How Progressive are the Progressives?

By Alan Burkhart

One of the Left’s most important strategies is the way they label and therefore define their opposition. Think back to the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. The Left consistently labeled George W. Bush as being stupid, incompetent, and as one Democrat candidate put it, “a miserable failure.” They did this while also portraying John Kerry as smart, articulate, and better-educated than President Bush. Never mind the fact that Bush had better grades in college than Kerry. Since when have the facts mattered to these people?

All the while, the Left works just as hard to shore up their own image. Way back when, those most of us now regard as “liberals” were correctly known as being socialists. This was never more evident than during the 50’s and 60’s. Of course with “Socialist” as a label, you’re pretty much dead in the political sense. Hence, the socialists redefined themselves as liberals. That’s too bad, too. A true liberal bears little resemblance to the goofy far-left of today. But the traditional liberal is gone and forgotten.

Thanks mainly to conservative talk radio and the Internet, the faux liberals were once again identified as being no more than anti-American socialists, although some still embrace the label and depend upon the fact that so many Americans are too uninformed to know the difference.

The most recent re-identification of American Socialism is “Progressive.” Now that sounds like a lovely name, does it not? After all, what can possibly be wrong with progress? Well… it depends on your definition of “progress.” If you define progress as being increased governmental dependence, high taxes, and the erosion of American culture via rampant political correctness, then yep, the Progressives have made fabulous progress.

Compassion for the poor, the weak, the defenseless and the elderly is supposedly a hallmark of Progressives. “Progress” in this regard should therefore be defined as helping the above-mentioned folks to become secure and self-sufficient, right? One needs look no farther than the recent events in New Orleans to see just what a disaster these people have created. Throngs of people, helpless after generations of brainwashing by Progressives, stood by and waited for government to come to their rescue. It never occurred to them that they’d do better by saving themselves.

Another fine example of Progressive progress would be pre-Arnold California. Nowhere else in America have the so-called Progressives had such free reign to prove that their methodology can work. And nowhere else in America have we seen such a fiscal catastrophe. Under Progressive former Democrat Governor Gray Davis, businesses were fleeing California in droves to escape the punitive tax structure and inflated operating costs. The resultant spike in unemployment caused many citizens to start packing as well. When Californians had finally had enough, Governor Davis was fired from office via California’s recall provision, and I lost my favorite movie tough guy to politics.

And how about those who depend upon food stamps every month? Does anyone besides me have a problem with the fact that the tax dollars of working people are funding the misuse and abuse of this system? Are you aware that many recipients of food stamps routinely sell the stamps to buy non-covered items… Like Drugs and Guns? Hey, now that’s progress!

And of course there’s the Progressive’s pet project… government-funded healthcare. If you’d like to see what that’d be like, take a peek at our Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Healthcare systems. They’re abject failures that cost more every year with almost no increase in the quality of service provided.

And Social Security? I’m not even counting on it for my old age. The system is designed to fail. Americans are living longer, and as such the unavoidable result is that the ratio of contributors to retirees is changing. It’s only a matter of time before there are more people receiving government pension checks than there are people paying into the system. What then? Bankruptcy. It’s over.

All the while, Progressives are wailing and moaning about how Conservatives are ruining America by giving all those breaks to the “Evil Rich.” What they don’t point out is that Progressives have managed to take a large percentage of lower and middle-income people completely off the tax rolls. Hence it’s unavoidable that wealthier Americans are shouldering a disproportionate percentage of the tax burden. Last time I checked, the Top 50% of income earners were paying 96.5% of all income taxes. The top 1% of earners were paying in 34%.

With the current system in place (which the spineless Republicans are afraid to change), it is unavoidable that the definition of “wealthy” will be incrementally redefined downward to pay for additional and expanded programs. This means that people who presently pay low or no taxes will find their tax obligation going up in the not-too-distant future. This incrementalism is the vehicle by which Progressives mean to enslave all of America to Socialism just as surely as they have enslaved the city of New Orleans. As Americans pay more and more out of our pockets to government, more and more Americans will be forced to swallow their pride and accept government assistance.

This is the Progressive’s dream. ALL Americans depending upon government for their survival. All income is equalized. All housing is provided by government. All healthcare is provided by government. In the Progressive’s warped world view, this is defined as “Fairness.” Ah… progress.

Visit Alan at:www.alanburkhart.com

Abortion: Politics Versus Common Sense

By Alan Burkhart

This could very well be the all-time political hot potato. When it comes to abortion, it seems that through the years no politician or political party has been able to take a position that pleased a majority of the people for any length of time, if at all. The reason? Simple: There are so many people with different views on the subject. The same thing could be said of just about any major issue, but abortion is unique in that it arouses the passions of everyone involved to the boiling point with frightening ease and regularity. The reason for this is also simple: Two of the things we hold most sacred in America, two things which are at other times on the same side of the fence, are at odds: the rights of the individual and the lives of our children.

Sadly, this issue could have been resolved decades ago were it not for the involvement of self-serving politicians and a number of extremist groups. As is usually the case, the involvement of the aforementioned people has caused the issue to become clouded and divisive, and from that divisiveness has arisen bitterness and violence. Most Americans are plain, old fashioned, nuts and bolts, common sense people. We sit in the coffee shops after work and discuss the issues of the day, and wonder why the "Damn Politicians" can't seem to solve whatever pressing problem is dominating the morning's headlines.

So... Is abortion murder, or should a woman truly have the right to end her pregnancy? To fully understand the situation, one must look at all sides of the issue and understand the agendas of both the Left and the Right in this regard. More than ever, both Conservatism and Liberalism are dominated by their respective extremists, and it is the extremists who often set the agenda for both groups, although one could make the argument that the extremists have become the mainstream where the Left is concerned.

The Religious Right...
It galls me a bit to see so many God-fearing people casting their lots with what I've come to refer to as "Big Religion". I regard them the same way the media regards "Big Tobacco" and "Big Oil". Why? They're a powerful special interest group with an agenda a mile long, and they're determined to push it through regardless of the consequences it has upon other people. Some (thankfully not many) moral conservatives believe that there is no valid reason for an abortion, even if the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy. Their reasoning is simple: "Thou shalt not kill."

Fortunately, these extremists are in the minority within the Religious Right. While furthering my research for the rewriting of this article I had a conversation with a nice lady at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who stated plainly that Catholic policy does not expressly forbid abortion for clinical reasons. They regard it as a private issue between the mother, her priest, and her doctor. The Catholic Church absolutely does not however, condone abortion for purely social or economic reasons.

There is no denying that if we all lived by the Ten Commandments, America would be a safer place. But, the Ten Commandments are for the most part simply common-sense rules describing acceptable behavior: Don't steal, don't lie, don't kill, and don't commit adultery. Not even a reasoned atheist would have a problem with that. I like the idea of Christians being in power to the degree that sensible true-believers are more likely to be (once again, my opinion) honest, assuming that honesty is even possible in politics. If that honesty and its resultant objectiveness are applied to enforcing and protecting the Constitution, we're all better for it. If on the other hand they seek to have their spiritual beliefs forged into law because they see themselves as having a mandate from God, impeachment is in order (and maybe a padded cell). By the way... I'm not saying that non-believers are all untrustworthy. What I'm saying is that believers have a greater sense of accountability due to our belief in a power higher than Man.

The faction I fear most from the Right are the militants who blow up abortion clinics, harass women who are considering abortions, and generally hurt the credibility of mainstream Conservatism. Like the absolutists, they are a minority, and for that I'm thankful. Overall, the Right's approach to abortion, while imperfect, is far more reasonable than that of the left.

The Pro-Choice Left...
On the other end of the spectrum we find those who feel that an abortion is simply a matter of convenience. The Pro Choicers seem to believe that a human child is no more than a meaningless lump of tissue until it suddenly pops out into the world and "becomes" a baby. This bunch is of the same ilk as those who believe that capitalism is evil, that trees have rights, and that we should under no circumstances ever build any more power plants or refineries. At the root of the left-wing abortion rights groups, we find the Feminists. To fully understand why they believe what they believe, you must understand where they come from.

Early feminists, I'm talking sixty or more years ago, were adamantly pro-life. These were moral, upright women who sought to gain equal rights in our society. They wanted the right to vote, to work, to hold office, and so on and so forth. They fought for honorable goals. Along the way however, they came to believe that to compete with men they would have to become men in the figurative sense. How could, they reasoned, a woman hold down a factory job if she had three kids at home? Though it pained many of them to do so, the early feminists came to embrace abortion because they saw it as a way to free them to compete in the job market with their male counterparts. The lives of unborn children were suddenly tied to politics and economics.

Fast-forward to today: The National Organization of Women, The Abortion Rights League, and others campaign daily to maintain what they see as a woman's fundamental right to choose. They see it not as an issue of a child's life, but as an issue pertaining to the right of a woman to decide her own future, without regard for the life of the child. The fetus, in their view, becomes a tumor to be removed. It's also worth noting that Planned Parenthood makes millions of dollars yearly performing clinically unnecessary abortions. For them, it isn't about women's rights. It's about making a profit.

This same cultural aberration has an effect on those lucky enough to be born, too. They're routinely herded off to daycare centers until they reach school age, so Mommy can go earn a paycheck just like Daddy. This has had a negative effect upon the nuclear family. There's nothing wrong with a woman working once a child reaches school-age, as long as she's HOME when her children get out of school. But let's face it folks: It's the MAN'S job to bring home the bacon, and it's the WOMAN'S job to cook it. There, I said it. I feel better. You know I'm right so don't start arguing with me about it.

The Real World...
When my kids were very young I worked 100+ hours per week in the oilfield so their mom wouldn't have to work. A young child, boy or girl, needs Mommy much more than Daddy. A mother's natural instinct to protect, nurture, teach, and (when needed) discipline the child is crucial to proper early development. That's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of pediatricians, religious leaders, "non-religious" leaders, psychologists, etc. It isn't sexism, it's nature. Women have a nearly supernatural ability to connect with their children. I stand in awe of them for that.

What about single moms? That's another issue entirely. A single mom has basically two options. Either she depends on government and / or family for survival, or she becomes a working mom. Under the circumstances, what else can she do? I applaud single moms - be they divorced, widowed, or if they simply had an "oops" baby - if they actually go out and take control of their situation. There are countless thousands of single moms all around the country who somehow juggle working, parenting, and maintaining a home all by themselves. I'm divorced and my kids are grown and long-gone, and I still have trouble keeping the floors vacuumed. We guys are such pigs.

So where does one find the truth of the matter? As is nearly always the case, the truth lies in the common-sense middle ground between the Right and Left. Abortion results in the death of a child. That is the sad, heart-wrenching truth of the issue. Is there ever any justification for such an act? Yes, I think so.

What if there are severe complications in a pregnancy? If a woman's life is threatened by the fact of being pregnant, then an abortion is justified. Besides, if she dies, chances are that the child will not survive either. At least by having an abortion, one life can be saved. Also, one must consider her family. Does she have other children who need her? A husband who loves her? Would you wish the loss and grief of losing both of them upon those people? I wouldn't.

What if it becomes obvious that a child is afflicted with a defect or disorder that will cause it to be born into a life of pain? What if the child is hopelessly deformed? Do the parents have the right to bring an innocent soul into this world in such a vessel? I believe that under such circumstances, parents have an obligation to consider abortion if they feel that it will be impossible for the child to know happiness. And please, don't start yammering about how each and every life is sacred, and how we don't have the right to make such a decision. Who has the right to guarantee a child a life of pain and suffering? Do you? I don't. Some might call this playing God. It isn't. It's parents making a brutally difficult decision, hopefully with God's counsel.

When is an abortion NOT justified? When a woman has a good job, a great future, and a gigantic credit card bill, and then finds out she's pregnant, that must feel like a disaster to her. Her life has just changed in ways she'd not have thought possible. BUT! This is a human life we're talking about. It's not a matter of choice or convenience. Hey lady, if you don't want to take the ride, don't get on the bus! Keep your pants on, or at least be responsible when you have sex. The life of the child is more important than your job or your new car. We must all be willing to take responsibility for ourselves, and that means dealing with the consequences of our actions.

What if there is a rape involved? Should a woman be expected to bear the child of the monster who defiled her? The answer is not an easy one. Rape is the most despicable of all crimes except perhaps for cold-blooded murder (and it's a close call). Rape takes away from a lady that which she reserves for someone special in her life. It is the ultimate insult, the ultimate trespass, and the ultimate violation of the rights of an individual. The perpetrator of such an abomination deserves no less than death.

The victim deserves no less than the complete support and sympathy of her family and friends. She deserves the right to know that the creep who violated her will pay with his life. It can take years for a woman to recover from a rape. Some never recover, but instead live a nightmare life where they fear every man they meet may be yet another attacker waiting for the right opportunity to rob her of her dignity.

But... who is the most innocent victim of this crime? How do we justify killing someone who wasn't even born when the crime occurred? Will the lady cringe whenever she looks upon this child and think back to how it was conceived? If so, adoption should be considered. The mother does not deserve the mental and emotional anguish. The child however, regardless of his or her parentage, does not deserve to die for the crimes committed against the mother. Many will think me cold and heartless here. Many will say I have no concern for the rights and well-being of the mother. You're wrong. I recognize that she has suffered. But life isn't always fair. To bear a child conceived by rape would surely be a terribly difficult thing, but nine months out of a lifetime is a worthwhile sacrifice to make if it saves the life of a child.

A happy, healthy, smiling child would mean that something good came from the incident. Children are bringers of joy. They bring wide-eyed innocence into a jaded and cynical world. They lend a sense of wonder to things that we as adults take for granted. Children are why we have Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. A child is blind faith in mommy and daddy, a little boy raptly watching his father shave at six in the morning, a little girl trying to wear her mommy's high heel shoes. A child is hope and promise for the future.

The Bottom Line...
We must, as a society, decide what value we place upon the lives of our most vulnerable souls. Some argue that abortion "is okay" before the third trimester. Excuse me, but what about the day before the beginning of the third trimester? Two days? Three? At what point during the gestation process does that life take on meaning? It isn't about whether the child can feel pain or if brain activity is present. If that life is to ever have value, it must begin at the very instant of conception. The child is no less human at that moment than at any time in its life, inside or outside the womb.

It really does come down to a matter of choice, but do not make the choice lightly. Abortion is not a way to escape the consequences of irresponsible behavior. Abortion ENDS THE LIFE OF A CHILD. Sadly, there are times when that may be the best choice, or the only choice. But if there is a way to save the child's life, and for that child to be born reasonably healthy, then that child's life is the only priority. To do less is the equivalent of saying that humanity's future is irrelevant.

I'll leave you with a thought... as medical technology continues to smash through every barrier, the time will come when even a child aborted in the first trimester can be safely incubated to full term. It will become possible to abort a pregnancy without killing the child. When that time comes... how will the feminists react? Will Planned Parenthood embrace the idea, or will they reject it? If they reject it, it'll be the end of them because they will finally be admitting what most of us have known for years. Planned Parenthood is in the business of killing babies for profit. To say the least, it'll be interesting to watch.

Visit Alan Burkhart at: www.alanburkhart.com

George Bush and Women’s Rights

October 9, 2005 by Alan Burkhart

According to NARAL and other organizations that claim to support the rights of women, George W. Bush must be some kind of backward-thinking, knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. If you listen to their rhetoric, you’d think that Dubya must beat poor Laura with a club every night before sending her to a dark and dirty kitchen to toil over a hot woodstove. He probably makes his daughters wear chastity belts and floor-length bloomers, too.

The whole notion is based upon the fact that President Bush is pro-life. The proof that George Bush hates women is that he opposes their ill-gotten right to kill their own children.

And there’s that needless war on terror, too. You know, the one where Bush has supposedly killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis? Yeah, that war. Do these brainless lefties have any clue just how happy Afghanistan is to be free of the Taliban? Do they have even a soupcon of understanding as to how much freer Afghan women are after Bush’s military drove the Taliban from that ancient country?
Have they missed the fact that thanks to George W. Bush and the brave coalition soldiers, Afghan women have the right to vote for the first time in thousands of years? Are they truly unaware that women in Afghanistan no longer have to wear those awful burqas in the furnace-like heat of the desert? Would someone please tell Nancy Keenan at NARAL that women can actually run for public office in Afghanistan since we freed that country?

None of this matters to the radical feminists. All that matters to them is that they retain the right to kill their unborn children with impunity. In fact, the Left has become so lathered over this single issue that it dominates their agenda. Let’s face it… it is highly unlikely that Roe vs. Wade will ever be overturned. Oh sure, normal people can hope, but I frankly doubt it’ll ever happen. Why do the feminists continue to fight a battle they’ve already won?

I believe they continue to fight because they need a drum to beat. Take away the abortion issue and the Left would lose one of the key manufactured issues they use to hammer conservatives. Never mind the fact that aborting a child, when the pregnancy poses no health risk to the mother, is nothing but cold-blooded murder. Forget the fact that many women suffer devastating emotional trauma after getting an abortion (guilt, in other words). Abortion is a political tool, and the millions of women who are duped into believing they have a right to destroy the life growing within them are no more than pawns in a heartless game of politics.

George Bush is simply the next whipping boy on the Left’s list of targets. Their biggest fear is that Bush will change the face of the Supreme Court, opening an avenue for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned. A statement dated October 3, 2005 on NARAL’s website says the following about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers…

"The burden is on the Bush administration and Harriet Miers to prove to the American people that she will respect and protect our fundamental freedoms, including a woman's right to choose. Miers does not appear to have a public record to assure America's pro-choice majority that she is a moderate in the tradition of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the critical swing vote that protected women’s reproductive health and freedom…”

The above statement demonstrates the Left’s amazing talent to fit multiple lies into a single paragraph. First, every scrap of data I’ve seen points to pro-choicers being in the minority, rather than the majority. Second, the term “reproductive health” suggests that Bush and Company don’t care too much about women’s health, which is of course patently untrue. Neither Bush nor any other mainstream politician or activist group seeks to deny women the right to an abortion for clinical reasons.

The real reason the Left is afraid of Harriet Miers is that she might properly interpret the United States Constitution. What a travesty that would be, eh?

Do you see the contradiction here? A true supporter of women’s rights would be pleased to see another woman nominated to the Supreme Court. NARAL on the other hand only wants liberal women to succeed. Their fight isn’t about women’s rights. It’s about pushing an anti-American agenda. Try to find a radical feminist who supported Bush’s naming Condoleezza Rice to his cabinet. Try to find a feminist who supported Janice Rogers Brown during Bush’s two-year battle to place her in the United States Court of Appeals.

Dare I mention that there is another hypocrisy here? So-called black leaders love to accuse Bush of “hating blacks.” Well, excuse me, but Condi and Janice are black. And how’s about Collin Powell? Bush didn’t just appoint the first black Secretary of State; he appointed the first TWO black Secretaries of State. He has thus far appointed more women and minorities than any other U.S. president.

In spite of Bush’s glowing record with minorities and women, feminists and other left-leaning radicals will continue to hammer upon him as long as he’s in the White House. They’ll continue to accuse him of being anti-choice, anti-black, anti-gay, and anti-anything else they can think of. Their only goal is to return liberals to power in Washington. Liberalism can no longer win honest elections on a national level. Their only choice therefore is win through lies and subterfuge.

A Comparison of Character

By Alan Burkhart

With so much attention focused on New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, a significant fact has been largely overlooked. As a proud citizen of the Magnolia State I believe it’s high time to make a comparison of just how folks from Mississippi dealt with the storm’s aftermath compared to those in and around New Orleans.

One of my brothers was involved in the relief effort. A cross-country trucker like me, he spent 30 days hauling FEMA trailers loaded with ice and food into Southern Mississippi. We spoke on the phone at length just last night, and I discovered how deeply moved he was by the whole experience.

He told me of how people would walk or drive up to the back of his trailer and ask for only what they needed, rather than pushing and shoving and fighting, as happened in New Orleans. He spoke of how locals would pitch in and help him unload his trailer rather than stand there demanding a handout. He spoke of the graciousness, patience and courtesy of Mississippians, both black and white, who were showing a strength of character that was scarcely evident among the riotous masses in Southern Louisiana.

From New Orleans, we hear numerous stories of volunteers who were shocked and disgusted at the utter lack of civility and gratitude. We hear stories of violence and lawlessness by the citizens, and of near complete abandonment of the city by local law enforcement. It would be pointless to detail all those stories here. We’ve all heard them more than once already. The important thing to understand is why there is such a difference between the people of Southern Mississippi and those in New Orleans.

Certainly, there were instances of bad behavior in Mississippi, but they were a scant few compared to the nearly animalistic behavior in Louisiana’s largest city. What my brother and others, including myself, saw in Mississippi was nothing more than the good old-fashioned American “Can-Do” attitude. It was remarkable only in that it was so sharply contrasted by the Third World mentality in New Orleans.

So… why the big difference? People like Jessie Jackson would point out the prevailing poverty of blacks in New Orleans. If you listen to Jessie you’ll end up believing that Katrina only hit poor black neighborhoods and that only poor blacks were left homeless by the storm. Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin have done nothing to dispel this myth. New Orleans is saturated far more thoroughly with liberal dogma than dirty water. The city is a working model for the Welfare State desired by Leftists across America.

If you were presented with two images of rioting, hungry blacks clamoring for food, would you be able to tell the difference between the one from New Orleans and the one from any of the impoverished and corrupt African states? New Orleans is a cesspool of defeatism and political corruption. So-called leaders in that city, both black and white, have for decades worked to keep blacks dumb, dirt-poor and angry. They’ve succeeded. The poverty-stricken masses in New Orleans are absolutely dependent upon the bureaucracy for their needs.

So, it’s all the fault of the city’s corrupt leadership, right?

Nope. Every single coherent adult in that city knows right from wrong. If these people choose to be deceived by a slack-jawed buffoon like Jessie Jackson, or if they choose to remain in a city that holds little promise for them, then they deserve to sleep in the bed they’ve made. And please don’t tell me about how they’re “trapped” in that city. If you don’t have a car, you can get a used bicycle at any junk shop for under twenty dollars. You can pick up aluminum cans and sell them at a recycling facility. You can always find a way to change your situation.

I’ve been poor. I’m intimately familiar with the feeling of not having food in the refrigerator and no car in the driveway. Been there, done that. But I went out and changed my situation. Was it tough? Hell yes it was tough, but it wasn’t impossible. I hitchhiked a thousand miles away from my failures and started over with $10 in my pocket and my clothes in a paper sack. So don’t tell me that these people in New Orleans can’t cope. There is no such thing as a problem without a solution.

Rather than looking for someone to blame for their troubles, people in Mississippi by and large just rolled up their sleeves and went to work. Certainly we had help; FEMA was there with food and supplies, the National Guard was there, and utility companies from all across America sent trucks and crews to help repair downed power lines, remove fallen trees, and provide temporary relief. But… we didn’t have any more aid than what was provided to New Orleans. And we didn’t stand there with our hands outstretched waiting for the next ration of compassion. We just did what Americans have done since the founding of this nation: We worked together to fix what was broken.

Such was not the case in New Orleans. Too many people in that town are conditioned to believe in their own helplessness. They’re taught that a gang of Evil White Men are the root of their troubles. They have for generations been brainwashed to believe that when things go wrong in their lives, it’s impossible for it to be their own fault. Was the hurricane their fault? Of course not. Their reaction to their situation however, was no one’s fault but their own. They lined up and held out their hands in expectation of someone else solving their problems for them… just like they’ve done for untold generations. Other people were expected to feed them, clothe them, and clean up after them. When aid didn’t arrive immediately, despair often turned into violence.

There’s an old saying that applies here…
“If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got.”

Until the people in that city recognize that their problems are their own and actually stand up and do something on their own, they’ll keep right on getting what they’ve been getting all these years. There’s a word for what they’re getting, but it would be a bad career move for me to use it here. The saddest part is the simple fact that they’re doing it to themselves.

Guns, Road Rage, and Eighteen-Wheelers
Sept 20, 2005 by Alan Burkhart
On Thursday, September 15th I came fairly close to being a corpse. First, let me say two things… one is that this little tale is absolutely true, and also that because criminal proceedings are currently in progress, it is necessary that I omit specific places and names. Suffice it to say that it happened very near to where I live in Mississippi.

Here's the whole sordid tale…

I was on my way to pick up a load bound for Dallas, TX. My route included a narrow and windy two-lane road. While on this road, I caught up to a convoy of 3 large farm tractors, each pulling wagons loaded with the big round bales of hay. They were moving at best maybe 15 mph. An older fellow was following them on one of the little 4-wheel vehicles often seen in factories... like a miniature pickup truck. This is a common occurrence on all rural roads, not just in Mississippi but all across the country. In this case it's a chance I often take because the route cuts about twenty miles off the trip.

I sat behind them for 5 or 6 miles waiting for an opportunity to pass. Traffic was backing up rather quickly as this is a busy road. I came to a straight stretch and the way was clear, so I moved to the left and hit the accelerator. The guy on the 4-wheeler swerved in front of me and began waving his arms and cursing at me. I was both surprised and highly irritated, but I slowed and returned to the right lane. I waited a moment, then eased back to the left. The guy immediately swerved in front of me again and all but stopped. More arm-waving and cursing. At this point I realized I had a certifiable fruit-basket on my hands, so I pulled back in behind the convoy and waited.

About a mile up the road the convoy began turning left into a chicken farm. Evidently this was why he didn't want me to pass, although I'd have had plenty of time to do so safely. I had no way of knowing they were planning the turn. Let's face it, hay bales don't have turn signals. As they drifted left, I drifted right (about 5 mph) to get around them. The guy on the 4-wheeler again started shaking his finger at me and slinging insults, evidently wanting to make sure I knew my place before we parted ways..

I'll admit having a weak moment at this point… I gave him a rather dismissive middle finger as I was easing by. That's when the gun came out. The nut-job on the 4-wheeler was going to shoot me!

Earlier, the batteries had been down on my truck and our shop gave me a jump start. I was running with my windows down and no A/C so the batteries could recharge more quickly. Good thing, too. When I saw the gun, I grabbed my 1-liter bottle of drinking water and threw it at him. It was an act of sheer desperation, but I messed up his aim just enough. The bullet pierced the cab behind my head. I hit the gas and got away as quickly as I could.

It was only three miles to the next town. I pulled in and called 9-11 (no cell signal) from a payphone. Within minutes two county cops joined me at the truck. After taking a brief statement and examining the bullet hole in the cab, one stayed with me while the other took off to see if the guy was still there. He was, and he gave up without resistance and was taken away in cuffs. One of the county cops showed me the gun… a .22 magnum. Not a big gun by any standard, but I'm rather glad he missed.

All in all, an interesting afternoon… but why am I sharing this little incident with you?

After it was all over and I was running up the road with a little gob of silicone sealant in my new bullet-hole, I found myself thinking that people like this crazy farmer shouldn't be allowed to own guns. When I caught myself, I was jolted by the notion that I, of all people, could even be capable of thinking such unconstitutional thoughts. It was purely a knee-jerk reaction, and after taking a few deep breaths I realized that in the future this fruitcake may indeed not be able to own a gun. If so, that would simply mean that the current system worked.

If the anti-gun lobby had its way, he wouldn't have had a gun in the first place. But then again neither would you or I. This short chain of events has helped me to better understand just how some people on the Left come to believe that ordinary citizens are better off without the right to own a firearm. The liberal thinking process doesn't question the initial knee-jerk reaction. It runs with it, builds upon it, and eventually ends up with a non-solution to a non-problem. Our society is pumped full of such legislative boondoggles.

The most important time to stand by your beliefs is when your beliefs are severely tested. It would have been easy for me to go with the flow and join one of the left-wing anti-gun groups, and I'll freely admit that I spent a full day reexamining my beliefs about gun rights. In the end, I was reminded of a simple truth: Freedom does not come without risk. On that particular Thursday I could have easily been killed, but I'd take that risk again if I had to. It's easy for us to say that freedom is worth dying for when we're not the ones getting shot at by a bunch of freaks in a desert far from home. It's something else altogether when you're staring at the business end of even the smallest handgun.

We have to remember that the principles upon which this nation is founded are far more important than a single life, even though all lives are precious. History has proven that an unarmed populace is far more vulnerable than one with the capability to defend itself. If that means that I run the risk of having some maniac taking a shot at me then so be it. It's a risk I'm willing to take.