Don’t Let Liberals Frame the Argument- They Use Built-In Assumptions That Strip Your Rights

Ok.  I read the following Fox News title and had what my dear father refers to as a, ‘conniption:’

“New Obama Directive Will Shorten Visa Wait for Illegal Aliens With U.S. Spouses”

Why the conniption? Because even the title is wrong!  Forget the actual story- let’s talk about that title! Obama’s DIRECTIVE? So, we have a king now? And that isn’t the news? It is the assumption? I tell you, FOX is not a ‘Conservative’ news source. They lean juuuuuust right enough to lay claim to GOP interests, but let me tell you, no Conservative could get past this title without sputtering! A ‘directive’ from the boy king? A DIRECTIVE? I ask you, “WHY DO WE NEED CONGRESS?” The article mentions Obama creating new directives as if that were the new norm. As if the nature of the directive, and not the fact of the directive, is the actual point. Really? Really? I. DON’T. THINK. SO!

Because I can’t get past that assumption, People.  I can’t get past the very idea that we have a boy king who can even give directives.  I really don’t care what that directive is.  He had no right to give it.  Thus, it is entirely invalid.  And yet, here is a news outlet framing the argument and building in the notion that Obama has any power to make law.

Do not  allow the Progressives to frame the argument, Friends.  It is their very favorite trick.  That is how they hope to win.  They build in assumptions in an effort to solidify them in your mind before you even begin the debate.  Example: “Why do you need guns?  Is there so much crime that you need to carry a gun everywhere?”   See, if you answer that question, you have also accepted a mighty big assumption: that the person has the right to ask it of you.  But they don’t.   Especially in the context of whether you should retain your right!   If they can ask you why you need to have an inalienable right as defined by the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, then you can ask them, “Why do you need to be practice homosexuality?”  If we can ask the question, it implies that the person’s right is open for discussion and validation.  See?

The Two Flavors of Liberalism

Two Flavors of Liberalism: Big Talk & Big Take!

I have noticed that most of your everyday liberals come in two flavors:  the wealthy rich people and the poor, uneducated people who act out in society.  The liberals I know are all white and wealthy and have college degrees.  They are the ones I went to college with.  Most have never seen a hard day in their lives.  And they feel…well, superior to other people.  They mask their disdain for the ‘failures’ of society by ‘feeling sorry’ for them.  They, literally, don’t think these ‘poor people’ can do it on their own.  They credit themselves with that ability but do not give the same credit to ‘poor people’ (let’s face it, they think less of Black,  Hispanic and those trashy White trailer people.)  They overcompensate for their innate racism and class snobbery with this fake altruism.  These are the very same people with off shore accounts and tax exempt trust funds for their children.  Believe me, THEY don’t have to actually fund the government programs they vote for.

These people are TERRIFIED of being seen as racist or as Christian.  Their every desire is

Bullies (oops, I meant ‘Chicks’) on the Right Trash Short Little Rebel

Ok, here’s the scoop.   For those of you who don’t know who Chicks on the Right are, they are two women who think conservatism needs a ‘serious makeover’.   They are attempting to show that not all conservatives are ‘stodgy white guys  in suits’.  Here is an excerpt from their site:

“ When you hear the word “conservative” or “Republican” or the phrase
“right-wing,” what image pops into your mind? If your answer looks
anything like an older white dude with gray hair and a scowl, wearing a
business suit or holding a bible and wielding a firearm, you’re not
alone. Stodgy old white guys have long been associated with the GOP and
conservatives. And it was, in part, this very stereotype that led us to
start Chicks On The Right. We think conservatism needs a big-time
makeover.”….

“We like snark, we like to have fun, and our site reflects that. We don’t claim to be journalists or political experts or economists or anything other than two cool chicks who like to tell people what we think about stuff. In other words, what you’ll read is our opinions on today’s political news, culture, and the media. Except that instead of being served up all newsy and serious, it’ll sound more like you’ve just sat down for cocktails with us, after shopping for shoes. We welcome liberals and conservatives alike to join in the discussion, and encourage lively but civil discourse.”

First, I take offense at that!  I DO ‘wield a firearm’ and I DO wear a business suit.  The seriousness of what is happening in our nation DOES make me scowl.  Sorry, can’t just go shoe shopping and SNARK at people with ‘gleeful’ photos being taken of my crotch!  AND, I happen to LIKE stodgy old white guys!  My Dad is one of those guys!  The CHICKS are SELL OUTS.  They hate the white male just like the LIBERALS and ATHEISTS do.  Apparently, we need to ‘remake’ our image to NOT include you, fellas!

Hey, I LOVE this stodgy old white conservative male. He’s my DAD! What wrong with THAT? Huh, Chicks?

Sexists!  Racists!  (Aww, just kiddin’ , ‘ladies’..)

‘Bible Thumpin’ Articles Not Welcome at ConstitutionClub’s Blog Anymore

Short Little Rebel is Deemed a ‘Bible Thumper’!

Attention Blogosphere:  I  have just been kicked off the Constitution Club group blog because the tiny leadership group(infiltrated by Libertarians) believes my articles are too ‘bible thumpin’ for their liking.  They didn’t like my gay pride parade article ( http://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/lets-call-gay-prid…) because Dave (owner of blog) said my Christian wording made the Libertarians ‘uncomfortable’.  He asked me to ‘tone down’ my Christian speech

Union vs. Indiana: Right-to-Work Law Violates Anti-Slavery Amendment

My good friend and fellow blogger at Constitution Club published this post.  I find it important to reblog it for your information:

Apr 24 Posted by The Rat | Edit

RIDICULOUS LAWSUIT CLAIMS HOOSIER LAW PRETTY MUCH TURNS UNION WORKERS INTO SLAVES

Go big or go home. In February, the International Union of Operating Engineers, (INOE), whose members work as heavy equipment operators, mechanics and construction surveyors, sued Indiana’s governor (Mitch Daniels), attorney general, and labor commissioner, claiming the Hoosier State’s right-to-work law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. However, something was lacking; there had to be more to it.

It’s now become apparent that the union loons hadn’t sufficiently thought the whole lawsuit thingy through. As a result, the INOE recently amended the suit to include a charge that Indiana also violated the 13th Amendment – which outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude. Seriously, folks – you can’t make this stuff up.

Yep, the union charges that Indiana’s right-to-work law turns union workers into slaves.

It’s hard enough to wrap one’s head around how a right-to-work law violates the Equal Protection Clause – which states that“no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws that is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances in their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.” Ironically, wouldn’t denying non-union workers the same rights as those enjoyed by union workers be a more apt example of a violation of the Clause?

Be that as it may, the real craziness begins with the assertion that Mitch Daniels & Co. are also in violation of the 13thAmendment, which says: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to its jurisdiction.” Really?  Read on….