Ted Nugent compares liberals to rabid dogs who need to be put down.
Conservative website Forbes is blasting washed-up rocker Ted Nugent for inciting terrorist behavior against Americans during an interview on the Alex Jone’s show “InfoWars.”
As Forbes contributor Rick Ungar writes: “To illustrate his point that Democrats and Liberals need to be eradicated—and by eradicated I mean terminated—from the American social landscape, Nugent turned to the classic film “Old Yeller”; a story about a beloved family dog that is infected with rabies and must be put down by the boy who loves him.”
Speaking of American liberals, Nugent explained to Alex Jones:
Here’s the bottom line, if we would have been taught “Old Yeller”- I don’t care why he’s foaming at the mouth, I don’t care how he got rabies, he’s rabid, get rid of the damn dog. When Old Yeller brings us slippers, give him a biscuit; when he foams at the mouth, you shoot him between the eyes. Any questions? You got to do it. America, you got to cleanse this country.
Ungar explains that concerned “that he may have just gotten himself into some very hot water,” Nugent tried to back off his call for “ultimate violence against his fellow Americans who would dare to disagree with Nugent’s own brand of politics.”
No, I’m not talking about shooting anybody. I’m talking about dealing with an outrageous condition that is painful and traumatic and frustrating, but if you don’t face the beast, you’re dead, and that’s what’s going on.
Unwilling to let Nugent off the hook for his analogy, Ungar wrote: “Except that he was exactly talking about shooting people—liberal, American people to be precise.”
Can anyone tell me what he was saying if he was not suggesting that we need to kill those who disagree with him to “cleanse” the nation? He didn’t suggest some other treatment for Old Yeller, his metaphor for the ‘rabid’ liberals he so detests.
He said that such a creature needed to be shot between the eyes and then noted the importance of America ‘cleansing’ itself by doing this.
As Ungar explains: “I’ve listened to the tape ten times and can’t, try as I may, come up with an alternate explanation for his words.”
He goes on to warn conservatives that “Before you decide to excuse Mr. Nugent because he more closely represents your own point of view when it comes to those who politically disagree with you (hopefully, absent the desire to see them dead), I would, yet again, implore you to alter the equation a bit by replacing the name Nugent with Mohammed and change ‘liberals’ to ‘Americans.'”
As Ungar writes, Nugent is clearly inciting terrorist behavior against Americans:
If you are anywhere within the geographic vicinity of intellectual honesty, you know very well that you would not be quite so sanguine when the Old Yeller comparison is applied to anyone who would choose to stop the spread of the Caliphate. Rather, you would be calling for the head of any individual who would incite such terrorist behavior against Americans on the airwaves—and I would be right there with you.
Ungar then asks his readers: “Are you okay with this?” adding:
Do you imagine that Mr. Nugent should be permitted to voice this kind of rhetoric calling for the death of Americans of a different political persuasion? Do you imagine that this is fine because he has some First Amendment right to do so?
If so, then you must be perfectly fine with programming services carried on television stations in America and on the Internet that broadcast pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah programs that promote terrorism, hatred, and violence and glorify the concept of martyrdom in the battle against America.
After writing about pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah programs on American television, Ungar elaborates on his claim that Nugent is for all intents and purposes a terrorist himself.
“I don’t know about you, but the notion of terrorist broadcasts within America, calling for our death and destruction, are profoundly disturbing to me—just as I am equally disturbed by an over-the-hill rock star calling for the death of a segment of the American population in order to cleanse the nation of those whom disagree with him,” he writes, adding: But if you too are troubled by pro-radical Islamic broadcasts, yet untroubled by Ted Nugent calling for American liberals and Democrats to be gunned down like Old Yeller because of their politics, then you might consider whether you really have a problem with terrorism or only with terrorism that puts you, or those whom you love, within its crosshairs.”
To illustrate his point, Ungar asks his readers a couple of questions:
- “Ask yourself if you were as disturbed when a Caucasian, domestic terrorist gunned down three at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado as you were about the radical Islamist who murdered fourteen in San Bernardino. Yes, there were more innocent Americans who tragically died in San Bernardino—but to the families of those lost in Colorado Springs, the numbers are very cold comfort.”
- “Now ask yourself if you are more disturbed by the threats issued by ISIL against all Americans than you are about the suggestions made by Ted Nugent, which would, if carried out, only impact on liberals.”
Ungar goes on to explain how Nugent apologists are doomed to fail: “You can tell yourself that the difference is that ISIL “means” it and Ted Nugent is just “talking”, but by doing so you are picking and choosing which acts of terrorism are acceptable to you and which are not. Terrorism is terrorism. Suggesting mass murder based on the target’s political or religious beliefs is terrorism—even when you are not at risk.”
Writing that: “It is often noted that it is incumbent upon the moderate Muslim community to stand up and condemn the actions of those within their community who are radical and deadly. I agree—although I think they do so far more than is often realized,” Ungar concludes with the following question and answer:
My question is how one can demand this of the moderate Muslim community and then simply remain silent when someone from their own political community—someone like Ted Nugent—calls for the cleansing of his political opposition. How can any American conservative remain silent in the face of such behavior yet demand that moderate Muslims do otherwise?
If your answer to this question is that Nugent is just foaming at the mouth and isn’t to be taken seriously, do I really need to remind you of history’s greatest criminals who were not taken seriously until they acted?
I don’t think so.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login