April 19, 2009

The Fall of Democracy



A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years.


These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

The steps are often attributed to Alexander Tytler but some researchers credit a 1943 speech "Industrial Management in a Republic" by H. W. Prentis, president of the Armstrong Cork Company with the progression from bondage back to bondage again over time.


I believe the people of the United States are between apathy and dependency right now. What do you think? Leave comments at http://www.voiceofbatesville.com at the bottom of the post

Tea Party


On the Batesville, Arkansas, Tea Party, I have only a few comments. I appreciate the turnout and the sincerity of those involved. It is too bad that the same foresight was not prevalent before the last election. I am not blaming the President alone, because a very high deficit was passed on from the previous administration. However, the same congress was onboard then as well.

I totally agree that we are headed for disaster, primarily because of the debt being created and where the shutoff valve is. We are primarily indebted to the Japanese and the Chinese, who could demand payment at anytime, placing us in a very bad situation.

To pay off the crazy, out of control debt, we have only two options! Greatly increase the taxes on the people, or print more money, possible both. The result will be devaluation of the dollar, which could be good in some ways, because the U.S. could pay the debt with extremely weak dollars, which would probably lead to WW III, at the time leading to crunching, hyper inflation. The dollar could become next to worthless, while the price of all of our needs would become unbearably high. Of course, it would practically wipe out years of savings, because all of those dollars would not amount to too much.

It would stimulate the economy, if we did not have the high inflation and the devaluing of our currency.

If the dollar is reduced significantly lower, as the present trend indicates,there will be a rush to use other currencies for world trade, which would greatly affect our trading position in the world.

We should demand that our Congress stop spending right where it is and start paying the debt down. We should further demand that they recognize the priorities, such as defense of our nation. Even there, we should not fund everything that Defense asks for, unless there is intelligence indicating that opposition forces are on the road to besting our existing defense technology, placing us in jeopardy. Some very expensive military equipment could easily be delayed, but this should not be construed to mean spend on nonsensical, vote getting projects. Defense is first, so other departments should take at least a 20% reduction, until we have financial security. Genuine emergencies could become an exception, but we need to be financially conservative, or we will almost certainly lose our position as the only super power in the world, and become just another third world country.

We need to let it be known that we will not engage in conflict except to win, immediately! and that means a commitment to full fledged attack, no weapons excluded. There was something to be said for "Gunboat Diplomacy!" Prolonged wars deplete our financial security; consequently, our physical security. In better terms, we should not fool around with tinhorn dictatorships, nor weaker nations raising havoc in the world, especially when our security is involved. Being a longtime military man, I can put it better! "We will instantly kick your butt, if you attack us or our security interests!"

How is that for diplomacy? Usually, diplomacy places us on equal footing with a weaker enemy, and that is not a good place to be. Maybe the Red Chinese were right. Maybe we are a "Paper Tiger." afraid to use our power. To stay a strong and respected country, we should not long hesitate to use our power when it is called for. We can talk in advance, way in advance, making our philosophy apparent in almost any situations that you could imagine.

Any country that allows terrorists or others, challenging our national security interests, which should be loosely interpreted,to operate within their borders or abroad are as guilty as the offending parties; therefore, subject to attack by the full power of the U.S. military.

I believe that nearly all of the nonsense leading to our eventual demise and running us into terrible indebtedness would almost immediately cease.

What we need is big courage, somewhat below the waist, and not gender dependent.

Our congress has not listened to the public for sometime. Do you have the courage to throw them out? I do mean "throw." Their welcome back to those they are supposed to represent should also be in question. This nonsense should be stopped now!

Haven't you had enough? the strongest point you can make is in the voting booth. You should accept no propaganda, no silk smooth explanations, and no answer except the right ones, and that right is what they will do, without hedges. They have learned how to get your vote without doing anything sensible. They must perform a lobotomy when they report to duty, then they start having them rehearse the party line.

I don't care what your party is. You start representing the people and the interests of the U.S. or suffer the consequences, which will greatly affect your way of life. We could start holding our votes for all incumbents. Then, they would come to us, saying, "Tell me what you want, and I will do it!"

I am proud to say that the Tea Parties were peaceful but forceful. That is outstanding, but it is just the beginning of trying to turn our country around and back to the people. Is there anyone with me???

Don Bice

April 15, 2009

The Batesville Arkansas Tea Party


It seems like Americans all across our land are getting disgusted with an economic philosophy that solves a problem of debt with borrowing more money. What are your thoughts about the current economic situation in the United States?

Leave your comments about the economy and the Batesville Tea Party at The Voice of Batesville.com

Thanks for your input.

April 13, 2009

Should the U.S. Attack Somali Pirate Bases?



Should the U.S. attack Somali Pirate Bases?

What do you think? Leave a comment with your opinion by clicking comments below.

March 27, 2009

Plan B


The courts again have pushed aside moral and ethical values in the interest of business. Just this month the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to reconsider its decision under the Bush Administration to limit access to emergency contraception. The court stated that the agency allowed politics to interfere with its usual decision making. The court also ordered the FDA to allow 17-year-olds to buy the drug, called Plan B, without a prescription. The Morning-after pill and Plan B are a form of contraception in which a woman will take after having unprotected sex or other contraception failure. Could abstinence not play a huge roll here? The Morning-after pill and Plan B act both to prevent ovulation or fertilization and possibly post-fertilization implantation of a blastocyst (embryo). The Morning-after pill could be considered an abortifacient which is a substance that induces abortion. This is another way to legalize abortion. The court stated that the FDA deviated from its own standard procedures for reviewing over-the-counter products and that they favored politics over science, ideology over women’s health. What about moral values? Could they have not played a part in the FDA’s actions? Barr Pharmaceuticals, who make Plan B, had originally sought over-the-counter access without any age requirements. Wouldn’t this be a drug for adults? How could someone, under the age of 18, make such a huge decision as this? Barr, who was recently purchased by Teva Pharmaceutical, believes that timely access to Plan B is extremely important, as the sooner Plan B is taken the more effective it is. Is there any consideration for the newly developing baby? How will these drugs affect women who take them over a period of time? Will there be any long-term physical or mental effects? The Morning-after pill and Plan B are new drugs to our market. Could they do more harm than good? (Washington/New York-Reuters)(Reporting by Maggie Fox in Washington)

Stacy Allen