59°Overcast

Reston Woman Using Signs to Show ‘Hate Has No Home Here’

by Dave Emke — February 2, 2017 at 11:30 am 180 Comments

Elizabeth Vandenburg - Hate Has No Home Here

Reston’s Elizabeth Vandenburg was in D.C.’s Chevy Chase recently when signs dotting the community called to her.

“There was an initiative by the neighborhood, and there were signs all over the place,” she said. “Seeing these signs, it just was really inspirational.”

The signs were part of the “Hate Has No Home Here” project, which started in November in Chicago’s North Park neighborhood. Students at an elementary school devised the slogan and a local graphic designer developed the artwork. Word has gotten out and the campaign has spread across the nation and world.

Elizabeth Vandenburg - Hate Has No Home HereAnyone can make their own HHNHH signs by downloading the artwork and taking it to a print shop. Vandenburg had 100 signs printed at Sign & Print in Herndon. One is currently in her front yard on Hunting Horn Lane and she is working to distribute the rest to friends and others who have contacted her through Facebook.

“First, I surveyed like 10 or 15 friends, and they said, ‘Sure,'” Vandenburg said. “I raised some money to do it, so I could give some away. … The 100 are pretty much accounted for.”

Vandenburg said she was encouraged to become part of the project because she feels it is important to stand up for what you believe.

“I’ve been an advocate for a lot of different issues, and I wanted my voice to be heard,” she said. “I wanted to feel inspired as I went around Reston. I know Reston is inclusive and supportive of these causes, but having it be visible gives my heart a lift.”

The project defines itself as non-partisan:

This sign is a public declaration that hate speech and hateful actions against others will not be tolerated by the person or organization displaying the sign. In that, it is apolitical. This sign is a statement that, while it is OK to disagree with others civilly regarding issues, it is not OK to intimidate or attack a person or group — verbally or physically — based on attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability or sexual orientation. The colors of the sign — red, white and blue — are the colors of the American flag, not any political party.

Vandenburg said, however, that issues such as President Trump’s recent executive order on immigration emphasize the importance of the project’s message.

“It’s a privilege to be an American,” she said. “I believe it’s my responsibility and duty to speak up.”

For more information on the project, visit its Facebook page.

  • Mike M

    Oh boy! So, “it is a privilege to be an American.” But if you want to put limits and checks on that privilege, you are a “hater?” So is it a privilege or yet another entitlement that the left wants to bestow upon the entire world?

    If you advocate for immigration controls, you are indulging in hate speech? I’m sorry, but this is not apolitical. That is disingenuous. It seems like a more peaceful version of the rock throwing, car-burning tantrum that took place at U Cal-Berkeley last night.

    I don’t recall a movement to post “Socialism has no home here” or “Self-loathing has no place here” signs after Obama was elected.

    • The Constitutionalist

      The rioters at Cal…. hoo boy, I haven’t seen Democrats that mad since we took their slaves away.

      • amytales

        Oh come on–political alliances and platforms have shifted significantly since the mid 1800s, you should know this. The ideology behind freeing slaves was much more in line with today’s liberals. Conservatives, basically by definition, prefer to keep things as they are or go back to some “ideal” time that they consider to be more “traditional.” That would have entailed maintaining the institution of slavery.

        • The Constitutionalist

          Yes yes, the common misconception taught in schools that doesn’t actually exist when you research the party, it’s voting record over time, and the history of your own political ideology.

          Don’t go looking, facts are very scary.

          • amytales

            Let’s not be obtuse. If we were to map today’s ideologies over those of the 1860s, I think it’s fairly clear which side would support eliminating slavery, and it ain’t yours. Given the fact that conservatives used the same arguments against LGBT rights that were used against interracial marriage and eliminating slavery, I think we can draw some parallels here. US geography (i.e., the south supported and defended slavery and are largely deeply Republican today) also provides a bit of confirmation here.

          • The Constitutionalist

            Listen, I acknowledge your point, but the fact still stands, it was the Republican party that abolished slavery. You can’t rewrite the history books. Actually you can. What am I talking about?

          • amytales

            Here we are back to our starting place. It was the Republican party *of the 1860s* that abolished slavery. That Republican party is NOT the same as the one now. This is you trying to gloss over mitigating context and considerations that undermine the comparison.

      • co22

        Yup, amazing how those southern democrats became republicans when the civil rights acts were passed

        • The Constitutionalist

          Amazing how the southern Democrats became Dixiecrats in 1948, and then democrats again until 1964, when the “big shift” happened. The civil rights act was passed in 1965 with Republican voter support of 80% to the Democrat voter support of 63%.

          • amytales

            Again, you’re using the same terms to refer to different things, thereby muddying the waters. Since the Civil Rights Act, you guys have dug in your heels and resisted individual rights when it came to interracial marriage, LGBT rights, women’s reproductive rights, and so on.

          • The Constitutionalist

            Loving v. Virginia – supreme court decision was unanimous. No conservative justice was opposed. I wonder who was responsible for the original ruling in Alabama that set the precedence for this case in 1883… again, don’t look, you won’t like the answer.

            Kind of a broad generality to throw us all in the same group. The real argument was over the constitutional definition of marriage, originally based on the Biblical definition, which has since changed. But, I guess no homosexual conservatives exist? Who were they rioting over at Berkeley?

            The issue of “women’s reproductive rights” – spelled correctly in my quote this time, I double checked 🙂 – does not have one inkling of concern over your “reproductive rights.” It’s about the rights of the unborn, the senseless murder of 70 million babies since Roe v. Wade, the opportunity cost of said population loss and their societal contribution, and the commercialization of such. My interpretation is that the Constitution guarantees certain rights to all, including the unborn. Hence our democratic ideals, you probably did an essay on those in college. Maybe not actually… I’m not sure they’re taught anymore. Life, liberty, et al. Also hence my chosen display name, The Constitutionalist. My only stand is with the Constitution. Afterall, it is illegal to sell a corpse, why is it not illegal to sell a deceased fetus?

            Soon, you’ll be saying the same about assisted suicide, which is just again, the commercialization of death. Suicide is illegal, unless you are paying someone, and the appropriate taxes.

          • amytales

            You KNOW we weren’t talking about Supreme Court justices, but nice try. And there is no “biblical definition” of marriage, because all sorts of marriage arrangements were detailed in the bible.

            “The issue of ‘women’s reproductive rights’ […] does not have one inkling over your ‘reproductive rights.'” Uh, what?!

            No, Roe v. Wade is about the rights of the *already born*. Fetuses do not have individual rights until they become viable. And by golly, you got snookered by the sham Project Veritas group who did not prove what they purported to prove regarding “selling a deceased fetus,” which does NOT happen.

            Don’t pretend that you own the Constitution, because I’m sure there are parts of it, e.g., certain amendments, that you don’t particularly like but are part of the Constitution regardless. The meaning of the Constitution is fleshed out in case law, which doesn’t support some of your stances.

          • The Constitutionalist

            Yes we were, as they’re the ones who settled the argument with their ruling with Justices on both sides of the political sphere.

            There is a Biblical Definition of marriage in the Bible, but it requires some education on the subject. Regardless, that’s what the debate was about, weather you like it or not.

            Literally anything that affects women only, since men can’t get pregnant, you will label as an issue of reproductive rights. It’s a blanket term that has nothing to do with what the argument is about.

            Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in all 50 states. It has nothing to do with the rights of born children, it solidifies the rights of mothers to terminate their unborn fetuses.

            Sorry, my education in economics goes a little over your head here I see. When you trade money for an abortion, you are selling your fetus. Do you take your fetus home afterwards, or does the clinic keep it?

            There is an abundance of literature on what happens to aborted fetuses after abortions, they vary state to state. Feel free to look, some of what you find might be disturbing.

            I didn’t say I owned the Constitution, please don’t put words in my mouth. There are parts of the Constitution I don’t like, the parts that are contradictory to our Democratic Ideals. Which is why I said it.

          • amytales

            No, we WEREN’T talking about SCOTUS. You brought up the SCOTUS justices when we were talking about the factions of public sentiment from different time periods.

            While there is a small verse in the bible that Christians plucked out and have labeled as “biblical marriage,” it’s a really big stretch, reading something into the bible that isn’t there. I used to be an evangelical Christian for many years, so it’s not like I don’t know the bible well.

            Dude–women’s reproductive rights involves our BODIES. These are completely private and should be only under our own control. Men face no such threat from the state to their bodily integrity.

            As for Roe v. Wade, that is precisely what I was saying–it’s about women’s bodily rights. I’m not sure why you think it wasn’t what I was saying, or why you’re acknowledging something that undercuts your own position.

            Your “economics” argument is patently absurd. You’re not “selling a fetus,” you’re paying the doctor for his services when you get an abortion. When parents pay to have an infant circumcised, the doctor doesn’t keep the foreskin for anything! Your “education in economics” is hardly over my head.

            You draped yourself in the Constitution when you said, “My only stand is with the Constitution.” I’m simply calling attention to the fact that you only have your own opinion about it, and it isn’t necessarily more valid than mine or someone else’s. I’m just used to conservatives claiming that the Constitution supports their positions only when that’s just not true. If I mistakenly grouped you in this bucket, then you have my apologies.

          • The Constitutionalist

            Fair point, but the argument was settled in a bipartisan decision in the courtroom. Whether we like it or not, we adhere to the Constitution. Liberals and conservatives are generally in disagreement with what isn’t in the constitution.

            Let’s agree to disagree.

            I know. But it is a blanket term “you guys (and gals, I’m learning, see?)” throw out for anything related to things only effecting women, that don’t have to.

            Why doesn’t the father ever have a say in an abortion? Is he not at least (probably more, I know my type) 50% to blame? Can a father not raise a child?

            It’s true, we don’t. But my, and my stance only, not all other conservatives, is not an aim to control you or to take away your choices. Which is how it’s spun. Like you are spinning it now. It’s merely a belief that even the unborn has a Constitutionally guaranteed and contradictory right to at least the opportunity of life, and I believe many agree. That does not mean I don’t recognize Roe v. Wade as law.

            I forgive you. 🙂

          • Mike M

            OK, OK. Now can I say it’s time for you two to get a room? 😉

          • The Constitutionalist

            Please, I’m a romantic, I want to be courted.

          • Mike M

            The way you two bicker, I thought you might already be married.

          • The Constitutionalist

            She wishes.

          • amytales

            Well, I’m grateful for the Supreme Court in most cases, because it has often served to correct injustices embraced by large portions of our population. But I still see it as beyond the scope of our discussion. The Supreme Court wasn’t really involved in abolition, and there’s a big difference between the most important group of judges in the country and the hoi polloi, who are not legally or intellectual trained to the same extent.

            The father doesn’t have the final say in the abortion because it’s the woman’s body, but he can exercise his powers of rhetorical persuasion to try to change her mind if he wants (within reasonable bounds). But of course he’s equally responsible for a pregnancy and more or less equally capable of raising a child. But they don’t get pregnant and carry a fetus inside of them.

            But see, regardless of your intent, the effect is the same: denying women control over their own bodies. I can get on board with the idea that a fetus, once truly viable, generally has a right to live, but only insofar as it doesn’t endanger the life of the mother, whose rights take precedence in such a case.

          • The Constitutionalist

            I see it as within the scope of our discussion because it settles once and for all the issue of interracial marriage. Whether conservatives and liberals agree or disagree. Same as abortion.

            The law is the law.

            Until the law changes, I stand with the law. I only disagree with abortion for the reasons listed above, personally for morality, professionally for the Constitutional contradiction.

            I agree with you, the mother’s life should come above all else.

          • Conservative Senior

            You have so much hate. I would not want to be you when it’s time for you to meet your maker.

          • amytales

            Projecting much? Nothing like good ol’ Christian kindness and love when threatening another person with hell. 🙂

          • amytales

            Projecting? Ain’t nothin’ like good ol’ Christian love expressed through a desire for someone to go straight to the underground pit of fire!

          • Conservative Senior

            Not my desire but seems to be yours & on a fast track.

          • amytales

            Oh come on, just own it. I don’t believe in an afterlife anyway, and even if there were one, I wouldn’t be so sure about where you think you’d end up.

          • Anti-Conservative

            Lol just when other “conservatives” in this thread are whining about being called “haters” for expressing different viewpoints, this one is doing the same thing! Hypocritical!

          • co22

            Yes, true about repubs but also true that those southern dems are now repubs – Thanks for making my point tho Many peeps from diff parties were against slavery, etc –

          • The Constitutionalist

            Those southern dems are now…dead.

          • co22

            Many are still alive and many of their offspring have similar feelings, if not actions, towards minorities btw – from Arnold
            https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/796535619711176704

          • Mike M

            I don’t recall Austria being on the list.

  • Scott H

    The irony in all of this is that the people who put these signs up, are generally the least tolerant and most hateful among us. They cannot stand any diversity of opinion. If you disagree with them, they call you names, label you the pejorative du jour, and run away to a safe space where they can suck on a bottle of milk and watch MSNBC.

    • thinkinginvirginia

      Exactly…and then they claim they are “apolitical”….what a bunch of hogwash. Of course, your different opinions are labeled “hate.” So what they are really saying is conservative non-progressive opinions have no home here.

      • Mike M

        And yet, . . . illegal aliens are welcome! Go figure!

        • Guest

          What about red, white, and blue-blooded Americans who treat their women like livestock? Can we kick them out?

          • Mike M

            Well there are laws for that. Remember, we are a nation of laws. And they ain’t Sharia. As I have said and you have yet to absorb, we have to own our own. But we need not import more trouble from just anywhere. That would be stupid, wouldnt it?

          • Pot, meet Kettle

            You call all immigrants “trouble” and wonder why reasonable people find you hateful?

          • Mike M

            No, that’s your wording. If you were reasonable you would read my words and not embellish to make your argument seem rational. Where did i say what you quoted? “All immigrants” Where is that?

            But if they treat their women like livestock, that’s a population about which we ought to be more careful. Right? Or are you cool with that? There are many other populations that are less desirable and amenable to assimilation. You just have to look with your “reasonable” eyes wide open.

          • Pot, meet Kettle

            You equated immigration with the importation of trouble. You said it.

          • Mike M

            Associated B with A. Not vice versa. Not equated. And here we go with logic lessons again. Fairfax County High School? Childish retort, really unless you truly lack logic. Actually, you probably just see what you wanna see then attribute it incorrectly with intent.

            Here we go, . . .
            If I associate wind damage with storms, does that mean all storms cause wind damage? Does that mean that I think storms should not happen?

          • Pot, meet Kettle

            My response to you is, maybe you ought to associate immigration with more than just trouble. You know, like perhaps for every one troublemaker in the bunch there are 50 people willing to work hard, pay taxes, abide by the law, and raise children that could become engineers, teachers, doctors, lawyers. You arch-conservatives are so negative all the time it’s no wonder you evoke such disgust in people. No optimism at all from your side. Sad.

          • amytales

            That was a nice Trumpian ending. 🙂

          • Mike M

            Not true. In fact, I am optimistic about global warming. I accept those who are here legally and are not criminal. But I do believe we need to curtail the rates from certain countries. So, stop putting words in my mouth.

    • Mike M

      Former Congressman Tom Davis said last summer, “I actually represented a district in which it is today considered a hate crime to post a Trump sign in your yard.”

    • Anti-Alt-Right

      The true irony is that people like you love space spaces so much, you want to make the entire country a space safe from people who look or act different from you!

      • The Constitutionalist

        Or are trying to kill us. Which is the real goal, is it not? Is that not the whole point of the government? To keep its citizens safe?

        • Anti-Alt-Right

          Wow I guess you said it yourself, that you think all brown people are trying to kill you? Please clarify (or don’t).

          • Mike M

            Excellent! You put words in his mouth! Classic!

          • Anti-Alt-Right!

            “The Constitutionalist” is a big boy (or girl), they can defend themselves! No need to hover!

          • Mike M

            Sorry. I’m reading and I feel this odd freedom to say what I please. Got a problem with that? Oh, I know you do!

          • Freedumb

            Nope, enjoy your freedoms big guy.

          • Mike M

            I get a kick out of you name callers who are so afraid you will be discovered, you change your name with every post.

          • The Constitutionalist

            We’re all different shades of brown, kid.

          • Anti-Alt-Right

            And your sh*t stinks just as much as mine, champ.

          • The Constitutionalist

            Probably, yes. I’d not care to compare.

          • Anti-Alt-Right

            That’s right, I forgot Donny and his Deplorables prefer golden showers instead.

          • The Constitutionalist

            Good for them. Thanks for sharing.

          • Scott

            When your screen name is “anti” something, it says more about you than anything else.

          • Anti-Alt-Right

            If Scott is anti-anti-alt-right, that says a lot about him, too.

          • Conservative Senior

            That is very rude. Foul language is not acceptable!

      • Scott

        Thank you for proving my point. You know nothing about me but because I disagree with your world view, you call me a bigot and xenophobe.

        • Anti-Alt-Right

          The Alt-Right is the opposite of diversity. They are categorically against diversity (in viewpoints, ethnicity, political opinions, etc.) of any kind. Pushing hateful alt-right viewpoints out of any space is a positive action for the community. You aren’t bigoted, xenophobic, or hateful? You have nothing to worry about.

          • Scott

            Please take your hateful bigotedness elsewhere. It is not welcome here. The alt-right is the latest boogeyman of the left. Apparently it sprang from nowhere in 2016. You can’t name a single person who is part of this alt-right. You think Fox is biased but that MSNBC, vox, and salon are doing things right. You call people bigots because they disagree with you and think it’s okay to silence others because YOU have deemed them “hateful”. Well, I deem your rhetoric hateful and demand you leave here and never speak again. See how that works?

          • Anti-Alt-Right

            The Alt-Right has existed for years, lurking out of the public view. Then Trump gave them a major political candidate to get behind and they helped vault him into the White House. Prominent members? Steve Bannon, who sits on Trump’s NSC, for one. I clearly know more about this issue than you do and I won’t do your googling for you.

            I think Fox can’t even be called a legitimate source of news – when I want to read a reasonable conservative opinion, I’ll go to WSJ or Economist. I absolutely do recognize the bias in MSNBC, Salon, and others and take it in healthy doses.

            I call spades spades, racists racists, bigots bigots, and neo-nazis neo-nazis. If you aren’t part of the Alt-Right, then why do you care? They are neo-nazis and they are heavily involved in Trump’s administration and national politics. I’m telling alt-rights to pound sand. Are you alt-right? Simple question.

          • Mooo 2.0

            Bannon is not alt-right, Bro. Another media lie!

          • Anti-Alt-Right

            Bannon used to own BREITBART, the propaganda mouthpiece

            of the alt-right. Here is a link from your peoples’ favorite website, Breitbart, in which he says in his OWN WORDS that he is part of the alt-right movement (and subsequently tries to say that they are anything but a neo-nazi movement):

            http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/19/bannon-alt-right-young-anti-globalist-anti-establishment-nationalist/

            How bad does it hurt when the truth slaps you in the face? Shame to the single other sheep who voted up your comment.

          • Mooo 2.0

            Oh, thanks for the link. It proves my point further: “making it clear that both he and the site had “zero tolerance” for “racial and anti-Semitic” views.”

            Browse their home page right now. Nothing alt-right or racist or anti-semitic. You (D)’s want to believe this crap so much to fit your narrative. It’s quite pathetic. And you express typical (D) garbage in trying to “shame” someone. Stop reading fake news on your FB feed and use your own mind.

            http://www.breitbart.com/

    • Kate Sullivan

      Scott, I am a neighbor and friend of Elizabeth Vanderburg. She is an enormously kind, generous, and tolerant person. I can’t speak to your experience with “the people who put these signs up,” but in this case you are dead wrong!

      • Mike M

        Says you. I am sure she is outwardly. But there is hate and a complete lack of tolerance for many of her neighbors on her new band wagon for reasons many have covered in here already.

        • Kate Sullivan

          Yes, I do actually say so. Unless you live in her neighborhood, as I do, I don’t think you’re in a position to know anything about “hate and lack of tolerance among her neighbors.” – And this will be my last comment, as I think you are more interested in arguing than in truly discussing an issue. – And Elizabeth, more power to you! It never crossed my mind that an act of tolerance could bring so much hostility out of the woodwork!

          • Mike M

            Kate, for the last time, when you call people haters because they disagree with you on immigration, you are being hateful. When you call your little movement apolitical you are being disingenuous. THAT is the ISSUE.

          • Guest

            I think you are projecting, Mr. M. Neither of Kate’s comments used the word “hater” or “apolitical.” How is putting up signs saying they welcome and respect ALL people in any way hating, intolerant, or apolitical? Pick your battles, I don’t see why you are getting so ruffled up about this. Republicans can easily put up the same sign, and have every right to.

          • Mike M

            “Hate has no home here.” I am quoting the sign that she was defending. it was the topic of the story upon which these comments should focus. Try to keep up, Guest!

          • Mike M

            I am no Republican.

            Republicans don’t put up signs like this.

            These signs equate people who disagree with the poster on immigration issues as haters. That is hateful. My point is clear.

        • RestonLyons

          From most of your posting I hear meanness. You are very consistent.

          • Mike M

            Sorry if I hurt your snowflake feelings. Where did you learn your reading between the lines skills? Did you read what I actually wrote?

          • Mike “Snowflake” M

            Of all the snowflakes, you are both the snowiest and the flakiest if you are so offended by such a simple little sign that you have to ragepost 20+ times on this article about a woman creating signs.

          • Mike M

            The signs are in fact hateful. They are an insult to anyone who voted for Trump. There is a magnificent irony in that. It’s worth commenting about.

          • Pot, meet Kettle

            Nobody is stopping you from putting a Trump sign in your yard, even though you’d be passive-aggressively telling your neighbors “I support bigotry and anti-intellectualism”. So why do you have to get your panties in a twist about another person’s sign? Such snowflake behavior on your part.

          • amytales

            I love your username! LOL!

          • Mike M

            Tee hee!

      • EliteinReston

        Kate, thank you for braving the comments section and sharing information about your neighbor.

    • Oliver

      Absolutely correct

  • amytales

    Modern conservativism doesn’t give a dang about many individual rights except when it comes to property. Conservatives have fought tooth and nail to prevent underprivileged groups from gaining equal rights. That’s just a bunch of baloney.

    • The Constitutionalist

      I think what you meant to say was that conservatives have fought tooth and nail to prevent underprivileged groups from gaining EXTRA rights. We’ve been fighting for equal rights from the beginning, but equal isn’t enough to “you guys.”

      • Mike M

        Funny thing how they invoke “1984” and “Animal Farm” when they speak the very same language therein. They are what Orwell despised.

        • Orwell

          “Department of Truth,” “2+2=5,” “Alternative Facts,”…see any similarities buddy?

          • Mike M

            No. And I am not your buddy.
            Belief in immigration control = hate?

      • amytales

        No, I meant what I said. There are no EXTRA rights involved here. You guys continually RESIST elevating other people to your level. Give me a break.

        • Mike M

          Who “elevated” us? (Psst! The code phrases are personal responsibility and work!)

        • The Constitutionalist

          Affirmative action, anyone?

          • amytales

            Seriously? That’s not about extra rights either. It’s about providing space for groups that have been long-overlooked and are socially underprivileged.

          • The Constitutionalist

            C’mon, it’s basically an extra right. You’re subsidizing the employment of a minority based on nothing but the color of their skin.

          • Mike M

            When it is [email protected], it is [email protected] by definition.

          • amytales

            No. I understand why you see it that way, but I don’t. When unequal forces at work in society have the effect of decreasing opportunities for certain segments of the population, I think it’s only fair to set aside at least some small space to help give them a chance to get up to speed.

          • The Constitutionalist

            Sure, but it’s now no longer a competition based on skill set and productivity. You can make the argument that it wasn’t before, but now it can never be.

          • amytales

            That’s not true. It is still a competition based on skill, but the mediocre applicants, like Abigail Fisher, may not get in quite as easily as they did before.

          • The Constitutionalist

            The point is, your minority status shouldn’t even come in to play, whatsoever. I see your benefits, I also see how in some cases, there can be negatives.

            The positives may outweigh the negatives, but is that still progress in the right direction?

          • amytales

            In an environment where hate crimes still happen not uncommonly, yes, I think so.

          • The Constitutionalist

            But does it cause progress to cease? Does affirmative action become good enough? We diversified our company by n% isn’t that enough?

  • Guest

    A few commenters are loudly feigning victim status and pretending these signs are a direct attack. Do not be disheartened by their plain attempt to manufacture outrage.

    This is a good effort. Intentionally misinterpreting the message of this person’s work and shouting those lies from the rooftops does no good for our community.

    If anyone should learn from this article, it’s those who scream the loudest against its peaceful expression of real American patriotism.

    • Mike M

      A “few?” A “good effort.” All because yo say so with no logical backing. Same vapid style, eh, guest?

      • Guest

        Thank you for respecting my comment, but I need no references to prove your statements false. Anyone who has read the article can see your comments for what they are.

        • The Constitutionalist

          Oh man, I can’t let this slide.

          This is exactly the dilemma of the left, you don’t need references to prove statements false.

          Exactly.

          • amytales

            Please don’t pretend that this is something unique to the left.

          • Mike M

            As already explained, this hateful, intolerant behavior was not in vogue on the right when Obama was elected. We gutted it out.

          • Guest

            It absolutely was in vogue from day one of Obama’s tenure. Remember the white nationalist protests when he first got elected? Republicans gutting a healthcare law that was based on a Heritage Foundation plan that Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts? Remember Mitch McConnell vowing that he would resist everything Obama did from day one? Republicans in Congress NOT doing their JOBS and refusing to even let Garland in the building for a hearing? I could go on but I’m not going to because I don’t have as much time as you do to sit on these forums, with respect.

          • Mike M

            So, are you equating the widespread vocal tantrum to Trump’s election to acts of a few extremists? Would you call this woman an extremist? Did you notice Trump will get more done because the country provided him a GOP Congress.

          • Pot, meet Kettle

            You know this isn’t true. You’re lying, just like little Donnie boy.

          • Mike M

            Your argument is half a step from, “Liar, liar. Pants on fire!” Up your game?

          • Pot, meet Kettle

            No need to explain what everybody already knows, including you.

          • Pot, meet Kettle

            Just like your Dear Leader, huh? Whenever he says that plainly observable facts are false or “fake”, he’s obviously in the right and doesn’t need to provide any proof.

          • The Constitutionalist

            He’s your leader too.

          • Pot, meet Kettle

            Not for much longer, thank god.

          • Guest

            He’s our president, not our leader.

          • Mike M

            He is very much a leader. Not surprised you don’t recognize it. His predecessor, on the other hand, was a lawyer. You may not like his leadership style. I may not like it. But I have seen it work.

          • Anti-Alt-Right

            Obama was a leader. Trump is an assclown.

          • Mike M

            No. Obama was a lawyer who organize the community of South Chicago. Trump has been running a multi-billion dollar global business for decades. Can we keep it real? Can we add something to our name calling?

          • The Constitutionalist

            There is really no point to this discussion. We elected him as our leader. He’s our President, he presides over us, he’s the Commander in Chief.

            Whatever.

          • Guest

            Exactly. The majority of assertions in comments complaining about this article are in direct contradiction to the substance of the article.

          • The Constitutionalist

            I think it goes to show that even though you have a sign that says the opposite, hate does in fact have a home here.

          • Guest

            I don’t hate you or Mike. It’s an honor and a pleasure to pick apart false arguments.

            Unless by “you”, you mean Elizabeth, in which case her representations still stand and the assertions in comments are still false.

            If you want to find hate, take a moment to wonder why nationals of the countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015. Ask why SA, UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon aren’t on the list, despite just over 3,000 civvy deaths between them during the same period.

          • The Constitutionalist

            That isn’t what I meant. I meant that as you can see from all the opposition to the sign here on these forums, that hate does in fact live here. Obviously. Whether the sign says it or not.

            Have you spent any time overseas deployed in any of the areas you mention? Have you had conversations with the locals populace and their leaders about their views, goals, or intentions? Don’t read too much into this, as it’s your specialty, but I can understand their sentiment and opposition.

            I’m not saying I agree with the temporary ban, I’m merely pointing out that neither side knows all the facts. But some of us here have a lot more experience on the subject than others.

    • The Constitutionalist

      Who is screaming louder than those putting up signs about a message taken out of context completely?

      • amytales

        How, pray tell, is the message taken out of context?! You’re one of the ones screaming over it.

        • The Constitutionalist

          Yes, we’re all screaming so loudly that we’re out rioting in the streets, vandalizing private property, and preventing airports from functioning.

          You really think it’s the conservatives out there screaming against the “peaceful expression of real American patriotism”?

          You might need to stop coming to these forums, you keep sounding more and more to desperate prove your point. Take a break, for all our sake.

          • Guest

            You seem desperate to equate the efforts described in the article to rioters. Why is that?

          • The Constitutionalist

            There’s only one group protesting against the peaceful expression of real American patriotism, my friend. It takes only a second to turn the news on and see for yourself.

          • amytales

            I have just as much a right to be here as you. I don’t think I’m sounding any more “desperate” to prove anything than you are. Maybe you should take a break?

            I don’t condone violence. Period. But you are exaggerating and not looking closely enough at the events or conditions precipitating these protests. And yes, many on your side HAVE vandalized private property, and if you support Trump and his actions, are the ones responsible for preventing LEGAL green-card holders from being treated like everyone else when they arrived from outside the country. It wasn’t the protesters detaining and handcuffing them, or spewing venom about how they don’t matter and should be deported. Opposing something doesn’t justify violence, but neither does the occurrence of violence exonerate those who instigated the protest to begin with.

          • The Constitutionalist

            You’re right, you do, and I’m glad you’re here.

            I agree, there is room for improvement on both sides.

    • #American Spring

      The signs are more of an act of rebellion rather than passing the message. Its a youthful reaction, and i salute the lady for presenting her noble cause but i doubt its effectiveness in bringing people together (if that was meant to be the intent).

      We ve had a lot of these rebellions in the recent past and none of them led to anything positive. In fact i think our enemies are laughing.

      • amytales

        Perhaps that’s your interpretation of it, but I don’t agree. As a member of a few minority groups myself, seeing such a sign would probably make me feel a little bit more at home.

        • Mike M

          And what if I put up a sign that implied you were an unwelcome hater?

          • #American Spring

            Its against county law if they are posted outside your property. If they are, anyone can take them down, exception being election campaign stuff.

            Know the law, onus is on you!

            Hold on, we re in Reston and so the DRB should be called first, first responders standing by.

        • AnniePagan

          I’m sorry Amy, but that seems to imply if you don’t see a sign, you assume the presence of some person or organization that hates minority groups? Do you really think that as a member of a “few minority groups” you need a sign such as this to feel assurance and little bit more at home in your neighborhood or society? Or honestly, is that just a premise you’re using to argue a point? I don’t think that’s not a fair assessment of most of our neighbors, no matter their political affiliations, or a helpful designation.

          • amytales

            No, that’s stretching my comments to an illogical extreme. As a matter of fact, I have indeed been able to go out in public and shop and join groups without needing a sign. But the fact is that there are plenty of people out there I don’t and can’t trust, especially after the election, and so for better or worse I am normally on alert. And it’s helpful to see signs of solidarity.

          • amytales

            And yes, when groups I’m part of are targeted by malicious legislation, physical violence, and commonplace hate speech, I don’t have the luxury of assuming everyone is kind and safe.

          • AnniePagan

            Of course you have the luxury of assuming your neighbors are good, decent people until it’s proven not to be true.

          • amytales

            Odds for that aren’t particularly favorable, and assumptions can get oneself into trouble.

          • AnniePagan

            I’m so sorry, Amy, that you feel that way.

          • Mike M

            No one is! Get it?

          • AnniePagan

            You don’t and can’t trust certain people based only on who they voted for in the last election? Or is that just the first criterion you use to prejudge people?

          • amytales

            You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension.

          • AnniePagan

            No, I think the trouble is with your argument, but we can agree to disagree. Have a good day and I wish you health and happiness.

          • amytales

            Perhaps my comment was too harsh, but I sense that you’re trying to press a particular point and put words in my mouth. Right now, no, I personally really don’t trust Trump supporters, but that’s not really part of my argument. All I am saying is that a sign like this helps generate a sense of solidarity. And I welcome that when I feel under attack.

  • The Constitutionalist

    Unfortunately, we can be as hypothetical as we want, only the record can speak.

    I’d be mad too if my political party wasn’t able to take credit for anything except for all of our issues.

  • Pot, meet Kettle

    ^^ Complains about a generalization of conservatives, immediately follows up with gross generalizations of liberals.

    • Mike M

      I think I was pretty specifically addressing AAR.

      • Pot, meet Kettle

        Yes, I am aware.

    • amytales

      Yeah, I blocked Mike after the first long attempt to reason with him. He doesn’t engage in good faith discussion.

      • Mike M

        Well I started this one. My point made three times:
        If you call people who disagree with you on immigration issues haters, you are being hateful. These signs are hateful. Ironic, as someone else observed. There is no dialogue nor good faith discussion in these signs.

  • Greendayer

    They should deliver one to that hateful lady on the airplane of viral fame.

  • AnniePagan

    “Vandenburg said, however, that issues such as President Trump’s recent executive order on immigration emphasize the importance of the project’s message.”

    Of course it’s political. Let’s just be honest. It’s directly aimed at Trump’s election as President, and now his executive order on immigration, and implies it’s hate speech. It also pretty useless virtue signaling. What does this accomplish besides cluttering up the landscape with litter? “Gosh, my heart was filled with hate, and then I saw this sign on the side of the road and now I’m not going to hug a Syrian immigrant?” Please. I’m sure people’s intentions are good, but take the money used to buy signs and donate to a local organization that helps immigrants, or whatever cause you think will better the world, instead of lecturing your neighbors with useless platitudes.

    • amytales

      I don’t think the goal is to lecture other people, but to let people know that they can expect to be treated humanely and in a welcoming manner, which personally I find to be helpful.

      • AnniePagan

        I give my neighbors the benefit of the doubt and assume they treat people humanely and in a welcoming manner, as I do, even if they have different opinions than my own. I think the problem is that some people don’t assume their neighbors aren’t humane and welcoming unless they share the same opinions. I respect your opinion and admire your passion in defending your views in this forum, but I personally feel these signs are basically trolling the landscape with paper. They’re unneeded, unnecessary, and taking as an example the arguments people are having in the comments section here about the signs, not effective. The effectiveness of a goal has to be judged by whether it’s been met. Have these signs cut down on hate? Made people feel more welcomed? Or have they basically implied that President Trump, his supports and the right are hate speech mongers? I think these are good questions to ask. Good intentions don’t assure success. P.S.: Your cat is very cute. Looks like my cat!

        • amytales

          Well, unfortunately, it’s not just opinions we’re talking about, in an environment where people’s opinions still inspire them to cause bodily or legislative harm to other folks. I understand what you’re saying and think it’s a fair point, but I really do think it is helpful to some people to have a better idea of who’s more likely to have your back if you need it. I personally find it reassuring, especially in today’s context where Trump and his supporters are making a habit of singling out groups they don’t like, and that I might even belong to, as targets for public ire. But you’re right, it’s probably not going to change anyone’s mind, but I’m not sure that’s the intent either. It could serve as a reminder to value and encourage community and togetherness over petty or harmful squabbles. I have no proof that this works, but the idealist in me at least considers it possible.

    • Mike M

      Thank you.

  • Mike M

    There is nothing positive about labeling people haters because they disagree with you. To be honest, I know quite a bit about messaging. This sign’s emphasis on the word ‘hate,’ ‘has no home” is very negative to the core. There is NOTHING positive in this sign’s language. Exactly about whom are these signs? Where are the tens of millions of [email protected]? Why is this sign going up now? This is about Democratic politics gone sour, nothing else. Bitter, even.

  • Oliver

    Wtf

  • Oliver

    Israel needs to open up their borders. They have not even taken in 1 refugee. Israel needs to experience the wonders of multiculturalism and diversity. Jewish daughters need to know the love of strong black subsaharan men. Israel needs refugees now. And part of their wall should be torn down to bring in these black people. The diversity will lead to more love in israel

    • amytales

      Perhaps you have an unoffensive point to make that’s actually related to the subject?

  • Greg

    Needs a DRB approval for that sign…tsk, tsk

    For all other projects, you must complete an APPLICATION FORM and obtain your
    NEIGHBORS’ SIGNATURES. your application will be reviewed by staff in consultation
    with a drb member or by a panel of the drb, who will apply the following guidelines.

    https://www.reston.org/Portals/3/SINGLE%20FAMILY%202011/Signs%20-%20Single%20Family%20Detached.pdf

  • John Pinkman

    Good job Elizabeth! I’m sure you didn’t expect such comments. Imagine if you had offered radical thoughts as love thy neighbor as thyself or do unto others as you would have done to you. It takes courage to take action in your own name rather than hiding behind a pseudonym.

    • Mike M

      Ah! But Elizabeth did not offer that message. Instead she attacked her neighbors with whom she does not agree. Poor form.

  • Pot, meet Kettle

    The reaction would be quite positive, actually.
    Please elucidate on how you believe liberals have mistreated conservative women. And as for how conservatives have treated liberal women? I don’t know if Disqus would allow for such a lengthy post.

  • David Nassau

    My first impression was that the sign implies that anyone who voted for Trump is a hater. Then I realized the sign does not actually say that. But I think many people will assume that is what it means. It seems to be acceptable in our community to make such inferences.
    I should say, I voted for Hillary Clinton in this election, just as I voted for Obama in the previous two elections. But I voted for her reluctantly, wishing there were better choices. I was spooked by the stories related to Trump’s temperament. My vote was not determined by policy because, as far as I could tell, Clinton had no interesting policies to promote. It was really more of the same, and that’s obviously not good enough. How do we know it’s not good enough? Because half the country was enraged enough to vote for an unpresidential, demagogic figure with zero political experience, just because he was saying what establishment figures would not.
    And why were they enraged? Because politicians in both parties ignored them for a generation. Their communities were devastated by economic changes. It’s debatable how much of this was due to trade agreements – probably not much. But trade agreements were a sign of the priorities of those politicians. The benefits of free trade and automation, we now know, accrue almost completely to the wealthiest among us. People in blue collar communities instinctively know this. And Hillary Clinton had nothing to say about it.
    Drive through small towns anywhere and you can see signs of this devastation. A dollar store, the most thriving business in town. Towns hanging on by a thread. One reads about the spike in opiate addiction. It’s a chemical signature of despair. Yet Hillary Clinton spoke only of the need to support minorities, women, gays, immigrants (including those who came in illegally). Not that those groups don’t need support. We all need could use some timely help and a sympathetic ear.
    But for Clinton, one-fourth of the country were “deplorables” who were “irredeemable” because of their laundry list of moral failures. ONE-FOURTH. That’s 75 million people! I don’t think enough has been said about how revealing (and damaging) this statement was.
    So I’m not a Trump supporter but I’m trying to keep an open mind. He seems to have good intentions, but, through lack of political experience, he may be unduly influenced by those whose intentions are not so good. There was a big misstep last weekend in how the travel restrictions were implemented (that’s still a head-scratcher). But is it “hate” to want to be more careful who we allow in from certain countries where terrorism is on the rise? There’s an argument to be made (and I would make it) that the Obama administration was too lax in many areas, border and immigration security being one of them. Now we are seeing a pendulum shift. That in itself does not indicate “hate” though admittedly, we must keep a watchful eye. (Eternal vigilance the price of liberty, yada yada)
    Wow I wrote a lot. I will stop there. I will put my actual name here because I’m not ashamed of my opinion even if it goes against the liberal mainstream.

    • Luvmylab

      I wish I could like this 10x

    • Mike M

      Thanks for your thoughtful input. I’d like to note that the problems in middle America are very much due to trade agreements. I know about trade agreements. The truth is that all trade agreements in the last 30 years by both parties were made with the complete understanding that some would suffer and some would gain. They were made knowing that a bad agreement was better for the US in the aggregate than no deal. That was true. We did gain in the aggregate. I gained! But middle America got clocked! Now is a good time to renegotiate just exactly as Trump has said. Unfettered access to the US consumer market has made an economic superpower out of China. We have no reciprocal access. This is true for many of our agreements. Now that many countries have reaped the reward of lopsided trade agreements and have grown addicted to our consumer market, it is time to renegotiate. We could get away with tariffs – a fee for that access where there is no reciprocation. We could rebuild infrastructure with it.

      By the way, don’t be too proud of using your real name. You expose your property and family to any nut who doesn’t like your point of view. I’ve already had people guess at mine and “out” a real Mike M. So desperate are they, they presume my real name is Mike and my last name starts with M.

  • meh

    The political signs are an eyesore and should be removed. I invoke my right to hate people who post dumb signs all over town.

  • Kurt W Peterson

    I was part of the group that started this movement in the North Park Neighborhood in Chicago. It’s a simple message – very straightforward, with no anti-Trump or any other predicates attached. No matter who you are, you are welcome in the community, and you should feel safe and valued there.

    • Mike M

      A. You are a liar.
      B. You accept criminals?

  • amytales

    Well, unfortunately I think the gift is simply due to evangelical Christians here who believe it’s their duty to stand up for Israel because they’re god’s chosen people and their land is mentioned in the eschatological ravings in the book of Revelation. Pure and simple. I personally think that’s a silly reason so I agree with you on that point, but I am still not clear why you went on to mention “black subsaharan” men–a stand-in for any type of refugee?

  • The Constitutionalist

    Of course, that’s the goal for liberals and conservatives alike. See, I think we agree on what the issues are, we just disagree on the solutions.

    • amytales

      Well, a lot of conservatives I’ve come across think either that equality has already been achieved or they actively resist ceding any ground. If that’s not you, I’m glad to hear it.

      • The Constitutionalist

        Legally, as per the Constitution, equality has been achieved. Everything else is semantics.

        Whether or not it’s in practice is a social issue, in which I don’t think social equality can ever be achieved, and I immediately oppose any attempts to rectify it by governmental intervention, hence my opposition to Affirmative Action. Even though I do agree with the issue diversity is a Democratic Ideal.

        I don’t believe the government is here to enforce social policy except when it infringes on an individual’s rights. We have our own sanctions for that, and social change takes time. Generally more time than we have in a single lifetime.

  • Anti-Alt-Right

    I don’t see liberal women grabbing people by the p*ssy.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list