attract young people as Dr. Paul pointed out in his interview -- because it appeals to wide-eyed, idealistic world views which young people tend to have before they become older and wiser to the complexities of the real world. I would also suggest that this may be one of the reasons Libertarianism can only seem to gain so much political traction, because most people understand that it is too simplistic.
You assume that young people are attracted to Libertarianism because they are wide-eyed and idealistic. That's a flowery way of saying "naive". Have you looked at the nightmare fiscal conditions we've left for these naive youngsters? Most of them are stuck in McJobs with little hope getting ahead. They can't afford to make house payments, car payments, student loan payments, pay taxes, and still have enough to make it all worthwhile. As a result, many of them are looking for a brighter future while living in mommy's basement. It's a logical decision to support Libertarianism to break the chains that bind them. Other youths supported Bernie Sanders due to their economic situation. Bernie wanted to give them free stuff so they would vote for him. I characterize that demographic as naive (or desperate.) They were willing to trade short term gain for long term pain. They also weren't considering that others had to work to give them their freebies. Since they will eventually be in shoes that are forced to work to give these freebies to others, they're slitting their future throats. Do you think they'd be as enthusiastic when they're the tax donkeys?
Finally, Mark_BC wrote:
This is too bad because I think that it does have a lot of good things to say.
What exactly do you think Dr. Paul has to say that is good? Your post didn't support this statement at all. I certainly hope this wasn't just one of your platitudes. Grover PS - I really don't expect that we're going to solve the political problems of our countries. I don't know enough about the Canadian system to comment on it. I know enough about the US situation to say that it would take a miracle (literally) for us to avoid default. The underfunded socialistic safety net promises will consume all the projected federal tax revenue before the end of the next decade. Unless the government can tax more, cut benefits/programs, or borrow more, the die is cast. Raise taxes enough and people will quit working. Cut benefits and those who were required to contribute (taxed throughout their lives) will vote against the incumbent. How long can the governments borrow before nobody lends to them? That's when it all falls apart. After that, all your complexities will reduce to very simple decisions. You should ask yourself what your world will look like without an active government to enforce its complex laws. My bet is that if you do an honest assessment (realistic thought experiment,) you'll see that our current governmental system can't last forever. Isn't it naive of you to think that all our complex protections can survive a failed government? Perhaps you should consider joining the Libertarian Party and voting accordingly while there's still time.
16

Mark_BC,
I readily admit that I don’t know enough about other economic systems in the world. Your post got me wondering how the Scandinavian socialism works. Here’s an article from May, 2016 when Bernie was praising the Scandinavian system as a model for his proposed presidency: https://stream.org/sorry-bernie-scandinavia-isnt-socialist/. Turns out that Bernie’s policies were more closely aligned with French socialism.
Perhaps you can post some information about their socialism that supports your viewpoint. Also, I hope you go a bit further and try to see if it would actually work over here. For instance, is their society as diverse as ours? How do they deal with welfare cheats and would that be applicable here? Are the age demographics comparable? You might as well consider those types of questions before posting … because you know that I will.
Grover

17

@ Grover
I would not describe socialized medicine as “stuff”, or even as socialism. It’s not Cheeze Puffs, it’s a basic human right that is provided for by every other capitalist developed economy, and many others still developing. You really need to look in from outside the USA to see how bizarre the privatized medical fiasco is. Inefficient, corrupt, and unnecessarily complex bureaucracies are clearly possible outcomes of the private sector. From the outside Bernie appears centre-left. But the rest of the World has not moved to the left of the spectrum. Actually, it is US political norms that have shifted to the right. The privatized medical system in the US is just another conduit for the corporate parasites to siphon dollars to their executives and shareholders.

18
wharfbanger@gmail.com wrote:
Grover I would not describe socialized medicine as "stuff", or even as socialism. It’s not Cheeze Puffs, it's a basic human right that is provided for by every other capitalist developed economy, and many others still developing. You really need to look in from outside the USA to see how bizarre the privatized medical fiasco is. Inefficient, corrupt, and unnecessarily complex bureaucracies are clearly possible outcomes of the private sector. From the outside Bernie appears centre-left. But the rest of the World has not moved to the left of the spectrum. Actually, it is US political norms that have shifted to the right. The privatized medical system in the US is just another conduit for the corporate parasites to siphon dollars to their executives and shareholders.
wharfbanger, I'm curious. Do you actually know what a "basic human right" is? It would be interesting to see a list of what other stuff (and by stuff, I mean stuff that isn't free) you consider to fit this category. Please provide a listing of some of the items you consider "basic human rights." Who is supposed to provide this (or any other non-free) "basic human right" in your opinion? What happens when the government fails or the suppliers no longer are in business? Does that basic right disappear or diminish considerably? Is it possible that you just confused a political position with a "basic human right"? I really laughed when I read, "Inefficient, corrupt, and unnecessarily complex bureaucracies are clearly possible outcomes of the private sector." What you are describing is the result of monopolies. Monopolies don't have to worry about competing with others for a profit. Since there is nowhere else to turn for their product, they don't have to produce a product that out competes their competition. As a result, they can produce unnecessarily complex bureaucracies. (Bureaucrats who head these bureaucracies get rewarded handsomely for complicating the system.) The clearest examples of monopolies are governments. There is no competition. You can't compete - legally. It's a great game to get into, but the world is already carved up. The next best thing is to get in collusion with government. That way, you can ride the coat tails of the government monopoly. The "medical fiasco" has done just that. You see, it costs lots of money for congress critters to put enough advertisements on TV to convince enough idiots to vote for them. (Remember that your vote for free stuff is worth exactly as much as my vote against free stuff at the ballot box.) A successful TV Ad. campaign is expensive. Where are those modestly paid public servants going to get enough money to mount another successful campaign? Enter the pharmaceutical industry. They have gobs of money available to contribute to a future candidate who will look favorably upon their product. In return, they ask for teeny, tiny loopholes in the law that keep them safe from lawsuits or paying their fair share of taxes. Since the pharmaceutical company produces the research that says their product is appropriate treatment for the XYZ disease, doctors can safely prescribe that pill once they diagnose the disease and check for contraindications. It keeps doctors from getting sued. The little people are happy because they got insurance to pay for another expensive rainbow colored pill with minimal copay. The doctors are happy because they got paid and one more little person is out of their hair. The pharmaceutical companies are happy because they have a patent granted monopoly on the rainbow colored pill and can charge whatever they want. The congress critters are happy because they are getting easy money that can be applied to their next campaign. Insurance companies are happy because they can petition government to increase premiums due to "unexpected cost overruns." Since government mandates coverage, those premium increases get approved. Everyone's happy. So, who gets screwed here? Have you noticed that insurance costs go up disproportionately in this country compared to other countries year after year? I'll bet you have. I'll also bet that you blamed the wrong entity for the cause. [Note that I provided just one hypothetical example. This was the most egregious example I could easily convey. It isn't the only one! This is an example of what Mark_BC and I agree about - corruption taking over the political system - and how it happens. So, how do we fix it? If you got this far, don't worry about providing a list of non-free human rights. I'm more interested in how to fix the problem.] Grover
19

Yes, we humans are just another species that has evolved on one of possibly many planets in the universe that have life. We have no inherent basic rights, although we can agree to strive to guarantee certain basic privileges to all of us. To the extent that our goals are achievable and our methods effective, we can perhaps more or less succeed in our efforts. “Free” rights like life, liberty and the right to pursue any course of thought or action that doesn’t unduly interfere with other’s rights are the easiest to achieve. Basic needs related to life like adequate nutrition, basic healthcare, clean water and air, a healthy social structure/community, functioning ecosystems that can provide us with food and materials, and basic shelter are somewhat more difficult to achieve, especially if we don’t control population or allow wealth disparity or consumption to grow too much. Higher level services, like expensive health interventions to combat the diseases of aging, pollution and contamination and unhealthy life styles are probably not achievable in a sustainable way.
In the end, the laws of physics, our finite planet as well as our own ability to organize a healthy society will place limits on which human needs and wants we can classify as rights and deliver to everyone or nearly everyone.

20

I am greeted this morning with the information that youtube has made a policy change and is removing 10s of thousands of videos by and about the Islamic cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki.

YouTube has removed thousands of videos of the radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki ... It is the first time Google’s video site has taken such concerted action against a particular individual. The preacher was killed in 2011 by a US drone strike in Yemen, [then, a year or so later, his son was killed simply for being his son]... A search for Awlaki last autumn returned around 70,000 videos. The same search today returns less than 20,000, the vast majority of which are videos about Awlaki, rather than authored by him.
I believe that this is about controlling discourse. Limiting what can and cannot be said. But the action is hidden behind at least 2 deceptions so that you won't notice its totalitarian function.
1. this is about Islam. And I don't really like Islam, so maybe its kind-of OK. 2. this is about love and decency and stopping violence. It is to "protect the children." And I really want the children to be safe so maybe we do need to do this?
TPTB are good. Civilization. Safety. Rightness. God. Law and Order. Those who threaten the oligarchy and the system that harvests and controls the masses are _______________ (insert non-specific pejorative phrase--terrorists, extremists). Stopping this badness is necessary. We can't have people thinking wrong thoughts.