Image 01 Image 03

First hookers, now Ted Nugent

First hookers, now Ted Nugent

CNN columnist LZ Granderson demanded an arrest:

Ted Nugent should be arrested.

Not because he doesn’t like Barack Obama but because he got up in front of a group of people and insinuated he would attempt to assassinate Obama if he’s re-elected. Or let’s put it this way: A man with a truckload of guns has threatened the life of our president while the country’s at war.

Nugent’s words were: “If Barack Obama is elected, I’ll either be dead or in jail this time next year,” which sounds to me like he’s open to directing his disapproval of Obama in a way that is violent and unlawful. When you see that statement next to Nugent comparing Obama and his colleagues to coyotes that needed to be shot, as well as the need to “ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November,” I don’t see how that rant cannot be looked upon as a threat on the president’s life.

Just about the entire left-blogosphere demanded the same.

But the Secret Service did not oblige.

Via WaPo:

So how’d things go with that much-anticipated summit between Ted Nugent and the Secret Service?

If you were expecting fireworks — understandable, given the ’70s heavy-metal star’s gift for bombast — we’re sorry to disappoint.

No charges, no arrest, and apparently no showdown of any kind came out of the Motor City Madman’s meeting with the feds, necessitated by some particularly (though not unusually) fiery comments he made at an National Rifle Association convention about chopping off the heads of Democrats and whatnot.

Nugent, 63, confirmed in a statement that “two fine, professional Secret Service agents” came to see him Thursday in Oklahoma, where he was scheduled to play Ardmore’s 2 Frogs Grill that night.

By his account, all parties concluded “that I have never made any threats of violence towards anyone. . . I thanked them for their service, we shook hands and went about our business.”

“The issue has been resolved,” Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary told us. The agency, he said, “does not anticipate any further action.”

First hookers, now Ted Nugent.  Obviously the Secret Service hates Obama.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


But the years 2000-2008 and the things they said about Bush during that time must’ve just been different, ya know.

BannedbytheGuardian | April 19, 2012 at 7:33 pm

I am distinctly upset about the coyote reference.

They are fine animals & suffered enough with the Roadrunner.


so…he never explicitly threatened the presidents life, but provided a vague scenerio.

i would say that nugent, from the above quote, has more than enough plausible deniability.

this is opposed to say fantasizing about killing W. assaulting his family.

which happenned quite a bit.

“the Secret Service hates Obama.”

The hookers do too. No more dinero de yanqui..

LZ Granderson, who writes a weekly column for, was named journalist of the year by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and a 2011 Online Journalism Award finalist for commentary. He is a senior writer and columnist for ESPN the Magazine and Follow him or her depending on the date on Twitter: @locs_n_laughs.

[…] Legal Insurrection: LZ Granderson Demands the Arrest of Ted Nugent […]

huskers-for-palin | April 19, 2012 at 8:26 pm

Hey Secret Service, how about a house call to Louis Farrakhan.

“Kill our leaders!”

Excuse me, but wasn’t there a fantasy assassination movie made about Bush called, “Death of a President”?
Gimme a break,leftards.


It’s a good thing that Ted didn’t offer a reward for Mr. Obama’s apprehension and arrest … he’d really be in trouble with Eric Holder if he did that.

Yeah. Nobody from the Collective EVER says stuff like Nugent.


Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years

“Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:13 am
[If you just want to see the evidence and not read the introduction, simply scroll down to the photos………]”

Hell a lass that Zombie girl is..

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to JP. | April 20, 2012 at 1:42 am

    Zombie got that photo of Obama entering a SF mansion by the servants entrance for an 08 fundraiser.

    However I have nor visited since her spread of SF Gay Nude day.

    I can stil see those over ripe nether regions. Bring back the loin cloth .

    Great link, JP. Bookmarked!

DAMN! “hell OF a……”

So basically the Motor City Madman played a rousing rendition of “Dog Eat Dog” and all was “forgiven”.

Considering the precedent set by Skittles toting and hoodie wearing when others demanded the arrest of a white man perhaps those demanding Uncle Ted’s arrest will go on about emulating their “martyr”. They can do this by wearing “mom jeans” with creases and eating dogs.

People really need to stop getting so bent out of shape over what these various entertainers say. Rush, Nugent, and even Jon Stewart (who the Catholic League is now organizing a boycott of) don’t owe the world any decency or civility, and they’re doing exactly what their target audience wants. None of them are committing crimes, they’re all just being outlandish, which comes with the territory of being an entertainer.

    Most of us wouldn’t be so bent out of shape if it weren’t for the glaring hypocrisy of the Liberals who yell, scream and jump up and down when a Conservative commentator makes a tactless (but ENTIRELY accurate) statement about a Liberal but are wholly and completely SILENT (or worse, approving) when a Liberal commentator explicitly (and on purpose) demeans and degrades a Conservative.

    By ignoring, or worse excusing, the hypocrisy we have let it fester into the larger culture. No more. The hypocrites claim to speak for the poor, yet only speak in platitudes without action. The hypocrites claim to stand for “women’s rights” yet demean any woman who doesn’t fit their ‘preferred’ lifestyle.

    It is far past time to loudly call out the hypocrites as such and publically HUMILIATE them for their inconsistency.

      punfundit in reply to Chuck Skinner. | April 20, 2012 at 12:26 am

      “By ignoring, or worse excusing, the hypocrisy we…let it fester into the larger culture.”

      Which of course is the idea, Chuck.

While we could indeed call out the progressive hypocrites on this one, the Left doesn’t see themselves as hypocrites, because it’s okay when they do it. It will be lost on them.

Mr. Nugent made some vague comments and has been excoriated for them. It’s much like the way Sarah Palin was attacked for the use of ‘crosshairs’ in a political ad.

Whereas there were any number of explicit threats made against George Bush by the Left. Remember the folks who made a ‘movie’ about his assassination? Yuk yuk, hah hah, right? Just an exercise in the movie-makers’ first amendment rights, correct?

Can you imagine the blowback if someone made a movie that was frame for frame the same, substituting the assassination of our current President?

(for the record, I’m completely against any attack directed towards either man and would regard such an attack as murder)

It’s the same for misogynist attacks against women — witness the horrific words (and death threats) directed against Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and now Anne Romney, and imagine what the Left would say about such words directed against Hillary (except when Axelrod did it). It’s the same for attacks against black citizens — witness the attacks against Herman Cain, Condi Rice and J. C. Watts.

The progressive Left is indeed hypocritical, but don’t expect to be able to shame them. For them, this is a feature, not a bug.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to stevewhitemd. | April 20, 2012 at 6:10 am

    I’m gadualy coming to the belief that we miss our mark by simply pointing to the left’s hypocrisy in this area. I’m beginning to think that the eventual state of feeling mentally abused, an inherent result of enduring unending hypocrisy, is the real goal. It’s as though it’s being used for the purpose of subjugation, not so much spreading the content itself for its own sake. It’s as though they’re saying, “We can do this to you all we want. You are helpless, we are the masters with the upper hand, so just STFU and suck it up.” It seems to be yet another tool being used in the attempt to divide and conquer this country.

    What they don’t get is that it just pisses people off more.

nordic_prince | April 19, 2012 at 11:35 pm

So, where are the howls of mock outrage from the troll(s) du jour that visit the Prof’s fine blog?

C’mon, trolls, come out and play. Tell us how your widdle feelings have been hurt by Nugent’s “hateful” words, and how you’re just scarred for life now.

Coming from Norse stock, I know all about the proper treatment of trolls 😀

Whaddya gonna bring him up on?
Not being a pansy???
Be serious.

The meeting with the Secret Service may have been amiable, but I’m still disturbed that it happened at all. No matter how friendly they were when they showed up, the fact that they publicly said they were going to investigate his remarks must have a chilling effect on other people’s willingness to say similar things. Nugent can easily afford a lawyer to sit with him when a couple of friendly armed agents from the government come calling; I can’t. If I have to worry about this happening to me, I will have to think twice about exercising my first amendment right to say things like Nugent said, which no reasonable person could possibly construe as any sort of threat to 0bama, let alone a “true threat” which is the only sort that is criminal.

Remember that it is settled law that it is perfectly lawful to express the wish that the president be assassinated. One may calmly advocate his assassination. One may even address a public rally and say that “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is Barack Obama”. There is no way that Nugent’s remarks can possibly be seen as more threatening than these examples, all of which are indisputably legal. So what exactly did the Secret Service need to hear from Nugent? What crime could they conceivably, that could justify the chilling effect of the meeting?

    You are correct. The “visit” does have a negative effect on free speech. Many people will hold back if they think that a “visit” by a couple of Secret Service agents is in the offing. So if I were to say, “Obama should drop dead”, that would be interpreted as a threat against Obama’s life, when I meant it as colloquialism the same as if I had said, “Jump in the lake”. That is very different from my saying, “I am going to kill Obama”, which is a direct threat.
    Maybe Secret Service agents need to spend more time with prostitutes so they can leave us alone. Just don’t send us the bill.
    Uh, oh. There’s a knock at my door and two men wearing sunglasses and with little things in their ears are outside. The “visitors” are here.