How long would a people be content to suffer outrageous violations by their rulers before they do something about it? And if they are so moved to take action, what would they do? Thomas Jefferson pursued that line of reasoning 240 years ago when, in the summer of 1776, he penned these words:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly 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.
The student of American history will recognize this as part of Jefferson’s reasoning in the Declaration of Independence. That was 240 years ago. What application, if any, does it have to Americans in the 21st century? Such a consideration requires some thought as to how the people should respond to a government that appears no longer to be acting in their best interests.
How do we know the United States Government is not acting in the best interests of the people? That is the testimony of Philip Haney, a recently retired Federal law enforcement officer of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Haney’s memoir, See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad, charts the tumultuous ordeal he endured for simply doing his job.