The rule of law applies to all branches, including the judiciary. Courts interpret the law, but they cannot assume the powers of the executive. Prosecutorial discretion and military command are clear executive functions. When judges attempt to control those functions, they violate the separation of powers. Checks and balances don’t mean judicial supremacy—they mean each branch operates within its constitutional limits. VP @JDVance is simply defending the Constitution as written, not as reinterpreted to justify judicial overreach.

@SenAdamSchiff, the Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers. The judiciary interprets the law, but it cannot assume the authority of the executive. VP @JDVance is pointing out a fundamental principle—judges don’t command generals, and they don’t dictate prosecutorial discretion. Ignoring court decisions is not the issue; rather, the issue is judges overstepping their constitutional role and interfering in the legitimate powers of the executive branch. That’s the real path to lawlessness. The oath we take is to the Constitution as written, not as reimagined by activist judges.

@acnewsitics You’re trying to condescend the Trump administration, but in reality, no one should blindly trust the government—any government. Questioning authority is how we ensure accountability and transparency. Partisanship aside, skepticism and scrutiny are necessary to keep those in power in check, no matter who’s in charge.

@TPASarah Your report was ahead of the curve in identifying Mohammad Kazemi's role. The fact that he's not even on the FBI's Most Wanted list is deeply concerning. Do you think this signals a broader intelligence failure, or is it more about political hesitancy to escalate tensions with Iran?

@ShawnRyan762 The other Shawn Ryan was in the Gravy Seals.🤣

@DonnieMac18 @joshryanjames @returnofplym @elonmusk True, but the reality is that modern slavery in Africa is fueled by poverty, conflict, and corruption. Until those root causes are tackled, it'll keep thriving. The fight isn't just historical—it’s ongoing, and we all need to do more.

@DefiyantlyFree Ignoring judicial rulings is risky, but so is courts overreaching for political gain. Ex parte orders require immediate harm—blocking the Treasury Secretary’s access doesn’t fit. If judges disregard the Constitution for partisan goals, what recourse do we have?

Exactly! The irony is staggering—enslaved people suffered for generations, only for their oppressors to be financially compensated while they were left with nothing. And as you pointed out, many of the freed slaves and their descendants ended up contributing through taxes to a system that repaid their former masters. It’s a clear example of how historical injustices don’t just disappear—they shape economic and social realities for generations. The lack of recognition for the true victims of slavery is why discussions about reparations and justice are still so relevant today.

Exactly... Britain didn’t make some grand moral sacrifice by spending that money—it was just a financial decision to protect the wealth of slave owners, not an act of justice. After profiting from slavery and looting resources from colonized nations, that payout was a drop in the ocean compared to what they had already taken. Ending slavery was the right thing to do, but the way they handled it just proved that their priority was wealth, not making things right.

@Kazzi2010 @elonmusk lol, nah. It's real shit.🤣

I’m not here to preach or shame future generations—I’m here to discuss history and its lasting impact. Acknowledging the past isn’t the same as playing victim. Recognizing that slavery shaped modern economies, institutions, and generational wealth isn’t about dwelling on pain—it’s about understanding how we got here. Your analogy about counseling is interesting, but incomplete. Moving on from trauma isn’t about ignoring it or pretending it has no consequences—it’s about understanding it, addressing its effects, and ensuring it doesn’t happen again. And as for my audience? If people are quick to dismiss these conversations as “distractions” or “victim mentality,” then clearly, the lesson is still relevant.

Dude, there’s a great president addressing current issues—you’re acting like I’m out here trying to bring back slavery or something. Acknowledging history doesn’t mean ignoring the present. In fact, understanding the past helps us tackle today’s problems more effectively. You brought up the atrocities against your Inuit ancestors—should we ignore that too because it happened in the past? Or does it only count when it’s your history? Horrible things happen every day, sure, but pretending that past injustices don’t have lasting effects is just willful ignorance. The past isn’t a “distraction”—it’s the foundation of the present.

Mark, I like all the points you made—they do a great job of excusing slave owners while shifting blame away from the system that profited the most. Yes, slavery existed in Africa, but let’s not pretend European powers were innocent bystanders. They created a global market for human beings, industrialized the trade, and built entire economies on it. The fact that Britain chose to compensate the enslavers, not the enslaved, speaks volumes about where their priorities were. If paying those who lost "property" was the right thing, why wasn’t helping those who lost their freedom, labor, and humanity just as important?

You're right—I never intended to drag people back into the past, only to educate and provide context. History isn't about dwelling on victimhood but understanding how it shapes the present. If we can acknowledge it without defensiveness, we can learn from it and move forward in a more informed way.

@nworealist @returnofplym @elonmusk Ignoring history isn’t "moving past it"—it’s just avoiding uncomfortable truths. Unity isn’t built on silence; it’s built on understanding. If talking about historical injustice feels like division to you, maybe the real issue isn’t the conversation, but what it reveals.

That’ a really interesting point, but it assumes that compensating slave owners was the only viable way to end slavery peacefully. While buying freedom may have been a pragmatic approach to avoid violent resistance from powerful plantation owners, it also reinforced the idea that enslaved people were property with monetary value rather than individuals owed justice. For example, Haiti ended slavery through revolution, while we did so through war. Britain chose an economic solution to preserve stability, but it still prioritized the financial interests of slave owners over the rights of the enslaved. The bigger issue isn’t just how slavery was ended, but why those who profited from it were compensated, while those who suffered under it received nothing.

LOL, blaming African kings for slavery while ignoring the massive role of European colonial powers oversimplifies history. Yes, some African rulers participated in the slave trade, but it was European demand, infrastructure, and violence that industrialized and expanded it on a global scale. The British Empire profited enormously from slavery for centuries—so when abolition came, compensating slave owners instead of the enslaved was a deliberate choice to protect wealth and power. Shifting blame ignores that responsibility.

True, Britain did invest heavily in suppressing the slave trade after abolition, but that was largely to uphold its own laws and geopolitical influence. That doesn't change the fact that former slave owners were compensated while freed slaves received nothing. Recognizing these historical realities isn’t about assigning blame—it’s about understanding how power and wealth were preserved, even in the face of moral progress.

A fair point, but the issue isn't about "paying slaves to not be slaves"—it's about justice. Instead of compensating those who profited from slavery, Britain could have used that money to support freed slaves with land, education, and economic opportunities. Instead, they were left with nothing while former slave owners were made whole. The question isn’t whether compensation was possible—it’s why it went to the oppressors instead of the oppressed.

Legality doesn’t equate to morality. Many in Britain, including abolitionists, recognized slavery as a moral atrocity long before it was outlawed. The fact that slave owners were compensated while the enslaved received nothing reflects who held power, not what was just. Laws can be changed, but the legacy of injustice remains, and acknowledging that is crucial to understanding history fully.