Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bizarre kind of double-think. If someone the other side of the world tells you that you have the right to freedom of religion, but the authority you live under disagrees, and the people on the other side of the world don't do anything about it, then in what sense do you have the right? You don't - it's meaningless. If I say I have decided that you have the universal inalienable right to beer, but where you…
The concept is not new, 232 years old now, it shouldn't be that strange to you. The vocation of tyrants is to have their head cut at some point, more or less figuratively.
So even you know they aren't actually universal or inalienable.
232 years of pretending people have rights that they demonstrably do not have.