natural rights / law

mlk?

i suspect ali gets no deeper than: god vs

Natural rights are rights granted to all people by nature or God that cannot be denied or restricted by any government or individual. Natural rights are often said to be granted to people by “natural law.”

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-natural-rights-4108952

when the authors of the U.S. Declaration of Independence spoke of all people being endowed with “unalienable Rights,” such as “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” they were confirming their belief in the existence of “natural rights.”

In modern society, every individual has two types of rights: natural rights and legal rights.

Jefferson, Locke, Natural Rights, and Independence.

In drafting the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson justified demanding independence by citing several examples of ways in which England’s King George III had refused to recognize the natural rights of American colonists. Even with fighting between colonists and British troops already taking place on American soil, most members of Congress still hoped for a peaceful agreement with their motherland.

In the first two paragraphs of that fateful document adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, Jefferson revealed his idea of natural rights in the often-quoted phrases, “all men are created equal,” “inalienable rights,” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Educated during the Age of Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, Jefferson adopted the beliefs of philosophers who used reason and science to explain human behavior. Like those thinkers, Jefferson believed universal adherence to the “laws of nature” to be the key to advancing humanity.

Many historians agree that Jefferson drew most of his beliefs in the importance of natural rights he expressed in the Declaration of Independence from the Second Treatise of Government, written by renowned English philosopher John Locke in 1689, as England’s own Glorious Revolution was overthrowing the reign of King James II.

The assertion is hard to deny because, in his paper, Locke wrote that all people are born with certain, God-given “inalienable” natural rights that governments can neither grant nor revoke, including “life, liberty, and property.”

Locke also argued that along with land and belongings, “property” included the individual’s “self,” which included well being or happiness.

Locke also believed that it was the single most important duty of governments to protect the God-given natural rights of their citizens. In return, Locke expected those citizens to follow the legal laws enacted by the government. Should the government break this “contract” with its citizens by enacting “a long train of abuses,” the citizens had the right to abolish and replace that government.

By listing the “long train of abuses” committed by King George III against American colonists in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson used Locke’s theory to justify the American Revolution.

“We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.” – The Declaration of Independence.

Natural Rights in a Time of Enslavement?

“All Men Are Created Equal”

As by far the best-known phrase in the Declaration of Independence, “All Men Are Created Equal,” is often said to summarize both the reason for revolution, as well as the theory of natural rights. But with the practice of enslavement common throughout the American Colonies in 1776, did Jefferson – a life-long enslaver himself – really believe the immortal words he had written?

Some of Jefferson’s fellow enslaver separatists justified the obvious contradiction by explaining that only “civilized” people had natural rights, thus excluding enslaved people from eligibility.

As for Jefferson, history shows that he had long believed the slave trade was morally wrong and attempted to denounce it in the Declaration of Independence.

“He (King George) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither,” he wrote in a draft of the document.

However, Jefferson’s anti-enslavement statement was removed from the final draft of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson later blamed the removal of his statement on influential delegates who represented merchants who were at the time dependent on the Transatlantic slave trade for their livelihoods. Other delegates may have feared the possible loss of their financial support for the expected Revolutionary War.

Despite the fact that he continued to keep most of his enslaved workers for years after the Revolution, many historians agree that Jefferson sided with Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson who had written, “Nature makes none masters, none slaves,” in expressing his belief that all people are born as moral equals. On the other hand, Jefferson had expressed his fear that suddenly freeing all of the enslaved people might result in a bitter race war ending in their virtual extermination.

While the practice of enslavement would persist in the United States until the end of the Civil War 89 years after issuance of the Declaration of Independence, many of the human equality and rights promised in the document continued to be denied to Black people, other people of color, and women for years.

Even today, for many Americans, the true meaning of equality and its related application of natural rights in areas such as racial profiling, gay rights, and gender-based discrimination remain an issue.

libtard?

https://lawliberty.org/natural-right-natural-law-and-leo-strauss/

the greatest work of philosophy by the scholar commonly regarded as the greatest philosopher of Catholic Christendom remains unfinished. Thomas Aquinas abandoned the Summa Theologiae, declaring that all he had written seemed to him like chaff. Philosophy paled beside revelation—beside mystical experience and the glory of God.

To the believer, this story is testament to the humility even the finest of minds must feel upon encountering its Creator. To the nonbeliever, it may suggest the final incompatibility between faith and reason. The philosopher simply has nothing to say in the presence of God. Philosophy is either sovereign unto itself, or it is vanity.

Athens and Jerusalem

Leo Strauss consistently drew the distinction between Athens and Jerusalem sharply. The two cities—metonymy for reason and revelation and the Hellenic and Hebraic sides of the Western experience—are in tension, a word that occurs with some regularity in the 14 essays that comprise a new volume edited by Geoffrey M. Vaughan, Leo Strauss and His Catholic Readers. Several of the contributors to this book argue that Strauss exaggerates that tension, however. They find grounds instead for a “synthesis,” another recurrent word in these pages.

Strauss was a Jew who promoted a pre-Christian, classical understanding of “natural right” as found in Plato and Aristotle. Yet after the publication of his Natural Right and History in 1953, Strauss was sometimes classed alongside Catholic scholars of political philosophy who aimed to revive the natural law tradition of Aquinas. Strauss recognized that these Thomists were fighting some of the same battles against historicists and philosophical modernists that he was fighting. Nonetheless, his own position was quite distinct from theirs. Natural right, unlike natural law, is changeable and dependent on circumstance for its expression, says Strauss. As he puts it: “There is a universally valid hierarchy of ends, but there are no universally valid rules of action.”

Natural right is not as specific as natural law: “The Thomistic doctrine … of natural law is free from the hesitations and ambiguities which are characteristic of the teachings, not only of Plato and Cicero, but of Aristotle as well.” Strauss may surprise and trouble Catholic admirers when he says, “modern political thought returned to the classics by opposing the Thomistic view” on “such issues as the indissolubility of marriage and birth control.” Strauss sides with the author of The Spirit of the Lawsover that of the Summa Theologiae: “Montesquieu tried to recover for statesmanship a latitude which had been considerably restricted by Thomistic teaching.”

For the Thomist, revelation completes reason, providing answers for questions otherwise impenetrable. According to Strauss, however, “the ultimate consequence of the Thomistic view of natural law is that natural law is practically inseparable not only from natural theology—i.e., from a natural theology which is, in fact, based on belief in biblical revelation—but even from revealed theology.”

These remarks in Natural Right and History are almost all that Strauss has to say about Catholic philosophy and Thomism. As Vaughan notes in his introduction to Leo Strauss and His Catholic Readers, “Strauss wrote almost nothing on Catholic authors.” Yet Catholic readers can gain much from Strauss, including, as Vaughan argues, an understanding of “modernity and its relation to the history of philosophy,” as well as a reminder “of a less than distinguished record on the part of Catholic politics in its theoretical and practical dimensions” and “the fact that political philosophy has been superseded within official Catholic channels by social teaching.”

Vaughan is an associate professor of political science at a Catholic institution, Assumption College in Massachusetts, and the essays he has brought together provide a wide variety of perspectives on the relationship between Strauss, the Catholic faith, Thomism, “Athens and Jerusalem,” and connected matters. The book is divided into three parts—“Encounters with Leo Strauss and Natural Right,” “Leo Strauss and Catholic Concerns,” and “Leo Strauss on Christianity, Politics, and Philosophy”—but this formal structure is less important than the thematic connections between individual essays.

The Attempt to Synthesize Faith and Reason

...

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/marjorie-taylor-greene-says-legal-challenge-to-take-her-off-the-ballot-is-a-globalist-ploy-for-a-one-world-government/

rww

rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene testifies in a Georgia courtroom today in a hearing to determine whether the far-right congresswoman can be barred from running for reelection for her role in the Jan. 6 insurrection. In preparation, she spent the day prior with Alex Jones—the radical conspiracy theorist who is underinvestigation for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection—insisting that the legal challenge to disqualify her candidacy is all part of the “globalist” ploy for a “One World Government.”

Georgia voters and a supporting legal group, Free Speech For People, filed the challenge against Greene, winning a victory last week when a federal judge ruled that the case could proceed. At the heart of the case is a provision in the 14th Amendment that forbids any member of Congress who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” from serving in office. The provision was passed years after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from returning to their seats in Congress.

In making their case, lawyers for Free Speech For People point to evidence like a Jan. 5 tweet by Greene calling Jan. 6 a “1776 moment.”The judge on the case will make a recommendation to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who will then decide whether Greene remains on the ballot.

On Jones’ “InfoWars” Thursday, Greene insisted that the hearing was a “show trial” that has “nothing to do with Jan. 6,” and that she did nothing wrong. “They know there was no insurrection,” she told Jones. “That is their big lie.”

Jones agreed that the challenge was “so villainous,” declaring, “this is next level tyranny.”

“Clearly the globalists want to implode the country, Cloward and Pivento make us dependent and take control. And all the polls show a total collapse and realignment of Republicans,” Jones said. “How do you think the Democrats and the deep stateare going to try to stop this populist peaceful uprising?”

“They don’t want me in there,” Greene said. “So theseglobaliststhat are completely trying to destroy our country and move us into their global economy and theirOne World Government to where NATO is telling us what, who they should go to war with, and the UN is running the entire world. This is what Democrats want. They know to achieve these goals they have to get the strongest fighters out. That’s why they’re coming after me, and they’re coming after Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, they went after Madison [Cawthorn].”

And who does Greene believe is behind it? Greene claimed that the attorney group lodging the challenge “is totally funded by George Soros dark-money groups.”

“They hope that we have a civil war,” Jones said, adding that it was the “devil system.”

Earlier in the show, Jones also compared Greene’s hearing to his own legal troubles stemming from comments he made about the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting.

“Well, I’m dealing with the same thing where I was found in default in a case of not giving them documents, but they have all the documents, and then I’m supposed to have a jury trial about how guilty I am but were not even allowed to speak at that trial,” Jones protested.

In addition to being investigated by both the House select committee and the Department of Justice for his role in instigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Jones is facing multiple defamation lawsuits after he called the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting a “hoax” and accused the parents mourning the death of their children of being paid actors.Jonesfailed to turn over documents to the judge in one of those cases and failed to show up to a hearing.

Toward the end of the show, Greene expressed her admiration of Jones. “I love those T-shirts, ‘Alex Jones was right,’” Greene said. “I need to get one of those.”

Tags: Alex Jones Marjorie Taylor Greene Capitol Insurrection conspiracy theories Georgia Jan. 6 InfoWars

MI gov kidnap --> entrapment/sting // false flag? sneaky tyrant?

rww 4 22

Ali Alexander, an organizer with the so-called Stop the Steal campaign, told radical conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on Wednesday that “there is a time for legitimate violence when there is legitimate tyranny.” The two agreed that now is not the time but began to discuss what would constitute “legitimate tyranny.”

Alexander and Jones are people of interest to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Alexander organized the rallies and strategy of the Stop the Steal campaign, which perpetuated the Big Lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from former President Donald Trump and worked desperately to keep him in power, while Jones and his InfoWars’ crew spoke at the rallies and advertised the campaign on their networks.

In December, Alexander sat for eight hours of testimony in front of the House select committee and **threw fellow rally organizers**, Amy and Kylie Kremer and Katrina Pierson, under the bus;Jones says he pled the Fifth when he met with the committee. Last Friday, Alexander told the New York Times through a lawyer that he would cooperate with the Department of Justice in its investigation of the attack. But by Tuesday, Alexander joined Jones on “InfoWars” to suggest he would never do so.

On the Wednesday edition of “InfoWars,” Alexander repeated part of his conspiracy theory that he shared with Jones the day prior: that the Jan. 6 investigations were part of a “deep state” plot to get rid of elections, the Republican Party, and Christians, with the goal to usher in a “stateless New World Order.” A civil war orchestrated by the deep state would be central to this effort, according to Alexander. In response to Jones asking how to avoid such a civil war, Alexander suggested viewers pray, before discussing “legitimate violence.”

“The second byproduct of prayer is that it makes us sane,” Alexander said. “So when we’re getting this deluge of persecution, we’re not saying, in our gut primal level, ‘We need to go bomb something, we need to go shoot something’; it’s ‘I will not give them an inch or become the monster they want us to become.’”

“Now, folks, I’m going to say something really crazy,” Alexander continued. “I’m not going to deny that the people have the right of revolution. I’m not going to deny 1776. I’m not going to deny there is a time for legitimate violence when there is legitimate tyranny. And by the way, the Declaration of Independence even outlines—”

“Says it’s your right and duty,” Jones interrupted. “But they are just losing right now, we’re winning politically. We don’t want to do it yet, but you’re not denying we have the right.”

“Right,” Alexander replied. “I’m not denying the—I’m saying it’s not the time now, that’s for sure.”

“But it’s definitely a card we have in our hand we’re allowed to play,” Jones said.

“Right! Right,” Alexander said.

“When all else is lost you gotta do it,” Jones said.

“If they start ripping your children from your home and doing reassignment surgeries—” Alexander began.

“Everyone knows when the time is,” Jones interrupted. “The point is, anybody trying to lure you into plots to kidnap governors, anybody who wants you to offensively attack, that’s not what we do.”

“Frankly, a discerning mind and a mind in prayer, frankly, would not punch cops at the Capitol, would not kidnap governors,” Alexander said.

“You know it makes us look bad!” Jones said

“And it won’t be successful,” Alexander said.

“Not only do I not want to randomly punch cops, it’s dumb!” Jones exclaimed.

“It’s very dumb,” Alexander agreed. “It’s dumb, and it displeases God I think. But you know, these cops need to stop complying with COVID orders and lockdowns and stealing.”

“Yeah, no, they’re putting themselves in that position,” Jones said.

Alexander regularlyuses violent rhetoric and has called for civil war and rebellion. On the eve of the insurrection, Alexander led a Stop the Steal crowd in chants of “Victory or death!” and declared “1776 is always an option.”

As Luke O’Brien reported in HuffPost, Alexander considers violence a “natural right”:

On Twitter, Alexander had called violence a “natural right.” He was a prominent influencer on the platform, with almost 200,000 followers. “I am a sincere advocate for violence and war, when justified,” he tweeted in 2019. “I recognize no law above what is naturaland good.” A militant Christianity has permeated his extremism; he has spoken often about being an agent of God.

Tags: Alex Jones Ali Alexander Capitol Insurrection conspiracy theories Jan. 6 violent rhetoric InfoWars