Title: Reject Fear Original CoS Document (slug): [[https://conventionofstates.com/reject-fear|reject-fear]] Login Required to view? No Created: 2023-03-26 17:42:07 Updated: 2023-04-06 03:00:00 Published: 2023-03-30 00:00:00 Converted: 2025-04-14T21:23:50.158057869 ---- Instilling fear is a tactic used to control and manipulate a population. It is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” [[https://www.openculture.com/2020/06/saul-alinskys-13rules-for-creating-meaningful-social-change.html|handbook]].   //“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.//\\ \\ Does this sound familiar when you listen to the endless drone of the same rehashed and illogical arguments coming from the supposedly conservative opponents of a Convention of States? The mantra that certainly any convention called to propose amendments in the three specifically defined areas will “run away” and impose a new Constitution that could repeal the Second Amendment. And we might ask, contrived by whom? Conservatives? Really? This stuff is straight from the far left and can be traced back to the 1960s when liberal commentators initiated a fear campaign aimed at any number of Article V initiatives.\\ \\ Nothing worthwhile can be achieved in this world without risk. Risk is good. Risk is scary. People are averse to risk.  Risk can be used to “//increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty//.” Aha!\\ \\ I am a businessman. Every time I enter into a contract, I assume significant risk. Why would anyone choose to assume significant risk? Because the result is worthwhile, both for my client and for me. It is how I make my living. The alternative – inaction/paralysis/fear – is not an option.\\ \\ When one assumes risk, it is wise to research, prepare, insure when possible, and use experience and expertise to arm oneself against inevitable, unforeseen events. I do all of those things in my business endeavors and the rewards far outweigh the risks. Occasionally the unforeseen happens, and that is part of the equation, but hat does not mean one should not proceed.\\ \\ So it is with a Convention of States. We have never done this exact thing before, but that does not mean we do not know how it will most likely proceed. There have been numerous multi-state and multi-colony conventions, just not one yet under Article V. The research has been done by the best legal minds in the country. If one reads Robert G. Natelson’s “The Law of Article V” it is impossible to argue that we are flailing like blind men in the dark with no idea what an Article V convention will look like. In fact, we can be very sure that all of the fear-mongering from the opposition is disingenuous on its face and is not based on research but to “//increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty//.” Those among us who allow doubt to be sown in this way are simply being played by the left.\\ \\ I am a cautious man, and I listen when someone points out a well-researched and reasonably predictable pitfall. I make preparations for such events if I believe them to be reasonably possible. We are well prepared for what lies ahead. It will not be a cakewalk. New York will be there. California will be there. They will want different things than South Carolina, Florida, Oklahoma, or South Dakota. Surprise! \\ \\ We can and will prevail in defeating the challenges that are certain to emerge. This is worth doing!\\ \\ If wolves are in the forest and encircling my cabin, I can cower in the corner paralyzed and await the inevitable invasion, or I can arm myself and meet them on MY terms where they are. I choose the latter. Is there a risk? Yes. Is there an alternative? No.