Gay brown shirts struck an evangelical church near Lansing, Michigan, Sunday, with violence, profanity and Nazi-like intimidation inside the sanctuary. The oddly sterile LSJ report notes, incredibly, that police arrested no one, but doesn’t indicate the denomination of the church. For that, I had to turn to a more reliable, complete news source, the RightMichigan blog which features the picture of the event, below.
The chaotic scene described by RightMichigan suggests a bloodless Kristallnacht. On Kristallnacht, Nazi thugs with Hitler’s blessing vandalized 200 Jewish synagogues, murdered 92 Jews and arrested 25-30,000. We’re not quite there, yet but we’re getting close. Back to Lansing:
On Sunday, November 9, 2008 [gay thugs] sat peacefully through announcements, worship and prayer for the sick, our nation and our President-elect before staging a coordinated . . . attack on worshipers and the broader concept of the church itself at Lansing’s Mount Hope Church.
The [thugs had responded to a blogger who] called on “queers and trannies” from across . . . the region to converge on Lansing for what they refer to as an “action.” While many of the members claim to be anarchists . . . their broader goal is stated plainly on one of their lefty blogs.
“I can tell you that we are targeting a well-known anti-queer, anti-choice radical right wing establishment.”
Mount Hope, for the record, is an evangelical, bible believing church whose members provide free 24 hour counseling, prayer lines, catastrophic care for families dealing with medical emergencies, support groups for men, women and children dealing with a wide variety of life’s troubles, crisis intervention, marriage ministries, regular, organized volunteer work in and around the city, missions in dozens of countries across the globe, a construction ministry that has built over 100 churches, schools, orphanages and other projects all over the world and an in-depth prison ministry that reaches out, touches and helps the men and women the rest of society fears the most. . .
Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. “Jesus was gay,” they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.
Their other props? I’ll let them tell you in their own words…:
“(A) video camera, a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric…yeh.”
The video camera they put to good use as they attempted to provoke a violent reaction. The image of the pink-clad folks above is one of theirs, stating in a picture worth more than a thousand words the goals of the Michigan left.
. . . And just in case their camera missed the target, they had a reporter in tow. According to a source inside the church yesterday there was a “journalist” from the Lansing City Pulse along for the ride, tipped off about the action and more interested in getting a story than in preventing the vandalism, the violence and anti-Christian hatred . . .
The church’s response? After things settled down, the blasphemy ended, the lewd props removed and the families safe from fear of additional men and women running into and past them the pastor took the stage and led the congregation in one more prayer… not for retribution, or divine justice or a celestial comeuppance . . . but instead that the troubled individuals who’d just defiled the Lord’s house, so full of anger and hate, would know Jesus’ love in their lives and God’s peace that exceeds human understanding. . .
Americans will learn alot about Barack Obama by watching how his Justice Department responds to these kinds of civil rights violations. Full story at RightMichigan.
Meanwhile, across the fruited plain (so to speak), other gay militants are threatening to “boycott” Utah. We should all be so lucky.
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
So, if you kill a gay in self-defense, such as when they show up in your church dressed as terrorists, carrying baseball bats, would you still be tried for a hate crime? Even though they are trespassing in your church and threatening you? Chances are you would be.
I guess it depends on whether the judge (or jury) is gay. Brandishing an ax like that pictured in the context as it is described could be assault with a deadly weapon. And, depending on exactly what the person did with the ax, it might justify response with deadly force. If so, the response would not be a crime and could not, therefore, be a “hate crime.”
OK so how does the Brownshit and Kristallnacht attachments apply to this? A very unprofessional and childish protest I can see, but to say that it compares to Kristallnacht is more fear mongering than rational. If you want to get back to conservative government you are going to have to do better than this. It seems the left is getting its votes by Inclusion and the right is losing its votes by exclusion. I would love to see a list by left and right of which people it would accept into its fold would include. Germans, Muslims, Atheist, Evangelicals, French, Gay, Satanic, Latins, Canadians, Russians, Socialist, and even Jews.
Oh for whats its worth…I would accept them all if they agreed that we need to work towards a common good to avoid hunger, hatred, poverty and to reach for what the Constitution says “All men are created equal”.
People who are attending church services deserve to be left alone to pray and sing. Disruptions such as that described should not be supported or condoned. If grounds exist for prosecution, there should be prosecutions.
But, Kurt, such situations are bad enough without the event being hyped and fear-mongered to even greater depths. Which is what your post attempts.
For example: The church was not “attacked.” Your comparison to Kristallnacht is unwarranted.
The photo in your post was not a photo of the “event” at the Church near Lansing.
There is no indication that axes were brandished at that Church.
Contrary to your statement, the LSJ report indicates that the Mount Hope Church is affiliated with the Assemblies of God Denomination.
Even though the LSJ article identifies the disruptors as members of a radical gay group calling themselves “BashBack,” you refer to them first as “gay thugs,” then you equate them to “other gay militants,” after having blatently, and rather clumsily, conflated those groups and their goals to “the goals of the Michigan left.” Way to go!!!! Dr. G. would be proud of you!
It is not incredible that the police did not arrest anyone. According to the reports, the police did not observe any law breaking going on; no one with the Church, apparently, asked that arrests be made; there was no probable cause for arrests. What do want? That the Lansing PD import Angie Voss to determine who is to be arrested? The disruption is being investigated. If arrests are necessary, you can bet the PD will attempt to make those arrests.
And what the HELL does O’Bama have to do with this, Kurt? Please, stop with the rabble rousing.
Go back to sleep Cosmo; you are not in danger.
Being accepting of someone or something does not mean you have to approve of their immoral actions. Conservatives do not disapprove of the people; they are disapproving of the actions. All men are indeed created equal, and their Creator expects them all to abide by His law.
All men should also be afforded equal protection under the law. You can bet that if a bunch of heterosexuals showed up at gay church and behaved in such a manner, every last one of those heterosexuals would have been arrested and would be tried for a hate crime. Gays don’t want equal treatment; they want special treatment. When they chose to be different (yes, it is a choice, regardless of how tough it may be to choose otherwise), they choose to sacrifice the benefits of traditional families. They need to accept that and stop expecting the rest of society to reward them for their deviant lifestyles. Though we may love the individuals, we can not condone their behavior.
“I can see, but to say that it compares to Kristallnacht is more fear mongering than rational.’
Why don’t you run it by the children who were in the church in Michigan as it happened? It wasn’t just childish. It was meant to strike fear into the souls of those there and all else who would hear about it. Why else bring along a reporter? Just as any other group of extremist terrorists operates, they want their actions to be known because they want to terrorize their targets. Heck! They even posed for pictures while dressed like their middle eastern role models.
Jayde, have you any knowledge of what Kristallnacht was? What happened on that night?
I don’t know exactly what happened on either event, but by all accounts, what happened in Lansing was not comprable to Kristallnacht?
Doran –
If Kristallnacht weren’t comparable to Lansing, I wouldn’t have compared the two. Your admitted lack of knowledge of the facts disqualifies you from passing judgment on the comparison.
“I don’t know exactly what happened on either event, but by all accounts, what happened in Lansing was not comprable to Kristallnacht?”
I wasn’t there in either case, but I studied Kristalnacht in several of my many history classes. Nobody was killed in Lansing, but the implied threat was still there. And, the intent to terrorize those who weren’t giving into the gay agenda was present.
I believe what the gay terrorists (and that IS what they were, because they is how they behaved and how they dressed) did in the church in Lansing would qualify as assault. It was emotionally and physically threatening, to invade that church, and to behave obscenely as they did. (It would not qualify as assault *and battery* because they did not physically attack anyone.)
That they were not arrested is almost certainly due to the pastor and members not filing charges. But that does not erase their attempt to strike fear into the members of that church. Apparently there was considerably more to the story, more that was offensive, than is presented in this report.
What the No on 8 rioters outside the temple walls in Los Angeles did was just as terrifying. People within the Los Angeles Temple Compound were under siege for about nine hours. Hispanic women, not Mormon, trying to remove vile signs from the fence, were beaten to the ground. Assault AND battery.
None of this persuades anyone to change their minds to support No on 8. Apparently persuasion is not on their agenda. Terror is.
Kurt, you are much, much older than I would have thought, since you write about Kristallnacht with the knowledge (which you say the lack of on my part disqualifies me from etc etc) of someone who was in Germany at that time (November 9-10, 1938). Say you were 10 years old at the time, old enough to have understood what was going on, that would make you about 88 right now.
On the other hand, if you were not actually present at either Lansing or Kristallnacht, you would be relying on the same sources that I do to discuss the comparison you made.
Wiki is as good a place as any to start, although you might want to read William Schrier’s account, probably in his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:
Kristallnacht was a nation-wide event coordinated by the Hitler regime, part of his anti-Semitic policies (then five years along) aimed at the expulsion of Jews from Germany. There was nothing even remotely like that effort in play at Lansing. If it was, then it would have had to have been an effort coordinated by the government of George Bush to have been comparable. I assume that is not what you intended to assert.
No one was killed at Lansing. At least 92 Jews were killed on the night of November 9 and early morning November 10, and 25,000 to 30,000 were arrested and sent to concentration camps.
The church at Lansing was not destroyed. During the period November 9-10, more than 200 synagogoues across Germany were destroyed.
The perpetrators at Lansing did not march through town breaking the windows of Christian owned business. On Kristallnacht, thousand of Jewish businesses across Germany were ransacked. The name “Kristallnacht” was derived from Night of the Broken Glass.
Kristallnacht was followed in Germany by mass deportations of Jews to concentration/death camps.
The actions of the perps at Lansing was despicable. Maybe some of them will be charged with assault, or disorderly conduct, or even something more serious. A calm, rational description of what they did is sufficient to describe the lawlessness of their behavior. Over-the-top, irrational, semi-hysterical polemics are not required; that approach is nothing more than fear-mongering and gay-bashing. The comparison to Kristallnacht is not only inappropriate, it belittles the enormity of the evil set loose by the German government on Jews.
“On the other hand, if you were not actually present at either Lansing or Kristallnacht, you would be relying on the same sources that I do to discuss the comparison you made.”
Doran, just because you don’t have access to any primary sources does not mean that Kurt does not have such access. I’m a whole lot younger than the math that you’ve done indicates I have would to be in order to base my opinion upon feedback from primary sources. Yet I have visited, in person, with men who served under Hitler. I have a younger brother who is closely acquainted with multiple survivors of the holocaust. Just because you are isolated from first hand intelligence does not mean that others are.
The Jews I know would not find the comparison belittling. (My best friend in childhood was a Jew. I am German. Our teacher told us, “To this day, Jews and Germans can not be friends. They can not look beyond the past.”) They would hope that the nightmare they and their ancestors lived would not have to be repeated because people would learn from what they went through and take steps to prevent it from happening to others. Do we have to relive the whole holocaust before we wake up and see the path we’re on, before we can acknowledge the similarities without being accused of being fear mongers?
Aside from that, Kurt stated in his post that it was not the very same as Kristallnacht, but that it was reminiscent of it. And, it is. No, the gays have not carried it as far as Kristallnacht, but the desire is there. And, the more and more law enforcement tolerates their behavior without arrests, the more empowered they are feeling, and the more aggressive they are becoming. Do they have a desire to deport Christians? Yes, many of them do. When the attacked the LDS temple in L.A., many of them carried signs which read, “Ban Mormons” and other choice phrases directed at those whose opinions differ from their own. With that attack, they didn’t stop at throwing fliers and condoms around, they vandalized the building and the temple grounds, and they beat those who attempted to remove the crude signs from the temple fence. Is it just the same as Kristallnacht? No. Kurt never said it was. Is it reminiscent of the behavior and mentality of those who perpetrated Kristallnacht? You bet it is. And, you can’t tell Kurt it isn’t. If it brought Kristallnacht to mind for him, then it is reminiscent of Kristallnacht.
I don’t think it would matter what topic Kurt wrote about or what stand he took, you are bound and determined to disagree with whatever he says about anything.
My grandmother was sufficiently Jewish to flee Germany in 1938, never to return. I don’t remember at the moment whether she left before or after Kristallnacht.
Regardless, for me this event recalls Kristallnacht because of it’s fanatical anti-religious roots, it’s purpose of intimidation and humiliation, and the fact that, so far, the authorities have simply looked the other way. The reported response of the congregation is also hauntingly similar to the initial response of the Jews in Germany. Just be quiet and hope it all goes away.
While there are some notable differences between the two events — especially that no one was murdered — no Jew worthy of the name should object to the comparison. Neither should any sincere student of history.
With all that is going on in California, and with the march scheduled for tomorrow, please those of you (including your family, Kurt) take care! We don’t need anyone hurt or worse to prove a point.
Nothing “gay” about them. Hijacked word that USED to mean “happy.”
I prefer the correct term: homosexuals. If they were so proud of being homosexual they would NOT mind that word. “Gay” just more NewSpeak.
The fact is that house of pink are straight-up witches out of hell.
Doran, your hatred of GW Bush is so immense it’s actually keeping you from seeing FACTS. There’s a big difference between a buffoon like GW and a Monster like Hitler. Yes, a buffoon can be dangerous, but it’s not intentional like it is with a Monster. You’re constantly inserting more brains and mastermind into GW, a bumpkin. You’re WAY off.
Clear the hatred and you can easily see that.
Hitler was a MONSTER. The worst of its kind. ??????, meaning “beast,” not in the true animal sense, but mythical like a MONSTER.
And make no mistake about it: Obama is going to make ol’ Adolf look clumsy.
p.s. the Greek word above that would not print is “therion” (aka monster, aka mythical beast)
The Greek letters wouldn’t transfer to the blog so it replaced them with question marks after I hit “send.”
Doran — You asked what Barack Obama has to do with gay nazis storming a Michigan church. First, Obama publicly opposed Prop 8 after Joe Biden claimed that he and Barack supported it.
Second, Barack Obama is the U.S. president-elect. He and his chosen AG will set and implement federal civil rights enforcement policies that can have a direct impact on the spread (or not) of the gay-nazi phenomenon.
If Obama’s AG vigorously enforces civil rights laws against these nazis when they break into churches carrying axes, bully citizens who oppose their views, and vandalize churches, they’ll eventually take a hint and start using the democratic process as intended.
If, on the other hand, Obama’s AG looks the other way, I believe that blood will run in the streets just as it did in Hitler’s Germany. What I don’t understand is your knee-jerk objection to my pointing this out. It’s pretty obvious to anyone who has carefully studied the history of the civil rights movement here and Germany’s descent into despotism under Hitler.
MoniQue — All good points. Thanks.
Kurt, your concern about President Obama’s pick for Attorney General is legitimate. Your linking of Obama to what happened in Lansing is blatent anti-Obama propaganda.
Kurt, “no Jew worthy of the name…..” Wow! You are demonstrating an omniscence and arrogance I’d now detected before now……
Cosmo, are you posting from Germany?
I want to offer a theory as to why homosexual organizations, including fringe groups like BashBack, have become more militant about protecting the rights of homosexuals. The theory is not complex: Homosexuals in America have traditionally been marginalized, subjected to acts of violence, discriminated against, and now, with the passage of Proposition 8, are having certain rights under California’s Constitution taken from them. They are pushing back because if they do not they may find themselves, in a few years, being treated as Jews were treated in Germany in the 1930s.
I suggest that you who are interested go to google, type in “anti-homosexual violence,” and look at the entries concerning the acts of violence against homosexuals.
If Kristallnacht is to be used as a metaphor, as Kurt suggests is a legtimate way to use it, then it is properly seen as a metaphor for what can happen when a particular group in society are targeted by government and civilians for discrimination and denial of rights, as homosexuals have been and are being targeted in America. I think it possible that homosexuals are taking the position that they will push back, and by doing so will avoid their own Kristallnacht.
I sincerely hope that the “push back” will be peaceful and non-violent, as it has been for the most part. Stirring up homophobia, fear, and hate by lumping all homosexuals together as a single-minded, violence prone group, smearing them all with the same invective, as is routinely done in the comments sections of this site, is not the way to encourage non-violence. It is instead the perfect way to stir up violence among homophobes, which can be expected to be met with violence by homosexuals. That situation can lead to gangs fighting each other in the streets, which is precisely what the anti-homosexual rights phalanx wants, because it prepares the way for a rigourous crack-down by law enforcement on homosexuals.
Doran,
Prop 8 did not take any rights away from homosexuals. Before and after Prop 8 homosexuals had the same rights as everyone else. The reason for their anger is because most people think we shouldn’t have marriage licenses that are between “Person A” and “Person B”.
The protests have not been peaceful for the most part, you might want to read this article again and Kurt’s post about their riot at the LDS Temple. These, of course, are only a few incidents in which gays have used violence or intimidation.
Monique.
I agree with your description of GWB being a buffoon and a bumpkin. Those of us who lived in Texas when he was governor, and stayed awake and did not let political correctness get in the way, recognized those characteristics years ago.
But, I think you description/comparison does not go far enough. Hitler was a war hero, Bush got his daddy to get him a cushy place in the Texas Air National Guard.
Hitler was a student of history. By all accounts, Bush is not.
Hitler was willing to go to prison in support of his political beliefs. The closest Bush got to going to jail was for DWI.
Hitler collected art (true, much of it stolen from people in Europe). Bush probably does not.
Hitler was a great orator. Bush puts people to sleep with his speeches.
About the only place I’ve been able to identify any similarities between the two is that both ignored international law and did not hesitate to launch an aggressive war, supported by lies to their country about the necessity of doing so. Of course, both were failures in the sphere of private business.
I don’t suppose you were able to vote for or against Hitler, but you may have had that opportunity with Bush. Did you vote for him twice?
I wonder if you agree with the following statement: “Americans will learn alot about George Bush by watching how his Justice Department responds to these kinds of civil rights violations. “
Alex, you are flat-out incorrect.
Here is what the California Supreme Court wrote in its Opinion in The Marriage Cases:
[U]nder this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.[18] These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the
opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the
individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and
protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the
same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.
As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving
relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their
own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family —
constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and
personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the
benefit of both the individual and society.
Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an
individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship
with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend
upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s
sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a
legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore
conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental
constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution
properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians,
whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex
couples.
“[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.”[21]
Whether you like it or not, the California Constitution protected the right of homosexuals in California to marry and to have a family. Proposition 8 purports to amend the California Constitution to limit marriage to a relationship between one man and one woman. Surely you can understand that Proposition 8 denies, takes away, the right which homosexuals previously had to marry in a same-sex marriage.
One of the dissents in The Marriage Cases asserted that the legislative initiative should be upheld becasue the “traditional” meaning of marriage was that of a relationship between a man and a woman.
What would you think if, based on the theory that “marriage” was traditionally between people of the same race, a constitutional initiative should be launched in California to amend their constitution to make it so?
Doran,
I’m not wrong; gays had and have the same rights as straights. You are correct though that to raise a family is a right, but a family consists of a father, a mother, and children, there are no homosexual families, and no government can change that. The family was an instituted by God, and God does not approve of homosexuality (take Sodom for example) and doesn’t hold that kind of union to be a family.
Alex. You really should be able to admit to what is fact. The California Constitution, prior to Prop. 8, protected the rights of homosexuals to enter into marriages. Prop. 8 purports to limit marriage to that between men and women. First the homos had it, now they don’t. That constitutionally protected right was been taken from them. It is just that plain and simple.
You can find the entire opinion of The Marriage Cases if you go to Wiki, type in Proposition 8, and scroll down to the footnotes where you will find a link to the opinion. It is more than 170 pages long, but the good part is right up front. Won’t take you anytime at all to read it. Tho, it may take you years to accept it, given your mind set (denial).
Doran,
Gays had the “right” because four justices overturned what the people of California had already decided.
No, Alex, that is not correct. The previous proposition purported to amend California’s statutory provisions regarding marriage. You can’t do that. Legislature’s cannot take away Constitutional Rights: You have to amend the Constitution in order to do that. Which is what Prop. 8 purports to do.
So now, barely into the 3rd century of constitutional government in the United State, homophobes in California are using the constitutional amendment process to take away constitutional rights from a segment of the population they don’t like. Great! The past two-hundred years have been a period of extending liberty and freedom to people, but now we are in the process of taking away those freedoms. It is no wonder that homosexuals are bothered. They see a homophobe Kristallnacht on the horizon and they don’t like it. I don’t either.
What will the future bring, Alex, now that California has shown the way? Constitutional Amendments in Georgia and Mississippi to restrict marriage to men and women of the same race?
And if you, or Kurt, poo-poo that idea, please explain why it cannot be done in such a way that it works.
But Alex does, so I guess all is right with the world….
“What will the future bring, Alex, now that California has shown the way?”
Did CA show the way? My understanding was that there were already other states with such constitutional amendments prior to this election.
Besides, Alex is right. CA voters did not take anything from homos that the people hadn’t already spoken on. The constitutional amendment requirement was a technicality missed with Prop. 22, but the people had already clearly spoken their will once. The judges were abusing the will of the people by granting gay marriage. THAT is where citizens are really losing their freedom…through judges who are writing law, which is not their role. So, now that the courts have attempted to remove the separation of Church and State by presuming to redefine marriage, where does it stop, Doran? In CA, the vocal minority and their liberal leaders are attempting to invoke atheism as the State Religion. Should the citizens not have the right to defend religion and marriage, which is a religious rite between men and women?
Jayde, you have it exactly upside down on several important points.
First, a constitutional amendment is not a technicality. It is a change in the basic law of a state, when a state constitution is amended, or of the United States, when the US Constitution is amended. As an example, the First Ten Amendments to the US Constitution, as well as several later amendments, such as the Fourteenth Amendment drastically altered the orginal Constitution and the direction the Nation has taken ever since.
So, the people of California voted on Prop. 22. That was a tinkering with the marriage statutes to deny the right of marriage to homosexuals. The California Supreme Court did exactly what it was supposed to do. It would have done exactly what it was supposed to do had it ruled in the exact opposite direction. It had a case before it, argued profoundly by many attorneys, and it considered past CA Sup Ct cases, past legislative enactments, and the CA Constitution and reached a decision. No supreme court anywhere should be guided by a referendum/vote of the electorate when making such a decision. The Court is not there to legitimate a vote, or to ignore a vote, as the US Sup. Ct. did in Bush v. Gore. It is there to interpret and apply the law. You should try reading the opinion. It is very well thought out and articulated.
As Kurt so saracastically put it in a different thread, would you have supported the popular vote in Germany for Hitler’s take over of absolute power?????
How peculiar that you criticize the CA Sup. Ct. for taking freedom away from people when it is homophobes, by popular vote on a constitutional amendment who are taking the freedom to get married away from homosexuals. How amazingly peculiar and somewhat dense of you. No one has done anything, or even advocated as far as I know, toward forcing you or anyone else into a homosexual marriage. What loses of freedom are you talking about?
Marry anyone you want to marry. I hope all of your marriages involve god, as that is so important to you. And show us one, just one, example of a government of the United States trying to prevent such marriages between one man and one woman who are not related to each other, or mentally imbalanced, or underage. But leave other people alone to enter into the kinds of marriages they want. That is the right the CA Sup. Ct. said the CA Const. protected, and which homophobes and religious exptremists and busybodies like yourself have now taken away from them.
Nice work, homo haters. I doubt that God is on your side.
Nick De Leeuw of RightMichigan said he got his account of the incident from a church member who was there.
However, he said, the photo along with his report – of protesters dressed in black with their faces covered by pink, Middle-Eastern style headcoverings – was not from the protest at the church but from an earlier Bash Back protest elsewhere.
Kurt keep the facts straight.
The truth is ugly enough.