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.

[Grampa Dave]

Great swelection of 0b0z0 photos.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for funding my education at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard and the hundreds of millions of $’s enabling me to become president.

[Question_Assumptions]

I think the questions raised by the AP photo of his Indonesia school registration, alone, is enough to ask him to prove his citizenship. I think it would also be nice for the courts to define exaclty what a “natural born citizen” is and if having a foreign-born father is also an issue. And the fact that he claims to have lectured on Constitutional Law also raises a lot of questions about why he won’t prove his citizenship. Oh, I think the lawsuits are legitimate and the denial of standing absurd. I just don’t expect to find out he was born in Kenya, though if that happens, the mainstream media should be shamed into mass resignations, if not sepuku, for the lame vetting they gave him.

[Windflier]

I think the questions raised by the AP photo of his Indonesia school registration, alone, is enough to ask him to prove his citizenship.

Agreed, and what you said afterwards is the best answer to that statement:

...the mainstream media should be shamed into mass resignations, if not sepuku, for the lame vetting they gave him.

Obama could not have been elected without the full co-operation and complicity of the MSM. They will also do everything in their power to bury or ridicule the BC issue into insignificance.