Author: Marissa

bookmark_borderIncome tax is slavery

Posted on by Marissa

An excellent post:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Cam Higby (@camhigby)

This post perfectly explains why income taxes are morally wrong, while tariffs are not. Income tax by its very nature involves taking money directly from people. Tariffs do not. It really is that simple.

Additionally, the point about income tax being slavery is both true and relevant to the statue genocide. The perpetrators of this genocide demand the obliteration of any historical figure who participated in slavery in any way, without realizing that many policies that they themselves actively support also constitute slavery. Slavery does not just mean black people in the South working on plantations. It means forced labor in all its forms, and if you condemn the former without condemning all other forms of slavery just as strongly, that makes you both racist and a hypocrite.

A commentor on the post astutely points out: “When your earnings are taxed, effectively confiscating the fruits of four months’ worth of your hard work, it equates to depriving you of four months of your life. Taxation, under any reasonable definition, can be likened to forced labor.”

bookmark_borderPhotos of the aftermath of the statue genocide

Posted on by Marissa

Judy Smith recently posted some photos of a drive down Monument Avenue in Richmond, Virginia. These photos are heartbreaking. The one thought that echoes in my mind when looking at images like these is: How could people possibly think that this is a good thing?

Where there once were beautiful statues, there is now nothingness. Where there once was a celebration of history, there is now meaninglessness, purposelessness, and emptiness. Where people who are different from the norm were once accepted, now we are shamed, condemned, attacked, viciously hurt, excluded. Where life was once worth living, now it is not.

“We hate you,” the city of Richmond says to me, as well as to all people who are different.

The city of Richmond, like so many other cities across the United States, was completely ruined. Deliberately. On purpose. People actually thought that this was a good thing to do. How? How could they think this? It is completely incomprehensible to me.

These images depict the sickening result of the statue genocide. Statues of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jeb Stuart, and Matthew Fontaine Maury are supposed to stand on this street, where now there are only vacant expanses of dirt. I will feel rage and grief at what happened to these statues for the rest of my life. I will never fully heal, as long as these hideous wounds remain in the landscape of our country. What happened to these statues was wrong. These statues, these historical figures, and the fact that what happened to them was wrong, must never be forgotten.

bookmark_borderThe difference between supporters and opponents of MAHA

Posted on by Marissa

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by MICHAEL BOSSTICK (@michaelbosstick)

The most important sentence in this post: “the ability to impose those same views on others.” The controversy about RFK (which shouldn’t exist, because everyone should unanimously support him) is a conflict between two groups, one of which believes that the products and services of big food, big pharma, and the medical industry are good for people’s health, and the other of which believes the opposite. But the biggest thing at issue here isn’t what is healthy and what is not. It’s whether individuals should be able to make their own decisions about their health. Not only do RFK / MAHA opponents blindly follow the recommendations of the medical industry, but they believe that everyone else should be forced to do so as well. While RFK / MAHA supporters believe that every person should be able to make their own decisions.

And that’s what makes RFK’s critics morally wrong. Even more problematic than their erroneous beliefs about what is healthy, is their erroneous belief that they have the right to impose their own beliefs on others. The fact that it is morally wrong to require people to undergo a medical procedure shouldn’t be even remotely controversial. The right of people to make their own medical decisions should not be political. 

bookmark_border“No one elected Elon Musk”

Posted on by Marissa

“No one elected Elon Musk,” Democrats have been pompously stating (see an example here). 

This statement is angering for several reasons:

First of all, it is hypocritical. As various commentators on the post linked above have pointed out, no one elected Kamala Harris, or Bill Gates for the matter, yet Democrats aren’t complaining about them. 

Second, a good argument can be made that people did, indeed, elect Elon Musk. As DC Draino explains in the post linked above, Trump campaigned with Musk and made it clear that Musk would play a role in his government. Trump also campaigned on the idea of cutting wasteful government spending, which is exactly what Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency are doing. A majority of people voted for Trump, knowing that Musk would be part of his administration; therefore people did, arguably, elect Musk.

Third, even if no one elected Elon Musk, so what? Because taxation is morally bad, and government spending requires taxation, government spending is morally bad. Spending should be kept to an absolute minimum in order to keep taxation to an absolute minimum. Therefore, the steps that Musk and DOGE have taken to cut government spending are morally good. And this is true regardless of whether anyone elected Musk, and regardless of whether anyone voted in favor of the things that Musk and DOGE are doing. Moral right and wrong are completely independent of what anyone voted for.

As Robert Kroese points out in a tweet that is quoted in the post linked above, “I didn’t vote for the FBI, ATF, CIA, PBS, NPR, FDA, WHO, UN, IRS, Federal Reserve, EPA or CDC.”

And I didn’t vote for the historical figures that I love to be brutally murdered, or for all people who work at a company with over 100 employees to be forced to undergo a medical procedure.

Yet Democrats did these things anyway.

For them to pompously condemn and shame Musk and Trump for actually doing something good with the government, is reprehensible.

bookmark_borderFederal agencies abolishing discriminatory celebrations

Posted on by Marissa

Some great news from the Department of Defense and Department of Transportation:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Rogan O’Handley (@dc_draino)

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson)

I’m not sure whether other departments are doing the same thing under the Trump administration (it would be great if they are), but I came across these two posts and find this truly awesome. Black History Month, Women’s History Month, AAPI Heritage Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, and American Indian Heritage Month all have one thing in common: they are discriminatory. As the post from Secretary Duffy points out, these are celebrations based on immutable traits. These months, and other similar celebrations, honor some people while ignoring and excluding others. It’s not OK to celebrate women but not men, or to celebrate black, Asian, Hispanic, and indigenous people but not white people. Celebrating some people but not others is unfair, unjust, hurtful, and morally wrong. Kudos to the Trump administration for taking a stand against this.

bookmark_borderCNN’s despicable coverage of the Washington D.C. plane crash

Posted on by Marissa

Over the past few weeks, I’ve progressed far enough in my recovery from PTSD to be able to occasionally watch news again. Recently, I watched coverage of President Trump’s inauguration, and also of the tragic plane crash in Washington D.C., on Fox News. As heartbreaking as the latter topic has been, it is a positive development for me personally that I am once again (to some extent, at least) able to keep up to date with the happenings in the world. 

Unfortunately, while in a public place, I had the misfortune of passing by a TV that was tuned to CNN. And it was immediately apparent that I haven’t progressed far enough in my recovery to be able to watch CNN. Perhaps I never will. I was only able to watch for a few moments before becoming so disgusted that I had to walk away, but what I saw and heard was absolutely infuriating.

“Trump baselessly blames Democrats, DEI for plane crash,” read the headline at the bottom of the screen. It’s disgraceful that CNN would choose to include the word “baselessly” in this headline. Whether or not the blame is baseless, is a value judgment. It is a matter of opinion. Some people think Trump was correct to blame Democrats and DEI for the crash, while some people think he was incorrect. By claiming that Trump was “baselessly” blaming Democrats and DEI, CNN is clearly expressing the latter opinion. But news outlets are not supposed to state opinions. They are supposed to state only facts. For CNN to express a negative opinion of Trump in its headline is despicable. The headline should read, “Trump blames Democrats, DEI for plane crash.” There’s no reason whatsoever to put the word “baselessly” in this headline.

Next, a commentator contrasted Trump’s response to the plane crash with the ways that previous presidents handled various tragedies. As images of the wreckage of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building were shown on the screen, the commentator characterized Timothy McVeigh as a “right-wing terrorist.” Seemingly unaware of the irony of his words, the commentator proceeded to lecture viewers about how Bill Clinton “brought the country together” in the wake of the bombing, rather than reacting with blame and division as Trump (allegedly) did with the plane crash.

This is ironic because mentioning McVeigh’s ideology is the antithesis of bringing the country together. Like the use of the word “baselessly” in their headline, there is absolutely no reason for CNN to mention McVeigh’s ideology. Yet this commentator went out of his way to do so. This serves no purpose other than to insult and criticize right-wing people in their entirety by implying that they, as a group, are somehow associated with terrorism and/or more likely to commit terrorist acts than people of other ideologies. The commentator should have simply characterized McVeigh as a terrorist. Like with the use of the word “baselessly,” CNN’s decision to mention McVeigh’s ideology is despicable. It is also partisan and divisive, which is hypocritical given that those are the exact qualities that the commentator criticizes Trump for displaying.

CNN is supposed to be a news station. But instead, it has become a platform for stuck-up, condescending, and self-righteous people to insult those who are different from themselves. The behavior that I witnessed in the few seconds that I watched CNN – before my disgust forced me to walk away from the TV – was nasty, cruel, pompous, judgmental, mean-spirited, and unprofessional. CNN has no right to be regarded as a legitimate news outlet until this disgraceful behavior permanently comes to an end.

bookmark_borderYou know what’s “pure hell,” Tim Walz?

Posted on by Marissa

According to Fox News, Minnesota governor and vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz described he and Kamala Harris’s loss as “pure hell” and said that Democrats are “fatigued.”

You know what’s pure hell? Watching the man that you love be lynched. Seeing the noose tightening around his neck, and the mob of angry bigots pulling on the rope. Hearing the sickening thud as his massive bronze body falls to the ground. Watching his murderers celebrate their “accomplishment.” Watching them stand on the pedestal where the man you love stood just seconds ago, their hands raised in sickening triumph. Watching them pose for pictures with their knees on his neck as he lies, pitifully, face down on the pavement.

Seeing police officers lined up, off to the side, watching this horrifying scene unfold, doing nothing to intervene because they were instructed not to. Hearing this atrocity – a demonstration of pure hatred for you because you are different from the majority – characterized as “understandable” and an act of “civil disobedience.” Hearing that the main perpetrator was released with no punishment, and that the other perpetrators weren’t arrested or charged to begin with.

Having to somehow continue existing, year after year, in a society that considers the above scenario to be completely acceptable. A society that doesn’t care about your pain, that doesn’t care about your feelings, that doesn’t care about your viewpoint, that doesn’t care about your perspective.

This is pure hell, Tim Walz. This is what I’ve experienced. And you caused it.

bookmark_border“There are only two genders. LOL no.”

Posted on by Marissa

I recently saw a social media post that stated the above, presumably referring to President Trump’s executive order stating that the federal government will only recognize two genders.

To me, this post demonstrates the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of trans / LGBTQ activists. To use the words “LOL no” when discussing a political, ideological, or moral issue is to treat the entire issue as a big joke. After all, “LOL” literally means “laughing out loud” or “lots of laughs.” Anyone who would make a post like this is not suffering, not upset, not hurt, not angered or sad or outraged. They’re laughing. They’re having a perfectly good time. They’re joking around. A person who was actually being harmed by a policy – a person who was actually being oppressed and whose rights were actually being violated – wouldn’t be treating it this way.

Additionally, the use of the words “LOL no” demonstrates a sense of contempt for those who think differently. The person who made this post is literally laughing at Trump’s executive order. They are treating an executive order that they disagree with as something to ridicule, something to laugh at, something to make fun of. This person’s response to an (allegedly) objectionable policy is not hurt, anger, or sadness. It’s contempt and ridicule. And that speaks volumes. Responding to others’ ideas with the words “LOL no” means that you consider yourself superior to other people. It is a way of expressing that those who think differently from you are beneath you. 

Trans / LGBTQ activists claim to be oppressed, when the fact that they make posts like this demonstrates that they are not. A person who was actually being harmed by Trump’s executive order would not be treating the order as something to ridicule, something to laugh at, something to make fun of. They would be expressing anger and pain, not laughter. Trans / LGBTQ activists claim to be motivated by the ideals of inclusion and equal treatment, when in reality they are motivated by a sense of superiority and looking down on others. A person advocating for equality would not make posts expressing contempt for those who are different from themselves. Devotees of progressive ideology frequently call Trump a bully, and claim themselves to be standing up for those who are excluded and marginalized, but posts like this demonstrate that they are the true bullies.

bookmark_borderThe people who championed lockdowns…

Posted on by Marissa

“The people who championed lockdowns are now very sincerely concerned about ‘concentrated power,'” points out Dave Smith in this Instagram post.

He makes an astute point. And I also feel the need to point out that, even worse than lockdowns, these very same people also championed requiring people to undergo vaccines and medical testing. Their hypocrisy would be humorous if it weren’t so infuriating.