theo102

Sorry but that's completely wrong. In the OT "God" is a translation of Elohim, which is a plural word. El is singular, and can refer to different beings in different contexts. Yah is the shortened form of the tetragrammaton, but for the Egyptians yah simply meant "moon".

The divine right of kings isn't something that can be separated from the maxim that the king can do no wrong, IOW a true king is perfect in the eyes of the law. The common law idea of sovereignty isn't the same as the political sovereignty of civil states. The practice of droit du seigneur may not have even existed, and would not have been consistent with the common law prohibition against adultery, meaning that it couldn't have been a real right in medieval England.

Of course not. Just because a man holds the title of king doesn't mean that he is worthy of that title.

The natural rights of life and liberty have correlative duties.

That's only part of it. Having a workable plan is another part. An oath is a form of jeopardy, to contest it you've got to be exposed to equal jeopardy. Legitimate service must have value, eg for an eviction you'll have to be able to assert authority over the premises. If you're accusing someone of treason then you should have a way to administer due process.

Or you could figure out what the problem is and do something about it. Nothing wrong with holding a Constitutional Convention. The tricks is knowing the difference between a wish list and a remedy.

Civil rights are not the same as natural rights. Natural rights are more powerful because they don't derive from the body politic. It's the WHAT that matters. The DoI doesn't declare Independence from the Creator. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Yeah, that's empire 101. If you don't get the basics right the best that you can hope for is a different empire with different victims. Criminals have values, too.

"Gab.com is under maintenance" Gab has been reworking it's interface over the past weeks.

Common law sovereignty was replaced by civil government. Rights don't derive from force of arms, they're based on ethics. The first step in changing things is working out what your message is. If it only addresses the symptoms of the problem then you're not going to get lasting results.

By not endorsing it and by finding an alternative.

Dershowitz can eat shit and die. From Blackstone: With regard to the first of these, the declaratory part of the municipal law, this depends not so much upon the law of revelation or of nature as upon the wisdom and will of the legislator. This doctrine, which before was slightly touched, deserves a more particular explication. Those rights then which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture. Neither do divine or natural duties (such as, for instance, the worship of God, the maintenance of children, and the like) receive any stronger sanction from being also declared to be duties by the law of the land. The case is the same as to crimes and misdemeanors, that are forbidden by the superior laws, and therefore styled mala in se [wrong in itself], such as murder, theft, and perjury; which contract no additional turpitude from being declared unlawful by the inferior legislature. For that legislature in all these cases acts only, as was before observed, in subordination to the great lawgiver, transcribing and publishing his precepts. So that, upon the whole, the declaratory part of the municipal law has no force or operation at all, with regard to actions that are naturally and intrinsically right or wrong. INTRODUCTION, SECTION 2: Of the Nature of Laws in General

Someone was sending a message. IIRC it was to dark for the witness to see detail like moles and the two sketches were supposed to be of a single suspect.

person (n.) c. 1200, persoun, "an individual, a human being," from Old French persone "human being, anyone, person" (12c., Modern French personne) and directly from Latin persona "human being, person, personage; a part in a drama, assumed character," originally "a mask, a false face," such as those of wood or clay, covering the whole head, worn by the actors in later Roman theater. OED offers the general 19c. explanation of persona as "related to" Latin personare "to sound through" (i.e. the mask as something spoken through and perhaps amplifying the voice), "but the long o makes a difficulty ...." Klein and Barnhart say it is possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask." Klein goes on to say this is ultimately of Greek origin and compares Persephone. De Vaan has no entry for it. https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=person Persons don't have natural rights like liberty.

The chosen aren't human, since humans have the state as their "God". Humans got their name of homo humanus from Rome, and then they added the idea that everyone was like they were. The definitions of "human" come from Cicero, Christianity, and Marx. The chosen have had their own problems with idolatry as well.

Noahide law doesn't replace natural justice, it endorses it (Genesis 9:5-6).

You asserted your rights (a good first step) but then changed your position by arguing need, which implies that the law isn't relevant. 200 means success - the upload worked but the forum won't display then for a different reason. Maybe they're in a format that the forum can't work with.

Because of natural law. If they don't have consent then they get stung by the blowback.