SLIDE ONE
“Ignorance is the parent of fear.”― Herman Melville
"FACTS Vs. FICTION and Fear" was researched and prepared to counteract the scare tactics used to kill the only constitutional remedy to the federal government’s usurpation of enumerated powers left to the states, the fiscal insanity, and tyranny.
In his book Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky documents 12 strategies the left uses, and we must keep those in mind:
- Rule 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
- Rule 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
- Rule 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy."
- Rule 4: "Make the enemy live up to its book of rules."
- Rule 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
- Rule 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
- Rule 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
- Rule 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up."
- Rule 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
- Rule 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive."
- Rule 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
- Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Dissenters to using an Article V convention repeatedly make false claims, citing invalid references, quotes taken out of context, and opinion arguments from people with no scholarly or legal credentials—or worse, an agenda to destroy our Constitution.
Following are nine common misconceptions (some even conflict with each other):
- The 1787 Philadelphia Convention was a "runaway."
- We have never had an Article V convention of states, so it is untested; no one knows what could happen.
- The rules governing an Article V convention of states are not written in Article V, so we don't know how they work.
- The subject of an Article V convention of states is irrelevant
- An Article V convention of states can't be limited to specific topics
- Congress will take over an Article V convention of states
- Congress will select the delegates to an Article V convention of states
- State legislatures can't control the delegates they send to convention
- Supreme Court Justices have warned against using the amendments convention process
How do we correct the record and dispel the fear these deliberate misrepresentations create:
- With facts from the historical record, extensively researched by experts that prove interstate conventions have been used numerous times
- Case law of court decisions that have set precedents for the operation of interstate conventions
- Rules that have governed past interstate conventions, the Constitution and
- Plain common sense
A united, well-informed electorate is the greatest threat to the leviathan our Federal Government has become. It got there through a quiet, complacent electorate.
For the status quo of limitless unaccountable power to continue, the elites in D.C. must keep us divided, misinformed, and afraid (refer back to the 12 Rules for Radicals above).
Many dissenters to using the Article V convention of states for proposing amendments agree with respected constitutional experts that the Constitution is the bulwark of protection for liberty in America.
While respected and widely published experts believe that Article V’s convention process is essential to that bulwark, the dissenters seem to believe- and fear—that it is some kind of self-destruct button. Ignoring or disputing well-known constitutional attorneys and scholars risks further compromising the Constitution and our Republic.
Ultimately, we are responsible for deciding who is telling the truth and must examine the experts' credentials on both sides to determine their credibility.
Those arguing against are not lawyers nor peer-reviewed published authors on the subject of the Constitution or Article V. Arguing in favor of the states using the Article V convention process are nationally renowned constitutional experts and attorneys with too many letters behind their names to list here.
Here is where the rubber meets the road. Study the facts for yourself and decide. Will you accept the responsibility given to you by our framers? If not you, who?
The future of those living now and the generations to follow us depend on you.
Please read their words, check their sources, and see if you come to the same conclusions.
