I see you decide to resort to rhetoric rather than grapple with the untenable, illogical position you've talked yourself into. No amount of brain-twisting semantics can maintain your double-think. You may dismiss Hobbes, Bentham, Burke and Rousseau, but in the absence of any refuting argument, your position is 'nonsense on stilts'.Our Founders understood it quite well and a lot of us Americans understand it quite well today too. Unfortunately we seem to have a sizeable group of Americans with no clue about what that was all about, who resent those who do, and who would dismantle it in a heartbeat. And that is a tragedy.
You also seem to be falling into the Appeal to Nature fallacy, since it seems evident that you believe that there is something 'naturally' superior about a 'right' being deemed 'natural'. As we've seen, the fact that your natural rights' 'inalienable' nature is purely conceptual, apt to be denied in reality, there appear to be no rights that are in practice 'inalienable'. Please let's not continue with this semantic debate on the definition of 'inalienable' since however much you wish it to be, your definition is not universally, or even predominantly accepted. And let's stay away from bringing the US DoI or Constitution into this as it lends no authority to an argument, given that it's not a universally accepted statement of the real nature of rights.