Trump Administration Issues Final Obamacare Religious Exemption Protecting Little Sisters of the Poor

The Trump administration released two final rules Wednesday finalizing their interim rules regarding entities with religious objections to covering their employees’ contraceptives.

The first rule provides an exemption from Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate for entities and individuals with religious objections to the mandate.

The second rule provides an exemption to nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and individuals with non-religious but moral opposition to such coverage.

“The religious and moral exemptions provided by these rules also apply to institutions of education, issuers, and individuals,” the Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement about the rules. “The Departments are not extending the moral exemption to publicly traded businesses, or either exemption to government entities.”

When the Obama administration initially introduced the mandate, The Little Sisters of the Poor and other nonprofit religious organizations that had religious objections to it were forced to sue. (Read more from “Trump Administration Issues Final Obamacare Religious Exemption Protecting Little Sisters of the Poor” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bernie Sanders’s Outrageous Reason for Why Florida Democrats Lost This Year

If there is one thing we know about the far left, besides being totally wrong on policy, it’s that their memories have a shelf life of two seconds. Seriously, after what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said about the recent Florida elections, just discount anything this progressive wing has to say because we all know they have a one or two-track mind to explain why their campaigns end in disaster.

The autopsies are usually ‘candidate x wasn’t left wing enough.’ If it’s not that, it’s because of white people, or something. The latter is what Sanders thought was the reason why Andrew Gillum and incumbent Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson fell short Tuesday night. Gillum lost and has conceded. Nelson and Gov. Rick Scott, the Republican, are heading for a recount, which will end at noon on November 10. Scott leads Nelson by a little over 34,500 votes. Scott is going to win. And for Sanders, it’s because white people were scared of black people (via Daily Beast):

Democratic officials woke Wednesday morning searching for answers as to why the party was unable to win several marquee Senate and gubernatorial races the night before. But for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) the explanation was simple. The candidates who underperformed weren’t progressive enough; those who didn’t shy away from progressivism were undone, in part, by “racist” attacks.

“I think you know there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American,” Sanders told The Daily Beast, referencing the close contests involving Andrew Gillum in Florida and Stacey Abrams in Georgia. “I think next time around by the way it will be a lot easier for them to do that.”

(Read more from “Bernie Sanders’s Outrageous Reason for Why Florida Democrats Lost This Year” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Guess Who’s Back: Chris Christie Said to Be in the Running to Replace Jeff Sessions

So, who will replace Jeff Sessions? President Trump fired his now-former attorney general yesterday:

“At your request, I am submitting my resignation. Since the day I was honored to be sworn in as Attorney General of the United States, I came to work at the Department every day determined to do my duty and serve my country. I have done so to the best of my ability, working to support the fundamental legal processes that are the foundation of justice,” Sessions wrote in his resignation letter. “In my time at Attorney General, we have restored and upheld the rule of law — a glorious tradition that each of us has a responsibility to safeguard. We have operated with integrity and have lawfully and aggressively advanced the policy agenda of the administration.”

As Whitaker takes the reins at the DOJ for now, the candidate search for a permanent replacement is said to include former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is leaving due to term limits, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. And yes, this is based on sources—nothing concrete yet. But a Giuliani confirmation hearing…that would be some good television (via CBS News):

(Read more from “Guess Who’s Back: Chris Christie Said to Be in the Running to Replace Jeff Sessions” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Does Robert Mueller’s Lead Prosecutor Have a History of Ethics Violations?

Houston-based attorney Kevin Fulton, of the Fulton Law Group, plans to file a motion on my behalf Thursday morning to unseal and unredact court records that may expose past misconduct by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s lead prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann.

Since Weissmann took a leave of absence from his top Department of Justice job to join the special counsel’s team, critics have questioned his impartiality. Reports suggest the man branded Mueller’s pit bull by the New York Times violated internal protocol when he met with reporters from the Associated Press in April 2017. The following day, the AP published an exposé on Paul Manafort’s relationship with Ukraine officials.

Then news broke that twice-demoted Department of Justice attorney Bruce Ohr kept Weissmann “in the loop” about the dossier penned by former MI6 British spy Christopher Steele and used to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to surveil President Trump’s campaign.

Ohr, who apparently had no official role in the Russia investigation, has come under fire for feeding the FBI intel from Steele following the latter’s termination as an informant. Ohr’s purported communications with Weissmann raise the question of whether the top DOJ lawyer likewise sidestepped FBI protocols concerning sources.

These facts raise serious concerns about Weissmann’s continued service on the special counsel’s team and justify delving further into the career of the long-time federal prosecutor. (Read more from “Does Robert Mueller’s Lead Prosecutor Have a History of Ethics Violations?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ted Cruz Might Have Won, but the Midterms Bode Ill for Texas

Republicans across Texas breathed a deep sigh of relief Tuesday night when Sen. Ted Cruz eked out a victory over Beto O’Rourke, who ran the most competitive statewide campaign a Texas Democrat has run in decades.

But Republicans in the Lone Star State shouldn’t take much comfort from the win. Yes, Cruz held on to his Senate seat, and yes, every GOP incumbent running in a statewide race won reelection. Nevertheless, a closer look at their margins of victory, along with massive voter turnout and structural changes in the electorate, tells a troubling tale for the future of the GOP in Texas.

The reality is that the Republican Party is losing ground in Texas, whose fast-growing population is increasingly willing to vote for Democrats, especially in the state’s large cities and suburbs. It’s easy to see this dynamic at play in the Cruz-O’Rourke race. Cruz won by less than 3 points, and only captured a couple hundred thousand more votes than O’Rourke out of a record-setting midterm turnout of more than 8.2 million voters. Compare that to 2012, when Cruz won by more 1.2 million votes and coasted to victory with a 16-point margin.

Even more ominous for Texas Republicans is where Cruz lost to O’Rourke. Tarrant County, which encompasses Fort Worth and is America’s most conservative large urban county, went for Cruz by 16 points in 2012, with Cruz winning nearly a million more votes than his Democratic opponent that year. Long considered a GOP stronghold, Tarrant County is the only one of the Texas’s five largest counties that hasn’t backed a Democratic presidential candidate in the past decade. (In 2016, it went for Trump by more than eight points.)

But on Tuesday, O’Rourke narrowly carried Tarrant County, edging out Cruz by less than 4,000 votes. A similar dynamic played out in central Texas, where O’Rourke won Hays and Williamson counties, which border the deep-blue state capital of Austin in Travis County, but traditionally have been Republican strongholds. Cruz won both in 2012 by sizeable margins, but on Tuesday O’Rourke won both, carrying Hays County by more than 15 points. (Read more from “Ted Cruz Might Have Won, but the Midterms Bode Ill for Texas” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Gamer Banned From Youtube for Showing You Can Kill Someone in Game About Killing

The YouTuber who posted a video of a character punching a suffragette in Rockstar Games’ “Red Dead Redemption 2” (RDR2) was briefly banned from the platform. . .

At one point during his playthrough, he went to the tailor’s shop in the game city of Saint Denis, which is based on New Orleans. Outside the shop is a non-playable character (NPC) who constantly shouts “Let me vote!” and insults men. Every game has at least one annoying NPC, and this is just one of many in the game.

While in the tailor shop, the suffragette’s dialogue can still be heard clearly. It clashes with the dialogue of the shopkeeper (if you have subtitles on, as I do, the two dialogues stack on top of each other in a distracting way), and forces you to listen to “Let me vote” over and over and over again while you shop for clothes.

Shirrako had enough. When he left the shop, he directed RDR2’s anti-hero, Arthur Morgan, to punch the suffragette in the face, knocking her unconscious. Viewers of his livestream enjoyed this moment, so Shirrako posted a clip of it separately on his YouTube channel. Shirrako went on later to post two more videos of his character attacking this particular NPC, including one where he kidnaps her and takes her to the swamp to be fed to an alligator.

These videos angered a Motherboard writer, who complained that the videos promoted violence against women. As I reported on Tuesday, Shirrako has many other clips from the game where he attacks innocent NPCs, including children and the mayor of a town, but because he attacked a feminist, he must be punished. (Read more from “Gamer Banned From Youtube for Showing You Can Kill Someone in Game About Killing” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Tucker Carlson Speaks out After Leftist Mob Shows up at His Home, Reveals Chilling Details

On Wednesday night, a 20-person leftist mob showed up at the home of Fox News host Tucker Carlson to chant threats, call him a racist, and demand the host leave town.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Carlson revealed that at least one member of the “anti-fascist” group threw himself into the host’s front door repeatedly to the point that the door cracked. . .

“She had been in the kitchen alone getting ready to go to dinner and she heard pounding on the front door and screaming,” he continued. “Someone started throwing himself against the front door and actually cracked the front door.”

His wife, who was the only person home at the time of the ambush, initially thought it was a home invasion after hearing the screaming and banging on the door. She locked herself in their pantry and called the police, Carlson said. . .

“It wasn’t a protest. It was a threat,” Carlson clarified. “They weren’t protesting anything specific that I had said. They weren’t asking me to change anything. They weren’t protesting a policy or advocating for legislation. … They were threatening me and my family and telling me to leave my own neighborhood in the city that I grew up in.” (Read more from “Tucker Carlson Speaks out After Leftist Mob Shows up at His Home, Reveals Chilling Details” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Democrat Overheard Discussing Kavanaugh Impeachment Plans

The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee was overheard Wednesday discussing Democrats’ plans to investigate and try to impeach Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler took a series of phone calls while riding the Acela train from New York to Washington, D.C., not knowing that the The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway was also on the train and within earshot.

Nadler is set to take over as judiciary chairman as a result of Democrats flipping the House in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Nadler claimed in one call that “there’s a real indication that Kavanaugh committed perjury,” claiming the justice misled about when he first heard about the second of several unproven allegations against him.

Nadler claimed Kavanaugh was “asked at a committee hearing under oath when he first heard of the subject, he said, ‘When I’d heard of The Atlantic article.’ But there is an email chain apparently dating from well before that from him about ‘How can we deal with this?’” (Read more from “Top Democrat Overheard Discussing Kavanaugh Impeachment Plans” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

10 Observations on the Failed Blue Wave

Democrats essentially won a very technical election last night, fueled by several unique factors giving them the advantage in the House this election cycle. These factors were absent in the Senate races and will likely be absent in many of the 2020 House races as well as in the presidential race. There are potential warning signs for Republicans, but a lot of opportunities if they learn the right lessons.

Let’s delve into the key observations. I will try to elaborate on each point in the coming days:

1) Not bad historically for the GOP: It looks like Democrats will pick up roughly 32-34 House seats and flip control of the House with a 10-seat majority. But Republicans picked up three or four Senate seats. Historically, the number of House seats lost is in line with the sort of backlash the incumbent party incurs in a midterm, especially when they control all branches of government. The fact that they were able to win in the Senate and buck the trend is due to the polarized map working in their favor, but also shows that this was not a historic repudiation of Trump. Obama lost 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats in 2010. Republicans lost five governorships last night (Obama lost six), but some of that was due to bad candidate recruitment and overexposure in blue states. They lost seven legislative chambers, not nearly as many as Democrats did and not bad considering the high-water mark they were occupying headed into the election.

2) This was a realignment, not a wave, even though Republicans were on the short end of it in the House and the better end in the Senate. Republicans reached a high-water mark of power in a lot of House seats, governorships, and state legislatures following the 2010, 2014, and 2016 victories. What we saw last night was the natural blowback against the incumbent party, mixed with the completion of the realignment of suburban-rural districts to Republicans and suburban-urban districts to Democrats. Ultimately, the red areas got redder, the blue ones got bluer, and Republicans were on the short end of the battle for swing voters in a midterm. Thus, in the Senate, they won red states (but lost Nevada), but they could not hold enough House seats in suburban territory. There are warning signs for both parties in this dynamic. Republicans are losing in suburban Houston, Charleston, and even Oklahoma City. But Democrats are losing the last of the FDR coalition of blue-collar workers in the traditional Democrat rural areas.

3) Money matters: Unlike previous wave elections, such as 1994, 2006, and 2010, money was a dominant factor. Democrats had the unprecedented advantage of outspending Republicans, often two or three to one, not just in the toss-ups but in a number of relatively safe GOP districts. This is how they put so many districts in play. There’s no question that without the financial disadvantage, people like Dave Brat would have won re-election. Remember, this financial edge will disappear in 2020, when Democrats will have a presidential candidate sucking up all the oxygen and money, not to mention a very open and competitive presidential primary that will drain funds. The bottom line is that money matters a lot, which is ironic given the supposed concern of Democrats about money in politics. There is no way O’ Rourke would have done so well in Texas had he not spent as much money on the Senate seat as presidential candidates used to spend on national races until fairly recently.

4) The top of the ballot killed the GOP in critical states: For voters who hate Trump (and their hate is the primary factor driving their turnout), this election was essentially a presidential election. For all intents and purposes, Trump was on the ballot. We incurred all the liabilities of Trump’s realignment in that sense. But we left too much of his benefit on the table in many parts of the country. Where we had a unified message with good candidates who ran as conservatives and motivated the base, such as Ron DeSantis, we overcame the predicted blue wave. But in states like Pennsylvania, Virginia, New York, and Illinois, Republicans were comatose at the top of the ticket and Trump himself wasn’t on the ballot. Thus, while the blue turnout was in full force as if it were a presidential election, Trump voters (or suburban voters who think Democrats are too radical) were stuck with no options at the top of the ticket. Republicans lost 12 seats just in those four states alone. The wipeout in those states would not happen with Trump on the ballot, assuming his strength remains roughly where it is today. I would argue that had Trump been on the ballot, Republicans would likely have held the House.

By my count, Republicans lost 16 of the 25 Hillary districts they held, but they also lost roughly an equal number of Trump districts. In other words, Democrats relied on the one-sided liability of Trump off the ballot, the financial edge, and anomalies at the top of the ticket to help win in areas they should lose in 2020. Also, remember that Republicans can now target a dozen other incumbent House Democrats in Trump districts in 2020. With Trump actually on the ballot, Republicans will further benefit from the realignment of blue-collar whites against those incumbents.

5) Nothing fundamentally changed for months: The contours of this election were already set within a few months after the last election. Once Trump’s personality became a problem with certain suburban voters and Republicans failed to enact an agenda to inspire them back into the fold, they lost those voters. This was evident in the polling as early as the spring of 2017 and was reflected in the special elections as well as the November 2017 Virginia local elections. The only thing that changed in the GOP’s favor is that its base, which was asleep during the special elections, ultimately came out in force. Some of that was inevitable, and some of it was turbocharged by Kavanaugh. I don’t think Republicans did anything in the past few weeks to fundamentally help or hurt their standing. This liability was baked into the cake a while back.

6) There’s no such thing as lukewarm hell in the era of hyper–polarization and Trump: Had Republicans actually repealed Obamacare fully from day one, actualized the benefits of lower prices, and then had two full years to deal with the entitlement part of it, they likely would have kept the House. Here’s the thing: Republicans have fully incurred the liability of Trump and everything he is perceived as standing for. Democrats threw everything they had at this election and had many anomalous factors working in their favor, including judicial gerrymandering. Republicans only stand to benefit by fully embracing a coherent conservative agenda on immigration, terrorism, crime, and health care to not only jazz up the base and turn out the new Trump voters, but to win back some of those lost suburban votes.

7) Democrats have a very tenuous majority, their worst outcome headed into 2020: If the goal of maintaining the House is to impeach Trump, then control of the House might have been worthwhile for Democrats. But if they had plans to promote winning issues for themselves and win back the White House, this election actually hurt them. They will now have a roughly 10-seat majority fueled by members in Trump-leaning districts who have distanced themselves from Pelosi. As it stands now, roughly a dozen new Democrats have distanced themselves from Pelosi. That is their margin of control. The problem for them is that the rest of the conference is more radical than ever before. They will push these members to either commit political suicide or side with Republicans. Pelosi will offer Trump endless fodder to use in the campaign and an easy punching bag on which to lay blame. In many ways, coming just short of flipping the House would have been the best result for Democrats to win the White House, because Republicans would be even more impotent but still have the liability of being in full control.

8) It’s not too late to rectify the mistakes of the past two years: Just because Democrats have the House doesn’t mean they should win on budget and policy, given that Trump has the veto and Republicans expanded their majority in the Senate. If anything, Pelosi as speaker makes it easier to blame them for the problems. McConnell must lead by passing conservative budgets and engaging in brinksmanship against the House. Stop hiding behind the filibuster. Drive a narrative and draw a sharp contrast with Pelosi. Don’t just confirm judges and do nothing else. Most suburban voters don’t want to ban straws and embrace Hamas and MS-13, but that case needs to be brought to their attention. If McConnell forces issues past the Senate, it will embolden conservatives in the House to drive a wedge between the radical 90 percent of the House Democrat caucus and the 10 percent they need to keep the majority but who don’t want to appear as off-the-wall crazy.

9) We need a new leader in the House: Are we going to continue with the same failed House leadership under Kevin McCarthy? We need Jim Jordan as minority leader for two reasons. First, if McCarthy is allowed to be minority leader, he almost certainly would be speaker if/when Republicans win back the majority in 2020. He will squander the mandate the same way he did in 2016. He doesn’t share our values. Second, even in the minority, Jordan will work to pressure McConnell and convince Trump to fight with the leverage of the other two branches. We already know what McCarthy will do.

As much as last night’s loss of the House was well within the historical trends, it should be noted that the economy is humming and Democrats are extremely radical. There’s no reason we should be losing this badly in this environment, despite the historical trends. McCarthy has been a failed leader. Republicans shouldn’t make the same mistakes as the Democrats by doubling down on their stale leadership.

10) Time to build a better House majority: So many of the House members who lost supported amnesty and Obamacare. We need to work beginning this month on recruiting candidates to win back the majority who, at a very minimum, share our values on those issues. The good news is that almost all of the candidates who lost are the most liberal members of the House. There is a way to recruit smart conservative candidates who can acquit themselves well with suburban voters.

The bottom line is that this election was hyper-technical, asymmetrical, and enigmatic. This places Republicans in a position to rectify their mistakes and walk forward with even more strength headed into 2020. But if they will just continue rubber-stamping Pelosi’s budgets because “we can’t shut the government down” and proceed to pass jailbreak legislation, then we will divide our side rather than unite it and drive a wedge into their side. Conservatives need to mobilize from day one in primaries and on legislative fights. We can’t just be Election Day groundhogs and then go back to sleep. We need to educate voters on the issues with a sustained narrative, pressure wayward Republicans into acting on our positions, draw sharp contrasts, and recruit better candidates at every opportunity. (For more from the author of “10 Observations on the Failed Blue Wave” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

WOW! Trump BLOWS UP at Jim Acosta: ‘You Are a Rude, Terrible Person’

Wednesday at a press conference about the 2018 midterm elections, President Donald Trump blew up at CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta.

Acosta asked a question about the migrant caravan traveling to the United States and repeatedly challenged the president as he attempted to answer. Trump became frustrated with Acosta’s antics.

“Honestly, I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN, and if you did it well your ratings would be much better,” Trump said.

Acosta attempted to ask another question about the Mueller probe, but Trump dismissed him by repeatedly saying, “That’s enough,” and motioning for Acosta’s microphone to be handed to another reporter.

Here’s the scene from a different angle. As a female aide attempts to take the microphone away, Acosta brushes her aside.

Acosta continued to ask questions, including whether Trump was “concerned” about potential indictments coming from the Mueller probe.

“I’ll tell you what, CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them,” Trump said. “You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN.” (For more from the author of “Wow! Trump Blows up at Jim Acosta: ‘You Are a Rude, Terrible Person’” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.