The Republicans' loyalty problem

Herman Cain at the GOP debate in New Hampshire on Monday night

Eboo Patel is not Irish, which is not surprising given his decidedly non-Hibernian name.  Patel is a Rhodes Scholar who is fascinated by American diversity -- in particular, the increasing amount of religious diversity in the U.S.

Patel, who also runs a group called Interfaith Youth Corps, is concerned that as more and more Americans celebrate different religions, more and more will experience conflict.

Patel has worked with the White House and countless other local organizations to minimize this conflict.  He likes to point out, as The New York Times noted this week, that a diverse range of immigrants have always come to America, experienced conflict but then “built a new pattern of relationships.”

Patel regularly points out that “English Protestants and Irish Catholics eventually overcame their enmity on these
shores.” True enough, though it is very important to recall just how difficult it was to bridge those gaps.

We forget that Irish Catholics and Protestants literally brawled on the streets of New York up until the early 20th Century, leaving scores dead and maimed, particularly around the summer months we refer to as the “marching season,” which many of believe is confined to modern times in Northern Ireland.

As the 20th century progressed, those attempting to uphold the Protestant ideal long questioned the notion that Roman Catholics of any ethnicity could by loyal Americans.

That’s what Woodrow Wilson suggested when he blasted “hyphenated Americans” in the 1910s. That is what the resurgent Ku Klux Klan of the 192os believed.

That’s what Paul Blanshard said in his best-selling 1949 book American Freedom and Catholic Power.  And that’s what many of John F. Kennedy’s most vociferous critics said on the campaign trail in 1960.
And it is with this in mind that we should consider fringe Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain’s recent comments about Muslims and loyalty.

He told CNN’s John King that he would only appoint a Muslim American to his administration if they took some kind of loyalty oath to prove allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.

"That's not discrimination. It's called trying to protect the American people," Cain said.
"This nation is under attack constantly by people who want to kill all of us, so I'm going to take extra precaution."

The former CEO of Godfather’s pizza clarified this position Monday evening in New Hampshire.
"You have peaceful Muslims, then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us," Cain said. "I was thinking about the ones that were trying to kill us."

How serious should we take all of this?  Cain is, again, a fringe candidate.

And he is not wrong that some Muslims are out to destroy America, as are a handful of isolated white psychopathic gun nuts, such as the various self-styled revolutionaries who have launched crusades against the American power structure, from the Unabomber to Timothy McVeigh.

Here, though, is why Cain’s comments are important.  Cain may be a fringe candidate, but he is apparently in this race for the long run. Therefore, his comments put pressure on more serious candidates to balance a commitment to American diversity and a commitment to American security.

Given the weak field and unstable nature of the Republican presidential primary, Cain’s comments could have been seen as an opportunity to make even more dumb comments about “disloyal” Muslims.

The early reports, however, are more encouraging.

At Monday evening’s Republican debate, Mitt Romney reacted to Cain’s comments by saying, “I think we recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country.

Our nation was founded on a principle of religious tolerance.”

Then again, you would expect such namby-pamby comments from a sneaky Mormon, now wouldn’t you?

On a more serious note, targeting “disloyal” Americans has been code language for much more ugly tactics for far too long.

Irish Americans were targeted or jailed, their newspapers shut down and their mail intercepted, for alleged anti-American acts a century ago.  Let’s hope we don’t reach that point again.

If Cain -- or anyone else -- has questions about a potential cabinet member, he can interview them as an individual and make decisions based on that interview.

Let’s just hope he never gets a chance to assemble a presidential cabinet.

Sarah Palin’s real blunder

Sarah Palin.

Reality star and Donald Trump lunch partner Sarah Palin paid a visit to Ellis Island last week, but most of the headlines you read were about Palin flubbing the story of Paul Revere at a previous (campaign?) stop in Boston.

Palin said that during the build-up to the American Revolutionary War against England, Revere’s famous midnight ride "warned ... the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells."

Historians subsequently noted that Revere actually had to remain as quiet as possible, as opposed to making all sorts of noise to warn the Brits that Americans were -- among other things -- armed to the teeth.

But Revere-gate actually obscured a much more obvious problem with Palin bringing her “One Nation” tour to Ellis Island. Does she -- or the Tea Party, or the Republican Party, for that matter -- have anything interesting to say about immigration?

Ever since Annie Moore sailed from Cork into Ellis Island in 1892, Americans have been positively schizophrenic when it comes to immigration.

So, naturally, Palin had plenty of warm and fuzzy things to say about America’s legacy of immigration.

"I was struck by the many visitors from overseas who were drawn to this place, not merely for its aesthetic beauty but also as a symbol for freedom and liberty, " Palin wrote on her website, regarding her visit to Ellis Island.

At Ellis Island itself she acknowledged the "work ethic" and "love of country and freedom" previous generations of immigrants brought to the U.S.

But as Catalina Camia pointed out in USA Today, Palin “drew the line at supporting the DREAM Act, which would create a path to citizenship for some children who were illegally brought to the U.S. if they get an education or serve in the military.”

Palin later said (according to the web site Politico), "The immigrants of the past, they had to literally and figuratively stand in line to become U.S. citizens. I'd like to see that continue.  And unfortunately, the DREAM Act kind of usurps that."
------------
READ MORE:
What does not kill you will make you stronger - Sarah Palin emerges stronger


George Will's savage attack on Sarah Palin shows GOP establishment is desperate

Ellis Island footage of Irish arriving reminds us of where we all came from
-----------
This is at least as large a distortion of the past as Palin’s flubbing of the Paul Revere story.

What? Immigrants these days never stand in line? Or they’re willing to stand in figurative lines but not literal ones?

It should go without saying that while many past immigrants from Ireland and Italy and Germany and all those other places certainly had all of their paperwork in order, not all of them did.

Plenty of Irish folks -- who came into Castle Garden or Ellis Island or Texas or San Francisco, for that matter -- got very creative when it came to bypassing the authorities.

Some went up to Canada first, before sneaking over the border.  Others simply lied.

As hard as it may seem to fathom, yes, there was illegal immigration in the past.

For people like Palin, it also seems hard to fathom that today’s immigrants can, in fact, hold the same hopes and dreams as past immigrants.

Yes, we must be vigilant in our battle against terrorism.  Yes, we must enforce all existing immigration laws.

But if Palin is interested in running for higher office, she should have a better plan than simply opposing the DREAM Act.

It might have been interesting if someone had asked Palin, while she was at Ellis Island, her thoughts about the so-called Secure Communities proposal.

This week, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick followed in the footsteps of Illinois Governor (and Irish American) Pat Quinn, as well as Andrew Cuomo of New York, and pulled out of the Secure Communities program, which is overseen by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

As a former governor, it might have been interesting to hear what Palin had to say about this program.  Does she support it?

Or, as critics have charged, does it lead to immigrants (undocumented or otherwise) clamming up when they are witnesses to serious crimes?

Massachusetts secretary of public safety and security, Mary Elizabeth Heffernan, said as much in her letter informing ICE that Massachusetts would not be participating in Secure Communities.

“We are reluctant to participate if the program is mandatory and unwilling to participate if it is voluntary,” she
wrote.

If Palin really wants to talk about immigration in America, than she’ll need more than nostalgia about a past that never was.

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tomdeignan@earthlink.net or facebook.com/tomdeignan)

Is Barack Obama really Irish?

President Obama received a hurley from Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kenny in Dublin last week

President Obama’s whirlwind trip to Ireland last week created all sorts of goodwill, with commentators believing that positive ripples will be felt in politics, tourism, the cultural industry and more.
Then, all of a sudden, people weren’t feeling so happy and peppy.

“We were just useful props in president's whirlwind electioneering roadshow,” an online headline in the Irish Independent read. 

According to the paper’s writer, Carol Hunt, “Obama desperately needs the white working class to believe that he's one of them to regain their support.”

In the U.K.’s Catholic Herald, columnist William Oddie dubbed Obama’s performance in Ireland “fraudulent,” adding, “So Obama was treading on potentially dangerous ground when he seemed to appropriate an Irishness of a kind that would actually induce (Catholic) Irish Americans to vote for him in large numbers.”

What?  Say it ain’t so! 

You don’t think Barack Obama -- in the end, a Chicago -- – would have certain political realities in mind when he takes a trip halfway around the world, do you?

The basic argument of Obama’s critics -- or critics of the people who loved the positive vibe of the trip -- is that he played to certain stage Irish stereotypes in order to line up Irish American/Catholic votes in 2012.

That line of thinking made it over to the U.S., where righter than-right Rush Limbaugh also questioned Obama’s motives.
_______________________________________
Read More:
US blogger’s mixed comments on Obama’s Irish homecoming

African Americans inspired by Obama tracing their Irish roots in greater numbers

Michelle Obama's Irish roots traced to Irish slave owner
_______________________________________


“We ought to start calling him Paddy Obama -- p-a-d-d-y, Paddy Obama, the Obama of Moneygall,” Limbaugh said.

“But even the U.K. Telegraph today has a fabulous story about how ridiculous it is Obama is trying to pass himself off as an Irish guy. And when he goes to Africa, he tries to pass himself off as a Kenyan.

“And if he goes to the Middle East he tries to pass himself off as Barack ‘al-Obama.’ And if he goes down to Selma he tries to pass himself off as a guy from down the street — totally disingenuous guy.”

Limbaugh then said, “It is a campaign stop for the Irish vote. The Irish vote in this country, particularly in New York City, is plentiful. And he’s got problems. His reelect numbers are down. This is nothing more than a campaign stop for the Irish vote.”

Except that, as Trina Vargo, head of the U.S.-Ireland Alliance argued in a Huffington Post column, “There is no 'Irish vote.' Irish-Americans are Democrats and Republicans, Catholics and Protestants, and there are no galvanizing issues around which a significant number of them rally.”

All of this just makes you shake your head.  Probably the most disturbing aspect of this is the suggestion by the likes of Limbaugh, but also Oddie and Hunt, is that Obama isn’t a “real” Irish American, or that he exploited his meager Irish American roots for maximum political gain.

Obama can’t catch a break. He’s not a real American, he’s not a real Irishman, he, apparently, is not a real anything!  

Let’s be honest here. It’s as if a guy with roots in Africa also can’t have “real” roots in Ireland.

But don’t forget, it’s not as if JFK’s dad was right off of the boat.  If the diaspora has taught us anything it’s that -- like it or not -- our definition of what it means to be Irish American is ever-changing.

Indeed, at the heart of all of this is the deep question -- what does it mean to be Irish?

Consider what Oddie had to say, “No descendant of Irish Protestants in America joins in those overblown St Patrick’s Day parades, or describes themselves as Irish-American.”

I slightly understand what Oddie is saying, in the sense that when most people talk about the Irish in America, they refer to Catholics in Boston or Brooklyn. 
That said, Oddie’s statement is patently false.

As for there being no Irish vote in the U.S., again, it is true the days of Tammany Hall are gone. 

And yet, there’s no denying that the Catholic vote is at least significant.  And, this being America, of course the number of 100% Irish fourth generation Americans is small. 

But being Irish -- just as it is for Obama -- is an important part of their heritage.  To deny that is to play a really tricky game about who is “allowed” to be Irish and who is not.

In the end, I can almost guarantee Obama is at least as Irish as a good chuck of the folks who, “overblown” as it may be, line Fifth Avenue every March 17. 

Can Obama call himself Irish?  Yes he can!

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tomdeignan@earthlink.net or facebook.com/tomdeignan)

Who could have imagined…

Queen Elizabeth delivers a speech at a state dinner in Dublin Castle last week as Taoiseach Enda Kenny looks on

Let's go back in time. Let’s go back, say, 50 years. 

The year is 1961.  Could an Irish American couple in Brooklyn, or Boston, or Bayonne, have comprehended the dizzying events which unfolded in Ireland these past few days?

What would they have said?  What could they have said? 

Let’s use our imagination.  Speculate a little bit, shall we?

“I had the strangest dream last night,” the man -- let’s call him Patrick -- says, as he settles down at the breakfast table next to his wife.  Let’s call her Kathleen.

“I dreamt the Queen of England went to Ireland,” says Patrick, who is past his 60th year, and who was born in Ireland but came to the U.S. when he was still in his teens. 

Kathleen was born here, though her parents were born in Ireland.  They have raised their children and can now spend certain mornings leisurely talking about the events of the day, or their family or, on occasion, their strange dreams.

“Not only was the bloody Queen in Dublin,” Patrick says.  “But she actually went to Croke Park.”

“I don’t believe it,” Kathleen says.

“What’s not to believe?” Patrick responds.  “Twas my dream, not yours.”

“I don’t believe it,” Kathleen says, “because that’s nearly as bizarre as my dream.”

Patrick has been married long enough to know he should not point out that his wife has this habit of always trying to top him.  Instead, he just listens.

“I had a dream the president was in Ireland.”

“Kennedy?” Patrick says.  “Imagine that.  Half the kooks in the states weren’t willing to pull the lever for JFK because the randy fellow is Irish Catholic. 

Can you imagine what would happen if he hauled off and went over to Ireland.  They’d shoot him, they would.”

“It wasn’t Kennedy,” Kathleen says calmly.  “That’s what’s so weird.  It was the American president, all right.  He paid a visit to an ancestral home, a little place in Offaly.  But here’s the crazy part.”

“He was Protestant, wasn’t he?” Patrick offers dryly, sipping coffee.

“He was black.”

“Kennedy was?”

“No, the president.  In my dream.”

Patrick had to admit, this time around, his wife had successfully topped him.   The only thing left to wonder now was what they had had for supper last night, because whatever it was led to bizarre dreams.

“It’s just as well,” Patrick now says.  “If the Queen ever made a trip to Ireland like that she’d never make it back to Buckingham Palace.”

“It could happen,” Kathleen ventures.  “Some day.”

“Not until they iron out that mess to the north.”

“It’s been quiet.”

“Lord knows for how long.”

“I simply meant it could happen,” Kathleen says.  “Unlike my crazy dream.”

“What’s stranger?” Patrick wonders.  “A president in Ireland?  Or a black president?”

“A black Irish president!” Kathleen says, astonished.  “He was shaking hands with an eighth cousin or something.  He said is feidir linn to the cheering crowds.”

“What does that mean?” Patrick asks.

“Yes, we can.”

“We can what?”

“How should I know?” Kathleen responds.  Before Patrick ventures, “I guess it could happen.”

Now it is Kathleen’s turn to grumble. But Patrick says firmly, “Oh, do you think every lad and lassie who came over here during the last 100 years swiftly met a companion from Cork or Kerry?  My granddad told me stories of uncles and cousins who came over to New York, the Five Points, and places like that. 

“He said some of the blocks looked like Ireland and Africa had gotten together for a long, wild party.”

“But still,” Kathleen says.  “A president?”

“We got a Catholic one now.”

“And look how hard that was.  And with all that racial business still down south?”

“It’s been quiet.”

And now Kathleen points out that it is not likely to stay quiet for long. Patrick and Kathleen are then quiet for a moment.  They sip their coffee and chew their toast.

“If anything like that does ever happen,” Patrick says.  “It will be long after you and I shuffle off to a place that may or may not be better.”

“Perhaps even our children, too.”

“I hope not.”

“It makes you wonder, though,” Kathleen adds with finality.  “If there is a day down the road where these things can happen, what does the future after that hold.”

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tomdeignan@earthlink.net)

John Boehner’s Catholic controversies

House Speaker John Boehner.

House Speaker John Boehner, up until recently, was known for crying in public and the oddly orange hue of his skin. 

A series of unfortunate events last week, however, turned him into a public figure who couldn’t please Catholics no matter what he did.

This is a story about two Irish Catholic priests, the ongoing fallout from the Catholic Church sex scandals, the looming 2012 presidential race, and how religion plays a complicated role when it comes to hot-button topics such as abortion, but also poverty, immigration and social justice.

This all began when Republican Boehner was invited to give the commencement address at Catholic University in Washington D.C.  There is often a kerfuffle when invitations such as these are extended. 

Who can forget the outrage when President Obama -- who supports a woman’s right to choose on the
issue of abortion -- was asked to address Notre Dame’s graduating class a couple of years back?
Other Democrats have faced similar protests, whether the issue is speaking at a Catholic college or receiving communion during a heated campaign.

For this reason, Boehner (who was himself raised Catholic) seemed like a safe choice for Catholic University. 

After all, though Catholics have traditionally been Democrats throughout American history, a shift has taken place in recent decades.  Especially among avid churchgoers, the lean towards the Republican Party has become prominent.

Perhaps that’s why over 70 priests, nuns and faculty members from Catholic colleges decided to examine Boehner’s record on issues that are not abortion, and yet are still important to church teachings.

"Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policy makers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it," their letter reads.

The letter particularly cited proposed cuts in the Boehner-supported budget to Medicare, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program and food stamps. 

According to the letter, the budget "guts long-established protections for the most vulnerable members of society."

Boehner ended up giving the commencement address (and, of course, weeping), without referring to the dust-up. 

Interestingly, this conflict didn’t get nearly the attention that other church-politician conflicts normally get.  Why?

I suspect the mainstream media prefers it when Catholics keep things simple and stick to abortion, rather than thornier social issues such as the death penalty, poverty, labor rights and even immigration.

But in case Boehner thought he had earned a well-deserved rest from Catholic controversy, he was wrong.
Boehner also recently nominated an Irish American priest, Father Patrick J. Conroy, to hold the position of chaplain for the House of Representatives.  The position opened up when another Irish American, Father Daniel Coughlin -- the first ever Catholic priest to hold the chaplain position --announced his retirement last month.

On the surface, this seems like an acknowledgement of Catholic political clout. 

However, things got ugly last week when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, rescinded earlier support she’d lent to Conroy’s nomination.  Pelosi’s office said “new information” had come to light regarding Conroy. 

Though accused of no wrongdoing himself, Conroy works for the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus, commonly referred to as the Northwest Jesuits.  This order agreed to pay $166 million to victims of sexual abuse earlier this year.

According to Pelosi, Boehner's office did not mention that settlement during the vetting process.
Conroy is expected to land the coveted chaplain’s post.  But not before proving what a lightning rod Catholicism can be in this day and age.

And just wait until presidential contender Newt Gingrich -- thrice married -- gets on the campaign trail and goes on and on about his newfound Catholic faith.

Maybe it’s good that Catholics can cause trouble for both Republicans and Democrats.  For too long, politicians have sought to exploit their connection to religious values, without thinking through all of the implications of this connection.

Or, perhaps, things will just keep going on the same messy, messy course.

(Contact Sidewalks at tomdeignan@earthlink.net or facebook.com/tomdeignan)

A nation of ‘insecure’ immigrants - debate set to get nasty

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn.

There is a new book out by Georgetown professor Susan Martin entitled A Nation of Immigrants. That title is a no-brainer for a book such as this, though we’ve thrown that noble phrase around for so long that we’ve lost track of where it actually originated.

Fittingly, as The New York Times reminded us this week, it was that most famous Irish American, John F. Kennedy, who also wrote a book entitled A Nation of Immigrants back in 1958. Of course, that book was released at a time of historically low immigration to the U.S.

Martin’s new book reminds us that immigration has always been a vexing question for Americans, and that includes 18th century Americans who lived in this country when it was practically still a teenager.

In recent weeks -- especially with the killing of Osama bin Laden -- the debate over immigration has waned somewhat.

But with the election of 2012 looming -- Newt Gingrich planned to announce this week that he would be entering the race -- you can bet the debate over immigration is going to rise back to the top of the agenda.
And just as likely, you can bet it’s going to be nasty.

For proof of that, we can take a closer look at two prominent Irish Americans who are speaking out against a controversial federal program which, critics say, unfairly targets undocumented immigrants.

Just last week, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn came out and said he was planning to sever his state’s ties to what was believed to be a voluntary partnership with the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is overseen by the Department of Homeland Security.

Known as Secure Communities, the ICE-run program was designed to target undocumented immigrants who are also known to be dangerous criminals.

Who could be against that? Especially in this age of terrorism? And especially now that we know Osama’s followers are likely to seek revenge for his death?

So why would Quinn opt out of Secure Communities?

Well, first of all, this was supposed to be an optional program. State governors signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the understanding that their states could opt out of the program.

ICE officials, however, are now beginning to claim that the Secure Communities program is, in fact, mandatory.

Furthermore, it turns out that while ICE claims the program targets only hardened criminals, the reality is very different.

Quinn and many others are claiming a high percentage -- as many as four in five -- of immigrants targeted under Secure Communities have no criminal record or were picked up on minor offenses.

This has led to charges that Secure Communities is leading to the indiscriminate deportation of immigrants.
Of course, there is the old argument -- what part of illegal do you not understand?

Some people note the presence of an undocumented immigrant on U.S. soil is a crime in and of itself, so they should be deported either way.

But there are practical and historical reasons for worrying about a program such as Secure Communities.

It goes without saying that we should do everything we can to get terrorists or criminals out of the country.
More importantly, we need to do our best to keep them from getting in in the first place.

But let’s also not pretend that all past immigration -- including many Irish parents, grandparents and great-grandparents -- was legal and neat.

Furthermore, law enforcement officials such as New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have voiced concerns over programs such as Secure Communities, and not just because of his own immigrant roots.

Police officials worry that driving immigrants into the shadows will make them much less likely to report crimes or act as witnesses. In this sense, the program does not deter crime at all.

The next thing to keep your eye on is what New York Governor Andrew Cuomo will do about the state’s participation in Secure Communities. Staff members said he is reviewing the details.

In the long run, one thing is for sure -- you can bet this is going to be more ugly than pretty when the 2012 presidential race heats up.

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tomdeignan@earthlink.net or facebook.com/tomdeignan)

The good and bad guys - FBI's most wanted and possible new head honchos

Upon hearing the news that terror mastermind Osama bin Laden had been killed, James and Patrick Dowdell reportedly sped from Rockaway to Ground Zero. They brought with them bagpipes to join the gathering crowds Sunday night and mark the killing of bin Laden, who was responsible for the death of their brother, FDNY Lieutenant Kevin Dowdell, one of nearly 3,000 souls who perished that awful morning almost a decade ago.

It was an indication of how the Irish American community -- hit so hard by the terror attacks -- responded to this long awaited news.

Now that bin Laden has been sent off to (we can only hope) a much worse place, there remain practical matters of law enforcement to sort out.

For example, it has generally been accepted that while Osama bin Laden was public enemy number one, Boston Irish gangster James “Whitey” Bulger was the second Most Wanted man.

If he is still alive, of course. As Irishcentral.com and other outlets have noted, rumors have been swirling that Bulger recently died of a heart attack in Costa Rica.

Either way, Bulger has proven useful to certain Pakistani authorities who are under the gun for possibly allowing bin Laden to live right under their noses.

"If Whitey Bulger can live undetected by American police for so long, why can't Osama bin Laden live undetected by Pakistani authorities?" asked Ambassador Husain Haqqani, in an interview posted on The Atlantic magazine’s website.

But maybe that’s enough about the bad guys. In the past week numerous Irish Americans have emerged who are “wanted” for all of the right reasons.

Consider two big-time crime fighters, one from New York and one from Chicago. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and U.S. attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald are among those being considered to lead the FBI.

Current FBI head Robert Mueller took over the agency just one week before the terror attacks of 9/11. His 10-year term is now drawing to a close.

A committee led by Vice President Joe Biden is looking closely at replacing Mueller. Fitzgerald, the son of Irish immigrants, is among the candidates.

“Mr. Fitzgerald, a longtime prosecutor and a holdover United States attorney from the Bush administration, has a strong reputation for independence, as leader of the investigation into the leak of the name of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Plame Wilson,” a New York Times analysis noted.

However, Fitzgerald’s “willingness to challenge the Bush White House could give its current occupants pause, though they would never say so in public.”

Kelly, “by contrast, is a Democrat with a strong law enforcement résumé.

“Before becoming commissioner of the New York Police Department, he was a Treasury Department official during the Clinton administration and supervised the U.S. Customs Service, the Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, has endorsed him for the F.B.I. position.”

The Times did note that Kelly’s age, 70, could pose a problem, given the 10 year-term FBI leaders serve.
Meanwhile, all of the news about the beatification of Pope John Paul II has made it easy to forget that the most popular Irish American priest of the 20th century is also “wanted” -- as a serious candidate for sainthood.

The case for Fulton Sheen’s beatification had stalled, reportedly because of conflicts between the New York Archdiocese and the one in Sheen’s native Peoria, Illinois.

Sheen was the star of a highly rated TV show in the 1950s called Life Is Worth Living. He also wrote best-selling books, a popular newspaper column, appeared on the cover of Time, and is credited for making Catholicism acceptable to many Americans in the 1950s.

This month Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria is expected to file documents with the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in the Vatican, which will then begin its own investigation into the cause of Sheen’s sainthood.

This comes as Buffalo priest Father Nelson Baker (1842-1936) also moves closer the sainthood, which would reportedly make him the first Irish American saint.

So, at this uncertain moment in out nation’s history, it’s useful to pause and realize that some people are “wanted” for all the right reasons.

(Contact “Sidewalks” at tomdeignan@earthlink.net or facebook.com/tomdeignan)