Amy Schumer Accepts Award, Thanks Those Who Died In Theater Shooting

Getty Images

by AWR HAWKINS18 Jan 201683

On January 17 actress Amy Schumer accepted a Critics’ Choice award and closed her acceptance speech by thanking the two victims who were shot and killed during a showing ofTrainwreck in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The deceased victims–33-year-old Jillian Johnson and 21-year-old Mayci Breaux–where killed when John Russell Houser allegedly opened fire on July 23.

At the end of her five minute, twelve second acceptance speech, Schumer said, “And I want to thank Mayci Breaux and Jillian Johnson, who died in Lafayette because a mentally ill person got their hands on a gun.”

Schumer did not mention that Houser bought his gun “legally.” According to Fox 8, the ATF found that Houser bought his .40 caliber handgun “in February 2014 at a pawnshop in Phenix City, Alabama.”

This means Obama’s executive expansion of background checks would not have stopped Houser, because Houser acquired his handgun via a background check–which is the same way Gabby Giffords’ attacker acquired his gun, and it’s the same way Virginia gunman Vester Lee Flanagan acquired his handgun as well.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

 

Read More Stories About:

Amy Schumer Ignores Facts to Push Gun Control at Critics’ Choice Awards

Kevin Winter/Getty Images

by AWR HAWKINS18 Jan 201649

While accepting an award at the Critics’ Choice Awards, actress Amy Schumer ignored the fact that alleged Lafayette theater gunman John Russell Houser passed a background check for his firearm, and instead described him as “a mentally ill person [who] got their hands on a gun.”

The difference between reality–Houser passed a background check with a federally licensed gun dealer–and Schumer’s gun narrative–he was mentally ill person who managed to get a hold of a gun–couldn’t be more stark. The former shows that gun control is impotent to stop committed attackers, while the latter serves Schumer’s purposes by leaving room for the belief that more gun laws and regulations might have prevented Houser from getting a gun.

It should also be noted that on July 27–just four days after Houser allegedly opened fire in the Lafayette theater–a judge who handled a case involving him in Georgia said she never ordered him committed for mental treatment.

The Associated Press reported that Houser “came before Cason’s court in 2008 when Houser’s family asked her to intervene in Carroll County, where he had allegedly menaced his daughter and in-laws.” On April 22, 2008, Cason signed an order “authorizing deputies to detain Houser and take him, against his will if necessary, to a treatment facility for a mental health evaluation.” He was subsequently “delivered by deputies to [a] hospital for evaluation,” but Cason said no order for commitment followed.

Yet Schumer included all the gun control talking points during her award acceptance speech by saying, “I want to thank Mayci Breaux and Jillian Johnson, who died in Lafayette because a mentally ill person got their hands on a gun. But we can end gun violence together.”

Again, this push ignores the fact that the Houser did not acquire his gun in a back alley or out of a car trunk in an abandoned parking lot or from a private seller at a dreaded gun show. He bought it via a background check–the very kind of check President Obama and Amy Schumer’s cousin, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), say should be required on every gun sale to keep Americans safe.

But Schumer can’t admit this because doing so would undercut the crisis-mentality she has to maintain in order to convince the ill-informed that we need more gun control now.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Read More Stories About:

Big Hollywood, 2nd Amendment, gun control, President Obama, Amy Schumer,John Russell Houser, Senator Chuck Schumer

Big Hollywood, 2nd Amendment, gun control, Second Amendment, Gabby Giffords, Vester lee Flanagan, Amy Schumer,Jillian Johnson, Mayci Breaux

Everything You Need to Know About Iraq, WMD and GWB Vindication

    It's year six of the Obama Administration. It seems so long ago that the previous embattled president limped across the finish line having been beaten down for five years over cascading failures that all seem to lead to a common source: No weapons of mass destruction were found during the time we were fighting and occupying Iraq. Eventually Bush and his administration were forced to admit that it appeared as though all of the intelligence was wrong.

    It's important to point out a few things to keep the record straight. First of all, nobody in the Bush Administration "LIED" about WMD. This may come as a surprise to brainwashed Democrats and Low Information Voters, but the fact of that matter is that all you need to know is what was believed and the definition of "lie". To lie, one must knowingly make a false statement. Everyone believed Saddam Hussein had WMD. For starters, he not only had WMD, he USED them to kill 5000 men, women and children in 1988. In 1998, Bill Clinton called Iraq "a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists." If you watch the video below, you'll see that calling Bush a liar for selling to the world that Iraq had WMD or was an imminent threat to be a nuclear power would be calling some of the most powerful Democrats of the past decades liars too:

In addition, many of these claims by Democrats were made in the 1990's while George Bush was only a Governor, so the liberal accusations that Bush was the one behind these beliefs is nonsense.

    The second point to be made is that the war with Iraq starting in 2003 was an internationally, LEGALLY justifiable war. In fact it was simply a continuation of the Gulf War that began in 1990:

• 8/26/1988 UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 620 condemned Iraq's use of chemical weapons (WMD)
• 8/2/1990 UNSCR 660 condemning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and demanding immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait
• 11/29/1990 UNSCR 678 authorizing use of force to uphold UNSCR 660
• 4/3/1991 UNSCR 687 formal ceasefire ON THE CONDITION THAT IRAQ:
• Agrees to destroy all Chemical and Biological weapons
• Agrees not to develop Nuclear weapons
• Submits a declaration of its weapons programs and voluntarily agrees to on-site inspections.
• 4/5/1991 - 12/17/1999 TEN (10) UN Security Council Resolutions were passed, most of which dealt with Saddam's uncooperative behavior with regards to UNSCR 687
• Dec 1998 - Nov 2002 there was a complete ABSENCE of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq
• 11/8/2002 UNSCR 1441 gives Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with" UNSCR 687
• 3/7/2003 Hans Blix announced that Saddam was still in material breach of UNSCR 687. However, the corruption in the UNSC members that held veto power made passing another resolution to lift the ceasefire of UNSC 687 impossible. 
• 3/20/2003 The "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq, unofficially voiding the UNSC's half of the ceasefire with Saddam (remember, Saddam already voided HIS half of the deal).

    So as you can see, the Iraq War of 2003 was clearly a continuation of the more noble (in the eyes of the UNSC), Gulf War of 1990-91. Not only was it justified, but it should have been done sooner.

    And the last point I wanted to make to keep the record straight, is the answer to the question: Why in 2003? Why not sooner? If Saddam was officially in violation of UNSCR 687 as early as August of 1991 (according to UNSCR 707), then why was nothing serious done until 2003? Well besides the fact that corrupt veto holders at the UN made passing a use of force resolution increasingly difficult, I think a better answer to that question is the attitude of the times. The decade in America between the Collapse of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union and victory in the Gulf War all the way to the .com bubble bursting in 2000 and 9/11/2001 was without question, the most high-spirited, care-free and peaceful time in American history. I lived the prime of my youth and adulthood during the decade from 1990-2000. I also served in the USMC during this time (1994-1998). I know what the political and economic climate was at the time like no other. There was a sense of naivety about the evils of the world that I not only miss, but also feel bad about knowing that nobody in subsequent generations had the blessings of experiencing it. And boy did it come crashing down on September 11, 2001. That day is the day American innocence was lost. We were angry. Some wanted revenge. I remember serious calls for use of nuclear weapons against whoever was responsible. But more importantly, having recently completing 4 years of military under Clinton, I was VERY concerned that our response was going to be to send two cruise missiles to blow up an unoccupied aspirin factory in Afghanistan and call it a day. I really worried that we were just going to take it like a country hoss too big to notice the wasp that stung him.

    To my relief, George W. Bush took it seriously. It wasn't going to be a slap on the wrist like President Clinton did so many times before. It was going to be a show of massive force. He made the case to the world that he was going to clean up that part of the world. 

    We all know that anyone with half a brain knows it was not Saddam Hussein that attacked us on 9/11. But it was obvious to a HUGE majority in America at the time that given the circumstances of 9/11 and our involvement in Afghanistan, we were absolutely NOT about to put up with a Middle Eastern Dictator who has a history of WMD usage, who refused to comply with UN Security Council resolutions - resolutions that were put in place due to a war that HE was responsible for!

    Now that you know the WHOLE background story about Iraq, let's fast forward to April of 2005: The CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq reported that there were NO WMD found in Iraq. It seemed more like a final conclusion. It was certainly a final nail in the coffin of the Bush presidency that would have the most grueling and longest pathetically lame duck session imaginable. Making matters worse, Bush's refusal to defend any of his actions or respond to any criticism during this period was so disheartening to the right, and so motivating to the left that it most assuredly played a major roll in the Democratic Presidential Nominee, Senator Barack Obama defeating Republican challenger, Senator John McCain. In fact, Senator Obama ran on the platform of "pulling out of Iraq":

    Unfortunately, tens of thousands of American trained Iraqis have been murdered. US service members feel they have sacrificed their life, limb and sanity in vain. Obama's incompetent decision to pull out of Iraq when and how he did caused a situation where terrorist group ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) have nearly completely taken over all of Iraq outside of the inner city of Baghdad (as of the time of this article) This has effectively set the stage where the same type of radicals that killed over 3000 innocent people on American soil will not only lead their own country, but have the kind of funding though oil revenue that they could have only dreamed of if Saddam Hussein himself sponsored all of their activities. Did I mention that President Obama has released the "Dream Team" of terrorist leaders from Guantanamo Bay prison back to the Middle East?

    Compounding this threat to America is the fact that Obama has completely opened the southern border with Mexico thanks to his orchestrated invasion. This flood of humanity has no doubt made it much easier for a Middle Eastern terrorist to get lost in the shuffle. But I digress.

    On June 20, 2014, reports from multiple independent sources said that ISIS in Iraq found Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpile! So it turns out EVERYONE (not just Bush) was right about Saddam's WMD. The big difference is that Bush was excoriated while he did the right thing morally, legally and strategically regardless of whether Saddam had them or not.