Since reading C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters," I have suspected that both God and Satan have a sense of humor. Moreover, the manifestations of those very different senses of humor seem obvious. When, for instance, an ironic development humbles the prideful, we may rest assured that the irony likely originated...

When Harleys Become a Live Show ??️

President Trump is fed up with Congress and especially Senator Chuck Grassley today. He just (rightfully) unloaded on him for this “Blue Slip” nonsense that is holding up the entire Trump Agenda. Watch here: So….what exactly are these “Blue Slips” and where did they come from? Glad you asked! They date back to 1917 and they are not found anywhere in the Constitution. Allow me to fill you in: Where blue slips came from — the history Origins (around 1917) The Senate began using blue slips as a formal way to enforce “senatorial courtesy,” an older idea that home-state senators should be consulted before nominees affecting their state are confirmed. Mid-1900s Over time, the blue slip evolved into a tool that could act as a near-veto. From the 1950s through the 1970s, a single senator withholding a blue slip could completely block a nomination. 1980s–2000s Different Judiciary Committee chairs treated blue slips differently. Sometimes a missing slip stopped a nomination entirely. Sometimes it only slowed things down. Sometimes the committee ignored missing slips if the White House showed it had consulted the senators. 2010s–2020s The blue slip lost power over appeals court nominations — chairs began holding hearings even without blue slips from home-state senators. But for district judges and U.S. Attorneys, the blue slip still carries a lot of weight depending on the chair. In short:It started as courtesy → became a veto → became flexible → still matters heavily for certain positions today. Why this matters even for short-term or temporary appointments Even if a President wants to appoint someone to a position expected to last only a few months — such as an acting U.S. Attorney or an interim role — the full, permanent appointment still requires Senate confirmation. If the nomination triggers the blue-slip process and the home-state senators don’t sign off, the nominee can be blocked from getting the permanent role, and the President may be forced to rely on temporary appointments. How the blue-slip process is affecting Trump in December 2025 Here is the situation, stated factually: President Trump is making a number of nominations for U.S. Attorney and district court seats.These positions still traditionally rely on blue slips. Some home-state senators — especially Democrats, but also a few Republicans — are refusing to return blue slips on certain nominees.When a senator doesn’t return the slip, the Judiciary Committee can delay or decline to move forward. The current chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Chuck Grassley) still gives significant weight to the blue slip for district-level and U.S. Attorney nominations.That means a withheld blue slip can stall a nomination even if Trump wants it expedited. Several of Trump’s preferred nominees have been blocked or slowed because the home-state senators withheld blue slips.This includes a few high-profile picks for U.S. Attorney roles. Trump has publicly criticized the blue-slip practice as outdated and unfair because a single senator can obstruct his nominations, even for short-term or urgently needed positions. The impasse has created friction not only between Trump and Senate Democrats but also between Trump and some Senate Republicans who want to preserve the tradition of senatorial input. In simple terms:Even though Trump is President again, the blue-slip tradition lets individual senators slow down or stop certain nominees. This is especially true for positions tied closely to a specific state, like U.S. Attorneys. As of December 2025, that is one of the obstacles Trump is running into as he tries to fill some posts quickly, including those he intends only for short-term service. RELATED REPORT: President Trump Caught On Hot Mic — And He’s Not Wrong! President Trump was just caught on a hot mic venting to someone named Ted or Jeff about how he can't appoint anyone! And he's not wrong! They're trying to slow him down and run out the clock on him. Here's the best transcript I can make from the audio: Hey ____. I can't appoint anybody. Everybody I've appointed here, time is expired. And then they're in default and then we're losing. Watch here: Another version here: BREAKING - President Trump was just caught on a hot mic calling out “Republicans” for allowing Democrats to run the clock down on his administration. “I can’t appoint anybody. Everybody I’ve appointed has had their time expire. Then they’re in default, then we’re losing.” pic.twitter.com/ZH8lOQaTIh — Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) December 8, 2025 He's exactly right! Republicans in Congress are letting him down BIG LEAGUE!

After a lengthy battle with the court system over the legality of her appointment as acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Alina Habba just announced that she is resigning from the position. However, she isn’t giving up altogether. Instead, Habba will stay on at the DOJ as Senior Adviser to the Attorney General for U.S. Attorneys. If the court’s decision is reversed later, then she will return to the role. Alina Habba released this statement announcing her resignation: pic.twitter.com/wIhEvXXZoh — Alina Habba (@AlinaHabba) December 8, 2025 In case that text is hard to read, here’s the full text of Habba’s statement: For the past five years, I’ve fought for justice on behalf of the American people, and in my tenure under our great Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, we made New Jersey safer.Camden had its first murder-free summer in 50 years. We drove down crime, took violent predators off the streets, caught terrorists, and put away child predators. While I was focused on delivering real results, judges in my state took advantage of a flawed blue slip tradition and became weapons for the politicized left. For months, these judges stopped conducting trials and entering sentences, leaving violent criminals on the streets. They joined New Jersey senators, who care more about fighting President Trump than the well being of residents which they serve. For four years, I fought against lawfare aimed at President Trump and against politics infecting our justice system. What these obstructionists misunderstood is that my loyalty is not to politics, a title or a ZIP code. It is to this great country. As a result of the Third Circuit’s ruling, and to protect the stability and integrity of the office which I love, I have decided to step down in my role as the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. But do not mistake compliance for surrender. This decision will not weaken the Justice Department and it will not weaken me My fight will now stretch across the country. As we wait for further review of the courts ruling, I will continue to serve the Department of Justice as the Senior Advisor to the Attorney General for U.S. Attorneys. Make no mistake, you can take the girl out of New Jersey, but you cannot take the New Jersey out of the girl. AG Pam Bondi also released a statement praising Habba’s service and confirming that the DOJ is seeking a reversal: pic.twitter.com/bid0ao1y4B — Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) December 8, 2025 Full text of Bondi’s statement: Following the flawed Third Circuit decision disqualifying Alina Habba from performing her duties in the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of New Jersey, I am saddened to accept Alina’s resignation. The court’s ruling has made it untenable for her to effectively run her office, with politicized judges pausing trials designed to bring violent criminals to justice. These judges should not be able to countermand the President’s choice of attorneys entrusted with carrying out the executive branch’s core responsibility of prosecuting crime. This situation is particularly unfortunate given Alina’s strong record of achievement in office. Under her leadership, Newark saw a 20% reduction in crime, and Camden experienced its first summer in 50 years without a homicide. The Department of Justice will seek further review of this decision, and we are confident it will be reversed. Alina intends to return to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey if this occurs. In the meantime, Alina will continue with the Department of Justice as Senior Advisor to the Attorney General for U.S. Attorneys, helping drive the fight against violent crime nationwide. After President Trump appointed Alina Habba to the role a few months ago, rogue judges immediately started trying to disqualify here. Last week, a federal appeals court upheld her disqualification. ABC News has more details: The resignation comes after a protracted legal fight about whether she could serve in the U.S. attorney role without Senate confirmation. In August, a federal judge ruled that she was serving in the position “without lawful authority” and disqualified her as New Jersey’s top federal law enforcement officer. A federal appeals court unanimously upheld that decision last week, and the Department of Justice has not appealed that decision. President Trump isn’t happy about the circumstances that led to Alina Habba’s resignation. CNBC President Trump’s response to the unfortunate news: Trump called the reasons for Habba’s resignation “a shame.” “She’s not disqualified,” Trump said. “You got a blue slip thing that’s horrible,” Trump said, referring to the practice of the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow effective vetoes of nominations of U.S. attorneys unless the senators from the state housing that office agree on the person nominated. “It’s a shame … Republicans should be ashamed of themselves” for allowing it to go on, Trump said. Keep up the good fight, Alina Habba! Folks on X are rallying in support of her: Truly dislike how this all turned out, we finally got a fighter in NJ to push back against the corruption and they did everything possible to stop it Appreciate you @AlinaHabba for all you did herehttps://t.co/ZsHjN5iUWC — Wake Up NJ New Jersey (@wakeupnj) December 8, 2025 We must defeat this judicial coup. We stand with you — Cash Loren (@Cashloren) December 8, 2025 We love you, Alina!! They have no idea what they’ve just unleashed!! Fight fight fight!! — ZiffyKat (@ZiffyKat) December 8, 2025

Pamela Smith, Chief of the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), announced her resignation on Monday -- after holding the role for around two and a half years.

The White House has refuted a report claiming that President Donald Trump is considering replacing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, labeling the claim “total FAKE NEWS!”

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in a case that could change the way presidents interact with the massive federal bureaucracy. At issue in the case, Trump v. Slaughter, is whether a president has the authority to fire officials from independent agencies. Rebecca Slaughter, a former Federal Trade Commissioner, sued the president for removing her from the commission in March. Over the day’s three-hour proceeding, the court’s six conservative justices seemed inclined to side with President Donald Trump. Doing so would upend the way the federal bureaucracy interacts with the executive branch — a win not just for Trump, but for small-government conservatives anxious to claw back power from the “deep state.” Slaughter’s team argues that independent agencies like the FTC have long-standing statutory protections allowing commissioners to be removed only “for cause” rather than “at will.” The team also insisted that these protections are essential for preserving agency independence, preventing partisan interference, and maintaining the separation of powers. “We are asking the court to adhere to all of its precedents and to give effect to the collective wisdom and experience of all three branches of government,” said attorney Amit Agarwal. “Multi-member commissions with members enjoying some kind of removal protection have been part of our story since 1970.” Solicitor General John Sauer contends, however, that Slaughter’s case rests on a precedent he called a “decaying husk.” Relying on the 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, “continues to tempt Congress to erect, at the heart of our government, a headless branch,” he argued. Sauer acknowledged, however, that not all independent agencies are alike. In response to a question from Justice Brett Kavanaugh about how the Federal Reserve differs from the FTC, Sauer said the Fed was “sui generis” and should be treated as such. Kavanaugh was frequently at odds with Justice Elena Kagan throughout oral arguments. “Once you’re down this road, it’s a little bit hard to see how you would stop,” Kagan said, arguing that giving the president control of the bureaucracy would essentially cede power to the executive. Kavanaugh pushed back, noting that “the real world of this is the independent agencies shift power from the presidency to the Congress. Everyone recognizes that.” 50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at DailyWire.com/cyberweek. In the email notifying Slaughter that she was being fired, the White House said that allowing Slaughter to remain on the commission would be “inconsistent with [the] Administration’s priorities.” Former President Joe Biden appointed Slaughter to her second term at the Federal Trade Commission, which would have ended in 2029. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on the president’s authority to dismiss Slaughter by June 2026. If the Supreme Court sides with President Trump, Slaughter’s attorneys argue the decision “would profoundly destabilize institutions that are now inextricably intertwined with the fabric of American governance.”