We’re now more than a year into President Obama’s second term and Ted Nugent is still a free man and free to spew crap such as this (h/t Bob Cesca):
I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist raised communist educated communist nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama (emphasis partially Cesca’s and partially my own) to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America. I am heartbroken but I am not giving up. I think America will be America again when Barack Obama, [Attorney General] Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, [Sen.] Dick Durbin, [former New York City Mayor] Michael Bloomberg and all of the liberal Democrats are in jail facing the just due punishment that their treasonous acts are clearly apparent.
So a lot of people would call that inflammatory speech. Well I would call it inflammatory speech when it’s your job to protect Americans and you look into the television camera and say what difference does it make that I failed in my job to provide security and we have four dead Americans. What difference does that make? Not to a chimpanzee or Hillary Clinton, I guess it doesn’t matter. (emphasis Cesca’s)
Media Matters further elaborated that Nugent also dipped into sexism:
Nugent also made a sexist remark about Hillary Clinton, claiming, “Our politicians check their scrotum in at the door. Even Hillary, but obviously she has spare scrotums.”
But, of course, we know that none of the criticism has to do with President Obama’s race or Secretary Clinton’s sex. It’s just that these words, that in Nugent’s mind, and those of other critics, constitute “legitimate” criticism of policy also happen to have for ages been used as nasty code words. Just so these critics are aware, I live in Brooklyn and I have a bridge that I’d be happy to sell them.
Also disturbing is the fact that Nugent, for all the love he professes for the Constitution (meaning the Second Amendment and apparently nothing else) fails to understand that advocating for policy change, and then acting upon those convictions when holding office, does not constitute treason. He desperately needs to read Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Nothing there about advocating for policy change or elected officials seeking to pass legislation to that effect. He also needs to read the amendment that immediately precedes the one he talks about so much. Here’s the First Amendment for him:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (emphasis my own), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Even the most conservative and restrictive interpreters of this provision, such as Robert Bork, hold that political speech is protected. What can be more political than advocating that the government change its policy?
Of course, in the end, and the language used bears this out, many of President Obama’s critics don’t care one whit about what policy he advocates for; they just want that black man out of the White House. They should just be honest about what they really want.
That said, after five years, I’m not at all surprised by the racism. It’s a sad statement of just how far we still have to go.