Originally posted as a part of the 'Sunday Sermon' series on 11.09.08 at www.mattveasey.com

 

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept, and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof; And the rib, which the Lord had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - Genesis 2:21-24

 

Let's face it, no matter what the radicals, the profane, and the borderline insane will try to tell you, there are two sexes. They are male and female, just as Adam and Eve in the Genesis creation story. The main differences are their physical and sexual characteristics. Man was created with his organ and sperm. Woman was created with a vagina and eggs. For anyone who thinks normally and rationally, the ramifications are obvious.

 

Genesis explains in clear terms how God created man, and then created woman for a purpose. That clear purpose is that the two different sexes will unite together as one. This is the origin of the concepts of marriage, the very concept of family itself. Throughout the history of mankind it has always been understood that the natural order called on men and women to join, have children, nurture those children in family, and propagate their genes to help foster the growth of mankind.

 

There have always been those among us who were deviant, and rather than become attracted to those of the opposite sex, they were instead attracted to those of the same sex. But this was always, in every culture in man's history, considered a deviance, a negative to be avoided. It was considered an extremely unnatural act, the joining of two people of the same sex in a sexual union. For the vast majority of the history of the United States of America, almost 200 of our 232 years as a nation, this 'homosexuality' was seen as a form of mental illness. In the past three decades, this deviance has 'come out of the closet' and attempted to shove its way into mainstream society.

 

Those who practice homosexuality have used a liberal tilt in American media and the court system to gain perceived 'Rights' that were never enumerated into the Constitution. In some states, they have even fought to gain a right to marry. In every corner of the world, marriage has always been recognized as the institution whereby a man and woman formally come together as one family. The homosexuals, or 'gays', and other liberal elements have attempted to make marriage, now legal only between men and women as it is naturally and morally correct, extend to these gay couples.

 

This past week, tens of millions of Americans voted in three states on this issue, and once again sanity won the day. Florida, Arizona, and most interestingly and importantly California joined what is now a list of 30 states across the nation by installing specific constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. In California, 'Proposition 8' created that same ban in what is considered the most progressive state in the union. The majority in even this normally ultra-liberal state recognized and voted to constitutionalize this vital institution.

 

Back in 2000, the people of California had already spoken, and had created a law to ban gay marriages. However, the most liberal and radical U.S. district court in the land ruled the law itself illegal, and opened the way for legalized gay marriages, hundreds of which took place in recent months. The people of California, outraged that a court over-ruled their will, went back to the drawing board and took the matter out of the courts hands. The new law is now a basic element in the state constitution, which the court cannot alter. The people of California have thus clearly spoken twice in the past decade on this issue, as has the American population in every instance in which it has come before them.

 

You can argue the sanity of the minute percentage of the population who practice homosexuality. You can argue about the merits of accepting this deviance rather than shunning it. You can argue the validity of trying to find some 'cure' through the increased research possibilities with today's genetic advances. But one thing that you cannot argue is the natural order in the man-woman relationship, and its historical, cultural, and moral expression in the institution of marriage. Allow a misguided gay man to simply do what he wants and marry another man, just because he thinks that he should be allowed to, is ludicrous on its face. Tell me you have a 'right' to do this, and I will ask you why I cannot have the 'right' to marry a 14-year old girl, or my good dog 'Petey', or my refrigerator. Think that is ridiculous? That is just how ridiculous the large majority of Americans view the idea of gay marriage.

 

In an election that saw progressives come to political power, Californians and others once again showed sanity this past week in supporting the tradition of marriage. This not about any 'hate' towards these people, as they would try to sell it. I speak for millions in saying that far from hating gays, we feel sorry for them, recognize that their 'problem' is biological and possibly genetic, and hope that one day they will overcome these deviant desires.

 

What this is about is defending a Sacrament from becoming defiled by deviance. The Church teaches that Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, one of its Sacraments, the most important and fundamental building blocks of the faith and mankind's morality. Thankfully Americans still agree that a man shall leave his parents and cling to his wife, and not his husband or his child or his pet.

Originally posted as part of the ongoing 'Islamism Series' from 11.08.08 at www.mattveasey.com

 

 

Welcome to the real world, President-elect Obama. It was one thing to use speaking eloquence and the Chicago political machine to rise to power. It was one thing to win a U.S. Senate seat, and then use dissatisfaction with the status quo to rise to the Presidency. But that inexperience is about to catch up to you. A few years in the Senate, most of it spent running for President, is simply not enough experience to be the leader of the free world. We in America and the entire Western world have to hope that the man is a fast learner. Just a day after Barack Obama received his first official security briefing from the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, the New York Sun reports that Obama and the American public will soon receive a video address from none other than Osama bin Laden himself. Fanatical hate preacher Omar Bakri has led chats in extremist Arabic chat rooms announcing that the new video will likely come when Obama names his cabinet, and will warn Obama that "We will fight him if he fights against Islam." A key Iraqi al Qaeda propagandist, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, made an internet speech in which he told Obama that "it's better for you and us to withdraw your forces and return to your homes." Obama has pledged that he will redeploy American resources in the Middle East in order to go after bin Laden in the Afghani tribal regions where the al Qaeda leader is believed to be hiding. However, the CIA apparently has far greater intel on the whereabouts of al Qaeda's #2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, which might lead to addressing efforts to go after him first. President George W. Bush will meet directly with Obama on Monday in a further effort to update him on homeland defense, among other issues. In a recent speech in front of various White House staffers, President Bush stated that the terrorist threat is a main reason that they “all of must ensure that the next president and his team can hit the ground running.” During the campaign, Obama pledged to give commanders a new mission in Iraq: to successfully end the war with a 'responsible and phased' withdrawal of troops. Dissatisfaction with the prosecution of the war was a key component to Obama's election victory. It was also yet another sign that the American press and public simply do not have the fortitude at this stage to win this vital struggle between civilizations and ideologies. The Obama camp and many of its followers simply do not believe the magnitude of the threat that Islamofascism poses to Israel, the United States, and the world. Either that, or they know and simply do not care, choosing instead to focus on other issues for now, and deciding to deal with military issues as they develop in the future. In other words, they are choosing to once again put a band aid on a longterm serious problem, rather than address it now and completely. This is a recipe for disaster that will likely play out now in an Obama administration. Islamofascists will view any U.S. withdrawal as an opportunity, and a victory. They will rightly say that they again simply waited us out, that they knew we could never defeat them long term, that we simply didn't have the stomach for it. They will consolidate their power in the Middle East once we leave, including increased pressure on Israel, igniting even worse conditions than exist today. The Veep-elect, Joe Biden, stated in the run-up to the election "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama...we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy...he's gonna need help...because it's not gonna be apparent initially that we're right." It's a shame that those of us who know this will be the outcome have not been able to convince enough of America, but apparently it will take another 9/11, or worse, to awaken that sleeping giant fully. I have to hope that the President-elect is finally exposed to the reality of the situation in the coming days, weeks, and months, and changes his tune on what needs to be done. Otherwise, the Islamofascists will seriously challenge a President Obama, judging correctly that he will do little or nothing to stop them.

Originally posted as part of the ongoing 'Islamism Series' on 10.15.08 at www.mattveasey.com

 

I recently had the pleasure of sitting in on a highly educational presentation by an American law enforcement professional that largely covered the topic of responding to a bombing or other terrorist attack in our city. The individual presenting the class has been all over the world, particularly the hot spots in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and South America, aiding in their responses to such incidents. Perhaps most importantly, he was also gaining an education and making vital contacts that would keep him abreast on the latest information from those far-flung locales regarding updated terrorist activities, attacks, and tactics.

 

One of the statements that he made that I found most compelling is something that I have believed for a long time. That no matter who is elected to become the next President of the United States, no matter whether we 'bring the troops home' or remain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly expand the current conflict into Iran eventually, this is not a war that is going to end any time soon. His simple statement was this: "Your grandchildren's grandchildren will be fighting this war."

 

He had a very simple, straightforward reason for making this statement. The Islamists with whom we are at war have no intention of stopping until Islam is in control of the entire world. War has been declared on us over a decade ago. Our nation was directly attacked, and has had repeated attempted attacks on it. Our allies have been and are being attacked regularly.

 

Spain is the perfect example of how they intend to win. On March 11th, 2004, the Islamists bombed trains in Madrid, immediately resulting in 191 killed and over 1,800 wounded. They demanded that Spain pull out of Iraq, and told the Spanish people that they would pay for their governments involvement. Out of this fear, Spaniards went to the polls in elections held shortly after the bombings and voted out the democratic government, voting in a Socialist government that pulled Spain's troops.

 

The Islamists had effected a coup d'etat, installed a sympathetic government to their cause, and cowed a member of the European Union. They had knocked a government with close ties to the U.S. out of power, and effectively ordered it replaced with one that is antagonistic towards America. Frankly, thanks to the fear of the Spanish people, the Islamists won a great victory. The victory became complete when this summer the Spanish courts tossed out more convictions, including of the mastermind of the attacks, raising to 11 the number who have been acquitted, with a number of others receiving extremely lenient sentences.

 

The Islamists have incited riots in the suburbs of Paris, and attacked London as well, and are well on their way to creating an almost riotous situation across all of Europe. What will likely happen on the European continent over the next few years and decades could make the 9/11 attacks look paltry by comparison. They saw how we reacted to 9/11, firing overseas and lighting up their world, including overthrowing the Islamist Taliban in Afghanistan and the tyrannical regime of Sadaam Hussein in Iraq. They find the response of the Europeans much softer, and so for now will simply be happy with turning their attention to slowly overwhelming our allies, who have proven to be far more soft.

 

The hard fact seems to be that the American people, at least right now, don't have the stomach to win the war being fought. They understandably want peace, a return to a time when American soldiers weren't in harms way, and when everyone can just sit down and talk out our differences. The unfortunate reality is that the other side in this battle doesn't want that, and will fight to the death. Because we may be unwilling to make the significant sacrifices now that it will take to overcome this global threat, we are likely to pay even greater costs in the generations to come.

 

I have two grandchildren now. My grandson was just born on August 1st of this year. It is highly likely that he, or his children, or his grandchildren, my grandchildren's grandchildren, will be fighting a much bloodier and far broader war at some future time because today's generation was unwilling to go all the way to victory.

Originally posted on 10.11.2008 at www.mattveasey.com

 

 

The stock market is actually a very simple idea to wrap your arms around at it's most basic levels. A company, let's pick an old standard that everyone knows like Coca Cola, wants to make some more money. It wants to make more money for many reasons: it can pay its employees better salaries and offer them better benefits, thus attracting better workers; it can build bigger and better facilities, and purchase newer vehicles to transport their products to market more efficiently; it can research and produce new products that will get them new customers; it can purchase another company that has a product or service which Coke feels would be compatible with their own; it can allow them to advertise more on TV, radio, the internet and thus sell more of their products.

 

All of these efforts by Coke are efforts to make their company better, stronger, healthier. So the powers at Coke decide to 'go public' by offering 'shares' of Coke on the stock market. This means that you can purchase an ownership stake in Coke by purchasing a 'share' at a certain price. A number of people decide to buy these shares, basically giving Coke their money in order to do those things they want to make their company stronger.

 

The market determines what that price will be, so for instance initially Coke might offer shares in their company at $15 each. If you believe that Coca Cola is run well by good people, that their company is healthy, and that it is going to thrive and even maybe expand strongly in the future then you may buy a share. By doing so, you are basically betting on Coke, and you are putting up $15 of your real money in order to get a share. If you buy 10 shares, you have $150 invested in Coke.

 

Now let's say they do well over the next few years, and as they do well the price of their stock goes up. It does so because more and more people believe in Coke like you did, so the people at Coke can raise the price of their shares because people are willing to pay that higher price. Say a couple years later the price of Coke shares is now $25 per share. Those 10 shares that you put $150 into two years ago? Well now they are worth $25 per share, or $250 total, and you have made yourself $100 on your investment.

 

On the flip side, if Coke did poorly, if their company assets were mismanaged or stolen, or if their products were no longer as valuable to the public (in other words, fewer people liked to drink Coca Cola), then the price they could get for thier shares would go down. Say they went down to $5 per share, then your 10 would now be worth just $50. You would have lost 100 on your investment in Coke. That is how the stock market works at its most basic level.

 

What you hear on TV every day as the 'Dow Jones Industrical Average' or simply as 'The Dow' going 'up' or 'down' is basically the world betting on America. You get in on this action, get to 'play the market', by purchasing those shares which are sold by that thing which we call the 'stock market'. Not unlike going to the grocery market for your food, you go to the stock market to purchase your stock shares.

 

The main place that Americans do their purchasing is at the U.S. Stock Exchange, located on Wall Street in New York City, and thus you hear the market sometimes simply referred to as 'Wall Street'. The Dow is the total value of 30 selected stocks that key investors have determined make up a reflection of a wide range of important companies in America.

 

For instance if Coke is worth $15 per share, and McDonalds is worth $10 per share, and Home Depot is worth $16 per share, and Comcast is worth $20 per share, you would add them together and get a total of 61 'points', or the dollar value of all the 'costs per share' of the companies in our little example index. If tomorrow those share values go up, and the new total is 81 points, our index of those four companies has gone up by 20 points. So it goes with The Dow, only in their case it is with the prices of those 30 American companies that I mentioned make it up.

 

So in other words, when The Dow is going up, people are betting that America is healthy and strong. They believe that, in general, the future looks bright for business here, which means that products will get better, that their will be good jobs available, that companies will succeed. When The Dow is down, people believe that America is not going to succeed, that companies will fail. When too many people begin to dislike too many things about too many companies, they may decide that they don't like having their money in shares of stock any more, and so they pull thier money out of the stock market and do something else with it. This makes the shares in the market drop, because they are not as valuable if many people no longer want them, and so the market goes 'down'.

 

If enough people pull enough money out in a short enough period of time, as has been happening recently, we have a market 'downturn' or even a 'crash'. A 'crash' is generally defined as when the overall stock market loses 20% or more of its value in a very short period of time. They happen usually about once every couple decades or so, and are usually seen as being a 'correction' in the market. This means that people have found that prices on company shares were a bit too high and stopped buying them until they got to levels that people were again comfortable with.

 

What always happens is that a time comes when people look at the prices of stock in companies and say to themselves "hey, that stock is getting pretty low, it's really worth more than that" and they jump back in to the market. More and more people do this, and the market goes back up aqain. The very bottom line here is that buying stocks in good American companies is like betting on America to succeed.

 

Do you believe that the United States of America is going to fail?

 

Really, ultimately, completely fail?

 

Or do you believe that 5, 10, 50 years from now there is going to be a United States of America that is still a democracy, that still is a world leader, that still bases its economy on capitalism and the value of rewarding hard work by both individuals and business? If so, then you should do exactly what I am doing by keeping the shares of my retirement plan invested in ways that reflect the market.

 

Despite all the doom and gloom seen on television broadcasts today, I am betting on America. Despite a few hiccups along the way, she has never, ever let me down in the long term of my 47 year life. She might struggle for a bit over the next few months, even the next few years, while some details are worked out and some badly run companies are weeded out. We might even suffer a bit more should Barack Obama get elected and Democrats control Congress, thus raising our taxes and our spending and worsening our situation in those next few years.

 

In the long run of the next decade or so, she will be back strong, of that I have no doubts. The bottom line for me is that I'm staying in the market, I'm betting on America.

Reprint of the 11.01.07 article at www.mattveasey.com

 

 

Here in Philadelphia, PA, the murder capital of the United States of America, it was just announced that 54-year old police veteran Charles Cassidy died from wounds inflicted on Halloween morning. Officer Cassidy walked in on a robbery in progress at a Dunkin Donuts in his patrol area, and the robber shot him in the head before the officer had a chance to react.

He leaves behind a wife, three children, and scores of family, friends, acquaintances, and co-workers who will be affected by his murder for a long time to come. He also leaves behind a city that is in crisis, indeed a nation that is in crisis, with little or no hope for any meaningful change to what has become the violent status quo. Why? Because few will say publicly what needs to be said: black males, in particular reciditivists, are killing us.

Actually, the saying of it is only the very necessary first step. If folks do begin to say it, and actually recognize it for the fact that it is, then further steps need to be taken to address the problem. But let’s deal first with the facts, and the expected outraged replies.

 

First, crime in Philadelphia is indeed out of control, and now our own police, pilloried in recent media reports as shooting too often ourselves, are the targets. Officer Cassidy is the fourth uniformed Philadelphia police officer to be shot while performing their duties in the past six weeks, third in the past four days alone. All were shot by black males.

In mid-September, Officer Rich Decoatesworth was shot in the face by a young black male wielding a sawed-off shotgun after pulling over the vehicle this male was driving in West Philly. Early on Sunday morning, Officer Sandra Van Hinkle was shot in the ankle while responding to gunshots being fired outside a hip-hop club, again in West Philly.

On Tuesday night in the Center City area, while the Democratic Presidential candidates debated just blocks away at Drexel University, Officer Mario Santiago was shot in the shoulder by a black male who then dramatically leaped into the Schuylkill River in an escape attempt. Why the dangerous attempt at escape, which ended in the shooter drowning? He was on parole, having been released from prison after serving an 11-year sentence for murdering a 6-year old girl.

Daniel Faulkner, Daniel Boyle, Lauretha Vaird. And a half dozen more since I joined the PPD as a rookie back in the spring of 1990. And now we add another, Chuck Cassidy, to the lengthening list of Philadelphia police officers murdered by black men.

In his August 2007 article “Liberal Views, Black Victims”, noted African-American writer Walt Williams, who grew up in North Philly, presented some compelling commentary and statistics. Williams reported that “Last year, among the nation's 10 largest cities, Philadelphia had the highest murder rate with 406 victims. This year could easily top last year's with 240 murders so far”.

Williams went on to state “Other cities such as Baltimore, Detroit and Washington, D.C., with large black populations, experience the nation's highest rates of murder and violent crime. This high murder rate is, and has been, predominantly a black problem.” According to Bureau of Justice statistics, between 1976 and 2005, blacks accounted for 13% of the American population, yet committed over 52% of the nations homicides.

There is a risk involved in pointing out these truths. The risk being that the race-baiter crowd, the enablers such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and even our own outgoing Philadelphia mayor John Street, will say that calling any attention at all to race of perpetrators is akin to racism, polarization, and hatred. They will say that the problem is guns, not black men, and that to imply differently makes one a hater.

Our own mayor Street wants tougher state gun laws. This is a smoke-screen to deflect attention from the true problem of the “who” onto one type of “what” is used in crime commission. As described by Lorne Gunter in Canada’s National Post: “Gun bans in Australia and the United Kingdom have failed to lower crime rates in those countries and there is no reason to believe a ban here would work any better. Upwards of 90% of gun crimes are committed with illegal guns, by criminals who will not observe a gun ban any more than they have mandatory registration.”

Anyone who would say that race is not an issue in the exploding crime and murder situation in Philadelphia and in other major cities around our nation is quite simply lying. I say that they are lying because I simply cannot imagine that they are ignorant to the truth. They know it, but it doesn’t serve their own selfish political interests to face it, so they pander to their own constituent’s lowest common denominators.

In 1999, the New Century Foundation issued a controversial report entitled “The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Justice in America”. The report was controversial because it dared to highlight race, as opposed to simply gender or other factors, in examining crime. The report found that blacks are seven times more likely to commit murder than people of other races, eight times more likely to commit robbery, three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun in the commission of a violent crime.

Even the usually race-baiting, excuse-making, Prince of the Apologist’s himself, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, once infamously stated that he profiles those around him when he walks alone down the street at night, saying he sighs with relief when “the footsteps following me don’t belong to a young black male.”

Now, let’s pause a moment to answer the howls of protest already rising in the hearts and mouths, and from the keyboards of, all the apologists out there who are only tossing gasoline on the fire by refusing to address the truth.

Do whites commit crime? Sure they do. Do Hispanics and Asians? Of course. Have blacks ever been the victims of crime, prejudice, hatred, and even murder? Absolutely. Would it be irresponsible of whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc to retaliate against blacks, or to hold prejudicial feelings towards an entire race? Emphatically.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here. What we are talking about is the exploding current crime and murder rate in the city of Philadelphia and other major American cities, and my outraged racial apologists, that is quite simply a black male problem. But does that mean that all black males are suspect, that every black male in Philadelphia is a likely criminal? Only a fool, idiot, or race-baiter would consider that is what is being suggested. The vast majority, nearly every single one of these black males, is a reciditivist.

In her 2007 review “Bail Humbug! Why Criminals Would Rather Be in Philadelphia”, Sarah B. Vandenbraak of the Hoover Institute points out another reason that crime is exploding in our city: the terms of a 1980’s-era consent decree entered into by then-Mayor Wilson Goode’s administration, which hoped to alleviate prison over-crowding. This consent decree has crippled our local criminal-justice system. If you click into the link supplied on the article, you will get an education that might astound you.

Vandenbraak writes “Suspects charged with so-called "non-violent" crimes, including stalking, car jacking, robbery with a baseball bat, burglary, drug dealing, vehicular homicide, manslaughter, terroristic threats, and gun charges, are not subject to pretrial detention. In determining pretrial detention, Philadelphia judges can no longer consider a defendant's prior record, his history of failing to appear in court, his mental-health history, his ties to the community, or his drug or alcohol dependency. These factors become completely irrelevant. A major drug dealer carrying a loaded Uzi and a plane ticket out of the country cannot be detained before trial in Philadelphia.”

Responsible black leaders like Williams, Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, and others both locally and across the nation have been trying lately to get the message across: black people, and in particular black men, need to step up, claim responsibility for the actions of their community, and make a change.

10,000 black men rallying and marching through the streets of Philadelphia won’t make a difference. 10,000 black men staying home, raising the children they father, working hard, educating themselves, and passing along moral values to their children will make a difference, both within their own families and communities, and within the city and nation at-large.

As a middle-aged white male, and a cop at that, one who is currently outraged at the senseless assassination of yet another of his professional colleagues in the performance of his civic duties, is it my place to voice these concerns? Yes, I believe it is. Why? Because the vast majority of what I have expressed here is not my opinion, but it is factual evidence, statistics, and commentaries of others.

I believe that it would be irresponsible to express these opinions and present this position without making at least some small suggestions as to what can be done to change the status quo. I think that the biggest possible change will come when voices for black responsibility and morality begin to shout down advocates of black victimization and criminality.

Here is one person’s quick-start guide. When you hear your kid listening to a CD or MP3 or radio station with a hateful and/or profanity-laced message, be it rap, hip-hop, rock, dance, whatever, turn it off and force them to leave it off, and let them know that it is wrong and why it is wrong. When you see them watching a video that exploits women, extols the virtues of the “gangsta” lifestyle, turn it off. You run your home, don’t allow gangsters of the music and other media industries to run it.

From the youngest ages, talk to your kids about drugs and their dangers. Talk to them about responsible behavior in the areas of inter-personal relationships, especially sex, and the consequences. Lead them in a love for God and country, a respect for their fellow man, and into a positive calling. Hold them accountable when they go astray. Keep them in school, and stay close to their teachers, and their school’s programs and administrators.

Most of all, don’t raise them to think of themselves as victims, to allow themselves to become victims, to feel that they need anyone else but themselves and their family to succeed in life. And I could go on forever about the importance of fathers in a child’s life and upbringing. You can’t help them if you aren’t there, fully committed. But you aren’t helping them in the least if you are there, but are high on drugs or drunk on booze.

Reprint of the 10.11.07 article at www.mattveasey.com

 

 

Up in Canada this summer, President Bush met with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon in what should have been a standard, wholly positive “meeting of the minds” between the leaders of the three leading nations in our hemisphere. But many are rightfully concerned that this meeting and other developments of recent years are setting the stage for a government-like North American Union.

At its fullest completed vision, the North American Union (NAU), which has also gone by a few other names as well, would essentially replace the United States, Mexico and Canada as a governing level above the three once-independent nations. Styled nearly identically to the current European Union, there would be one currency, open borders, and many subtler features that would overwhelm the U.S. Constitution.

Back in 1973, U.S. banking leader David Rockefeller met with American geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski and along with other business and political leaders formed the Trilateral Commission. Conspiracy theories aside, the commission was formed in order to foster closer working relationships among the leaders of the three leading economic spheres of influence: North America, Europe, and Pacific Asia.

A year later, one of the commission members, Richard Gardner of Columbia University, wrote an influential article for Foreign Affairs magazine titled “The Hard Road to World Order” in which he called for “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece”. It is from this line of thinking that covert attacks on the United States of America as an independent, sovereign nation began to take place.

In 1979, while running for President, Ronald Reagan called for a “North American Agreement” to produce “a North American continent where the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.” Upon taking office in January of 1981, Reagan called for a North American common market. In October of 1984, the Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act, a part of which extended the powers of the president to concede trade benefits and enter into bilateral free trade agreements.

In October of 1987, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was finalized, and signed into law by President Reagan and the Canadian Prime Minster in January 1988. This led U.S. trade representative Clayton Yeutter to utter the statement “We’ve signed a stunning new trade pact with Canada, the Canadians don’t understand what they’ve signed. In twenty years they will be sucked into the U.S. economy.” Well, those twenty years have now passed, and Yeutter is proving to be a visionary.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush began negotiations with the Mexican president to foster the same type of relationship as had been forged with Canada. A year later, Canadian PM Brian Mulroney asked that the negotiations become trilateral among the three nations. Over the next couple of years the framework was laid for what has become known simply as NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which formally went into effect in January 1994.

NAFTA basically eliminated tariffs on products traded between the three nations while protecting intellectual property rights and removing many investment restrictions. Over the ensuing half dozen years, negotiations take place aimed at enlarging the scope of NAFTA to include the Caribbean region nations and Chile. Mexico elects Vicente Fox as President in 2000, and Fox proposed what became known as his “20/20” vision wherein the U.S. and Mexico would have a common market within 20-30 years.

In 2001, Robert Pastor publishes the book “Toward a North American Community” in which he called for the formation of a formal North American Union. Calls began to come in from all quarters to move towards this vision, not only on the economic levels already being achieved, but also on a political and social level. It appeared that the North American Union was on the fast track to reality, and the United States of America as a wholly sovereign nation was being eroded.

And then the world changed, and sleeping Americans awoke.

On September 11th, 2001, nineteen hijackers who were inspired and backed by a world-wide web of Islamofascism attacked the United States on our own soil, killing three thousand people and wreaking havoc across our nation. The iconic Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York were completely destroyed. The home of the U.S. defense department, the Pentagon, was directly attacked. The airline industry was decimated by a first-ever full shutdown and ensuing security restrictions.

With these direct attacks on our nation, many Americans began to wake up not only to our vulnerability and fragility on a physical basis, but also on a national identity basis as well. In the same decades that had seen the vast economic changes highlighted here, vast cultural changes had been occurring that were undermining the basic Judeo-Christian ethics that had founded our nation. The American “way of life” was under assault, and Americans have begun to fight back.

However, the debate still rages as regular, everyday, working-class Americans, the political pundits who give them voice, and the politicians who recognize what is truly at stake fight to protect American ideals and sovereignty. In the years following the attacks, which have simply become known as “9/11”, these folks have been attacked as “protectionist” and “isolationsist” simply because they want the United States both protected and preserved, something our leaders are supposedly sworn to ensure.

There is little doubt that the early American presidents involved in this process, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, were solely looking to expand economic security and benefits in the region while ensuring American sovereignty. But that separated vision has begun to blur beginning with the first Bush presidency, and has absolutely changed under both President Bill Clinton and now President George W. Bush.

In March 2005, an agreement was struck to build the NAFTA Superhighway. This monstrosity would begin on the Mexican border at Laredo, Texas and run up through the I-35 corridor already present, into Canada. It would be a 10-lane superhighway that is approximately four football fields wide running through the heart of the United States. The Texas Department of Transportation has already signed on to build the first leg, known now as the Trans-Texas Corridor project.

In April 2005, U.S. Senator Richard Luger and his co-sponsors, including current Republican presidential candidate John McCain, introduce U.S. Senate bill 853 calling for the creation of the North American Union to consist of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Touted as a “security” arrangement, it called for open borders between the nations to be accomplished by the year 2010. The bill never became law, or even came up for debate, but instead was submitted for the consideration of the Senate Foreign Relations committee.

In June 2006, current Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo demanded accounting on issues from the Bush administration to “fully disclose the activities of an office implementing a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that apparently could lead to a North American Union, despite having no authorization from Congress.”

Still, the efforts to erase the borders between the three nations, develop a single currency (to be known as the “Amero”), and to eradicate American, Canadian, and Mexican national identity and sovereignty move forward, right under the noses of and often with the full knowledge of the silent mass media of all three nations. On September 19th, 2006 a meeting took place in Alberta, Canada that went entirely unreported, and one that should have led the evening news.

In this meeting, attended by such American luminaries as U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Commander of the US Northern Command Admiral Tim Keating, former Secretary of State George Schultz, and former Secretary of Energy and Defense Dr. James Schlesinger, among dozens of others, topics were discussed for integration among the nations that ranged from energy to border infrastructure to the military. One of the session topics was even titled “Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration”.

The path that these political, business, military, and academic leaders are taking us down is one that is already tried and tested with the European Union that merged nations such as England, France, Italy, Norway, Germany and many others under a common “Euro” currency and many other laws and practices. “Euroskeptics” have emerged in mass numbers to protest a system that was largely shoved down the throats of the people, and that either subverted or in some cases blatantly ignored the democratic process.

In the European Union, the UK, Sweden, and Denmark declined full participation in economic facets of the agreement. , the French and Dutch rejected the European Constitution entirely, Norway has twice rejected EU membership, and Iceland has never even applied to the Union. All across Europe, increasing voices are being raised in protest that the very concept of the EU is an invention of bureaucrats seeking to create a bureaucratic and undemocratic superstate.

At the risk of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist”, the same exact process that took place in Europe over the past few decades has been taking place here in the Americas, and is beginning to directly threaten American sovereignty. Unless the rising tied of nationalism in the wake of 9/11 is encouraged and continues, including the building of a full southern border fence, stronger security at both our northern and southern borders, retention of our own national currency, re-institution of the teaching of American history and civics in our schools, and a return to the full support of Judeo-Christian principles as an ethical and moral national compass, hard times are ahead.

For the survival of the United States of America, we the people must once again rise up and let our voices be heard in print, on the airwaves, and most importantly at the ballot box. We must educate ourselves and our children, demand information from our media sources, demand action on sovereignty from our politicians. In short, we must do here in the Homeland what our brave soldiers are doing overseas, fight for freedom, democracy, and our way of life. The North American Union is one union that we all must fight to bust.

Reprint of an article from 7.27.07 at www.mattveasey.com

 

 

There is peaceful serenity in the clear blue skies and the fast-rising sun, in the swooping and squawking of the seagulls, in the clatter of bicycle tires along the boardwalk on a typical laid-back summer morning in the Wildwoods.

There is excited chaos in the colorful lights of the amusements, in the smells of the incredible variety of foods, in the dull roar of thousands of conversations taking place among the throngs along the boardwalk on a typical free-wheeling summer night in the Wildwoods.

For my family and me, and for countless others for nearly a century now, summer means “Wildwood Days”, a trip “down the shore”, where every day’s a holiday, and every night is a Saturday night.

The place is known by many names: Wildwood, the Wildwoods, Wildwood-By-The-Sea. There are the old names: Anglesea, Holly Beach, Wildwood Crest. Today we have the three boroughs that include Wildwood, North Wildwood and the Crest. But whatever name it goes by to you and yours, the place is known by all of us as the epitome of the family summer sun and fun vacation spot.

As a boy, my family had a place on Magnolia Avenue, just about a half block off the boardwalk, not far from the famous Groff’s Restaurant. It seemed that every night the line would form outside Groff’s for the dinner crowd, stretching all the way down Magnolia away from the boards. We had a small place, usually crowded with parents and kids, aunts and uncles and cousins, and many friends.

After a few years, a few of the aunts and uncles organized and bought a place farther away from the madness, on Leaming Avenue at the far southern end of Wildwood, about 2-3 blocks from the Crest and about five blocks from the boardwalk. It was much farther away from the action, but it was still down the shore, and the new house was bigger with a number of bedrooms and a nice sized backyard.

For most of the 1970’s and even into the 1980’s, this was the Wildwood of my youth. A family shore house filled with uncles rising early to go crabbing and then coming home and playing pinochle on the front porch, aunts cooking up those crabs and many other meals while keeping the conversations flowing on family news, and us cousins running around the house, the streets and the boards.

That’s what we call the boardwalk, “the boards”. Most evenings after some kind of dinner it was time to shower up, get dressed in your best t-shirt and shorts or jeans, and head on up to the boards. In the 70’s, I remember well that my dad would give us five dollars each, and that would be enough for us to get a book of ride tickets, as well as a soda and a slice of pizza.

The ride tickets back in those days would usually be used up on Hunt’s Pier, where all the best rides were located. The “Flyer” roller coaster and the “Golden Nugget” were the highlights. The Flyer was a typical old white wooden roller coaster that clattered and clanged around its main drop and the usual number of twists and turns. It had a huge neon sign at the front that was a boardwalk icon for decades. The Golden Nugget was in the back of the pier, and was itself a roller coaster with a twist in that it incorporated a mine shaft atmosphere.

Hunt’s Pier had a number of other featured attractions as well. There was the “Jungleland” ride, a kind of lazy river adventure trip through the Amazon. The “Keystone Kops” was your typical whip-like car ride inside a darkened hall that featured crazy, colorful characters popping out at you. And then there was the “Pirate Ship”, a full-sized version of an old-time sailing ship complete with an array of crusty, crafty pirates that would have made Jack Sparrow proud.

Some nights you could skip the rides, and instead take in a movie at one of a number of theatres on or near the boardwalk, or you could head to the opposite side of Hunt’s Pier for a round of Skyline Golf, a miniature golf course on the roof of a movie theatre that was another boardwalk icon for decades.

When you got hungry, you had a million choices from Italian food to seafood, from shish kebob to Curley’s Fries, from Kohr’s soft ice cream to funnel cake. But for most of us, there was really only one major food choice to make: Sam’s or Mack’s. Which pizza place was your favorite? As a little kid, I went with the Mack’s tradition, but that all changed sometimes around hitting puberty. Once I actually tried Sam’s, I was hooked, and remain a loyal customer of Sam’s Pizza at 26th & the boardwalk to this day.

Oh, and while walking along “the Boards” for the past forty years you needed to pay attention, because along with the wooden boards there are two concrete pathways, one on either side of the boardwalk, used for a unique conveyance to transport folks up and down the nearly two-mile long boardwalk in easy, inexpensive fashion. Known by many simply from its distinctive megaphone-like warning call: “Watch the tram car, please!”, the Sightseer is a people carrying electric-powered tram that has been a signature to the overall boardwalk experience.

During the days, most of the family would pack up the gear and begin the trek down to the beach. Wildwood has a free bathing beach, and even back in those days before the beach was reconfigured it was still a large beach at most spots. We would be down there digging in the sand and splashing in the water for hours on end, tanning up our bodies and bleaching out our hair as kids as we never would again in our lives.

The beach had its own chorus of sights and sounds that was completely distinctive from the din of the boardwalk. The sound of the seagulls and kids at play, radios playing the tunes of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s coming from various beach blankets. The smells of suntan lotion, not sun block mind you. The hum from the engines of the small planes flying out over the ocean, trailing huge advertising messages behind them of a restaurant offering a dinner special.

There also were two men walking the beach carrying huge boxes over their shoulders, and their distinctive calls were as much a part of the beach scene as the gulls, planes, music and ocean waves. You didn’t have to wait long to hear the cries of “Phiiiiiiladelphia Daaaaily News…..Daaaaily News here!” from a newspaper hawker, or “Heeeey, ice cream here! How about an ice cream sandwich…creamsicle…fudgie, wudgie, wudgie……heeeeey, ice cream here!”

Every once in awhile, rather than hitting the beach, we kids would head down to Sportland pool at 23rd & the boardwalk for an afternoon of splashing around in their huge pool. Sportland used to have a big water show spectacular featuring high-divers and other water performers at night, but during the day they opened the pool for public use for a small fee, and here was an opportunity to use a high diving board, something right up a kid’s alley.

These were the features of Wildwood that made most of my childhood memories, but like the famous Starlight Ballroom dance hall of my aunts and uncles generation, many of them no longer exist. Hunt’s Pier gradually died out and gave way to a new generation of piers and rides, and even Skyline Golf and Sportland pool eventually disappeared.

When my own kids were born, money was tight for me and my young family, and our trips down the shore as they grew through the 1980’s were not nearly as frequent as those from my own childhood. But they did get down enough to pickup their own love of the Wildwood scene. Having my girls down on the Wildwood beach, digging in the sand and riding the amusements, being able to provide them even a taste of that atmosphere, was as much a joy for me as it was a thrill at the time for them.

As they got a little older and we moved into the 1990’s, we took a few trips down for a days at a time, often staying at the Shore Plaza, a hotel located right on the boardwalk in the heart of the action at 26th Street. They had a rooftop pool and restaurant, and the place sat right on top of Sam’s Pizza. So we had it all right there spread out before us: boards, beach, food, fun, pool. What more could a human being want on vacation?

Tragically, a couple of winters ago the Shore Plaza burned down in a spectacular fire that also destroyed the old Sam’s Pizza location. This was a huge blow, the loss of such a landmark, but like a phoenix rising from the ashes by the time the summer season rolled around there was the reborn, bigger and as good as ever, new Sam’s Pizza palace. Thank God, the delicious tradition lives on!

The rides and amusements live on as well. It’s no longer Hunt’s Pier, or the good old secondary amusement piers like Sportland Pier, Marine Pier, Fun Pier, or the Casino Arcade. The amusement piers were all taken over by the Morey family, and the amusement rides and attractions that they have brought to the Wildwoods are spectacular. They are now stretched among what are now known collectively as Morey’s Piers with the nicknames Surfside Pier, Mariner’s Landing and Adventure Pier, and include all manner of modern rides and water parks.

Later this summer, my wife and I will be heading down for a week in Wildwood with some of the kids. Our youngest will be there, now 21 years old, as will my oldest, now 27 years old. She will have her 5 year old with her, our granddaughter, so it will be time for a new generation to experience the shore. My granddaughter Elysia has been to Wildwood before, but this will be her longest trip, and she is a little older, and this one will really start to form her own memories, so it is extra special. We even hope to have the other daughter, now about to turn 26, down with us for one of the days.

That is what Wildwood and all the memories are really about. Having a great time in a relaxed, fun setting with your family. Wildwood has nightlife, for sure. Clubs, bars, party spots. But the ocean, the boardwalk, the amusements, the restaurants, the pools, the games, the shops; these are the things that truly make the memories. Good, fun, wholesome, All-American times shared with your family and friends.

Time to set aside the troubles of today’s world, the daily grind of work and school, the asphalt jungle of the city and head down for more of those Wildwood days and nights. I can’t wait to hear the ocean roar, the amusements clamor, the tram car warning, the gulls cawing. I can’t wait to see the beauty of the beach in its nature and in it’s people-watching. I can’t wait for the taste of a refreshing Kohr’s ice cream cone, and of course, Sam’s pizza.