Shortly after we learned about the Pentagon being hit the school forced us to turn off the TVs and “go about our normal business.” This infuriated me. This was my country that was under attack. This was my new reality. Yesterday’s “business as normal” was not normal any more. I could not believe that the school administrators thought that we were so immature that we shouldn’t know about what was happening to our country.

After school I went home and attended my mom’s home school English class and LaDawn Jacob’s history class. The class was full of very patriotic young men and women and we spent the whole 3 hours watching the news and talking about what this meant for our country. I remember standing on the front porch with some of the guys and talking about the possibility of our having to change our life plans and having to go to war.

That evening I had to go to work. I worked at a fast food place where business was dead the whole night. Only one gentleman came in, and I talked to him for half an hour. He was an old cowboy from Lehi, Utah, and had seen a lot in his life. He talked about how shocked and angry he was and how he wanted to get revenge on the terrorists.

As the images and stories of heroism surfaced over the next few weeks, I was touched by the greatness of the American people. I respect and honor the firefighters and police officers that risked and gave their lives for those that had been directly attacked. They are examples of the unconquerable Spirit of America and of the courage and bravery of our people.

That day ten years ago changed my life and my world forever. I had grown up with a great pride for America and with the belief that this country was founded by God and that God watched over the welfare of this country. I still hold to that belief. I believe that America is a land favored by God and that He will protect us. My religious belief teaches that God established this country as a place where people would have freedom.

“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. . .  That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” — D&C 101:80

While I mourn and commemorate the events of September 11th, 2001, I also fear that our country has moved itself from this fundamental role of protecting freedom. We have worked so hard at making ourselves safe that we have lost the freedom that our forbears sacrificed and gave their all to build. We don’t want to see airplanes become weapons again, and so we have voluntarily given up our privacy to what once would be considered an unlawful search at airport security checkpoints. We want so badly to catch terrorists that we allow the government to monitor our phone and other conversations without a warrant. We are so afraid of Muslim extremism that we have sometimes denied basic religious freedom to our Muslim brothers and sisters here at home. These and other examples should concern all freedom-loving Americans and cause us to reflect on the cost of this increased “safety.” Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as having said,

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Our founding fathers pledged to each other their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in pursuit of freedom from oppression and tyranny. As we strive to increase our security and safety, we must remember that freedom is paramount. As we remember this anniversary, let us pledge and commit ourselves to not only fight terrorism and tyranny where we find it but also to strive to protect freedom and liberty here. Let us retain the greatness that we have enjoyed by continuing in the goodness upon which we were founded.

One of the motivating factors of the liberal agenda, especially as manifest in ObamaCare, is a fundamental lack of trust in the American people.  The liberal agenda assumes that a few elite elected officials in their offices in Washington know better what is good for the American people than the American people do.  This assumption fundamentally means that our government doesn’t trust us to solve our own problems but assumes that they have all the answers.

ObamaCare claims to address many problems that do exist in the health insurance system.  It claims to “make insurance more affordable,” to “set up a new competitive health insurance market,” and to “bring greater accountability to health care” (whitehouse.gov).  Most of the American people would agree that these are worthy goals and that these ends should indeed be achieved to fix our current health care system. The trouble isn’t that the goals are wrong but that they are being addressed by government!  The liberal establishment in government asks us to trust them that they know what is right.  The goals of health care reform, however, can be much more efficiently achieved by leaving these problems and their solutions to the people.  Leave the money in the hands of the people and allow them to address their own problems.

Ronald Reagan addressed this lack of trust when he said, “‘Trust me’ government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. But my view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The trust is where it belongs-in the people. The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs, in their elected leaders. That kind of relationship, between the people and their elected leaders, is a special kind of compact” (July 17, 1980).

As Reagan stated, our government today needs to return the trust to the people. The values that Reagan spoke of that “transcend persons and parties” are the values that were fundamental to the founding of our country.  These values are those of Life, Liberty, and Property. We trust our elected leaders to preserve these values — we also trust them to never encroach on these values.  In this election year candidates for office should remember that the American people trust them only to the extent that they trust the American people.  The role of government is not to increase itself, but to protect the liberties of those who are its creators — the people.

I welcome your comments and discussion.

First I think it is a gesture of no confidence in the ability of American’s to fix their own problems. The CEO may have been corrupt, he may have been unwise, it may be a good thing to have him gone from the company but it is not the federal government’s job to remove him. Why, you may ask, is it not within the realm of the government to do this? It’s quite simple actually. If you or I do not like the owner of the local grocery store because he sells things at an inflated cost and simply doesn’t do business as well as the new store down the street, we have no right to march down to the store and force him to leave his job. That would be preposterous. We simply would never do that. Why then do we feel that it is our job to fix the auto industry. If they can’t compete, let them die.

Second, I think it shows arrogance on the part of the government–the entire government. Not only the president is to blame, nor can we pin the blame on one party or the other. Why does the government assume that simply because they are in a position of power that they have the ability to direct the affairs of industry. They may think that they have good ideas and their rhetoric may sound good on television and in the news, but that does not qualify them to spend our money because we want to avoid the penalties of our own actions.

As I’ve written before, this whole thing smacks of extreme socialism leading toward the moster of comunism. This administration ran on a platform of change. Well that is not a new thing. Others have run on that platform before and society has been damaged greatly by the radical changes misguided leaders have made.

“I have talked face to face with the godless communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Kruschev for a half day when he visited the United States, not that I’m proud of it. I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But, according to President Eisenhower, Kruschev had expressed a desire to learn something of American Agriculture and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why. As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom he arrogantly declared in substance:

‘You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.’”

– Ezra T Benson,Our Immediate Responsibility. BYU Devotional, October 25, 1966.

In America we have come to think of the word prejudice as an evil word. We think that because society is prejudiced against someone that that person is by definition being wronged. This is a flawed view. For example, it could be said that I am prejudiced against murderers. I feel it is just for society to take from them their God-given rights to life, liberty, and property. I feel the same way about those who steal, are dishonest in business dealings, etc. Why am I prejudiced against these types of people? Because their choices harm the public good and can harm me personally. The same principle applies to the issues of providing marriage to gay and lesbian couples. Society can rightfully be prejudiced against these people in depriving them of the privilege to marry because in so doing society protects its own good and its own strength. The argument that we are prejudiced against a particular demographic is not sufficient reason to grant them rights or to forbear taking those rights and privileges from them.

The Times further reported that “The lawyer, Shannon Minter, the legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, argued that if the court upheld Proposition 8, same-sex couples would have ‘our outsider status enshrined in our Constitution.’ The right to marry, he said, was inalienable.”

This is simply not true. In simple fact, there is no inalienable “right to marry” given to any citizen of the United States. Marriage is rather a privilege that can be attained by citizens who are willing to live up to the social responsibility and obligations that come along with marriage.