Read an Excerpt
When I was seventeen, I had a job as a busboy at a hotel up in the Catskill Mountains of New York. I'd work there every summer to pay for college. The hours were grueling. We'd work from five in the morning until midnight. You had to get up at five to prep the breakfast. Then you worked the early bird, then you worked the breakfast. You weren't out of the dining room until ten. You were sweaty and dirty.
Then you had to be back at 11:30 for the pigs to come in for lunch. And you had to smile at them. They'd usually rip a bill in half and say to you, "Hey kid, my name is George Mosco. Let me tell ya something. See this twenty-dollar bill? Me and my family are gonna be here for two weeks. Take this half of the bill-" I promise, this really happened. He'd say, "Give us good service, I'll give you the other half."
I mean these guys were something else.
Anyway, then you'd work the lunch rush. You'd clean up only to get ready to serve dinner. You wouldn't get out of there until nine and be back at midnight for the "snack." That's the way it worked. It was something out of Dickens. You know, I was fascinated by kitchens and how they worked-how they could serve so many different meals so quickly. I loved to see the guys carrying the trays and the guys screaming at them from the back. "Watch out, moron!" It was awesome-the running, the hustling, the bustling, and all the yelling.
I remember in the kitchen there was a guy we called Fat Al. He was the breakfast and lunch cook. A fat Italian guy, maybe four hundred pounds of blubber. Underneath the blubber was solid iron. He had a neck on him like a tree stump. He'd wear a bandanna around his neck and on top of his head, and he'd sit with a cigarette hanging out the side of his mouth as he cooked. I don't know how old he was. Could have been thirty-eight. To me, he looked ninety.
One day, old Fat Al called me over. He said, "Hey kid, come here. I'll show you how to make the tuna." As I watched, his cigarette dangled from his mouth over the bowl. I'll never forget how Fat Al didn't use a Cuisinart to mix things. You know, with the stainless-steel blades that all the fancy chefs use today. No. Fat Al mixed stuff with his big mitt. He'd be up to his armpit in the tureen, mixing the tuna and seasonings, his arm going around and around in the bowl.
At one point he says, "All right, kid, throw in the mayo." So I'm throwing in the jars of mayo. He keeps mixing it with his hairy arm in the bowl. I'm saying to myself, Some of the hair's gotta be in the tuna! Of course, his cigarette ashes were falling from his mouth. So I decided to take my chances and say something.
I said, "Excuse me, Al. What about the ashes getting in there?"
He said, "Never mind. It gives it flavor."
I tell you that story for a reason. Just as Fat Al's cigarette ash laced the tuna, our culture has been laced with toxic liberal thought for forty years. Little by little, the pollutants of liberalism have been mixed into the cultural diet that we've been forced to consume since the sixties.
These lies of liberalism-the sexual free-for-all, the experimental drugs, the easy divorce, the banishment of Judeo-Christian anything from schools, the flood of immigrants, and the so-called abortion rights movement-fall from the libs' lips so frequently, we've come to accept the distinctively acidic taste.
But when, like finding hair in our food, we question the presence of these left-wing contaminates, we are told: "Shut up. Suck it down. It's good for you."
Nonsense. I say we're gagging on the bitter aftertaste that the failure of liberalism has left in our mouths.
No. Liberalism, and the rampant immorality it has bred, isn't good for America. It's killing us. That's the truth. If you need evidence, look no farther than the man who personified the "darling" of the leftist generation: Bill Clinton.
During his reign as czar, Bill Clinton promised that his Democrat-led administration would be "the most ethical" in American history. That's typical lib-speak for: "Watch what I say-not what I do." How many times did we hear that line? What did we get? The exact opposite. In fact, America is still reeling from the stench of his actions.
That said, it would be shortsighted to view the legacy of his immorality as limited to his sexual deviancy. Clinton, along with the societal cross-dressing social revolutionaries who thrived under his leadership, acted immorally in many nonsexual arenas.
It's immoral to hide behind Old Glory while peddling socialism.
It's immoral to poison America's blood supply.
It's immoral to drug young boys with Ritalin and Prozac only because they suffer from masculinity.
It's immoral to abort babies-and then sell their body parts.
It's immoral to ban school testing in the name of fairness.
It's immoral to rewrite history to cater to multiculturalists.
Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that the widespread embrace of these immoral actions is due only to Bill and Hillary's influence as copresidents for the better part of a decade. As you'll discover, the roots of these crimes against the nation are buried deep in the underground of the 1960s countercultural movement, which must be seen for what it was-an almost complete socialist revolution.
Still, as any Ritalin-free student of history can attest, Bill Clinton, with the aid of his socialist-loving Democrats across the country, cultivated a cottage industry of corkscrewing traditional, Judeo-Christian values for eight long years.
I warn you, if Pillory Clinton succeeds in her expected bid for the presidency, America may not recover from the further damage she will perpetrate with her Commu-Nazi-based programs.
In the interest of furthering the education that some readers may have missed, skipping class to do the drug "ecstasy," let me recap how we got here. As I've said, a review of the facts-followed by the right prognosis-is half the cure.
The Legacy of the Sixties
What a mess the sixties were. A real nightmare.
We almost lost the country.
The same hippie, whacked-out-on-acid heads that tried to break America over its knee back then now have gray hair. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic-they've become "the establishment" they used to rail against. Now, even though they run the culture-the media, the government, the educational systems, the courts, and the arts-they're still self-destructive.
It's not that they've ever been dead-set against America. They just hate capitalism. So, they hate their country. They would prefer it if America became a socialist country. It doesn't matter that today many of them are wealthy and drive around town in bulletproof limousines with wine, women, and song at their disposal.
These people hate themselves.
They hate their fatherland, their motherland, or whatever you wish to call it. They care not for America's great history, her great achievements, or her great freedoms. To the contrary. They think Jim Morrison got it right when he sang, "Break on through to the other side."
They're suicidal, and they want to pull you with them.
Don't you understand that?
Let me give you several examples:
1. Look what the unisex movement of the late sixties and early seventies brought us. Picture your kid. With a wave, he hops on the bus, lunch pail in hand. He's off to kindergarten. When he gets there, he sits in a circle and sings "Old McDonald had a farm." Then, with much excitement, he waits for the teacher to speak. And speak she does. She applauds homosexual perversion.
You say that couldn't happen? Well, you're wrong.
In California, teachers (starting with kindergarten) are being encouraged to teach that homosexuality, bisexuality-and even transsexuality-is normal behavior. As the Washington Times reported, the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 has been used to allow teachers "to talk openly about homosexuality" and "discuss their homosexual lifestyles with students during class."
Wake up, sheeple.
And this isn't just California. Elements inside the National Education Association have been trying to make this the NEA's official position for all schools across the country.
2. Look at the consequences of "no-fault" divorce and the fallout on the family from these failed liberal doctrines. Since the sixties, America has witnessed a thousand percent increase in the number of households headed by unmarried persons. Why? Because the antiestablishment movement bucked against the Leave It to Beaver family model, pushed "open marriages" and, in turn, redefined the family. Care to guess the percentage of households where an intact traditional family unit is operating?
Answer: It's now below one in four-less than 25 percent. Not to mention that the divorce rate has doubled since 1970.
That means kids today-if they're "lucky"-have several sets of parents and several sets of grandparents. I say lucky because, according to World magazine, 44 percent of first births are to unmarried mothers. In the inner city, the situation is even more critical: 70 percent of African-American babies are born out of wedlock. The black community is suffering from three and four generations with no father figures.
Back to the lucky kids. Aside from the time they're in the minivan being shuttled between "parental units," they experience very little meaningful parental involvement. About 60 percent of children come home today to an empty house. When you realize the family is the brick of society, you understand why the leftists hammer away at these bricks. They would rather see a nation of sheeple dependent on big government than a nation of strong, self-reliant families.
I'll give you a classic example of this attack on the traditional family. On February 4, 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement-based completely on junk science, I might add-that claimed gay couples can raise children as effectively as can a traditional family. It had no genuine data to back up the claim. But it caved to special-interest groups and made a statement that is sure to pave the way for recognized gay marriages.
3. Look at the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases and the costs to society. Americans must fork over nearly twenty billion dollars annually in taxes at the federal, state, and local levels just to pay for the consequences of sex outside marriage. You better reread what I just said. That, my friend, no longer makes sexual behavior a "private" matter. Not when you reach into my pocket to pick up the pieces of teen pregnancy, STDs, and government-subsidized day care.
At that rate, the government could pay each of the twenty-eight million teenagers in America five hundred dollars a year to keep their flies zipped-and save money. Instead, on February 14, 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell trotted out a line from the liberal playbook, telling an audience of teenagers on MTV to use condoms!
While Powell was peddling this inanity, the Food and Drug Administration endorsed the "morning-after pill" as a way to eliminate early pregnancy. It also said it should be distributed to kids without parental approval.
Are you beginning to see how the left works? They attack the Judeo-Christian values and principles that have worked for hundreds of years. They attack by describing these traditions as "oppressive" and "dated." Then, when their behaviors backfire, they rush to peddle taxpayer-subsidized cures. Why should I be forced to pay for those who can't keep their pants zipped?
4. Look at where abortion has taken us. These weasels tampered with our laws by inventing the right to privacy. Did you know that alleged right cannot be found anywhere in our Constitution or the Bill of Rights? See, liberals change the laws to accommodate their solutions, whenever it fits their agenda.
Meanwhile, psychos like Peter Singer, a "bioethicist" at Princeton University, has taken the abortion-mill logic to the next step. He's leading the charge for infanticide. He said, "Very often it's not wrong to kill a child once it's left the womb. Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."
Senator Barbara Boxer evidently agrees. On the floor of the Senate, during the debate over partial-birth abortion, she said a baby isn't a baby until you've taken that child home from the hospital. What is she saying? It's okay to kill a child up until the point you take the baby home?
Thanks to liberalism, children in America have a bull's-eye drawn on their forehead. Just as Fat Al dismissed my concern, the left has effectively silenced us from speaking out as the moral slide occurs before our eyes.
I'd rather talk about the fifties.
The joy of America in the fifties was unmatched. Do you remember the finished basements, crew-cut hair, peg pants, and dancing till you sweat-till your clothing stuck together? I loved the values of the fifties. There was a father on the couch, there was a mother in the kitchen, there were children, there were Hershey's Kisses on the table. Everything was normal.
Then, all of a sudden, the freaks popped up out of the woodwork and ruined America. That was from the drugs. They traded their kisses for bongs. See, the drugs distorted everything in the sixties. Take the potheads. Pot is the most dangerous drug in America for 20 to 25 percent of its users. The reason it's dangerous is because it's considered not dangerous. But in some users, it induces a psychotic reaction. It puts people in touch with their innermost feelings and fears.
The potheads on the left said, "Whatever you're feeling, you should act out." You know, "If it feels good, do it."
If you're feeling sexual, do it in the road.
If you feel like it, make it with a cow or a dog.
The pot-induced attitudes dredged up sexual perversion in people. Things that should have been suppressed by the norms of any sane society were drawn out of people by the left wing which, as I said previously, has been trying to bring it all down.
Tragically, we've never recovered from the sixties' madness.
We've got to go back to where America was still sane. Ike and Mamie . . . a cocktail or two . . . no degeneracy other than in the closet. That kind of thing. You think I'm doing this for effect, don't you? You're wrong.
I'd like to see the fifties come back.
A giant step in the right direction would be for society to reward, not vilify, the people who take a stand for decency.
Sluts vs. Virgins: America 2000
I remember watching a woman reporter on PBS's Frontline conducting a very telling interview with several young girls. The first three to be interviewed appeared to be cute fifteen- to sixteen-year-olds. But on second glance, you could see the depraved features. They were scantily clad, sitting in bed, smoking and talking.
What I assumed to be innocent girl talk turned out to be their boasting about "He did her, while she did the other guy, who was on top of her friend, while she took his-" etc., etc. It soon became obvious that they were not hookers. They just had bizarre sex for fun, not for money. According to them, it's the "in" thing to do in their peer group.
The interviewer asked them how old they were when they lost their virginity. One said around thirteen or fourteen. The second said she was thirteen, and the third remembered that she was twelve at the time.
Instead of your heart going out to these youngsters, if you're like me, you can't help but feel revolted. There wasn't an ounce of innocence left in any of them. They had become nothing but hardened, empty sex toys-and they were proud of it.
The scene then changed to three other girls about the same age, three Christian girls who were still virgins. Unlike the three sluts above, these three were outcasts in their high school because they believed there should be no sex outside marriage!
The world is this topsy-turvy because of the degeneracy of the likes of Bill Clinton and his followers. They think it's normal behavior for youngsters to be passed around like a used condom to male, female, underage, overage, all-orifice "love" freaks. And they treat the three sixteen-year-olds, who are still virgins, like pariahs in their own school.
The new unpardonable sin for the sexopathic left is to have the disease of "moral hang-ups." People like the three little swingers, who spread lethal diseases and kill their unborn babies, are not the ones to be pilloried. It's the chaste and decent ones who need to be sent to counseling for their sexual guilt complexes.
In a Democrat-controlled future, you might be sent to "re-education counseling" for praising chastity. The thought police will need to fix your "abstinophilia." After all, it might be contagious and bring the country back to some degree of moral decency.
When I see things like this, I can't help but have a fantasy. I imagine that women like the three little swingers are sent to one of the Muslim fundamentalist countries, where they're taught some of the sobering Old Testament truths about their behavior. It's no wonder that countries where they have strict views on chastity see America as a source of moral corruption in the world.
Can you blame them for not wanting to send their daughters here to be turned into rebellious little sluts? Even though there is much hypocrisy in those countries-just look at their own corrupt practice of female castration and their support of suicide bombings-their view of America reflects the extent of moral decay in a country that was once the standard-bearer of decency in the world.
Who's to blame for American decadence?
Didn't I say before that it's trickle-down immorality?
They say a fish rots from the head. Likewise, and throughout the ages, moral perversion always seeps down from corruption at the top. That's no excuse for the followers. We're not forced to go along with it. But, on the whole, it's like a law of physics in the area of society and morality. If the head starts rotting, it spreads throughout the whole body.
If your brain becomes corrupted with perverse attitudes, your body will follow suit. You'll see it in your face and eyes and in your body language. It will undermine your physical health even if you're lucky enough not to contract a communicable disease-or die from AIDS.
A country is no different; the entire world is no different.
The converse is true as well.
In ancient Israel, the country was strong and healthy whenever it had moral, God-fearing kings. It was weak and strife-ridden whenever the kings were evil. Anyone who thinks America is an exception to this is a victim of the Big Lie.
Hippies of Mecca
Remember when all the hippies used to go over to Kabul, Afghanistan? The girls, who were sort of sluts, pretended they were holier than everybody else. They smelled of patchouli oil. They were always going back and forth between America and Afghanistan. Not for anthropology-they were running drugs.
Many of the holier-than-thou girls from the sixties and seventies were really drug runners. They were mules for their slimy boyfriends. Kabul was, after all, the hippie mecca in the sixties and seventies. Back then, Kabul was a beautiful city, albeit somewhat primitive. Still, it had a modernity to it.
These chicks would go to Kabul, do drugs, sex, rock and roll. When they'd come back, they'd say they went there for the holiness. Right. In their pockets would be three grand, with heroin in a balloon. The liberal hippies probably ruined Afghanistan when you think about it. In fact, the liberals probably were one of the reasons the Taliban came to power.
If you, as a religious person, saw women running around without underwear and brassieres, if you watched them get loaded in your cafés, and you saw that they were doing drugs, they were doing guys, and they were seducing your sons, what would you think?
Wouldn't you be ready to go to war?
You'd say that these were the Jezebels of the West. Do you think you'd just sit by and let them corrupt your culture?
Think about what I'm saying to you.
Remember, there were no conservative hippies.
As an Afghani, you wouldn't have wanted your son to sleep with one of those girls from Berkeley who came over there. You'd be afraid she'd give him a disease and go home. Worse, the hippies didn't even leave babies behind.
All they left was STDs and then went home to their SUVs.
The cavalier attitude toward human sexuality in the sixties has implications for the widespread use of porn in America today. Keep in mind, I'm not really a moralist. I'm a pragmatist. Here's the difference.
If you want to debate the use of marijuana, I'd argue against pot but not on moral grounds. Rather, I'd approach it as a medical issue. Marijuana is not good because 20 to 25 percent of the population become physically and mentally ill from it and they don't even know it. Also, there is distinct medical damage from using marijuana that I don't have space to go into at the moment. And, as Robert Downey Jr. has testified, dope is a gateway drug. A gateway to hell.