Sunday, May 24, 2009

Vice Pres. Dick Cheney's Speech

Former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke Thursday on national security at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank. Here are the top ten lines in the speech, as compiled by the editors of FOX Nation:

No. 10: The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security.

No. 9: In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

No. 8: If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

No. 7: Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

No. 6: To completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

No. 5: This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.” It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

No. 4: Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance.

No. 3: To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

No. 2: In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy.

No. 1: Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

Obama and the CIA

The Daily Telegraph
By Gerald Warner

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself.

Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter. Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens.

He has never abandoned the campaign trail.That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda. "Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding?

Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed. So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers...

President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

Courtesy of New York United Irish Counties Officer

Friday, May 15, 2009

Tommy Smyth - The commentator strikes back

"Anyone who thinks I am gone is mistaken," - Tommy Smyth

Dundalk Democrat
'Legendary Commentator Hits Back '
By Gary McLaughlin

Knockbridge man and legendary ESPN commentator Tommy Smyth has hit back at a national newspaper which painted him out to be racist and also made the allegation that he was to be taken off the air.

Smyth, who moved to America in 1963, was lambasted by an article last week that included a number of quotes from people who openly despise the announcer. But the Knockbridge man has hit back and told the Dundalk Democrat that “Anyone who thinks I am gone is mistaken.”
He continued: “If you seen the article, they attacked my Louth accent, but why can't a Knockbridge man have a Louth accent? It was ridiculous.” The article also went on to mention that people openly despise Tommy's catchphrase 'One more bulge in the onion bag' and that he received death threats.
“The story that appeared was originally supposed to be about my catchphrase but they tried to paint me out as a racist for some of the comments I made during my time but some of their facts were wrong.

“I try to make sure that my facts are correct at all times. People have their own opinions, but that article got a lot of facts wrong.
“Also If you have a couple of million people watching and 300 people write in complaining, then you are only talking about a small percentage of the audience.”
Smyth was awarded 'the highest honour any Irish man can have' when he led the New York St Patrick's Day parade as the Grand Marshal in 2008.
“Being the Grand Marshal is the biggest honour any Irish person can have bestowed on them.
“The stuff said in that article is a world away from football and they said my contract has been cancelled when in fact I just signed a new three year contract with ESPN. We still have La Liga, Serie A, World Cup, and a lot of other football shows that I present.”
One comment that really got to Smyth was one that attributed him to this quote: 'If your cat had kittens inside an oven, would you call them scones?'" The article tried to say he was talking about a black Polish player Emmanuel Olisadebe. But Tommy insists the writer got his facts wrong. “I was on about English born players John Aldridge playing for Ireland, insisting that just because they were not born in Ireland, does not mean they are not Irish.”
“I am proud of my work and what I do and I will be around for a while yet. It is hard to knock down anyone from Knockbridge.”

Tommy Smyth Subject of Vicious Anti Irish Rant
(Previously Posted )

Louth native, New York Irish American and ESPN broadcaster Tommy Smyth has been the subject of a vicious verbal racist attack in The Sports Blog on, a website of the English newspaper, The Guardian.

In verbiage, the hallmark of the worst excesses of vitriolic anti- Irish hate language, spewed by Guardian "journalist" Steven Wells, Smyth's accent, Irish nationality, culture and years of Irish American activism were savagely denigrated. Criticising his broadcasting syle and perceived lack of soccer knowledge is fair comment, as Smyth, himself, who has endured the "slings and arrows" of being in the "Public Square" for many years, would no doubt concede. However, ridiculing his accent, demeaning his culture and nationality and by implication insulting all Irish expatriates who are proud of their roots and who refuse to suppress their "brogue", most certainly is not.

Wells conjured up two obviously insecure, self hating "Irish" men to throw the proverbial substance. Real or fictitious na buachailli also did not forgo an opportunity to take a swipe at the "thick . . . yanks". Of course, given the leftwing, anti American bent of The Guardian, that was to be expected. Cass Crockatt . . . Hmmm! Would he be one of the Crockatts of Ballygurteen or perhaps Teampalfeckin or Crois na Leanbh? Gleann na Phuca? You know the Crockatts . . . ? What! Never heard of . . .

Of course, it is unimaginable that Wells would spew similar invective regarding a Black or, indeed, Muslim broadcaster. Such is the sensitivity in the UK regarding not offending said demographics that Mr. Wells would quickly find himself seeking alternative employment. Judging by the intensity of recent Muslim protests, he would also be seeking a new identity. Oh why . . . oh but why . . . are the Irish not one of the protected species?

We are unequivocably supportive of the right of the hack to express himself. However, too often, the denizens of the Fourth Estate, arrogantly and mistakenly assume that doctrines like the First Amendment cloak them with immunity regarding their utterances and scratchings no matter how insulting or injurious. While said doctines give them right to rant, they do not absolve them of any repercussions. The immutable law of physics applies: "For every action there is a reaction."

And for those activists who exercise themsleves regarding the annual production of Leprechaun greeting cards, this is the real deal. Anti Irish racism, as bad as it gets! No mistakening the message! Tommy Smyth is a real Irish American, our friend and neighbor . . . to use an Irish colluquialism that is sure to further irritate Mr. Wells and his "Irish " co - conspriators . . . Tommy is one of our "lads"! - Irish American News & Opinion

"Amazing that in a sports setting that an English paper manages to be so anti Irish. OK, its fair game that you may disagree with Tommy's style or the way he does things. They managed under the guise of having an Irish guy make the statements to condemn Tommy's accent, the Saint Patrick's Day parade and pub culture. I guess the English will never change. They still hate to see an Irishman do well." - Tommy Smyth fan, New York

"Smyth's brogue, which is as powerful now as when Smyth emigrated to the U.S. in 1963. 'In each of the years that he's left County Louth, his accent has gotten stronger to such an extent that he's now 94% angry leprechaun . . . He almost makes me ashamed to be Irish. How to Jaysus does the Bollix keep his job. It goes to show how thick the yanks are.'" - Excerpt

Read the rabid racist rant:

Protest to the UK Press Complaints Commission:

Protest to The Guardian:

Attn: Siobhain Butterworth

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Gerry O'Brien - School of Politics

I'm running a School of Politics this Saturday, May 16th. You may know someone interested in getting involved in politics, or someone who has always thought about running for office.

Saturday's seminar is sponsored by the Brooklyn Republicans, but anyone from any party (or no party) is invited.

The focus is on tips and techniques, not ideology. Below is a JPG and PDF containing all the details. Please forward it to anyone you know who might be interested.

Thank you,

Gerry O'Brien

Gerry O'Brien is a political consultant based in New York City. His website is:

Learn the secrets of
grassroots politics,
news media & campaigning
from the pros
-- for FREE

Seminars will include:
· Secrets of Petitioning
· The Modern Candidate
· Fundraising & Spending
· Polling & Tracking
·Working with reporters
· Creating Direct Mail
· Blogs & Websites
· Photoshop & photography
· Election Law & challenges
· Databases & Demographics
. . . and much, much more.

If you’ve ever wondered how professional
campaigns and political parties are
really run, this is the one-day class
you’ve been waiting for.
Some of the top experts on
grassroots politics, direct mail, new
media, fundraising and more will
speak at the Brooklyn GOP’s School of
Politics on Saturday, May 16th.

Registration starts at 9:30 AM, and the
first seminar begins at 10:00. The day
ends at approximately 5:00 PM.

Saturday, May 16
10 AM to 5 PM

Adelphi Academy
8515 Ridge Blvd,
Bay Ridge, Brooklyn
R train to 86 Street, walk 2
blocks west to Ridge Boulevard.


Monday, May 11, 2009

Re - Elect Tony Fitzgerald

At a time of crisis

Ireland needs community leaders


conscience, commitment & experience


a proven record of accomplishment and selfless service

On Friday, June 5th

Re - Elect

Councillor Tony Fitzgerald

Cork City’s Northwest Ward
Churchfield, Fair Hill, Farranferris, Farranree, Gurranabraher, Holly Hill, Knocknaheeny, Shanakiel, Sunday’s Well

Call & E Mail your family & friends in Cork City's Northwest Ward and urge them to
Re - Elect Tony Fitzgerald!

Ar aghaidh le Tony Fitzgerald!

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Brooklyn Queens Bishop on Notre Dame scandal

Bishop DiMarzio on Notre Dame Scandal

My dear brothers and sisters in the Lord,

The invitation by Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., president of Notre Dame University, to President Barack Obama to be this year’s commencement speaker and to receive an honorary degree from the unniversity has caused an uproar and a division within the Catholic community. In 2004, the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops in a document, Catholics in Political Life, taught, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Politicians, like all men and women, are bound by the natural law which allows all persons of good will to discern good from evil. When asked last August by Reverend Rick Warren, in an interview at the Saddleback Church, the then-candidate Obama answered, “I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” Father Jenkins made a serious error in inviting President Obama to be the commencement speaker at Notre Dame, and even more so in conferring upon him an honorary degree. Father Jenkins speaking to the rationale behind the invitation has said that it should not be interpreted as “condoning or endorsing his (President Obama’s) positions on specific issues regarding the protection of human life, including abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Yet, we see his visit as a basis for further positive engagement.”

Unfortunately, his disclaimer has not been accepted by the bishop of his diocese, and many other bishops, as well as a host of the laity and alumni of the University of Notre Dame. Our engagement is always meant to influence the person for the good, to explain perhaps how they may be in error and always to respect the dignity of the person even if they may be wrong. I will write to Father Jenkins and explain my opinion, sending a copy of this article.

Mary Ann Glendon, a professor of law at Harvard University and former United States Ambassador to the Vatican and member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, was to receive the Laetare Medal this year at the Notre Dame commencement. Ambassador Glendon declined the honor reminding Notre Dame of our responsibility “not to honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.” Interestingly, she was President Obama’s constitutional law professor at Harvard.

This controversy, unfortunately, cannot be resolved since the invitation to President Obama cannot be rescinded. Whatever scandal has occurred cannot be eliminated. However, it is a lesson for the Catholic community regarding interaction with politicians. Catholics in political life must come to understand their unique responsibility as lay Catholics involved in the public forum. There is a considerable misunderstanding on the part of our elected officials regarding their Catholic faith and their functioning as political figures. They are not irresolvable, nor are they mutually exclusionary.

Catholic politicians and Catholic voters may never directly support anything which is intrinsically evil. Our best example is abortion. Support for abortion, or camouflaging it as a matter of choice, can never be an acceptable position for a Catholic. There are many times when Catholic politicians may not be able to directly influence the cessation of abortion, but at the same time they must do whatever they can do to limit and eventually eliminate the need for abortion. Some politicians have used this as an excuse, saying that they are in the business of limiting and not excluding the possibility of abortion. While not everything can be done at once, the ultimate intention must be the clear elimination of intrinsically evil acts such as abortion.

We are facing difficult times as we try to explain to our own Catholics and the general populous why we take such positions. The Church’s moral teaching is not merely a matter of faith, but rather it comes from a long tradition of moral reasoning and judgments that have little to do with modern day personalistic philosophies that disregard ageless traditions and principles.

We are putting out into the deep waters of political and religious interaction. This interaction has never been easy and has become more difficult in the present time. Without forcing ourselves to understand better our moral positions, we might take the easier path and follow the crowd in our society which gives little thought to reason and the common good.

Gingrich criticizes Notre Dame invite

Gingrich Criticizes Notre Dame's Obama Invite
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich converted to Catholicism in late March.

Sunday May 10

powered by Baynote
One of Catholicism's latest and most high-profile converts sided with Vatican critics Sunday in questioning the University of Notre Dame's decision to grant President Obama an honorary degree next weekend. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who in late March converted to Catholicism, suggested that Notre Dame was compromising its values by inviting Obama, an abortion rights supporter, to receive the degree and deliver the commencement address May 17.

"To the degree that Notre Dame still thinks of itself as a Catholic institution, it raises real questions," Gingrich told "FOX News Sunday. . . I think the president's position has been the most radical, pro-abortion of any American president, so I think there is a legitimate question there," he said. Gingrich added: "But look -- I'm a new convert. I'll let the Vatican speak for the Church. I'm just speaking for Newt Gingrich."

Gingrich, a Republican, was responding to criticism last week from Archbishop Raymond Burke, who is the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican's highest court. 'The proposed granting of an honorary doctorate at Notre Dame University to our president, who is so aggressively advancing an anti-life and anti-family agenda, is rightly the source of the greatest scandal," Burke said. Burke is the former archbishop of St. Louis and a vocal opponent of giving communion to politicians who support abortion rights. He was the latest in a string of Catholic leaders to criticize Notre Dame's decision.

But Notre Dame University President Rev. John I. Jenkins has called Obama an "inspiring leader" who follows in a long tradition of presidential guest speakers. He says that the invitation does not mean universal support for Obama administration policies. "I think Notre Dame has a strong record of healthy exchange of differing viewpoints and ideas," a White House spokesman said.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Nice work if you can get it!

"There's something rotten in the State of . . . "

Sunday May 03, 2009

Minister Micheal Martin cannot say how much his teacher's pension will be worth to him yet, as it won't be calculated by the Department of Education until he is 65, according to his spokesman. Under the current rules for politicians, Mr Martin stands to get a ministerial pension of €70,000 from his 12 years as a minister, with approximately €53,000 more coming from his eight years as an ordinary backbench TD.

The Fianna Fail politician could see this €123,000 pension pot topped up by the five-and-a-half years of teaching he did at Presentation College Cork 20 years ago. Mr Martin refuses to give up his Cork teaching post, choosing instead to remain on official "Oireachtas leave". Last week, Mr Martin's diplomatic skills appeared to desert him temporarily as he sought to justify his decision to cling to his "other" job. Speaking to reporters in Brussels, Mr Martin flatly rejected suggestions that he should give up his teaching job in Cork, which still requires the employment of a substitute teacher, 20 years later. "If anything happened tomorrow morning with regard to my political career, I'm not going anywhere in a hurry, there is another 20 years to go; [but] you have to take these situations into consideration," he added.

Asked last night by the Sunday Independent if Mr Martin would apologise for the remarks, on the basis that many people who have lost their jobs, or seen their pensions evaporate, could find them offensive, a spokesman for the minister claimed he had been quoted out of context. He said: "No insensitivity was intended."

On the matter of Mr Martin's teacher's pension, the spokesman stressed that the minister had written to written to the department to inform them that he wanted to receive "no pension credits at all" for the 20-year period that has elapsed since he left the Presentation College.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Undercover Catholics - Notre Dame & Georgetown

The Tablet

The Catholic newspaper of the diocese of Brooklyn & Queens

At a time when the buzzword of X number of liberationists is to “come out of the closet,” some Catholic universities seem to be headed back in for cover. Are they afraid of themselves? Since when is it decided that in order to be admitted into the public square a university must hide its core identity? Or are they unsure of what – or Whom – informs that identity?

At the outset, we need to be clear. Although President Obama’s invitation to Notre Dame and to Georgetown is a catalyst of the recent controversy, his identity is under neither camouflage nor compromise. But the universities seem to be struggling with their own. In a Catholic university – or any public forum for that matter – absolutely nothing should prevent a president from advocating what he believes in, even if it be at odds with Catholic teaching. But why must the host university also cover up its own core identity or cringe from challenging positions blatantly repugnant to it?

In Georgetown, for example, at the request of the Obama White House, the very name of Jesus himself – represented by the IHS symbol to be precise – had to be hidden from public view as a “distraction” from American flags. By that logic, “In God We Trust” should be removed from all court houses as an impediment to the administration of justice and from our currency for interference with commerce. While to some this might seem trivial, it goes deeper. How is it possible even to enter into honest dialogue where one partner’s core identity must be suppressed?

And since when have the rules for public discourse or the understanding of a university changed? Well-respected theologian, Robert Barron, argues in the Chicago Daily Observer (“A Cover Up at Georgetown, April 22, 2009), that “what a Catholic university should never do is to surrender its own identity or to make apologies for its own deepest commitments.” The reason hinges first of all on our understanding of Jesus Christ as not just one of many religious figures but the incarnate Logos, the origin of reason and all creative activity. It also has to do with what a Catholic university actually is. Precisely as the incarnate Logos, Jesus belongs at the table of intellectual conversation. He is, recalls Barron, “related to every truth discovered by science or philosophy, every design apparent in nature, every instance of artistic beauty, every arrangement of justice . . .” Any university, Catholic or not, that has the pursuit of truth as its core mission cannot tolerate a repression of the name – or its symbol – that defines its mission, as in the Georgetown cover up. Or is the name of Jesus a distraction?

The Notre Dame controversy, the other case, is not distinguished by its invitation to a president with certain views contrary to Catholic teaching, not even if reputedly the most radically pro-abortion in history. It is, rather, the uncritical conferral of an award (an honorary degree in law, of all things) which appears to minimize (or marginalize) the fundamental tension between his views and the foundations of morality itself. The prohibition of the direct killing of innocent human life is so fundamental that to vitiate it is to undermine the very moorings of moral discourse, indeed, of civilized society. The same selective valuation of the dignity of different human subjects is the moral relativism that underlay the atrocities of the era of Hitler and Stalin, and indeed the reign of slavery in America.

Twenty-five years ago, Notre Dame extended to New York Governor Mario Cuomo an invitation to deliver an address that would touch on controversial moral issues (“Religious Belief and Public Morality,” Sept. 13, 1984). Unlike the current subject of controversy, it was not to showcase his celebrity, but the persuasiveness of his reasoning, which remained free for discussion and dispute. A commencement address – in which the speaker himself is also singled out for honor – spotlights not only to his celebrity, but also what he stands for. And the “elephant in the living room” here is the president’s blind spot – to be kind – about the value and inviolability of all innocent human life.

Imagine the outcry were a university to so honor an otherwise distinguished personage whose advocacy of a single issue – say, colonialism, apartheid or the subordination of women to men (even if proffered on a questionable reading of the Scriptures) was his or her only heresy. Is it so inconsistent with academic freedom for a Catholic university to withhold a platform from an otherwise admirable public figure, whose advocacy for the expendability of some human lives compromises all human lives?

A fighting Irish man!

Pete King: Torture trial should spark "scorched earth"

By Glenn Thrush
April 24, 2009

New York Republican Rep. Peter King thinks his party needs to go nuke if Bush era officials are prosecuted on torture charges. King, the outspoken ranking member of the House homeland security committee, said Republicans should "shut down [legislative] activity across the board" if any Bush-era officials are hauled into court.

"We would need to have a scorched-earth policy and use procedural means to bring the place to a halt -- go to war," he told POLITICO. He added: "If we have another 2,000 people killed, I want Nancy Pelosi and [liberal philanthropist] George Soros, John Conyers and Pat Leahy to go to the funeral and say your son was vaporized because we didn’t want to dump some guys head under water for 30 seconds."

Pelosi, Leahy and Conyers haven't called for prosecutions but have said more information needs to be gathered to determine if officials who authorized waterboarding violated the law.

Schumer to jobless Americans - tough!

Friday, May 1, 2009
Did you think Senators might be too smart this year -- or too moral or at least too embarrassed -- to push for more foreign workers while millions of Americans are losing their jobs? Such modest faith in U.S. Senators was dashed yesterday by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a first hearing of its immigration panel. Senators made it clear that they are hopeful that the American people will let them pass the amnesty this year that was blocked in 2007.
Continue reading, click below:

Friday, May 1, 2009

More Bishops Protest Notre Dame Scandal

More Bishops Protest Notre Dame Scandal - Including Bishop Murphy of Rockville Center

Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia and USCCB Pro-Life Committee Chairman, and eight other archbishops and bishops are the latest prelates in the United States to publicly address the decision of the University of Notre Dame to honor President Barack Obama at commencement on May 17, 2009. “The Catholic Church in America is blessed to have so many holy shepherds speaking out in defense of authentic Catholic identity. They are a treasure and we owe them our prayers and gratitude,” said Patrick Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society.

Thus far, there have been 55 bishops who have spoken out about the Notre Dame scandal. Most of the bishops have expressed strong opposition and have cited the 2004 USCCB document “Catholics in Political Life” as foundational to their criticism of Notre Dame’s decision to honor President Obama. The document states that Catholic institutions should neither honor nor give platform to those who oppose fundamental Catholic moral principles.

The petition at grew to a staggering 347,000 supporters on Thursday morning. The first 300,000 signatures from the petition were delivered yesterday to Notre Dame’s president and board members in time for a pre-scheduled meeting. Copies were also sent to USCCB and Vatican officials.

In an interview with Life Site News, Cardinal Rigali said of the tremendous response from the bishops and other lay faithful over the Notre Dame scandal, “something very positive is going on in our country along with all the negative things - that there is a greater and evolving understanding of the value of human life in many, many people… The backlash is due to a great extent the reaction of people who through their intuition, through their common sense, they know that this is just not an acceptable way to take a position on something that is so important.” Cardinal Rigali said that, through this issue with Notre Dame, “the whole world has to see that it [the value of life] is such an important issue: that, yes, it is a sign of contradiction... it is a division between life and death, and we cannot treat it as one issue among many.”
Other bishops who have spoken out recently on the Notre Dame scandal include Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Denver Archdiocese; Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Kansas City Archdiocese; Archbishop Donald Wuerl of the Washington Archdiocese; Bishop Peter Jugis of the Charlotte Diocese; Bishop William Murphy of the Rockville Center Diocese; Bishop Glen Provost of the Lake Charles Diocese; Bishop Joseph Galante of the Camden Diocese; and Bishop John McCormack of the Manchester Diocese.

Archbishop Chaput, in an e-mail statement relayed to Life Site News, said, “Notre Dame didn't need to do this to show its openness to 'dialogue.’ And candidly, very few Notre Dame faculty members would accept from their students the kind of creative reasoning now being used to defend the invitation.”
Archbishop Naumann made the poignant remark that, “In reality, Notre Dame’s invitation signals to President Obama that there is no need to dialogue. Why should the president feel a need to dialogue when he is honored by our nation’s most prestigious Catholic university no matter how extreme his policies and actions supporting legalized abortion?”

On April 24, The Washington Post reported that, when asked about the controversy at Notre Dame, Archbishop Wuerl said “the school should not have honored Obama but that he was not in favor of rescinding the invite.”

According to Life Site News, Bishop Jugis wrote, “Public outcry over Notre Dame's decision must be accompanied by ongoing catechesis in our parishes, public witness by the entire Catholic Church and involvement in the political process in order to promote a culture that protects the sanctity of unborn human life.”

Catholic blogger Thomas Peters, reported Tuesday that during a men’s conference attended by 800 on April 25, Bishop Murphy added his voice to the U.S. bishops speaking out on the Notre Dame scandal.
Bishop Provost said of the scandal, “I share the consternation of my brother bishops and of many Notre Dame alumni who have already voiced their objections. I am in complete agreement with them. Appeals to ‘academic freedom’ or engagement should not prompt an indifference to what our actions imply.”

Bishop Joseph Galante also spoke out, echoing the USCCB statement “Catholics in Political Life.” He said, “[I]t would appear to me to be inappropriate specifically to honor an individual, particularly a prominent public official, who intentionally holds and deliberately advocates positions contrary to fundamental moral principles.”

On the Diocese of Manchester’s website the initial statement by Notre Dame’s Bishop John D’Arcy is published. Above the text is a statement that reads, “Bishop McCormack has expressed his support for Bishop John M. D’Arcy in connection with his position on the decision by the University of Notre Dame to honor President Barack Obama.”