Susan Combs was sworn into office as the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts on Tuesday. On Wednesday, she shared some interesting thoughts on homeschooling:
When our forefathers crossed the Atlantic Ocean to settle in America, they came for a variety of reasons, but one was uppermost: freedom – freedom for themselves and their families, freedom of religion, freedom from oppressive government, and freedom for opportunity.
Thanks to these pioneers, Americans, including Texans, are blessed with a strong and open form of government. However, for those among us who wish to homeschool our children, it has not always been easy, even though recently home schooling has gained national acceptance and recognition. Clearly, it is not a question of the quality of the education that is provided. After all, the early settlers here home educated with remarkable success. read the rest
The introduction struck me. We came here for freedom and we are still fighting for it. It is not something born of complacency. It is not a gift, nor can it be purchased.
It must be fought for, nurtured and protected.
I stated previously that in this current race, a candidate’s stand on homeschooling is at the bottom of my list of concerns. It isn’t because homeschooling is not important to me, nor even that it ranks beneath other issues, necessarily. The Headmistress, Zookeeper over at The Common Room came closest to putting my thoughts into words (emphasis mine):
…I haven’t decided yet who gets my vote, and while a stand on homeschooling matters to me, it matters because it’s an indication, a benchmark, of how that candidate understands the Constitution and the liberties we all should cherish, it’s not my only question, and it’s not as important to me as pro-life issues. The Common Room
I am not an “issues voter.” I do not write out a list of issues important to me and rank candidates accordingly. I am also not a “values voter,” which is perhaps one of my least favorite terms to have eeked its way into American politics. I vote according to the principle outlined in Reagan’s stump speech for Barry Goldwater in 1964 I quoted previously: up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order–or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.
I am looking for a president who is strong on national defense, has a strong commitment to federalism at home and recognizes the value of individual liberty and responsibility. I am not looking for a president who will grant me personal favors, nor who will further my personal causes and beliefs. I want my freedom of conscience protected, not legislated.
I seek what our forefathers came to this country seeking: freedom from an oppressive government and the freedom to raise my family according to my own conscience.
[tags]homeschooling[/tags]
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
Thanks for the tip on the Susan Combs article.
You’re welcome! It was a nice article!
“I am looking for a president who is strong on national defense, has a strong commitment to federalism at home and recognizes the value of individual liberty and responsibility. I am not looking for a president who will grant me personal favors, nor who will further my personal causes and beliefs. I want my freedom of conscience protected, not legislated.
I seek what our forefathers came to this country seeking: freedom from an oppressive government and the freedom to raise my family according to my own conscience.”
I knew there was a reason I liked visiting your site, our values spring from the same sure foundation. Nice to have you in the neighborhood.
Nice post!
I am an issues voter–I want somebody who represents my concerns and causes and issues to lead my country. However, I do realize that the Executive Office is limited in its powers, so that my issuse and attention must also carry through to elections that don’t always get as much coverage.
Being an issues voter however, does not mean that one of my issues is not an adherence to the Constitution or the preservation of the precious document
Values, I suppose, become more important to me as I age…but not to the extent that most people use the term. I suppose my values are more liberal than some, more expansive…either way the values issue rarely plays a part in my choice of a candidate unless I find them completely egregious.
Thanks, T.F. Stern!
And Shawna, in a way, we are all “issues voters” and “values voters” for the reasons George F. Will outlines in the linked article.
What I mean by that is that I don’t prioritize issues and vote according to the prioritized list, but rather look at the issues as a whole to try and determine whether the candidate adheres to the basic principles I think advance liberty.
A lot will face the nation over the four years than the issues conservative, evangelical Christians tend to vote on. If a candidate chooses a stance I disagree with on an issue, but does so for reasons that respect federalism, that speaks to me of how they are likely to react to unforeseen challenges that will likely surface as president.
If they take a stance I view as correct, but I suspect it is only to cater to the “religious right,” it leaves me suspicious that they will govern according to opinion polls rather than on the principles they supposedly are there to uphold.
Does that make any sense?
I would say I am a ‘principles’ voter- if a candidate stand on certain principles (the Constitution and Bill of Rights) then you can with fair accuracy predict where they will stand on important issues.
If they employ the ‘wet finger in the wind’ method, then you never know what they are going to do, ’cause neither do they until the poll data comes in.
A candidate that believes in freedom is going to naturally support home education.
Well, I guess I am a “money” voter.
My biggies on deciding a candidate are:
1. Taxes
2. National Security
3. Morals/issues last
When you work your tail off day after day, week after week, and see approximately 33-35% of your paycheck disappear each week to pay local, state, and (mainly) federal taxes, you cringe. Or at least we do.
So I will go on record saying I vote where my money goes. I’m all for social justice, and I even believe in a social compact, somewhat. But, I think our government is REALLY BAD at blowing money on more and more stupid programs.
While homeschooling, abortion/pro-life and things are important to me, they are not first in line. Selfish? Maybe. I don’t know but it is my honest position.
Money is a big thing…”the pursuit of happiness” was closely associated to the concept of personal property. And I would say that a candidate’s stance on taxation demonstrates what they thing the role of government is.
Sunniemom, I agree! Except that if a candidate were to say they were personally opposed to homeschooling and thought it was a bad choice, but it was a state issue he would do nothing to interfere with, I could conceivably vote for him. : )
Amen.
Kevin was talking to a guy in Iraq about America while he was there in 2003. He was trying to tell the guy “what was so great about America”… and he used the word “free”. The Iraqi man said, “What is freedom?” Kev said - “well, we vote for our leaders”. The Iraqi said, yeah - we do, too. The difference in our elections here is that there is only one person on the ballot and you have two. Is that so free?”
I was talking with Kevin last night about the elections and he looked up the primaries procedure online. I read up on the details behind the primaries and it strikes me that we really aren’t a free country any more (which is why Ron Paul isn’t getting air time on TV and why no other candidate has a chance of winning unless they are Republican or Democrat). I don’t know why it has taken me this long to let the gravity of what all this means sink in, but I guess I try really hard to be optimistic - which has prevented me from wanting to really research government a lot. Take a long hard look at the wiki article on the primaries and let me know what you think of the “process” that has changed our free nation into something quite different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary
The primaries are a joke. Only a handful of northern states having the right to control the entire direction of the election process is NOT fair. It doesn’t represent ME (a southern big-state girl). Not only that, but there are loopholes that the parties have about every little thing. They can strip states of delegates (giving them less power to choose), they can NOT allow states to have ANY choice (as in the case of Florida this year)… and they can pick their own superdelegate or reject any candidate they want. Also, states hold early primaries to try and beat other states out (so if one state that has HALF the popluation of the next happens to have their primary first, they get more say. That’s not fair either.
Here’s a quote from the article:
I don’t live in Arkansas anymore - and never lived in Mississippi… I live in Texas. And with our population, you would think they would give us a say down here. No wonder so many Texan cowboys ride around in trucks with bumper stickers that say “Secede” on them. I’m not sure seceding would help much, though. Especially since the alternative to being part of America is really being part of Mexico. I think maybe heaven is the only real alternative to oppression and evil. So I guess I’m an earthly expat when it is all said and done.
Sprittibee—
You are dead on about the primaries. It drives me crazy. By the time the primaries make it to NC where I live, it is a done deal 9 times out of 10. My vote is meaningless.
I say let’s abolish these state-by-state random picked dates for primaries and caucusing and have a NATIONAL caucus/primary day.
Just like election day. We all vote in each state on the SAME day.
And then we tally the electoral college, just as we would for a “real” election. The one with the most votes, wins the nomination.
Is that TOO easy?
Sprittibee, at least you have a decent Comptroller of Public Accounts! I actually decided I kind of like the game of musical chairs the Democratic Party plays. Everyone goes and stands in the space of the person they want nominated. After everyone is situated, those stragglers standing alone for the last place candidates have a chance to change votes, giving underdog supporters a second vote. : ) Creative, anyway.
I’ve read a lot on the primaries, but can’t decide what exactly would be better and what would change, if anything. The problem, I think, runs a little deeper than just this odd tradition that has developed. If you haven’t see it, this is a good article on the subject.
The two party system is a separate issue. And I do have a number of thoughts. Maybe I’ll post on that Sunday. It is a bit much for a comment. But I will say that liberty is more than the number of people on the ticket. Our liberty isn’t secured by our elected officials, but is protected by the constitution.
Oh, part of Kansas wanted to secede from Kansas but they weren’t allowed to. It was over redistribution of property taxes. They wanted the money to stay in their school district. Could have had 51 states, with “Southeast Kansas” or whatever it would have named itself being a tiny little Rhode Island type state in the middle of the Midwest.
Well, Dana - I have to say that I enjoy reading your thoughts on politics and am thankful that there are people like you who have thick enough skin to stick to the topic and keep us all informed. I really enjoyed reading Spunky’s stuff because she also was not afraid of blood-boilers and controversy. I tire and depress too easily when I start thinking long and hard about government. Not that I can’t hold my own in a discussion, but I just want to cry when I think about our forefathers bleeding to death for such as this system we have today. I’m too sensitive. My heart is always on my sleeve. This discussion today in your comments is about as much as I’ll probably discuss the elections for a while. But I’ll certainly be reading… so keep it coming!
By the way, Lindsey - I agree with your idea. National primaries sound good. I also think it should be illegal for any media to ban a candidate from fair coverage. In my eyes, that is unconstitutional. Maybe we should sue the press. Good luck, eh?
Sprittibee–I love talking politics. It has been awhile since I really got into it, but my thoughts are nothing blood-boiling. A little about how we’ve drifted. George Washington had some interesting thoughts on the development of political parties, but the two party system isn’t all that bad. There is a lot of good in it that we don’t always think about. I haven’t always.
The media is an interesting conundrum. I think it would actually be unconstitutional to tell them they have to do anything. We have a free and independent press. That may make some of us laugh, but you should see foreign press. Ours is pretty good.
Here is an interesting article I thought you might like:
What if they held an election without the media?
It would be nice if “the observer effect” were the only variable. But the press doesn’t just passively observe, it creates news, as well.
That is why I like blogs. We don’t pretend to be unbiased.