Have you found a way to start, yet? Washington’s soldiers were all volunteers and they showed with what they had. Take out your skills and your ideas and show up to this new kind of cold civil war. We need ideas to get started and actions going in every county, city and state. We are building this army from the ground up.
Take a look at some of these ideas. I would love to hear of any others. Americans have so much intellectual capital and can come up with ingenious solutions. The world still clamors to our websites and big box stores to steal our ideas. Leave your ideas in the comments below.
Run for office: state rep, city council, county commissioner, board of elections, school board.
Take a pay cut and get a bureaucratic job. Elected officials need strong office support to back them up as they enforce new election integrity standards.
Say no and hell no. Don’t give into overreaching governmental edicts.
Find the courage to stand up and make sure when you see someone else standing up, back them up. No patriot should have to stand alone.
Ask every wait staff you meet, “What do you think about the department of labor’s new regulation that gives your boss the ability to take tips from you and split them with whoever he wants?” (Designed to get them to BEGIN to think. Ask and listen. Let them tell you what they think. No preaching or proselytizing. Remember it will take time to win over new real Americans.
Get behind an American who is running. Campaigns take time and talents and money to run a campaign.
Start finding ways to Go Gulch. Reduce the flow of taxes to the swamp.
Find a 10th amendment group in your state and get involved in their email phone call campaign.
Support a local Sherriff who supports the constitution.
Send postcards of encouragement to sitting constitutional state reps, state senators, federal reps and federal senators.
Start attending your local school board and ask cordial questions. You want the other citizens to hear the answers. It is not necessary to argue with answers.
File FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. Start a local old fashioned one page weekly paper and publish the information that you get.
Start a platoon of those doing the same thing as you and share information so that when the next person with a similar interest comes along they don’t have to reinvent the wheel.
Learn to be chill. Find a way to handle the anger and frustration so that you are not involved in a fight or argument. Don’t be provoked and don’t walk into an ambush.
Anything you can add?
23 replies on “But what can I do?”
A “Cold Civil War” – it is isn’t it? That’s a great way to put it.
It hasn’t been a cold civil war since Antifa-BLM started murdering people last year.
There are two such groups in my state, and both only have Facebook presences. How in the world are we going to get anywhere when we rely on the enemy?
My recommendation is to get on Gab. It’s growing like crazy, and they just got Chats and Video streaming going. I’ve been a Pro user for 2 years and it’s the best thing available. You can pay with Bitcoin. You can choose to maintain anonymity.
Contact your congressman (not on the federal level; that’s a lost cause) and let him/her know that you are appalled at the results of the 2020 election and that he/she needs to proceed with one of two things:
#1: Article V Convention states.
#2. Drafting documents for your state to secede from the United States government given that the federal government is no longer operating with the people’s consent.
If you can join your local county government and get everyone there on board, numbers #1 and #2 should be a little more feasible in the right states. Fortunately, I happen to live in such a state.
Depends on the congress member, maybe?
You might want to make certain they understand you are not just 1 disgruntled voter but one of many.
There will be a purging.
Your congress member may be able to realize this and want to survive.
So maybe start the group of disgruntled voters first?
That’s why I said the right states. No. 1 and No. 2 are doomed for failure in a state such as . . . Pennsylvania maybe? But a state like Tennessee, Texas, Alabama or Arkansa maybe? There’s enough people with this attitude that an open support for this plan will go a long way. There’s a reason Allan West is able to openly flirt with the idea of No. 2 in Texas without receiving any condemnation in Texas. A LOT of people have been feeling that way for a long time now. Nows the time to capitalize.
I would want to study a detailed map of Pennsylvania first. It has more than one member representing it in Congress, and some of those might be vulnerable to carefully applied, carefully orchestrated Conservative pressure.
I’d be very careful about about what I ask for.
Some Asks go over better than others.
That’s not Fair, but it is what it is, and maybe opens you up an opportunity for a later Ask?
It’s a mistake to keep concerning yourself with Congress (I assume you mean the legislative branch of the federal government). These last nine weeks (and yesterday) have been a painful reminder that the federal government cannot be relied upon to fix the federal government. Which is why I indicated in my initial post that your congressman (on the federal level) is a lost cause. I’m talking strictly about a state lead effort. Any efforts on the federal level are futile since the tyrannical federal level itself is the problem.
And I’m completely fine with what I’m asking for. All other remedies have been tried and have been miserably met with failure over and over and over again. Check out Daniel Horowitz’s book Stolen Sovereignty to get a much better idea of what I’m talking about. The enemy we’re up against is simply too corrupt and powerful to be combatted through any other mechanism other than the last resorts the founders provided.
I just wonder if they are all of them to be given up on entirely.
Sought out selectively, very selectively.
Offer a proposition they cannot refuse.
It sounds Godfather, but Conservatives could stand to be a little Michael Corleone moving forward, Vito if possible.
Just don’t settle for nothing but a bag of oranges.
I’ve yet to hear anyone advance an Article V convention with realistic goals. I don’t mean to be confrontational, but they always seem to be very light on details and mechanics. And a lot of the Big Ideas I hear are already failing in practice right now.
Secession is not the answer. It was an act of war the first time, and it’s simply not workable now. Moreover, I’m not giving up territory.
Mark Levin laid out a number of details in his book The Liberty Amendments a while back. It’s a great read and details what amendments would need to be passed. Republicans currently have super majorities in at least 29 state legislatures last time I checked. If we can get just a few additional states on board, we would have enough to get the 2/3 majority needed to amend the US Constitution. I think that’s a far more realistic goal than simply hoping that our broken federal government will eventually see the error of its ways and fix itself. Of course, I don’t believe our Supreme Court (even without Biden’s inevitable court packing and just the current John Roberts lead court) would honor this process, but that would be just another excuse to exercise the second option I mentioned.
I massively disagree on secession not being the answer. Put aside the negative connotations that the south gave it during the civil war. By definition of the term secession, our founding fathers engaged in secession from the British government by filing a declaration for independence via the colonies. I don’t believe it is an act of war in itself, but it will definitively be perceived as one and I believe we have reached that point. After what happened on November 3, 2020 and what happened in the subsequent weeks, we have far more justification to go down that road than the founders ever did. We have literally reached a point where the federal government is now operating without the consent of the governed.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
Madison mentions the idea in the Federalist Papers.
I don’t know if you’re aware, but there is a specific mechanism in the Constitution for a state to enter the Union, but there exists no mechanism by which a state may leave. This was intentional.
The Founders had just watched the Union fall apart under the Articles of Confederation. Madison said, (paraphrasing) – once some state and it’s governor get all stampy feet, they’ll quit the union and all the bonds will quickly dissolve.
Imagine if Missouri peacefully seceded? Then, what if we made a treaty with China – peacefully? Then, we decide to start flying in tanks and troops from China into our little country – peacefully?
Sound like a good deal? Because that’s what you’re suggesting. And that’s just one of many horrible scenarios.
You make two arguments. The first is that there is no mechanism for states to leave the union. The second is allowing states to leave the union would have dire consequences.
With respect to the first argument, I’m thinking in simple contract terms. The Constitution is a contract. The states agree to allow themselves to be represented by the federal government. In exchange, the federal government agrees to follow the rules laid out in the contract. The federal government has continually broken these rules and states have exhausted every recourse to try and arbitrate the federal government’s various contract violations. The federal government has repeatedly told the states to go pound sand. If this were a court case, the court would not only declare that the states are no longer bound by the contract, but that the federal government is liable for the damages it has caused the states throughout this process. There is no mutually agreed upon contract in existence that compels one party to be forever bound to it despite the other parties repeated breaches of it.
With respect to the second argument, I would say two things:
First, states having the ability to leave the union does permit dire consequences. As you point out, if Missouri were allowed to peacefully secede, it could simply join up with China. That could happen. And do you know what my answer is to that happening: Honor your agreement with the state so that it is not pushed to the point of that happening. There’s a difference between a state wanting to leave the union because it’s throwing a hissy fit (civil war) and leaving because the federal government is continually turning its nose to the people its responsible for governing.
Second, the exact same argument could have been made to keep the 13 colonies from declaring their independence from the British government. What if, instead of forming the United States, the 13 colonies agreed to become subjects of Spain or France? A terrible outcome with dire consequences for certain, but one nevertheless caused by the British governments rampant oppression; a consequence of the British government’s own making.
Right, because it’s not a contract. It’s a government, which necessarily holds a monopoly on force and that includes to enforce “contracts”.
In any regard, violent revolution or civil war is your only recourse when it comes to the Constitution and those who will not follow it. That’s it. It’s either within the system, or it’s outside of it.
I respectfully disagree. It’s a contract. The government does not hold a monopoly on force nor the ability to enforce contracts which is why we’re able to sit here today and discuss this very issue without being subjects of the British parliament. Our founders drafted the second amendment with very purpose of combating the alleged monopoly you speak of if the need ever arose.
I never suggested that either of the options I’ve proposed would not result in a violent revolution or a civil war. On the contrary. I strongly believe that would be the outcome. My point is that much like our founders, we’ve already exhausted every other recourse within the system.
IUC the secession itself was okay-ish, but then they attacked some federal stuff that was an act of war, and then later the winners made their best to confuse the matter to keep people from even thinking about leaving the union.
By any logic every union must be working like the civil contracts, they can be terminated if the parties no longer believe it serves their benefits because circumstances changed from the time of entering. And starting a war to prevent secession itself is nothing but an occupation.
The South’s secession was an act of war. It wasn’t about attacking federal buildings. It’s a direct attack on the Constitution.
The South seceded over Slavery. That’s an absolute fact. You can read any of their writings from the time, you can read the Declarations of Secession by the various Southern states.
Sounds like you’re one of those guys who makes apologies for Slavers and I’m not interested in those apologies. You don’t have a right to own other human beings. States don’t have the right to give you that right.
Can we stay with facts over feelings?
“Right” as in law is a human-made thing and changes over time. Slavery at the time period we talk about was not against the constitution. That amendment was made much later. Before that people had, in fact, the right to own other people.
Just because today we don’t like it does not change the legal situation.
Also the motivation for secession has nothing to do vs. legality (or lack of) secession.
It’s interesting to see someone who rejects basic human value paying for a Bill Whittle subscription, but maybe it’s a write-off for you.
I’m talking about Natural Rights. The same ones mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Those rights granted to you by your creator. Those rights that you possess by virtue of being a living human being.
Your ignorance of the Constitution would be astounding, if I didn’t suspect it’s intentional. The original Constitution ended the importation of slaves by 1808 (Article I, Section 9). My guess is that most of the Framers did not conceive that Slavers would continue breeding and trading slaves as if they were animals, but here you and I are arguing the point 200 years later.
So I suppose they really should have spelled it out completely for guys like you.
Motive goes directly to the application of law. Go kill someone and then argue your point with the court.
Your virtues shine over everyone, but between two instances of bashing people can we stay at the subject? Which was the legal status of secession.
Feel free to open another blog on how subject of slavery can be used to derail conversations and how great opportunities it provides to show off how much you care about people dead for centuries.
Kafka-trapping probably works for you most of the time. I get that it’s tough when someone calls our your logical fallacies.
If you weren’t alluding to Slavery, then what were you alluding to? If I incorrectly thought you were talking about Slavery, why did you continue down that path instead of stopping me in your next comment?
Since Slavery was the South’s primary motivating factor for Secession, it seems logical to bring it into the mix of the discussion if you’re going to reference the Secession of the South in order to bolster your argument for Secession today.
If you want to leave the Secession of the South out of the argument, then fine – you’re still left with the fact that there is no mechanism in the Constitution for Secession, because the Framers knew giving states an “out” meant the eventual dissolution of the Union.
That is why the Constitution is a suicide pact. You don’t have to join, but once you join you may never leave.
You know what I realized after thinking about this a bit more…I’ve offered nothing but facts, but because my facts make you feel something, you then project those feelings onto me.
This isn’t emotional for me. It’s just the truth. It’s reality. It’s a little annoying to deal with someone who is intellectually dishonest. It’s a little annoying for someone with no knowledge of the topic would deign to try to explain it to me.
Look at your own definition of a “right”. I’m not sure if you even realize that what you just defined is a Civil Right – a right granted to a specific group of people by a Civil Government. You can’t or don’t make the distinction between a Civil Right and a Natural Right.
Is that because you don’t know the difference, or because you don’t care? I think you’re probably younger, and that you recently got churned out of a college or university where your socialist professors told you what to think, instead of how to think.
LOL