A Military Child Responds to Mike Huckabee

Is the purpose of the military to kill people and break things? Because Mike Huckabee seems to think so.

The Military is far from perfect, but in my experiences as a child of the military with two parents who are veterans, I’d say that the purpose of the military is to protect people. I’d say the purpose of the military is to help people. The military helps ensure that veterans have access to health care, and the opportunity to get an education. The military is a family.

The purpose of the military is not to “kill people and break things”. The Military, in an ideal world would exist as a defensive shield against threats both foreign and domestic. Our world might not be ideal, but I’ll actively argue against ANYONE who says that the military exists solely to kill people and break things. All Huckabee did in that statement is reveal his own nature as an imperialist, who views soldiers as tools of destruction and beings who foster hate, not heroes who risk their lives to ensure that I and all of my friends can go to school, that we are protected against anyone who’d otherwise happily slaughter us, and destroy our way of life. The Military has the potential to become the embodiment of the perfect union, a place where people are not defined by their birth, gender, religion, nationality, sexuality, or anything other than their desire to protect freedom and democracy.

The military could actually be the perfect “social experiment”, because the military is an existence like the United States should be, a place where everyone who surrounds you has a common goal. In the U.S. it is to have a good, and happy life, in the military that common goal is to ensure that OTHERS can have a good and happy life. In the military equality should be the order of the day, it shouldn’t matter if you’re cis or trans, what should matter is that you are filled with a patriotic duty, and love for your country and that has nothing to do with your gender.

I, as a military child who is in college thanks to the sacrifices of my family, by virtue of my own existence, prove how just wrong Huckabee is when he makes his idiotic statement about the “purpose” of the military. Do not believe Huckabee. Do not fall for his lies. The military exists to protect freedom, at the very least at its core, even if politicians revel in using it for malicious reasons. I believe the military and that the soldiers who’ve given so much for this country should all universally condemn his statements. None of the soldiers I know joined the military to “kill people and break things”. Even if they let their hate get the worst of them, they don’t see themselves as destroyers, but rather as protectors. If Huckabee got his way, the veterans of our nation could well be turned into tools used by an imperialist, to sow chaos and hatred around the world. Do not let him do what he wants. It’s time that all of us who can vote come together, and show Huckabee that the lives of our veterans matter more than whatever he wants from the Middle East, and from the world.

Mike Huckabee got it wrong. I hope that the results of the Republican Primary show him how bad he screwed up.

A Military Child Responds to Mike Huckabee

Access to College and Politics

The Democrats are not perfect. Not even remotely. But they are better than the alternative. Especially on the issue of student debt.

We, as students in college, cannot afford to forget that Bernie Sanders, Hilary Clinton, and Martin O’Malley have come up with approaches too making colleges affordable. But it isn’t just those individuals and it isn’t just student debt from tuition and housing, it’s also Richard Durbin. Richard Durbin, of Illinois, and Franken of Minnesota, with the Affordable College Textbook Act, which was shot down in Congress in late 2013. Another, similar bill, was introduced in the House, by Democrats Ruben Hinojosa of Texas, and George Miller of California. They didn’t pass.

Researching the Affordable College Textbook act reveals that ALL of it’s cosponsors were democrats. The bill in the House of Representatives had 47 Democratic Co-Sponsors. To be fair, the E-Book Access Act, introduced in March of 2014, by Suzan DelBene had a Republican Cosponsor, Richard Hanna, but also died in Congress. But the College Access Act, by Al Franken had no Cosponsors and died in Congress.

The reality is, the group that cares about improving the accessibility of college is the Democrats. Not just the Presidential Candidates, but MANY Democrats in the House and the Senate. We, the students in college need to remember who is really on our side.

Chris Christie said that debt is a part of the college experience, and that we who want a college degree should “earn it” which apparently entitles us to… debt, because you know, studying and earning the grades isn’t enough for him apparently. It’d be nice if we applied that logic to big businesses, given that he himself has given plenty of tax cuts to the wealthy. What Christie, and undoubtedly many of the modern Republican party want is the students to finance the wealthy, because the more tax cuts they get, the more we have to pay.

Students should be able to go to college, and not sweat about debt, or at the very least not debt because we’re pursuing an education. Don’t forget who wants to make our lives a bit easier.










Access to College and Politics

Post about Democrats running for President.

5 Democrats are running for President. Only heard of Sanders, Clinton, and O’Malley? You aren’t alone. So I wanted to make this little post about the 5 of them, including the big two, Sanders and Clinton.

1: Bernie Sanders. Who is he? He’s the junior senator of Vermont, and an Independent.
Pros: He’s progressive. In virtually every single issue. Virtually. That’s an important word here.
Con: He doesn’t have faith in gun control. That is surprising to a lot of people, and might actually help him win some 2nd amendment people. He has protected the gun manufacturers, not just gun owners. For someone who is seriously progressive, and has a RECORD demonstrating his progressiveness in virtually every other issue, this could appeal to some, and will undoubtedly push others away. I’ll be posting some sources here, but to be fair, he is still far more progressive than the others, and the statements he has made on guns, make sense.

2: Hillary Clinton. Who is she? Former Secretary of State, Former First Lady, and Former Senator of New York.
Pros: She knows what popular stances are on virtually every issue. She has an immense amount of experience, in a wide variety of careers. She knows how to appeal to people.
Cons: She changes positions easily. She is a “populist” in the worst sense of the word, wherein she changes positions to reflect the interests of the people, in the attention seeking way that such actions can be construed as.

3: Martin O’Malley. Who is he? Governor of Maryland.

Pros: He is a solid Democrat. He’s progressive, in a lot of different ways, and has among other things: fought to end the death penalty (I am in the middle, towards ending the death penalty weirdly enough), in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants, and marriage equality.

Cons: He doesn’t seem to be taken very seriously. Additionally, Baltimore was changed by his tenure as mayor. He and his supporters argue that things have improved (a statement that has been supported by quite a few articles on him), but there are still some issues. He’s largely a black-horse, due to the lack of overall name recognition.

4: Lincoln Chaffee. He is a former governor of Rhode Island.

Pros: He is seemingly a person of some integrity. He switched parties, and was according to some “the last Liberal Republican”, switching parties in 2007 (he was a Republican, became an Independent). He voted against using force to oust Saddam Hussein, and was supposedly the only Republican to do so.

Cons: Virtually no name recognition. At all. Not a serious contender unless he does something to gain a huge amount of attention.

5: Jim Webb. Former Senator of Virginia.

Pros: He has a “radical” agenda for the future of drug-use policies. (I’m being sarcastic, “radical” in this instance means an actual intelligent plan for the future of drug-policy legislation).

Cons: Same as Chaffee.

Sources: (on the candidates in the same order as listed above)

























Post about Democrats running for President.