Ted Nugent: Obama is a ‘bad man

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

Ted Nugent never holds back and today on radio with Glenn was no exception to that rule. He talked about the news of the day with Glenn including Libya – prompting Nugent to say Obama is a ‘bad man’ and his policies are ‘internationally destructive’ – check out the full interview in the clip above!

  • http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    Obama is a narcissist, liar, and thief. He is an instrument of international and domestic destruction, along with being completely insane.

    • windtalker700

      Obama’s not crazy ! He just hates us.

  • http://youtu.be/ff8jDkOHp3U Sam Fisher

    I am one of these 47%ers because of how poor I am but I refuse to become a slave to the government. This poor man is voting for Mitt why because out of the two choices he is the best. We need to get back to work if Obama had his way we all be poor. we need to win. I am watching his show if I remember it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rocca.rottweilerpitbull Rocca Rottweilerpitbull

      You and me bro…

    • Freedoms Patriot

      It’s ironic, WE 47%ers know it is absolutely true.
      FYI, Judicial Watch sued DHS for immigration rejection rates.
      Applicants that will go straight to welfare, 0.068%
      Applicants (new voters too) ID as criminal or TERRORIST, ..25%..YEA?

      Explains why all people at county health care here are 95% non English speaking and 4% free phone’ERS.

    • http://twitter.com/Beckymomzo5 Becky Hanson

       My daughter is in the same boat too. She’s gone to school to try to make their lives better. It’s too later for me though, I’m too old. But we’re all voting for Mitt Romney too. We just hope that people we know here in Calif. will wake up before it’s too late. May God Bless you, Mr. Sam Fisher.  Mrs. Hanson  =)

  • Anonymous


    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carol-Morgan/100000253121773 Carol Morgan

      i appreciate your sentiment but i think i would change that to “party hardy!” because i think a lot of America’s problem is too much miller time and not enough time paying attention to whats going on!

      • Anonymous

        yep,more into voting for american idol than president…why do they refuse to see the truth….barry-hussein-obama is an antiAmerican islamist terrorist!!
        ted u r so right..i’ve said for six years…Obomba IS the Leader of Muslim Brotherhood like his buddy Achmindijad says, why else would he oust our friendly dictators for muslim brotherhood as leader of country’s surrounding the promised land of israel…which Glenn predicted sis years ago…

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrea-Soucy/1149827821 Andrea Soucy

      Even if Mitt wins, BHO will have over 2 months to give the Muslim Brotherhood all they want, including the blind sheik. HE WILL CLOSE GUANTANAMO AND TRANSFER THE PRISONERS TO THE PRISON HE JUST BOUGHT ON THE MAINLAND, something the Congress forbid, but he’ll do it anyway–probably through an executive order. He will start pardoning terrorists and letting them stay in the US. He will sign the UN treaty allowing them to tax US citizens, and put in motion plans to allow no further gun ownership as per the treaty Hilary signed with the UN. Even if Mitt wins, the most dangerous days lie ahead of us.

      • VindicatorX

        If he does all that and manages not to be impeached it will be a travesty of justice. If he does not behave, everyone who voted for Romney should petition their Senators and Congressmen/women to start impeachment proceedings immediately. He didn’t have the restraint to resist meddling as “president elect” before Bush’s term was over, I somehow don’t see him being able to resist abusing the power of his office even when he is defeated at the polls.

        Time to start writing to Congress about the many sins of this president – whether he is re-elected or not, he has to go for the good of the country.

    • http://twitter.com/BruceAFrank Bruce Frank

      When Romney wins, Obama will go on a rampage, commanding executive orders countermanding legitimate laws; Giving money to more failed-ideas industries; giving US money to more factions of the Muslim Brotherhood; imposing fees and regulations of business; implementing rules that have been on hold until after the election; appointing “his” socialist left wingers to every position in the government imaginable. . .inventing a few new ones along the way. I wonder if there is a way for Obama to be enjoined to prevent rule by executive fiat??!!

  • Anonymous

    Sam,I’m with you. I am also poor,but a survivor. That’s the difference in us and a lot of people who will vote for bho. I worry about my family that I will leave behind. They deserve a change to be free. If bho stays,there will be no freedom. When bho said,”I will fundamentally change America”during his campaign it scared me to death.

  • Draxx

    Back in 1991 I made it to the Winston P. Wilson Shooting Nationals, and Placed 39th out of 437 Shooters. Maybe Luck, Maybe Skill, but I sure loved shooting thousands of rounds a year during Practice & Competitions…

    Under Obummer things like this would go away! (One of my Favorite Memories)

    • Anonymous

      another O-bomb-A term would make our last election in a dictatorship under King LordHussein-Obomba! and all will be his Sheeple and All His adviCzars! George Schwartz’ Soros’ dream of a deminished America a New World Order One World Government,UNofA…Union Socialist States of America?! after all Soros did work for the Nazi’s as a teen…hussein-obama worked with marxist professors… his only education was starting Acorn under terrorists…bible RulesForRadicals dedicated to Lucifer..they are bringing US to Satan..our only Hope Is Getting All Back To God and Church..Speak Up and Vote Them All Out!!

  • landofaahs

    A bad man and worse president.

  • Freedoms Patriot

    “We operate here under directives from the White House.. [to] use our
    grant making power to alter life in the US. so that we can
    comfortably be merged with the Soviet Union.”

    Gaither, former president of the Ford Foundation, in a 1954 statement
    to Norman Dodd regarding Congressional investigations of the
    un-American activities of tax-exempt foundations operating in the

  • Freedoms Patriot

    Comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and
    perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily
    for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change
    within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our
    purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.”

    Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union, to the Politburo in
    November of 1987

  • Freedoms Patriot

    “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned
    that way.”
    D. Roosevelt

  • Freedoms Patriot

    job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they
    ought to have.”

    Salant, former President of CBS News

  • Freedoms Patriot

    “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”
    —Abraham Lincoln

  • Anonymous

    Damn it Glenn ! When are you going to run for president ??!!

  • http://twitter.com/Lawrencetscott Lawrencetscott

    Here is a .PDF educational fact sheet http://bitly.com/R4P4ee about the
    Democrats’ mission that needs to get out and forwarded (by email, tweets,
    whatever) to as many as possible right away. Maybe some folks will wake up when they
    realize these liberals have always been about destroying the U.S. from the
    start and for exterminating a portion of our population.

  • Anonymous

    Ted Nugent is not the most polished of speakers to voice an opinion about the president and Libya, but no matter how it is stated, it is shameful to the point that you have to wonder what is wrong with Obama and Biden and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi…it never ends with these people.

    Last night during the debate, watching Joe Biden address this issue with Paul Ryan, I now understand that I have been too charitable to these evil men. He laughed, he blamed Bush, he blamed the intelligence community, he blamed everyone and took no responsibility for a single shred of blame, nor did he show the slightest vestige of concern for the families of these men. It was all about him. He more than demonstrated why it is that he gives literally nothing to charity. Why should he? He’s given the “little people” enough of other people’s money and that’s REAL charity.

    Ted Nugent is a good guy. He is unpolished, but from that good man, hearing that Obama is a bad man…well, I think he was actually holding back because the truth is worse. Obama and Biden are sociopathic narcissists who care nothing about anyone but themselves, who mock all that is good about America and strive to destroy the things about this country that makes it great in their headlong lust for power.

    When Obama spoke for the first time following the Libya murders, he actually seemed puzzled as to why people would think that this was such a big deal. I was surprised that he wasn’t looking at his watch or hanging out with his rich and powerful celebrity friends or making his remarks on a friendly talk show.

    Biden made sure to reinforce the administration’s uncaring attitude last night. It was like the president threw him a pitch and he knocked one out of the park. Contempt was dripping from his fangs all night long, but it was the worst where he was vulnerable. He and Obama still believe that the press will cooperate at some point to cover this up and attack those who dare to contradict their hallowed personages. If they say that this was NOT a terrorist attack, then God himself has spoken, and to question is to invite retaliation.

    Ted Nugent hit the nail on the head. Keep talking, Ted!!

    • VindicatorX

      Could not have said it better – Uncle Ted is truly a great American.

  • http://www.facebook.com/fred.rogers.969 Fred Rogers

    Ted Nugent is a jerk, plain and simple.

    • Anonymous

      You ought to know, Fred. Of course, this is what I would expect from a man who uses a picture of God as his photo. I’ve seen your Facebook site. You apparently think that we’d all be better off if all weapons were removed from the hands of the public. Your photos of Jared Loughner and James Holmes mock the second amendment of the Constitution, yet, very aptly (thank you) display how little you and liberals know about the second amendment. The “well regulated militia” portion of the second amendment you show in this photo demonstrates the idiocy of liberals. That portion of the amendment was put in place as a division between federalism and state rights. What it means is that the states and the individuals have the right to defend themselves against federal tyranny.
      Because the federal militia had the potential to enforce a tyrannical president who decided to throw aside the Constitutional limits on federal powers and simply order them to invade any state to enforce his will, two things happened. One, the National Guard was eventually created, a state militia that can be used to supplement federal troops, but ONLY with the consent of the governor of the individual state. The last provision of the second amendment is what refers to us, the people. It is, by far, the clearest directive in the Constitution, yet it is the one that rankles liberals more than any other. It is the directive that, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is laughable that the bozos on the left think that means that only the federal government should be allowed to have weapons. Instead of debating something that you obviously don’t understand, or worse, DO understand, but you want to ignore it and just seize all weapons (which means seizing all weapons that are owned legally by law abiding people), thus resulting in everlasting peace. But rather than quibbling about what the founders’ intention was, let’s actually read what they said about it and we’ll see if the lies of the left are right, or the claims of the right, which are actually based on historical fact, not anarchy.
      See, here’s the deal,

      James Madison’s initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
      Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
      “Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizure.”

      Here’s the biggest difference between you and me and every other law abiding gun owner in the US. You, as a liberal, hate guns. Therefore, guns should be removed from the hands of all law abiding Americans. As a conservative, if I don’t like guns, I don’t buy one. Apparently, rationality never invades your or any other liberal’s thinking processes. By your rationale, guns are pure evil because they can be used to kill people. After all, there is no other way to kill a human being than with a gun, right?
      By that rationale, we should be removing all vehicles from the roadways, because FAR more people are killed by morons in cars than are killed by guns. Why should private citizens be able to keep and own cars? After all, most motor vehicle deaths are because of the actions of individual drivers, not government transportation. If we forced everyone to give up private ownership of vehicles we would automatically increase fitness, clean up the environment and limit the deaths from motor vehicles. Since there are around 6,000 people per year killed by guns (and there are 300,000,000 privately owned weapons, giving a death rate per privately owned weapon of 0.00002% = 1/5000’ths of 1%) and at least 40,0000 people are killed by cars (254,212,610 registered vehicles were in the US in 2009 and that year there were nearly 40,000 motor vehicle deaths, giving a death rate of 0.02%) which is proportionally 100x more deaths, shouldn’t we be outlawing cars?
      The bottom line, Fred, is that this is a ridiculous argument to use for upending a portion of the Bill of Rights in favor of safety. Well, the question then becomes, does gun control make cities safer? Let’s consider two countries that have very successfully outlawed guns for law abiding people. Australia does not allow its citizens to own any ballistic weapon for self defense, but does grant some waivers for sport hunting and other activities. There has been absolutely no change in the number of gun deaths, except for one statistic…home invasion gun deaths of elderly citizens. That has risen by almost 400%.
      In England, Americans usually have the romantic notion that because the accent is cute and sounds so polite, that Britain is perfectly safe. NOPE. London is the most dangerous city in the EU. For some reason, the criminals refuse to obey the gun laws. Since the criminals are the ONLY ones with guns, they are virtually unopposed when they decide to commit violent crimes. Gun control advocates in both these nations claim that suicides by gun has fallen to an all-time low and claim that because of this, lives are being saved by the hundreds. Of course, they didn’t actually look to see whether suicides committed by other methodology are on the rise. They are, and at dramatically increased rate of what was seen prior to the gun control laws. This is what is expected because, duh, suicide can’t be addressed by gun control, since it has nothing to do with gun control. If we follow the liberal hysteria to its’ natural endpoint, if we really wanted to prevent suicide, we would outlaw airplanes, cliffs, buildings over five feet tall, medications, bikes, water…
      Another bottom line is this. What happened when Obama took office? In 2009, the US experienced the highest drop in murder rates of all time. What does it correlate with? New policies? NOPE. There was a 40% increase in gun sales due to concerns over gun control. So far as concealed carry permit applications? There was an increase of 60%. The murder rates dropped like a stone as well as violent crime in general. Why? Because criminals don’t want to die any more than the people who are carrying weapons. The last time that we saw the same phenomenon was in 1999 with the gun control debates that occurred over Columbine. Increases in CCW permits resulted in dramatically lowered crime because criminals knew that they had a far higher chance of losing their lives for a few bucks.
      Often, we also hear legal gun owners characterized as being “out of control” or “cowboys” or “rednecks” and we are all told that we do not need weapons to protect ourselves. Your way is absolute foolishness. CCW holders are far more accurate and spray non-combatants far less than police who draw their weapons. Why? Because most of them not only seek more training than police officers have, they PRACTICE more. The police simply do not have the funding to allow an officer to go to the range and fire thousands of rounds. Their budget for firearm expenditures is extremely limited and their accuracy rates reflect it. Case in point…look what just happened in front of the Empire State Building in which officers killed an assailant with a gun. However, they also nailed NINE innocents doing that. Would you say that this means that we should trust that the police will better protect us if we have no weapons? I’ve seen liberal stretching of reality, but that would be too much for all but the most moronic to believe.
      Your kind dreams of making it impossible for psychotics to buy weapons that could be used against the public. Nice wish. Even if it were impossible to buy a gun, he could kill just as many with a car or purchase a weapon from criminals. Here’s the real tragedy from Colorado. Not a single person in that crowd had a single weapon. They could do nothing more than run or bravely block the bodies of their loved ones with their own bodies. Worse, it took the police 25 minutes to even think about entering the theater and they only caught him when he walked out and gave up. What? Are you going to claim that it would have done no good because the guy was wearing body armor? Wrong. There are always weak points, and it is REALLY hard to concentrate when your face mask is being blasted by .45 caliber shells. Where was the protection from the police?
      Ted Nugent is not always well spoken. But knock off the “he’s a bad guy” routine. By my way of thinking, a person who advocates disarming those who obey the law is the bad person. Your goals may be noble to you. To me, they are evil and the result of a society which been pampered for too long. The world does not work the way that you think that it does. If you truly care about lives, then stop driving. There is a far higher statistical probability that you will take a life with a motor vehicle than with a gun. Guns are not the enemies. The problem is people who choose violence to solve problems. That cannot be tempered by the choice of weapon. Remember the Dark Ages, the Crusades, any time prior to the development of widespread ballistic weaponry? Violence was so low during those wonderful periods, wasn’t it? What about in African nations? Black on black violence puts to shame any of the inequalities of Apartheid. And most of that is not committed with guns, it is committed with machetes. Maybe you should crusade against those too.
      The very best reason for Americans owning guns is given by the framers. They had just gone through a war with a nation that did not obey its’ own laws with regard to the American population and who very much desired to remove all weapons from the people here because when there are no weapons, the government has absolutely nothing to fear from its populace. In such a system, the government is paramount with the will of the people subject to nothing more than tyranny at their whims. When the people are armed and even the states can resist federalism through the use of state owned National Guards, the government always has a fear of what could happen if they decided to enforce their wishes without having to jump through hoops. They depend on fools who think they can solve problems by disarming one side of the parties. That works great so long as you are the side that remains armed.
      Be my guest to try to ram through your ridiculous fantasies. I don’t disparage your wish for peace; I am disparaging your complete denial of human nature and your attempts to demonize someone because they don’t fit with your way of thinking. Ted Nugent is not perfect, but he is not a bad man. Don’t worry though, he’ll be there fighting for your right to be stupid, too, even if he doesn’t agree with you. Naiivete only lasts as long as the discussion remains philosophical. The foolishness of believing that Jared Loughner or James Holmes could have been stopped if they couldn’t buy a gun is so staggering it borders on the ludicrous. According to your way of thinking, if one person had a gun in that theater and had used it, they would be worthy of demonization, not considered a hero. You and your beliefs are not heroic, and they are not nice. It is that kind of idiocy that resulted in those peoples’ deaths. What if one person had a gun at the shopping center where Jared Loughner wreaked his destruction and had been willing to use it? Instead, it turned into a shooting gallery. That wasn’t the gun’s fault. It wasn’t Ted Nugent’s fault. It was the fault of the men who made the decision to pick up ANY weapon and commit acts of violence. Here’s one for you…would you be advocating revoking licenses if he had simply killed 6 people by running them down with a car? Obviously, it’s the car’s fault, right? Violence doesn’t need “access”. It simply IS. Be my guest and stay disarmed. I and everyone who believes the way that I do will still protect you should the need arise, no matter how irrational or stupid your reasoning. I fully expect that if you truly believe, you will promptly file a lawsuit against us for committing acts of violence to save life. Or is it okay to use another type of weapon? I can never keep it straight with you people since your ideas generally result in increased violence against the innocent.

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.