Ed Schultz Producer's Advice to Obama on Handling CEOs: 'Put a Gun to Their Head'
Agreed, certain people should not be allowed access to firearms. Here's an example of one of those people.
On his radio show yesterday, Ed Schultz was talking with his producer, James "Holmy" Holm, about Obama meeting with 20 of the nation's top CEOs that day. Also mentioned in the discussion was corporations holding back on $1.9 trillion in capital reserves.
Such is the context for this alarming remark by Holm (audio here) --
HOLM: The president is going to speak with business leaders that are sitting on $1.9 trillion dollars -- $1.9 trillion dollars. Maybe what we should do is put a gun to their head and just say, give us that $1.9 trillion dollars, you don't need to read anything, just hand it to us!
SCHULTZ: Yeah, they won't ...
HOLM: But, I mean, that's, that's how crazy this thing is!
Crazy indeed. Is Holm paraphrasing Mao, or was that Che Guevara?
Gee, how'd he end up working for someone as balanced and thoughtful as Schultz?
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Thanks!
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:21pm.
Thanks, Ed! You have given evidence supporting my contention that what you suggest is what Leftists and Socialists want to do in this country...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So, not only is Brain Dead Ed a flaming tyrannical commie...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:25pm.
...his producer is one, as well.
Both of these twits were a waste of sperm, as I am guessing neither of their fathers got much of a toe hold at the very moment it really mattered.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
The only saving grace about
Submitted by shannon76 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:31pm.
The only saving grace about liberal progressives and guns is they can't shoot (e.g. Che Guevera, Panama City shooter)
(No subject)
Submitted by nonncom on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 10:40am.
It isn't the gun that kills
Submitted by nonncom on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 10:45am.
it's the firmness of conviction and belief that leads to directness and purpose creating the hard heart to pull the trigger and accomplish the task that is neccesary....liberals and progressives simply lack that quality, because in their hearts, they know they are wrong....or as Reagan said, it's not that they're wrong, it's just that they know so much that isn't true....
Holm isn't paraphrasing
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:38pm.
Holm isn't paraphrasing anyone. He quite obviously is seriously advocating that Obama come to the meeting with the CEOs with a loaded firearm and literally and methodically blow the brains out of each and every recalcitrant head of the twenty corporations in attendance.
I mean there's just no other way to interpret this. Is there?
Jer
Jer?
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:45pm.
Are you projecting again?
No way. Some of my best
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:56pm.
No way. Some of my best friends are CEOs. :-)
Jer
Obama?....
Submitted by JPR1 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:04pm.
With a gun?
Ha ha, that's just really, really funny.
What are we talking here, .32 cal Beretta or a S&W .50?
Either way...geesh, Obama with a gun. Effffn hilarious!
(This is a case where I'd be more conerned about the "bride" packing heat and behave accordingly.)
I get your TIC, Jer
Submitted by Model850 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:13pm.
I get your glib, tongue-in-cheek sarcasm Jer, but just imagine the sky-is-falling, hand-wringing, the right is again promoting violence outrage on the left if Sarah Palin (or anyone on the right) said anything even remotely close to what this guy said.
The fact that no one in the MSM (that I'm aware of) is condemning this comment speaks volumes about the hypocrisy and bias of that wing of the media.
Then again, it was Ed's show, and given his abysmal ratings perhaps no one in the MSM even knows about the comment.
Way to go Ed! That's how to
Submitted by rbosque on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:47pm.
Way to go Ed! That's how to promote Fascism!
Stupid bastard.
You Nailed It, Holmy!
Submitted by rammingspeed on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:42pm.
Let them speak, so we know them for the insane dipsh*ts that they are. (Normal people don't like insane dipsh*ts.)
This is why MSNBC, and the rest on the television news left are going down the drain.
Hold on a minute here......
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:16pm.
"Agreed, certain people should not be allowed access to firearms."
Might as well say; "Agreed, some people should not be allowed access to rights." Such is a statement made by slaveholders back in the day. Sure you want to go there? Really?
Do the words "inalienable" or "unalienable" mean anything anymore?
I realize that this is a tongue-in-cheek article, but still, this sentiment is exactly why so many of our rights have been eroded. Accepting this notion that rights can be stripped because someone says so is exactly why we here in Illinois are punished, with a felony, for exercising the right to bear arms is improper.
This article condones stripping away one right because another was exercised. That is not unlike Illinois' legislature stripping a right away for exercising it by criminalizing exercise itself.
There is no legitimate "allowing" people access to exercise their rights when they have done nothing but exercise them. Government was not created to "allow" rights, it wasn't created to "allow" their exercise either. We have them and we exercise them in spite of government being created, for it was itself created to PROTECT and DEFEND our ability to exercise them.
So no, it isn't "agreed" that some people shouldn't be allowed to access their rights. Rights belong to the individual and they are endowed upon them by their Creator - and government is not the Creator. Mother nature, God, G-d, Allah, primoridal ooze, or Mom and Dad can be, but not government.
Now, do certain folks forfeit their rights, for a time, when they violate the rights of another? Abso-smurfly, but the exercise of what is a right cannot in and of itself be a violation of the right(s) of another. This fool exercised his First Amendment recognized right and no matter how disagreeable it may be, it is not grounds to forfeit it or any other right.
Put the Second Amendment in place of the First. Will any journalist, including the author of this piece, say that some people should not be allowed access to words? To ink pens? To computer keys? To publishing? Hardly.
Remember, the Second Amendment is no different than the First. Remember also that "shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Shall not be infringed.
With all due respect Jack, if you truly value the First Amendment and do not support being "allowed" to exercise it, because nobody can place a limit like that upon you due to it being a right, I suggest you rethink the "agreed" lead off to this article. For it is way out of line and a clear danger to Liberty itself - even when offered in partial jest.
Sure Ashrak...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:26pm.
Let's allow a lunatic to purchase an AK47 and carry it into the courtroom of the judge who ordered his commitment to an asylum. Makes sense.
Both First Amendment speech and Second Amendment rights to bear arms are subject to reasonable regulations.
Jer
Only a lawyer, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:31am.
could tie the two words "reasonable regulations" together, knowing that a politician was going to be involved in deciding what was "reasonable", without laughing so uncontollably as to prevent the fingers from completing the phrase on the keyboard.
MD
mattewdean, My brother is a
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:35am.
mattewdean,
My brother is a lawyer.
Mine too. But after three
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:45am.
Mine too. But after three years at this place, I almost regret not choosing a career as a loan shark, like Mom always wanted.
Jer
You are not helpin' Jer
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:47am.
You are not helpin' Jer
I'm not helpin' whom or
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:54am.
I'm not helpin' whom or what?
Jer
Jer
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:59am.
Not helpin' the royal we.
and I love my brother
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:36am.
and I love my brother
Why then, hydro---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:39am.
I love him, too. :0)
MD
did this just get weird?
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:42am.
did this just get weird?
No worries, hydro---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:05am.
I live in Southern Cal, not San Francisco.
And all those years I spent sleeping with guys?
It was more of a necessity than a choice.
The Fire Department wouldn't build me a room for myself. :o)
MD
matthewdean, Why is the
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:11am.
matthewdean,
Why is the song YMCA going through my head?
You know I'm just goofin on ya.
hydro---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:19am.
Yep.
Still cracked me up!
And now I can't shake that damn tune outta my head.
MD
matthewdean
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:32am.
I was gonna go all ABBA all over your ass, but I refrained.
ABBA--
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:41am.
Artie, Brian, Bjorn, and Archie.
Or something like that.
I admit to loving their music, but if I said especially "Dancing Queen", or "Fernando", the round robin would start all over again. ;o)
I'll go with "It's a Rich Man's World".
MD
matthewdean
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:56am.
holly crud, you are gayer than I am... if that's possible :)
~....
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 5:43pm.
Yer killin' me here.
:-O
<edited to replace nasty Aerosmith video. I really should watch these things all the way through before linking. *shudder* Um, that said, this selection from Mrs. Doubtfire does contain a word at the end which I didn't hear when I saw the "edited for television" version. Oh well, it's better than the first video>
Second Amendment Supporter
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:27am.
Ashrak, I am an avid gun rights supporter, Life Member of the NRA, retired Air Force, so I agree in principle with your post. BUT, advocating criminal physical violence using a firearm IS grounds to deny this particular right to anyone.
BTW, doesn't this sound an awful lot like he's suggesting Obama hold these CEOs "HOSTAGE" till they fess up their money? It would make sense, since Obama has already used the analogy towards the republicans...
Cappmann, no it is not
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:54pm.
Cappmann, no it is not grounds to deny ones right to arms.
That would be akin to the "thought police" coming in and arresting you because your thinking. If you have not commited a felony, you are able to own a gun.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
"Hate Speech"? That is a
Submitted by Ashrak on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:36pm.
"Hate Speech"? That is a dangerous path, my friend.
As fo the NRA, that is not what many think it is. Heller and McDonald proved that. It's supportfor Due Process instead of Por I proved it. The NRA loves "reasonable" so they can fund raise on fighting it.
Speech, even when obtuse is a right. Like say a KKK march down the street. Scalia spoke directly to that example.
Principles are meaningless when they are cast aside with a "but".
It is this very premise that sees us Illinoisans stripped of our right to carry. Did you know that doing so is a felony in Illinois? And the NRA has long stood by deeming it "not a top priority"?
In response to Ashrak
Submitted by Jack Coleman on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:45pm.
Lighten up
Jack,
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:59pm.
LOL - And I thought I was a basket-case harda$$.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Do you live in a state where
Submitted by Ashrak on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:45pm.
Do you live in a state where your enumerated right is totally denied and its exercise is deemed and punished as a felony?
Let me know and then we can talk about "lighten up". Maybe you could explain to me how I can do so in an acceptable manner.
Maybe something like this is a joking matter to you. It isn't to me and the rest of the Second Amendment Advocates here in Illinois who have, for so long been, and still are, denied our right entirely.
Sorry you think being serious about it is somehow improper.
I ask you seriously, Sir, if your right to write was suddenly criminalized, to the tune of a felony, and you spoke up about it someone making a joke of it, how would you respond to being told to "lighten up"?
I mean you no disrespect, to be sure, but I contend most folks around the country do not understand the situation here in Illinois. I doubt you do and would ask you to check out www.ilga.gov to read the criminal code of 1961 as it pertains to firearms. Maybe then you might see why telling Illinoisans to "lighten up" about Second Amendment rights is a wee bit misplaced.
~So, move...
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:50pm.
..before you give yourself a stroke.
Running away is your solution?
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:55pm.
As people flee California, thus taking the advice you offer, it only gets worse there. As a similar path is taken by people in Illinois, a similar thing happens. What did that serve? What did the rest of the country ignoring what is going on here in Illinois bring about?
Oh yeah - Obama in the White House.
Those who did seek their freedom long ago moved across the world to a new found land. Did running from King George solve anything? Nope, even they had to stand and fight for their freedom didn't they? And they won it too, huh?
Interesting it is how even here we see the message avoided by folks going after the messenger instead. Standing tall for Individual Liberty doesn't result in a stroke, such resolve eventually brings about restoration of freedom usurped. Although, I suppose, that may bring about strokes in the gun control crowd as they continue to lose on the merits.....
~Exactly
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:40pm.
Leave the state and take your tax dollars to a better one. When it goes bankrupt while it's more conservative neighbors thrive, it will be forced to implement more conservative policies.
The photo of the dog and gun...
Submitted by shooter on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:47pm.
...that's from the cover of National Lampoon, January 1973. A classic!
_________________________________________
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert A. Heinlein
I remember: "Buy this issue
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:52pm.
I remember: "Buy this issue or we'll shoot this dog!"
They also later did this with a "French Hook-air" :)
Let see...Rush The Racist has a black producer,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:58pm.
and Fatass has a white producer nicknamed "Holmy."
You can't make this stuff up.
Know what's really crazy, Holmy?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:39am.
Believing your president has the authority to demand corporations do anything with the money they have stashed away.
Given the size and thickness
Submitted by killa37 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:19am.
Given the size and thickness and density (not to mention the ugliness) of Sgt. Shultze's head..............what type of weapon would you have to use to do any damage - a mortar launcer or a howitzer????
A day after Media Matters drove a nut over the edge...
Submitted by OxyCon on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:13am.
...you got MessNBC loons talking about using a gun against wealthy people.
You'd think these MessNBC loons would be sensitive about gun violence a mere 24 hours after one of their own kind went on a shooting rampage, railing against the rich, and got himself shot to death.
Don't make Nancy Pelotox cry!
A la Al Capone. Fits right in
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 10:52am.
A la Al Capone. Fits right in with the administrations way of doing things.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Why kill CEO's when, you can inslave them for years and years..
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:28pm.
irs tax audits up 11% this year.
Hay it's 2010, keep them alive and just drain the vital essence from them.
You Didn't Build That.
And once they’ve pissed away
Submitted by Flashman on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 5:10pm.
And once they’ve pissed away that $1.9 trillion, then what? If you would champion the cause of the American working man then first you must champion the causes of those would employ him."reasonable" huh? Sounds
Submitted by Ashrak on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:29pm.
"reasonable" huh?
Sounds like something Obama himself would say. Oh wait, that is exactly what Holder and Obama both said - before being rejected rejected even in SCOTUS. Rejected just as the interest balancing approach you protend itself.
If you care to dismiss law being made in the Legislature as the Constitution demands, and you subscribe to law bing made in the court - and - if you accept the false premise of being a subject rather than being a Citizen I can still call you out as being wrong about "reasonable".
Ever hear of Strict Scrutiny? NO, I suppose not. You have touted the Brady Bunch line. I am sure Helmke would be proud.
Would you consider it "reasonable" to legislate away the exercise of a right? You would fit right in here in Illinois government.
Care to try again?
Ashrak...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 9:47pm.
To whom and about what are you babbling?
Jer
If I am babbling, you would
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:04pm.
If I am babbling, you would be able to demonstrate it rather than just claim it to be so.
When you can justify the exercise of a particular Enumerated, Individual, Fundamental, Incorporated right being legislatively banned totally - criminalized- let me know, Ok?
If you can discount anything I have said as inaccurate, please do so. Oh wait, you can't because it is all true. Hence the simpleton politics of personal destruction you offer instead.
How and why is standing up for an individual right, by shining light on the fact it is being violated, wrong in your eyes?
Agreed, certain people should
Submitted by Cowboy on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:08am.
Agreed, certain people should not be allowed access to firearms. And, certain people, like Sgt. Schultz, should not be allowed access to a microphone. Who is actually paying money for this guy to be on the media?Cowboy...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:48am.
I've asked myself the same question. I've come to the conclusion he's financed by the GOP. He's a Republican mole. A very heavy mole.
Jer
Democrats and taxes are like an Alcoholics reasons to drink.
Submitted by Retired Geek on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:32am.
When everyone is employed and the Economy is good in America, Democrats want to raise taxes.
When millions are unemployed and the Economy is bad in America, Democrats want to raise taxes.
When there is a recession in America, Democrats want to raise taxes.
When America is involved in a War, Democrats want to raise taxes.
When America is NOT involved in a War, Democrats want to raise taxes.
Can anyone speculate on what would NOT make Democrats want to raise taxes?
When they have to vote on it
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:08pm.
When they have to vote on it and spending is included in the same bill.
In the House of Representatives -
More Democrats voted to extend the Bush tax cuts than voted to see them expire.
More Democrats voted to do so than did the Republicans.
For a decade they railed against them, claimed they were the cause of all the ills - yet when push came to shove, their desire to spend spend spend overtook their desire to tax tax tax.