The Forgotten Soldier: U.S. Army Sgt. Joshua A. Berry

Below, you will find an emotionally gripping video of U.S. Army Sgt. Joshua A. Berry, who was injured in the deadly 2009 terrorist attack at Fort Hood, Texas.

Judicial Watch today announced it filed a lawsuit on behalf of Howard M. Berry, the father of the late U.S. Army Sgt. Joshua A. Berry, against the Secretaries of Defense and Army to award the Purple Heart to Sgt. Berry for injuries sustained in the 2009 international terrorist attack at Fort Hood, Texas (Howard M. Berry v. Ryan D. McCarthy, Acting Secretary of the Army and James Mattis, Secretary of Defense (No. 1:17-cv-02112)).

U.S. Army Sgt. Joshua A. Berry (left)

Judicial Watch points out:

Following the Fort Hood attack, the Secretary of Defense declined to recognize the mass shooting as an international terrorist attack against the United States. Instead, the attack was characterized as “workplace violence.” As a result, active duty servicemembers injured in the attack were ineligible for the Purple Heart, among other awards and benefits.

In response, Congress enacted legislation in 2014 mandating that servicemembers killed or wounded in an attack targeting members of the armed forces and carried out by an individual in communication with and inspired or motivated by a foreign terrorist organization be eligible for the Purple Heart….

The new lawsuit describes how Sgt. Berry was injured during the Ft. Hood terrorist attack:

On November 5, 2009, U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan (“Hasan”) opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing thirteen people and injuring more than 30 servicemembers and civilians. Sgt. Berry was among the servicemembers injured in the attack. Sgt. Berry was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 1st Battalion, 6th Field Artillery, at Fort Hood. He had deployed to Afghanistan for approximately a year in June 2008 and was at Fort Hood as part of a transition program following his return from deployment. He was one of the last soldiers awaiting redeployment to Fort Knox at the time of the attack.

The briefing room in Building 42004 had a set of metal double doors leading to the outside. In witness statements given to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command (“CID”) and in a separate statement given to a Texas Ranger, Sgt. Berry estimated that Hasan fired 30-40 rounds outside Building 42004. Sgt. Berry told those around him to get down on the floor and stay away from the doors and windows. When Sgt. Berry heard gunshots hit the metal doors near him, he leaped over a desk to take cover and, in so doing, dislocated his left shoulder. He then heard Hasan trying to kick in the doors. According to a witness statement from another individual, Hasan fired three rounds at the briefing room doors.

Investigative photographs and sketches of the SRP center show the layout of buildings and the location of shell casings from the shots fired by Hasan. The photographs and sketches show a number of shell casings around the metal doors of the briefing room where Sgt. Berry was located during the shooting.

Following the attack, Sgt. Berry was admitted to the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009, where his dislocated shoulder was surgically repaired.

The attending physician who admitted Sgt. Berry found that Sgt. Berry’s injury occurred during the mass shooting at the SRP center.

Sgt. Berry’s commander found the injury to have been incurred in the line of duty and documented that Sgt. Berry was a casualty of the mass shooting at the SRP center.

On November 6, 2009, Sgt. Berry was entered into the U.S. Army casualty reporting system with a diagnosis of shoulder dislocation as a result of the mass shooting at the SRP center.

A photograph of Sgt. Berry meeting with President Barack Obama at a November 10, 2009 memorial service at Fort Hood, included herewith as Exhibit A, shows Sgt. Berry’s left

arm in a sling.

By memorandum dated December 7, 2009, the Fort Hood Installation Adjutant General confirmed that Sgt. Berry’s shoulder dislocation occurred in the line of duty.

CID, the Texas Rangers, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted a joint investigation of the shooting and subsequently found probable cause to believe Hasan committed the offense of attempted murder when he fired at Sgt. Berry.

On May 2, 2011, a Physical Evaluation Board found Sgt. Berry unfit for continued military service due to post-traumatic stress disorder, the shoulder injury received in the Fort Hood shooting, and degenerative arthritis of the spine. It recommended a combined disability rating of 80%.

On May 31, 2011, Sgt. Berry was released from active duty and placed on the temporary disability retired list.

On February 13, 2013, Sgt. Berry committed suicide. He was 36 years old. Sgt. Berry is survived by Plaintiff and a now 7-year old daughter.

At his August 2013 court martial, Hasan admitted to being influenced by Anwar Awlaki, chief propagandist for the al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula terrorist group.

On February 6, 2015, the Secretary of the Army announced that the Fort Hood attack met the criteria for awards of the Purple Heart. In its review of the mass shooting, the Army found sufficient evidence to conclude Hasan “was in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack,” and that his radicalization and subsequent acts could be considered to have been “inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization.”

The U.S. Army Decorations Board denied Mr. Berry’s application, for a posthumous award of the Purple Heart to his son. In April 2015, the Army awarded the Purple Heart to 47 service members injured in the Fort Hood attack. Sgt. Berry was not among them.

On April 17, 2016, a three-member panel of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records recommended that all Army records concerning Sgt. Berry be corrected by awarding Sgt. Berry the Purple Heart. The panel found “[t]here is no question that [Sgt. Berry]’s injury met the basic medical criteria for award of the [Purple Heart].”

In the lawsuit, Judicial Watch asks the court to declare the Secretary of the Army’s October 28, 2016, decision to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with the law; to declare that the denial of Berry’s application was unsupported by evidence; and to prevent the Army from continuing to deny Sgt. Berry a Purple Heart.

“Sgt. Berry deserves the Purple Heart and the bureaucracy should stop obstructing his just cause,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Frankly, we can’t imagine that President Trump, President Obama or Secretary Mattis would disagree that Sgt. Berry should be posthumously awarded the Purple Heart for the injuries he sustained during the Ft. Hood attack.”

VIDEO: Kellyanne Conway indirectly endorses Judge Roy Moore for U.S. Senate

Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway indirectly endorsed Judge Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate. In the below video Conway focused on Judge Moore’s opponent calling him “doctrinaire liberal” who is weak on crime, borders and who will raise taxes. She said, “Doug Jones in Alabama, folks, don’t be fooled.”

Below is the full interview on Fox & Friends:

RELATED ARTICLE: Witnesses: We never saw Roy Moore, Nelson at Olde Hickory Restaurant

Trump Administration’s 2 Priorities for Welfare Reform Executive Order

President Donald Trump is making welfare reform a major priority and will sign an executive order laying out the administration’s goals while also urging action by Congress, a White House official said Thursday.

Trump’s executive order will be twofold, said Paul Winfree, director of budget policy at the White House. The order will state the Trump administration’s principles for welfare reform of empowering individuals and learning from state and local initiatives, and then direct federal agencies to come back to the president with recommendations for implementing the principles.

“Welfare reform is something that is very important to the president,” Winfree said during a panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation’s anti-poverty forum on Thursday. “It’s something that excites him. It’s something that he has a lot of energy about.”

The White House is also working with Congress on reform proposals, Winfree said, but in the short term is looking at what federal agencies can do unilaterally. The federal government has 89 different welfare programs spread across 14 departments and agencies.

Winfree explained the two priorities of Trump’s upcoming executive order.

The first thing it does, it sets out a series of principles for welfare reform that we would like to be a message to Capitol Hill and the direction we want to take. … We want to empower people. We want to learn from the states. We want to learn from local communities.

One of the messages is that I’ve been driving to essentially our staff and our agencies on welfare reform and the direction we are taking is this message that it’s people that help people. It’s not governments that help people.

So, how do we learn from people who are actually in the communities actually helping people and then ultimately empower them by either getting out of the way or redirecting the resources in their direction to essentially reward successes without a unilateral approach or without just kicking it to the states and transition [to] what is essentially a federal role into a state role.

The second half of the executive order, which is yet to be signed, essentially directs agencies to take a look at the principles and then figure out what they can do on their own to start meeting some of the objectives that are out there through changes in regulation and guidance and then to ultimately submit those recommendations to the president for an evaluation.

The last sweeping welfare reform package came more than two decades ago, passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. However, Robert Rector, who helped shape some of the 1996 bill, said new improvements are needed.

“The current welfare system harms the very poor that it’s trying to help,” Rector, a senior research fellow for domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, said. “We need a reformed welfare system that promotes work and marriage, and rewards outcomes rather than simply greater spending.”

The Heritage Foundation is supportive of the principles in several proposals in Congress now.

A bill by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and companion House bill by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, would require all welfare programs to strengthen existing work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program; and establish a real work requirement in food stamps. Separately, a bill by Rep. Garrett Graves would require work requirements for the food stamp program.

Other members of Congress have talked about saving $15 billion annually by eliminating fraud, waste, and excessive benefits in the earned income tax credit, while making the program more encouraging of work. Others call for removing the marriage penalty with regards to welfare programs.

Look Ahead in the Middle East: 6-12 Months in a Crystal Ball

Is it Utopia or Reality?

By Wallace Bruschweiler and William Palumbo

The purpose of this article is to examine the current and rapidly developing trends in the Middle East, and attempt to project likely scenarios in the near to middle-term future.  Only time will tell if what we are projecting as possible is a utopia, or will in fact become reality.


In June 2009, then U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama went to Cairo and delivered a speech at Cairo University.  It was co-hosted by Al-Azhar University, the preeminent theological seminary in the Islamic world.  Observing this speech from the front rows – specifically requested by Obama – were members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the umbrella organization of Islamic terror, from which groups like Al Qaeda, the Abu Sayaff Group, and ISIS are ultimately derived.

This speech, entitled “A New Beginning,” was the thematic basis for the Obama presidency.  Ultimately, the administration would back the Muslim Brotherhood (and other, aligned terrorists groups) in the so-called Arab Spring to overthrow the existing governments in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya (while ignoring a genuine uprising in 2009 in Iran, see here).  Syria and Jordan were also targets of these Arab Spring uprisings.  Fast-forward to 2015, and the Obama administration had completed what they consider their crowning foreign policy achievement: a “nuclear deal” with Iran, that the administration claimed would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the requisite rocket technology to deliver the warheads.  In praxis, however, the deal legitimized Iran internationally, increased their regional prestige, and emboldened their territorial ambitions – see Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

The net-net result of Obama’s backing of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist regime in Tehran was a reckoning between several regional powers who had, and have, an interest in containing Iranian influence.  In particular, Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia – notably, all historically American allies – are coordinating and acting to check the expansion of Iranian power while simultaneously attempting to contain the spread of terrorism, which routinely reaches the shores of Europe and America.  Moreover, the struggle today largely breaks down into a Sunni (led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia) vs. Shiite (led by Iran) confrontation.

Saudi Arabia

Probably the most visible and promising changes to the region are happening in Saudi Arabia, under the rule of its young and reform-minded Prince, Mohammed bin Sultan (aka “MBS”).

When President Donald Trump traveled to Riyadh on his first-ever trip abroad, he famously placed his hands on a glowing purple globe, alongside King Salman and President el-Sisi of Egypt.  At the time, the symbolism was not completely understood.  Today, however, we can put it simply: with that act of pageantry, he signaled to the world that he would reverse Obama’s failed “diplomacy” and embrace the new alliance that had already formed.  In recent weeks, evidence is overwhelming:

  • Saudi Arabia and Israel regularly and routinely share intelligence on their mutual enemy, Iran. This level of cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel is truly revolutionary, to say the least, for the region.
  • Last week, Israel and Saudi Arabia co-sponsored a resolution in, yes, the United Nations condemning the human rights abuses in Iran and Syria.
  • The Chief of Staff of Israel’s IDF granted an unprecedented interview to a Saudi newspaper, identifying Iran as the region’s chief troublemaker, and declaring officially the willingness of Israel to share intelligence.
  • In a truly stunning development on Friday, Saudi Arabia publicly announced they would compensate Israel $1 billion plus to strike Hezbollah as quickly as possible in southern Lebanon. This follows the departure of Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, for his native Saudi Arabia.  In the meantime, he flew with his family to Paris, France on the invitation of President Macron.
  • Finally, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdulaziz Al Sheikh, the top Saudi cleric just “issued a ruling forbidding war against the Jews and proclaiming that Hamas a terrorist group.”


Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu undoubtedly recognizes the historical import of the moment, as the Arab world, led by Saudi Arabia, seems likely to reach a lasting peace with the Jewish state.  The opportunity also presents a unique chance to finally settle the Palestinian problem in Judea and Sumaria (i.e., West Bank).

In addition to the developments above, Israeli policy can be observed through the lens of the following events and trends:

  • Sandwiched between Hezbollah in the north (in Lebanon) and Hamas to the south (in Gaza), Israel is working with its Arab allies to root out the terrorists on its borders (see proposed Saudi action above).
  • Since assuming the Presidency in Egypt, el-Sisi has been coordinating intelligence and military operations with Israel in the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt is expected to take the lead in “cleaning” out Hamas (i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood) from Gaza.
  • The political fate of Judea and Sumaria remain the most significant obstacle to long-term peace between Israel and the Arab States. Recent Saudi-led initiatives signal an eagerness to finally settle this challenge.
    • Polling suggests that a majority of Israeli Arabs do not want to live in a Palestinian state.
    • A potential solution could take this form: recognition of a Palestinian federation in Judea and Samaria and localized rule for the Arabs, with input and assistance from Jordan. On the other hand, the IDF would be responsible for security in the Jordan Valley.
    • Resolution of this issue could realistically enable normal diplomatic relations between Israel and the Gulf States, ending nearly 70 years of political turmoil and unpredictability.


As president of the most populous Arab country, el-Sisi has led the calls for reform of Islam since his coming into power.  Not only did he call out the Imams at Al-Azhar for promoting murder of non-Muslims, but he has remained dedicated to eradicating the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence within Egypt.  In conjunction with aggressive military operations against neighboring terrorists, this puts el-Sisi in a serious security dilemma.

  • In neighboring Libya, Egypt leads ongoing airstrikes against Islamist militias including ISIS, which are leftovers from Syria and Iraq. This has the added benefit of stemming the so-called “refugee” flow into southern Europe (Italy and Greece).
  • As mentioned above, Egypt and Israel are cleaning out the northern Sinai, a route through which weapons flow into Gaza.
  • El-Sisi’s hardline stance against the entrenched Muslim Brotherhood, combined with his friendly and cooperative stance with Israel, put him at high risk of assassination. One merely must recall the price that Anwar al-Sadat paid for his visit to Jerusalem and 1979 peace treaty with Israel.


The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has, for decades, worked with Israeli and western security services.  King Abdullah Hussein of Jordan, a western-educated Arab ruler who dresses in a suit, faces an extremely delicate internal political situation.  The Muslim Brotherhood, and lately Hamas, are powerfully represented in Jordan’s government, and as such the King’s friendly stance with Israel is muted out of concern for domestic unrest.

  • Palestinians, who are actually Arab Jordanians, have significant political sympathy within Jordan. This, despite the fact that Abdullah’s father, King Hussein, killed thousands of Palestinians aligned with the PLO during the “Black September” operation (1970-71).
  • Security in the West Bank is as much a concern to Jordan as it is to Israel. Therefore, resolution on this issue is very much in the interest of Jordan.
  • With terrorists in his government, King Abdullah faces a challenging personal security situation, similar to President el-Sisi. It is not unlikely that he may be targeted for assassination, like his own great-grandfather Abdullah I.


Yemen, to Saudi Arabia’s south, is in the midst of a civil war/insurrection.  The Houthi rebels, located in former North Yemen, are being armed by Iran.  Tensions escalated with Riyadh when a second rocket was fired at King Khalid airport from Yemen.

  • Due to their border to the south, the Saudis view Yemen as the primary proxy war with Iran.
  • Does the future of Yemen look like its past? Will Yemen again break into North and South, with Aden as the capital of North Yemen and Saana the capital of South Yemen?  This potential outcome is consistent with a broader trend of secession movements across Europe and the Middle East.


Bashar al-Assad, with the aid of Russia, remains in control of much of Syria including Damascus, Aleppo, and Homs.  The war will enter its seventh year this January, and Assad will likely remain in control.  Israel and Egypt are not opposed to Assad’s rule, and the Russian footprint means that the territory under government control will not be surrendered.

  • Assad is an Alawite, an ancient people whose culture predates Islam. Although Tehran’s ambition remains a land route through Iraq and Syria directly to the Mediterranean, Assad clearly wishes to remain independent of Iran.
  • To the North, parts of Syria may eventually be ceded to Kurds for the formation of an independent Kurdistan.
  • Although discussed in foreign policy circles, a new Sunni state within Syria would mean Assad surrendering territory that he currently controls. This scenario remains unlikely under present conditions.


With Iran-friendly Shiite rule in Baghdad, it is difficult to consider eastern Iraq an independent country.  Iraq is effectively divided into three territories today: a Shiite dominated center east, with Kurds in the North, and Sunnis to the west and south.

  • As ISIS is consistently decimated and systematically cleared from the land, regional powers Iran and Saudi Arabia will continue to vie for influence.
  • The Kurds, who control much of Iraq’s oil, are negotiating their independence with Baghdad, although the likely outcome of these negotiations remains murky.
  • Will Baghdad, under firm Iranian influence, remain in nominal control of all of Iraq’s territory? A status quo of this nature would undoubtedly translate into several insurgencies to disrupt Tehran’s influence.
  • Or is the future of Iraq partition – Shiite dominated Baghdad and east, an independent Kurdistan to the north, and the formation of a Sunni state, that includes part of Syria?


The Arab Spring, the rise and fall of ISIS, and a long and distinct history make the formation of an independent Kurdistan more likely than ever.  The United States should finally step up in this discussion, and back the creation of an independent Kurdistan.

  • The Kurds have been the absolute fiercest fighters against ISIS. Kurdish Peshmerga have aided in the liberation of key cities, including Mosul and Kirkuk.
  • Many Kurds have given their lives to defeat the most barbaric army in modern times. Their justification for the creation of Kurdistan is therefore very compelling.
  • In pursuit of a Kurdish homeland, the Kurds have the unequivocal backing of Israel.
  • The most powerful obstacle to statehood is Ankara, which under Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood President Erdogan seemingly views all Kurds as “terrorists.”

UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain

These tiny Gulf States have effectively lined up firmly behind Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Sultan.  With the exception of Qatar (see below), they are de facto aligned with Egypt and Israel.

  • Bahrain, with a 70% Shiite population, intends regardless to remain independent of Iran’s (Shiite) influence.
  • The United Arab Emirates previously declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, and remain dedicated to interrupting financial support to terrorist organizations.
  • Although complicated by internal politics like Jordan (see above), in the years since the Arab Spring, powers within Kuwait are firmly encouraging the recognition of Israel.


The outlier on the Arabian Peninsula, Qatar, is defiant in the face of sanctions and diplomatic isolation by the Gulf Cooperation Council.  Qatar’s network Al Jazeera was instrumental in promoting the Arab Spring, and their insistence on maintaining excellent relations with Iran are unacceptable to their Gulf State neighbors.

  • Qatar and Iran share the massive South Pars/North Dome gas field, in the Persian Gulf. This presents a fundamental reason for Qatar to maintain a friendly relationship with Iran.
  • Qatar has welcomed exile terrorist from Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Taliban.
  • To cope with the crippling blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar has moved closer to Turkey and now imports food to keep their population from going hungry.
  • Finally, the United States has thus far appeared reluctant to take sides, as the Al-Udeid Air base near Doha is one of the largest American bases outside the continental United States.
    • This obstacle could be easily overcome by upgrading existing U.S. bases either Saudi Arabia or any other willing country in the Middle East.


Following World War I (1918) and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (1924), the borders of the Middle East were redrawn, largely arbitrarily, creating several nations with natural flash points among and within themselves.  The history of last century in the Middle East is the story of these flash points, resulting from religious, ethnic, and linguistic divides.

An unintended consequence of Barack Hussein Obama’s support for terrorist groups during the Arab Spring, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and the terrorist regime in Iran, is an opportunity for stable allies to force a redrawing of the map.  While a lasting peace remains elusive, it is not altogether unrealistic to expect that one outcome of this turmoil may be the Arab recognition at large of Israel, and the isolation/trimming down to size of Iran and its wide support of international terrorism.

Trump administration threatens to shut down Palestinian office in Washington, D.C.

Unless the “Palestinians” get serious about making peace with Israel. So watch for a massive “War is Deceit” initiative from the “Palestinians” in the coming months.

“Trump Admin Threatens To Shut Down Palestinian Office In DC,” by Jonah Bennett, Daily Caller, November 18, 2017:

The Trump administration said Friday it will shut down the Palestinian Liberation Office (PLO) in Washington, D.C., unless the Palestinians get serious about peace talks with Israel.

The State Department has determined that the PLO has violated a law stating that the PLO cannot push for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute Israelis. Violation of this law means that the State Department could force the PLO to close its mission, The Associated Press reports.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stated in September that the Palestinians have called for the ICC to “open an investigation and to prosecute Israeli officials for their involvement in settlement activities and aggressions against our people.”

Given the PLO’s violation, President Donald Trump has 90 days to assess whether the Palestinians are engaged in meaningful negotiations with Israel. If Trump decides that the negotiations are meaningful, the Palestinians can keep their D.C. office. But if not, the office will be shut down. It’s also possible that the Trump administration could close the office down before the 90-day window, but even if the office is closed, that doesn’t mean peace efforts have collapsed.

Trump’s team has already started working on a plan to bring peace to the Middle East 10 months after taking office. For Trump, achieving peace in that region is the “ultimate deal.” The plan will likely discuss Jerusalem and settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinians have expressed some amount of skepticism because of how Trump’s loud, unabashed support for Israel and the fact that several Trump staffers heading the plan are Jews, like Jason D. Greenblatt, chief negotiator, David M. Friedman, ambassador to Israel and Jared Kushner….


French academic: Create an Islamic state within France to avoid civil war

“Palestinian” vehicular jihadi had “big smile on his face” as he rammed Israelis

VIDEO: Alabama Governor Kay Ivey voting for Judge Roy Moore in Senate Race

Multiple media outlets are reporting that Alabama Governor Kay Ivey told reporters that she will vote for Judge Roy Moore in the December Senate election to replace Jeff Sessions.

Governor Ivey said:

Yes, I’m proud to vote [for the Republican nominee Judge Roy Moore]. And I hope every Alabamian will be proud to cast their vote… Everybody needs to make sure they vote on December 12th. I’ll cast my ballot… The United States Senate, in my opinion, has to have a majority of Republican votes to carry the day when they have to consider other major decisions.


Report: Roy Moore Fundraising Surges Since Attacks – Breitbart

Alabama Senate President Del Marsh: Roy Moore Allegations Could Be Part of a ‘Washington Conspiracy’

VIDEO: Ties between Hollywood Sex Abuse and the Left

DETROIT ( – As sexual harassment allegations sweep the American entertainment industry, some notice that many of the alleged harassers are active supporters of the Left.

The overhaul of sexual misconduct allegations began on October 5 with a New York Times exposé targeting Hollywood film mogul Harvey Weinstein.

A number of the celebrities being accused are outspoken supporters of leftist causes. This is unsurprising, given Hollywood’s propensity for progressive politics.

Free clip from CHURCH MILITANT Premium


Weinstein, for instance, had longstanding ties with the Democratic Party and the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton was slammed in the media for how slowly she responded to the allegations against Weinstein.

Weinstein is known for his activism against gun-rights group the National Rifle Association (NRA). Breitbart‘s John Nolte commented that Weinstein, Hollywood and the mainstream media are “anti-gun” because they are “pro-rape.” In other words, they oppose gun rights because they don’t want their potential victims to be able to defend themselves.

Another big-name celebrity whose reputation is tarnished by harassment allegations is actor Kevin Spacey. He is accused of trying to force himself onto underaged boys.

Spacey is a friend of former president Bill Clinton and a donor to the Democratic Party. In Netflix drama House of Cards, the actor played a Democratic congressman who manipulates, adulterates and (occasionally) murders his way into the White House. After the allegations of harassment, the actor was fired, and producers announced the show would go on for only more season — with Spacey’s character removed.

Reports say Spacey was also removed from upcoming film All the Money in the World, which is being reshot with Spacey’s character now being played by Christopher Plummer. Netflix also canceled a future film starring the accused celebrity.

Spacey and Weinstein are not alone in being outspoken leftists who have been accused of sexual misconduct.

Actor Jeremy Piven supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary, while Ben Affleck endorsed Hillary Clinton. Both of these men have been accused of sexual harassment.

Actor Alec Baldwin, a professed Catholic, was an outspoken Obama supporter. He is a longtime “animal rights activist,” same-sex marriage advocate and enthusiastic gun-control supporter. He too has been accused of harassment.

E! News reporter Ken Baker has been accused and is removed from broadcasting, pending a company internal investigation. He is a lax Protestant who advocates for Eastern meditation and attends the same “church” as the Kardashians.

Hamilton Fish V from left-leaning The New Republic was recently booted from his position owing to sexual misconduct allegations. In the 1990s, his same-named grandfather and father — the third and fourth generations of Republican politicians in the family line — opposed him when he ran for a U.S. Senate seat as a Democrat. He lost the election and never held office.

Church Militant has compiled a list of individuals accused of sexual misconduct in the wake of the Weinstein scandal. Similar lists have been compiled by The New York Times and Breitbart.

Our list includes all manners of celebrities connected with the entertainment and information media industries. We chose not to include government officials.

We tried to avoid linking reports with excessively graphic details. Our list has 53 entries, naming a total of 55 individuals:

  • New Orleans chef John Besh (stepped down and issued an apology)
  • Actor Jeremy Piven (denies the allegations: Late Show appearance was canceled)
  • Oscar-nominated director David O. Russell
  • Filmmaker Brett Ratner (claims he is innocent)
  • Marilyn Manson’s guitarist Twiggy Ramirez
  • NBC’s Mark Halperin (dismissed from MSNBC and NBC, his book was canceled; says he is “profoundly sorry”)
  • Hollywood director James Toback
  • NPR executive Michael Oreskes
  • The New Republic publisher Hamilton Fish V
  • Head of Amazon Studios Roy Price (resigned after initial suspension)
  • Actor Dustin Hoffman
  • Comedian Andy Dick
  • Talent agency CEO David Guillod
  • Nashville music publicist Kirt Webster
  • Oscar-winning actor and producer Ben Affleck
  • Nickelodeon producer Chris Savino (fired; claims he is “deeply sorry”)
  • Hollywood talent agent Tyler Grasham
  • Vox editorial director Lockhart Steele (fired on October 16)
  • Comedian Louis C.K. (admitted guilt and apologized)
  • Physician Lawrence G. Nassar, team doctor for U.S. Olympic gymnasts (already in jail for other sexual misconduct but now two Olympic gymnasts have accused him of harassment)
  • Warner Bros. producer Andrew Kreisberg
  • Benjamin Genocchio, executive director of Armory Show art fair
  • E! News correspondent Ken Baker (pulled from air while NBCUniversal investigates)
  • Director of CBS’s Diversity Showcase Rick Najera (resigned)
  • Publisher of Artforum, Knight Landesman (resigned)
  • Magazine Editor Leon Wieseltier (fired from upstart Emerson Collective; says, “I offer a shaken apology”)
  • Fashion photographer Terry Richardson (spokesperson denied allegations: Condé Nast International cut ties with him)
  • Tech blogger Robert Scoble (resigned but calls it a “false narrative”)
  • Actor Kevin Spacey
  • Film producer Harvey Weinstein and his brother Bob Weinstein
  • Actor George Takei
  • Writer-producer Gary Goddard
  • Producer Benny Medina
  • DC Comics editor Eddie Berganza (suspended)
  • Actor and activist Richard Dreyfuss (denies allegations but admits being a “flirt”)
  • Synth-pop musician Ethan Kath
  • Hollywood talent agent Adam Venit
  • Celebrity actor Alec Baldwin
  • Actor Ed Westwick
  • TV actor Alec Baldwin
  • Hollywood talent agent Adam Venit
  • Talent agent Ryan Ly
  • Ain’t It Cool News founder Harry Knowles (fired)
  • Talent agent Erik Horine
  • Actor John Grissom (named by Corey Feldman)
  • Actor Danny Masterson
  • Mother Jones reporter David Corn
  • Lionsgate executive Andrew Kramer
  • Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone
  • Honest Trailers creator Andy Signore (fired)
  • Magician/entertainer David Blaine
  • Actor Steven Seagal
  • Cinefamily executives Hadrian Belove and Shadie Elnashai (both resigned)
  • Famous actor John Travolta (accused of making inappropriate advances on a male hotel employee)

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

VIDEO: French Catholics forcibly removed, arrested for praying Rosary in Church

PARIS ( – Faithful Catholics were forcibly removed and arrested for praying the Rosary in a Catholic church in Paris.

In response to an ecumenical service held in the Parish of Our Lady of White Mantles commemorating the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, about a dozen young Catholic men made reparation for what they deemed a sacrilege by praying French and Latin prayers and hymns during the service. After jeers from Catholics and Protestants in attendance, the men were arrested, some carried out of the church.

Caroline Bretones, the “pastor” of the United Protestant Church of the Marais, was invited to speak in the Catholic parish, dressed in clerics and appearing as a female “priest.”

Medias-Presse-Info, a French speaking site, posted the video, noting, “The madness being without limit, these young Catholics were evacuated manu militari [with military aid] by the police for having prayed the Rosary in a Catholic church!”

“Young Catholics have expressed their opposition to seeing Protestantism, fought and condemned by the popes and the Council of Trent for centuries, to infiltrate the Catholic Church today,” the article continues.

While the organist tried to drown out the men’s voices, it was clear many of those in attendance were angered by the men’s presence. Some argued with the men and harassed them, one lady even smacking one of them in the face with a piece of paper. They continued kneeling in prayer until police arrived and forcibly removed them.

While much of what is being said is unintelligible owing to the the loud organ music, you can hear them singing Christus Vincit, “Christ Victorious,” when police remove them from the church.

Father Benoît-Marie Roque, the parish priest of Our Lady of White Mantles, wrote about the event on the parish website, noting that just over 150 people attended and they had “a celebration, obviously not eucharistic, whose stakes were strongly emphasized by different events.”

Father Roque explained that preparations for the event took a long time. Leaders of different parishes met with groups led by video “reflections” from the various clergy. Together, they developed “95 Reasons to Hope,” a collection of biblical passages to counter Martin Luther’s 95 theses.


Interior of the church from 1808

The vast majority of comments on Medias-Presse-Info are supportive of the young men. One comment left by a man named Patrick reads:

I see a lady dancing in the church, young people who are being attacked by another lady who hits them with leaves and treats them as “[expletive]”. Then the police intervene to brutally expel young people who are praying. One of the police officers holds one of the youngsters firmly by the collar to talk to him. Is this the way for a representative of the order [to behave]? Then,as they continue to pray, they are lined up against a wall. The police take them out one by one as if they were going to the scaffold.

Our Lady of the White Mantles has been “a sanctuary dedicated to the Virgin (Aunnunciation) since 1258.” A number of church buildings have stood on that spot, with construction of current one started in 1685. The history of the parish explains, “Notre-Dame des Blancs-Manteaux is, presumably, in Paris, with the Cathedral and after it, the oldest sanctuary dedicated to [Our Lady].”

This event follows a similar protest at the cathedral of St. Michael and St. Cudula in Brussels in late October. The cathedral was the site of an attack by Protestants in the 16th century where Protestants destroyed sacred images they called “idolatrous.”

There, 12 men linked arms while reciting the Rosary to make reparations for an ecumencial service commemorating the Protestant Reformation. The protestors were heckled by people there to “celebrate,” while the organ and choir attempted to drown out the sound of their prayers before police arrived to remove them from the church.

One of the men spoke with Church Militant, who asked to remain anonymous, explaining his inspiration.

“We didn’t do it in a spirit of polemics towards faithful priests,” he clarified, “just in a spirit of reparation and resistance against profanation and celebration of a revolt against the Holy Catholic Church.”

He added, “We were in part inspired by The Catholic Gentleman, and I also listen to your Resistance podcasts for some good advice, of course. I’m a regular viewer of content.”

VIDEO: Alex Epstein — Harvard Business School Fireside Chat

A few weeks ago I was joined by my favorite energy economist, Michael Lynch, for a fireside chat hosted by Harvard Business School. It was a great discussion and the audience asked a lot of thoughtful questions. You can now view the video of that event:

Mr. Epstein Goes to Washington

I’ll be in DC the week of November 27 to share my approach to reframing the energy debate with some high-level officials. It looks like I’ll be speaking to the Congressional Coal Caucus on Wednesday, November 29. On November 30, I’ll be speaking at the Crossroads IV: Energy and Climate Policy Summit in Washington, D.C. The event is presented by the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Heritage Foundation and includes some of the world’s leading scientists, policy makers, entrepreneurs, and energy experts. I will be speaking on the moral case for fossil fuels. The event is nearly sold out, but there will be a waiting list. You can find more information at

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

  1. Hire me to speak at your next event.
  2. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications. Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.
  3. Hold a Constructive Conversation workshop.

For the last two years I have been testing and refining an approach to one-on-one conversations that anybody can use. I call it the Constructive Conversation Formula. If you have between 5-20 people who interact frequently with stakeholders and want custom guidance on how to win hearts and minds, just reply to this email and put “Workshop” in the subject line.

Gun Controllers Choose to Ignore Cases of Good Guys with Guns

Less than three hours after the tragedy at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was looking to score political points. As is his custom, Murphy fired off a tweet admonishing his colleagues for their refusal to submit to the gun control lobby’s agenda. However, in the following hours, as more information about the shooting became available, it became clear the event didn’t fit so neatly into Murphy’s preconceived anti-gun narrative.

Reports began to come out that an armed citizen, later identified as NRA Member and former NRA Instructor Stephen Willeford, had engaged the shooter with his own firearm, prompting the killer to flee the scene. With little information and no qualms about denigrating the brave actions of an American hero, the omniscient Murphy tweeted, “Let’s be clear – nobody ‘stopped’ this shooting…” At the time Willeford engaged the shooter, there were at least 20 people still alive inside the church. A heart-rending account provided to the Washington Post by David Brown, son of wounded churchgoer Farida Brown, made clear that Farida Brown feared the shooter was not finished killing when Willeford came on the scene.

Murphy’s attempt to dismiss Willeford’s courageous response to the shooting is in keeping with gun control advocates’ longstanding messaging efforts and shows the depths anti-gun activists will sink to bury the facts. According to these gun-control proponents, good guys with guns don’t stop bad guys with guns.

In order to justify this position, gun control activists ignore cases where armed civilians have put a halt to mass violence. Like a perverse Goldilocks, gun controllers will discount cases where a criminal was stopped before they were able to carry out sufficient carnage, and, as in the case of the shooting in Southerland Springs, dismiss a case where the killer was able to exact significant violence before an armed citizen could arrive.

When you look past gun control advocates and much of the media’s biased filtering, there are a number of documented cases where armed citizens have confronted these types of killers and likely saved lives. Here are just a handful:

On August 1, 1966, a madman went to the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin Tower and began firing at those on the ground, eventually killing 14. During the shooting, several citizens retrieved their personal firearms and returned fire. According to a university effort to compile a complete historical record of the incident, “The ground fire did pin down Whitman, most likely keeping him from killing more people.” One eyewitness told Texas Monthly in 2006, “It seemed like every other guy had a rifle. There was a sort of cowboy atmosphere, this ‘Let’s get him’ spirit.”

On January 16, 2002, a disgruntled former student returned to Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va. and shot two school officials. According to an account from student Tracy Bridges printed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, he and fellow student Michael Gross retrieved firearms from their vehicles and went to confront the shooter. Along with two other students, Bridges and Gross were able to subdue the killer until police could arrive. In his book, The Bias Against Guns, Economist John Lott pointed out that “out of 208 news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just four stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns.”

On December 9, 2007, a man entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. after having killed two people earlier in day at a Christian center in Arvada, Colo. The killer was met by volunteer armed church security guard Jeanne Assam. Describing her actions, Assam said, “I took cover. I identified myself. I engaged him. I took him down.” Following the incident, Church Pastor Brady Boyd called Assam a hero and explained, “Three people are needlessly dead, but many more lives could have been lost.” 

On April 17, 2015, a man fired into a crowd of people in Chicago’s Logan Square. John Hendricks, an Uber driver and Right-to-Carry permit holder, drew a handgun and shot the assailant, who collapsed onto the sidewalk. Recalling his experience for the Chicago Tribune, Hendricks explained, “There was a threat to me and I helped somebody in the process as well… It’s a positive feeling.”

On May 5, 2015, a deranged man drove into the parking lot of a fire station in New Holland, S.C. According to a report from WIS-TV, several children and firefighters were in the lot. The man then exited his vehicle with a firearm and shot into the air and at his own automobile. Firefighter Gary Knoll and one of his colleagues, both Right-to-Carry permit holders, drew firearms and confronted the man. Knoll and his colleagues were able to disarm the man and detain him until police could arrive. Speaking to the local media about the importance of exercising the Right-to-Carry, Knoll said, “It saved a life, if not multiple.”

On May 3, 2017, a man entered the Zona Caliente sports bar in Arlington, Texas, began speaking incoherently, and opened fire. At the time of the shooting, there were more than a dozen people inside the restaurant. A patron, who was also a Right-to-Carry permit holder, shot and killed the shooter, ending the incident. Arlington Police Spokesman Christopher Cook told the Dallas Morning News that the armed citizen was a “hero,” and noted that he “prevented further loss of life.”

In an interview with NRA, Willeford recalled the moment when he became aware of the gunfire at the church and said, “I kept hearing those shots and I knew every shot might be representing another person getting hit by a bullet.” Acting as fast as he could, Willeford retrieved his rifle, grabbed a handful of ammunition, and raced out his door barefoot towards the church. Anyone who has seen the NRA video, or Willeford’s other interviews, can see the anguish of a man who wishes he could have done even more to protect his community. Maybe Willeford’s heroic response wasn’t enough for Murphy to consider him a good guy with a gun, but the survivors in Sutherland Springs and the decent portion of America likely disagree.

Joe Biden: Hero Who Ended Texas Rampage Shouldn’t Have Had His Gun

Stephen Willeford

Most Americans consider Stephen Willeford a hero for bravely ending the rampage of a crazed murderer at a Texas church … but not former Vice President Joe Biden. During a national television appearance on Monday, Biden dismissed the Texan’s valorous actions, going so far as to say he shouldn’t have been carrying the AR-15 he used to stop the killer.

Biden, who is eyeing a presidential run in 2020, appeared on the Today show and took questions from the audience.

A young woman named Brianna asked him, “So with the tragedy that just happened in Texas, my question is, how do you justify the Democratic view on gun control when the shooter was stopped by a man who was legally licensed to carry a gun?”

It’s a fair question, given that the Democratic Party Platform labels AR-15s like the one Mr. Willeford used to defend his community “weapons of war” that must be taken “off our streets.” 

And true to form, Biden completely ignored the fact that Willeford used his rifle to save innocent lives.

“Well, first all,” Biden replied without hesitation, “the kind of gun being carried, he shouldn’t be carrying.”

Biden then went on to explain how he himself wrote the federal “assault weapons” ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. 

Yet Willeford himself has stressed that the type of firearm he used was a key factor in stopping the threat. “If I had run out of the house with a pistol and faced a bulletproof vest and kevlar and helmets,” he said in an interview, “it might have been futile.” 

“Number two,” Biden continued, “it’s just rational to say, certain people shouldn’t have guns. Now the fact that some people with guns are legally able to acquire a gun, and they turn out to be crazy after the fact, that’s life, and there’s nothing you can do about that. But we can save a lot of lives, and we’ve stopped tens of thousands of people who shouldn’t have guns from getting guns.”

Biden’s second point, given the question asked, was incoherent or non-responsive. Either Biden was suggesting Stephen Willeford was crazy and shouldn’t have had a gun, or he was simply pivoting to a familiar gun control talking point to deflect the uncomfortable fact that he had just suggested that Willeford shouldn’t have had access to the AR-15 that he used to end the Sutherland Springs shooting.

By all accounts, Stephen Willeford is an exemplary gun owner. He is an NRA member and has been certified as an NRA instructor, and his ability to deliver a precise, crime-ending shot in a high-stress encounter was the result of regular training and target practice. A neighbor described him as “a very good guy, very big Christian … the nicest man on the planet” and a person who “would do anything for anyone around here.” Nothing indicates Stephen Willeford is “crazy” or the type of person who shouldn’t lawfully be able to own any sort of firearm he wants. 

Biden’s more general point – that even some legal gun owners can later resort to bad behavior – has no relevance to the situation in Texas. The murderer was not a legal gun owner, and he did not obtain his crime guns legally. Thanks to a bureaucratic screw-up – exactly the sort of human fallibility that no law can cure – the criminal history information that would have disqualified the killer was never reported to the background check system. In other words, the very system that gun-control proponents seek to expand to all firearm transfers failed in exactly the situation where it might have done some good.

It says something about Joe Biden and his brand of politics that he is incapable of recognizing American heroism and goodness when it conflicts with his preordained agenda. 

Two men had similar firearms on that awful day in Sutherland Springs, Texas. The assailant had obtained his gun in defiance of the law, as bad men usually do. If Joe Biden had his way, the good guy who stopped him wouldn’t have had his gun at all. 

And make no mistake, if Stephen Willeford can’t own a gun in Joe Biden’s America, none of the rest of us would make the cut, either.   

Mandatory Sex Harassment Training Reveals a Basic Lack of Morals

If United States Senators need mandatory sexual harassment training every two years, we have the wrong people in the Senate.

“Making harassment training mandatory in the Senate sends a clear message: harassment of any kind is not and will not be tolerated in Congress. Period,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, said in a statement.

That resolution co-sponsored by leaders in both parties just passed the Senate — unanimously. Let’s just be honest: This resolution and particularly the unanimity is mostly a result of craven political pandering, not an actual conviction of the heart for wrongdoing. Who would vote against cleaning up sexual harassment? (Certainly not those who do it.)

This is a simple case of a dramatic retreat from traditional Judeo-Christian morals — something the founding fathers understood as a necessity to a free people and something that the Left, specifically but not exclusively, has been dragging us further from for more than a half century. From the sexual revolution of the 1960s and all the “free sex” to endless television shows and to movies and pop icons that portray this sort of accountability-free sex any time two people want it — we now live in a sex-drenched culture.

Look at movies. There must be 20 times more sex scenes between unmarried as married couples. How many movie scenes have we seen where the hot woman struggles at first against the hot man after the dramatic lead-up of sexual tension, only to give in to her supposed animal lusts and we get another obligatory sex scene? And almost every movie has to have some obligatory sex scene, whether it is in any way necessary to the plot or not.

Or look at leading female pop singers today: Katy Perry, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Pink, Arianna Grande, Rihanna, even of late Taylor Swift. Virtually every top pop singer with the notable exception of Adele is hyper-sexualized, showing body parts that would have been considered indecent and unacceptable 60 years ago. This says nothing of the frequently hyper-sexualized lyrics. Then look at their concert-goers. A lot of girls and young women idolizing them. What’s the message there?

The female pop stars of today have been trained that to get ahead you have to bare almost everything. The message seems to be that women are objects. Is it any wonder that Hollywood is chock full of men who think of women as sex objects? Guaranteed this goes on in the music industry also. And it ripples throughout the culture.

Or look at some of the biggest TV sitcoms of the past 20 years, shows that make an impact on the culture. The Big Bang Theory, 30 Rock, Friends, Seinfeld are or were full of talented writers and actors. And they all were just ripe with sex jokes and endless sexual promiscuity. Friends was known for all of the characters sleeping with one another at one point during the run. There were no debates about whether it was morally right or wrong to have one-night stands. Everyone does it! Everyone wants it! Get lucky tonight!Score! The most insipid message is that it is just accepted as what everyone does.

Or look at standup comedians. The vulgarities and crotch-grabbing sex jokes make most of them impossible to watch. So maybe don’t look.

Or look at how Playboy founder Hugh Hefner was just lauded at his death as a trailblazer who empowered women. Why? Because he ran the first major magazine with glossy pictures of naked women. He lived in the Playboy Mansion and married women 50 years younger than him. Celebrities by the truckload went to good ol’ Hugh’s mansion or appeared in the magazine in some form. He made it by essentially paying young women to take their clothes off so his photographers could take pictures. And he is lauded. What does that say? Is it any wonder that such a disgusting man as Harvey Weinstein thrived for decades in this environment?

The decline of Christianity and rise of the sex revolution

This ongoing desensitization of the American culture, both men and women but particularly men who are biologically driven much more by visuals, makes all of the sexual harassment we are seeing more likely and more common. It’s as predictable as math. Totally wrong and immoral, but predictable based on unconstrained human nature. It’s why virtually all nude magazines are of women and most pornography is consumed by men. It’s why women are largely those objectified by men, not vice-versa.

Men and women are different. Hence the appeal of Playboy magazine and now endless online porn.

Hefner played on that and launched the cultural mainstreaming of objectifying women’s bodies. We’re now beginning to fully reap the fruits of this folly of jettisoning Christianity and basic, cultural Judeo-Christian morals.

Naturally, all of this sexuality sends a big green light to men who are not grounded in any moral base — which almost always requires religion.

When the culture rested on Judeo-Christian moral norms, none of these things that are considered normal now were acceptable. Of course they still happened. But they were much less common because the culture broadly disapproved. Men were supposed to protect women, not prey on them. That protection sentiment is now considered sexist and patriarchal by the same worldview that has pushed this culture from the sexual revolution onward.

Religion constrained women from publicly flaunting intimate body parts to further their careers, and religion constrained men from seeing every woman as little more than a sex object and possible one-night stand. Human nature requires restraints.

It’s actually the type of freedom our founders expounded on.

“Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” John Adams

“Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.” George Washington

“The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.” Noah Webster

“Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.” Continental Congress, 1778

Perhaps morality can be accomplished in a culture outside of religion. There’s just not much evidence of that. And we’re seeing that reality play out.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Photo: Shutterstock

Drain the Swamp: Demand that Congress release all the information on sexual abuses by its members

There are 535 Members of Congress – 100 serve in the U.S. Senate and 435 who serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Daily Caller’s Henry Rodgers in a column titled “Congress Spent $17 Million Paying For Its Sexual Harassment Settlements” reported:

The OCC said it decided to release the information regarding payment of awards and settlements regarding all types of harassment due to the mass amounts of recent inquiries. In the released statement, OCC executive director Susan Tsui Grundmann explained that these cases originate from multiple offices inside of the legislative branch, other than the House or the Senate. [Emphasis added]

The Federal Office of Compliance has released a list of payouts to those who were sexually harassed in the past 20 years by members of Congress and others in the federal government.

The list shows that $17,240,854 dollars has been paid out to 264 recipients. This is an average payment per sexually abused individual of $65,306.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice NSOPW website, “Approximately 30% of sexual assault cases are reported to authorities.”

Therefore the number of persons sexually abused by members of Congress and others in the legislative branch of the federal government over the past 20 years could be as high as 871 individuals. The two largest annual payouts from this Congressional slush fund are: $3,974,077 to 10 individuals in 2002 and $4,053,274 to 25 individuals in 2007 under the administration of former President George W. Bush. Under the administration of former President Barack Obama the slush fund paid out a total of $5,034,508 to 111 individuals.

What we do not know is how many members of Congress and legislative branch are/were the sexual predators in the cases reported resulting in a payment made.

If each case reported that resulted in a payment was perpetrated by one member of Congress then potentially 49% of members of Congress and those serving in the legislative branch are/were sexual predators. We understand that the members of Congress as well as administrations have changed over the past 20 years. Different members of Congress and those in the Executive Branch retire or are voted out of office. However, the numbers are what they are.

It would be unthinkable that one person committed all 264 reported cases of sexual abuse that resulted in all of the over $17 million in payments made. Given the larger number of potentially 871 (reported and unreported) victims gives us an annual average of over 87 acts of sexual abuse by members of Congress and the legislative branch over the past 20 years.

We will only know the truth when:

  1. Congress release the names of those paid.
  2. Congress release the names of the members/employees who are/were a sexual predator.
  3. Others who did not report sexual abuse and did not receive a payment must be encouraged to come forward. Perhaps given immunity and compensation?

This is a major scandal that members of Congress and members of past administrations had to know about this sexual abuse, if for no other reason than money exchanged hands and non-disclosure documents were signed and records kept.

Perhaps it is time for President Trump to demand that the Republican leadership in Congress release all of the names, dates, payment details and release those who signed non-disclosure agreements from previous administrations if possible. Or the President demand that the U.S. Congress release the names, dates and payment details.

It is past the time to know how deep this rabbit hole truly is.

It is time to actually drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.


Florida Democratic Party chair apologizes after 6 women complain of ‘demeaning’ behavior – Politico

Liberals’ Sudden Concern About Bill Clinton’s Behavior Is Cynical And Self-Serving

The Left’s Deafening Silence on Bob Menendez

Alabama GOP stands solidly with Roy Moore

The Alabama GOP released the following statement on U.S. Senate nominee Roy Moore:

Alabama Republican Party Chairman Terry Lathan made the following statement regarding the U.S. Senate election:

“On Wednesday evening, the Alabama Republican Party Steering Committee, comprised of 21 members, met to discuss the events and circumstances regarding the December 12 U.S. Senate race.”

“The ALGOP Steering Committee supports Judge Roy Moore as our nominee and trusts the voters as they make the ultimate decision in this crucial race.”

“Judge Moore has vehemently denied the allegations made against him. He deserves to be presumed innocent of the accusations unless proven otherwise. He will continue to take his case straight to the people of Alabama.”

“There is a sharp policy contrast between Judge Moore, a conservative Republican who supports President Trump, and the liberal Democrat who will fight and thwart the agenda of our president. We trust the Alabama voters in this election to have our beloved state and nation’s best interest at heart. Alabamians will be the ultimate jury in this election- not the media or those from afar.”

“We are very grateful for the multitudes that have reached out to us with support and prayers. We ask God to guide us, politically and personally, with His mighty strength and wisdom. In turn, we also pray that justice and truth will prevail for all involved in this situation.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Ryun on Roy Moore: ‘I Strongly, Strongly Suspect’ McConnell Camp ‘Planted Story’

RELATED PODCAST: Breitbart News Daily – Ned Ryun – November 17, 2017

VIDEO: Judge Roy Moore’s letter to Sean Hannity on ‘false allegations’

Judge Roy Moore sent a letter (below) to Sean Hannity addressing the allegations of sexual harassment made against him. Hannity shared the letter on show with viewers. Here is Sean Hannity’s response:

RELATED ARTICLE: Ryun on Roy Moore: ‘I Strongly, Strongly Suspect’ McConnell Camp ‘Planted Story’

Full text of Judge Roy Moore letter to Sean Hannity:

Dear Sean:

I am suffering the same treatment other Republicans have had to endure.

A month prior to the general election for U.S. Senate in Alabama, I have been attacked by the Washington Post and other liberal media in a desperate attemp to smear my character and defeat my campaign.

Over the last 40 years I have held several public offices, including Deputy District Attorney, Circuit Judge and Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. In addition to running five statewide and three county campaigns for public office, I have been involved in two major controversies that attracted national attention, one about the Ten Commandments and the other the sanctity of marriage.

The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, Courr of the Judiciary, and Attorney General have investigated, scrutinized, examined, and vetted me, not to mention every opposing candidate against whom I have run.

I have been married for almost 33 years to my wife Kayla. We have four children and five granddaughters.

We are in the process of investigating these false allegations to determine their origin and motivation. For instance, we have documented that the most recent accuser, Beverly Nelson, was a party in a divorce action before me in Etowah County Circuit Court in 1999. No motion was made for me to recuse. In her accusations, Nelson did not mention that I was the judgge assigned to her divorce case in 1999, a matter that apparently caused her no distress at a time that was 18 years closer to the alleged assault. Yet 18 years later, while talking before the cameras about the supposed assault, she seemingly could not contain her emotions.

My signature on the order of dismissal in the divorce case was annotated with the letters “D.A.,” representing the initials of my court assistant. Curiously the supposed yearbook inscription is also followed by the same initials – “D.A.” But at that time I was Deputy District Attorney, not district attorney. Those initials as well as the date under the signature block and the printed name of the restaurant are written in a style inconsistent with the rest of the yearbook inscription. The “7’s in “Christmas 1977” are in a noticeably different script than the “7’s” in the date “12-22-77.” I believe tampering has occurred.

Are we at a stage in American politics in which false allegations can overcome a public record of 40 years, stampede the media and politicians to condemn an innocent man, and potentially impact the outcome of an election of national importance? When allegations of events occurring 40 years ago — and never before mentioned during a 40-year career of public service — are brought out and taken seriously only 30 days before a critical election, we may be in trouble as a country.

I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation. Because of that, at the direction of counsel, I cannot comment further.