Excessive Government Power

Government is just a collection of individuals. They have roles. They have ambitions. Governments can have many forms but ours is a form that is currently seeking more and more power. Surveillance. Mandatory insurance. Definition of marriage. Mandatory back-doors for security systems and built-in taps for communications systems. Some of it is in the name of saving every sick individual. Some of it is in the name of protecting us from every crime and every enemy. For making the government the un-defeat-able, all-powerful guardian of citizens.

But government is just a collection of individuals. With so much power, it inevitably draws very ambitious individuals to itself. And what if some of these individuals become the enemy of the people, using government power for their personal gain? Who will defeat them?

Do you think it never happens? How do you think dictatorships all over the world past and present come to be? They don't arise by themselves, they are products of ambitious individuals and the governments that preceded them.

We have to change our ethos.

We know that sometimes people behave badly, and regarding crime the government must be the minimum necessary to keep our bad side in check. That's all it should be.

Government should protect every citizens right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, just as our founders wrote in the constitution.

In this role it must simply punish anyone who violates the rights of others. It is not the government's role to prevent crime, although fear of the punishments and some practical measures such as guards may do a lot to deter it.

To get into the business of preventing, rather than punishing, requires a lot more resources. It requires a way to find out what people are doing before they do it. It requires invasion of privacy and it will drive back the threshold of punishable action to merely talk so that trials may be conducted before a person has committed a real crime - a person will be guilty merely of thinking or talking about a crime. That is how crimes will be prevented if we allow it. And we must not allow it. It's not worth the risk to us all. All talk about establishing or guaranteeing security is a smokescreen designed to exploit our human frailties, our fear of violence and death, in order to blind us to what is being done in the name of our safety. It's wicked.

We have to decide that invasion of privacy is a crime, and that the government isn't allowed to invade our privacy in the name of preventing one thing or curing another.

We have to decide that we are willing to risk some safety in order to guarantee freedom. 

We have to decide that our right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness means the right to make decisions and to succeed or fail on our own merits. To be more responsible about our decisions and not to throw our arms up in the air and demand that the government protect us from this or that.

The government should only control what individuals cannot - punishing crimes, regulating the use of the environment in order to preserve it, encouraging research in useful new directions, and the building of infrastructure.

That means no government bail-outs of big companies that failed because they made bad decisions, because that is a wasteful use of everyone's hard-earned tax money. That means no mandatory health insurance, because people should have a choice of how to spend their money. That means no definition of marriage, because that's between individuals and their society.

To be accountable to its role, the individuals who form the government must be fallible. And in order to be fallible they must not possess extreme powers over the people.

Burkas in France

Last year France passed a law that bans the public wearing of full head & body coverings. The law provided for 6 months of announcements of the new law before it takes effect (next month).

Approximately 80% of French citizens support the law.

Amnesty International claims it violates the right to freedom of religion of Muslims in France.

Compared with places like Saudi Arabia, which doesn't even allow Jews to enter the country (actually they backtracked on this after some pressure from the USA but they still don't allow anyone with an Israeli stamp on their passport), and has no tolerance AT ALL for any public appearance or practice that is not Muslim, France is still very, very free.

The burka is just a style of dress, and there are dress codes in every place in the world. I think French citizens have a right to say that in THEIR country they don't want to see people wearing burkas. Maybe it's painful for them because of everything that burkas are associated with. Maybe it's a first step in forcing Arab immigrants to assimilate to French culture instead of living in their own enclaves isolated from society.

And forcing assimilation is not a bad thing - if the immigrants want to live just as they did at home, well, then they should go back home. There's a REASON they immigrated to France. Whatever that reason is (and let's assume it's not to execute a peaceful takeover by simply outpacing the French birthrate) it will be best leveraged by assimilating to the French culture.

And since French people don't wear burkas, the immigrants shouldn't be either - yet they do, and they're isolated, and they're teaching their kids to behave in ways that are contrary to French law, and it's caused a lot of friction with the rest of French society - hence the new law against burkas.

Arabs have countries where they can force all people to behave like Arabs and refuse to allow certain kinds of people to even visit... so they shouldn't complain that the French want people in France to behave like the French.

Amnesty International should respect that.

The biggest lie of modern history is that religion can be completely separate from state and politics.  Religion teaches politics!  Every religion teaches how to behave towards other people. Every religion is based on some ideas of what is best.  And all the religions that I've studied define what is a crime and prescribe some reactions to people who commit crimes. And what do states do? States define crimes and prescribe some reactions to people who commit crimes. Many modern states have values that stem from the dominant religion of the people within the state. Some states acknowledge their values stem from religion, and other states pretend that their "secular" values stand apart from any religion.  Notice that in states that claim to allow freedom of religion, they still prosecute people whose religious practices happen to be a crime in the state. For example: animal sacrifices, honor killings, polygamy, sodomy, child molestation. How is that freedom of religion? It's not - it's tolerance of religion as long as its practice stays within the bounds of the state law.

In France, by the way, young Muslim men have caused quite a lot of trouble. It seems that their religion, as practiced by them, is not very compatible with French law. I remember stories I read a few years ago about young Muslim men in France raping girls who they thought didn't dress conservatively enough. Now, other men in France have raped too, and France has a law against this, and rapists who are caught get punishment. But it's interesting to note that only the young Muslim men actually cited their religion and conservative cultural practices as reasons to rape a girl.  This is what I mean when I say their religion is incompatible with French law.

And that's why it's a good thing that France is passing laws to force Arab immigrants to assimilate. By mixing into society more they are more likely to learn French values and trim their religious practices to the subset that is compatible with French law.

When in France, do as the French do.

I think it's strange that Amnesty International, a group devoted to the defense of freedom of religion and opinion, should choose to defend people adhering to a religion that, when fully adopted by a state, is the source of the most oppressive regimes in world history.

Honesty about Separation of Church and State

I believe that our government favors certain religions. It has values and ideas embedded in it that come from Christianity. Some of these values and ideas were in turn derived from Judaism and that, I believe, is the reason that Jews and Christians get along so well in the United States, along with Hindus and many others. I also believe that, while we claim that we tolerate all religions here, in reality we only tolerate compatible religions. There may be some of us who truly tolerate every religion even if it's to the detriment of our society as a whole, but I believe that most of us do draw a line, even if we aren't aware of it. I believe that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the values and ideas of the United States. However, I also acknowledge that millions of Muslims do live here and the vast majority of them seem to do alright - and in my opinion they only way they are able to conform to American culture is by deviating from their religion.

I believe that to create a government that truly allows freedom of religion, we would have to remove from it some of our core values and beliefs because they are uniquely Jewish and Christian.  I believe that we wouldn't want to have such a government if we were able to attain it. I also believe that we are better off being honest with ourselves about what we do tolerate and announcing to the world that anyone who can conform is welcome, all others beware.

The religious values embedded in our government are exposed by our laws. Murder is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Theft is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Adultery is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Buying alcohol on Sunday is not allowed in some states, and they prescribe punishments. At one time we even had a national prohibition on alcohol with prescribed punishments. These are distinctly religious rules and they favor the values of some people while discriminating against others.  The special and holy day of the week for Jews is Saturday. A Jew should be able to buy alcohol on Sunday, but this is not the case in Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, and more. In some places we have laws prohibiting other kinds of business on Sunday and we pretend that it's for a non-religious purpose. I believe that a comparison of our laws to Christian religious beliefs and practices would show a very strong correlation.  I believe the state of the union is not consistent with our claim to separation between church and state.

If our government truly allowed people of different religions to live their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs, then it would have to allow for completely different sets of laws as well as for laws governing interactions between members of different religions. I think that in order to get this right, it needs an abstract treatment with as few distinctions as possible. I propose the following distinctions: crimes against a person of the same religion, crimes against a person of a different religion, crimes against society or against the environment, violent crimes in each of these categories, non-violent crimes in each of these categories, and victim-less crimes. When I say religion I also mean to include in the discussion people who are atheists or who otherwise wish to set themselves apart from people of any known religion.

When a person from one religion commits a crime against another person of the same religion, should their religion and its institutions be solely responsible for administering punishment according to its own values and sense of justice? Do we all want that kind of autonomy for our own religion? Do we sincerely believe that each religion is a system of government and that they should all be allowed to function as designed in order to bring about some greater good?

If the religious punishment for said crime is murder, can we accept that?  After all, if a person doesn't want to be held accountable to those laws they could convert to another religion. What if the religion has a punishment for converting away from it?

Does geography matter? If a person from one religion commits a crime against another person of the same religion, but this happens in an area dominated by a second religion, should the authorities there apply their own laws? Or the laws of the religion of the criminal and victim? Can we trust people from one religion to apply laws from another religion? I think not, mostly because the legitimization of justice requires people to believe that the administrators are experts in the law. So should the authorities send the criminal to his own people to be tried? There may be several nearby communities of that religion, so how would the local authorities choose to which community they will send the criminal to be tried? Should the local authorities contact the closest religious community of the criminal? Is it possible that community will refuse to accept the criminal for trial? Should the local authorities then try the next possible religious community or should they then try the criminal by their own laws? Should they keep the criminal imprisoned until they find a suitable court?

If a person commits two or more crimes before being caught, and one of them is against another person of the same religion but another is against a person of a different religion, should they be processed in the order they occurred? Or should they be processed in the order of their seriousness? Do we compare the seriousness of the crime or the seriousness of the punishment? Is it possible this order might differ for different religions?

If a person commits a crime against a person of a different religion, which law applies? Should the criminal be tried according his or her own religion or according to the religion of the victim?  Allowing the religion of the victim to handle the crime could be a deterrent against people of a lax religion committing crimes with impunity against people of other religions. In such a system, ignorance of the law cannot ever be an excuse for a crime. People must know the laws of their own religion and, at a minimum, the laws of other religions that could have serious consequences, or else they must tread very carefully. Such a system might encourage a religion to develop very severe punishments in order to deter crimes against its members. Also, it is possible that some religions may have hypocritical laws, where they themselves distinguish between committing a crime against a member of the religion or against a non-member, and between a member of the religion committing a crime and a non-member of the religion committing the crime. If the religion of the victim has hypocritical laws, should the government demand application of the laws as if the criminal was a member of the victim's religion? Or would such hypocritical laws be abandoned in a system of government that already handles inter-religion issues?

What should happen to govern two people of no religion? Should the law should be applied as if they were from two different religions? So if the victim is a member of an atheist organization that is equipped to handle crimes, should the criminal be handed over to them?

Having multiple religious organizations, each with their own infrastructure for handling criminals, may result in a significant waste of resources. It may also allow a sort of denial-of-service attack against minority religions by committing many crimes in a short period of time against members of that religion and then turning over the actor-criminals for handling, overwhelming the judiciary capacity of the minority religion. Having multiple religious organizations handle their own criminal justice systems also means that some religions may be at a significant disadvantage when handling certain kinds of crimes. How would a religion that forbids certain technology or practice handle a crime committed using that technology or practice? They probably wouldn't have the forensic experts to discuss the evidence.

Should the government provide a complete criminal justice system and a national police force that handles temporary imprisonment and allows different religions to supply judges for their own cases?

If we were to change our government to allow such a large degree of autonomy to different religions, would we place limits on what can be considered a religion? If a group of people organize together and declare that they are following the teachings of some person, alive or dead, and create rituals and codes of conduct, and call it by some name, shall they be recognized as a religion and allowed the same autonomy as other religions?

If any of the religions have practices that are barbaric, discriminatory, or inhumane, can we live with that? And by asking this question I'm of course identifying myself as a person who thinks that his own religion is not one of these. It's convenient to say that a person in such a religion living in a free country could just convert or relocate but the reality is that abusive communities tend to have systems in place to keep people in place. And even if the systems themselves didn't force people to stay, as our founding fathers said over 200 years ago, "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed".  If I can't stand idly by, knowing that some people in my own country are being abused in a way prescribed by their own religion, then I cannot support a system of government that allows true freedom of religion.

I think that when we talk about religious freedom we mean freedom within some bounds that are shared by most of us and by the founding fathers (and mothers). And I think that when we talk about religious tolerance we mean tolerance for anything that conforms to our basic values. Anything outside of these bounds might receive lip service when it's at a distance but I think we would not really tolerate it here at home.

I think we should be honest with ourselves and say, our religious beliefs are part of the state and we like it. We think it's good. We prefer our religion to other religions, we prefer our culture to other cultures. We want to keep it the way it is or make it better, in accordance with our beliefs of what better might be. Our beliefs, not others' beliefs.

The way I know that I live in a Christian country is that some states and counties forbid selling alcohol on Sundays, which is a special day for Christians but not for Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or many others. Yet I don't know of any state or county that allows selling only Kosher foods. In our constitution, Article I, Section 7, it is written: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law...".  Sundays excepted - but not Saturdays! Since every 7-day week has a Sunday, any span of 10 days will include at least one Sunday and some spans will include two Sundays. Therefore, could not the founding fathers have simply said that the President has 12 days to sign a bill? They could have, but they were Christian, so it didn't occur to them. I do acknowledge some religious freedom, such as not being forced to go to church, and a very religiously permissive and accommodating environment in many schools across the country. So I am happy to say that I live in a free country, with our own special definition of free, and a tolerant country, so long as as I live within the bounds of the dominant culture.

I may prefer increased separation of church and state, and I may prefer more honesty about what we really do here, but I think I would not like for any religious group to have complete autonomy here. It's better for the world to be divided up for that sort of thing. Each land should have only one set of laws. I  believe that these laws should be the minimum required for people to get along. In a country that claims separation of church and state, that minimum must be carefully considered.

We have our own set of values, American values. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Equal opportunity and treatment before the law based on merits, evidence, and without shallow discrimination on race, gender, religion, or age. Due process for justice. Safety. Privacy. Our sense of liberty has evolved since the writing of the Constitution - it used to mean just white people, now it means everyone. Our sense of equal opportunity has evolved - it used to mean just men, now it applies to men and women.

I think that we should have courage and say that anyone who shares our values and abides by our laws is welcome, and all others must find a home elsewhere in the world or face the consequences of breaking our laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. And I hope that our sense of separation of church and state will evolve - from limited separation to greater separation, to mean that we will secularize or abolish national laws that are specific to Christianity, keeping our American values and system of government separate from Christianity's specific beliefs and practices.

More ranting about the TSA

Not flying until the TSA is gone. I won't subject myself or my family to scanners and gropers. I planned a trip to Hawaii next summer - we're taking a cruise to Hawaii instead of flying. And next time I visit my sister across the country, I'm going to take a train instead of flying. The TSA doesn't make me feel safe, it makes me feel like I'm suspicious.

It makes me angry that I, a patriot, can sit in an armchair and list dozens of ways to carry out terrorist attacks that the TSA and Homeland Security aren't prepared to stop. Some of these have already been done in other countries and some are uniquely possible in the United States because of the way TSA does business. I'm thankful that the terrorists haven't figured these out yet, and I'm concerned about what will happen when they do - not about the damage they'll cause, but about the reaction of our government.

I'm angry at my own government today more than I was angry at the terrorists on 9/11. The terrorists killed thousands and it could have stopped at that. But my government embraced the "terror" and proceeded to violate the rights of millions. The terrorists won - they caused massive change in America by murdering only a few thousand innocent people. Or worse, the terrorists didn't strike fear into anyone but our politicians reacted to it anyway.

If we are going to remain the land of the free, we need to start acting like it again. We must abolish the TSA and put all of its proponents on trial for TREASON against the Constitution of the United States. Then we must employ a sensible, libertarian strategy for defending our country.

We need to educate everyone about personal responsibilities of every American.

We need to outlaw outrageous liability damages in courts so as to make it reasonable to help each other again. Americans with good intentions should not be afraid of frivolous lawsuits.

We need to award medals to Americans who display courage and bravery in the face of danger or even death, who try to protect their fellow Americans. Freedom and security isn't something we can abdicate and let the government handle exclusively.

We must educate everyone that complete security is a myth. Practicing security is just creating obstacles, barriers, and alarms against our enemy so that we can have a warning that an attack is coming. If our enemy is concerned about his life and doesn't have a good enough plan or enough resources to overcome our security practices, then we have effective deterrent. We must acknowledge that an enemy with a good plan and enough resources, or with no consideration for his own life, can overcome today's security. It's a risk that cannot be eliminated.

America is the land of the free, not the land of the secure, or the privileged, or the terrorized. All are welcome here, but we must not cater to them. We must learn to recognize their voices in the public debate and ignore them. We must learn to recognize their voices in our legislature and vote against them. We must learn to recognize their voices in the executive branch and fire them. We must learn to recognize their voices on the judicial bench and ridicule and embarrass them to resignation.

Abolish the TSA.
We Won't Fly.
Bruce Schneier's blog.

Bay area highway toll booths

The Benicia bridge has a toll booth for the northbound traffic. It used to be $4 and a few months ago it was increased to $5.

There's a sign that identifies the last exit before the tollbooth but it doesn't say how much the toll is. When a driver gets to the tollbooth accepted payments are "fastrak" or cash only - and there's no legal way to turn around.

On another bridge on the way to San Francisco there's another tollbooth that costs $4. That one has a sign identifying the last exit. And it has a sign announcing the toll AFTER the last exit, on the LEFT shoulder that was already marked "fastrak" - in other words, it's useless.

Since there is no legal way to turn around once a driver arrives at the tollbooth, there must be a prominent sign BEFORE the last exit announcing what the toll is and identifying the last exit.

It's simple and inexpensive and it's the right thing to do.

TSA's Obscene Security Procedures (Part 2)

"It's important to remember that TSA screens nearly 2 million passengers daily and that very few passengers are required to receive a pat-down," according to a post on the TSA Blog.


Right - so it's also important to remember that the United States has nearly 300 million people living in it and very few of them are victims of sex crimes outside airports. Does that make it ok?  NO.


What are we going to do when the next terrorist puts some explosives in his rectum? Mandatory cavity searches?  And how much explosives does it take to do some damage? And can a terrorist use something other than explosives to do something spectacular with an airplane that we won't like? Prosthetic limbs? Drugs? There will always be a weakness. It's impossible to have perfect security. Can we prevent a pilot from becoming radicalized? Can we prevent an unknown radical from becoming a pilot? No. 


But there are a lot of common-sense security measures we CAN take that don't require violating the personal privacy of all airline passengers. And many counter-measures can be implemented outside airports to improve the overall security of the country.


Why the big focus on airplanes? Did we get scared on 11 Sep 2001? Nearly 3,000 people died from that attack. But tens of thousands of people die from car accidents every year, and we're not doing body cavity searches for all the drivers on the road to make sure they're paying attention and not under the influence of any drugs. And there are terrorists on the roads, too, because that's how they get to the airport security station! Are we going to strip-search and grope drivers on the roads? No. 


I'm very sorry for the victims of that attack and for their families. I still remember the surrealism and then the anger I felt when I saw the news that morning. If someone in my family had been in that building, I still wouldn't be advocating for what the TSA is doing now. I'd be advocating for real security measures and real foreign policy changes that can actually improve our national well-being. 


When the terrorists used weapons to take over the plane, the TSA tightened the screening for weapons going as far as confiscating nail clippers from people. Then a terrorist tried to use explosives stuffed in his underwear, and now the TSA is buying expensive imaging machines and groping people to make sure there's nothing in their underwear. What will the TSA do when the next terrorist manages to sneak something dangerous on board the airplane by stowing it in his rectum?  Their procedure is sure to cause more delays in security, right? How many people wait in that security line in major airports? A lot, right? So if we make it impossible to sneak anything dangerous onto the airplane, the next step will be for a terrorist to wear a full-fledged modern suicide vest and blow up everyone at the security line! And all the nude scanning and groping will have been for nothing. 


I'm not at all willing to be groped for "security reasons" when I travel. Maybe if the government allowed a segregation so people can choose whether they want to fly with a groping airline or a non-groping airline, and people had a choice, then I would be willing to accept that other people choose to be groped in exchange for their security while I and other like-minded Americans fly on the grope-free airline. But since the choice is to fly and be groped or not fly at all, I'm going to exercise what liberty I have left and choose not to fly until the airports become civilized again.

TSA's Obscene Security Procedures

It's been in the news the past few days that the TSA is adding a body scanner that basically shows the person without clothes. Airline passengers who don't want to be scanned in that way have to be groped. Kids aren't exempt from the scanning or the groping.

The level of paranoia was already ridiculous a few years ago - now it's beyond belief.

Doesn't the Department of Homeland Security know that there are hundreds of thousands of other targets that terrorists could attack?  Doesn't the DHS know that in other countries terrorists also blow up busses, night clubs, hotels, and government offices? Doesn't the DHS know that most Americans aren't out to get us? Doesn't the DHS know that states like California actually made it ILLEGAL for a landlord to demand verification of citizenship or legal alien status from tenants?

Real security experts agree that what the DHS is doing isn't really security, it's a facade of security. Someone coined the term "security theater" and I think that aptly describes what is going on. I don't feel any safer on an airplane now than I did the day after 9/11 or the day before 9/11.  So from now on I'm going to refer to the DHS as the DHS(Theater) or DHS(T).

Even if terrorists are plotting to hijack another airplane, I prefer to have armed guards on each flight than to be photographed nude or groped, since, of course, I'm not a terrorist.  

And by the way, those body scans ARE photographs. The image isn't "saved" or "printed" but it's still a photograph by definition. And since the person being photographed appears without clothes, they are nude photographs.

The terrorists are winning because, in a sort of blind collaboration with our own idiot politicians, they caused us to STAY in Afghanistan and to STAY in Iraq long past achieving our objectives in those places.  Because of the terrorists we created a Department of Homeland Security, even though we already have a Department of Defense, and we are allowing this new DHS(T) to actually terrorize Americans. A DHS(T) spokesperson is always saying "the threat is real" and so on. And we keep stripping off more clothes and getting groped in more places at airports.

I've been planning a family vacation to Hawaii in 2012 with my wife. When I heard about these new rules I talked to her and we agreed that instead of flying to Hawaii, we will take a cruise ship. We will drive 6 to 8 hours from our home to a port and then take a ship to Hawaii so we can avoid being violated at the airport. We will pay more for that vacation to avoid being violated at the airport.

And if we want to take another vacation to South America, or Europe, then we'll take a train to Canada or Mexico and then fly from there.

I think that a good defense should start with kicking out people we know aren't allowed to be here. Then it should continue with barring any rich Arabs from sending their kids here to college, and not sending any more aid to countries we know harbor our enemies.  Everyone should be aware of their surroundings and everyone should watch for suspicious individuals. Citizens should be allowed to carry weapons onto the airplanes with a special "airborne weapon license" that can be issued after some mandatory safety training and a fee. The more we know, and the more capable we are, the safer we are. When we abrogate our basic personal responsibility for our own safety, when we suspect everyone equally, when we allow the government to violate us so, we become sheep. When enough of us have become sheep it will be hard to convince the masses that we should go back to being people again.

We should REQUIRE landlords - anyone who leases or subleases a home - in every state to check the citizenship or legal immigrant status of their tenants. We should REQUIRE home sellers to check the citizenship or legal immigrant status of their buyers. And really that responsibility will fall on the licensed real estate agent, the bank loan officer, and the county clerk who records the transfer. Each one must check in case the others were taken out of the loop for some reason.  I know that even if we required that there would be a number of landlords or sellers/agents/bankers who don't check. But that will still make it easier for the INS to find the illegal residents.

We should REQUIRE law enforcement to immediately detain and deport any person who is proven to be here illegally.  We can offer a work program where anyone who wants to immigrate to the country can serve the country in some way - building roads and bridges, landscaping, or any other feasible job - while learning English and the American culture. After a certain amount of work, and after passing an English reading and conversation test, and after passing a written citizenship test, the immigrant would then be granted citizenship and could stay here freely.

We should REQUIRE all boys and girls of at least 18 years of age who have either finished high school or dropped out to serve the country in some way. Mix everyone up and give them different jobs so they meet other Americans from the rest of the country and they can work together and do something good as equals without segregation of any kind.

We should REQUIRE all high school students to be educated about government services available to them and about the importance of informed voting and where they can address their grievances and who they can turn to when they have problems.

We should REQUIRE transparency in all levels of government to eliminate corruption and rebuild trust with all Americans.

These steps would drastically reduce the chance that any American would become a terrorist. And that leaves only foreign terrorists as the ones to photograph nude and grope. And we can do away with the DHS(T), completely disband that organization, and let the Department of Defense perform its work of defending the constitution.