Friday, August 16, 2013

Francis and the Jesuits: 'There is an immense treasure we carry and communicate' (Video)



See also
General Education
Pope Francis
Society of Jesus
buenos aires




View 20 photos
Camera
Rio de Janiero, Brazil 2013 World Youth Day (Ginger McCarthy)

 



Ginger McCarthy
Library Examiner




Related Video:



Play

Aside from the work throughout the African continent in education, the Jesuit Refugee Service brings help to those who have lost everything. (RomeReports | YouTube)



 

Related Photo:Casa Rosada






August 2, 2013


This Wednesday was the anniversary of the death of St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) and this is also the order of priests in which Jorge Mario Bergoglio was ordained on 13 December1969, a few days before his 33rd birthday.

As his vehicle arrived at the Church of the Jesuits in Rome, Pope Francis alighted at the site of the tomb of St. Ignatius, that had been first consecrated in 1584. Pope Francis was greeted at the door of the Church known as the Gesù – the Church of the Holy Name of Jesus. In his greeting of the Pontiff, the Superior General of the Jesuits, Father Adolfo Nicolas, made reference to his historic visit to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, earlier in the week, as 3.5 million pilgrims joined in celebration with the Holy Father, at the 2013 World Youth Day.

Although only 427,000 individuals registered for the event, by Tuesday there were 600,000 attendees; and two days later, the pilgrims tallied more than 2 million. The organizers have provided additional details in their report:


Saturday's events, including the prayer vigil at the Copacabana Beach, drew a staggering 3.5 million people. But Sunday's closing Mass was by far the largest event, with 3.7 million participants.

The nearly half a million registered pilgrims came from 175 countries, and 60 percent of them were between the ages of 19 and 35. The countries with the largest number of registered participants were Brazil, Argentina, USA, Chile and Italy.

Participants also included over 7800 priests. The faithful received the Eucharist over 4 million times, during the various Masses for WYD. In all, visitors spent an estimated 1.8 billion Reais, or 784 million dollars, during the week long event in Rio.

Concelebrating with Pope Francis for the Holy Mass on 31 July, were Father Adolfo Nicolas, S.J., and Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, S.J., the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; as well as members of the Council, and more than two hundred other Jesuits.

The Holy Father stressed in his homily, the joy that is derived from putting Christ at the center of one’s life, and in entrusting one’s self to serve God and to be ever mindful of the limitations of our fragile human nature in the struggle to do what is right and good; and to take inspiration -- and a special kind of encouragement -- from our capacity to live in community with one another, yet the Holy Father also cautioned against setting oneself apart:


“We cannot walk in parallel or in isolation. Yes, there are paths of research, creative paths, yes: this is important; to go out to the peripheries … but always in community, in the Church, with this belonging that gives us the courage to go ahead.”

In several sections of his homily, Pope Francis made reference to the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius which have come to be practiced as meditations and sound instructions for a very powerful tradition in spirituality, undertaken not only by Jesuits, but by the laity In the Roman Catholic Church; by those of other Christian denominations, and even those of other faiths on occasion, because they have been proven to have been effective as a means of allowing for the stillness that is necessary -- in order to “find God in all things.”


Source
.

In Egypt, mob burns Adventist Church in Assiut


Aug 15, 2013 Cairo, Egypt

ANN staff

The burning of a Seventh-day Adventist Church in the city of Assiut during rioting last night was not part of a wider, organized political movement, local church officials said.



The Adventist Church in Assiut, Egypt, was burned by extremest attackers on August 14. Adventist Church officials stressed that the attack was not part of a wider political movement. The government has pledged to pay for the repairs of the extensive damage of many Christian churches in the region . [photos: Amgad Negah] 





The Assiut Adventist Church, located approximately 220 miles south of Cairo, was attacked by a mob and heavily damaged after it was set on fire. The pastor and his wife hid in their upstairs apartment and were not found by the attackers, who set the building on fire. The pastor and his wife were rescued from the burning building by Muslim neighbors.

“This was a small group of people bent on doing harm. This event was not representative of Egypt or the people of Egypt,” said Llewellyn R. Edwards, president the Adventist Church’s Egypt-Sudan Field, based in Heliopolis.

“As Adventists we want our relationships to be strong with Egyptians of all faiths in the country,” Edwards said.

Muslim neighbors rescuing the Adventist couple shows “the true picture of most people in Egypt,” Edwards said.



Edwards said the government has announced it will pay for the rebuilding of all churches destroyed last night during rioting in several cities.

Several other Christian churches were also attacked in Assuit, as well as the shop of the Egypt Bible Society, Edwards said.

The Adventist Church operates two schools in Egypt – Nile Union Academy northeast of Cairo, and Zeitoun Adventist School. Both institutions have positive relationships with their communities, Edwards said.


Source: © 2013, Adventist News Network
.
.
 Source
.

President Obama's Speech to Muslim World in Cairo

It's often said that hindsight is twenty twenty.

With this concept in mind let's view this Speech given in Egypt by President Obama in 2009:










CSPAN


Uploaded on Jun 4, 2009


Pres. Obama delivered a speech on U.S.-Muslim relations from Cairo University. The President called for renewed Middle East peace talks as well as an agenda for economic and social development in the region..
.

.....

Text: Obama’s Speech in Cairo



Published: June 4, 2009

The following is a text of President Obama's prepared remarks to the Muslim world, delivered on June 4, 2009, as released by the White House.



Related
Obama Calls for Alliances With Muslims (June 5, 2009)
Blog

The Caucus

The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
More Politics News



I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who (by the way) enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab (hajib), and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes (and yes religions) subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or (even) justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and (now) Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. (And) America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a (critical) part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed (shed). Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of (the) three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And (if we are being honest) fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know (AND YOU CAN TELL BY THIS AUDIENCE) there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

(I am convinced) Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence (into the home). Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own (America) – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction(s) between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

(And) This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in (when it comes to) this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, (at the same time we will encouragewhile encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a (young person) teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a
(young person) teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote (haah ) child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seeka world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust (that has built up during the years). But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; (t
t's easier) to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you
.


Source
.

'Day of rage' explodes after Friday prayers


 
A bold contradictory headline caught my attention this morning:  

'Day of rage' explodes after Friday prayers

 (The purported religion of peace is providing us a pattern of violence, especially after the Friday Prayers.)

Yahoo!


A supporter of ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi shouts during clashes with Egyptian security forces in Cairo's Nasr City district, Egypt, Wednesday, Aug. 14, 2013. (AP)

'Day of rage' explodes after Friday prayers

Thousands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters pour out of mosques in Cairo in defiance of the military. State of emergency »

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Cocoa, Coffee and Caffeine: How Helpful (or Harmful) is a Cup of Joe?



Food & Drink

By Alexandra Sifferlin @acsifferlin


Aug. 15, 20131



David Malan / Getty Images


Americans gulp nearly 400 million cups of coffee every day, so it’s time to understand what all of that java is doing to our brains and bodies.

For many, coffee is a morning eye-opener, thanks to the stimulating effects of caffeine, but other compounds native to the coffee bean include antioxidants that have been linked to a lower risk of skin cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease and diabetes. Just a few weeks ago, a Harvard School of Public Health study found that java may even prevent suicide; individuals who drank two to four cups of coffee every day were less likely to commit suicide than those who didn’t drink it.

(MORE: How Coffee Could Save Your Life)

But unfortunately, studies touting the benefits of coffee are often followed by others that highlight its adverse effects on health. The latest, published in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings, studied health records of 45,000 people who reported their coffee-drinking habits and concluded that younger people under age 55 who drank more than 28 cups a week were 21% more likely to die prematurely during the 17 year study than those who drank less. (Older coffee drinkers didn’t show such an increased risk of early mortality.)

While the heavy coffee drinkers were also more likely to be less fit and to smoke cigarettes — both factors that can contribute to early death — the relationship between more coffee and earlier death continued to hold even after the scientists adjusted for these effects.

So is that morning cup of coffee a health-booster or a health hazard?

That answer depends on how the studies that examine this question are designed, and the type of coffee in question — as well as who is doing the drinking. Unlike the latest analysis above, some studies in the past did not adjust for factors other than coffee that could affect outcomes like mortality, cancer rates or cognitive measures. A 1981 study, for example, connected coffee to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer, but other analyses showed conflicting associations. Later research concluded that these contrary findings were due to the fact that some of the studies failed to control for potentially confounding factors such as smoking, while others were subject to the errors of having drinkers recall how much they consumed.

It’s also important to understand what the studies are designed to measure. When it comes to brain function, for example, it turns out that caffeine in coffee acts as a stimulant that can sharpen cognitive function but doesn’t necessarily improve memory or learning; the distinction, however, isn’t often made in media reports on coffee studies involving cognition or even the risk of Alzheimer's disease.

The effects of coffee on the body can also change over time, and studies don’t always tease apart the different health outcomes of participants by age. A long-term java habit’s effect on the hearts and brains of older drinkers, for instance, may differ from that of a short-term one as cells and tissues become tolerated to the chemicals in the coffee. For example, frequent and long-term coffee drinking — about four or more cups a day — has consistently been linked to a nearly 50% lower risk of type 2 diabetes compared to non-drinkers, while the effect of fewer cups is less consistent. Such a coffee habit isn’t all beneficial, however; high consumption among pregnant women has been linked to a lower birth rate.

How the coffee is prepared can also make a difference; some studies found that unfiltered coffee—like French Press—increased cholesterol levels while paper-filtered coffee did not, but most studies of coffee drinkers don’t distinguish between different preparations.

(MORE: Coffee: Drink More, Live Longer?)

“Back when I was in medical school in the 70s, I was taught that coffee is bad for you,” says Dr. Peter Martin, director of the Institute for Coffee Studies at Vanderbilt University. “There was strong data showing it was associated with excess mortality and unfortunately statistical studies were done without taking into consideration a whole bunch of covariates. It’s also true people who drink coffee tend to smoke. By statistically removing these lifestyle variables, then coffee starts looking quite healthy. I think that coffee is basically good for you unless there is a specific reason you shouldn’t drink it.”

And like anything else we put in our bodies, figuring out whether it will help or harm our health is about understanding the balance of ingredients packed into each cup. While the antioxidants in coffee can protect the heart and combat diabetes, those benefits need to be balanced against risks like the over-stimulation that caffeine can cause. “Coffee contains hundreds of compounds including caffeine, phenolic acids, minerals, and vitamin B3 that can vary by coffee bean, degree of roasting and brewing method. All of which may have different health effects,” says Dr. Robert van Dam, an assistant professor in the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.

(MORE: Study: Caffeine May Alter Estrogen Levels in Women)

To complicate matters even more, these effects can greatly vary from person to person. Plus, our bodies tend to adapt to the various components in coffee, including caffeine, so each individual’s response to it may even change over time. “Only after consumption of more than a week [does] tolerance to the effects of caffeine develop,” says van Dam. “Even then there is a large variation in how fast people metabolize caffeine which is partly genetically determined and there will thus be large differences in how much caffeine people can consume without unpleasant side effects.”

Martin, however, says that there are some simple ways to determine if coffee is likely to be doing you more harm or good. If your java habit is disrupting your sleep, then cut back on the last cup of the day so the stimulating effects of caffeine aren’t making you anxious or impeding your ability to concentrate and focus. “If caffeine intake affects sleeping habits, induces irritability etc. then you are probably consuming too much,” says van Dam.

And if you aren’t a coffee drinker, there’s no need to pick up the habit in the hopes of reaping some of the benefits associated with coffee, since it’s not clear that those benefits outweigh the risks associated with drinking it — especially in large amounts.


Alexandra Sifferlin @acsifferlin   

Alexandra Sifferlin is a writer and producer for TIME Healthland. She is a graduate from the Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism.



Source: http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/15/cocoa-coffee-and-caffeine-how-helpful-or-harmful-is-a-cup-of-joe/#ixzz2c5pTwqY3

.

The Secret of Oz



The Secret of Oz - English - FREE.mov



Bill Still

Uploaded on Oct 19, 2010


Please DONATE -- any amount helps keep this on the air.
Here is the DONATE link:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...

The world economy is doomed to spiral downwards until we do 2 things: outlaw government borrowing; 2. outlaw fractional reserve lending. Banks should only be allowed to lend out money they actually have and nations do not have to run up a "National Debt". Remember: It's not what backs the money, it's who controls its quantity.


,

Modern Chaos: The Charismatic and Pentecostal Movements






Paul Flynn

Published on Feb 25, 2013

Segment taken from the Film 'Of Chaos and Confusion: The Modern Church':
http://youtu.be/bA0It1CkMxo

A Megiddo Films Production
Produced, Written and Directed by Paul Flynn
Running Time: 2.5 hours
Copyright 2012 Paul Flynn.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

To support the making of other planned future films you can donate here at:
http://megiddofilms.org/donations/

Megiddo Radio
Paul Flynn talks about his new film which is now out online called 'Of Chaos and Confusion: The Modern Church'.
http://megiddofilms.podomatic.com/ent...

/

Guillermo Jimenez on Constitution-Free Border Zones

15 Aug 2013





Today we’re joined by Guillermo Jimenez of TracesofReality.com to discuss the issue of the “constitution-free zones” that the ACLU have identified as existing anywhere within 100 air miles of any US border. We talk about Guillermo’s extensive coverage of this subject, including his recent article “Another Man Arrested at a Checkpoint for Doing Absolutely Nothing Illegal.” We also explore the background of the problem and what concerned US citizens can and should be doing to confront this growing tyranny.


Source
.

Chaos On The Streets Of Egypt Dozens Reported Dead In Crackdown







Mass Tea Party


Published on Aug 14, 2013


Chaos On The Streets Of Egypt Dozens Reported Dead In Crackdown

.....

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Remains Defiant After Crackdown

Hundreds of people were killed in Egypt Wednesday when armed forces cleared protest camps set up by backers of ousted President Morsi. David Greene talks to Steven Cook, senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, about the situation in Egypt.


Source
.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Colombia Struck by Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake, No Damage Reported



By Oscar Medina & Nathan Gill - Aug 13, 2013 1:29 PM ET

 
Colombia was struck by its largest earthquake in six years today, shaking buildings in Medellin and felt as far away as Panama City. No damage or casualties have been reported.

There were “no victims to mourn and nothing to fear,” President Juan Manuel Santos said in a statement on Twitter.

The 6.7-magnitude quake struck 63 miles (101 kilometers) west of the coastal city of Mutis at a depth of 2.7 miles at 10:43 a.m. local time, the U.S. Geological Survey said on its website. There is no risk of a tsunami, Carlos Ivan Marquez, the head of risk management at the country’s disaster agency known as UNGRD, said in a telephone interview.

Ecopetrol SA (ECOPETL), Colombia’s state-controlled oil producer, has had no reports of damage, the company said today in an e-mailed response to questions.

The earthquake was Colombia’s largest since a 6.8-magnitude temblor hit the Andean nation’s west coast in September 2007, according to the USGS. Colombia, a coffee, oil and metal producing country, is located on South America’s northwestern Pacific and Caribbean coasts.

To contact the reporters on this story: Oscar Medina in Bogota at omedinacruz@bloomberg.net; Nathan Gill in Quito at ngill4@bloomberg.net


Source
.
.

Why the New York Times website went dark


CyberTruth Byron Acohido, USA TODAY 6:16 p.m. EDT August 14, 2013



(Photo: EMMANUEL DUNAND AFP/Getty Images)



SEATTLE -- Given multiple waves of denial of service attacks against U.S. banks by an Islamic group, the disabling this morning of the New York Times website had the cybersecurity community on alert.

The Times' public website became inaccessible as of around 11 a.m. Eastern time for at least an hour, longer in some parts of the nation, according to Internet reports.

A talk last month at the Black Hat conference in Las Vegas featured a proof-of-concept demonstration by WhiteHat Security chief technology officer Jeremiah Grossman showing how anyone could circulate a paid online ad in a way that would cause a targeted website to be inundated by mundane service requests triggered by the mere circulation of the ad.

But something even more mundane apparently caused the New York Times website outage: human error.

At least that's the consensus of IT pros who discuss things on puck.nether.net. One poster says "a self-inflicted wound, having to do with a software update that was rolled out to both the production and backup servers simultaneously," caused the failure.

Gunter Ollmann, chief technology officer at IOActive, says "based upon a couple of screen shots that people have posted it could have been something as simple as a misconfigured DNS server or load balancer. From the underground side, there's no discussions or perps claiming responsibility. I tend to believe that this was likely self-inflicted."

Tom Kellermann, Trend Micro's vice president of cyber security, for one, doesn't buy that explantion.

Kellermann notes that both the paper's web server and internal e-mail server were inaccessible, even after robust security measures taken in the wake of Chinese hackers targeting the New York Times and other big media outlets late last year and earlier this year.

"It's a good spin to blame this on a crappy update or bad management, but I'm leaning toward the fact that they're under attack again," says Kellermann.

Meanwhile, a blog posted on Monday by researchers at security firm FireEye, adds to the intrigue. Researchers Ned Moran and Nart Villeneuve assert that the Chinese hacking collective that cracked into the New York Times' computer network late last year appear to be at it again, mounting fresh assaults with new and improved versions of malicious software.

"After all the attention paid to security to have a web server and e-mail server go down in tandem just doesn't sound right. You usually lose one or the other, and when you lose your e-mail server it's usually from something nefarious," Kellermann says. "So is it hackers from the past returning to haunt them again or new hacktivists attacking them for something they've done or reported recently?"

Darien Kindlund, FireEye's manager of threat intelligence, says he does not believe the Chinese hacking group tied to earlier New York Times hack -- and back in action again -- caused the outage today.

"It goes against against their whole motive," Kindlund says. "They're into this to steal large scale quantities of intelligence and if they were to disrupt their victims it would be clear what's going on and they'd no longer be able to steal any intelligence."


Source
.

Satan,The Fallen Angels & The Children of Disobedience





 Mindcrime1994

Published on Mar 19, 2012 Please Read the Info Box: the Lich King & the Boy Images Used in This Film Are for Effect & Graphic Content Only, They Are Not to Be Taken Seriously. It is Filler, Nothing More & If You're Not Smart Enough to Realize That & Leave a Stupid Comment About Them, Distracting from the Real Point of the Video, It Will Be Deleted.
Before the rise of Christianity, the pseudepigrapha of Enochic Judaism,during the Second Temple period, gave Satan an expanded role.They interpreted Isaiah 14:12-15 as applicable to Satan & presented him as a fallen angel cast out of Heaven.Christian tradition, influenced by this, came to use the Latin word for "morning star", aka Venus, lucifer, as a proper name ("Lucifer") for Satan as he was before his fall. As a result, "Lucifer has become a by-word for Satan in the Church and in popular literature" Samael (Hebrew: סמאל) (also Sammael and Samil) is an important archangel in Talmudic and post-Talmudic lore, a figure who is accuser, seducer and destroyer,
He is considered in legend a member of the heavenly host, in the New Testament named Satan and the chief of the evil spirits.
Gabriel (Hebrew: גַּבְרִיאֵל, Modern Gavri'el Tiberian Gaḇrîʼēl, God is my strength; Arabic: جبريل, Jibrīl or جبرائيل Jibrāʾīl) is an archangel who typically serves as a messenger to humans from God.
Michael (Hebrew: מִיכָאֵל (pronounced [ˌmixäˈʔel]), Micha'el or Mîkhā'ēl; Greek: Μιχαήλ, Mikhaḗl; Latin: Michael or Míchaël; Arabic: ميخائيل‎, Mīkhā'īl) is an archangel in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic teachings.
In Hebrew, Michael means "who is like God" Meant to imply that no one is like God. In this way, Michael is reinterpreted as a symbol of humility before God. Michael leads God's armies against Satan's forces in the Book of Revelation, where during the war in heaven he defeats Satan.
Special Thanks to: Nyla Rossini Annointed One for This Production. Note: 2 Weeks after Posting, This Video is Blocked Now in Some Countries and has Like 5 Copyright claims on the Vid Game Footage.
(Please Watch the Video Response Attached to This Video Concerning the Satan/Lucifer Confusion in Modern Day Society)

Thanks for Watching

.

Abusing the System: Facebook Standards and the People Who Violate Them UPDATED


Facebook

By Ruthie Blum 8/09 1:20pm



For the past two months, I have intermittently been barred from Facebook.

The first time it happened was in June, when I tried to post my Israel Hayom column. Suddenly, a window popped up, telling me that inappropriate material had been found on, and removed from, my page. I was warned that if I continued violating Facebook’s “community standards,” I would be banned from the social network for good.

The notice included a link specifying these standards, and a demand that I click to acknowledge I had read and understood them. Failure to do so, it said, would result in my inability even to open Facebook to read my newsfeed. I complied.

The following statement appeared: “Facebook gives people around the world the power to publish their own stories, see the world through the eyes of many other people, and connect and share wherever they go. The conversation that happens on Facebook–and the opinions expressed here–mirror the diversity of the people using Facebook. To balance the needs and interests of a global population, Facebook protects expression that meets the community standards outlined on this page. Please review these standards. They will help you understand what type of expression is acceptable, and what type of content may be reported and removed.”

Underneath the explanation, examples of unacceptable content were listed. Among these were “violence and threats,” “self-harm,” “bullying and harassment,” “graphic content,” “nudity and pornography,” and “hate speech.”

I was puzzled. Neither I nor anyone else who had shared articles with me had engaged in any of the above. And, as eagerly as I searched, I couldn’t locate a single dirty picture on my timeline.

Indeed, the only activity visible, other than the occasional photo of one of my family members, was political in nature.

Since global politics is what I write about–with an emphasis on the defense of Israel and criticism of its detractors–this is obviously what dominates my Facebook page. Comments on pieces I post are also related to issues of foreign policy, Zionism, anti-Semitism, the Middle East and the United States.

What, then, could possibly be the reason for my suspension?

Figuring at first that it must be some kind of error, I simply chalked it up to spam and waited until I was allowed back into Facebook’s good graces.

When this warning appeared a second time, however, I did what I always do when baffled by cyberspace–I called my kids. After admonishing me for being an idiot where the Internet is concerned, one of them told me to change my settings. This would prevent other people from posting on my page without my permission. I took his advice and assumed I had solved the problem.

The very next day, I received the warning again, this time with a slightly harsher tone. After all, I had become a serial offender. I was banned not for 24 hours, but for three days. This meant that not only was I unable to post anything, but I could not even “like” anyone else’s posts.

The only good thing about this was that it gave me the chance to snap back at my son that maybe I’m not such an idiot. I had done as he had instructed, and was still getting the menacing message. Ha.

The next step, we decided, was to send a message to the folks at Facebook. Hey, I hollered, I haven’t been posting anything incendiary. Please advise. Alas, no response was forthcoming.

Again I returned to the rules of conduct, to see if I could decipher what I was doing wrong and how I could make it right. The clue was at the bottom of the “community standards” page, in a paragraph titled “Reporting abuse”: “If you see something on Facebook that you believe violates our terms, you should report it to us.”

In other words, someone has been complaining about me to Facebook, reporting abuse on my part. This person clearly doesn’t like what I have to say–which is always from a conservative viewpoint–and has come up with a way to silence me through bullying.

It is actually he or she who is violating Facebook standards, not I. But there is nothing I can do about it, other than go on the defensive, and so far not very effectively.

This is exactly how the enemies of Israel operate. They repeatedly accuse the Jewish state of acting in an illegitimate fashion, thereby placing the burden of proof on the unwitting defendant. It is a brazen and shameless tactic. And it works like a charm.

Facebook is a private enterprise that has the right to choose its users. Those users do not pay for the privilege; and it is a huge privilege for writers to have access to such a massive readership. Whoever has been targeting me knows this full well.

He or she is also aware that all one has to do to ruin Israel’s reputation is to cast aspersions. Social networking takes care of the rest.

UPDATE (7:55 pm): The Observer received the following statement from Facebook:

As our team processes more than one million reports each week, we occasionally make a mistake. In this case, we mistakenly removed content from Ruthie Blum’s profile, and worked to rectify the mistake as soon as we were notified. We apologize for the inconvenience caused due to the removal of this content, and we have already taken steps to prevent this from happening in the future. Additionally, we have removed any blocks on associated accounts.



Ruthie Blum is the author of To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the ‘Arab Spring.’


Source

.
.

Likely Labor regs would aid vets, disabled, unions




FILE - In this April 18, 2013, file photo, Thomas Perez testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, April 18, 2013, before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on his nomination as Labor Secretary. With Perez now confirmed as head of the Labor Department, the agency is expected to unleash a flurry of new regulations that have been bottled up for months _ a prospect that has business leaders worried and labor advocates cheering. Some long-awaited rules would help boost employment for veterans and the disabled, increase wages for home health care workers, and set new limits for workplace exposure to dangerous silica dust. Other more controversial rules and actions could help labor unions in organizing campaigns and allow union officials to take part in safety inspections at non-union companies. (AP Photo/Molly Riley, File)




SAM HANANEL 9 hours ago PoliticsBarack ObamaUnited States Department of Justice


WASHINGTON (AP) — With Thomas Perez now confirmed as head of the Labor Department, the agency is expected to unleash a flurry of new regulations that have been bottled up for months a prospect that has business leaders worried and labor advocates cheering.
Some long-awaited rules would help boost employment for veterans and the disabled, increase wages for home health care workers and set new limits for workplace exposure to dangerous silica dust.

Other, more controversial rules and actions could help labor unions in organizing campaigns and allow union officials to take part in safety inspections at nonunion companies.

"The general view of the business community is that there will be an activist, enforcement agenda," said Michael Lotito, a San Francisco lawyer who represents employers in labor disputes. "That means there are going to be more lawsuits and the regulatory agenda is going to be alive and well."

In many cases, the pending rules have languished for two years or more, stalled by election-year politics and the delay in installing Perez as labor secretary. Republicans who opposed Perez say his record as head of the Justice Department's civil rights division was one of ideological activism. But labor and workplace advocates call Perez a champion for workers' rights.

"American workers have an advocate in the Labor Department who will protect and defend workers' rights — from collective bargaining to workplace safety to retirement security," said Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The Senate confirmed Perez last month on a party-line 54-46 vote, part of a deal in which Republicans agreed to end stalling tactics over several of President Barack Obama's nominees.

The Labor Department already has dramatically increased enforcement of safety, wage and hour laws during Obama's administration. Former Labor Secretary Hilda Solis bluntly declared there was "a new sheriff in town" when she took over the department in 2009.

But Perez is expected to take things further based on his track record at the Justice Department. He played a leading role in challenging voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina and was particularly aggressive in bringing housing discrimination cases. As labor secretary in Maryland, Perez was known for actively going after companies that misclassified workers as independent contractors to avoid paying minimum wage and overtime.

"He'll probably be more hands-on than Solis was," said Randel Johnson, vice president for labor issues at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Labor Department spokesman Carl Fillichio declined to comment on specific rules. He referred to the White House's regulatory agenda, which lists several key rules poised for release in the months ahead.

One rule triggering perhaps the strongest opposition in the business community would require employers to disclose the attorneys and consultants they hire to advise them during union organizing drives, even if the consultants have no direct contact with workers.

If the rule is adopted, unions would know whether a company has hired what they refer to as "union-busting" firms and how much those firms are being paid to offer advice. Employers believe union leaders could use such information to embarrass company managers as they try to persuade workers to back the unions.

"We believe it would severely limit the ability of an employer to get legal advice during a union organizing campaign," Johnson said.

He said the rule could discourage some companies — especially smaller employers — from seeking advice in the face of a union campaign. The rule-making triggered more than 7,000 comments and vigorous opposition from the American Bar Association, which says it's too intrusive.

Unions and other supporters of the rule argue that it would simply close a major loophole that allows employers and management consultants to avoid reporting on their efforts to discourage workers from unionizing.

"We think this is a rule to enhance transparency, and that's a good thing," said Lynn Rhinehart, general counsel for the AFL-CIO.

Other rules expected to be finalized in the coming months would:

— Require most companies with federal contracts to set a goal of having disabled workers make up 7 percent of their workforce. With federal contractors employing nearly one-quarter of the nation's workforce, the rule could help lower the perennially high unemployment rate for disabled workers, now standing at 14.7 percent. That's twice the national 7.4 percent unemployment rate for those without disabilities. Business groups complain the goal is too ambitious and could conflict with federal laws that discourage employers from asking about a job applicant's disability.

— Strengthen requirements that federal contractors take affirmative action to hire and promote veterans and require those companies to set certain hiring benchmarks.

— Extend minimum wage and overtime pay rules to more than 2 million home health care workers now exempt. The exemption dates back to the 1970s, when home care aides were compared to neighborhood baby sitters, not professional caregivers.

The Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration also is expected to propose a major new rule governing exposure to silica dust. In development for more than 15 years, the proposed rule has been awaiting approval at the White House Office of Management and Budget since 2011. Overexposure to silica has been linked to lung disease, including lung cancer, and a host of other illnesses.

Business groups are also concerned about how aggressively Perez will enforce a new OSHA policy clarification that lets nonunion employees designate a union official to represent them during an OSHA inspection.


___

Follow Sam Hananel on Twitter: http://twitter.com/SamHananelAP


Source
.