Monmouth Republicans and the Tea Party Row – A National Problem in Local Form

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.

~Ronald Reagan, July 1, 1975

By Tommy DeSeno

Self-identified Tea Party groups are supporting primary candidates against Republican incumbents Senator Joe Kyrillos, Assemblywoman Amy Handlin, Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, Monmouth Freeholder Director Tom Arnone, Freeholder Deputy Director Serena DiMaso and Monmouth Sheriff Shaun Golden.

Normally I’d say to the challengers nothing more than, “Hey it’s a free country so have at it,” but to call America a “free country” now is becoming more cliché than reality, isn’t it?  Between Democrat Obama’s view that he has a right to kill American citizens without due process of law and Republican John Roberts ruling that I can be “taxed” on ObamaCare for not buying it, it is becoming increasingly hard to know who to trust in matters of American freedom.

When people ask me nowadays if I’d like to see a third party in politics, I tell them I’d settle for a second one.  The Democrats and Republicans are becoming that much alike.

So let me start by saying to Tea Party folks that I understand your frustration.  I too feel the need to have political ideology inform political judgment rather than concerns over electoral identity.  

The problem, my friends, is the “Tea Party” was never intended to be a third political party, and the local folks in Monmouth County are treating it like it is.  There seems to be a need to serve a full slate of candidates without regard to whether the Republican in question should be challenged, and that makes you look more election driven than ideology driven.  

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

If Asbury’s Election Goes Badly, I’ll Blame Loffredo and Quinn

By Tommy DeSeno

John Loffredo (Forward Asbury Park ticket) and Amy Quinn (One Asbury ticket) are the top guns in the Asbury Park City Council race. That’s not news for me; I’ve known it for years and have let them both know they should be together.

In fact, I thought it was a foregone conclusion that they would run together since it makes so much sense. Had I known they would overlook the obvious I would have lobbied them vigorously over the past 4 years to create a political marriage (or civil union, if that’s your preference).

Just look at the last election. Tickets make it easier for candidates to win, particularly weaker candidates, but Amy Quinn fell just short of being elected while running as an independent. That means she carries a great deal of support on her own, perhaps as much as any individual candidate running this year.

How Loffredo didn’t see the benefits of scooping up Quinn and all her support befuddles me. She was clearly the off-season prize; the league’s most valuable free agent. How Quinn didn’t see the benefits of picking up support from the team who won for the past dozen years amazed me more. It’s like she passed up an opportunity with the Yankees to start her own team. That hasn’t worked out well for the Mets, has it?

Read the rest of this entry>>

• Tweet

Messenger Ballots: More Proof That Voter ID Laws Are Needed

By Tommy DeSeno

What’s a “messenger ballot?”  Excuse me if my answer is a bit sketchy, but I’m just learning about it from a group of bad guys who appear to be illegally exploiting it.

I don’t know if other states are doing this, the history of it, the need for it, etc., but here in New Jersey we are learning the perils of not having people show up to vote in person and present identification.

Apparently a “messenger ballot” is allowed when one person acts as a “messenger” for a voter, picks up forms for the voter to be allowed to vote by messenger, then votes for the voter by absentee ballot.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Does the phrase “penchant for fraud” even cross the minds of legislatures when passing such a statute? Or, in a Democrat-controlled legislature like New Jersey, is fraud the goal?

Goal or not, it certainly seems to be the result in Asbury Park, a city poorer than most and more liberal than San Francisco (with a fraction of the feigned sophistication).

Residents of Asbury Park vote for their entire governing body (5 people) all at once, in an off year and in May — when no one is paying attention.

There are 22 people running this year – four “tickets” of 5 people and 2 independents.

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

Open Letter to Monmouth Freeholders: You don’t need a park in Asbury

By Tommy De Seno, Asbury Park Historian, proud Blue Bishop and contributor to More Monmouth Musings

[PRELIMINARY NOTE TO FREEHOLDERS:  I KNOW YOU ARE BUSY.  IF YOU CAN’T READ ALL OF THIS ABOUT WHY YOU SHOULDN’T BUY A PARK IN ASBURY, SKIP TO REASON #6 BELOW.  BUT I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE WHOLE LETTER]

Asbury Park is everyone’s business.  Why?  The rest of the taxpayers in the State of New Jersey spend $60 million annually on the schools.   Even though the High School graduates only about 95 students, they just installed an $800,000.00 turf football field.  Go Blue Bishops.

The City turns to the State of New Jersey annually for $10-12 million to close their budget gap.

So yes –  the business of Asbury Park is everyone’s business.  We should all closely monitor their elections, but since they hold non-partisan elections in May they get ignored.  

Now I’m not here to beat up the City by the Sea, the Urban Sand, my beloved childhood home of Asbury Park.   If anyone cares to know I’ll gladly regale you with lectures on how Asbury Park got to be where it is (it isn’t just their fault) and how they should get to where they need to go.

But blog space compels me to limit my words to one issue at a time, and that issue right now has to do with the Monmouth County Parks Commission possibly purchasing a piece of land on Asbury Park’s beachfront.

Whatever you do, my dear Freeholders, don’t buy it.

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

There Will Be No Bathing Suits on The Road to Serfdom (but in this case I might not mind)

By Tommy DeSeno, first posted on Ricochet.com

This story requires one to consider social mores, conservatism, government powers, libertarianism, class, classlessness, tradition, expression, subsidiarity, humility, pride and manners.  In other words, it’s practically the reason Ricochet.com was created.

My beloved little city of Asbury Park, NJ made national headlines in 2010 when a local storekeeper, while attempting to drum up business, made a push for the City by the Sea to have a nude beach.   The measure was ultimately rejected.  That it was seriously considered at all shows how liberal Bruce Springsteen’s adopted hometown has become (of the 5,418 registered voters, only 390 are Republican).

What a difference two years makes though.   Former councilwoman and Republican Committeewoman Louise Murray has found a 50 year old ordinance on the books that says people in Asbury Park may not wear bathing suits on the boardwalk.  At a recent council meeting she pleaded with the City to once again enforce it.   Her plea has been picked up as newsworthy locally, regionally, and nationally now that Drudge has given it a headline.  The City Council is considering her request.

I don’t know if there is a social conservative backlash to the Obama Administration going on in this country but this might actually be proof of it.  Here is an exchange between Ms. Murray and Asbury Park Deputy Mayor John Loffredo as reported by a local website, www. moremonmouthmusings.net:

“I’ll be darned if I want to be standing at a bar and have somebody slither up in a Speedo or bikini that shouldn’t be in a bathing suit,” Murray said. “It’s disgraceful … I implore you to enforce this, but do not amend it.”

Deputy Mayor John Loffredo responded, “I honestly don’t disagree with you.”

Why is that exchange important?  Loffredo is one of New Jersey’s first openly gay elected politicians and a Democrat.  He’s a liberal.  He supports Asbury Park’s annual Gay Pride Parade (and you know how they dress marching in that).   Yet he doesn’t disagree with Ms. Murray about this.  A shift in social mores?

A bit of history about Asbury Park for context.  It was founded as a Methodist retreat in the late 1800s.  It had been a dry town where certain sports were originally banned as they might attract bettors.  This one square mile City still has nearly 40 churches.   So full of elegance was it that when I was a boy people would dress up to walk downtown and women working at the local department store were forbidden from wearing pants.

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

Remembering About John Bennett What Art Gallagher Has Forgotten

By Tommy DeSeno

Dear MMM readers,

I have nothing against Christine Hanlon.  I understand she has come up through the ranks as a boots on the ground fighter and I’m down with that.  If she becomes Monmouth Chair and needs me I’ll be there for her.

But I must confess County politics is not my brand of Tea Party.  It embodies clientelism. I say that not to down the good people involved – it is designed to be clientelism.  I can’t imagine a local system that wouldn’t work that way.   So I watch from a distance, rooting for the Republican side, and serving when asked.

I’m compelled to write now due to the recent treatment of John Bennett.  In 2003 he was attached by a Camden County hydra.   That’s why he lost.  He suffered no ethical or criminal lapses (as the Press was forced to later print – one time).

What concerns me is that this website and some others are forgetting what went down in 2003.  To attack John using the hyperbole of Norcross warriors and Skip Hidlay fans is to use the weapons of an enemy to defeat a loyal friend.

I’ll hold no grudge if John loses this race to Monmouth people over Monmouth issues.  But to continue the Democrat attack that was started in 2003 to beat him is unfair and irresponsible.  It invites the Democrats to target more of our good people.  Let us not do their work for them.  Let us remember what went down in 2003 (the following was printed in the triCityNews on late October, 2003):

Camden’s Political Boss, The Asbury Park Press and Swaying Monmouth’s Elections

O, it is excellent to have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.  William Shakespeare

The people of Monmouth County are under attack. A two-headed beast from Camden County is stealing away with our sovereignty. We must make a fight in our own defense for the sake of self-determination. Self-determination is why we fought the Revolutionary War; to govern ourselves, so not to be governed from afar.

Your attackers are stealthy. They won’t let you know what’s happening until it’s too late.  First examine the attack, and then join many of your Monmouth County neighbors in a grass roots effort to defend yourself.

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

Black Kids In Asbury Park Shooting Each Other, Part One: Why It’s Happening

By Tommy DeSeno, also published in the April 12, 2012 edition of the triCityNews

We were warned in 1965 but failed to listen.  In that year Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the most respected Democrats to ever live, issued a report to the Department of Labor that has become known as “The Moynihan Report.”  It was entitled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.”

Brevity requires me to get right to the paper’s thesis, simply stated therein:

The fundamental problem, in which this is most clearly the case, is that of family structure. The evidence – not final, but powerfully persuasive – is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling. A middle class group has managed to save itself, but for vast numbers of the unskilled, poorly educated city working class the fabric of conventional social relationships has all but disintegrated.

Deteriorating “family structure” is the problem.  What specifically is Moynihan referring to?   The absence of a father in the Black household:

In essence, the Negro community has been forced into a matriarchal structure which, because it is out of line with the rest the American society, seriously retards the progress of the group as a whole, and imposes a crushing burden on the Negro male and, in consequence, on a great many Negro women as well.

It has to be acknowledged that the ideal situation to live in, giving the most likely chance for success of a family, is the traditional nuclear family with a father and mother supporting one another in the household.  As Moynihan points out, that isn’t a knock on other matriarchal societies.  However, when a majority in a nation is not matriarchal, and the minority is, that is devastating, even emasculating, to the male minority.

It is recognized that human situations won’t allow all to grow up in a nuclear family.  Also, since we are talking about a sample of 300 million people in America, you will be able to find some examples of children from single mother households who have done better than children from nuclear families.  That, however, is highlighting the exception while hiding the rule.

Statistics, as pointed out in The Moynihan report, reveal that the nuclear Black family with both parents in the household see their children grow up on average with higher IQs, less crime and more financial success than their single mother counterparts.

The report notes:

The role of the family in shaping character and ability is so pervasive as to be easily overlooked. The family is the basic social unit of American life; it is the basic socializing unit. By and large, adult conduct in society is learned as a child.

What role should young boys learn from their fathers?  The Moynihan Report quotes cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead:

“In every known human society, everywhere in the world, the young male learns that when he grows up one of the things which he must do in order to be a full member of society is to provide food for some female and her young.”

Moynihan adds to that:  This pattern is not immutable, however: it can be broken, even though it has always eventually reasserted itself Replicas Inflatable Cemento.

It couldn’t be clearer that the pattern among poor blacks has been toward households empty of fathers.  Unfortunately, despite the devastation it can bring to the children, fatherless Black households are growing.  Black children are learning more often than not that leaving families behind is an acceptable choice (I acknowledge the growing trend among white fathers today too).

Back in 1965 when the Moynihan Report was written, on average 36% of Black children were living in broken homes at any given moment.  That number has risen since then for both whites and non-whites, but today’s numbers for Blacks are alarming:  Nationwide 70% of Black children are born into single parent households, while in Asbury Park estimates have been as high as 90%.  The poor Black family has continued to disintegrate.

Understand, so there is no mistake, that Moynihan finds no shortcoming of the Black male or female: Genetically, the intelligence potential is distributed for Black infants in the same proportions as Icelanders, Chinese and every other group.

However, when testing Blacks alone, the pattern is clear that Black children from stable families fare far better than those from fatherless homes. 

Included in the areas where Blacks from broken homes fall short is crime.  Moynihan quotes several sources, including a study that showed 3/4ths – or twice the expected ratio – of Philadelphia’s Black juvenile delinquents came from one parent households. 

Moynihan was careful to note the outside pressures on the Black male, including segregation, alienation and prejudice in obtaining employment.  His point, however, is that the Black child from a stable family is given the emotional support to deal with it, while the child of the single parent family is often left with a hopelessness and quitting attitude based upon the actions of his absent father.

The shooting of young people in Asbury Park is not occurring to middle class children with stable homes.   This behavior was presciently predicted by Moynihan.  

So who is to blame for Asbury Park’s fatherless homes and children shooting each other?  I have narrowed it down to 35 people here in the City.   In the next issue of triCityNews, I will name names and tell you who is at fault.

• Tweet

Roe v Wade and the Rights of the Father

By Tommy DeSeno, cross posted at ricochet

January 22 marks a contemptible day in American history.  On this day in 1973 a divided Supreme Court issued a spurious decision that led to the deaths so far of 50 million innocent Americans, now claiming more lives than Chairman Mao Tse-Tung’s “Great Leap Forward.” The consequence of Harry Blackmun’s announcement of a new government policy outstrips all 20^th century European dictators combined in death toll. 

Current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg long ago made a statement about the “right” that was being protected and in so doing opened up the soft underbelly of the Roe decision. With the appropriate court case, an attack could be led to end the American holocaust.  Here is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in 1974:

The emphasis must not be on the right to abortion, but on the right to privacy and reproductive control.

Justice Ginsburg thwarts the deceptive and preposterous argument that declares because women hold our children in their womb and only women can physically abort (kill) the child, abortion is therefore an issue saved for women alone.  While “abortion” can’t be equalized, Ginsburg rightly points out that abortion was not the right being protected.  “Reproductive control” is being protected, and that most certainly can be equalized between men and women under the law.

Look at the actual language Justice Blackmun penned in Roe wherein he described what exactly outweighed the Texas Law protecting the baby, and note it was NOT a right to an abortion procedure.  It was this:

Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.

To solidify this point Justice Stewart in his concurring opinion described the right which outweighed the Texas statute which sought to protect the baby as follows:

That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. “Certainly the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancy and the interests that will be affected throughout her life by the birth and raising of a child are of a far greater degree of significance and personal intimacy than the right to send a child to private school protected in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), or the right to teach a foreign language protected in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).” Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224, 227 (Conn. 1972).

Let us then summarize the rights actually protected by the Roe decision, noting again it was not a right to an abortion procedure (abortion is only the tool allowed to be used to further the following interests of the woman).  Here are the eight [8] legally acceptable reasons for allowing a woman to relieve herself from parental obligation, any of which now outweigh the life of the baby under American law:

1. A woman may find parenting to presently cause her distress.
2. A woman my find parenting to potentially cause her distress in the future.
3. A woman may be caused psychological harm now by parenting.
4. A woman may find child care taxing mentally and physically.
5. A woman may suffer stress because she does not want a child.
6. A woman may find her and her family psychologically unable to care for the child.
7. A woman may find her and her family are “otherwise” unable to care for the child.
8. A woman my want to avoid the stigma of unwed motherhood.

These are the things being protected in American law, not abortion itself.  They are, to say the least, homage to selfishness. But they are the law; the “rights” which outweigh a baby’s life.

Yet therein we find the best legal challenge. While a man can’t have an abortion procedure, he certainly can fit into any of the eight categories described above.  If those are the rights being protected, then those rights can be equalized. Under equal protection jurisprudence, if they can be equalized, they must be.

Note that currently “reproductive rights” are not just imbalanced between men and women; rather for men they are nonexistent.  In 2009 I wrote a column called “Roe v Wade and the Rights of the Father” wherein I describe the legal case needed to equalize reproductive rights between the sexes.  I call it a “Father’s Abortion” (no – it does not require the women to abort their child).  The challenge however will assert, based upon equal protection principles, the equalization under law of a man’s reproductive control currently afforded to women, using precisely the same arguments made in Roe v Wade as cited above.

The father will seek a ruling from the court, one that is routinely granted in courtrooms today, often against a man’s will, regarding his born children:  The termination of his parental rights and obligations.  This will leave the women to decide if she wishes to go it alone and have the child, or to have an abortion.

Please note that if the case were to prevail I personally would find the result abhorrent and inconsistent with morality concerning good fatherhood.  However, the only way to finally awaken the pro-death adherents of abortion is to impose ourselves upon them, by asserting the same claim of rights that they have been imposing on the rest of us for the past 39 years.  Only then will the obvious madness of it all be laid before them in such light to make any denial of it unbelievable.

Some may argue that the Courts will never let fathers unilaterally decide not to be fathers the way Roe has allowed it for mothers. What those people don’t know is that 49 states and Puerto Rico already allow new fathers to do so after the child is born, in what are known as Safe Haven Laws. Like it or not, the cultural shift away from parental responsibility is cemented now in both federal and state law.

The only difference between the result of the lawsuit I propose and the Safe Haven Laws is that the mother will be notified before the child is born that the father is foregoing all parental rights and responsibilities, thus the term “father’s abortion.”

When I first proposed this back in 2009, thanks to the editors at FoxNews.com who printed it, the column got enormous attention and was reprinted in a variety of online media (where is SOPA and PIPA when you need them?).  I jest.  I was happy it was getting attention.

Here is what I didn’t expect:   I was overwhelmed with emails from men who suffered, and suffered greatly, from having their children killed by mothers who refused to carry their children to term.  It was not my intention to bring their issue to the forefront, but it came.

I was emotionally moved to tears reading of their plight.  They are so helpless.  They are so lost in the conversation. The court focuses only on what harm might come to a women for being a mother, but won’t consider for a moment the harm that comes to a man when his child is killed.  The media will not address him.  Instead of programs that focus on his psychological devastation from his child being killed, media will only run stories claiming that the women behind abortions are somehow civil rights heroes.

These men tried everything:  Court injunctions, offers to let the mother have no parental or financial responsibility, offers of ransom money in exchange for their child’s life and more.  Yet they are powerless, held to the whims of a mother who, often for selfish reasons, wishes not to be one.

There is the story of one man I will never forget.  I don’t even know his name.  Someone reprinted my column on Free Republic, and in response he left this poem he wrote for his dead son. It was written in 1973, so this boy was one of the first victims of the American killing of innocents.  It is the rawest, most real and chilling poem I’ve read.  It is so compelling not because it is out of the ordinary, but because it is the common exemplar of what is happening to men and children since Roe v Wade:

I’ve got a son that never came.

One that flew kites and arrow-planes.

One that danced in the springtime rains.

Don’t know why or who’s to blame.

But I’ve got a son that never came.

Bullfrogs and butterflies he’ll never see.

He’ll stroll through an open field, but not with me.

There was a time his heartbeat strong.

It beat with rhythm as in a song.

And to me his love belonged.

Don’t know why or what went wrong.

But there was a time his heartbeat strong.

It’s left in my mind and my heart will tease.

There’s no love in my life for my son and me.

Before I had a chance to fight.

They took my son up a flight.

To a room to take his life

Don’t know why I had no rights.

Before I had a chance to fight.

Then five months early they stole him from his womb.

Laid him in a corner and watched him die in his tomb.

But for one split second I thought I heard him cry…

“I’m gonna have to leave you now. I love you Dad. Goodbye.”

• Tweet

Irish Americans Should Support Thomas Nast’s Induction Into The NJ Hall of Fame

So should the Assemblymen who are opposed to his nomination

Thomas Nast, the 19th century political cartoonist who gave Harper’s Weekly enough political influence to topple Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall and to sway the election of two presidents, Grant and Cleveland, has been nominated for the New Jersey Hall of Fame’s class of 2012.

Nast, who popularized the image of Santa Claus and the partisan symbols of Donkeys and Elephants for Democrats and Republicans had an undeniable and enduring impact on American culture.

Nast lived in Morristown for over 20 years, starting in 1872.

His nomination to the NJ Hall of Fame has generated controversy from the Irish Catholic community who contend the artist was a anti-Irish/anti-Catholic bigot because he frequently depicted the Irish as drunken apes and Catholic bishops as crocodiles.  Neil Cosgrove of New City, NY wrote in a Letter to the Editor in The Star Ledger that Nast is “the father of hateful and negative anti-Irish stereotypes that Irish-Americans continue to struggle against today.”

This Irish-American Catholic hasn’t struggled against stereotypes today, or any other day that I can remember.

Three New Jersey Assemblymen have jumped on the anti-Nast bandwagon.  NorthJersey.com reports that Wayne DeAngelo (D-Mercer) and Dave Rible (R-Monmouth) have called on the NJ Hall of Fame to withdraw the nomination.  Scott Rumana (R-Passaic) issued a press release echoing DeAngelo.

Pardon. Franchise. Columbia.-"Shall I trust these men, and not this man?" ~ Harper's Weekly, August 5, 1865

The Assemblymen and the Ancient Order of Hibernians have it wrong. Nast was not a bigot.  Far from it.  His political art, starting during the Civil War and through Reconstruction was fervently pro-equality for Blacks and other minorities.

'"The Chinese Question.' Columbia- "Hands off, gentleman! American means fair play for all men."' ~ Harpers Weekly, February 18, 1871

Nast’s anti-Irish and anti-Catholic cartoons were political, not ethnic or religious.

Morton Keller, Professor of History at Brandies University addressed Nast’s anti-Irish, anti-Catholic work on the centennial of the cartoonist death:

It may be asked why Nast’s sympathy for blacks, Indians, and Chinese did not extend to the Irish and Catholicism. Mid-nineteenth century liberals—and Nast certainly was one of them—regarded the Catholic church as the fount of anti-modernism and fanaticism. (See fig. 16.) This attitude was reinforced by the commitment of many Irish-Americans to the Democratic party, hostility to abolition, and Negrophobia. The intertwining of his hostility to the Church, the Irish, and the Tweed Ring suggest that for him this was another chapter in the ongoing struggle to preserve the American Union, and Lincoln’s new birth of freedom, from its enemies. In this sense the Confederates, the anti-Reconstruction, pro-Johnson Democrats, and the Tweed Ring and the Catholic church were parts of a collective whole. It stirred in Nast the peak of his distinctive mix of artistic inventiveness and political passion. (See figs. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.)

These drawings spoke to the political and social concerns of the core urban constituency of wartime and postwar Republicanism: Protestant farmers, professional and businessmen, shopkeepers, artisans.

This is Nast’s third year as a nominee for the New Jersey Hall of Fame.  He’s up against tough competition in the “General” category.  If not for the controversy, I would have chosen between Milton Friedman, Joyce Carol Oates or Governor Tom Kean.

But I voted for Nast and hope you do too.  My fellow Irishmen from the Ancient Order of Hibernians should have researched Nast before making a PC stink and acting like Tommy DeSeno with his rants about how Italian-Americans are depicted in the movies.   If the controversy the Hibernians created over Nast puts him over the top of the voting and into The Hall, it will be just comeuppance.

Vote here.

• Tweet

Some Thanksgiving Football Questions For Mike Golub and Warren Lapp

By Tommy DeSeno

It is oft cited, as it was again today in this column by Asbury Park Press writer Steve Falk, that the oldest shore Thanksgiving Day football rivalry is Toms River South v Lakewood, at 92 straight games.
 
Knowing that Asbury Park played Neptune on Thanksgiving more than 92 years ago, I asked Mr. Falk if his info was correct.  He told me that there was a period of about 20 years somewhere around the 1920s to the 1940s where Asbury Park did not play Neptune on Thanksgiving, so TR v Lakewood is the oldest continuous Thanksgiving rivalry.
 
I was just wondering three things from you Neptune guys:
 
1.  Any idea why Asbury Park didn’t play Neptune for 20 years (I assume it was Neptune’s fault)?
 
2.  Any idea who Asbury beat (naturally) and Neptune lost to (naturally) during those years?
 
3.  Will either of you Neptune Turkeys be there tomorrow when Asbury Park (9-1) carves up Neptune (9-1) by a score of 21 to 6?

• Tweet