Author: Marissa

bookmark_borderNew Raphael Semmes statue unveiled!

Posted on by Marissa

The statue of Admiral Raphael Semmes that I blogged about here has officially been unveiled!

Here are a few pictures from the days leading up to the unveiling (all posted by the Raphael Semmes SCV Camp #11 unless otherwise noted):

Here are some pictures of the ceremony from the Semmes SCV Camp.

Here is a beautiful photo of the statue from Monuments Across Dixie.

Here is a post by the Virginia Flaggers with more photos.

This excellent post by Dixie Forever contains more info about the history of the Semmes statue.

bookmark_borderExcellent post from Dave Smith…

Posted on by Marissa

This truly hits the nail on the head:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Dave Smith (@theproblemdavesmith)

(source here)

And some of the comments on the post are spot on as well:

“The thing about Kimmel is that he has never been funny.”

“The funniest thing about Kimmel was the irony of him losing his job for something he celebrated when it happened to others.”

“People need to realize Kimmel would applaud you losing your job for anything you say or think that doesn’t match left wing politics.”

bookmark_borderDon’t be someone who simply destroys and tears down…

Posted on by Marissa

An excellent post from Monuments Across Dixie:

 
 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Monuments Across Dixie (@monumentsacrossdixie)

Indeed, although writing and reading about history are meaningful pursuits, something even more meaningful is making history, specifically creating new statues and monuments. Nothing compares to the sense of pride that I feel when looking at statues like these:

Additionally, as the post states, it is indeed more honorable to build and create than to destroy and tear down. This is a fact lost on the “woke” bigots who think that destroying as much beauty and good as possible somehow gives them a claim to the moral high ground.

bookmark_borderExcellent article re: progressives’ hypocrisy on free speech

Posted on by Marissa

Check out this Substack post by Kaeley Triller Harms, which eloquently explains the despicable reactions to Charlie Kirk’s murder and the hypocrisy that they demonstrate.

Here is an excerpt:

For years, the Left has tightened the noose around free speech, punishing dissenters, reporting neighbors, threatening livelihoods, even lives, for the crime of calling a man a man. And now? Now you want to posture as defenders of open discourse. Really? Where were you?

And here’s the bitter irony: even as conservatives grieve, even as we bury our dead, your late-night court jesters use our wounds as punchlines. Jimmy Kimmel’s ‘primary job’ is to entertain, to unite audiences in laughter. Instead, he exploited a brutal murder to insult half the country. Tell me: what other job in America allows you to spit in your customers’ faces while they’re mourning and still keep your paycheck?

But now – when it’s your speech at stake – you cry ‘free speech’? Do you know what happened to a conservative for speaking freely last week? He was executed while addressing an audience at a university. Until you confront that reality, don’t expect sympathy.

I’ll tell you what’s happening. You built this system. You enforced it on everyone else. And now you’re beginning to taste its consequences.

I agree 100% with this analysis.

You can read the rest here.

bookmark_borderA vigil for Charlie Kirk and a visit to Christopher Columbus

Posted on by Marissa

On Thursday night, I attended a candlelight vigil for Charlie Kirk. Conservatives, libertarians, and supporters of free speech gathered on the Boston Common to pay tribute to the political activist who was murdered for speaking out about his beliefs. It was heartwarming to be among fellow non-woke people, a rarity in my state of Massachusetts, holding candles as the dusk settled around us on the steps of the State House. The crowd was sufficiently large that it was difficult for me to see or hear the speakers, but I still enjoyed the comforting and welcoming atmosphere. Even though I didn’t know anyone, I didn’t feel uncomfortable or out of place. Unfortunately, the event ended rather abruptly when the police kicked everyone out of the Boston Common, apparently because Antifa had threatened to blow people up.

One positive result of the terrible but unsurprising actions of Antifa was the fact that I had time to visit Christopher Columbus. After cops spread out across the Common, herding people towards the exits, I meandered towards the North End to visit my favorite statue. Passing through the congested streets, lined with restaurants, caffes, and cannoli shops that were still packed with happily chatting patrons at nearly 10:00 p.m., I smiled as Christopher came into view. He looked somewhat ghostly, with lights starkly illuminating his white marble face, but as magnificent as ever as he surveyed the neighborhood from his granite pedestal behind the gates of St. Leonard’s Church. I was happy to see him, and I like to think that in some strange way (although I understand that scientifically there is no way for this to be true) he was happy to see me as well.  

As I passed beneath the wrought iron gate, I was enveloped by the soft music and tranquil atmosphere of the church’s aptly named Peace Garden. Lanterns bathed the garden in a warm glow, and the banter of the diners trickling out of nearby restaurants faded into nothing. Several statues share the garden as their home, and each is lovingly cared for and surrounded by beautiful landscaping and flowers. Because Christopher is the garden’s newest resident, the landscaping around him was, for a while, relatively meager and plain. But no more. I was heartened to see that in addition to beautiful rose bushes at his feet, he now has a huge sunflower next to him. As tall as he is, it added a bright and cheerful touch to the nighttime scene.

Until that moment, sunflowers had been one of the numerous, numerous things tainted for me by the atrocities that our society committed against statues. There was a sunflower garden in the park that Christopher used to call home before a sadistic bully ripped his head off of his body. The organization that runs the park, rather than publicly condemning the vicious destruction of the statue that had been its namesake and centerpiece, continued to make lighthearted social media posts as if nothing was wrong. Ignoring what was done to Christohper, they posted about children’s events, shared senior and engagement photos that people had taken in the park, and gushed about the various flowers that were blooming… including sunflowers. So for over five years, I haven’t been able to glimpse a sunflower without being reminded of the cowardice of the people that should have stood up for Christopher but failed to. The tall, yellow flowers, like so many previously innocuous objects, locations, and people, were transformed into a painful reminder of horrible events.

But as soon as I saw the sunflower next to Christopher, this completely changed. Now, sunflowers are associated with Christopher himself. Now, the tall, yellow flower is innocent once more, and even has positive associations, due to its proximity to the statue that I love.

I went up to the fence to share a few moments with Christopher. I told him about the vigil that I had come from, and the fact that Charlie Kirk was murdered at least partially for speaking out in defense of statues like him. I like to think that Chris was proud of me for going. I told him that I liked his roses and his sunflower, and that he looked awesome as usual. I like to think that he remembers me, even though it has been six months since I last saw him. I told him that I had wanted to visit him over the summer, during one of the traditional Italian feasts that take place in the North End, but my time and energy limitations didn’t allow it. I like to think that he forgives me. 

I wandered around the grounds for a bit, glancing at the other statues, the flowers, the various signs and plaques, and an interesting sculpture called the Noble Journey. Two women strolled down the main path and stopped to look at Christopher, and a few moments later a young man did as well. I realized that to Chris, I might be just one human among hundreds, thousands, and perhaps millions of visitors that he receives. I realized that he might not care about me or even remember me at all.

Do you like having so many people come and see you? I asked him. I could tell by his benevolent gaze that he did. You like everyone, I remarked, unless they’re a jerk, or a woke person. But maybe you like me a little better than the average person? Maybe you remember me from all the times I’ve visited you over the years, in your various locations? And in the slightly humid air of the warm September night, I could feel him answer yes. 

I walked back out, beneath the wrought iron gate, and turned to admire him one more time – he surveyed the still bustling streets from his serene perch and caught the eye of several passersby who turned their heads to look at him – before saying a final goodbye. I stopped to purchase a strawberry and raspberry flavored gelato from one of the many cute shops that lined the streets. And I made my way home with a refreshing treat, positive memories of another visit with my statue friend, and a small piece of my trauma healed.

bookmark_borderRest in peace, Charlie Kirk

Posted on by Marissa

“The left claims that destroying a century-old Robert E. Lee statue by a great American artist represents ‘healing.’ The truth is the exact opposite. Letting the South publicly honor its experience during the Civil War was a major part of the nation’s post-war healing, and allowing different political factions to celebrate their own heroes is a key part of political harmony. Destroying the Lee statue isn’t about healing. It’s an act of aggression, a show of dominance and hatred by people who want America’s history, its historic values, and yes, its historic people wiped out.”

– Charlie Kirk

(source here)

I’ve written numerous times that the atrocities perpetrated against statues and monuments are the exact opposite of healing. Charlie Kirk thought so as well, and articulated this idea perfectly. This quote shows that Charlie truly understood. He had the courage to speak out for what is right, and he paid with his life.

Thank you, Charlie.

bookmark_borderHegseth is right to restore the Reconciliation Memorial… but not for the reason stated in this article

Posted on by Marissa

I recently saw a great opinion piece in the Hill by Donald Smith, arguing in favor of the decision to restore the Confederate monument at Arlington National Cemetery. Smith presents evidence that the “Naming Commission” that committed this despicable action did not actually have the backing of the American people. Although this may very well be true, in my opinion, this isn’t really relevant to the fact that removing the monument was wrong. So while I appreciate this opinion piece and Smith’s courage in speaking out in favor of the monument, my reasoning for opposing the monument’s removal is a bit different.

“By ordering the monument back, Hegseth is subverting Congress and the will of the American people,” said Ty Seidule, the intolerant bigot who served as the vice-chair of the “Naming Commission.” This may be true, and it also may be false, as Smith argues in his opinion piece. But the truth is that ordering the monument back is the right thing to do, regardless of the desires of Congress or the American people. This is because removing statues and monuments is objectively wrong, regardless of how many people support it. If undoing a horrifying, repugnant, and disgraceful atrocity constitutes subverting Congress and the will of the American people, then Congress and the American people deserve to have their will subverted.

In 2024, members of the “Naming Commission” stated that by passing the 2021 NDAA, which contained the provision to create the commission, “bipartisan supermajorities of 81 senators and 322 representatives declared it was time to try to end Confederate commemorations.” Smith argues that this wasn’t really the case, because the creation of the commission was merely one small part of the NDAA, which is a huge bill, and voting in favor of the bill itself doesn’t necessarily mean that one supports that particular part. This argument may be right, but more importantly, ending Confederate commemorations is objectively immoral. Ending Confederate commemorations inflicts horrific and unbearable pain on innocent people, destroys everything that makes life worth living, and sends the message that people who are different from the norm should not be allowed to exist. Merely reading the words “try to end Confederate commemorations” make me feel physically sick. The thought that anyone would even remotely support this is absolutely disgusting. Therefore, ending Confederate commemorations is morally wrong, regardless of how senators and representatives feel about it.

And in the commission’s final report, they state, “in passing the 2021 William M. ‘Mac” Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act, the United States Congress determined that Confederates and the Confederacy no longer warrant commemoration through Department of Defense assets.” Except that Confederates and the Confederacy do warrant commemoration. Because people who are different from the norm deserve to feel included, represented, and reflected in public art. We deserve to have lives that are worth living. We deserve to feel that we are allowed to exist. And without commemoration of Confederates and the Confederacy, none of these things are the case. Therefore, Confederates and the Confederacy do warrant commemoration. This is objectively true, regardless of what the U.S. Congress, or anyone for that matter, believes. Even if the U.S. Congress did actually determine that Confederates and the Confederacy no longer warrant commemoration, the only thing this signifies is that the U.S. Congress is wrong.

Seidule alleges that the Arlington monument “clearly commemorates the Confederacy and its purpose – chattel slavery.” First of all, I don’t get why it has become so popular over the last few years to call slavery, “chattel slavery.” Why not just call it slavery? Second, slavey was not the purpose of the Confederacy. Seceding from the U.S. and forming an independent country was. That’s why the Confederacy symbolizes rebellion, defiance, fighting back against authority, and being different. Third, yes, the monument clearly commemorates the Confederacy. And this is bad, how? That’s right. It isn’t. 

Removing Confederate monuments is objectively morally wrong, because it inflicts severe pain on innocent people, destroys everything that makes life worth living, and is a statement that people who are different from the norm should be obliterated from existence. The actions of the “Naming Commission” would be immoral even if they had the popular mandate that they claim to have. Removing Confederate monuments would be the wrong thing to do, and putting monuments back up would be the right thing to do, even if every single person in the U.S. and every single member of Congress felt otherwise. What is wrong is wrong, and what is right is right, regardless of the wishes, thoughts, feelings of the American people and their representatives.

bookmark_borderEverytown’s logical fallacies on Stand Your Ground laws

Posted on by Marissa

In a recent social media post, the Firearms Policy Coalition called attention to anti-rights organization Everytown for Gun Safety’s “research” regarding Stand Your Ground laws.

(Everytown refers to these laws as “shoot first laws,” which many commenters on the post correctly point out is a manipulation of language designed to make said laws seem reckless and unreasonable, when in reality they are not.)

“Shoot first laws are unpopular,” Everytown proclaims in large font at the very top of their page, blatantly committing what is possibly the most basic logical fallacy, equating popularity with goodness. Contrary to what Everytown presumes, how popular or unpopular something is, has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad. Okay, Stand Your Ground laws are unpopular. So what? What does that have to do with whether they are good or bad? Nothing.

“Legal experts and advocates also oppose Shoot First laws,” Everytown continues. A similar point applies here: the fact that legal experts and advocates oppose these laws, has nothing to do with whether the laws are good or bad. There’s no rule stating that whatever experts and advocates think is automatically true. Experts and advocates are simply people, just like anyone else. They could be right in their beliefs, or they could be wrong. 

“In 2012, the NAACP called for a repeal of these laws due to their effects of increasing crime and promoting racist violence.” The same point applies here: the fact that an organization called for a repeal of these laws, has nothing to do with whether or not the laws should actually be repealed. There’s no rule stating that organizations’ policy positions are automatically correct. Organizations can be right in their policy positions, or they can be wrong. An additional point also applies here: just as the popularity of a law is irrelevant to its goodness or badness, the effects of a law are irrelevant as well. The fact that a law would increase crime and/or “racist violence” has nothing to do with whether the law is good or bad. Goodness and badness are determined by the intrinsic morality of a law or policy, not the effects. Additionally, I do not see how it would be possible for Stand Your Ground laws to promote “racist violence,” because Stand Your Grounds laws do not have anything to do with race.

And furthermore, there is a very important point to make about the NAACP itself. Over the past five years, through the positions that it has taken and statements that it has issued regarding the statue genocide, the NAACP has established itself as an organization dedicated to inflicting horrific, unbearable pain on innocent people, destroying everything that makes life worth living, and obliterating from the face of the earth every person who is different from the norm. Due to the bigotry, cruelty, aggressive intolerance, and complete moral bankruptcy demonstrated by the NAACP, I would argue that there is a very strong negative correlation between whether the NAACP has expressed support for a policy position, and that policy position’s likelihood of being right. In other words, the fact that the NAACP called for a repeal of Stand Your Ground laws is strong evidence that these are good laws that should not be repealed.

“And in 2015, the American Bar Association also released a report recommending the repeal of Shoot First laws.” A similar point to the ones that I’ve made above, applies here: the fact that the ABA recommends repealing Stand Your Ground laws, has nothing to do with whether they actually should be repealed. There’s no rule stating that the ABA’s position on an issue is automatically correct. The ABA might be right on an issue, and also it might be wrong.

“According to an expert quoted in the report, ‘If our aim is to increase criminal justice system costs, increase medical costs, increase racial tension, maintain our high adolescent death rate and put police officers at greater risk, then this is good legislation.'” I don’t see how a criminal justice system would cost money, and so I don’t see how Stand Your Ground laws could increase “criminal justice system costs,” whatever the heck that means. I also don’t see how increasing medical costs is a bad thing, because in every transaction, the buyer of a product or service pays money and the seller of the product or service receives the exact same amount of money, so every transaction is a net neutral. Furthermore, I don’t see how Stand Your Ground laws could increase racial tension, because they have nothing to do with race. Most importantly, as I’ve stated above, all of this is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Stand Your Ground laws are good or bad. The effects of a law have nothing to do with whether the law is good or bad, because goodness and badness are determined by the intrinsic morality of a law, not its effects. By listing all of these irrelevant factors as if they are somehow significant, the ABA and their alleged expert demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes good and bad legislation.

So, yeah. Stand Your Ground laws are correct, because people have the right to use deadly force against people who trespass on their property. Trespassing on other people’s property is wrong, and therefore people forfeit their rights if they do it. It’s morally abhorrent to focus one’s criticism on the victims of wrong actions – as Everytown, the NAACP, and the ABA do – rather than the perpetrators.

bookmark_borderMini Lee statues, old and new

Posted on by Marissa

The project of recreating the Charlottesville statue of Robert E. Lee that was so cruelly destroyed is coming along. The full-size replica of the statue is physically in existence, but a pedestal is not, and neither is a location.

So, Monuments Across Dixie and the Alamo City Guards SCV Camp are joining forces to raise money for a base for the 14-ft statue.

You might recall that miniature Lee statues were sold to raise money for the creation of the statue, and a new batch of these is currently available to raise money for the pedestal. Monuments Across Dixie posted a reel showing them, here. While the first batch of mini Lee’s was green to resemble oxidation, the second batch is dark gray / black.

You can find more details at the Alamo City Guards’ website here – there are three donation levels which support both the Guards and the Lee statue’s base, with the highest level including a mini statue.