Tinfoil Hat Tuesday – #WhoIsBurningBlackChurches Edition

I first heard about this at Buffoon Juice:

Martin says:
June 29, 2015 at 3:02 pm
Just a reminder – 6 black churches have burned in 4 states in the last week. I’ll give you 11 guesses which 4 states.

More proof that racism in the US is a thing of the past, and that flags are heritage but churches are not.

That is quite alarming! Why aren’t we hearing more about this?

Arsonists are suspected of attacking at least two black churches across the South last week, but no arrests have been made or suspects identified, officials told the Los Angeles Times on Monday.

None of the late-night attacks have been a declared a hate crime and it’s unclear whether any of the fires are linked. Social media reports that six black churches have been burned down in arson attacks are not accurate, according to local officials’ accounts of the fires.

One of the churches was a white church. One fire was caused by lightning. Another was caused by a falling tree limb that struck a power line. But two cases of arson neither of which is definitely a racial hate crime just doesn’t have the same zing.

Let me be clear – torching a church for any reason is despicable. The same goes for torching a mosque, synagogue, temple or any other house of worship, and that includes the Wasilla Bible Church. But let’s stick to the facts.


Meanwhile, Ana Marie Cox demonstrates her ignorance:

Let Bristol Palin Have a Sex Life

Expecting for the second time out of wedlock, the Palin scion has been forced to defend her pregnancy as ‘planned’—because what other reason could there be for sex before marriage?

Who will bake Bristol Palin’s wedding cake?

I’m only half-joking. With her second out-of-wedlock child on the way, the one-time “abstinence ambassador” has shown a disregard for “traditional marriage” that should offend any number of devout patisserie owners and pizzeria proprietors.

The young Palin’s recent remarks defending the pregnancy as “planned” are actually quite damning in that regard. She asserts, “Everyone knows I wanted more kids, to have a bigger family” and that she believed herself to be “heading that way”—an oblique reference to her broken engagement to Dakota Meyer—but that “things did not go according to plan.”

When everything does “not go according to plan,” that usually means the result is “unplanned,” but here I take it that by “planned” she means “wanted.” (If she needed the difference between “planned” and “wanted” clarified, and maybe avoid other situations that “did not go according to plan,” there’s a place she could go that helpfully has “planned” in its very name.)

I’m thrilled the baby is wanted, but Palin’s own narrative, and delight in growing her family, gives lie to the line conservatives continue to push: that traditional marriage is fundamental to family. By many conservatives’ definition, one 24-year-old and two kids is not a meaningful family. And, certainly, “heading that way” is not “marriage.” Jim Obergefell could have told her that years ago.

However flimsy they are as excuses, Palin needs to invoke “heading that way” and “having a family,” because those are the only reasons a “good” Christian can possibly give for sex before marriage. The alternatives are either unrealistic (IVF mixup? The supernatural?) or, among conservative Christians, unspeakable.
Just watch this clip of Palin stiffly bantering with premature has-been Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino. They spend much of the minute and a half euphemizing themselves. “Trust me, though, I’m not getting myself into another situation,” she says. “I avoid situations.” Welp.

So how could we possibly expect Palin now to admit a completely plausible truth: that however much she wanted a family, or believed that she would be married, she had sex before marriage because she wanted to have sex before marriage?

Imagine that. I mean, I’m sure there’s some fan fiction out there.

Because Palin says she wanted to have kids and thought she was about to get married, I imagine most of her conservative Christian brethren will be quick to forgive her. They may not even recognize her trespass as a very troubling sin. If she were to admit that she was less family-minded and more DTF, well, at least the sex was procreative. It’s not like she was gay.

That gay sex is non-procreative is one of the main the reason so many Christians find it troubling. (Well, I suspect there are others, less easily brought to light.) They have created a kind of catch-22 of sin by using that argument as a reason gay people shouldn’t be able to get married, and (in their minds, and Texas) eliminate the category of marriage as a possibility.

Indeed, one irony of the post-Obergefell world is that, finally, unmarried gays will get to live in sin.

If she were to admit that she was less family-minded and more DTF, well, at least the sex was procreative. It’s not like she was gay.
Such a designation is easy to take lightly, especially if you’ve been sinning by others’ definition for years, but Palin’s defiant announcement reminds us that in many quarters, marriage equality will do little for how people think about LGBT people. For conservative Christians, the problem with sex will always be sex, not marriage.

Ms. Cox began her blogging career writing about the joys of buttsex. She should stick to that.


Still clueless:

Gee, you think maybe we’re not spending enough? It’s as if socialism was unsustainable. I blame greedy rich people.


About Myiq2xu™

I lost everything in a Fonzie scheme.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

120 Responses to Tinfoil Hat Tuesday – #WhoIsBurningBlackChurches Edition

  1. Lulu says:

    I keep reading about how the Greeks are the best tax evaders in the world. I want more information on how they do it. Maybe they could come over and give seminars or something.

    • swanspirit says:

      When I read that the retirement age in Greece was 55,; and Goddess knows that could have been wrong given the accuracy of reporting as we know it ; it almost made me want to move to Greece 😉 What a nice dream, to retire at 55 on a full pension or social security. Looks as if dreams die hard in Greece.

    • mothy67 says:

      I wonder what you would think of me now. I woke up one day in a box. I was chained to the floor. I was pissed on every day. I had a guy stand on my tbroat then shit on my face

  2. Lulu says:

    I thought destroying churches was a goal of the Progs. Burning, taxing, social isolation, or ridicule. What difference does it make?

  3. leslie says:

    They should add the State of Illinois and Chicago in particular to that list of Greece, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Turkey, Italy and China. And Maybe the Chicago Public School system as well. All borrowing and borrowing and borrowing…….

  4. Myiq2xu says:

    It would not surprise me if some of the verified church arson cases were inside jobs. Torch your old church, blame white supremacists, get lots of donations to build a new church.

  5. Myiq2xu says:

    Imagine a KKK rally or march with no police there to protect the guys wearing the white sheets.

  6. Myiq2xu says:

  7. elliesmom says:

    I’ve been thinking about the whole “tax the churches” thing, and the old “be careful what you wish for thing”. If the federal government takes away the church’s tax exempt status, churches would have to pay taxes on their income. If they have no profits, they have nothing to be taxed on. Individual states could decide for themselves if they want to tax churches or not, but the same thing would apply. Churches who own a lot of property might find themselves with a property tax bill, but that would be up to the individual cities and towns. I don’t know how that would play out, but church attendance in my town is high, and I think the churches would be safe here. How it would play out in cities like New York is anybody’s guess. But money from the sale of St. Patrick’s Cathedral could probably pay the property taxes on the smaller, less valuable churches in the city for awhile. The optics behind forcing the Catholic Church to do that would be really bad.

    The bigger problem probably comes with whether donations people make are tax-deductible or not. Unless the federal government removes tax exempt status from all non-profits, a church could just set up a charitable foundation, a la the Clinton Initiative, to do its charitable works. What could be considered “charity” is pretty fluid. Certainly the charity would need to have a place of business that contained a big enough “conference room” to house a weekly meeting of the members of the board. While I think there may be liberal support for harming the financial structure of churches, I’m not sure they want to hurt their social justice causes with the same hammer. I’d be surprised to see all non-profits lose their tax exempt status so I think the churches could find a workaround.

    In the “be careful what you wish for” category is churches have been prohibited under the threat of losing their tax exempt status from participating in the political process. Black churches have been given a pass on it for the most part, but other churches have been very careful not to cross the line. With their hands freed to fully participate in the political process, the left might be surprised at the power they had unleashed. If they don’t know the power behind the evangelical pulpit, they’ve never been to a revival meeting. Just the GOTV capabilities of a church might surprise them. All of those SAHMs with their minivans.

    • Ann says:

      Years ago the local “big city” set up garbage pick-up as a “user fee”. The fee was under $30 per large can (city provided) for pick-up per quarter. If you had an apartment, the second can was less than $30, the third can less than the second can, etc.

      Churches SCREAMED they couldn’t afford the fee. Yet somehow they could afford private pick-up when they wanted to protest the “unjust fee”. The city made it a fee instead of a tax so everyone using the service would have to pay. No more free garbage pick-up for churches or charitable organizations.

      We noticed that fees are very popular in Florida (where we have a condo), whereas taxes are very popular in New York (where we have a house). The tax aspect is nice because we can deduct taxes from our state and federal taxes, and we cannot deduct a fee. A fee is nice because all users share the burden and can’t hide behind tax-exempt status.

      A lot of cities and towns have trouble making ends-meet off the tax exempt status of churches. When a house is suddenly turned into a church and taken off the tax rolls, that means everyone pays more in taxes to make up for those houses-turned- tax-free churches.

      I have no idea what will happen in the future, but I am a proponent of a flat tax for all including churches, charitable organizations, people, businesses, etc that make over 4x poverty level, so my view is definitely skewed.

      • elliesmom says:

        I don’t think the tax issue for churches is income, though. If they’re non-profit in the true sense, they won’t make over 4x the poverty level and will still pay no income tax, flat or progressive. The tax exempt status for most churches is about property taxes and whether donations made to them are deductions for the giver. If you take away the charitable giving tax deduction for individuals and corporations, there’s no doubt that giving would go down. Tax revenues would go up for sure. I’m not a religious believer, but I have more faith in the Salvation Army to feed the poor and the hungry than for the federal government to do it. If tax exempt status is taken away from all charitable foundations, we lose a lot of big players in the “do good” marketplace. The United Negro College Fund would find itself begging for taxable dollars along with the Little White Church.

        • Ann says:

          The 4x was for personal, sorry, not corporate. I should have used parenthesis. In my flat tax dreamworld, business could only deduct expenses such as salaries, benefits, rent, etc. (Hey, I don’t have it all worked out, it is a dreamworld.)

          As far as giving going down if they were no longer deductible… I agree that would be true for the big, cash donations. However, there are oodles of people that give to churches now that don’t do itemized deductions. The deduction isn’t the driving force for the donation for those people, supporting their church is.

          The salvation army gets how much of their yearly donations from the (nondeductible) pots? (I don’t know, I am asking a real question.)

          I have an issue with charities keeping 85% (or 50% or 25%) of their loot for administrative costs. Why in the world should the US taxpayer support that?

          • elliesmom says:

            I admit I cherry-picked the Salvation Army because 96% of the money it receives goes to do the things people give it money to do. Their CEO makes $13,000 a year plus modest housing. I always check on a charity before I give them a donation of money. 🙂 I expect at least 80% of my money to go to what the charity does. Some groups like Doctors without Borders or some cancer research groups have ratios in that ballpark because their mission requires more overhead than others. I don’t know how many people who give them money take a tax deduction for it, but anyone who itemizes their tax deductions can, and I certainly do. I don’t belong to a church, but my friends who do and tithe some of their income to the church take the legal deductions. While they and I might still make charitable contributions, the amount we give is influenced by the tax code. Certainly, someone like Bill Gates or the Fords were influenced by the tax code when they set up their foundations.

            This is one place where saying the taxpayers shouldn’t be supporting charitable tax exemptions may fall apart. If the foundation is doing things that benefit us, we have to ask if the federal government doing it is more efficient? What is the “overhead” cost of our government? How much of our tax money goes to doing what the government is supposed to do, and how much of it just supports the bureaucracy? This has to be a number that’s out there somewhere. It would interesting to know how the government compares to some of the large charities.

          • Ann says:

            LOL I don’t want the government doing that either, elliesmom. I wonder if that makes my leanings conservative? yikes!!!

            I do believe that there are people incapable of working that will always need support. I just don’t believe what we have in place now is working. Charities that don’t get the donated cash to the needy (you listed some great ones that do, however!), don’t have job training programs for something useful (either as a trade or merchandise), the government that perpetuates needy and helpless… And I would love to see how much of our tax dollars go to overhead (or lobbyists, payola or the toilet bowl) too – instead of to what makes a lean government function.

            And when you can lobby congress for tax exempt status… nothing good can come from that. Taking the politics out of charities and everything else too (and make no mistake about it, taxes are politically motivated both for a tax, and against a tax) might have unintended consequences. But who is to say those consequences would be bad?

        • Lulu says:

          The issue for revoking tax exempt status is aimed at the donors who give to an institution which is not following the party or social line. Just like the IRS denying or postponing tax exempt status for Tea party groups it is aimed at what are perceived as enemies. Using taxing authorities to punish people who don’t agree with you is a very old tactic of tyrants. Special taxes for non-believers is very ISIS-like. It is essentially denying civil rights to anyone that doesn’t agree with you and really a fascist attitude. If we do away with religous charity exemptions we do away with all tax exempt status including pseudo-political, education and arts exemptions. None or all.

      • piper says:

        Former Mayor of St. Paul, Norm Coleman, implemented users fees for certain city services so property owners wouldn’t complain about rising property and city taxes.

        • elliesmom says:

          When Prop 2 1/2 passed in MA, limiting the amount property taxes can be raised each year, a lot of things that used to be included in our tax money became user fees, and the fees for a lot of things keep going up. Trash pickup was low hanging fruit. School bus service now has a fee in a lot of towns. Schools also charge activity fees for sports, band, and drama clubs. Library cards cost money. We have to buy a membership to the town owned dog park now. The conference room at the town hall has a user fee. Most scout troops have to meet in someone’s home because there’s nowhere in town that’s free anymore. A couple of churches have invited the kids in, but the cost of heating the building up midweek has become prohibitive for them to do it. The senior citizens’ bus fares have tripled in our town. The cost of a building permit skyrocketed. It cost us $50 for a permit to install a replacement dishwasher. If you have no children or pets, can drive yourself places, and don’t ever need the services of an electrician or plumber, you probably don’t notice, but the minute you need any services from the city or town, your “fair share” is a lot more expensive. Except for the trash. Which in our town is $2/bag every week.

          • piper says:

            Hear you about the users fees. Just had a new drive put in and could have save a bit of change if I had the driveway stop short of the street which necessitated pulling a fee based permit from the city.

    • 49erDweet says:

      Somewhere in the back of my memory bank there’s a snip where this country was originally formed at great cost for precisely that reason…..freedom of religion. I know idiots abound, but if so-called rational secular thinkers twist themselves into believing the time has come to throttle back religious citizens in our midst I’d suggest they’re missing most their logic marbles. The American protestant church is none too impressed with state of American governance. From what I read the same applies to many papists. I’d be cautious about underestimating the speed by which they could convert from sheep into wolves and tigers and bears.

  8. Dora says:

    OT but I can’t believe this! I was 13 years old when I started smoking. (Thought I was grown up when I reached 13). My friends and I would buy our cigarettes at Nick’s Stationery Store on Liberty Avenue in Richmond Hill where I grew up. And no – I didn’t look old for my age. We lived in a free country back then.

    Hawaii Becomes First State To Raise Legal Smoking Age To 21

  9. piper says:

    OT from the incredible K. Marge

  10. cynic says:

    Since it’s Tinfoil Hat Tuesday, I’ll throw this out there:

    David Sweat was shot in the torso twice, by some reports. Seems like the first reports of his capture had him in critical condition, with shots to his head. I even mentioned it to my hubby, saying that it was like Osama. Now, I can’t find those reports.

    Second, looking at those pictures, that say he was bleeding profusely, I’m kind of like, ‘huh?’ Didn’t look that way to me.

    Third, when did he shave? I would have expected quite a beard.

  11. Dora says:

    Hillary Clinton, Get This, Edited the Emails She Turned Over to State to Delete Embarrassing References to Oil, Terrorism

    I saw someone note that altering official federal records — which Hillary’s emails are — is a felony.


  12. Lulu says:

    We stopped giving to charities overall a few years ago. Their “missions” changed, it became a scam or they were obnoxious. Last year we gave to one big medical charity but didn’t claim it on our taxes because I don’t consider it any of the IRS’s business. Little charities we give cash such as the cemetery association that I give to maintain ancestors grave sites. The cemetery association has gone all cash by the way and doesn’t file anything with anyone anymore. LOL. Taking away tax status is a double edged sword. While depriving them of some donations the “charities” can go rogue on their asses. As usual the vile progs are not thinking about cause and effect beyond their own nose.

    • leslie says:

      No, not really a surprise. But calling her glamorous!?!?!
      I guess every AA female now in politics is now considered glamorous after MOTUS.

    • Gurl, she gonna need a better suit to be glamorous. This off-the-rack-at-Value City look is telling. At least get to JC Penney. LOL

    • Somebody says:

      I haven’t had a chance to read much about this voting ruling by SCOTUS, but if the headlines are correct our country is doomed. Why would any country not just the US, but any country allow non-citizens to vote??? If this stands our nation is doomed, straw meet camel’s back.

      We the people need to push back and push back HARD. It is utterly ridiculous that non-citizens should be allowed to vote.

  13. helenk3 says:


    a little bit of history about the supreme court

  14. helenk3 says:


    very interesting.
    stalling congressional committees gets you a lot of jobs in DC

  15. helenk3 says:

    the supreme court made some really damaging decisions this week.
    they took away states rights on obamacare and gay marriage.

    with the decision on low income housing they hurt the building industry and whether or not they thought of it they hurt the cities and states and their tax base.

    with the decision on voting laws they took away the right of CITIZENS to decide on what they want their government to be

    we are living in interesting times

    • foxyladi14 says:

      Dcktatership!!! 👿

    • 1539days says:

      Ben Franklin knew this would happen when we scrapped a confederation of states and went to a federal constitution. Eventually we would become a country with a single government blind to the interests of the individual states.

      If Rick Perry seceded from the Union, he could become President of the Nation of Texas.

  16. helenk3 says:

    way off topic

    sometimes we need a getaway, even if it is only in our backyard

  17. Mary says:

    Always gotta ask yourself who stands to gain by keeping the “Black folks” in an uproar over perceptions and half-truths —- and does DeRay serve a purpose similar to bigger voices (Sharpton, etc)?

    Who needs the Blacks to stay sitrred up angry, even if half the stories are not true?

    Hands up Don’t shoot, y’all.

  18. Jadzia says:

    Have I mentioned that I knew Ana in college? We were on the school paper together. I couldn’t believe it when she became Wonkette with the B/S fixation and all because… that ain’t the gal I knew, who was actually kind of mild-mannered and boring.

  19. 49erDweet says:

    Where do you live where “houses are suddenly taken off the tax rolls….”, New Mecca?

  20. helenk3 says:


    now this angers me
    can’t we round them up and drop them in the middle of an isis camp and see how long they survive?

  21. Propertius says:

    Facts are a microaggression. You’re hurting the narrative.

  22. Myiq2xu says:
  23. helenk3 says:


    OPM shuts down background check data base over a FLAW

    close enough for government work?

  24. helenk3 says:


    wonder if she will go to any muslim countries, where the throw acid in the faces of girls trying to get an education?

    maybe she will not do TOO MUCH harm while out to the country

    • 49erDweet says:

      I was born and raised there (many years ago), and still have kin in the area, so heed this tiny bit of wisdom about earthquakes in California……when an ‘active’ area goes ‘quiet’ for a spell it is not actually “good” news. Somewhere, deep down there, the pressure is building and building and building…….

      • Myiq2xu says:

        Every place you can go there is something that can kill you. Mother Nature is a serial killer.

      • helenk3 says:

        when I first moved to California, I was working as a train dispatcher. We had a small earthquake and everyone was watching to see my reaction. It felt like when the stone train used to go by my house in PA.. Everywhere has some kind of problem caused by mother nature.
        Earthquakes take minutes, Hurricanes can take days, Cyclones can take minutes


    • Propertius says:

      “Explosive helium”????? Only in the Daily Fail.

  25. Myiq2xu says:
  26. Myiq2xu says:


    New Yorkers may soon not be able to smoke in their own homes, if Democratic New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio gets his way.

    The New York Post reported on de Blasio’s new initiative to partner with health groups that will “pressure landlords” into banning smoking in apartment buildings.

    “That means smokers would be barred from lighting up in one of their last sanctuaries: their own living quarters,” the paper said. “Smoking is already banned in public places, including bars and restaurants, workplaces, sports venues, and parks.”

    Big Sister runs NYC

  27. piper says:

    Illinois going Greece – Illinois government deadlocked, shutdown a possibility
    “Illinois has a reputation for being largely rural, yet bafflingly Democratic. The Chicago machine—not those languishing in my old stomping grounds in the capitol of Springfield—runs things, but for the first time in over a decade, a solidly Democratic legislature is dealing with a Republican governor.

    Bruce Rauner has spent his time bucking the trends that have run Illinois into the ground, but Democrats have, in turn, bucked his pro-business agenda and are demanding a massive tax increase to make up for a $4 billion dollar shortfall”
    More at link:

  28. helenk3 says:


    isn’t there enough hate going around, that it does not have to be manufactured?

  29. Dora says:

    Hell with him Monica! There are plenty of other seats to choose from. BTW, I think Monica looks very pretty.

    Cannes: #Climategate Meets #Monicagate Meets #RepublicanWarOnWomen

    Monica Lewinsky was barred from sitting in a box with former US Vice-President Al Gore at an advertising festival in Cannes on Saturday.


  30. Dora says:

    Can you imagine if Bernie Sanders won the nomination and chose Elizabeth Warren as his running mate? Hillary would be sooooo upset!

    Elizabeth Warren won’t rule out endorsing Bernie Sanders

    • DeniseVB says:

      That would be fun to watch. Though I think the Dem VP would have to come from a battleground state, MA is solid blue and in New England also. I’m guessing Hillary would pick Terry McAuliffe , the Virginia Gov. He’s working his little hiney off for her here.

    • 1539days says:

      Mondale 2. I like it!

  31. Myiq2xu says:
    • Dora says:

      Thanks. I almost forgot.

      • Dora says:

        Well, I went outside a few times to take a look, but the sky on Long Island was too overcast. I couldn’t see a thing. Not even the moon. 😦 . I can understand now why there were so many clouds. We’re having a thunderstorm. Drats! I hope someone posts pictures later.

  32. helenk3 says:


    stolen from a commenter at No Quarter

    the JV team making gains in Afghanistan

  33. lyn says:

    Happy Retirement Day, Leslie!

  34. DandyTIger says:

    Somehow my yard doesn’t turn out like this:

  35. helenk3 says:


  36. Pingback: Racism in the South and Washington Post - BitsBlog

Comments are closed.