The Rabid Conservative

I’ve regularly have written on The Rabid Conservative critically about the abortion issue.  And I’ve had people regularly comment about how wrong I am, while continuing to justify the slaughter of innocent babies while using the terms “women’s health”, “right to choose” and the like.

But the argument breaks down because the pro-choice (anti-life) and pro-life (anti-abortion) groups have no fundamental agreement on the definitions of life and moralities tied to it.  As I have said before, the pro-choice crowd simply does not believe that the fetus (latin: baby) is alive until it passes through the birth canal or is extracted via c-section and is born.  Up to that time, the legal status in the pro-choice eyes is that the baby is a “thing”.

But it goes deeper than that.  For the liberals, abortion is more akin to a religious conviction than it is a social matter.  It’s almost like what happens when so-called “infidel” dares insult Islam.

When the Susan B. Komen Foundation announced that it was going to stop granting funds to Planned Parenthood, the outcry was so over the top.  What gets me is since Komen is all about curing breast cancer and not so-called “reproductive rights”, Planned Parenthood acted just like how the labor unions react when a company decides to try and cut ties. It’s sickening how much Planned Parenthood extorts – it’s just like taking hostages.

1. Planned Parenthood’s primary purpose in life is to provide abortions, despite the amount of cover PR that they do.  90% of all the women that use PP’s services are coming for abortion-on-demand.
2. Planned Parenthood continues to extort around $350 million every year from the tax payers to fund all the other stuff so they can continue to make money on abortions without having to worry about overhead costs.  Overall, PP’s extortion’s pull in a billion dollars per year.
3. The abortion crowd will continue to attack anyone who attempts to even remotely get in the way of making sure that abortion can continue unabated and fully funded.

How long are we going to allow the atrocious extortion and murder continue?

President Obama just showed us all, once again, how truly evil and immoral liberalism is. He spent yesterday celebrating how wonderful abortion is, how there is a ‘fundamental constitutional right’ and how it is precious to protect so-called ‘reproductive rights and the right to choose’.

First off, there is no fundamental constitutional right to abortion. Where the heck does the Constitution guarantee a woman to kill her baby? I’ve read the constitution lots of times and there is nothing in there about aborting a fetus, reproductive rights, or a right to choose what a woman does with her own body. The Constitution is a document that limits what the government can do, not permits the government to make allowances, just because the text doesn’t actually forbid it. Liberals love a “living Constitution”, but hate life, unless it’s “convenient”.

Second, the Declaration of Independence discusses the fundamental rights of man, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I maintain that this is an ordered list. This means life trumps all, before liberty, before the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness should never override someone else’s liberty and liberty should never override someone else’s life.

Now, if someone willingly gives their own life for the cause of liberty, that is definitely honorable. But abortion is about sacrificing the baby’s life for the mother’s liberty – and that is detestable.

So, with this milestone of nearly 55 million dead as the result of the holocaust of abortion, I’m going to throw out a series of points that focus on truth, not illusions.

1. The left has made a massive effort to disguise the entire idea sing flowery language such as ‘reproductive rights’ and ‘a woman’s right to choose’ while completely ignoring the life of the baby. I agree that a woman has a right to choose, but maybe she should have chosen to keep her knees together in the first place. No, this isn’t about choice, it’s about having unrestricted sex and not having to face the consequences of that decision.
2. The left calls the pro-life ‘anti-abortion’ as if that’s actually a bad thing. The thing is, if we are ‘anti-abortion’, then they are ‘anti-life’. There is nothing good about destroying life out of convenience – that’s among the highest orders of evil of which humanity is capable.
3. And for all of you drones out there that start talking about the ‘big three’, rape, incest, maternal peril, let me remind you again of the statistics. Less than 5% of all the 1.2 million baby killings in this country are as a result of rape, incest, or maternal peril. But yet, the left keeps throwing this back up in our faces as if this is the majority. That’s a red herring folks. Blood red.
4. Obama makes the point that the government should not interfere in private family matters, and for the most part, I agree. However, in a situation where a family member kills another family member, you can bet that the government, law enforcement, will definitely be involved. A person cannot choose to kill another member of their family and get away with it. So why do we allow it, just because a certain family member has not passed through the birth canal and been born?
5. More of that flowery language stuff, it’s not ‘killing babies’, it’s ‘aborting the fetus’. Because it’s not a “baby”, it’s a “fetus”. (did anyone ever tell these morons that “fetus” is Latin for “baby”. Interestingly when a so-called pro-choicer is pregnant and wants to have the child, she calls it a baby, not a fetus or some other diminishing term.
6. I wonder what would happen if the fetus had a chance to speak on his/her own behalf, what THEY would choose? When a person cannot voice their wishes, it’s generally within the context of the law that we err on the side of safety and caution. But abortion says that the baby’s life is forfeit unless someone else decides it has a right to live.

So there it is – the 39th anniversary of one of the most devastatingly evil pieces of legislation this country has ever known. 55 million dead. Isn’t that worth celebrating?

…but not hard enough for my liking.

It’s amazing how much the media makes Planned Parenthood to be this great women’s advocacy group, even though the greatest majority of the money they pull in goes to fund abortions.  I wrote about this and got into a comment fight with some idiot Brit on the topic a couple months ago.

While I already know that “Federal funding for abortion is illegal”, the basic idea is that the government money goes to Planned Parenthood’s operational costs and not abortive activities, while taking the money they make from other services and abortion to fund more abortion.

To put it another way, it’s me like having a lemonade stand and selling cookies on the side.  My dad tells me he will pay for my lemonade supplies but will not pay for me to buy cookies to sell.  So, I take his money and buy my lemonade supplies, and start selling cookies from the direct profits that I make from the first round of sales.  Since Dad continues to subsidize my lemonade costs, all revenue brought in is pure profit that I get to spend on either making my lemonade stand better…or on more cookies that I can sell.

So no, the government doesn’t fund abortion.  However, it does contribute money to organizations that are in the abortion business.  At least Medicaid money goes away from the equation.

The last paragraph of the article:

Student Nicole Robbins, 31, a Medicaid recipient, intended to visit an Indianapolis Planned Parenthood clinic Tuesday to pick up birth control pills. The end of funding, she says, makes her "feel like I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place."

I have a pretty low-cost solution to Ms. Robbin’s birth control problem.

It will only cost one of these:

Simply place it between the knees whenever the desire to have sex comes on.  It’s even reusable and works every time it’s tried.

Promiscuous sex can be a costly venture so I say those that do it should front all the costs, rather than through government subsidy,.

Source: USA Today

Yeah, I said it.

Out today is another Democrat who thinks that calling names is going to make headway and prevent another shellacking when 2012 rolls around and Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm) goes down in history as a one-term president.  Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the newly crowned DNC chair, came out showing her ‘foot-in-mouth’ disease by calling the Republican party as anti-women, because of the recent votes in the House and Senate relating to the de-funding of Planned Parenthood (a.k.a Abortions-R-Us). 

Well, if we follow the DNC line of reasoning, like they so much want us to do, yet criticize us for not seeing it their way, then every effort to rid the world of the number one killer of babies, namely abortion, that was thwarted by Democrats would make them “anti-baby”.  And while on that track, they are also big into euthanasia (anyone remember Terri Schiavo?)  Standing up for the unborn and saying that it’s morally wrong to kill them in Planned Parenthood sponsored clinics has nothing to do with women in general. 

Moron.

The GOP absolutely loves women, and in particular, the right-thinking kind.  Does anyone recall that the first woman to ever be elected to Congress was a Republican?   And then there are ladies like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michele Bachmann, Laura Ingraham, Condoleezza Rice, Jan Brewer, Liz Cheney, S.E. Cupp, and of course, Sarah Palin who is contemplating replacing That One, as President, all of which are adored by the GOP.  The GOP has women all over the country, serving and doing their part to make the country just a little more sane.

Oh, and by the way, my best friend in all the world is a Republican woman.  (luv ya hun!)

By the way, Ms. Schultz is the second Schultz this week to say something completely stupid.  While I doubt that Rep. Schultz will have to eat her crow as quickly as Ed Schultz did, she’ll find out that her inability to see reality will be the Dems undoing.

Can’t say that bugs me much.

To my friends, stay rabid.

If pro-choice advocates truly believed in keeping government out of the debate of abortion, they wouldn’t accept federal funds for Planned Parenthood.

Well, the Government averted a shutdown in the 11th hour and President Obama took the credit for hammering out a deal which keeps the government running without the distractions of social issues.  The thing is, the Democrats were full-ready to shut the government down because the GOP dared to suggest that one of the cuts should be to Planned Parenthood.  In short, Democrats were about to tell the military and the rest of the civilian support world that if Abortions-R-Us didn’t get paid, no one else deserved to get paid either.  In the end, they showed their true colors – something you don’t see from the Lib-crats.

Every year, the US Government shells out

What gets me is photos like the one to the right, particularly the woman with the sign in the center of the photo.  Yes, it’s pretty crude, even for posting on The Rabid Conservative, but

If she were speaking the truth, she would be saying, “Keep your Boehner out of my Government subsidy”.  For these pink-clad tarts, it has nothing to do with reproductive rights – for nothing in the spending bills tell them they can’t go out and get preg-ed and have abortions at will, at the drop of a hat.  No, this is all about protecting the pro-choice gravy train – ensuring that if a woman wants an abortion, they can get the government (through Planned Parenthood) to pay for it. 

If these women truly wanted the government out of their…uhh…business, they wouldn’t make such a big deal out of this.  In other words, if pro-choice advocates truly believed in keeping government out of the debate of abortion, they wouldn’t accept federal funds for Planned Parenthood.  So why are they have their proverbial panties in a bunch?  Because the GOP is threatening to cut off the money, that’s why.

For Lib-crats, it’s all about the money.  Let’s take another topic: teaching intelligent design in public schools, or public displays of Christianity at school events.  When these topics come up, the American Crazy Liberals Union is the first to step in and say, “oh no no, that violates the Establishment Clause!”.  Since the Establishment Clause is all about Congress establishing a religion, the Lib-crats make the point that since the schools are Government-Funded  they can’t teach anything that even remotely hints at religious overtones.  Lib-crats threaten cutting off tax-exempt status to churches that preach politics from the pulpit.  Why?  That establishment clause again – because of the money spent.

The government spends money on abortion – plain and simple.  This isn’t exactly keeping Uncle Sam out of the topic of so-called “reproductive rights” because what it does is it advocates for one side of a controversial issue by funding it.  Cutting off funding doesn’t mean the government has suddenly gone pro-life, it only means that they won’t fund the pro-choice effort either. 

Defund Planned Parenthood and let them stand on their own.  Let’s spend federal money on things that benefit ALL Americans, not just the ones that choose to devalue life through slaughter of the unborn.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. – Amendment X, United States Constitution

The tenth amendment says very plainly:

1. If a power is not explicitly granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution, it is reserved by the States and by the people.
2. If a power of the Federal Government is prohibited by the States, it is reserved by the States.

The 10th Amendment is a very key amendment because by it, the states make the rules of what goes on in the states, not Washington DC. What it does is it enumerates who actually wears the pants in the US.

For example, take Alaska. Alaska has the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) and they would love to bolster their economy by drilling for oil up there. But folks 5000 miles away are telling them that they can’t use the resources of their state for their own purpose. There is no provision in the Constitution telling Alaska they can’t drill for oil. If the Alaskan legislature wants to drill, they should be allowed. Washington can go pound sand.

Several states, such as Texas, South Carolina, and others have refused stimulus money because with that money, there are mandates from the Federal Government. Yet the Federal Government is trying to impose its will in saying that these states have to take the money. They do NOT! They can send that money right back to Washington and tell them what to do with their crazy regulations.

Many states have passed laws outlawing or allowing same-sex marriage. This is definitely not covered in the constitution and therefore a decision of the states. If Vermont wants gay marriage, let the voters and the state decide. If Iowa doesn’t want it, they should not be required to recognize it, even if a gay couple from Vermont comes to Iowa.

If the Dakotas want to pass laws outlawing abortion, they should be allowed to do just that. Remember, Roe v. Wade can be challenged when a state decides to answer the question of when life actually begins. (BTW – that was part of the decision back in 1973.)

Folks, we are the *United States*. That means we are a republic (not a democracy) of fifty sovereign states that have joined together to make a nation. We are one country, but we are fifty separate individual states.

We have appointed a federal government to handle matters that occur between states. The founders recognized that there would have to be a strong federal government to regulate interstate commerce, negotiate treaties on behalf of the United States, and raise a military. The Constitution clearly enumerates what the Federal Government is supposed to do. If it’s not enumerated in the constitution, it’s up to the States to decide for themselves.

If the Civil War taught us anything, it taught that states have the right to determine largely what goes on in their own borders. Washington DC has no right to impose its will upon the state.

Yet, ahead of all the Tea Parties that are going to be held tomorrow, protesting all the insane government spending that is going on in Washington, we now get a report from the Department of Homeland Security that warns of all us ‘Right Wing Radicals’ and wraps us up amongst those who would-be white supremacists and religious abortion-clinic bombing whackos, just because we’re getting sick and tired of the federal government sticking its fat nose where it doesn’t belong.

I wonder if DHS will start putting me on a watch list because I dare show that I am a patriot, a lover of the original constitution, and a protector of what the founders created, not what the so-called progressives have perverted.

Anyway, in the below video, Texas Governor Rick Perry has announced his support for HCR 50, a resolution in the Texas legislature does four things:

1. Affirms Texas’ sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution
2. Demands the Federal Government cease and desist any activity or mandate that is outside the scope of the constitutionally delegated powers.
3. All compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under the threat of sanction or penalty from the federal government is prohibited and repealed
4. The resolution be presented to the President Obama, Vice-President Biden, and Speaker Pelosi, as well as to the entire Texas delegation to Congress with instruction to enter it into the Congressional Record.

I’ve never lived in Texas and have only been there a few times. I’m going back in October on business. But the one thing you gotta appreciate is the Texas spirit. And I say with a hearty whoopie:

Don’t Mess With Texas!

The one question that liberals simply will not answer – the one in which they fear: “When does life begin?”

As many of you have read, somberly, President Obama signed an Executive Order to reallocate federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell (ESCR) research.  It’s a sad day because now the human embryos who are being held in frozen stasis will be used for experimentation in hopes of bringing a cure to Type 1 Diabetes, cancer, or the like.  Essentially, as far as this Rabid Conservative is concerned, ESCR is nothing short of murder.

Now before the haters start going all in a tizzy, I’m not against stem cell research. I’m against harvesting embryos for it. In fact, there is a wealth of information out there that reports the advantages of adult stem cells over their embryonic counterparts. Read this article to understand more: The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research.

Anyway, my point here today is not to do the comparative but rather, to talk about the reason why liberals have to have embryonic stem cells. Liberals aren’t looking at the research about adult stem cells because, to the liberals, the subject of stem cells isn’t about saving lives, curing disease, or relieving infirmity; it’s about maintaining some sort of precedent with respect to the legal status of an embryo.  From all the rhetoric, I’ve been able to boil down to two fundamental reasons why liberals are determined to maintain ESCR:

1. Losing the ESCR war would lead to a serious undermining of the entire abortion issue as far as liberalism is concerned.
2. The embryo is not a human being and not entitled to rights or protections.  As such, the embryo can be used for things for which a regular human being with legal protection cannot be used.

ESC is Linked to Abortion

You see, abortion and ESC research are linked.  If the liberals get disproven that an embryo is, truly, a human life, they have to concede that an embryo in a womb is also a human life, which then, causes the abortion issue to fall apart.

Many people who argue over the abortion issue do so without a clear understanding of science – it’s all emotionalism to them.  To liberals, the question of abortion is ‘doing what is right in one’s own eyes’, never once considering the destruction of humans as embryos in favor of sexual freedom.

One of the little known aspects of Roe v. Wade is the challenge provision. Basically, Roe v. Wade was passed because the court could not fully agree on when, exactly, life begins – or more appropriate to legal precedent, no definitive recognition in the eyes of the law that life begins at conception.  Because of this, abortion was allowed by the High Court.

Recently, in North Dakota, the state House voted to declare that a fertilized egg is indeed human life and deserves the same protections under the law.  This is significant because, if the ND Senate votes passage, North Dakota will be the first state in the Union to effectively bring a challenge against Roe v. Wade.  Proponents against the measure whined that they ‘didn’t want to drag North Dakota into a legal fight with Roe v. Wade’.  This tells me  that the ND House liberals just don’t want to touch the issue in fear of losing their position on it.

And then, we get an interview like this with Der Schlick-meister that, once again, doesn’t seem to understand the fundamentals of basic reproductive biology.

Dude, an embryo is a fertilized egg.  So, by your very own statement here, it’s a ‘little baby’.  If that’s truly the case in your ‘more-than-once’ stated opinion, killing a fertilized egg is something that we do not want to do because it would grow to be a little baby or a human being, which is why they are ‘embryos’.

Again, Bill, embryos ‘are’ fertilized already.

Embryos Are Not Human (or Human Enough to be Protected)

One thing that Slickster does make in distinction, that somewhere along the way, there is a point when a human embryo is not a human being.  He says twice – grow into a little baby/human being.  Liberals must agree on this point so that they aren’t forced to concede to admit the humanity of an embryo.

The thing is, it stands in the face of sensible logic.  For example, even a liberal couple that is desirous to have a baby will become pregnant – and what will they call that which grows within the mother?  Will they say how proud they are of their ‘fetus’ or ‘embryo’?

“Hey Denise, you look great! When is your fetus due?”

Or, more somberly, if the couple loses the child to miscarriage or something, they don’t talk about losing the ‘embryo’; they lost the baby.

But yet, when the same is within a mother that doesn’t want to have the child, it’s not a baby – it’s not even considered human. It gets labeled as a fetus or embryo so the mother and doctor don’t have to deal with the moral implications of destroying a human life.

By not affording protection to the human embryo, what effectively is being said here is that embryos are not human, or human enough, and as such, justifies the using of these embryos for scientific research.

So When Does Life Begin

If you’re a man or woman of faith, life begins at conception, was created by God, and deserves to be protected like any other innocent life. However, I can also work with a secular definition, since many things occur in early gestation that have legal precedent for defining life.

For example, brain activity can be defined as a start of life.  It can be argued that the human mind is encased in the human brain.  If we go back and remember the case of Terri Schaivo, we remember that liberals clamored on about how she was not alive, because she was clinically brain dead.  So, if we take that assumption that brain death is the cessation of life, then life must begin at the first signs of neurological activity.  And if that is the case, any embryo greater than 24 days in age would have to be considered a life.

Perhaps the point in which life begins is when the baby can survive outside of the womb without the mother. Well, if we take that point, life would begin somewhere around, say age five. Previous to that, a toddler cannot last very long without intervention by a parent. And thinking along those lines, there are plenty of people who cannot survive without some sort of assistance. Does that mean they aren’t alive?

Summary

The one question that liberals simply will not answer – the one in which they fear: “When does life begin?”  Liberals in support of abortion, ESCR, and the like avoid this question because to make a definitive statement of when life begins would cause them to give up something, in order to remain consistent.  With a relative definition of when life starts, liberals can slide things around to fit the theory in which they are holding in order to permit the activity that they decide is right at the time.

The sad truth is that pro-choice liberals avoid even the accountability associated with changing the rules all the time.  And with all rule changing, human embryos are the ones caught in the middle, and doomed to have their lives taken before ever getting the chance to live.

Within the Declaration of Independence, one of our most hallowed and sacred of documents covering the governance of our land, there are three inalienable rights of man, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I believe that every American and every human has these three basic rights. However, as we learned, these rights can override one another, as we learned from Oliver Wendell Holmes.  So, as I think over this list, I see that it is an ordered list, and correctly prioritized.

In other words, the right to life reigns over the right to liberty; the right to liberty trumps the right to the pursuit of happiness.  So, it is improper, then, for one’s pursuit of happiness to infringe on another man’s liberty, and a man’s liberty should never override another person’s right to life.

I think about the abortion issue and the fact that I believe the unborn child, from conception to birth, is a human life and is deserving of equal protection. I do not believe that a woman’s pursuit of happiness should ever override that baby’s right to life.

Now, if one chooses to give up their right to life so that another might have the right to life, or even more, the right to liberty, this is an act of bravery and courage. The Bible even says, “scarcely for a good man would one dare to die”.  My brethren and sisters-in-arms offer up their lives so that I may have the right to liberty – and for that, I offer my humblest gratitude, as we all should, for they are the true heroes of our country, not Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid.

Giving up one’s liberty for someone else’s happiness, however, is an act of stupidity, and giving up one’s right to life for another’s happiness is an atrocity.

So we see there is a priority to these rights and I believe George Mason, who penned these words into the Virgina Declaration of Rights might agree with my premise*. But even if he would not, I do believe that there are priorites to rights, based on the precedents set in the Scriptures.

Lastly, these truths are self-evident, that is, they need no explanation. And just like the charges listed in the Declaration, one has to suspend rational and logical thought to not see it this way.

*An interesting sidenote is that Mason was in-fact a slave-owner. Even more interestingly, he was, at heart, an anti-slavery advovate. He said, “It is far from being a desirable property. But it will involve us in great difficulties and infelicity to be now deprived of them.” So he might not have truly agreed with my premise, given his right to property and pursuit of happiness would not be overridden by their right to liberty, but I digress.

Yeah, OK, we lost last night and the Obama-philes are reveling in their victory. Meanwhile, in the bunker, the Conservative Underground awakens…

Y’all read my letter last night and as gracious as I had hoped to be, that doesn’t mean that I’m going to shut up and dance liberal. Oh, no, my friends, we’ve been on defense before and one thing that life has taught me: the struggle doesn’t end here.

It will only end when Jesus comes back. But until that time, our duty as Christians is to be subject to the higher powers. Since the US requires citizen participation to work, Christians should work to further the cause of Christ by changing the political tides when we can.

But before we do, let me illuminate three key expectations that you will probably see (at the risk of sounding prophetic) in the coming days:

1. We can expect that the liberals will continue to shut us down. Chuck Schumer, just yesterday, noted a desire to return the so-called Fairness Doctrine to the table, equating talk radio “fairness” to that of pornography, in the interest of equality towards private enterprise.

Listen up Chuck, if you are so darned concerned about fairness, then let’s talk about how UN-fair the tax rates are to the affluent. Why is it fair for a person making $250k/year to pay 40% of that in taxes while someone who makes $45k/year to pay 23%?

You’re not interested in fairness. You’re only interested in making things “fair” to suit your own liberal purposes.

Additionally, while Nancy Pelosi talks about creating a true bi-partisan atmosphere, something that she has no intent on doing, just know that any purported Republican or Democrat who sacrifices the most basic of conservative ideals for a seat at the table because that against which we fight. If the Founding Fathers found ways to compromise without sacrificing their ideals, then we should seek the same goal.

2. We can expect that the homosexual liberals in California to file suit to overturn the will of the people with respect to Prop 8. The measure was put on the ballot to give the people the right to allow or disallow gay marriage. The people said no. Unfortunately, the gays won’t accept that answer.

I find it interesting because democracy works when it gets Obama into office, but the majority is wrong and democracy has to be hijacked by judicial fiat when California, Arkansas, and Florida pass measures against same-sex marriage. In other words, the people spoke that they want Obama AND a same-sex marriage ban in California.

BTW – Speaking of which, where are all the people on the left that clamor on about how the Electoral College is a faulty system? They were out in droves in 2000 and 2004.

3. We can expect to see a direct attack on life. Obama has already mentioned he’s wanting to push the Freedom of Choice amendment, which will remove any protections put in place since Roe v. Wade and open the door to more infanticide. And he’s already discussed the issue of bringing embryonic stem cells back to the table, killing more human beings in the interests of science and ignoring all the research and potential for adult stem cells, which do not deprive people of life.

Well, it’s time to turn the lights back on and get to work. My friends, we’re all saddened and sickened by what transpired last night; this is not the result that we wanted to see. But now’s the time we get on defense and do what the government refuses to do: protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – in that exact order.

If we as conservatives are going to rise again, we have to have a message that reverberates with the heart of Americans. I believe we can do this, if we really believe it important enough to do.

Our time will come again. Our message is timeless. Our God is eternal and sovereign. And we will triumph at the end of all things, regardless of what the forces of Satan may push our way.

It’s not over, my friends. It begins anew….right now.

To my friends

Rick