Be honest . How much holiday cheer have you had today ? <| sep |> Hey I ' m ladders . I go up and I go down . <| sep |> Pencils by Paulo Siqueira , Inks by Amilton SantosIt does look a lot like Phil Jimenez though <| sep |> Get that card replaced . The US office opens again at Midnight Saturday . <| sep |> Literally a photo of a game with no price tag on it . <| sep |> World Peace ! D Just kidding , give me money . <| sep |> I totally agree with your first point about social convention . However , the god that Jefferson was referring to gave those rights simply by being god , therefore they could not have been arbitrary . Well , Jefferson was at best a deist . The Creator he referred to was almost certainly metaphorical , not intended to be an actual god at all . But given that he thought natural rights emerged from somewhere , I think he was just wrong . It doesn ' t work , logically , unless the god in question is functionally powerless , in which case there ' s no reason to call him a god in the first place , nor to suspect that he grounds natural rights in some sense . Allow me to expand on that . Does the god in question have any power over his own nature or what that nature entails ? If the answer is no , then he lacks power , and has no claim on the title of god . But if the answer is yes , then our natural rights exist only because in some sense he wills them to , hence my second point . I say this not be split hairs or be contrary , rather , because I ' m certain Jefferson would have insisted on something similar . This clause was the literal foundation of the document . Perhaps , but rather beside the point . As I said , I believe Jefferson was wrong on this and a great many other points , but then we ' d be veering into politics , which is a bit off topic .