Gotta love Chuck Norris

Gotta love Chuck Norris January 8, 2014

The guy more or less made a career of defending defenseless people when thugs try to beat them up and take their stuff.  So now he naturally goes to bat for the Little Sisters of the Poor as Obama tries to stick a gun in their ribs and force them to pay for abortion and contraception and similar BS “health care” (since babies are a disease in Obamaworld and Catholics are simultaneously supposed to stay out of other people’s bedrooms (happy to oblige) but are supposed to be frog-marched in there to buy somebody’s else’s condom).  Gotta love that the Obama administration has decided, in a particularly piquant demonstration of “sin makes you stupid” to choose to die on the hill of “Let’s bring the full might of the state to crush the Little Sisters of the Poor (followed, no doubt, by “Let’s drag orphans through the streets and stomp on puppies and boast ‘Puny humans!  I am invincible!!!’)”  Heckuva PR job, Obama.

Meanwhile, over at the US News and World Report offices of the Ministry of Truth, some hack writes a piece of 19th century Know Nothing propaganda whose anti-Catholic bigotry is so obvious and transparent this person should consider getting a job with the KKK’s public relations office.  Deacon Greg does the preliminary examination of the crime scene and then Lizzie Scalia does the full autopsy on USN&WR’s journalistic integrity.  It will be interesting to see how many other craven suckups and Grima Wormtongues will be able to muscle down the gag reflex and join the 15 Minute hate against–seriously–The Little Sisters of the Freaking Poor and darkly hint that Catholics like Sotomayor should not be allowed to participate in American public life like us good white folk who know how things are supposed to be done in this town.  Them pious Catholic Latino types, they’re just too *backward*.  KnowwhutI’msayin’?

Si, se puede!

"Do you think those baptisms were valid? Mother Teresa and her nuns said to the ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Hey Mark! You got $250 mil laying around?"

The Feast of the Holy Child ..."
"I have had a question for quite a while, and since your comment is quite ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Mark, in charity, perhaps you should try. It's clear how frustrated you are. And it ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Francisco J Castellanos

    Madre Mia! I just read that awful piece of basura prejuiciada by Jamie Stiehm.

    As a backward Pious Catholic Latino type, married to a backward Pious Catholic Latina who belongs to a different “sisterhood” than Ms. Stiehm, all I can say is: “Viva Cristo Rey!”

  • Fr. Denis Lemieux

    All I can say is ‘Chuck Norris defends Little Sisters of the Poor from evil tyrannical regime’ sounds like a heck of a good movie pitch.

  • John Simmins

    I always got the impression that like John Wayne, Chuck Norris was always playing Chuck Norris.

    • chezami

      That’s because you never saw him as Juliet in Shakespeare’s heartbreaking tragedy.

    • chezami

      And, by the way, Wayne’s sensitive portrayal of the fragile Belgian painter James Ensor has been unseen for far too long.

  • Guest

    The eyes of Chuck Norris are upon you.

  • ck

    I finally understand what the Church means by a proper scope of human freedom. Freedom isn’t really just about rights, it truly is about being able to do the good, and no tyranny is greater than one that precludes people from exercising the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

    The tragedy is that in America it has become illegal to be Mother Theresa.

    • Dave G.

      it has become illegal to be Mother Theresa.


  • Stu

    “The next Republican that tells me I’m not religious I’m going to shove my rosary beads down their throat.”
    -Vice President Joseph R. Biden

  • She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named

    And that, friends, is why nobody can lower the boom on Chuck Norris. 🙂

  • Jonna

    Honestly this meme is ridiculous. The Sisters are exempt, their private insurance carrier, the Christian Brothers, was already exempt. No contraceptive coverage here, folks. The Sisters are being used in this political theater. You can’t fight the good fight with a lie.

    • chezami

      Not super complicated. All Obama has to do is drop his demands.

      • Jonna

        Or we Catholics can remember that we don’t live in a theocracy.

        • Joanna, the point is that there should be no “exempt” or “non-exempt” categories in the first place. We may not live in a theocracy, but we live in a nation that, at least for the time being, still has a Constitution, and the First Amendment to that Constitution says that the government may not restrict the “free exercise” of religion. PERIOD. There is no “you can restrict this category of the faithful but not that one.” The government does not have the right to make these categories. For the Little Sisters to sign the paper would mean (among other things) that they accept that there is an “exempt” category, when there isn’t and shouldn’t be. The Administration is after a principle here and they are going to use that principle in far worse ways in the future. They are just itching for the day when they can force all Catholic physicians and medical personnel to perform surgical abortions, sterilizations and euthanasia in our own hospitals.

          Go, good sisters and don’t give an inch — because if you do, the Administration will take ten thousand miles.

          • Jonna

            I think conspiracy theories cloud many issues. Again, you can’t fight the good fight with a lie, no matter how well intentioned. We all live daily with laws that conflict with our faith, most under the guise of free market capitalism. It is the disciple’s job “to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God” under all circumstances. I don’t see Christ calling us to be litigious alarmists. Contraceptive coverage has been mandatory for insurance carriers that provide preventive care since 2000, with no fuss from the USCCB. Carriers like the Christian Brothers were exempt since then, again with no fuss and bother. Perhaps you should check your pre-ACA medical plan and drop your insurance if contraceptives are covered. It’s called walking the walk.

            • Joanna, nothing I have said is in the realm of conspiracy theory. Did you hear that a new lawsuit backed by the ACLU in Michigan is arguing that the USCCB’s guidelines prohibiting abortion in Catholic hospitals are unconstitutional? Or that the new mayor of my home city of New York, Bill di Blasio, is pushing for mandatory training in abortion for ALL physicians in the city? This would undoubtedly include Catholics, and any idea of conscience protection is going to melt away like butter in the hot sun. The administration has been chipping away at these protections since the beginning (in spite of Obama’s lies at Notre Dame).

              And yes, eroding the free exercise clause of the First Amendment is part of this. There is no other reason (except possibly sheer stupidity) for the administration to be as dogged as they have about pushing the HHS mandate — no reason except that they really want to cripple the influence of the Church in health care and bend it to the goverment’s will. This is only the tip of the iceberg of what they are pushing for, believe me. But as I said, I’m no conspiracy theorist or doomsayer. I have full faith the courts will back up our rights – but this is no reason for us not to fight all the way.

              Yes, the government did force some contraceptive coverage on us in 2000. Fortunately state laws left various ways of getting around it, such as not offering prescription coverage, and not offering preventive care, or whatever. But there is no good escape from the mandate. I’m quite sure the exorbitant fines are new, too. Oddly enough, the fines for trying to offer health insurance without this “preventive care” are astronomically higher than not offering insurance at all.

              As for your attempt to smear me as a hypocrite — I have never had health insurance so I haven’t had to deal with the problem. Just before the end of the year, I joined Christian Healthcare Ministries, an alternative to traditional insurance, whose members will be exempt from Obamacare (unless the administration comes up with some means to get around this). I will never support Obamacare, and can only hope someday to get my insurance under a sensible and ethical system.

              • And as for what you claim is a “lie”, the Christian Brothers are not quite “exempt” themselves. As the Becket fund lawyers explain, they have had to sign with yet another outside group who is going to provide the contraceptive coverage in another shell game to pretend they are not participating.

                This is the idea that Obama administration is pushing: that everyone must surrender their religious conscience to the government, except for the lucky ones they “exempt” from it. We will reject that and take the First Amendment instead, thank you.

              • Jonna

                I’m not calling you a hypocrite,Lori. I’m saying that we live in a pluralist and very flawed world, which didn’t start with the ACA. We are responsible for being truthful and guarding our integrity. In 1998, I found that I could no longer justify a 401K that cooperated by funding many things I consider morally opposed to my faith, and liquidated at great financial expense. I will not retire comfortably, but maybe with a bit more peace. We can’t expect to be accommodated in this world. We must choose the road of discipleship, which comes at a cost.

                • Good to hear you have integrity. And good to hear you don’t think I’m a hypocrite (though your words certainly suggested it).

                  Tell me, do you think the Little Sisters of the Poor are “walking the walk” with their lives? Would you say they are following the “road of discipleship” by the work with the poor that they do? I would say there is nothing soft about them. And nothing that asks for an easy way out of this or any other situation. They are simply asking for the freedom to do what they have to do with the hard lives of poverty and service they have chosen without being forced to choose whether to be crushed and liquidated as a group (as the fines would certainly cause them to do) by a completely unasked-for imposition, or to violate their integrity.

                  Sure, you had to bite the bullet and take a financial loss, but no one forced you to buy that 401K to begin with, did they? Apart from mouthing platitudes, I still can’t figure out what you are trying to say. Fortunately your life seems to be better than your words.

                  • Jonna

                    I’m saying that we collaborate with evil by simply buying bananas grown in countries that pay slave wages or use child workers. Why suddenly the ACA has become the examplar of all things evil is beyond me. If I may indulge in my own conspiracy theory, I believe that many conservatives who want the ACA to fail (even tho it was a conservative notion to begin with) will continue to chip away like this piece by piece. It seems to me that their main motivation is profit, not religious integrity. It is in their interest to stir up a Catholic scare fest rather than work cooperatively through exemptions to ensure that groups like the Sisters will not be forced to violate their consciences while living in a pluralist world. My concern is that when the ACA fails, millions will continue to be uninsured.

                    • I am not a “conservative,” whatever that means, and I do believe in universal health care, so your explanation of my anger fails completely with me. Lots of people may believe the things you say, sure, but what you’ve said is scarcely an answer to any of my arguments.

                      The sisters are not asking for any special treatment, but for their God-given rights and freedoms to be respected by the government. The very fact that we live in a pluralistic society makes it absolutely vital that we have those rights to individual conscience protected. Sorry you don’t seem to understand this concept.

                    • Jonna

                      I wasn’t’t talking about you directly. You seem to take everything personally. I think we can agree that political conservatives want to repeal but not replace the ACA by whatever means necessary. The Sisters will not have to pay for contraceptive coverage , which I thought was the issue. As David Gibson writes, this might be a case of not being able to take yes for an answer. If this were truly an issue of religious liberty, as in one cannot be a faithful Catholic and have an insurance carrier that covers contraceptives, the bishops would require all Catholics drop policies that don’t comply to be in good standing. Again, to me this is political theater.

                  • Jonna

                    I live a few towns away from the Little Sisters residence in CT. Beautiful community of women who provide wonderful care, which is paid for by clients’ Medicare coverage for skilled care stays and by Medicaid for long term placement, after the clients’ private funds are spent down to Title 19 level of $1,600 maximum in liquid assets. The Sisters don’t fund the care, the government does, just as in other nursing homes. My understanding is that they are well connected and well endowed, which doesn’t take away from the fact that they and their professional staff and volunteers provide wonderful service.

                    • I’m not sure what you are trying to say with this last bit, or how it is relevant. The entire issue is whether the Sisters will pay for contraceptive coverage for their employees, not for their patients. Two different things. The first would come out of their own pockets.

                      There is also a difference in Catholic teaching between direct and proximate cooperation in evil and indirect and remote, which is why the Church doesn’t require us to stop paying taxes, where the money stops being ours after it enters a general fund, some of which the government might decide to use for an evil purpose. They same with insurance companies for our coverage, as long as we don’t use the objectionable services.

                      In the case of the mandate, the Sisters would be paying the money directly to someone for a specific purpose, or turning it over to a third party with their authorization to supply the service. It isn’t a political but a moral question. But since you see everything in strictly political terms, I doubt this is going to make any impression on you. Let’s just drop the whole thing now.

                    • Jonna

                      By accepting federal and state government funding through Medicaid to run their facilities, they are already participating in systems that fund contraceptives. The money is going into their pockets, rather than coming out. Is this cooperating with evil once removed?

                    • Yes, see my explanation above. It is a public fund; the money they themselves are receiving isn’t going to contraceptives.

  • Militaris Artifex

    Mark, with respect to your comment that “ Lizzie Scalia does the full autopsy on USN&WR’s journalistic integrity, one small but inconvenient question: Precisely how does one autopsy something that no longer exists (if it ever did)?
    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

    • Militaris Artifex

      My apologies, wrong thread.
      Keith T&oumjl;pfer