๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐: ๐๐๐ ๐๐โ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
โ๐๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ค๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ค ๐๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐บ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ง๐ต, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ง๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ... View More๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐: ๐๐๐ ๐๐โ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
โ๐๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ค๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ค ๐๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐บ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ง๐ต, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ง๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ด๐ต ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ช๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฃโ๐ณ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ค๐ถ๐ญ๐ต ๐ช๐ด ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ข ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ฏ๐ด ๐ค๐ถ๐ญ๐ต ๐ช๐ด ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ข ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ญ๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ข ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ. ๐๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด, ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ง๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ด.โ
โ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐บโ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ง๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ด, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต๐ด๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฎ, ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ง๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐บ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ. ๐๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ด๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐๐ข๐ฎ๐ข๐ญ๐ข ๐๐ข๐ณ๐ณ๐ช๐ด ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ด๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ช๐ด ๐ด๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ข๐ด ๐ต๐ณ๐บ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฑ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ต๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ช๐ด๐ต ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ช๐ฏ๐ง๐ญ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ. ๐๐ต ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฎ ๐ค๐ณ๐ข๐ป๐บ. ๐๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต๐ด๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ต๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ด.โ
What the Biden DOJ pro-lifer prosecutions actually were. ๐๐ก๐ ๐
๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ญ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐จ๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฏ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ-๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐๐ฐ๐๐ฅ๐ค ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐จ ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฒ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ง๐๐๐ซ ๐๐โ๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ข๐๐ฌ. Average federal sentence: 5+ years for elderly grandmothers and clergy with no prior record. The Biden DOJ treated peaceful prayer-vigil participants as functional domestic terrorists while declining to prosecute church arsons against pro-life pregnancy centers under the same statute. The asymmetry is the documented evidence Jennings is naming.
What the โfanatic religionsโ framing actually does politically. ๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐ฉ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ โ๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐ฐ๐จ๐ฆ๐๐งโ๐ฌ ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ๐ฌโ ๐๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐๐ฆ๐จ๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐๐ซ ๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ง ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐ฒ. When the policy is articulated by activists who treat third-trimester abโrtion as a sacrament, child gender transition as moral imperative, and Net Zero as eschatology, the moderate Democratic voter can no longer say โwell, thatโs not really what my party stands for.โ The cult-framing is precise because the policy positions ARE doctrinal.
My read: ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐ฐ๐ก๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฆ๐จ๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ ๐๐จ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ฉ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ง๐๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฌ. A party defined by its three fanatic religions cannot recruit working-class voters who donโt share any of the three. The 2024 Harris loss was not a tactical campaign failure; it was the operational consequence of letting the activists define the brand. The 2028 cycle will compound the loss unless one of the three cults is meaningfully exiled, which wonโt happen because each cult controls the relevant primary donors.
๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐-๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐
๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐
Glenn Anderson
ยทMay 18, 2026
Forwarded for the critical thinkers:
For all the people who would rather see America burn than see Trump win, you need to understand this.
While eight American presidents... View MoreGlenn Anderson
ยทMay 18, 2026
Forwarded for the critical thinkers:
For all the people who would rather see America burn than see Trump win, you need to understand this.
While eight American presidents were sitting in the same chair, reading the same intelligence, looking at the same maps, Iran was underground.
Drills grinding through granite in the dark. Men hauling rock out of mountains by the ton. Building something they never intended to show us until it was too late.
Thatโs not theory. Thatโs what was happening while we were talking.
They told us for years their missiles had a maximum range of 1,250 miles. Said it publicly. Said it repeatedly. Then on March 20th they fired two ballistic missiles at Diego Garcia, a joint U.S. and British base sitting 2,500 miles away in the Indian Ocean.
Twice the range they swore they had.
Thatโs not a miscalculation. Thatโs a lie they told us while they finished the job.
And when the world noticed, Iran looked us dead in the eye and said you didnโt see what you just saw.
They werenโt building in warehouses. They were threading missiles the length of telephone poles into the belly of mountains, sealing them behind hundreds of feet of solid granite that would shrug off anything we could drop on it. Not because they were afraid of a fight. Because they were preparing for one and they intended to finish it.
Eight presidents knew it. Democrat. Republican. Didnโt matter. The answer was the same every time. Hand it to the next man. Loaded a wooden pallet with shrink-wrapped bundles of foreign currency, rolled it across a dark tarmac in the dead of night with the engines still running, and called it diplomacy. Pull your leg back and kick the can down the road so your children and grandchildren could settle it someday.
While we were debating the culture, they were perfecting the kill chain.
Thatโs the gap nobody wants to say out loud.
20% of the worldโs oil moves through the Strait of Hormuz every single day. Control it and you donโt just own the Middle East. You own the global economy. Fuel. Food. Shipping. Everything your family pays for every single week.
Thatโs your house.
They donโt need a single boot on American soil to bring this country to its knees.
If this goes sideways, you wonโt hear it on the news first. Youโll feel it standing at a gas pump in the Florida sun, card in hand, watching the screen freeze. And you wonโt know why.
They donโt need to invade your town to bankrupt your family.
Nobody wanted this conflict. Not one person who understands what war costs wanted this. But the people asking when things go back to normal are asking the right question about the wrong timeline. This didnโt start a month ago. It started in 1979. We just finally showed up to it.
Left alone, Iran was not quietly going into the good night. They were not going to stop arming the groups that walked into Israel and slaughtered innocent families at a music festival. They werenโt going to stop until every tunnel was sealed, every launcher was buried, every ally we have was in range, and the fortification was done.
And then we were supposed to believe they would politely wave our ships through.
That was never the deal. Everybody in that room knew it.
Every administration from both parties declared them the number one enemy of the United States. They have told us who they are. Loudly. Repeatedly. For 45 years. They wish us harm. They wish our allies harm. They wish your way of life harm.
Eight presidents heard that and chose later.
There is no more later.
The can is gone. Thereโs no road left to kick it down.
By acting now we may have put off the unimaginable. Thatโs not a comfortable thing to say. Itโs not supposed to be. But itโs the only honest answer to the people who want to know when things go back to normal.
They donโt go back. They go forward. The only question is whether we chose the moment or the moment chose us.
Nobody gets to pick the timing of history. But somebody always has to answer it.
Chet.M.McAteer
. January 18, 2016
Thirteen Sovereign Republics: The Declaration’s Forgotten Compact – Why the Union Was Never One Consolidated Nation
The United States of America was born not as a con... View MoreChet.M.McAteer
. January 18, 2016
Thirteen Sovereign Republics: The Declaration’s Forgotten Compact – Why the Union Was Never One Consolidated Nation
The United States of America was born not as a consolidated national sovereignty but as a Voluntary Union of Free and Independent States, each possessing the full attributes of Sovereignty proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
That immortal instrument, issued by the representatives of the thirteen colonies in General Congress assembled, declared in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies that “these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States” with “full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.”
This was no mere rhetorical flourish; it was the political birth certificate of thirteen distinct Sovereign Republics. The word “united” appears in deliberate conjunction with “Free and Independent States,” affirming that union and Sovereignty were not only compatible but interdependent.
To read the Declaration otherwise, to suppose it created a single consolidated state, renders its language ungrammatical and its logic incoherent. Had the colonies intended a single Sovereign entity, they would have spoken of one People and one State, not of multiple States exercising the plenary powers of independent nations. Our Republic of Sovereign Republics was founded completely on the Principles of federalism.
The first Confederation and the Articles of Confederation that followed merely recognized and regulated this pre-existing Sovereignty. Each State retained every power not expressly surrendered, including the regulation of commerce and the right to alter its own constitution and laws.
The States met on a footing of perfect equality, as Mr. Martin of Maryland rightly insisted in the Federal Convention: separation from Great Britain had placed them “in a State of nature towards each other,” and they entered the Confederation as equals, never intending to lay themselves “at the mercy” of larger States. The existing Constitution was framed in the same spirit, to form “a more perfect union” among the very States created by the Declaration, not to abolish their separate existence.
It is a Compact, not a national charter; a league of Sovereigns, not a government of one people. Its very language, “We the People of the United States,” understood in the context of the times as the People of the Several States preserves the federal character.
Numerous provisions, such as the requirement of State Consent for certain acts, the reservation of powers not delegated, and the equal representation of States in the Senate, are intelligible only upon the Principle of State Sovereignty.
To strip the States of the political character they assumed in 1776 would have rendered Union impossible; for only Independent States can contract, stipulate, and unite.
Contemporary evidence from the framing and ratifying conventions overwhelmingly confirms this Compact Theory.
Mr. Wilson of Pennsylvania, though sometimes cited by consolidationists, repeatedly acknowledged that the United States contained “thirteen governments mutually independent” and that the Convention’s task was to reconcile “thirteen Independent and Sovereign States.” In the same breath he spoke of the states as “completely Independent” before the Constitution and connected with each other only by a league.
General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, another supposed advocate of consolidation, told the South Carolina ratifying convention that the Constitution was “but a proposition which the People [of South Carolina] may reject,” that the general government possessed “no powers but what are expressly granted,” and that “all rights not expressed were reserved by the Several States.”
He warned that South Carolina must consider whether she could “long maintain her Independence if she stood alone,” plainly treating the States as Sovereign Entities capable of separate existence. These gentlemen’s occasional rhetorical flourishes cannot erase the plain import of their repeated affirmations of State Sovereignty.
Even more decisive is the testimony of the States themselves. Virginia’s convention in June 1776 declared Virginia “a Free, Sovereign and Independent State” before the national Declaration.
Other States followed suit, each framing its own Constitution and exacting Oaths of Allegiance- to the State. The Treaty of Peace with Great Britain explicitly acknowledged “the said United States, viz., New Hampshire [and the others named], to be Free, Sovereign and Independent States.”
Congressional resolutions, State credentials to delegates, and the very form of the Articles of Confederation repeatedly enumerated the States separately while using the collective term “United States” as a convenient abbreviation, never as a substitution for their Individual Sovereignty.
The people of New York, in their 1777 constitution, declared that all power had “reverted to the People thereof,” and that no authority could be exercised over them except that “derived from, or granted by them.”
Similar declarations appear in the organic laws of every State. The Constitution itself was submitted to and ratified by the States as States; nine States could put it into operation among themselves, leaving the others free to remain outside.
Refusing States were not treated as rebellious provinces but as independent political communities exercising a Sovereign Right of Refusal.
Judge Story and other consolidationist writers have attempted to derive a national sovereignty from the joint character of the Declaration and the supposed absence of prior State Sovereignty. Yet the historical record refutes them.
The colonies acted through their separate legislatures and conventions; each State ratified the Declaration and the Articles in its own name and by its own authority.
Jefferson, Madison, and the other leading framers consistently described the States as Sovereign after 1776. Jefferson reminded the Wabash Indians that the Americans were “but one of thirteen nations,” and in private correspondence he spoke of the States as having become “Free and Independent States” authorized to constitute governments “each for itself.”
James Madison’s Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, Tuesday, June 19, 1787):These were not casual remarks; they reflected the universal understanding of the revolutionary generation:
“He begged the smaller States which were most attached to Mr. Patterson’s plan to consider the situation in which it would leave them. He begged them to consider the situation in which they would remain in case their pertinacious adherence to an inadmissible plan, should prevent the adoption of any plan. The contemplation of such an event was painful; but it would be prudent to submit to the task of examining it at a distance, that the means of escaping it might be the more readily embraced. LET THE UNION OF THE STATES BE DISOLVED, and one of two consequences must happen. Either the States must remain individually Independent & Sovereign; or two or more Confederacies must be formed among them. In the first event would the small States be more secure agst. the ambition & power of their larger neighbours, then they would be under a general Government pervading with equal energy every part of the Empire, and having an equal interest in protecting every part agst. every other part? In the second, can the smaller expect that their larger neighbours would confederate with them on the principle of the present confederacy, which gives to each member, an equal suffrage; or that they would exact less severe concessions from the smaller States, than are proposed in the scheme of Mr. Randolph?”
The Constitution, therefore, is not an instrument by which the States surrendered their Sovereignty but one by which they delegated limited and enumerated powers to a common agent for specific purposes, chiefly external defense, foreign relations, and interstate harmony, while expressly reserving the residue. The federal government is a government of limited powers; the States remain Sovereign and hokd all power within their spheres.
Any construction that enlarges federal authority by implication, or that treats the Constitution as a grant from one consolidated people rather than a Compact among Sovereign States, subverts the very foundation laid in 1776. It converts the servant into the master and risks the very tyranny the Revolution was fought to prevent.
The Southern Constitutional tradition has insisted upon this reading, not from narrow sectionalism, but from a jealous regard for the original compact that alone can preserve the Union.
For a Union maintained by force rather than Consent, by consolidation rather than federation, is no longer the Union our Fathers bequeathed. It is a different government, erected on different principles, and destined, if unchecked, to the same fate that has overtaken every consolidated empire in history. Few understand the danger from such consolidation, we see the results in our government today.
True fidelity to the Constitution, then, demands a strict adherence to the principles of 1776 and 1787: the States are Sovereign, the federal government is their agent, and the Union is a League of Republics. Only by preserving this balance can we secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and maintain the glorious experiment in self-government that the Declaration of Independence first proclaimed to a candid world.
In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
C.M.McAteer
January 18, 2016
References
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
Articles of Confederation, ratified March 1, 1781.
U.S. Constitution, September 17, 1787.
Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 2nd ed. (1836) – especially South Carolina and Pennsylvania ratifying conventions (Pinckney and Wilson speeches).
Madison, James. Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (1787 debates, including Martin of Maryland and Wilson of Pennsylvania).
Treaty of Paris (Definitive Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Great Britain), September 3, 1783.
Jefferson, Thomas. Writings and letters (including to Chief John Baptist de Coigne of the Wabash and Illinois Indians, and correspondence on the Declaration and confederation).
State Constitutions and proceedings: Virginia Convention (1776), New York Constitution (1777), Massachusetts Constitution (1780), and related resolutions from North Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey, etc.
Baldwin, Henry. A General View of the Origin and Nature of the Constitution and Government of the United States (1837) – as cited for the logic of State Sovereignty.
Taylor, John of Caroline. Constitutional writings on the compact theory and republican principles (including New Views of the Constitution of the United States, 1823)
Chet McAteer
·March 8, 2018
BLUE LIGHTS AND YANKEE TREASON: New England’s 1812 Betrayal of the Union Exposes the Hypocrisy of the “Perpetual Union” Myth Invented to Crush Southern Secession
During th... View MoreChet McAteer
·March 8, 2018
BLUE LIGHTS AND YANKEE TREASON: New England’s 1812 Betrayal of the Union Exposes the Hypocrisy of the “Perpetual Union” Myth Invented to Crush Southern Secession
During the War of 1812, the New England States heartland of Federalist opposition to “Mr. Madison’s War” engaged in a sustained campaign of resistance, obstruction, and covert collaboration that contemporaries across the republic rightly branded as treasonous, exposing the same sectional arrogance and commercial self-interest that had defined Yankee behavior since colonial days.
Governors Caleb Strong of Massachusetts and Roger Griswold and later Jonathan Trumbull of Connecticut flatly refused President Madison’s requisitions to federalize or deploy State militias for national defense, insisting the Constitution permitted such calls only in cases of actual invasion or insurrection and that the governor alone judged when those exigencies existed. Massachusetts’ highest court upheld this view, declaring the State Sovereignty in its militia power; Connecticut’s legislature condemned the War itself as Unconstitutional aggression.
While Southern and Western troops bled on the frontier and along the Canadian border, New England’s militias stayed home, guarding only their own commerce and leaving the federal government to beg for volunteers it could not compel.
This was not mere political dissent; it was deliberate nullification of federal War powers in wartime, the very doctrine New England would later denounce when Southern States invoked the Compact's Reserved Rights. Even more damning were the direct aids to the enemy.
“Blue Light Federalists” in New London, Connecticut, flashed blue lanterns from shore to warn British blockaders of American ships attempting to break out, Commodore Stephen Decatur himself reported the signals foiling his squadron.
Smuggling flourished openly along the Maine and Vermont borders, with New England merchants funneling goods, provisions, and intelligence about U.S. Troop movements to British forces in Canada, evading Jefferson’s earlier embargo and Madison’s wartime restrictions alike.
British warships were exempted from the coastal blockade in practice because New England ports remained profitable ground; some Federalist leaders even floated secret overtures for a separate peace, with Massachusetts reportedly offering Britain portions of Maine to end hostilities on terms favorable to Yankee trade.
These were not abstract grievances; they were active subversion of the War effort while American sailors were impressed and American soil invaded. The climax came in the secret Hartford Convention of December 1814, January 1815, where twenty-six delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont gathered behind closed doors to air sectional fury.
While moderates prevailed and the official report avoided explicit calls for Secession, the radicals, men like Timothy Pickering and John Lowell had long advocated a Northern Confederacy or outright separation; the convention’s proposed Constitutional Amendments were nakedly designed to cripple Southern and Western influence: requiring two-thirds majorities for War, embargoes, or new State admissions; abolishing the three-fifths compromise; limiting Presidential terms; and restricting federal commerce power.
The report warned that continued Southern dominance would justify “measures” to preserve New England’s interests, language contemporaries interpreted as a veiled threat of Disunion or separate negotiation with the enemy. Massachusetts dispatched commissioners to Washington to press these demands just as news of the Treaty of Ghent and Andrew Jackson’s victory at New Orleans arrived, rendering the mission ludicrous and subversive in the eyes of the nation.
Cartoons depicted the delegates leaping into King George III’s arms for “plenty of molasses and codfish… honours, titles and nobility,” and Democratic-Republicans nationwide branded the proceedings treasonous, a charge that stuck and destroyed the Federalist Party as a national force.
From a strictly Constitutional and Southern perspective, these acts reveal New England’s hypocrisy in stark relief. The same States that had first and most persistently practiced Secessionist rhetoric, militia nullification, and commercial disloyalty during a declared War later invented the “perpetual Union” myth to condemn the South’s peaceful, ordinance-based withdrawal in 1860–61.
Where the South cited the 10th Amendment, Ratification reservations, and the Voluntary Compact to leave a Union that had become destructive of its ends, New England in 1814–15 flirted with actual aid and comfort to the British enemy for the sake of trade profits and sectional dominance.
The Hartford Convention was not mere protest; it was the logical outgrowth of the Yankee spirit Washington, Greene, and Braxton had already condemned decades earlier avarice, intolerance, and the willingness to fracture the Union whenever numerical or economic supremacy was challenged.
That the victors of 1865 airbrushed this history while criminalizing Southern Secession only underscores the Constitutional Truth: the Compact was always Voluntary, and New England’s wartime Treason proves it was they, not the South, who first tested its limits with bayonets in mind.
In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
C.M.McAteer
March 8, 2018
References
Proceedings and Report of the Hartford Convention (December 1814–January 1815), including the official amendments proposed and the warning of “measures” to preserve New England interests.
Contemporary accounts: Commodore Stephen Decatur’s reports on Blue Light signals (Niles’ Weekly Register, 1813–1814); Governor Caleb Strong’s messages and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opinions on militia sovereignty.
Theodore Dwight, History of the Hartford Convention (1833); Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field-Book of the War of 1812 (1869).
Henry Adams, History of the United States During the Administrations of James Madison (1889–1891); primary records of Federalist correspondence (Timothy Pickering, John Lowell, and Governors Strong, Griswold, and Trumbull).
Democratic-Republican newspapers and political cartoons of the era branding the Convention treasonous; ratifying convention debates and 10th Amendment records for the constitutional compact analysis.
This content isn't available at the moment
When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people or changed who can see it, or it's been deleted.
My name is Chloe Cole
Before I tell you my story, I want to read you the lies.
Not my opinion about what happened to me.
Not my interpretation.... View MoreMy name is Chloe Cole
Before I tell you my story, I want to read you the lies.
Not my opinion about what happened to me.
Not my interpretation.
The specific, verifiable, documented lies that were told — to my parents, to me, and to the public — by the doctors and institutions that built a medical industry out of treating children like me.
I know these lies intimately.
Not because I read about them in a study. Not because someone told me they existed.
Because every single one of them was told to me.
Chloe Cole testifying or speaking publicly
My name is Chloe Cole. I am a detransitioner. I am 21 years old. And on April 5, 2027, I am taking Kaiser Foundation Hospitals to trial.
Here is the case.
LIE #1: "Your child will attempt suicide without immediate medical intervention."
I was 12 years old when a gender specialist looked at my parents and said that if they didn't put me on a medical path, I would be at risk of suicide.
I was not suicidal.
I was a confused girl who had started puberty early, didn't fit in with the girls in her class, and didn't know why she felt so out of place. I was struggling. I was not in crisis.
The suicide threat was the mechanism. It was the tool used to override my parents' hesitation, override the time they needed to think, override every instinct that told them to slow down.
It was a lie told to frightened parents by a credentialed professional in a clinical setting.
And it worked.
LIE #2: "This treatment is reversible. You can always stop."
At 13, I began testosterone injections.
I will likely have medical complications for the rest of my life. The body that was mine before I was old enough to understand what I was doing is now gone.
My fertility is still unknown.
There was no reversibility. There never was.
The word "reversible" was used to deceive and hide the truth about an irreversible medical intervention on a child.
That is not medicine. That is a lie with a syringe behind it.
LIE #3: "Surgery is the appropriate next step for a patient at this stage."
At 15, a surgeon at a Kaiser Foundation Hospital facility removed my breasts.
I was a child. I didn't understand what breastfeeding was. I didn't understand what that part of my future meant. I didn't understand what nerve damage was, or that it was a documented and expected outcome of the procedure.
No one at that facility stopped to ask whether I might change my mind. No one slowed down. It was just assumed that I was actually a boy born in the “wrong body.”
The tissue removed in that operating room does not grow back. There is no reversal.
The skin grafts from my surgery failed two years later. I was 17. I still manage the complications today.
The doctors who performed that surgery have not once reached out to help.
They called it appropriate care. I call it what it was.
LIE #4: "Children who are affirmed have better mental health outcomes."
At 16 — after the testosterone injections, after the surgery, after clinical language and the assurances — I became suicidal for the first time.
The nightmare that the doctors told my parents they were preventing?
They caused it.
I am not a statistic. I am a person. But I am also not alone. Detransitioners across this country describe the same sequence: the assurances, the interventions, the moment of realization, and then the crash that the clinics never prepared them for — and never took responsibility for.
The studies the gender industry cites to support "affirmation" are now being retracted, revised, and challenged in courts and legislatures across the world.
The evidence was always weaker than the language was confident.
LIE #5: "This was the patient's choice."
A child cannot consent to a procedure she does not understand, after a process designed to ensure she would agree, following years of medical and social conditioning that made any other outcome feel like death.
I was coerced. They put my parents under duress. Now, what happened to me is a question for a jury.
On April 5, 2027, that jury will convene.
page=2&profile_user_id=23488&year=&month=
Load More
