Sunday, August 19, 2012
By Rev. Michael Bresciani / The Western Center for Journalism
When this writer is not dealing with the religious beliefs and trends in the nation, I spend most of the remaining time on general trends, pop culture influences, and philosophical assuagements that are the ebb and flow of American society.
Little digging is needed to capture the tone and temper of the Obama campaign and the effect it has on the people. It is open and blaringly apparent that Mr. Obama can manipulate both words and emotions with all the skills of a pied piper. What he can’t seem to do is consistently tell the truth.
“Yes” is the easiest way to answer the question, but in fairness, let’s look at his record of campaign tactics to see if he has ever cajoled, threatened, coddled, omitted facts, blamed others, or twisted the truth in his campaign so far.
Blame vs. Responsibility
Barack Obama has for the last three plus years blamed George Bush, the weather, earthquakes, and Europe for most of the economic policy disasters he has personally engineered that are now bringing the nation’s economy to its knees. That’s not the debate; that’s the record.
We have all heard the terms “reverse engineering”, “reverse psychology”, and “reverse discrimination”; but now, courtesy of the mind of Barack Obama, a new term has emerged. It is ‘reverse responsibility”; it works both ways whether you did something or failed to do something. You can’t take credit for it.
It is best seen in the cartoon art found together with an article entitled “Built By Obama: What You See Is Not What You Get” over on the wildly popular website called The Peoples Cube. The article, which first appeared in PJ Media, is great, but the picture says it all. In a rendering of Mr. Obama’s head are two sections; one says, “If you’re successful, it’s to someone else’s credit.” The other section says, “If you’re a failure, it’s someone else’s fault.”
If this kind of thinking were found in a high school freshmen, we could laugh it off and forget about it; but in a sitting president, it is frightening.
Promise them the world, but give them…
In the 1950’s, Lavin perfumers launched one of its most memorable ad campaigns with the slogan “Promise her anything, but give her Arpege.” In the same spirit, Barack Obama has promised the gay community the whole world, short of hoisting the rainbow flag over the White House and the Congress. With ‘Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” gone and all new “hate crime” legislation enacted, it may not be too far off before we see the multi-colored flag waving over 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. What we know is that it is not about a flag, but it is about securing gay votes on November 6, 2012.
The thing about liars and the very father of lies himself (Satan) is that those who believe the lies not only have been duped, but they have also been gypped.
Constitutionally, the lie that the 14th amendment doesn’t cover the gays leads to frantic, fearful, and fanatical ways to prove that anyone who disagrees with them must be motivated by hate.
On the theological or biblical level, they have been duped and ultimately gypped because the lie that they have been ‘born that way’ effectively keeps them from the truth that they need to be “born again.” (Jn 3: 1-8)
Pander to special groups and minorities
Hispanic votes have been bought and paid for with a single stroke of the president’s pen by the recent executive order that grants amnesty to dependents of illegal aliens. Add to this the easing of border restrictions, and now millions of Hispanics would not dare risk the ousting of their champion for fear they may be deported. This is pandering with executive privilege, which historically speaking is unprecedented and lends new meaning to the word “pandering”. It lends nothing to the character of the president.
Since the border enforcement agencies have been defanged, 15 murders and rapes have been committed by released illegals. Exposing American citizens to murderers and rapists to garner a few votes makes simple lying look tame by comparison. Do Mr. Obama’s policies make him culpable for the murders and rapes done by the released illegal border crossers? Not according to Obama’s ‘reverse responsibility’ thinking.
Suppression of the Military Vote, which is ordinarily conservative
Before you fly away from this article in unbelief – read it yourself. The Obama camp has actually filed suit to keep our bravest and finest from voting in the last three days for early voters under the Voter Act. Ohio is a swing state, so some fifteen military organizations are counter-suing the DNC to make sure that their votes are not blocked. Need details? Check out Editor David Kupelian’s scathing article about the move to suppress and deny the traditionally conservative military vote from being cast.
Fight the states on voter ID Laws
Pennsylvania voter ID laws remain intact due to the 70-page decision by Judge Robert Simpson, but other states are still embroiled in Obama and DNC efforts to have ID laws nullified. Why would anyone in the nation be upset with a law that curbs voter fraud? This is a question millions are asking.
Fraud has been found on every level. It has been shown that cats, dogs, convicted felons, dead people, and imaginary people have been found on the registration rolls in some states. The Obama campaign is OK with most of them, and we can be thankful that intergalactic space aliens have not made themselves known as yet (or they too would be showing up on the voter lists.)
The Obama-led war to save women from the Draconian ways of the Conservatives
Since neither the GOP or conservatives in general have ever been at war with women, we have only to scratch the surface to ascertain that this make-believe “war” is based on a woman’s right to abortion.
Without criticism or scolding, it takes no great understanding of the use of the English language and the use of semantic devices to conclude that the death of fifty four million unborn babies and the word ‘health’ may be the single most self-serving use of a non-sequitur in the entire history of mankind. How does the death of anyone add up to “health”?
Statistically, 1.37 million women a year have an abortion; thus, it would be well within reason to assume that most of Obama’s female supporters and sycophants come from this large bloc of voters and from those who think abortion is perfectly OK, even though they may have never had an abortion.
We have all seen the pictures at Obama rallies filled with hand waving, clapping, and drooling women who seem only a short step removed from pictures of frenzied teenage girls at an Elvis or Beatles concert.
These kinds of women would throw Mother Teresa under a bus to spend a few seconds gawking at George Clooney or to get a chance to briefly touch the hand of their favorite celebrity. Being fed with smiles, humor, and feigned love, they can feel the heat, the luminescence, and the proof that this is indeed the man.
Nothing wrong with a little excitement, but it is the same kind of enthusiasm that helped to elect a pop-culture figure in 2008. If we have learned anything in the past four years, wouldn’t it be that pop-culture figures make very poor presidents?
It is here where we are forced to conclude that like the words of folksinger Tom Paxton’s famous song entitled ‘The Last Thing on my Mind’, it may be after all for these exuberantly impassioned sycophants “A lesson too late for the learning.”
Obama says: ‘The Ryan Plan’ is Armageddon for Seniors’ – utter nonsense
In fact, under Obamacare, both spending and the cost of Medicare will continue to soar. Ryan’s plan will not have any effect whatsoever on anyone over 55 and will not push Granny over a cliff as Mr. Obama and his Super-PACs are claiming in their extremely dishonest ad campaigns. We need to get the facts and convey them to seniors before they panic on the strength of a purely politically motivated misrepresentation of the facts.
An older gentleman many years my senior told me once that if you want to get people onboard a cause, you must be ‘against something.’ Anti- drugs, anti-alcohol, or anti anything will raise someone’s ire; and support will follow. In this nation, the greatest presidents were for something, usually America itself; and under their leadership, the country flourished.
What is Mr. Obama for? If the last four years have revealed anything, our perpetually-campaigning president has proven that he stands for only one thing – himself.
Using fear to extort votes from our seniors is cowardly and unprincipled; but whether you agree or not, it is obviously un-presidential. We can do better than this, America.
Atheists claim Ground Zero cross sickens them
Lawsuit says victims suffer dyspepsia, headache, anxiety, anguishBy Michael F. Haverluck / WND
A lawsuit that challenges the placement of the cross at the site of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center alleges atheist plaintiffs have suffered serious physical and mental illness because the religious symbol has made them feel excluded.
“The legal argument is absurd,” ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow charged Wednesday.
American Atheists, he said “is making some astonishing claims.”
The group contends the placement of the 17-foot-tall symbol at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum is making some atheists unbearably sick.
“The plaintiffs, and each of them, are suffering, and will continue to suffer damages, both physical and emotional, from the existence of the challenged cross,” the lawsuit American Atheists v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey states. “Named plaintiffs have suffered …. dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack.”
The suit explains the named plaintiffs “have seen the cross, either in person or on television, are being subjected to, and injured in consequence.”
Sekulow doubts the claims are true, finding it uncanny that only a select group of non-believers is susceptible to such a debilitating “disease.”
“These claims are ridiculous,” the ACLJ founder insists. “And so is the lawsuit. In just a matter of days, we will be filing a critical amicus brief defending this Ground Zero cross, which consists of two intersecting steel beams that survived the Twin Towers collapse on 9/11. We have a unique opportunity to not only urge the court to reject this flawed lawsuit, but to send a powerful message to the court: that more than 100,000 Americans are standing with us in this brief ─ urging the court to keep this powerful memorial in place.”
If American Atheists’ demand to remove the cross doesn’t succeed, organization officials already have an alternative: something else must be erected next to the cross.
“They even make a bizarre suggestion about erecting a ’17-foot-high A for Atheists’ to promote their non-beliefs at the site,” Sekulow said.
The American Atheists group is suing numerous individuals and organizations over the cross, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, World Trade Center Properties, Church of the Holy Name of Jesus and Friar Brian Jordan, who blessed the cross.
The main point of the action appears to be the indignation American Atheists President David Silverman feels about the God of the Bible and those who express faith in Him.
“The cross has become a Christian icon,” Silverman stated. “It has been blessed by so-called holy men a few times, and presented as a reminder that God, in his infinite power of goodness, who couldn’t be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists, or stop the fire, or hold up the buildings to stop 3,000 people from being crushed, cared enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. Ridiculous.”
Silverman and other atheists argue that the cross unconstitutionally represents the government’s establishment of religion, but Sekulow disagrees.
“Our initial legal analysis of their complaint reveals that while the lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional to ‘plac[e] a religious symbol of Christianity on government-owned property,’ it ‘fail[s] to note that the cross is actually a remnant of the ruins of the Twin Towers,’” Sekulow shared.
Christian organizations aren’t the only ones who concur.
The National September 11 Memorial and Museum described the cross in a document submitted to the court as an “important and essential artifact [that] comprises a key component of the retelling of the story of 9/11, in particular, the role of faith in the events of the day and, particularly, during the recovery efforts.”
The museum stated it is “not in the business of providing equal time for faiths, we are in the business of telling the story of 9/11 and the victims of 9/11.”
“This steel remnant became a symbol of spiritual comfort for the thousands of recovery workers who toiled at ground zero, as well as for people around the world,” the head of the museum’s proclaimed. “In the historical exhibition, the cross is part of our commitment to bring back the authentic physical reminders that tell the story of 9/11 in a way nothing else can.”
The ACLJ points out three out of four Americans have said they support the Ground Zero cross. The Christian legal organization also notes that the cross has strong support from the Anti-Defamation League.
“Allowing this cross to be included in the memorial along with other artifacts found at the site does not constitute government endorsement of a religious message,” the ADL declared in a public statement. “Rather, it is an acknowledgement that these beams – part of the infrastructure of one of the towers – acquired historical significance by giving comfort to many who lost loved ones in the attacks, as well as those who spent days and weeks sifting through the ash and debris.”
Even a fellow atheist calls the legal battle a “frivolous lawsuit.” Susan Jacoby, who writes the Washington Post’s “The Spirited Atheist” blog, acknowledged the suit “misconstrues the First Amendment” and questioned whether Silverman “really believes this nonsense.”
Even Silverman himself realized his legal attack on the cross would gain little to no support.
“As president of the American Atheists organization, I promise to make sure that everyone, even those who are indifferent to our cause … will hate us,” the American Atheists president said.
Silverman is no stranger to unpopular protests. His organization took a stand against the city of New York naming a street “Seven in Heaven,” contending the title honoring seven first-responder firefighters who died on 9/11 drew a biased link between Christianity and heroism.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation entered into a decade-long lawsuit to remove a World War I memorial cross – erected in 1934 in a remote area of California’s Mojave Desert – because it offended an atheist who happened to hike near it. A court ordered the cross to be covered, and it eventually was stolen while the lawsuit was moving forward. After going to the U.S. Supreme Court, a land swap was approved.
Months ago in Camp Pendleton, Calif., the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom From Religion Foundation pushed the U.S. Marines to remove a cross on the base that was erected to replace a cross that burned down. The crosses were put up to honor fallen soldiers.
But MAAF had another way of looking at the cross.
“We still have continuing exploitation of military service and veterans to promote Christian privilege,” a statement on MAAF’s blog reads, referring to the presence of memorial crosses on armed forces bases. “[It] sends a message of exclusion rather than inclusion on this secular holiday.”
ACLJ Director of International Operations Jordan Sekulow said the atheists seem to be getting their way.
“They are setting a new precedent,” he asserted. “They are saying, ‘We don’t have to go to court; we’ll just complain.”
Sekulow said the military is so politically correct “at this point that it will build an $80,000 pagan worship center for witches to come in and have séances and cast spells for three pagan students at the Air Force Academy, but it will pull down every cross it can, whether it’s in a base in Afghanistan or Camp Pendleton or a Jesus statue that’s been up in Montana in the mountains since World War II.”
Term Limits for the Media
By: Paul Jacob / Townhall.com
Years ago, working for a pro-term limits group, I was asked by a reporter what was meant by a clumsily-worded statement in our press packet announcing that we “provide information about term limits for the media.”
In other words: relax, reporters; we weren’t launching a campaign to limit your tenure on the beat.
Sometimes, when witnessing political agendas getting in the way of decent journalism, I recall the specific discomfort of that one reporter to the very idea of term-limiting the media, extrapolate that state of mind, and . . . enjoy.
Two months ago, I noted in my Common Sense e-letter that much of the news media and left-of-center political punditry didn’t much seem to care about their ability — or the public’s right — to see the tens of thousands of Fast & Furious documents Attorney General Eric Holder still refuses to make public.
Whether Congress’s request for documents is purely partisan and politically motivated or completely justifiable on the merits, how does a journalist not want to see the material? Whether one thinks the information will be of little import or amount to an ammo dump full of smoking guns, how does a reporter not want to see it? Whether the gun-walking operations operated by the federal government were mostly effective police work or the stupidest arming of one’s enemies ever imagined, how does a columnist not want to see the actual emails and memos and other documents associated with a program that went so badly astray . . . or with any cover-up?
We need to find out the facts. The public has a right to know.
So we can make better decisions regarding our government going forward.
Isn’t all this loosely associated with the purpose of “journalism”?
Not according to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, whose response to the battle over executive branch transparency wasn’t to urge the release of the documents, but to suggest that those interested in seeing them were racist. Because President Barack Obama and General Holder are African-Americans.
For this or another reason, much of the media has effectively ignored the story.
Then, last week, the journalistic maxim “if it bleeds it leads” was mysteriously repealed. It’s already been a blockbuster summer for news, what with several highly publicized mass shootings. Now comes a gunman with a political ax to grind, smack dab in the middle of the great culture wars that drive the 24-hour news cycle, walking into the capital office of a powerful political group; he opens fire.
Floyd Lee Corkins II entered the lobby of the Family Research Council headquarters, made a statement about not liking the group’s “policy” prescriptions, and reportedly shot Leo Johnson, whose duties include functioning as the group’s security guard. Johnson, though hit in the arm, subdued Corkins and prevented a potential mass murder. Not only a great security guard, but a real hero.
As if the story weren’t interesting enough, it turns out that Corkins had spent the last six months volunteering at the D.C. Center for the LGBT Community, an outfit politically at odds with the Family Research Council, which opposes same-sex marriage and believes homosexual behavior to be sinful. Along with the gun, Corkins had 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his bag.
It’s not that there was zero coverage for a news story combining gun violence, the guts of our political culture wars and an honest-to-goodness hero, but . . .
The story got 20 seconds on The CBS Evening News. Still revving from their Olympic coverage, NBC’s Nightly News spit out all the details in just 17. The story led off ABC’s World News for two-and-a-half minutes. But none of the three senior TV networks reported the information about Corkins’s political connections, leaving any such motivations vague.
Two stories in the Washington Post on the days following the shooting made no mention of any of the summer’s other shootings, as if the incident ought not be considered when covering other such mega-news events.
Thankfully, there was no death count at the Family Research Council shooting. Maybe that’s why the media coverage seemed so understated. But, then again, it is hard not to wonder to what degree partisan motivations, the press playing politics, might have resulted in reduced coverage for a crime committed against what they may view as a politically incorrect victim.
Of course, the political affiliations of deranged murderers, or just wannabe killers, are not usually very instructive. One bad apple doesn’t spoil the whole bunch. The point isn’t to play up the shooters to smear the innocent, but for major media outlets to report the news evenhandedly, including violence committed against their political opponents, and to pursue the truth of what our government is doing, such as on Fast & Furious, even when the outcome might not further their various political agendas.
As much as they might deserve it sometimes, we cannot constitutionally term-limit media folks, whether they be journalists, TV reporters, or mere “talking heads.” And I wouldn’t want to — for one, they don’t really have “terms.” Instead, we can push reform as customers by watching, listening and reading those profit-seeking media companies that do a better job.
Ryan: ‘Bring on’ Medicare Fight
By: Salena Zito / Townhall Daily
“We are heading towards a European-like debt crisis which means a deeper recession, fewer jobs, lower revenues and bigger deficits if we don’t get our fiscal house in order fast,” Ryan said on Thursday in an interview with the Tribune-Review.
The Wisconsin congressman, tapped last weekend by Mitt Romney to join the GOP ticket, discussed the campaign after a rally and an unscheduled stop for hot dogs and hand-shaking at The Hot Dog Shoppe in nearby Warren.
“President Obama has punted on this issue. He has ducked the issue of fiscal responsibility, and that is a huge threat to our economy,” Ryan said.
He criticized the president for “raiding” Medicare to pay for the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act — also known as Obamacare. The Obama administration wants to use $716 billion from Medicare over the next decade to pay for portions of the new health care law.
“This is a debate we need to have. It is a debate that we are starting and very confident in winning,” Ryan said.
Senior citizens will be upset when they realize Obama’s signature legislative achievement will put their Medicare in jeopardy, he said.
Romney has vowed to overturn the legislation and restore the $716 billion to Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors and the disabled. The program accounts for 15 percent of all federal spending, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
As chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan offered a plan to trim more than $700 billion from Medicare and install a voucher program to help reduce the federal debt. He has voted to repeal Obamacare.
Ryan told the Trib that the $716 billion in cuts will lead to fewer services for seniors and creation of a government board to oversee those cuts.
“The Independent Payment Advisory Board is made up of 15 bureaucrats that are appointed by the president unelected, unaccountable, and their job is to put further price controls and cuts to Medicare providers, which will lead to even more denied services to current seniors,” Ryan said.
Ryan’s emergence has changed the campaign’s focus to fiscal matters, experts say. That could boost the GOP ticket, “given the public’s concerns with debt and deficits,” or the unpopularity of Ryan’s proposals could become a hurdle for the Romney campaign, said Christopher Borick, a political science professor at Muhlenberg College.
The Ryan budget is important because it clarifies a different governing policy from Obama’s, said Alison Dagnes, a political scientist at Shippensburg University.
His plan would “dramatically roll back the size and scope of the government, which varies wildly from the governing philosophy of President Obama, who sees the government as one that can do good for people,” she said.
Since joining the ticket, Ryan said, he has not adjusted any of the changes he championed in the past.
“We are applying the exact same principles to solve these problems, and we have the same exact goal: Repeal Obamacare, replace it with patient-centered health care,” he said.
In its monthly poll of battleground states released on Wednesday, the Washington-based Purple Strategies, a bipartisan consulting agency, said Ryan appeared to bolster the Republican ticket by 3 percentage points, pushing Romney to a thin lead over Obama (47 percent to 46 percent) in 12 states surveyed. Obama last month led by 2 percentage points in those states.
“Of the four candidates, Ryan is the best-liked, and his selection has bolstered Romney’s image,” said Bruce Haynes, a partner in the firm.
He said Romney’s image improved after his choice of a running mate, putting his favorability ratings (45 percent favorable, 47 percent unfavorable) on par with Obama’s.
“Ryan is giving Romney the opportunity to refresh his brand” after a summer in which voters heard about Romney’s management of Bain Capital and his personal wealth and taxes, Haynes said.
Ryan said the election comes down to a referendum on Obama.
“It comes down to jobs and the economy because that is the biggest problem we have right now, and he is compounding it by his reckless fiscal behavior. He is compounding it by taking it to Washington and spending it and borrowing it with no end in sight,” he said.
Ryan also took a shot at his fellow vice presidential running mate.
When he took the stage at Walsh University on Thursday in a packed Alumni Arena, Ryan said, “Hello, Ohio! Or as Joe Biden would say, ‘Hello, Nevada.’”
The line brought down the house, magnifying the vice president’s recent string of gaffes.
Ryan said he is not afraid of making a gaffe, but he believes he would have been treated much worse if he made the mistakes Biden has uttered.
Ryan wooed voters on the heels of an Ohio visit by Romney, hoping to drive home the importance of making difficult changes to Medicare and the federal budget.
“Coming to Miami was like a homecoming,” said Ryan, 42, who graduated in 1992 from the liberal arts school in Oxford with degrees in economics and political science.
Because of his no-nonsense approach to the nation’s debt, Casey Crooks, 32, a coal miner from Morristown, believes Ryan makes an outstanding running mate for Romney.
“He just shows that young people are serious about fixing the budgetary problems,” Crooks said. “Look, I understand that change is hard; it always is. But it is irresponsible to continue on this course.”
Dhimmitude on the Hudson: Mayor calls on town to protest counter-jihad ads
From Jihad Watch
How embattled is the freedom of speech? Check out this post from Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs -- and start writing politely to the mayor expressing your disapproval of his politically correct authoritarianism, and to the MTA in support of these counter-jihad ads:
"Dhimmitude on the Hudson: Mayor Swiderski and Board of trustees submits and requests the whole town do the same," by Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, August 18:
To: Mayor Peter Swiderski (firstname.lastname@example.org)
From: Pamela Geller
Mayor Swiderski,The dhimmi Mayor of Hastings-on-Hudson sent me the email below to ..... taunt me? It is jawdropping. The Board of Trustees sent a letter to the entire village last night asking residents "to express their dismay" to Joseph Lhota (here) concerning our islamorealism ad. I suggest you do the same, shruggers. I would write everyone (even to this clown of a Mayor). But be polite. Hastings-on-Hudson, this is your taxpayer dollars at work!
Before I file my story can you tell us why no such mailing went out concerning the vicious anti-Semitic ads. The anti-Israel ads were twice the buy (100 kiosks.) This speaks to a systemic, institutionalized anti-semitism prevalent in your administration and among the Board.
Care to comment?
Do these politicians really believe that all Muslims support jihad? And if they believe it, why surrender so swiftly?
The Muslim Brotherhood groups don't even have to agitate anymore. They can just sit back and watch these useful idiots and dhimmis do their work for them.
The Mayor and this Board of spineless wonders maintained their neutrality about the anti-semitic ad; they were silent about that. Notice how these clowns at one government entity has "complained" to another about private citizens exercising their constitutional rights.
Again, I encourage all Atlas readers to write.to Joseph Lhota, Chairman, MTA, 347 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017 or to the general comment email at the MTA website at http://mta-nyc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/mta_nyc.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php, to express you dismay" at Hastings-on-Hudson's politically correct pandering and running interference for genocidal jihadists, as well as for their craven and disquieting disregard for the freedom of speech of those with whom they disagree.
email@example.comI wanted to share with you what our Board of Trustees sent to the entire
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:08:43 -0400
From: "Village of Hastings-on-Hudson Announcements"
Subject: Message from the Board: Controversial MetroNorth Billboard on train platform
Fellow Residents –
A few days ago, a billboard appeared on the city-bound MetroNorth platform, (as well as, apparently, throughout Westchester) sponsored by “The American Freedom Defense Initiative”. This billboard starts with “19,250 Islamic attacks since 9/11” and states that “It’s not Islamophobia, it’s Islamorealism.”
While the Board respects everyone’s right to free speech, we categorically condemn the bigotry and innuendo expressed by this billboard message. To tar a faith and its followers because of the actions of a few is deplorable, hateful and morally repugnant. Such an ad neither reflects the ideals of this community, nor, we believe, of our nation. America welcomes people of all faiths, including millions of the Muslim faith who call our country (including those who live in our village) their home. They, like the vast majority of believers in that (and all other) major religions, embrace peace and do not endorse the violence wrought by a fanatic few.
The Board of Trustees have joined the many others who have already complained to MetroNorth about this ad campaign placement. Metro North’s Media Relations department has issued a statement that concludes with “The MTA does not endorse the viewpoint expressed in these ads or any of the ads that the MTA accepts for display on its facilities.” Apparently, after legal review, this ad did not qualify as hate speech and falls under First Amendment protection. If any resident would like to express their dismay, they should address their letters to Joseph Lhota, Chairman, MTA, 347 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017 or thegeneral comment email at the MTA
website at http://mta-nyc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/mta_nyc.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php.
Thank you for your attention,
The Board of Trustees of the
Village of Hastings-on-Hudson
Trustee Marge Apel
Trustee Nicola Armacost
Trustee Bruce Jennings
Mayor Peter Swiderski
Trustee Margaret Walker