There once was a time in America when drafting contests were held to judge who wrote beyond compare about America. During one such competition in 1917, a man named William Tyler Page won the contest with “The American Creed.” A creed is a system, a doctrine, an oath, an article of faith, as well as a summarization of one’s overarching ideological beliefs. Individuals who stand by the American Creed base their identity on its core values; more importantly, our creed codifies individuals within our country as members of a nation of people who identify themselves—despite trivial differences and minutiae—as Americans; something greater than themselves. If you live in the United States of America, and identify yourself as an American, it will be impossible to avoid shivers and goose bumps while reading the American Creed; those uncontrollable sensations that remind you of your morality and mortality. Breathe it in my Brothers and Sisters, and take heart:

“I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.”

Did you feel that? I hope so.

In merely one hundred words – a feat in itself – William Tyler Page powerfully summarized both the American political tradition and the responsibilities of every citizen to his or her government. The American Creed uses passages and phrases from America’s Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and Daniel Webster’s reply to Robert Y. Hayne in the Senate in 1830. When Page was asked about what he had written, he said that, “It is the summary of the fundamental principles of the American political faith as set forth in its greatest documents, its worthiest traditions, and its greatest leaders.”

Being an American has a different meaning for every person. What does it mean to be an American? Well, first and most obvious, by being naturally born in America you are an American. However, that definition is a mere label, not an explanation of the deeper substance of being an American. For me, it means so much more than simply being born here. I believe that due to America’s prosperity in the twentieth-century, people have lost the deeper understanding of being an American. We are – individually and collectively – above all else, free. As Americans we are masters of our own destiny within the limits of our own laws; nothing can be forced upon us, so long as we remember that we are the “force” in our country, and never relinquish that position. There is enormous value in our unique brand of freedom where every American is ascribed worth, and where no single man is set above his fellow countrymen or our laws. We are “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Further, according to our founding fathers our rights and freedom come not from man, but are given to us providentially – therefore man has no jurisdiction over them.

The American Creed is something we can believe in, something we should believe in, more so now than ever before. The mantra of “change we can believe in” has eroded like ancient hieroglyphs, for which the key to interpretation is now lost. During the presidential campaign, this phrase was thought to be clearly understood, easily decipherable and even accepted as sound doctrine within the context of the emotion and historic nature of those months leading to and immediately following Barak Obama’s election. However, our American Creed is lasting. It is cemented into the very soil of our country, not merely the temporary banner touting the slogan of the day, flapping in the breeze. It is an oath – a covenant – that allows the citizens of this great nation a long range and accurate view of history and our future. Without its perspective, we’re forced to live in the moment with no ties to the past and limited or – even worse – distorted vision of our future. Our nation’s momentum, accelerated during the last election cycle, has lost the necessary grounding provided by its foundations. How can we – as Americans – move forward without this perspective and without being anchored in the principles and truths described in our American Creed? America does not need the kind of “change” it is undergoing today; it requires the steadfast belief and adherence to these principles and truths that have made our nation great.

This present generation of Americans has tolerated and even accepted the fleeting and the shallow phrases and promises of the current administration. In our fast-paced, instant download, microwaveable culture, perhaps it was inevitable that someone would capitalize on the desire for something new, fast and flashy. Contrast today’s instant gratification, buy-it-now-on-credit culture with that of our work-hard, save and live-within-your-means culture of our grandparents and great grandparents. Is it any wonder that so many of us were drawn to the quick-fix, sounds-great-on-a-bumper-sticker, highly marketed microwavable candidate Obama? But now…now that we’ve clearly seen that the goods we purchased are simply cheap foreign-made trinkets, will we stand idly by while the early predictions of Democracy’s failure come to fruition? Will we tolerate the very failure – a word which should not exist in any Americans ready vocabulary – of America? For me, the answer is, “not on my watch!”

The Sophist, Gorgias, founder of classic rhetorical theory said that, “If everyone, on every subject, had memory of the past and knowledge of the present and foresight of the future, speech would not do what it does; but as things are, it is easy neither to remember the past nor to consider the present nor to predict the future; so that on most subjects most people take opinion as counselor to the soul.” If there exists anywhere in literature a more relevant insight in today’s environment, I’ve yet to find it. The foundations of rhetoric have not lost their efficacy in over 2,000 years; will we allow the foundations of America lose theirs in less than 300? Has the very beating of our nation’s heart, as explained in the American Creed, been stopped by the charismatic, flashy rhetorical phrases of the last election, and our current President? Perhaps so, but persuasion is only effective when an audience is willing to accept “change.” I am convinced that this willingness was but for a season, and the leaves have already begun to fall off of the tree of “Hope and Change.” It is now time to remember, rekindle and recommit to the truth, the honor and the responsibility of being an American today, to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

By Jesse Allan Hackstaff

The way our system is set up in our country when it comes to presidential elections, the winner of each other state in the popular vote count takes all electoral votes, aka “Winner Takes All”. With this system, we have seen quite a few landslides, such as Reagan- Mondale, Clinton-Bush and most recently, Obama-McCain. But, what if each state were to enact legislation that gave electoral votes to the respective candidates based on the popular vote in each state. One would have to wonder how some of the election results would look after proportional voting went into effect? Bare in mind, this would make the popular vote just as effective as the electoral college.

I took 4 major elections in the last 25 years: 1984, 1992, 2000 and 2008. When we enact proportional voting here are how the numbers fall:

In 1984, Reagan soundly defeated Mondale, 525 electoral to 13 votes. Reagan that year won 58.7% of the popular vote to Mondale’s 40.5%. When you put proportional voting in place, Reagan wins 311 electoral votes and Mondale gets 227 EV’s. Reagan would still win the presidency but the margin of victory in EV’s would be cut by 214.

In 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain 365 EV’s to 173 EV’s. Obama also won 52.8% of the popular vote and McCain won 45.6%. With proportional voting, Obama wins 282 EV’s and McCain wins 245 EV’s with 11 EV’s split among third party candidates. Now we get into the heart of the matter: the 1992 and 2000 races.

In 2000, George W. Bush won 271 EV’s and Al Gore won 266 EV’s with 1 floating EV. Bush had 47.8% of the popular vote and Gore had 48.3%. With proportional voting the numbers look much different. Al Gore would have had 260 EV’s under his belt and Bush would have had 258 EV’s, with 20 EV’s going to Nader. This meant that Nader was the obvious spoiler and the election would have been thrown into the House of Representatives. Had Nader’s EV’s been split down the middle, Gore would have had the 270 to win the presidency. Now we look at the 1992 elections.

Clinton won with 370 EV’s and Bush had 168 EV’s, with Clinton winning 43% of the popular vote and Bush receiving 37.4%, followed by Ross Perot with 18.9%. Tack in there the proportional vote factor and the numbers do not look at all like the results of the election. Clinton would have received 232 EV’s, Bush would have received 199 EV’s and Perot would have been a spoiler with a whopping 107 EV’s. This means again the election would have gone to the House. Suppose though, we split Perot’s EV’s and gave each to Clinton and Bush. The numbers would break for Clinton, 285 1/2 to 252 1/2.

Perot according to many estimations, took about 65% of the potential popular vote away from Bush, which translated into 71 EV’s that would have gone to Bush, thereby giving Bush his re-election with 270 EV’s and Clinton with 268.

Proportional voting should be adopted in my opinion across the country for two reasons: candidates and states. Political parties, including third parties would be able to have access to states that typically are considered “red” or “blue” states. The popular vote then would have a deeper impact on the outcome of the presidential race and the Electoral College would not be criticized as ineffective and the larger states “control the outcomes”. The states’ voices would then be the second reason to adopt PV. Smaller states like NH and Vermont would be more empowered and could possibly tip the scale to one candidate or another. The other thing is the larger EV states would not be considered safe by either party, like California, Texas, New York or Florida. This puts all the states, and the potential voters into play, which means it would then be a free for all for the presidency and leadership, and direction our country goes.

Of the people, by the people, for the people.

What President Obama and those in favor of talks with North Korea fail to understand is that, like their fellow rogue regime in Iran, they have no intention of giving up their desires to acquire nuclear weapons and make misery for their neighbors. China will never be any help because having a pet attack dog in the form of Kim Jong-Il serves their purposes of creating regional instability that much easier, thereby increasing China’s ascendancy in East Asia.

Cross-posted at RudyCarrera.com.