God-Given Rights vs. Man-Given Rights: Why Obama's Bow Matters

Various | 04/09/09 | Reaganesque

[Reaganesque]

Sometimes, protocol is not merely staid, formulaic and meaningless ritual. Sometimes it is founded in deeply held, core principles. One such example of a protocol based upon a core principle is that of the President of the United States never bowing to a foreign sovereign or lowering our flag in deference to said sovereign. We are not being disrespectful because we see ourselves as better than this or that leader. We are standing upon our principles.

Unfortunately, as the controversy over President Obama’s bow before the King of Saudi Arabia has demonstrated, such core principles are lost on those who either choose not to acknowledge them, are unaware of them or actively oppose them. I have read with growing despair the comments of those who seek to dismiss our President’s bow to the King of Saudi Arabia as nothing more than “being polite” and “showing respect.” These people are living proof that the education of our children about the history and founding philosophies of this great nation is sadly lacking if it exists at all.

There is a very solid, philosophical and principled reason why the President of the United States does not bow to foreign sovereigns. The United States of America does not recognize the notion of a ruling class or any fixed class structure; therefore, showing any kind of acknowledgement of the supremacy of a foreign sovereign over his or her people is a violation of our core belief that, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness….”

Our founders believed that an individual’s right comes from God and not from man. These rights, coming from God, should not be infringed upon by man and that secular government is instituted as a tool of the people to secure those rights. In a monarchy, rights are granted by the sovereign; a man (or woman). And given that human beings are subject to human frailties, such rights are often given and taken away on a recurring basis. Our Founders rejected that notion as antiquated, tyrannical and self-serving for a ruling class that deemed themselves to be inherently superior to those they governed by right of their man-granted title.

John Quincy Adams once said of the English monarchy:

“The people of Britain, through long ages of civil war, had extorted from their tyrants not acknowledgements, but grants, of right. With this concession they had been content to stop in the progress of human improvement. They received their freedom as a donation from their sovereigns; they appealed for their privileges to a sign manual and a seal; they held their title to liberty, like their title to lands, from the bounty of a man; and in their moral and political chronology, the great charter of Runny Mead was the beginning of the world . . . the fabric of their institutions . . . had been founded in conquest; it had been cemented in servitude . . . instead of solving civil society into its first elements in search of their rights, they looked back only to conquest as the origin of their liberties, and claimed their rights but as donations from their kings. This faltering assertion of freedom is not chargeable indeed upon the whole nation. There were spirits capable of tracing civil government to its foundation in the moral and physical nature of man; but conquest and servitude were so mingled up in every particle of the social existence of the nation, that they had become vitally necessary to them . . .” (Runny Mead is also spelled Runnymede; emphasis per original.)”

-John Quincy Adams in a Fourth of July address, 1821

Alexander Hamilton commented on this principle in Federalist Paper #84:

“It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. ``WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.’’ Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.”

And, as Hamilton quoted from the Constitution of the United States:

``WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.’’

WE, THE PEOPLE did this; not the government. We did this to “secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” WE, THE PEOPLE did not get this from a man or a woman. WE, THE PEOPLE have these rights as a result of Natural Law or God’s Law. This is the very core of the American Philosophy of government.

Unfortunately, there are those in the United States who have either lost sight of this principle or disagree with it entirely. Indeed, there are those, particularly on the Left, that see themselves as a modern day aristocracy. They feel entitled to leadership as did the aristocracies of medieval times. They are entitled, in their minds, because of family position, inherited wealth and an over inflated sense of self. They have come to view the people as a tool of government and not the other way around. This is 180 degrees away from the original philosophy of our Founders; the philosophy that made this the great and free nation that it is.

Clearly, Mr. Obama believes, and his supporters enthusiastically enable him in his belief, that some people are just better than others and deserve to be in charge. Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and most of the Democrat Party leadership clearly, from their own words and actions over the past 3 months, clearly believe this as well. Only someone who believes that the people exist for the sake of government could demand control over the wages of the heads of private corporations and demand that private contracts be voided by the government for political, populist reasons. Only someone who believes in the supremacy of government over the individual could insist that opposition to higher taxation is “Un-American” and the usurpation of individual rights such as the right to bear arms is the height of patriotism. And only someone who believes that the government is the source of all rights could suggest that all of this country’s youth should be required by law to serve the government as part of their education and growth as human beings.

Mr. Obama and his supporters do not believe in this country as the Founders did. They believe that government as a tool of man is abhorrent, greedy and evil. They believe that rights come from that government and do not exist outside of it. All Statists, as Mark Levin calls them, do. They believe that they are the rightful leaders of this country by virtue of their self-proclaimed intellect, compassion, tolerance and enlightenment and that we, the uninformed, mean-spirited, downright stupid masses should recognize their superiority and serve them. This is what WE, THE PEOPLE and our Founding Fathers rejected and overthrew and is what WE, THE PEOPLE must now stand against.

Mr. Obama’s bow is a small, albeit unintended, signal of his belief in the supremacy of government over the people. Added together with his words and actions over the past weeks and months, it becomes fairly clear that this is, in fact, what he believes. This gesture is simply further evidence that he has no problem acknowledging a foreign sovereign because he believes in, agrees with and admires that philosophy of man granted rights government and that is why the bow is such a big deal. And, the fact that the White House has resorted to lying so obviously about the bow in the face of video documentation to the contrary, indicates that they know full well this is indeed the meaning of such a violation of a “meaningless” and “disrespectful” protocol.

[Sig Sauer P220]

Great post.....when Obama bowed....he bowed OUT of America’s exceptionalism...and as you said, in the belief that GOVERNMENT is the creator....of “rights” of man, of whatever citizens lives entail.

This POS doesn't represent nor speak for true Americans.

[Wil H]

Bam’s bow was his little muslim self getting carried away at getting to touch the robe of the keeper of the two holy shrines of his closet religion

And giving thanks for sponsoring and funding his Harvard education.

[I am Richard Brandon]

Not wishing to detract from the main argument here, I am appalled at the obvious contempt that the White House has for us.

We see the video of the event from more than one angle, what we see is a deep bow - and yet the WH expects us to believe their stupid and contemptuous explanation that it was not a bow.

I agree with Silverleaf - ingrained ‘education’ produces a Pavlovian response.

[Windflier]

For the record, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii and could likely defend his qualifications with respect to the other questions in court...

Think it through.

Obama would not have endured and absorbed all of the negative fallout over this issue if he could actually vaporize the issue by producing the vault copy of his original birth certificate.

And, he took all that risk during the campaign, when the issue had the potential to destroy his candidacy. The incentive to produce the vault copy of his BC couldn't have been greater, yet he chose not to produce it.

Why? (insert logic)

[goodnesswins]

YES...what YOU said....it’s scary...

[Sherman Logan]

I agree with you in general. I disagree on the following point.

They are entitled, in their minds, because of family position, inherited wealth and an over inflated sense of self.

The first two of these are not what "the annointed," in Thomas Sowell's term, base their right to rule on.

It is indeed a class prejudice, but has little to do with the type of class prejudice we know and love from Europe. It is a new type of class based on a combination of (the right kind of) education and the principles held, which they believe to be so self-evident only evil or stupid people could possibly disagree.

That is why Obama was welcomed so easily into the inner circle of the annointed. He has the right education and the right views. His lack of family position or inherited wealth is unimportant. Nobody in America cares much about these issues.

This is also why Sarah was so violently rejected. She doesn't have the right kind of education or hold the right views.

I agree with you on their inflated sense of self. :)

[Question_Assumptions]

Please note that I’m not saying that there isn’t anything interesting in his birth certificate, not any legitimate quesitons about his qualifications. It’s possible there is simply something embarassing in the birth certificate, too, but I think the newpaper birth reports are fairly strong evidence that make it most likely he really was born in Hawaii. I think the biggest problem is the Indonesian citizenship issue. If he was simply an Indonesian citizen because of his mother and adoptive father, I could see the courts giving him a pass on that. I also don’t believe the courts would say that he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen because his father wasn’t an American citizen. If, however, he traveled under an Indonesian passport as an Indonesian citizen as an adult, that could be a real problem.

[HighlyOpinionated]

Great Read. Very well put.

0bama has committed TREASON.

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Adhering = Joining In With Enemies To Aid Them In Their Goals.

A Genuflection to "the keeper of the two holy mosques" becomes "joining in with Moslems' beliefs" and these include the overthrow of every government until the entire world lives once again in the 7th Century under Sharia Laws.

Move over Benedict Arnold. Make way for the Traitor, B. Hussein 0bama.

[Windflier]

I think the newpaper birth reports are fairly strong evidence that make it most likely he really was born in Hawaii.

You may not have followed the BC issue as closely as some of us have. In 1961, anyone could file for a "Certification of Live Birth" in Hawaii. Many foreign nationals who were clearly born in other countries were issued these documents.

The Hawaiian newspapers of the day printed birth announcements via lists issued by the state records office.

ALL births recorded by the state of Hawaii were published in the newspapers, regardless of the location of the actual birth, or the nationality of the infant.

As long as someone filed for and obtained a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth", the notice would go out to the newspapers, and be published.

I also don’t believe the courts would say that he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen because his father wasn’t an American citizen.

Again, you may want to visit the Obama Birth Certificate threads on this website to gain more insight into that question. Go here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/birthcertificate/index

[MrB]

Allah has nothing to do with rationality. He is totally arbitrary, and from one instant to another he does whatever he pleases.

I read a book on this, The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West,

Islam could not make any advances in science because they could not assume that the universe and the rules thereof were rational and discoverable. To make such an assumption was an apostasy and referred to as "Chaining Allah".

[MrB]

God refers to Yahweh, the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Father of Jesus.

Islam’s deity, at best, can be referred to as Allah, but Satan’s minion or “moon god” would be more fitting.

[Cicero]

Exactly.

Islam is often given credit for passing the Greek texts of Aristotle on to Thomas Aquinas and Europe, and for various mathematical and scientific advances during their “golden age.”

But the truth is that these scientific and philosophical discoveries were mostly the result of their having conquered a number of high civilizations, such as Mesopatamia and Persia and Byzantium. Under Islamic rule, these ancient civilizations were gradually destroyed.

[Cicero]

Allah doesn’t give rights. Allah gives privileges, and the obligation of everyone else to obey their chosen rulers.

[Cicero]

You raise a number of issues. I’ll just speak to one. He is listed in written school records as Barry Soetoro, a Muslim and an Indonesian citizen. At that time, Indonesians were not allowed to hold dual citizenship. And no one but Indonesian citizens were allowed to attend those schools.

If neither Obama nor his parents re-applied for American citizenship after that, then he is not an American citizen at all, let alone natural born. He is an Indonesian citizen. He could have applied to be reinstated, but I don’t believe that he did.

There are, of course, many other problems surrounding this issue. We don’t know for sure without records and written evidence, but the probabilities are pretty high that he is not an American AT ALL.

[Question_Assumptions]

I’m aware of the various issues and I do think it’s possible that he wasn’t born in Hawaii but I don’t think that evidence is as compelling as the other claims.

[Grampa Dave]

Free Republic Browse · Search

Pings · Mail

News/Activism Topics · Post Article

---

Skip to comments.BOWelGate: Obama Shaking hands with shorter People - a story in pics
PA Times | 4/9/09 | Pissant

Posted on 04/09/2009 10:44:21 AM PDT by pissant

Well, now lets see here....

---

[Grampa Dave]

Free Republic Browse · Search

Pings · Mail

News/Activism Topics · Post Article

---

Skip to comments.BOWelGate: Obama Shaking hands with shorter People - a story in pics
PA Times | 4/9/09 | Pissant

Posted on 04/09/2009 10:44:21 AM PDT by pissant

Well, now lets see here....

---

[EdReform]

BTTT

[livius]

Mr. Obama’s bow is a small, albeit unintended, signal of his belief in the supremacy of government over the people.

Very good point! (And then, of course, there is that Muslim thing...)

[Mamzelle]

THANKS FOR GETTING ME INTO HARVARD LAW (caption)