Constitutional Flaws

The Bill of Rights (1791) was modeled off the French Revolution's Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen (1789), and Thomas Jefferson influenced both. Two major defects in them are:

1. religious indifferentism (that all beliefs are equal under the law):

Déclaration des droits Article X:

No one may be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law.

There are people (e.g., Muslims) who believe killing infidels is a virtue. Why should such a Muslim not "be disturbed for his opinions," even though the "manifestation" of his beliefs does indeed "trouble the public order established by the law"?

2. freedom of press:

Déclaration des droits Article XI:

The free communication of [true and false!*] thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty,** in the cases determined by the law.

*Why should one have the freedom to spread falsehoods and lies?
**"[R]espond[ing] to the abuse of this liberty" is exactly what anyone who criticizes the dictatorship of the mainstream media does, yet this Article says they should be silenced! The Liberal press, lead by the Freemasonic philosophes (revolutionary French philosophers like Voltaire), is what instigated the French Revolution in the first place.

These Articles X and XI are combined in the U.S.'s 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, …

These documents are far more tyrannical and revolutionary than the kings and queens (e.g., King Louis XVI and Queen Marie-Antoinette, who the French Revolution guillotined) supposedly were. Yes, there are some good parts of these documents (like real natural rights, etc.), but religious indifferentism (which says beliefs don't matter) and freedom of press (which gives way to a dictatorship of the mainstream media, Hollywood, textbook publishers, et al., who know beliefs do matter and yet inculcate falsehoods) is the "drop of poison in the well."

Government Intervention & True Science

Science is not as objective as those "Blinded by Scientism" may think or those who are "Recovering Sight After Scientism" are beginning to think. What it can understand is limited—either beneficially or not—by its premises and underlying philosophy (Parvus error in principio magnus est in fine.). Government intervention can adversely affect science, too. This is an example of how false premises, philosophies, and government intervention can hurt true science:

In February 2003, Dr. Louise Brinton, the National Cancer Institute's chief of the Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, served as chairperson at an NCI workshop in Bethesda, Md., to assess whether abortion was implicated as a breast cancer risk.

In the opinion of "over 100 of the world's leading experts," said the subsequent NCI report, including Dr. Brinton, the answer was no.

One expert disallowed from participating was Dr. Joel Brind, a biology and endocrinology professor who had co-authored a meta-analysis demonstrating an abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link.

Brind protested that the outcome was predetermined by "experts" handpicked by Dr. Brinton who either were not really experts, were dependent on the NCI or other government agencies for grants, or were pro-abortion extremists, such as two who had previously provided paid "expert" court testimony on behalf of abortionists.

Studies concluding there was not an ABC link were included in the workshop analysis; studies concluding there was were not.

At the time, 29 out of 38 studies conducted worldwide over 40 years showed an increased ABC risk, but the NCI workshop nevertheless concluded it was "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."

Brind went on to write a minority report NCI alludes to on its website without publishing or listing its author and did not even mention in its workshop summary report.

Life went on, except for post-abortive women inflicted with breast cancer anyway.

But six years later something happened. Dr. Brinton either flipped her lid, flipped ideologies, restudied the evidence and decided to recant, or couldn't sleep at night – and she began righting her wrong.

In April 2009, Brinton co-authored a research paper published in the prestigious journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, which concluded that the risk of a particularly deadly form of breast cancer that attacks women under 40 raises 40 percent if a woman has had an abortion.

The paper's subtitle listed Brinton's position at NCI.

Curiously, the paper included as corroboration two studies Brinton's 2003 NCI "experts" had rejected. More curiously, it turns out Brinton co-authored one of those two studies.

For nine months, that little bombshell of a disaster for pro-abortion ideology was published without the NCI acknowledging it or changing its stance.

Then this month, Brind spotted and wrote about Brinton's concession and NCI's hypocrisy.

Now that the mainstream media's interest has been slightly piqued, NCI and Brinton are on the hot seat.

The Globe and Mail, Ontario's liberal news source, wrote Jan. 8:

An e-mail to Dr. Brinton on Friday was returned by an Institute spokesman named Michael Miller who said: "NCI has no comment on this study. Our statement and other information on this issue can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/ere." That link turns up a 2003 document that says a workshop of more than 100 leading experts concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.

Requests for an explanation of the apparent discrepancy between that position and the information contained in the study released last spring went unanswered by NCI. …

[T]rying to prevent abortions by scaring women with breast cancer would truly be wrong. But so too would be suppressing the risks of abortion or any medical procedure.

A blogger at About.com, owned by the New York Times Company, wrote Jan. 8:

… Brinton admits that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40 percent. Brinton spearheaded the 2003 NCI workshop about the abortion-breast cancer link. … That workshop made every effort to assure women that having induced abortions was not linked to an increased risk of breast cancer, and that research did not support an ABC link. Now NCI, usually a trusted institution, is telling us that there is a 40 percent risk increase for women who have had abortions. …

I just wish agencies like the NCI would get their story straight, so we have as much information as possible, to reduce our risk of breast cancer.

Pro-aborts are understandably mum about Brinton's concession. Confirmation of the ABC link would eviscerate public acceptance and participation in abortion. Exposure of a long-term cover-up would eviscerate the savings accounts of abortionists and the abortion industry following lawsuit losses of a magnitude as great as or greater than the class-action lawsuits against tobacco companies.

Only pro-abortion blogger RabbleProChoice dared to consider the ramifications, writing after reading Brind's revelation she was "shaken" after considering "what it could mean for the pro-choice movement." Rabble went on to "spen[d] almost my entire day" looking for reassurance, finding it at the American Cancer Society's website – the 2003 NCI workshop results!

Rabble nonsensically concluded that Brinton's 2009 study was "[j]ust more bad science from the anti-choice media machine."

Rather, it has been, all along, the pro-abortion media machine spewing out bad science to prop abortion.

Finally, someone has thrown a long overdue monkey wrench into the denial machinery.

—Jill Stanek's "Top scientist finally admits abortion-breast cancer link"

Dysfunctional Democracy

A democracy is a "rule by the people" (δῆμος "people" and κράτος "rule") which, allegedly according to Alexander Tytler, goes through the following cycle:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith
2. From spiritual faith to great courage
3. From courage to liberty
4. From liberty to abundance
5. From abundance to complacency
6. From complacency to apathy
7. From apathy to dependence
8. From dependence back into bondage

St. Thomas Aquinas, commenting on Aristotle's Politics III, 8 in In Libros Politicorum Aristotelis Expositio, Lib. III, lect. 5-6., says:

[Pol. III, 6-10: The names of the perverted constitutions.]
[...] They are as follows: The perversion of kingship is called tyranny; the perversion of aristocracy, oligarchy (which means: power of the few); finally democracy (meaning; power of the people, or rather the vulgar mass) is the perversion of that polity in which the many dominate but on the basis of at least one virtue, viz., military bravery. Hence, Aristotle concludes, tyranny is the dominion of one man aiming at his own interest; oligarchy is the dominion of a few aiming at the interest of the rich; democracy is the dominion of many aiming at the interest of the poor. None of these constitutions takes thought for the common good [...]

[Ibid. 8; 1279b 34-1280a 6: The criterion of number is not adequate.]
[After closer examination of these definitions] it appears that, in the case of democracy the large number of the holders of power is an accidental circumstance; and likewise, in the case of oligarchy the small number is merely accidental. For it is nothing but a fact that everywhere there are more poor than rich people. The above mentioned names, therefore, owe their origin [not to a universally valid reason but] simply to a fact which happens to be true in most of the cases. Since, however, a specific differentiation cannot be obtained on the basis of what is merely accidental, it follows that, per se, the distinction between oligarchies and democracies cannot be made in virtue of the larger or smaller number of the rulers. Rather their specific difference results from the difference between poverty and riches. If a regime is ordained to the increase of the possessions of the rich, its very species is determined by this end and it is for this reason that it differs specifically from a regime whose end is liberty, which regime is democracy. Hence, wherever the rich hold political power, no matter whether they are many or few, there will be oligarchy; and wherever the poor hold this power, there will be democracy; and that the latter are many and the former few is nothing but an accidental circumstance. For only a few have riches yet all partake of liberty. This is why both classes fight each other. The few want to dominate for the sake of their possessions and the many want to prevail upon the few since they believe that, by the criterion of liberty, they have just as good a right to political power as the rich.

"Democracy is the dominion of many aiming at the interest of the poor" which does not take "thought for the common good" and "whose end is liberty." What is liberty? If it is freedom from tyranny, then democracy is a self-defeating constitution since it seeks to defeat precisely what it is.

"The criterion of number" is indeed inadequate. Why should, e.g., a 49% to 51% vote on something, say, abortion, determine if it is lawful or true? It could have been a 48% to 52% or even a 10% to 90% vote. The rule by the majority is very arbitrary and implicitly assumes a relativism of truth, i.e., that there is no absolute truth or moral law.

No wonder Pope John Paul II spoke out over 56 times against the war in Iraq, whose goal has been to impose democracy, an intrinsically dysfunctional form of government, on a country not susceptible to it.