Heat, Scarcity, and the American Power Cycle: A Working Model

Author: Faith Cheltenham • Date: September 29, 2025

Thesis

U.S. politics behaves like a heat-transfer system. High-salience leaders act as sudden energy inputs that raise “political temperature,” producing turbulence (rapid swings, conflict amplification, institutional friction). Simultaneously, suppression and scarcity create a “forbiddenness premium,” increasing demand for whatever is framed as off-limits. Within this environment, a recurring cycle emerges: Democrats promise expansive change that is structurally hard to deliver; Republicans campaign on restoring order and blocking those aims; progressives then analyze the fallout to regain power. Across cycles, descendants of enslaved Black Americans (ADOS) and Indigenous communities disproportionately bear the human cost in mortality, wealth loss, and state intervention. This is a working model designed to be falsifiable, measurable, and actionable.

Mechanisms

1) Turbulence (Hot/Cold Gas Analogy).
A temperature gradient (grievance vs. status quo) plus a catalytic figure increases flow velocity and shear—media volume spikes, protest/ counter-protest feedback loops intensify, and policy reversals accelerate. The system becomes “turbulent” until energy dissipates or institutions re-stabilize.

2) Inverse Supply (Forbiddenness Premium).
Efforts to ban or stigmatize ideas, platforms, or figures raise their perceived exclusivity and signal value to oppositional audiences—turning prohibition into distribution.

3) Promise–Block Cycle (Thermostatic Public Opinion + Veto Points).
Expansive promises face structural vetoes (courts, Senate rules, federalism, agency bandwidth). Under-delivery fuels “cleanup” campaigns, which then enshrine obstruction as principle. Progressives mine the outcomes for re-entry arguments. The dial oscillates; the floor under vulnerable communities sinks.

Testable Predictions

1. Turbulence Trigger: The arrival of polarizing leaders increases variance (not just levels) in executive actions, agency rulemakings, media mentions, protest counts, and turnout volatility.

2. Forbiddenness Premium: Suppression episodes (bans, de-platformings) precede measurable surges in search interest, donations, sign-ups, and merchandise for the targeted entity.

3. Promise–Fulfillment Gap: The gap between campaign pledges and enacted policy is largest for redistributive planks under split government; the opposition gains in subsequent elections by framing the gap as disorder.

4. ADOS Survival Penalty: During high-turbulence intervals, ADOS excess mortality, incarceration, eviction/housing precarity, and child welfare removals worsen and fail to fully recover in the following “cleanup” phase.

Data & Design (Lean, Executable)

• Unit: State-year (or county-quarter) panels, 1990–2025.

• Inputs: Partisan control (federal + state trifectas), salience shocks (leader announcements, landmark rulings), suppression events.

• Outcomes: Variance in policy activity; Google/search and donations; pledge trackers vs. enacted laws; CDC mortality (excess deaths), BJS incarceration, ACS housing, child services interactions.

• Methods: Difference-in-differences with staggered adoption; event studies around shocks; variance decomposition (“heat index”).

Equity Lens: ADOS Focus

Where possible, approximate ADOS using parental nativity flags and geography; when unavailable, apply conservative proxies and sensitivity checks. The ethical goal—aligned with Christian dignity, libertarian freedom, and Platonic justice—is reducing preventable harm while protecting speech and due process.

Implications for Strategy

• Cool the System: Increase procedural clarity and transparency of veto maps to reduce needless turbulence without shrinking liberty.

• Starve the Premium: Avoid performative suppression that turbocharges demand; prefer counterspeech, due process, and narrow rules.

• Deliverables Over Declarations: Prioritize implementable policies with clear accountability scorecards; publish a quarterly “Heat & Harm” dashboard (turbulence metrics + ADOS outcomes).

• Targeted Safeguards: Fund interventions with demonstrated ADOS survival lift (maternal health, anti-displacement, sentencing reform), regardless of which party governs.

Limits & Next Steps

Attribution across layered jurisdictions is hard; ADOS identification is imperfect; confounders (macro shocks) persist. Mitigate with pre-registered specifications, robustness checks, and transparent public dashboards. Next step: produce a one-page scorecard spec and a 90-day pilot dashboard.

Bottom line: treat politics as a thermodynamic system you can instrument. Reduce heat, resist fake scarcity, measure what matters, and anchor policy to truth and human survival—so the most vulnerable don’t pay the highest price for everyone else’s turbulence.

How the California and Nevada Courts Enabled Abuse: My Story

 On September 24, 2025, the Alameda Superior Court denied my ADA Request (No. 2025-131). This ruling was not only late — leaving me no time to respond before the next hearing — but it also exposed my confidential medical information by circulating it to opposing counsel and county officials. The denial of ADA protections has stripped me of privacy, due process, and meaningful access to the courts.

This is not an isolated event. It is part of a larger pattern of fraud, misrepresentation, and collusion involving multiple attorneys, judges, and jurisdictions — all used by my ex-husband, Matthew Kanninen, to silence me and keep me from protecting myself and my child.

The Lawyers Involved

• In Nevada, Matthew is represented by Molly Rosenblum. I had a consultation with Ms. Rosenblum years ago, after being referred by another attorney I paid. She yelled at me through the phone while her assistant handled the call, a tactic that now looks designed to let her later deny she had ever worked with me. Despite this prior contact, Rosenblum now represents Matthew in Nevada — a clear conflict of interest.

• In California, Matthew is represented by Mary Elizabeth Grant, who has coordinated filings in Alameda to secure custody orders behind my back. These filings ignored the standing 2021 order that required a DVRO hearing before any custody changes.

The Court’s Role

Judges in Alameda have allowed these filings to go forward despite:

• Misrepresentations and false statements that I had warrants or had “fled.”

• Improper notice, leaving me unable to defend myself.

• My documented need for ADA accommodations, which were flatly denied.

At the same time, the court has denied me any award of legal fees, leaving me unable to obtain comparable representation. Meanwhile, Matthew exhausts enormous funds to employ multiple lawyers across jurisdictions. This raises serious questions about asset concealment and misuse of the courts to shield financial misconduct.

What This Means

This is not just a custody case. It is a systemic failure in which:

• Domestic violence survivors are denied protection.

• Disabled litigants are stripped of ADA rights.

• Courts in two states are being manipulated to serve the interests of one man with connections and resources.

I believe this pattern rises to the level of a conspiracy and even potential RICO violations — with interstate coordination between Nevada and California courts being used to suppress my rights and silence me.

What Comes Next

Because I cannot get justice in these courts, I am escalating this matter to the White House, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Civil Rights Division. I am also sharing my story with conservative media and national outlets, because California cannot be allowed to continue using its courts to endanger domestic violence survivors, silence disabled litigants, and strip parents of their rights.

The names are clear: Matthew Kanninen, Molly Rosenblum, Mary Elizabeth Grant, and the judges of Alameda County. Their actions must be scrutinized, because justice in America cannot survive if courts are weaponized against the vulnerable.