Ideological Idiocy: A Politically Conservative and Morally Liberal Hebrew Alpha Male Stumbles Upon Jihadists, Peace Activists, and Other R

Ideological Idiocy: A Politically Conservative and Morally Liberal Hebrew Alpha Male Stumbles Upon Jihadists, Peace Activists, and Other R

by Express Tygrrrr Express, Tygrrrr Express

Paperback

$20.95
View All Available Formats & Editions
Choose Expedited Shipping at checkout for guaranteed delivery by Monday, January 21

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9781450211727
Publisher: iUniverse, Incorporated
Publication date: 04/06/2010
Pages: 296
Product dimensions: 6.00(w) x 9.00(h) x 0.67(d)

About the Author

From New York to Los Angeles, Tygrrrr
Express is a stockbrokerage and oil professional,
award-winning blogger, author, sought after public speaker, monitor of synagogues, rescuer of college students from leftist professors, and warrior against ideological idiocy with the force of a whack-a-mole club.

Read an Excerpt

Ideological Idiocy

A Politically Conservative and Morally Liberal Hebrew Alpha Male Stumbles Upon Jihadists, Peace Activists, and Other Ridiculous Leftists and Trips Over Their Heads Located Up Their (redacted).
By Eric

iUniverse, Inc.

Copyright © 2010 TYGRRRR EXPRESS
All right reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-4502-1172-7


Chapter One

Ideological Idiocy

Liberals like to declare every conservative on the planet to be either evil or stupid. This book is about their declaration of our being unenlightened dolts. This is ideological idiocy. Having liberals declare me stupid is like listening to members of the KKK call me insensitive. Conservatives must remember that our critics do not matter. Nobody listens to these crying children. For those that do not have a blunt instrument nearby, or are looking for a solution that avoids jail, humor is a powerful weapon. Use it against the left every moment they breathe. They may get offended, but that is the point.

Black Blood Cells, White Out, Ritz Crackers, and Vanilla Extract

Answer: Obama on Letterman, and the Emmy Awards.

(Either Johnny Carson or Alex Trebek gives us the question.)

Question: Things that are irrelevant. Now on to the news.

I have built a circumstantial case proving that President Barack Obama hates white people.

The initial evidence involves the water issue that has been decimating Central California. Actor Paul Rodriguez and Sean Hannity have been highlighting the fact that farmers in the San Joaquin Valley are starving. The drought has hurt the California agriculture industry, but the environmentalists have hurt more. A two-inch minnow fish has been declared more important than the farmers. The federal government has ordered the water turned off.

Obviously President Obama is doing this because the farmers are white. True, some of them are Latino, but given that Latinos supported his primary opponents, they are closer to white than black.

Then President Obama decided to surrender on missile defense. The man that wanted to get along better with our allies decided to throw Poland under the bus. Poland has always been a loyal ally of America. Liberals sadly respect the Polish people less than the French because Poland likes America. Poles also like Ronald Reagan, not leftist oppression. So why did Obama abandon Poland? He chucked them because most Polish people are white. If there are black people in Poland, I have never met them.

(I have never been to Poland. Let it go. Fact-check the "Jayson Blair" Times [JBT] instead.)

The third piece of evidence is the unending corruption of ACORN. Most ACORN critics are conservatives. Most conservatives are white. Therefore, Obama defends ACORN because he hates white people.

In further news, White-Out is a racist product. If somebody had invented "black-out," "Jew-out," or "Gay-out," there would be riots in the streets.

Ritz Crackers are another racist product. Imagine if a snack was known as "Ritz Darkies," or some other epithet.

The term "pure vanilla" is racist. All vanilla extract should immediately be replaced with chocolate extract to make up for America's past. They are both brown, but that is beside the point.

Lastly, all scientists and God are racist because black people have white blood cells but white people are not allowed to have black blood cells.

Everything is racist. Until milk is colored black, Selma, Alabama should be in every third sentence of every school textbook.

Okay, my point has been made as plain as black and white.

Barack Obama's indifference to the suffering of California farmers does not make him a racist. He truly is colorblind in his lack of regard for most people. He is every bit as insincere with many black people as he is with white people.

As for missile defense, Barack Obama is not a racist. He is just an appeaser and an apologist. He is willing to surrender to any nation run by any person of any color, provided that hurts America. He has tapped into the ideologically bigoted culture of today's American left. Since George W. Bush favored missile defense, Barack Obama has to be against it. If George W. Bush were to cure cancer, Obama would announce that the American Medical Association is outraged at doctors being forced out of work. If Bush says black, Obama says white ... so to speak.

This leads to ACORN. President Obama is not going after ACORN's critics because they are white.

Conversely, critics are not going after ACORN because they help black people.

Critics of Obama are not going after him because he is black.

This is where the left gets confused. Aren't the people on the right racists, sexists, bigots, and homophobes, while those on the left are noble purists with beautiful intentions?

If somebody is a member of a minority group that has suffered greatly, shouldn't all members of that aggrieved group automatically be given lifetime immunity from any and all criticism for anything and everything?

If one is a liberal, then yes, absolutely.

Racism is poisonous, but conservatives understand that tossing out the race card at the slightest hint of unrelated and self-inflicted problems only makes things more difficult for victims of real racism.

Corruption and greed are colorblind. All humans are capable of sin.

Charles Rangel is a corrupt tax cheat. So is Timothy Geithner. Yet Charles Rangel continues to skate by.

David Patterson is the incompetent governor of New York. His race is irrelevant. His lack of effectiveness is the issue. It is called David Dinkins Syndrome. He wasn't tough enough for the job.

William Jefferson had $90 thousand cash in the freezer. His race was not the issue. His corruption was.

What do all of these criminals (Patterson was not accused of crimes) have in common? They blamed institutional racism for their own bad deeds.

Barack Obama ran as a post-partisan president. Instead he and his colleagues on the left play the race card when conservatives dare to disagree with him.

Nancy Pelosi and other guilty white liberals are willing to label conservatives as racists to win at politics. They are willing to pass a national health care plan by tearing this nation in half. They imply that people who sharply disagree with Obama are going to murder him in cold blood, despite that fact that it was liberals that burned President George W. Bush in effigy.

They don't care about anything but winning at all costs.

I will not be labeled a racist just because I want low taxes and dead terrorists.

I will not be afraid to criticize Barney Frank, Jim McGreevey, or any other gay politician that uses their sexuality to intimidate others.

I will go after any corrupt politician, even if they are black like Mel Reynolds.

I will also criticize white liberal corrupt politicians, be they Eliot Spitzer or Jon Corzine.

I will go after conservative politicians that are corrupt, be they Randy Duke Cunningham or Mark Foley.

I want to root out corruption from crooked black and white politicians.

This is known as chocolate and vanilla extract.

Racism must be stopped. So must racial grievance-mongers crying wolf, even if they are leading this country.

eric

Conservative vs. Republican

Election Day Tuesday, 2009, had the very closely watched race in the twenty-third New York congressional district.

For those not following, the district was described as "conservative" despite being carried by President Obama in 2008. The seat became vacant when the Republican occupant took a cabinet job. The Republican nominee was a woman whose name reminded me of Fozzie Bear from The Muppet Show.

(After less than extensive research, it seems her name is Dede Scozzafava or something like that.)

The problem is conservatives did not get a warm feeling from Scozzie. Scozzie Wozzy simply wasn't Fozzy, or fuzzy, or something like that.

As much fuzzy fun as it is to do that, the serious issue is that she was seen as a very liberal Republican. Given the Trotskeyite leanings of New York, this seemed normal.

Yet conservatives were so up in arms that they decided to throw their support behind Doug Hoffman, who until then was known for ... well, nothing really.

Third parties usually quickly fade. Everything changed when Sarah Palin endorsed Hoffman. Fred Thompson and Sean Hannity lined up behind him as well.

Days before the election, Scozzafava dropped out. The conservative candidate knocked out the Republican candidate, as they both faced off against the Democrat, who is known for ... well, nothing.

As a conservative Republican, I ask ...

Is this a good thing?

The answer?

I really honestly don't know.

I have thought about this on a general level and specifically related to this particular race.

On a general level, it bothers me when somebody says, "I'm not a Republican. I'm a conservative." For one thing, many of them say this with a smugness that is normally reserved for liberals. Then again, you will not hear liberals claim they are a liberal or a leftist. They hide behind phony words like "progressive."

At least the conservatives are bragging about who they are, rather than denying who they are.

Yet it still bothers me because in general I can't stand third party candidates.

I love these right-of-center people that brag about voting Constitution Party, Libertarian, or American Independent. These same people also voted for Ralph Nader in some cases. They like the attention of being "rebels." Ask a Ron Paul supporter why they are a Republican, and they have no idea.

We are a two-party system. It works. We don't have coalition governments. We are not like Israel or Italy changing governments every few minutes.

I am a conservative. I also believe in the Republican Party. It is the party committed to low taxes and dead terrorists. It is the party of individual freedom and liberty. The party has had people who have strayed from the ideals, but the ideals are still noble.

Most importantly, I am not interested in ideological purity. I am interested in winning. Conservatives that spend every waking night praying for the next Ronald Reagan fail to grasp that Reagan did not become Reagan until he was elected.

Winners get to govern. Losers get to obstruct. Republicans and conservatives are currently trying to slow liberalism. That is not the same as advancing conservatism.

When I speak around the country, I bring up what Rahm Emanuel did in 2006. He went around the country recruiting right-wing Democrats. He did not care if they were George McGovern or George Wallace Democrats. A "D" was good enough.

I don't care if somebody is to the right of the late Jesse Helms, or barely right-of-center like Susan Collins. If you have an "R" next to your name, I support you. We are a family.

California will not elect an Idaho Republican. Massachusetts and New York have had GOP governors, but they were not Alabama or Mississippi Republicans.

This is not to say that we throw out conservative principles. We just make sure to spend more time focusing on what unites us, such as low taxes and dead terrorists, and stop fighting over red meat social issues that split us apart. This angers many social conservatives, but anybody that thinks that a moderate Republican is the same as a liberal Democrat needs to have their head examined.

So what does this mean for the New York special election? Is this rise of Hoffman good or bad?

My initial response was, "Ask me on Wednesday. If he wins, it is fine. If he loses, it is a disaster."

That is it. There are no moral victories.

In this specific situation, I was originally fine with the developments for two reasons.

First of all, after Scozzi Fozzie (I can't help it, it's fun.) dropped out, she endorsed the Democrat. This was an act of spitefulness not seen since Betsy McCaughey Ross was fired as the Republican lieutenant governor and then became a Democrat.

I will stand up for moderate and liberal Republicans, but once they leave the party, like Arlen Specter, I am done with them. That is betrayal.

The second reason I was okay with Hoffman is because he did something that Ron Paul never did. Hoffman showed allegiance to the GOP even while running on the Conservative Party ticket. He stated that if elected, he would run for reelection as a Republican. He was willing to join the party. That is good enough for me.

There is a difference between being somebody who works from within and someone who is just an attention-seeking gadfly.

Ross Perot broke up the Reagan coalition and elected Bill Clinton. Before Perot, Pat Buchanan tore apart the GOP. Clinton signed many bills that bothered me. I vocalized my opinions. I also told those that voted Libertarian to shut up and stop complaining because they elected him by not supporting President George H.W. Bush.

The issue is viability. Doug Hoffman has proven his viability. Winning would truly help his credibility.

The same cannot be said of the governor's race in New Jersey. John Corzine is a socialist and a disaster, although those are redundant. In a two-party race he would get his clock cleaned. Yet a third party candidate with no chance of winning was hurting Chris Christie.

I disagree with Christie on gun control. Again, this is New Jersey. He is the type of Republican that can win. If Corzine won, it would have been because conservatives cut off their elephant noses to spite their puritanical faces. This is nuts.

Leftists blame Ralph Nader for George W. Bush defeating Al Gore. Conservatives would have been justified in slapping independent voters silly if they had inadvertently reelected Jon Corzine.

Some people say that it takes a Carter to bring about a Reagan, and that Obama has united conservatives. This is insane. I don't need to elect a liberal to know they will be dreadful. Football teams claim that they learn from losing. This argument is garbage. The goal is to try and win everything.

I do not know enough about any of the candidates in the twenty-third New York special election to offer much more. What I do know is that a Hoff man win may have caused conservatives to cannibalize Republicans around the country. If that happens, we will become an ideologically pure minority.

Ronald Reagan was a conservative, but he treated every Republican as a member of the family.

I rooted for Doug Hoff man to win that Tuesday, but I want "conservatives" to help fix the Republican Party, not destroy it.

(Hoffman lost. Some conservatives truly believe they sent a message. No, they sent a Democrat to congress.)

I am a principled conservative Republican. I am ideologically conservative, and the only viable place to pass a conservative agenda is to go through the Republican Party.

Right-of-center individuals can either fall off a cliff or fall into line.

eric

Chapter Two

Jewish Ideological Idiocy

Bill Cosby is going after cancerous elements in black America not out of hatred, but out of love. I love being Jewish. As the son of a Holocaust survivor, I am determined to weed out those that compare Republicans to Nazis. Jews have been victims of the worst bigotry known to humanity. Sadly enough, the liberal Jewish community engages in verbally dehumanizing behavior toward me and my ilk. Some call this madness. I call it Jewish liberalism.

Liberal Jews and Battered Housewives

Politically liberal Jews are like battered housewives, only with less hope.

Before the hags at the National Organization for Women send me another feminist Fatwa, I am not celebrating battered housewife syndrome. Even if a woman bothers me when I am trying to watch football, a simple, "Honey, I can take care of the trash later" is sufficient. Abusers are scum. While the woman's timing is terrible, the man could take the trash out before the game.

Nobody should be abused. However, there is a subtle difference between liberal Jews and battered housewives. Battered housewives really are innocent victims. Liberal Jews really do sow the seeds of their own pathetic weakness.

(Do not confuse battered housewives with "Desperate Housewives." In that show the husbands get battered in various ways.)

Only liberal Jews could create entire umbrella organizations designed to destroy their own communities and fight against their own interests.

(Continues...)



Excerpted from Ideological Idiocy by Eric Copyright © 2010 by TYGRRRR EXPRESS. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Table of Contents

Contents

Chapter 0: A Moronic From the Get-go Foreword....................1
Chapter 1: Ideological Idiocy....................3
Chapter 2: Jewish Ideological Idiocy....................12
Chapter 3: Pacifist Idiocy....................27
Chapter 4: Palesimian Idiocy....................39
Chapter 5: Media Idiocy....................55
Chapter 6: Financial Idiocy....................81
Chapter 7: Sexual Idiocy....................109
Chapter 8: Sports Idiocy....................129
Chapter 9: Hysterical Idiocy....................142
Chapter 10: Historical Global Idiocy....................149
Chapter 11: Musical Idiocy....................162
Chapter 12: Educational Idiocy....................171
Chapter 13: Community Organizer Idiocy....................181
Chapter 14: Religious Islamofascist Jihadist Idiocy....................212
Chapter 15: Religious Leftist Jihadist Idiocy....................225
Chapter 16: Rancher Idiocy....................245
Chapter 17: 2012 and Future Idiocy....................249
Chapter 18: American Idiocy....................265

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews