Skip to content

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?

‘Inalienable’ was defined by our founders, in these three documents, to mean we are 1) equal under God and 2) imbued, by the very fact that we are humans, with certain rights.

We are not ‘equal’ in any other way.  Some are smarter.  Some are stronger, some richer.   Some are just more beautiful.  Humans are not equal in any way except by the fact that God created us all with a soul- each equally important in His eyes.  Jesus clarified this idea (he was a radical in his day) when he said,  “Where are my mother and my brothers?  Here are my mother and my brothers and sisters.  All who obey God, my Father, are my brothers & sisters.  This was a completely radical idea in a society built on slavery and status.   We have the rights because we live as humans.  Not up for discussion.

Hence, the word, ‘inalienable’.  A powerful concept.

We rightly own the freedom of individual choice and the freedom from oppressive government because God created us to live in this exact way under him-  in essence, we were created freemen.  Without this notion, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are illogical.  And therefore, invalid.  Without God’s equality of soul, there is no equality.  Without God’s freedom to choose right from wrong, there is no freedom.   He no more forces your obedience than he forces your love or loyalty.  On that basis alone, we determine that no mere man may force these things from us either.

Thus, no one can ask why we need our rights.  Need has nothing to do with them.  So the question, in and of itself, is illogical and invalid.  See?  See how they try to trick you?  You need to be smart, People.  THINK before you answer.  Look for the underlying assumptions that weaken your position.  The title of this article weakens the American people because it says that the content of the directive is more important then the fact that a directive was given.  This is a trick.  You need to point out the illogical and invalid assumption behind the question and put it to rest.  They need to understand that by making such assumptions in attacking you, then they attack their own rights as well.

Imagine asking,  “Why do you need to breath?”   “Why do you need to eat?”   “Why do you need to live at all?”  All of these are equally ridiculous as the question, “Why do you need a gun.”

When our party is in power,  we could say, “Why do you need to be an atheist?” and then force them to go to church or burn at the stake.   See?

The real question is whether we have a basis for law or not.  We do.  They are the founding documents of this nation.  Every single law written since them has been made in support of or in compliance with those documents- until recently, that is.    Undermine the foundation, and you have no law.  It all comes tumbling down.   If people of one side or another got to pick and choose which ones they THOUGHT were ‘useful’ or not, it would all fall apart.   It would become the tyranny of the majority.  And it would swing wildly left or right as the winds blew from one generation to the next.  There would be no stability.  And that, my friends, is why every free nation needs a constitution.

Inalienable.  Inalienable.  Look the word up.  We received our constitutional rights, not only as God’s equally made Children but as express forms of human FREEDOM.   Freedom is one of the bulwarks of the founding documents.  Because we so honor individual freedom, we formed a constitutional republic which would safeguard it.  And we created the documents that provided a sure fire way to protect the notions of Individual Freedom and Inalienable Rights.  Just one notion is the separation of a king’s power into three separate branches of government.  One to make law.  One to judge if the new law is in obedience to the founding documents.  And one to simply execute what is law (provide the mechanism to carry out the law).   They are not based in opinion or willy nilly thoughts of ancient men- nor can they be ‘outdated’.  They never had anything whatsoever to do with technology.  They had everything to do with simply being human.  And last time I checked, being human has not changed one bit since then.   Because human nature would dictate that one person (or a few elites) would wish to be a king someday.  No matter how ‘advanced’ man should become, there will always be those who lust for more power than they are allowed.    These documents were designed to be the stones that prevent the inevitable flood of of human tyranny.  Our Constitution divided the powers of a monarchy because we determined it was the best way to prevent a future king.  It is really that simple.

We also determined, in those founding documents, that only a government owned by the People and in servitude to the People could possibly enshrine the concept of God given freedom.  That the individual would OWN the government- not the government own the person.    We don’t allow one branch, let alone, one MAN, to conduct the functions of all three branches of government.  If we did, we would literally have a king:  someone who can make law;  someone who can determine if previous laws are constitutional;  and someone who can execute the law as he pleases (ie, tell your guards to throw your political opponent in jail).   Obama is breaking the format and the rules of the Constitution when he makes executive orders and directives- or laws that affect billions of dollars of commerce through his non-elected federal agencies.  And when he refuses to enforce the law, he has failed to do the one thing which he was supposed to do:  execute the law made by others.

Obama is not a king.  He is certainly not our king.  He is merely a public servant.  He is our servant.  We. Own. Him.  Period.

Sadly, he is riding on a very powerful tide that began well before his birth.  This tide is Progressivism.  They have lusted for more power, more control and more worship from people than our founding documents will allow.  They have lusted from the very beginning.   Is this really so difficult to believe of humans?  Is it?   They have put together a strategy and have been faithfully putting the pieces together over the decades.  They must break the unbreakable.  But first, they need to convince Americans that it should be broken.  And they have a plan to do this.  Anything and anyone is fine for the slaughter- as long as it brings the kind of wealth, power and worship they crave.  A mere presidency?  HA!  A good, bitter laugh for these people.  It is far, far, beneath them.  They have the money to succeed.  But those damned documents stand in their way.  As Obama is so fond of saying, “They must go!”

So.  When I see a headline like this, I rebel.  It makes a very, very dangerous assumption.  One that my very American soul rejects with every fiber of its being.  You need to rebel too.


  1. Susan, I got this from a friend who saw me sending out your blog. Here’s what he sent me, cause for another conniption:

    The linked-to article does not contain the following wording I found in another article on the same subject:

    “Because the administration is changing an administrative rule and not U.S. law, the move does not require the approval of Congress.”

    Of course, Congress can always pass a new law about the wait period, but with Senate in Democrat hands, it’s not likely to happen. That’s because Americans voted for a predominantly-Democrat Senate, the more powerful house of Congress.

    Therefore it’s the American people who are ultimately responsible for the situation. People get the leadership they deserve. It’s a truism as old as politics.

  2. This subject of turning inalienable rights into ideas subject to the will of one despotic man brings to mind the notion of situational ethics – the old “if you are in a lifeboat holding four people and you only have enough food and water for three, who do you throw overboard?” scenario. Until the idea that right and wrong was really subject to the situation instead of the other way around came in vogue decades ago, right and wrong were absolutes that everyone, or most everyone, understood and lived by; instead of throwing the fourth person overboard, all four would tighten their belts, ration their supplies and start praying for rescue. Situational ethics really came into swing here in America back when I was in high school in the early 70s, which means that every generation of children since then has been indoctrinated to accept this type of thinking. We are now reaping the fruits of that progressive labor, for the majority of people, even now within the Christian community, no longer believe in absolutes; in fact, in the mental health field if you believe that things are black and white instead of multiple shades of gray, they add another acronym to your diagnosis and declare you aberrational. To finally get to my point (sorry for being a tad verbose), the majority of people in this nation and around the world have bought the lie that there are no absolutes, and that is a mindset that budding dictators such as Obama use to shield themselves from public opinion when they start doing away with our inalienable rights.

%d bloggers like this: