Knowing What We Can’t Not Know

41C9plab+FL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_In a world where baby body parts are bought and sold and marriage has been redefined, it is urgent that we reaffirm that there are certain broad, moral truths that we can’t not know. It needs to be said and proclaimed. We all know that one should not murder. We all know that one should not steal or lie. These are all written on the human heart to the point that they cannot be blotted out. In other words, there are no excuses for not knowing. Many people may live in denial of these truths, but they nevertheless perceive the objects of their denial.

In this sense, Prof. J. Budziszewski’s book, What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide, is a refreshing oasis in a postmodern desert. This extremely logical and compelling work on natural law provides a much-needed refutation of the current assumption that moral truth is relative and even unobtainable.

Filial Petition to Pope Francis to Save the Family — Sign Here

His central thesis is very clear: there is an unchangeable and universal moral code based on human nature that everyone generally knows. This set of moral truths, called natural law, is “a universal possession, an emblem of a rational mind, an heirloom of the family of man.”

Formulations of this natural law have appeared in every culture, among all peoples and in all epochs. By far the most well known is the Ten Commandments, which succinctly summarizes those self-evident moral truths that should govern human action.

Unlike mutilated natural law theories from the Enlightenment, Prof. Budziszewski takes a classical and Thomistic natural law perspective that embraces as a given the existence of a Creator and the need to give Him honor. He masterfully demonstrates this by calling up what he terms the “witnesses” of natural law: “deep conscience, the witness of design as such, the witness of our own design, and the witness of natural consequences.” The result is a spectacular intellectual artifice of crystalline logic and clarity.

However, this book is not a theoretic exposition of some ideal law that has little to do with the modern world. Quite the contrary, the author actually explains the present moral crisis through the prism of natural law. He answers the obvious question: Why do so many appear not to know that which they can’t not know?

Subscription11To answer this question, the author does not claim we all have an innate, detailed, and precise vision of natural law. He only says that we all have a general knowledge of basic moral truths. This knowledge requires constant development and nurturing. We must find the applications and reach the conclusions of this primary knowledge with the help of faith, tradition, culture, institutions, and moral education.

The problem with the modern world is that we have taken away so many of those institutions and means that normally help people apply natural law well. Moreover, we have adopted so many mechanisms of denial, sin, rejection, rationalization and “just plain bad living” that make living according to natural law onerous.

As a result, many fail to live inside natural law and are in denial of it. However, this denial only proves its existence since when we fail to live in accordance to our nature and design, we pay the price of misery and disaster. Driven by the guilt from our consciences, we are indicted and punished by what the author calls the “Five Furies” of remorse, confession, atonement, reconciliation, and justification. These avenging modes of conscience are “inflexible, inexorable and relentless, demanding satisfaction.”

In a world where we are told we can know nothing, we need to be told what we can’t not know. The merit of What We Can’t Not Know is that it does this so well, and in so doing perfectly describes where we went wrong in our rebellious culture. For those who are seeking a return to order, this book is one that we shouldn’t not read.

As seen on

How Our Sense of Place Was Lost

Sunset_11The modern mania for movement and change contributes to an unsettled state of mind that manifests itself in a generalized loss of the sense of place. Facilitated by technology, Americans have become a restless people constantly on the move inside this rushed pace of life. We have become a nation of strangers without anchorage in a place and disconnected from community. In the expressive words of Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, we have built a vast network of nameless or numbered viaducts and bridges that become “anonymous passages for anonymous people to go to unknown places.”[1]

As a result, this mobility tends to make all places appear the same. As Richard Weaver notes, our ability to travel anywhere at any time on these “anonymous passages” diminishes “the separateness of places” that were once protected and appeared different because of their “isolation, privacy and . . . identity.”[2]

In fact, our electronic networks have now contributed to this destruction of place to such a point that it no longer matters where we are inserted into what has been so aptly called the lonely—and now so virtual—crowd.[3] In our networked society, one can work, live, and communicate anywhere. A public place like an airport or city park is “no longer a communal space but a place of social collection: people come together but do not speak to each other. Each is tethered to a mobile device and to the people and places to which that device serves as a portal.”[4]

Granted, our technologies do facilitate our contact with others at great convenience and over great distances. Nevertheless, they can also encourage making our messages more superficial by increasing their volume, brevity, and speed. While instant connectivity can supplement personal relationships, it can also make them more distant when mediated and hidden behind a screen or in short text messages. The very real danger is allowing these technologies to replace the face-to-face contacts and sense of community that make place so important in our lives.

When we allow our instant communications to uproot the anchors of place in us, we lose more than just physical location. We lose the stage for our relationships within our communities, the locus of legend and myth, and the place where our lives gain context and meaning. The result is a world that, to use the harsh words of Charles Reich, “has obliterated place, locality and neighborhood, and given us the anonymous separateness of our existence.”[5]

Excerpt from the book, Return to Order.

[1] See Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, MNF meeting, Aug. 21, 1986, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira Documents, American TFP Research Library, Spring Grove, Pa. (This collection consists of transcribed audio recordings and is hereafter cited as Corrêa de Oliveira Documents. All references are TFP translations.) Twentieth century urban planners like Le Corbusier conceived of a new street which would become a “machine for traffic” where the pedestrian could not obstruct traffic flow. By making it easier to get out of the city, the planners built the highways which inadvertently helped turn the cities into empty shells of themselves and sent people into the suburbs.

[2] Richard Weaver, Visions of Order: The Cultural Crisis of Our Time (Wilmington, Del.: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995), p. 37.

[3] Cf. David Riesman, Nathan Glazer and Reuel Denney, The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character (New Haven.: Yale University Press, 1989).

[4] Sherry Turkle, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (New York: Basic Books, 2011), p. 155.

[5] Charles A. Reich, The Greening of America (New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1970), p. 7.

Why Advertising Fails to Satisfy Us

advertising_FailsWe can never satisfy all of our desires because everyday reality constantly presents obstacles that must be overcome. As a result, everyone knows that we must adjust our desires to reality, rather than the other way around.

Advertising fails because it refuses to acknowledge the trials of this life and the reality of tragic outcomes. It introduces us to a world of unreality that ends up frustrating us. As sociologist Richard Stivers explains: “Advertising does not promote adjustment but rather unlimited desire and unlimited aspirations in regard to consumption. The mythological world of advertising and the mass media, as we have seen, is a utopian one in which our unlimited desires are perfectly fulfilled” (Richard Stivers, The Culture of Cynicism: American Morality in Decline, Blackwell, Cambridge, Mass., 1994, p. 67).

Five Ways the Same-Sex “Marriage” Movement Has Failed

Can You Force People to Sin?

“despite the narrow 5-4 victory, the issue is far from settled.”

The Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” took place with predictable media fanfare. There were endless scenes of jubilant promoters, doting commentators and kowtowing politicians. Everything was done to give the impression that the issue is finally settled.

Uphold Marriage and the Family; Uphold Society: Sign the Return to Order Petition

However, despite the narrow 5-4 victory, the issue is far from settled. People across the country are upset not only because of the actual decision itself but also because of the strong-armed manner in which it was carried out. As it now stands, the ruling leaves the country more divided than ever.

The ideal for the movement would have been if all America had been on board. In this sense, the same-sex “marriage” movement has failed in five important ways.

Liberals Do Not Value the Votes of Americans
It became evident that votes no longer matter to liberals in America. The movement unmasked itself by abandoning any pretense that acceptance was in any way democratic. Instead, the matter was put in the hands of all powerful courts to get the “right” decisions. Federal court rulings prepared the ground by trampling upon state constitutional amendments and nullifying the votes of tens of millions of Americans. After railroading same-sex “marriage” upon states that had successfully apposed it, the Supreme Court finished the job with its ruling.

Failed to Frame as Civil Rights Issue
The failure was particularly evident in the African-American community which largely opposed any efforts to equate the homosexual movement with the civil rights movement of the sixties. Moreover, the African-American community, especially its religious leaders, opposed same-sex “marriage” on a grand scale on moral grounds.

Forced From The Top
There was evident use of enormous pressure to force through the same-sex marriage agenda. Every stop was pulled out to belittle those who oppose same-sex marriage. Far from being a movement of the “people,” this was a top-down campaign that counted on the full weight of big government, big media and big business to push its agenda forward.

Alienated Supporters
The movement failed yet again by disenchanting countless Americans by its forced free subscriptionpoliticization of everything from chicken sandwiches to Facebook posts to pizza weddings. Everything had to have a homosexual angle attached to it and those who did not conform to politically correct norms could face harassment or boycotts. Pro-marriage advocates soon found that tolerance was a one way street.

However, such strong-arm tactics often resulted in spectacular failures as when Chick-fil-A’s pro-family position led to record sales in support. Other times however, florist shops and bakeries have been fined and shut down—something rarely seen on America’s shores.

Strengthening The Opposition
Perhaps the movement’s biggest failure was its inability to discourage its opposition by the overwhelming magnitude of its massive propaganda machine. Ironically, it has only strengthened the resolve of pro-family activists who now see they cannot depend on human solutions but need now confide only in God. Indeed, two weeks before the Supreme Court decision, for example, Americans nationwide gathered for 3,265 prayer rallies in the public square calling upon God’s aid in defense of traditional marriage.

The bottom line is that the pro-homosexual movement has managed to win an important battle with the Supreme Court decision, but it has failed to win the hearts and souls of all Americans. To the contrary, the brutal ram rodding of same-sex marriage upon the nation has only alienated many who feel completely disregarded by the political process and has put them in the hands of a powerful and almighty God. Like Roe v. Wade before it, Obergefell v. Hodges is an unsettling law.

We Are by Nature Dependent Upon Others

We_are_naturaly_dependent_on_othersSuch dependency is an important part of our personal development since we cannot perfect ourselves alone. We depend on community—especially the family, intermediary associations, and the Christian State—to supply our deficiencies and thus reach the perfection of our essentially social nature. So important is community that Heinrich A. Rommen emphatically writes, “Any kind of seclusion from the fullness of community life ultimately means for the individual a personal loss, a self-mutilation, an atrophy, a defect in self-realization.”1

Is Technology Ruining Your Life? Take A Quick Quiz To Find Out By Clicking Here.

Thus, we are by nature dependent. As medieval English writer Ralph of Acton notes, “When God could have made all men strong, wise, and rich, He was unwilling to do so. He wished instead that these men should be strong, those weak; these wise, those foolish; these rich and those poor. For if all were strong, wise and wealthy, one would not be in need of the other.”2

Finding the Balance
Such a concept differs greatly from that of the individualist man whose autonomy prevents him from recognizing his natural limits and the weaknesses of his fallen nature. He is a self-made man beholden to no other. This is well expressed in the ravings of Jean-Paul Sartre, who wrote that “no man should have to be dependent on another man.”3 Ironically, this same “autonomous” man is totally dependent, not on men, but on the modern interdependent systems into which he is inserted.

An Excerpt from the book, Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society—Where We’ve Been, How We Got Here, and Where We Need to Go.



1 Rommen, State in Catholic Thought, 136-137.

2 G. R. Owst, Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England: A Neglected Chapter in the History of English Letters & of the English People, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1961), 561.

3 Braudel, The Wheels of Commerce, vol. 2 of Civilization and Capitalism 15th-18th Century, 514.

Liberals Rejoice the Triumph of Unreality – The ‘Jennerization’ of America

Liberals Rejoice the Triumph of Unreality – The ‘Jennerization’ of America

“the Bruce Jennerization of law or the triumph of unreality.”

One thing is clear about the Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex “marriage.” It was not only about marriage. Rather it was about what might be called the Bruce Jennerization of law or the triumph of unreality.

Uphold Marriage and the Family; Uphold Society: Sign the Return to Order Petition

In the case of the Olympic superstar, a biological reality was turned into a legal fiction. While artificially made to look like a person of the opposite sex, the fact did not change the reality of his male biological makeup. However, that did not stop media from celebrating the fantasy by featuring the 65-year-old athlete’s sensual image on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.

In the same way, the biological reality of the union of a man and woman which is the foundation of marriage was Jennerized into a legal fiction by the Supreme Court justices. There is no way one can equate an artificial and sterile union with the fruitful and complementary union of marriage. Nevertheless, the media pulled out all the stops in celebrating this new unreality railroaded into law by judicial fiat.

What happened with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision at the Supreme Court on that fateful June 26 morning was not a redefinition of marriage but rather a declaration that it can now be whatever one wants it to be. And it makes sense. Once marriage is reduced to mere affection and denied its primary function of natural procreation, there is no fantasy that cannot be labeled as marriage. Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority decision insinuated that same-sex “marriage” is but the latest manifestation of evolving liberty. As time progresses, new manifestations will appear that are presently unknown and future decisions will ratify.

No one has any illusions that the decision is the end of the process. Some giddy activists themselves are already mobilizing, asking why marriage must be limited to merely two. Others speak of incest and pedophilia. And while not all homosexual advocates support these claims, the door is open. The internal logic of the Court’s decision will usher in yet more claims as new “genders” already gather to add their own letters to the LGBTQ alphabet soup and demand justice. The final goal is to legalize and legitimize any consensual sexual relationship and destroy all notions of “sexual identity” which gender theorists see as a mere social construct that restricts personal freedom.

Such opinions would be harmless if they were to stay in the realm of opinions. Dissenting traditionalists might then think they could isolate themselves from the madness and adopt a live and let live attitude. However, that is not what happens. Some homosexual activists are already saying the decision will facilitate the beginning of new anti-discrimination and hate crime measures to force the acceptance and embracing of Jennerized marriage.

Such a perspective does not bode well for the nation. When nature, truth and reality no free subscriptionlonger are considered as basis for law, there can be no unified order for society to function and prosper. Each person becomes a law unto himself built upon any self-identified legal fiction. The only rule left will be that there can be no moral code or rules to restrict personal behavior, even when self-destructive. The only crime is to declare that another’s personal fantasy is wrong or sinful. When all live their own fantasies, there is only one position that cannot be tolerated and that is the position of those who defend reality and truth. These become the victims of vitriol, hatred and even persecution. And that is the danger of this new Jennerized era.

As seen on

The Gambler: Symbol of Frenetic Intemperance

GamblerIf there is a figure that represents the idea of an economy out of balance, that character is the gambler. The gambler is someone who must satisfy his passions instantly, regardless of the consequences. He is frenetically intemperate to the point of disregarding reality.

Matthew Crawford in his book, The World Beyond Your Head, gives a startling report on what happens in the gambler’s world and how the gambling establishment cultivates intemperate behaviors.

He reports that gamblers will frequently stand eight or even twelve hours at a time in front of a slot machine. They will stay even to the point of developing blood clots or other serious conditions. He writes:

“Paramedics in Las Vegas dread getting calls from casinos, which usually turn out to be heart attacks. The problem is that when someone collapses, the other gamblers won’t get out of the way to let the paramedics do their job; they won’t leave their machines. Deafening fire alarms are similarly ignored; there have been incidents when rising flood waters didn’t dislodge them.”

In addition, the gambling establishments do everything possible to keep gamblers on the casino floor, even employing technology to track behavior. Crawford reports that some casinos have facial recognition software that records the habits of frequent gamblers. When such a gambler heads for exits, his favorite slot machines will call out his name asking him to return.


‘Joseph ‘Joe’ Cada” by flipchip is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0


The Democrats’ Train to Nowhere

Democrat_Road_to_NowhereA conservative friend of mine was looking at the political and moral horizon and complained that he thought all was lost. He sought in vain for signs of hope and asked if there might be something, however small, that would serve as an indicator that the conservative cause has a future.

He no doubt felt the impact of liberal media that have long reported on the coming demise of the conservative movement by magnifying the internal struggles that frequently take place inside its ranks. The media also like to convey the idea that it is senseless to oppose the liberal agenda which they claim is on the winning side of history.

The problem is that many conservatives like my friend are so absorbed by our own misfortunes that they often fail to see any other facet of the struggle. My friend’s despairing analysis of the situation curiously took place last mid-November.

Had he looked just a little farther, he would have spotted a train wreck of massive proportions on the other side of the political divide. The Democrats had just suffered one of their greatest electoral defeats since the 1920’s. Rising from the smoldering ruins could be found a new Republican-dominated Senate and a House with a strengthened majority of 247 of the chamber’s 435 seats. Only 18 Democratic governors remained in power and most statehouses remained overwhelmingly in the hands of the Republicans. The electoral map revealed patches of blue in a vast sea of red.

If my friend was looking for a sign, this was a big one with flashing neon-lights that even now shines for all to see. He could have read on this sign that the left’s plight is arguably worse than that of the right.

In fact, that is the message now appearing among the liberals. Apart from a strong presidential candidate that has some traction, the sub-presidential fields all look bleak with people using terms like “free fall” and “dire.” The New York Times Magazine (May 12, 2015) pretty much opened up the game with a long feature article by Robert Draper titled “The Great Democratic Crack-Up of 2016.” The story amply documented the fact that the liberal cause is floundering and unfocused—and they do not know what to do about it.

Draper shows how shifts by Democrats to the extreme left and to the center have both failed to produce consistent results. The solution must entail much more than merely tweaking their message. The problem, he claims, is that the Democrats have managed to adopt “a party brand that has come to be viewed in much of America with abiding disfavor.”

Subscription5.2Three reasons can be given to explain why the liberals are in trouble.

The first reason is that the Democrats have lost the heartland. They have abandoned those notions of family, faith and community that so many hold dear, and are so much a part of our national consensus, identity and narrative. Liberals have lost ground because they have come to resent the idea of self-restraint and thus scorn the heartland’s spiritual, religious, moral, and cultural values that normally serve to establish order and temper economic activity.

Secondly, liberals have increasingly embraced the post-modern wasteland. They are absorbed by what might be called the frenetic intemperance of our days where everyone must have everything instantly, effortlessly and often with taxpayer’s money. They have adopted an extreme individualism where they believe each is completely free to construct an eternally new self, complete with new genders and new identities. Reality becomes whatever each determines it to be, and big government is the enabling power that is supposed to make it all happen.

Finally, the fact that Democrats have shifted from heartland to wasteland is in itself not enough to cause Americans to reject their program. Rather it is the brutal manner by which they impose it upon the nation that makes people uneasy. It is as if the liberals have taken the nation on a barreling train ride to the wasteland and will brook no opposition (not even within their own party). Their agenda advances not by popular vote but more by executive orders, judicial fiats and media spectacles. While the wasteland’s rich and powerful pseudo-elites enjoyed the ride, the heartland’s bakers, florists and small businessmen protested in November 2014 against immoral mandates by standing on the tracks which derailed the train.

What my friend needs to see is that the liberal cause is not monolithic; it is in trouble because it has failed to conquer the heart and soul of America. What is needed is a return to order. It is time to get off the train and find our way back to the heartland.

As seen on SperoNews

The World Economy Is Like the Titanic. And There Are No Lifeboats in Sight.

TitanicIf there is an image that corresponds to the state of the world economy, it would be that of a cruise ship on a never-ending cruise. On its decks, there is every modern comfort and entertainment. The bands are playing, the restaurants crowded and the theaters are full. There is an atmosphere marked by fun and laughter, and every effort is made to keep the party going.

Behind the almost surreal impressions of unconcern, however, storms and internal problems threaten the ship.

Such an image is not the evaluation of some casual observer but rather the chief economist of one of the world’s largest banking institutions.

HSBC Chief Economist Stephen King claims another recession is in the offing and the world banking system is not unlike the Titanic. In mid-May, King issued a grim 17-page report titled “The World Economy’s Titanic Problem.” If the allusion to the Titanic is not bad enough, the economist adds that the ship has no lifeboats should a crash or recession occur.

King is not the first expert nor will he be the last to warn of a coming crisis. What makes his analysis especially insightful is his look at the tools at hand to fight back. He notes that the present six-year “recovery” is unlike any other. Traditionally, policy makers have employed a whole set of tools to fight against recession. Gradually, they adjust policies to help bring things back to normal.

However, there is nothing normal about this “recovery.”Subscription11

To deal with the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, policy makers pulled out all the stops and threw everything that could at the problem — often aggravating the crisis more than helping it. To deal with the present crisis, all the stopgap band-aid solutions are being used to their fullest: the Federal Reserve has cut its rates to near zero, stimulus programs are trying to jumpstart spending and quantitative easing is injecting massive amounts of cash into the economy.

Such measures barely keep the “recovery” going. Should another recession appear on the horizon, King warns that there will be nothing left to “replenish their ammunition.” There will be few lifeboats for the global Titanic economy as it travels through iceberg-ridden waters. At the same time, internal problems like uncomfortably high budget deficits and record debt levels will impede navigation.

King believes the situation is so fragile that anything can trigger a new recession — a collapse in faltering China, a lack of liquidity in pension or insurance funds, an abrupt rise in rates. Any such event would lead to a crisis and a corresponding need for nonexistent lifeboats. King’s solution is to do everything to avoid a new recession by using up what few lifeboats remain and hope for the best.

The trouble with economists like King is that they believe that economics is an exact science like physics. They think the problem is just the mechanics of the ship and not the decisions of the people aboard. Their solutions consist of tweaking the ship with QE and stimulus to better navigate. Such tinkering has its limitations since what really determines the direction of the ship is the actions of those on board.

That is why economics can never be an exact science: it depends on the nuanced and free actions of man which are so very unpredictable. In addition to adjusting the ship, it is time to address what might be called the frenetic intemperance of the markets and culture that throw the whole ship out of balance with its party economy. People need to start building lifeboats. The problem is not just the ship. It’s time to declare the party is over.

Is There Anything to Celebrate on the Fourth?

Is There Anything to Celebrate on the Fourth?

“Almost everyone agreed that Fourth of July was not what it used to be.”

The cloudy day set the mood for the Fourth of July barbeque. It was a family get-together but there was not much family to get together. Several members were too far away to come; others were on cruises. There were a few absent because they were no longer family since some marriages had turned ugly.

But the barbecue was lively as people gathered around the picnic tables eating plenty of ribs, potato salad, corn-on-the-cob and fixings. Not everything was homemade, much less homegrown — there was simply no time for that. As the night progressed, a discussion arose. Almost everyone agreed that Fourth of July was not what it used to be.

It used to be so happy. Everyone could remember the times when they would get together and there would be plenty of food, conversation, outdoor games and fireworks. It was a real celebration. Now everyone seemed to be complaining about everything.

“The problem is big government!”one exclaimed.“We need to just get rid of big government and that will solve everything.”

“It’s taxes! That’s what’s killing us. We need to cut taxes across the board. I can’t make my new car payments, student loans or pay my mortgage.”

“I can’t make it anymore on my Social Security,” an older baby boomer chimed in. “It’s not right.”

And so each had their own grievances, some complaining about too much government and others claiming not enough benefits.

At the end, someone made the comment that, with this government, there really wasn’t that much to celebrate this Fourth of July.

With that, there was a lull in the conversation that left everyone uneasy. Some took advantage of the awkward interval to check their emails on their iPhones or make small talk. And as the talk died down, the grandfather unexpectedly spoke up.

He was now a frail old man, a World War II veteran who had known hard times and good times; economic depression and happy days. He had difficulty getting around and spent a lot of his days thinking and praying.

Now he stood before them with an air of dignity saying: “Yes, government has changed. But you know something, we’ve changed, too.

“When I was growing up, families looked after their own members. We didn’t need or want handouts. We managed, even if we didn’t have the latest gadgets or the best car. When there were problems, everyone pitched in. Times were hard, but we were happier.

“Today, it’s all about money. Back then, money didn’t rule everything. People had honor. They were faithful to their spouses and family. People weren’t afraid to be leaders and accept responsibility.

“We knew the difference between our government and our country. Politicians are one thing and America is another. Today, people treat our country like a corporation where they expect only dividends. When the going gets tough, everyone abandons her and sells off their shares. That’s not right.

“No, America should be more like a family. When the family’s in trouble, everyone pitches in. I pitched in. I served my country because America is my country and I love her. Many of my buddies served too … and some didn’t return.”

A silence hung over the area as darkness was falling and lightning bugs were starting to appear.

The old man still continued: “I’m sorry for rambling on but I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately. We need to turn to God again. We used to say ‘give us this day our daily bread’ now everyone turns to the government – they don’t even know how to ask God for things – or what to ask for.

“We complain about government but we’ve become just like the government we criticize. We’ve got the government we deserve. We should get our own ships in shape. We need to return to order.”

The silence was now complete and everyone became pensive. The old man settled down in his lawn chair still apologizing for rambling on. Everyone in their heart knew that he was right.

Subscription8.11At that moment, a rocket soared into the night and burst in air and the darkness was lit by a marvelous display of light and a mighty boom. There was something grand about the way the fireworks exploded that stirred the hearts of those who watched and filled them with awe and pride. At least for an instant, they forgot about their own problems, and celebrated that special something called America.