VivaBarnesLaw
Politics • Culture • News
This is the VivaBarnesLaw Community.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
December 22, 2024

Part 4:

"Abuse of Power: A Comprehensive List of Alleged Federal Crimes by Key Figures in Government and Society"

Introduction

The following comprehensive list details allegations of potential federal crimes committed by key figures across government, corporate, and other influential sectors. These individuals, including high-ranking officials, corporate executives, and policymakers, are alleged to have violated laws protecting the integrity of the United States' justice system, constitutional rights, and public trust. From obstruction of justice and suppression of free speech to mishandling classified information and fabricating intelligence, the alleged actions outlined below have far-reaching implications. Together, they paint a troubling picture of systemic abuse of power, lack of transparency, and an erosion of the principles of accountability and fairness. Each entry is meticulously detailed to provide clarity on the allegations, the crimes potentially committed, and the consequences these actions may have on American society and democracy.


28. Peter Strzok

Total Potential Penalty: 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines

What He Allegedly Did:

1. Abuse of FBI Authority for Political Purposes:

  • Incident: As a senior FBI official, Strzok led investigations into politically sensitive cases, including Crossfire Hurricane, where he allegedly allowed personal political biases to influence decision-making.
  • Specific Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights).
    • Explanation: Used his position to target political figures and their associates under dubious pretenses, depriving them of constitutional protections.
    • Penalties: Up to 5 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

2. Misuse of Official Communications:

  • Incident: Text messages between Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page revealed potential coordination to undermine political figures, damaging the FBI’s credibility.
  • Specific Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States).
    • Explanation: Engaged in conduct that undermined impartial investigations and violated public trust.
    • Penalties: Up to 5 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

Potential Victims and Impact:

  • Victims: Political figures investigated under compromised circumstances, and the American public.
  • Impact: Deepened public skepticism of the FBI’s impartiality and integrity in politically sensitive investigations.

29. Yoel Roth

Total Potential Penalty: 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines

What He Allegedly Did:

1. Suppression of Lawful Political Speech:

  • Incident: As a senior Twitter executive, Roth allegedly coordinated with government agencies to censor information related to the Hunter Biden laptop story and other politically sensitive topics.
  • Specific Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights).
    • Explanation: Engaged in activities that deprived users of their First Amendment rights by suppressing lawful speech at the behest of federal agencies.
    • Penalties: Up to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

Potential Victims and Impact:

  • Victims: Twitter users and the broader public, who were denied access to information critical to their decision-making.
  • Impact: Undermined confidence in social media platforms as neutral facilitators of free speech and deepened concerns about government overreach.

30. Laura Dehmlow

Total Potential Penalty: 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines

What She Allegedly Did:

1. Orchestrating Suppression of Hunter Biden Laptop Allegations:

  • Incident: As an FBI official, Dehmlow led efforts to discredit information about the Hunter Biden laptop by characterizing it as Russian disinformation despite evidence to the contrary.
  • Specific Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights).
    • Explanation: Used her authority to interfere with lawful public discourse and discredit information vital to the electorate.
    • Penalties: Up to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

Potential Victims and Impact:

  • Victims: Voters denied access to truthful information and journalists who reported on the laptop.
  • Impact: Undermined public trust in the FBI’s neutrality and fostered perceptions of bias in election-related matters.

31. Rob Flaherty

Total Potential Penalty: 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines

What He Allegedly Did:

1. Coordinating Government-Initiated Censorship:

  • Incident: As White House Digital Director, Flaherty allegedly worked directly with social media companies to suppress content critical of the Biden Administration’s policies, including narratives on COVID-19 vaccines, lockdowns, and election-related concerns. He allegedly facilitated these activities by threatening regulatory action against platforms that failed to comply.
  • Specific Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights).
    • Explanation: Conspired with private platforms to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights to free speech.
    • Penalties: Up to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

Potential Victims and Impact:

  • Victims: American citizens, journalists, and researchers whose posts were censored or de-platformed.
  • Impact: Undermined public trust in social media neutrality, exacerbated concerns about government overreach, and limited public access to a diversity of views during critical moments.

32. Adam Schiff

Total Potential Penalty: 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines

What He Allegedly Did:

1. Abuse of Congressional Authority to Suppress Information:

  • Incident: As Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff allegedly pressured social media companies to suppress content he labeled as "misinformation," including discussions on Hunter Biden’s laptop and pandemic policies. Additionally, Schiff is accused of coordinating the removal of specific accounts or individuals critical of his party’s policies.
  • Specific Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights).
    • Explanation: Misused his Congressional authority to suppress lawful speech, targeting specific narratives and individuals for censorship.
    • Penalties: Up to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

Potential Victims and Impact:

  • Victims: Citizens, journalists, and organizations whose content was restricted at Schiff’s urging.
  • Impact: Damaged public faith in Congress’s ability to act impartially and fueled fears of political weaponization of government authority.

33. Jeffrey Zients

Total Potential Penalty: 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines

What He Allegedly Did:

1. Suppressing Dissenting Narratives on COVID-19 Policies:

  • Incident: As White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, Zients allegedly directed efforts to label dissenting scientific opinions on pandemic response measures as “misinformation.” He worked with social media platforms to de-platform medical professionals and organizations that opposed lockdowns, mandates, or vaccine efficacy claims.
  • Specific Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights).
    • Explanation: Collaborated with platforms to deprive individuals and organizations of their rights to free speech under the First Amendment.
    • Penalties: Up to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

Potential Victims and Impact:

  • Victims: Medical professionals, researchers, and American citizens who relied on access to uncensored scientific debate.
  • Impact: Contributed to distrust in public health measures and government messaging, eroding confidence in scientific institutions.

34. Ron Klain

Total Potential Penalty: 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines

What He Allegedly Did:

1. Facilitating Federal Pressure to Censor Speech:

  • Incident: As White House Chief of Staff, Klain allegedly played a key role in coordinating with federal agencies and private platforms to suppress content deemed politically inconvenient. His actions allegedly extended to social media posts on elections, economic policies, and government failures during crises.
  • Specific Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights).
    • Explanation: Participated in a conspiracy to suppress lawful speech critical of the administration, violating First Amendment protections.
    • Penalties: Up to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

Potential Victims and Impact:

  • Victims: Citizens, journalists, and advocacy groups whose content was censored under government direction.
  • Impact: Increased public skepticism of White House integrity and deepened concerns about government control over public discourse.

35. Avril Haines

Total Potential Penalty: 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines

What She Allegedly Did:

1. Misuse of Intelligence Resources to Shape Public Perception:

  • Incident: As Director of National Intelligence, Haines allegedly directed intelligence resources to discredit lawful narratives deemed politically harmful, including those related to the origins of COVID-19 and foreign election interference. She allegedly facilitated these efforts by coordinating with private platforms to censor critical perspectives.
  • Specific Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights).
    • Explanation: Orchestrated censorship operations that deprived Americans of their right to access truthful and lawful information.
    • Penalties: Up to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

Potential Victims and Impact:

  • Victims: Independent researchers, journalists, and the public, who were denied access to transparent intelligence findings.
  • Impact: Reduced public trust in the intelligence community and undermined the credibility of government responses to critical crises.

36. Samantha Vinograd

Total Potential Penalty: 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines

What She Allegedly Did:

1. Suppression of Lawful Speech on National Security Issues:

  • Incident: As a senior national security official, Vinograd allegedly advocated for suppressing narratives critical of the administration’s cybersecurity and national security policies. This included facilitating efforts to label dissenting opinions as “disinformation.”
  • Specific Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights).
    • Explanation: Participated in a conspiracy to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights by coordinating with agencies and private platforms to censor lawful speech.
    • Penalties: Up to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

Potential Victims and Impact:

  • Victims: National security analysts, journalists, and the general public.
  • Impact: Undermined trust in government transparency, stifled legitimate debate on critical security issues, and reinforced fears of government overreach.

37. Anita Dunn

Total Potential Penalty: 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines

What She Allegedly Did:

1. Coordinating Government-Supported Media Suppression:

  • Incident: As a senior advisor to the President, Dunn allegedly played a pivotal role in shaping White House strategies to influence private media organizations and suppress narratives critical of administration policies, particularly on economic and pandemic-related issues.
  • Specific Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights).
    • Explanation: Worked with federal agencies and private companies to stifle lawful public discourse and promote government-approved messaging.
    • Penalties: Up to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

Potential Victims and Impact:

  • Victims: Independent journalists, political commentators, and the public.
  • Impact: Eroded trust in the media as an independent institution, raised concerns about state-sponsored censorship, and damaged democratic principles of free debate.

38. Fiona Hill

Total Potential Penalty: 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines

What She Allegedly Did:

1. Misrepresentation of Foreign Intelligence to Shape Policy Outcomes:

  • Incident: As a senior advisor on Russia and Europe, Hill allegedly provided biased or incomplete intelligence to support specific foreign policy objectives, suppressing dissenting perspectives within the administration.
  • Specific Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (False Statements).
    • Explanation: Provided false or misleading statements during official intelligence briefings, affecting key decisions on U.S. foreign policy.
    • Penalties: Up to 5 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

2. Suppressing Alternative Foreign Policy Narratives:

  • Incident: Allegedly facilitated the suppression of dissenting voices critical of U.S. actions in Eastern Europe, labeling them as pro-Russian propaganda.
  • Specific Crime: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights).
    • Explanation: Worked with agencies to censor lawful debate on foreign policy issues.
    • Penalties: Up to 5 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

Potential Victims and Impact:

  • Victims: Foreign policy analysts, critics of U.S. intervention, and the public.
  • Impact: Limited open discussion on foreign policy, weakened trust in the impartiality of U.S. intelligence, and contributed to polarization on international issues.

End of Part 4.

More coming soon....

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Meanwhile in Canada...

They had one of the 3 perps of the home invasion because he showed up at a hospital with a gunshot wound to the shoulder.

And they discharged him...

00:11:28
Dan Sullivan Alaska

So that second Dan Sullivan on the ballot in Alaska? Turns out it wasn't a coincidence...

00:08:27
October 31, 2026
Canada home invasion update

This is BEYOND outrageous!

The suspect who has been identified in the home invasion and shooting in Toronto Canada was apparently SHOT in the altercation by one of the other suspects.

He showed up at the hospital WITH A GUNSHOT WOUND TO THE SHOULDER.

And even worse: THE POLICE SHOWED UP AND ENCOUNTERED HIM AT THE HOSPITAL.

He was somehow DISCHARGED and is now on the run.

Listen to this answer from the queen of DEI herself, Kristy Smith.

If this doesn’t get your blood boiling, nothing will.

How are Toronto police not guilty of aiding and abetting a fugitive?

Kristy Smith also needs to be FIRED.

This is an absolute outrage.

00:01:59
February 17, 2024
Appearance on Richard Syrette

I did a quick hit on Richard Syrette yesterday. Gotta keep Canadians apprised of the U.S. madness.

Appearance on Richard Syrette
The Barnes Brief, Podcast Format: Monday, July 17, 2023

Closing Argument: Birthright citizenship is deeply American, and wholly Constitutional.

The Barnes Brief, Podcast Format: Monday, July 17, 2023
Declaration of Independence

Audio podcast style.

Declaration of Independence
Board Poll: Sunday Topics

Pick your top topic if any and add your own top topic, comment or question in the replies below as the Producers Show Notes for the Sunday Show.

Sunday morning coffee with the chicks

I’m going to look into registering them as therapy birds! :-)

See you all tonight!

post photo preview

Just got home from an autumn trip down skyline drive and blue ridge parkway, over the Smokies to Gatlinburg and then north back to PA. These are just cheap cellphone shots. I was with friends so left the Canon at home since I wasnt driving and had little control over travel.

post photo preview
The Barnes Brief, Halloween Weekend, 2026
I. THE INTRODUCTION
 

Special Notices

 
A. Art of the Day 
  • Mysterious without malevolence, a Sleepy Hollow kind of invite, in the deep woods of deep fall, the kind pumpkins waiting like hitchhikers on All Hallows Eve to greet a pleasant hello, the wavy trees just spooky enough to give a premonition of concern without too much fear, the road part inviting to the curious, part concerning to the wary traveler. Welcome to All Hallows Eve. 
 
B. Wisdom of the Day
    • “The Harvest Moon glows round and bold,
      In pumpkin shades outlined in gold,
      Illuminating eerie forms,
      Unnatural as a candied corn.
      Beware what dare crawls up your sleeve,
      For 'tis the night called Hallows Eve.” Richelle Goodrich. 
 
C. Appearances & Publications
 
 
D. Daily Picks
 
E. *Bonus: Board Post of the Day
 
II. THE EVIDENCE: BARNES LIBRARY
 
A. Food & Medicine
 
B. Economics
 
C. Politics
 
D. Geopolitics
 
E. Law
III. HOMEWORK: Ten of the Top Cases for Sunday Show
  1. Right to sue judges. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/us-v-maddox.pdf
  2. Government funded ads stopped. https://courthousenews.com/judge-blocks-3-maga-ads-over-concerns-they-breached-taxpayer-funded-propaganda-law/
  3. NFL verdict reinstated. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/ninth-circuit-nfl-opinion.pdf
  4. Zuckerberg suit. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/meta-zuckerberg-stock-control-bid-class-action.pdf
  5. 2ndA & CIA. https://courthousenews.com/fourth-circuit-considers-second-amendment-argument-from-man-arrested-near-cia-headquarters/
  6. Candace vs Macron. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/macron-owens-dismissal.pdf
  7. United sued for high costs by employers. https://www.plansponsor.com/six-employers-accuse-unitedhealth-of-breaching-fiduciary-duty/
  8. Ninth Circuit allows blocking DHS elections investigation. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hUpCfn3tnQMXEyk7nC1yD-ls2ZHeeK19/view
  9. Abortion right questioned. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/10/30/26-5558.pdf
  10. Comey indicted. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.297297/gov.uscourts.dcd.297297.1.0.pdf
IV. CLOSING ARGUMENT: Classes in the Constitution — Governing Elections
  • Article I establishes how individuals become members of the House of Representatives; first, they must be “chosen every second year”; second, they must be chosen “by the People”; third, the represenation must be by the “several states”; fourth, the voters must be as broad the qualifications for voting for a member of “the most numerous branch of the state legislature.” Article I limits the qualifications for holding office to age (25 years or older), duration of citizenship (7 years minimum), and an inhabitant of the state claiming to represent (at time of election). Of note, the number of representatives within a state depend upon a required census and apportionment.
  • Article I further establishes state control over elections to federal office, subject to Congressional oversight. As Clause 2 of Section 4 of Article 1 provides: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senator and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislatire thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
  • The first aspect confers control over the “times” of “holding elections" to Congress to “each State”; the second aspect confers control over the “places” of "holding elections” to “each State”; the third aspct confers the “manner” of holding such elections to “each state.” Of note, the power conferred is not given to the state as a whole; rather, in each case, the power is conferred only upon “the legislature thereof.” Note the power is not conferred upon the judicial branch or executive branch of the state, nor to lower county , city or town functionaries of the state. The power to control federal elections is conferred solely upon the legislature of the state. Notably, Congress’ supervisory power is equally constrited to “the times, places and manner” of holding federal elections which they can only “make or alter” by a passed “law.”
  • Of particular note, the “judge of the elections, returns and qualifications” is solely the Congress itself under section 5 of Article I.  Article 2 confers no particular elections power on the Presidency. Article 3 confers no particular elections power on the Judiciary. Congress may, under its power to regulater the “times, places and manner” of elections confer power upon the executive branch or the judicial branch as it seels fit as long as it does not delegate legislative-making power to those bodies.  
  • The Constitutional qualification to it all is the Bill of Rights, restricting the state method of governing election that may condition access to the ballot or expression by the voter according to status. The First Amendment prohibits states from limiting the freedom of assemply and association, of which elections remain the paramount form. The Tenth Amendment protects the right of the people preserved against all governments. The Fifteenth Amendment protects the “right of citizens of the United States to vote” without regard to race. The Nineteenth Amendment protects “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” regardless of gender. The Twenty Fourth Amendment protects “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” regardless of “poll tax or other tax.” The Twenty Sixth Amendment protects “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” regardless of age once a person is at least 18. The broad 14th Amendment provides for Congress to pay laws protecting all property and liberty from incursion or intrusion by the state, manifested in the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Act laws of Congress that, in turn, confer power upon both the Exeuctive branch and the Judicial branch accordingly.
  • Aside from matters arising under the Bill of Rights or special Congressional legislation, the Constitution otherwise confers all powers of regulating federal elections solely and exclusively to the legislature of each state. 
Read full Article
post photo preview
The Barnes Brief: Weekend of October 24, 2026
I. THE INTRODUCTION
 

Special Notices

 
A. Art of the Day 
  • I love globes and maps, especially those with a vintage flavor or ancient maps of how we perceived the world in the past, to show quickly the world can change, how connected so many part of the world can be, the ever present reality of geography in history and contemporary geopolitics, continuing to shape the world we inhabit and how rapidly it we can shift. 
 
B. Wisdom of the Day
  • “Each betrayal begins first with trust.” Martin Luther. 

C. Appearances & Publications
 
 
D. Daily Picks
 
E. *Bonus: Board Post of the Day
 
II. THE EVIDENCE: BARNES LIBRARY
 
A. Food & Medicine
 
B. Economics
 
C. Politics
 
D. Geopolitics
 
E. Law
 
III. HOMEWORK: Ten of the Top Cases for Sunday Show
 
  1. ICE Detentions. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28830924/sosnava.pdf
  2. ICE & Elections. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/california-nurses-vs-mullin-preliminary-injunction.pdf
  3. ID & Elections. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/scanlan-v-coalition-open-democracy-order-scotus.pdf
  4. DOJ sues Alaska over Senate race. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.akd.80263/gov.uscourts.akd.80263.1.0.pdf
  5. Bias rejected in Italy trial. https://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/berlusconi-v-italy-echr-2026-judgment.pdf
  6. Tommy Robinson trial. https://courthousenews.com/british-far-right-activist-defends-messages-to-journalists-in-harassment-trial/
  7. DEI reversal cites AI judges. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/fifth-circuit-mississippi-dei-injunction-reversed.pdf
  8. 2A win in NY. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/buffalo-fed-body-armor-ruling.pdf
  9. Instacart discrimination. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/civil-rights-division-and-equal-employment-opportunity-commission-secure-5000000-joint
  10. 2A protects switchblades. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.225116/gov.uscourts.ca5.225116.136.1.pdf
 
IV. CLOSING ARGUMENT: Classes in the Constitution — Presidential & Vice Presidential Replacements
 
  • Section 4 of Article II the Constitution provides the President “shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House gets to be the sole judge of what constitutes a "high crime and misdemeanor" for impeachment while the Senate gets to be the sole judge of what facts constitute "a high crime and misdemeanor." 
  • Clause 5 of Section 2 of Article I vests the power of Impeachment solely to the House of Representatives. Given no specific requirement as to support to impeach, the majority vote default rule presides historically.
  • Clause 6 of Section 3 of Article I vests the power to try impeachments solely in the Senate, requiring "Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." This means Senators who absent themselves from the Chamber may be excluded potentially from the baseline required to reach two-thirds. 
  • Clause 6 of Section 1 of Article II provides that the Vice President obtains the powers of the President — “all executive powers of the federal government — “in case of” either “removal, death, resignation or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said Office.”
  • In the instance both are removed, resigned, die, or are unable to discharge the duties, then Congress may legislate what Officer shall then act as President. The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 provides that the Speaker of the House becomes the officer who becomes President in case of Presidential and Vice Presidential absence, followed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and then the cabinet in priority of when that cabinet office was first established. In that last instance, the Secretary of State is first, the Secretary of Treasury second, and the Secretary of Defense third.
  • The Twenthy Fifth Amednment slightly amends that process, still proving the succession protocols. In the case of removal, or death or resignation, “the Vice President shall become President.” Replacement of the Vice President requires Presidential nomination and “confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.” 

 

Read full Article
post photo preview
The Barnes Brief: Friday, October 16, 2026
I. THE INTRODUCTION
 

Special Notices

 
A. Art of the Day 
  • The old fold-down wooden desk, handcrafted by deliberate care, the little boxes to store letters and notes, the shelf above to carry papers and books, the firm backed, four quared chair with comforting armrests, above the wooden floor and near the open window, the neighboring painting on the wall, that could sit today just as it had centuries ago, taking the work of the mind back to the place our forefathers enjoyed the same. 
 
B. Wisdom of the Day
  • America is “the champion and vindicator only of her own”, a perfect articulation of America First.  John Quincy Adams. 

C. Appearances & Publications
 
 
D. Daily Picks
 
E. *Bonus: Board Post of the Day
 
II. THE EVIDENCE: BARNES LIBRARY
 
A. Food & Medicine
 
B. Economics
 
C. Politics
 
D. Geopolitics
 
E. Law
 
III. HOMEWORK: Ten Top Cases for Sunday Show
 
  1. Ex-agents sue Patel. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/fbi-agents-sue-patel-over-mar-a-lao-tied-firings.pdf
  2. Court allows non-resident voting. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/rnc-v-evnen-opinion-nebraska-supreme-court.pdf
  3. Social media limits approved. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/netchoice-v-attny-gen-georgia-eleventh-circuit.pdf
  4. California tries to stop ICE arrests. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/california-vs-ice-complaint.pdf
  5. Trans bathrooms & federal funds. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/fairfax-county-school-board-v-mcmahon-ruling.pdf
  6. Court allows sanctuary for illegals in NYC. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/sanctuary-city-dismissed-nyc-eastern-district-new-york.pdf
  7. Looted paintings. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/norton-simon-vs-jewish-federation-complaint.pdf
  8. Court demands lottery for immigrants. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/redeagle-v-rubio-ruling-101426.pdf
  9. California can’t regulate Feds. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/ninth-ciruit-no-vigilantes-act.pdf
  10. Scotus: Privacy suit. https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/10/court-appears-likely-to-allow-internet-suit-based-on-decades-old-video-privacy-law-to-go-forward/
 
IV. CLOSING ARGUMENT: Classes in the Constitution, Reminders from our Founding Fathers on Foreign Entanglements
 
Two founding documents of the founding generation’s approach to foreign entanglments consist of President Washington’s Farewell Address and John Quincy Adams July 4th speech to the House of Representatives in 1821. 
 
Cousin Adams address “on foreign policy” summarized America’s approach to foreign conflicts, by starting with America’s founding rejection of the politics of imperial empire, denouncing Britian’s “portentious system of despotism” with “oppressions of power” governed bby an appetite for “conquest” against the “claims of right” of self-governance. In such an imperial worldview “man had no rights”, where “neither the body nore the soul of the individual was his own” subjecting the people to the “impentarable gloom of this intellectual darkness, and the deep degradation of this servitude” which defined the “British nation” under its imperial mask. These imperial ambitions inflected “the delusions of all Europe” degrading the societies occupied by an intellectually and morally robust people. It was in rejection of these very ideas of empire and presumptions of imperial rule that guided the American revolution. 
 
This animating spirit requires America “respect the indpendence of other nations”, must “abstain from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principes to which America clings.” America “well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrictation, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which the assume the colors and usrup the standard of freedom” changing her “from liberty to force” creating the hated British “Imperial Diadem, flashing in falkse and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power” to become the “distatress of the world” and no longer “the ruler of her own Revolutartionary spirit.” 
 
America is “the champion and vindicator only of her own”, a perfect articulation of America First.  That is why America “does not go aborad searching for monsters to destroy.” America’s “glory is not dominion, but liberty.” 
 
Washington warned in his founding Farewell Address: “the nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to it animosity or to its affection.” Washington discouraged any political connections beyond economic trade with nations of the world due to the likely subsuming of a foreign nation’s cause as our own, their antipathies or adversaries as our own, substituting a foreign nation for our own in decision making. Thus the “true policy” of our founders was “to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” 
 
These principles — avoiding the trap of imperial logic, respecting each nation’s own sovereign path, and escaping the entanglements of foreign conflicts — animated the founders. Only when we abandon these precepts and principles do we lose our way. The first promoters of America First were our founders themselves. 

 

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals