Civil Rights Groups Again Ask Government to Block South Carolina Voter ID Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 09, 2011
Coalition Calls the Law Racially Discriminatory; Asks Justice Department to Intervene


CHARLESTON -- A coalition of civil rights and advocacy groups has again asked the U.S. Department of Justice to block a South Carolina law that would prevent registered voters from casting ballots at the polls on Election Day unless they have government-approved photo identification.

In an eight-page letter sent this week, groups including the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, argue the law would disproportionately affect minority voters and thus would suppress the minority vote.

The coalition's letter charges that the proposed change to voting requirements in the state is "unprecedented" in scope and will affect at least 216,596 registered voters-many of them minority, elderly or disabled--who lack a photo ID.

Further, the letter notes that the state has failed to prove the law does not discriminate against minority voters and has not made provisions for a voter education program that would eliminate the racial disparity.

"The state's own data show that the photo ID requirement would have a negative impact on minority voters, and the state has provided no justification for this new barrier to voting," said Robert Kengle, co-director of the Voting Rights Project of the Lawyers' Committee.

Also signing onto the letter are the Brennan Center for Justice, the League of Women Voters of South Carolina, and Charleston attorney Armand Derfner.

"Bad laws like this one limit the pool of eligible voters and make it harder for Americans to cast a ballot," said Victoria Middleton, executive director of the ACLU of South Carolina. "They represent a giant step backwards in a decades-long struggle to end discrimination."

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires states with a history of voter suppression, including South Carolina, to get approval from the Justice Department for changes in their voting laws. The law cannot take effect until that approval is granted.

"The voter ID requirement has the potential to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters who were able to legally cast their ballots in 2010. The scope of this supplementary registration scheme is unparalleled in South Carolina's history since the 1960s," added Katie O'Connor, an attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project.

http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/newsroom/p...

For Immediate Release, December 8, 2011
Contact: Noah Greenwald, (503) 484-7495

Proposed Obama Policy on Endangered Species Act Is Recipe for Extinction

WASHINGTON— The Obama administration today released a draft policy interpreting a key phrase in the Endangered Species Act that determines when species qualify for protection. Under the Act, an endangered species is defined as any species “in danger of extinction in all or a significant of portion of its range.” The phrase “significant portion of range” is important, because it means that species need not be at risk of extinction globally to receive protection. The policy proposed today sharply limits interpretation of this phrase by both defining “significant” to mean only where the species currently exists, not its historic range and by defining significant to mean that loss of the species from that portion of range would threaten the survival of the species as a whole.

“Under the policy proposed today, a species could be absolutely gone or close to vanishing almost everywhere it’s always lived — but not qualify for protection because it can still be called secure on one tiny patch of land,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The policy absolutely undermines the spirit of the Endangered Species Act and will be a recipe for extinction of our native wildlife if it’s finalized — a loophole that’s really a black hole. It will allow for massive species decline and habitat destruction.”

The draft policy retains a key aspect of a similar Bush-era policy adopted in 2007, which also argued that loss of historic range need not be considered when determining if a species is endangered in a significant portion of its range. The approach has been criticized by scientists as a “shifting baseline,” whereby the history of species is ignored. A study published by the Center in the international journal Conservation Biology cited the Colorado River cutthroat trout as a case in point: The trout was denied protection even though Fish and Wildlife acknowledged it has been lost in 87 percent of its historic range, including the biggest and best streams, and continues to face many threats.

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has long been criticized for only protecting species on the very brink of extinction, which makes recovery a difficult uphill slog,” said Greenwald. “This policy would actually codify that approach, essentially saying: Let’s only protect these creatures when they’re in as desperate a state as possible.”

The policy does reverse one aspect of the Bush administration policy that limited Endangered Species Act protections only to places where species were considered endangered, rather than their entire range. The policy was applied to several species, including the gray wolf and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, but was overturned by the courts.

But in a classic example of government doublespeak, today’s draft policy says that a species being endangered in a significant portion of range provides an independent basis for protection; it then defines the phrase to mean that the species must be at risk in all of its range. As with the “historic range” dodge, this will allow the agency to ignore species loss in significant areas and not provide protection. Fish and Wildlife did just this in a recent decision to deny protection to cactus ferruginous pygmy owls, even though the animal is at risk of being lost in the entirety of the Sonoran Desert of Arizona and Mexico.

“Future generations will look back at the mass extinctions of our time with nothing but sadness and regret,” said Greenwald. “Yet the agencies the American people trust to prevent these irreversible extinctions constantly seek to limit their own ability to stop species dying off. It’s both tragic and absurd.”

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/pr...

'Dr. Doom' Fears Another Financial Crisis Is Coming
by Marilyn Geewax
December 8, 2011

New York University professor Nouriel Roubini said Wednesday that Europe's debt troubles are so profound that the continent is falling into a "recession that will get worse and worse."

And a deep recession likely will lead to another financial panic that could spread around the world — an outcome that will be " very painful," he said.

"With Italy too big to fail, too big to save, and now at the point of no return, the endgame for the eurozone has begun," Roubini said in a recent written assessment.

He says a disorderly eurozone break-up would trigger a financial system shock as serious as the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, if not worse.

Read the full article at:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/1...

Pay attention to Roubini. BBI

Newt Gingrich's moment
By process of elimination
December 5, 2011

WHAT ever happened to Michelle Bachmann? If I recall correctly, I was just about to get around to reading that widely lauded New Yorker profile of her this summer when Rick Perry announced his candidacy and sucked all her voters away, and I figured my time would be better used reading up on him. Then Rick Perry couldn't remember which departments of the government he wanted to eliminate, and Herman Cain sucked his voters away. Then it turned out Herman Cain had a seemingly unlimited supply of sexual-harassment accusations, extramarital affairs, and so forth stuffed into his closet, and he started hemorrhaging voters and finally pulled out of the race. Now Newt Gingrich is the flavour of the moment, but according to a poll by the National Journal, the overwhelming majority of the magazine's panel of 102 Republican insiders prefer Mitt Romney. Their assessment is drawn from years of experience with Mr Gingrich in the 1990s. "With Newt, we go to bed every night thinking that tomorrow might be the day he implodes," says one. Another says Mr Gingrich "is not stable enough emotionally to be the nominee—let alone, the president." A third coins an epithet that seems destined to dog Mr Gingrich for the rest of the campaign: "Bigfoot dressed as a circus clown would have a better chance of beating President Obama than Newt Gingrich."

Which brings us back to Michelle Bachmann. Was there anything specific she did that disqualified her? Might she bounce back into favour? Or are GOP voters who used to back her left with the sense that she's not the one, even though the reasons why she's not the one are no longer clear? If she's not the one, who's left? Anybody got a number for Bigfoot? I understand he's available for birthday parties too. Seriously, this routine is more and more reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes's line that when all other possibilities have been eliminated, whatever is left must be the solution, no matter how unlikely. I think this time I'm going to skip reading up on Mr Gingrich, and spend the time learning some more about Mitt Romney.

Read the full article at:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...

Women's Groups Outraged By Ruling On Morning-After Pill
by Julie Rovner
December 8, 2011

Women's health advocates were quick to cry foul Wednesday when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the opinion of the Food and Drug Administration that the popular "morning after" emergency contraceptive "Plan B One Step" should be allowed to be sold without a prescription — and without age restrictions.

"As doctors and researchers have repeatedly stated, ample research shows Plan B to be safe for women of all ages and appropriate for over-the-counter access. It is deeply disappointing that this administration would repeat the mistakes of the previous one," said Susan Wood, an associate professor at George Washington University's School of Public Health. Wood was an assistant commissioner for women's health at the FDA but quit in 2005 over its continued delay on over-the-counter approval for Plan B.

Wood and others said Sebelius' action reminded them of how the Bush administration treated the issue.

"For me personally this is an incredibly disappointing moment," said Kirsten Moore, president of the Reproductive Health Care Technologies Project. "Because I was in the East Room of the White House in March 2009 when signed an executive order saying this administration was committed to restoring scientific integrity to the policymaking process. And that commitment just went up in smoke today."

Read the full article at:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/08...


-------------------------------------------

Morning-After Pill Limit Marks First Time U.S. Overrules FDA
By Anna Edney and Drew Armstrong
December 8, 2011

A decision by U.S. regulators to approve unrestricted over-the-counter access to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.’s emergency contraceptive was overruled by the Obama administration, the first time in history for such a reversal.

An administration official described the decision as Sebelius’s alone, and wouldn’t answer further questions about the role of the White House. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, compared the Obama administration to that of former President George W. Bush, saying both are guilty of “playing politics with women’s health.” “It is unacceptable that the approval for drugs supporting women’s reproductive health is held to a completely different standard,” she said in a statement.

Election-Year’ Decision

Representative Michael Burgess, a Texas Republican who opposed approval of Plan B for over-the-counter use in teenagers younger than 17, said he was pleased by the decision, though he called it a political one by Democrats. “It’s a presidential election year,” Burgess said in a telephone interview. “This is a striking departure from where congressional Democrats and the administration has been in the past. I think it’s the correct answer; it just wasn’t what I expected.”

Read the full article at:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-0...


----------------------------------------------

Obama administration refuses to relax Plan B restrictions
By Rob Stein
December 7, 2011

The Obama administration stunned women’s health advocates and abortion opponents alike Wednesday by rejecting a request to let anyone of any age buy the controversial morning-after pill Plan B directly off drugstore and supermarket shelves.

For what the Food and Drug Administration thinks is the first time, the Department of Health and Human Services overruled the agency, vetoing the FDA’s decision to make the contraceptive available without any restrictions. Revealing a rare public split, FDA Administrator Margaret A. Hamburg said her conclusion that the drug could be used safely by women of all ages was nullified by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

“There is adequate and reasonable, well-supported, and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing potential,” Hamburg said in a statement.

“However, this morning I received a memorandum from the Secretary of Health and Human Services invoking her authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to execute its provisions and stating that she does not agree with the Agency’s decision.”



Read the full article at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/hea...

Feds Force Hundreds of California's Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to Close
By Kristen Gwynne
December 7, 2011

Less than two months after California's U.S. attorneys announced plans to initiate a federal crackdown on the state's medial marijuana distributors and patients, hundreds of California's medical marijuana dispensaries have been forced to close their doors. The federal war on weed came as a surprise to many distributors and patients who remember Obama's campaign promise not to act on medical marijuana, but leave regulations up to the state. Instead, he has proven himself to be even worse than George Bush.

According to the Sacramento Bee, only eight of 99 dispensaries remain open in Sacramento County, and 25 of 38 have closed in Sacramento city. Even more have closed out of fear of federal prosecution against business operators and their landlords. In Sand Diego, almost two-thirds of about 220 dispensaries have closed under threats of federal property seizures and city lawsuits.

The threats have caused some businesses to turn to delivery services, pushing patients into a more stigmatized environment.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed to stop the federal attack on legal, medical marijuana, but the outcomes may not be favorable. U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong recently ruled that she would not protect marijuana dispensaries from federal actions because federal law considers marijuana illegal, and Congress still refuses to acknowledge the plant's medical value.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/artic...

One so-called "host" is scurrying about locking down posts like this is some sort of game with a prize to the "host" who engages in the most locks!

DU should hire someone who is competent in web page and discussion board design to make this an easier board to understand and move around on if that's the purpose behind building a new DU3.

The proposed DU3 format will have exactly the opposite impact.

It's like trading down from a Mercedes to a Yugo.

December 05, 2011
Who’s Speaking for Whom?
The Case of Occupy and the Longshoremen’s Union
by CAL WINSLOW


.... now we have the call for an American “General Strike” – specifically a West Coast wide waterfront strike, called for December 12, 2011. But this call comes not from the waterfront workers, rather it comes from Occupy Oakland: “We will now shut down ports along the entire West Coast.” Occupy Oakland, driven from its encampments, authorized the strike call “unanimously” at its November 18 General Assembly (I have to add here that I have been advised by reliable sources that the Oakland General Assembly and the anarchists at its core offer something much less than what is considered to be democratic). In this, Occupy Oakland is joined by a little known group, the Transport Workers Solidarity Committee whose website includes no names, no links, and no points of principles. But not to be outdone, it adds: “The call must go out: PORT WORKERS: SHUT DOWN ALL U.S. PORTS !!”

What is there to say about this? First, some corrections. The November 2 demonstration needs to be seen not just in terms of Occupy Wall Street but in a tradition of protest that goes right back to the sixties when anti-war activists attempted to interrupt and stop the flow of men and machines to Vietnam. This tradition continued into this century with demonstrations at the docks in opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This is a tradition – broadly, “Stop the War Machine,” that we can take great pride in, just as we can in the November 2 action. November 2 was a demonstration, it was an occupation, but it was not a strike. Certainly not a “General Strike,” not if the word strike is to have any meaning. There is a point to speaking honestly.

So the point is we know what a General Strike is and we know why strikes are important. And we can see that the November 2 in Oakland “General Strike” was not a strike, let alone a General Strike – truth be told I’ve heard of not a single case of a worker striking that day, walking off the job in defiance of their employers, though to be sure many workers found their ways to the docks. The double-speak on the Occupy Oakland website is not helpful.

Read the full article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/05/the... /


-------------------------------------------



ILWU clarifies position regarding third-party protests at ports
November 22, 2011

In response to recent third-party announcements that community activists will attempt to shut down various West Coast marine terminals on December 12, 2011, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) sent a memo to its 15,000 longshore members and leaders emphasizing the union’s internal democratic process and stating its rejection of third-party calls for job actions that have not been sanctioned by its Officers or voted on by member representatives. The memo stated in part, “To be clear, the ILWU, the Coast Longshore Division, and Local 21 are not coordinating independently or in conjunction with any self-proclaimed organization or group to shut down any port or terminal, particularly as it relates to our dispute with EGT Longview.”

“The ILWU shares the Occupy Wall Street movement’s concerns about corporate abuses and the future of the middle class, but we must be clear that any actions organized by outside groups, including the proposed December 12 shutdown of various terminals on the West Coast, have not been vetted by our union’s democratically led process,” said Robert McEllrath, ILWU International President. “Only ILWU members or their elected representatives can authorize job actions on behalf of the union, and any decisions made by groups outside of the union’s democratic process do not hold water, regardless of the intent.”

Several announcements have been made by online activists claiming that they intend to shut down terminals in support of the ILWU’s primary dispute with EGT, a multinational grain export terminal in Longview, WA, that broke off talks with the ILWU after nine months of negotiations.

“The ILWU has received strong public support as people find out about multinational EGT’s attempts to undermine American working conditions,” said Leal Sundet, ILWU Coast Committeeman. “While people are inspired to support the fight for good jobs at EGT, the fact remains that our plan to reach an agreement with EGT is led solely by the longshore workers who have worked grain on the West Coast for the past eight decades.”

http://www.ilwu.org/?p=3296

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 6, 2011

NOW Urges Obama Administration Not to Cave in to Catholic Bishops

Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill


The National Organization for Women calls on the Obama administration to stand up for women and not give in to demands from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that would deny birth control coverage for millions of women. The bishops have been lobbying the administration to expand a religious exemption that would allow a broad range of religiously affiliated organizations, such as colleges and hospitals, to take contraception coverage away from women who rely on them for health insurance. NOW calls on the president to remove the exemption altogether.

In early August, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accepted recommendations from the Institute of Medicine to require that health insurance plans cover contraception, with no co-payments or deductibles. NOW was dismayed that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius included a so-called 'conscience' clause -- as if an institution could have a conscience -- permitting certain religious employers like churches to exclude birth control from their employees' health insurance. This proposed provision violates individual women's rights to privacy and religious freedom, and denies women the equal protection of the laws. Far from being expanded, as the bishops demand, the clause should be removed entirely from the HHS regulation.

A recent poll by Thomson Reuters-NPR Health found that 77 percent of Americans believe private medical insurance should provide birth control without co-pays. Ninety-nine percent of sexually active women have used contraception, including 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women, as reported by the Guttmacher Institute. Yet this important health benefit could be lost for more than a million women and their families, and the decision will soon be made by the Obama administration.

The ill-considered proposed refusal clause in the women's birth control benefit undermines women's access to basic health care. NOW urges President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to say 'yes' to contraceptive coverage for all women and 'no' to the bishops' relentless attempts to deny women their rights.

###

The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States. NOW has 500,000 contributing members and 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

http://www.now.org/press/12-11/12-06.html

Jobless Rate Drops, But Pain, Despair Persist In Weak Economy
By David Moberg
December 2, 2011

The headline news on Friday that the unemployment rate in November dropped 0.4 percent to 8.6 percent may help President Obama avoid losing his job next year. But the reality behind the figures will not—and that reality includes a big dose of stress, anger, despair and insecurity even beyond the ranks of the unemployed, according to two new reports.

The number of jobs in the country grew by 120,000 in November, slightly below the rate of the past year (though it could be revised upwards as the Labor Department just did for the previous two months). That's barely enough to cover the growth of the labor force, and it reflects the loss of 20,000 public sector jobs--a continuing erosion of anemic private sector growth as a result of budget-cutting.

The bad news behind the lower unemployment rate is simply that the labor forcce last month shrank by 315,000 workers, who presumably have given up searching for a job. Although the Great Recession has been particularly rough for men, women--unmarried and disproportionately African-American--more than accounted for November's labor force decline.



Read the full article at:

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/1236...

A closer look at Mitt Romney's job creation record
The Republican presidential contender says he learned about expanding employment during his time heading a private equity firm. But under his leadership, Bain Capital often maximized profits in part by firing workers.
By Tom Hamburger, Melanie Mason and Matea Gold, Washington Bureau
Los Angeles Times
December 3, 2011

Shortly after Mitt Romney resigned from Bain Capital in 1999 to run the Olympics in Salt Lake City, potential investors received a prospectus touting the extraordinary profits earned by the private equity firm that Romney controlled for 15 years. Romney says his Bain experience shows he knows how to create jobs.

Bain expanded many of the companies it acquired. But like other leveraged-buyout firms, Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy.

Bain managers said their mission was clear. "I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation," said Marc B. Walpow, a former managing partner at Bain who worked closely with Romney for nine years before forming his own firm."The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors."

Four of the 10 companies Bain acquired declared bankruptcy within a few years, shedding thousands of jobs. The prospectus shows that Bain investors profited in eight of the 10 deals, including three of the four that ended in bankruptcy.

Read the full article at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...



Mitt Romney, left, with Bain & Co. founder William W. Bain Jr. in 1990. Bain had tapped Romney to lead Bain Capital, a private equity group

Has a War With Iran Already Begun?
Violent incidents between Iran and the West have been increasing
Michael Hirsh - Michael Hirsh is chief correspondent for National Journal
December 5, 2011

Two incidents that occurred on Sunday--Iran's claim of a shoot-down of a U.S. drone, and an explosion outside the British embassy in Bahrain--may have been unrelated. But they appear to add to growing evidence that an escalating covert war by the West is under way against Iran, and that Tehran is retaliating with greater intensity than ever.

Asked whether the United States, in cooperation with Israel, was now engaged in a covert war against Iran's nuclear program that may include the Stuxnet virus, the blowing-up of facilities and the assassination or kidnapping of scientists, one recently retired U.S. official privy to up-to-date intelligence would not deny it.

"It's safe to say the Israelis are very active," the official said, adding about U.S. efforts: "Everything that Mitt Romney said we should be doing--tough sanctions, covert action and pressuring the international community -- are all of the things we are actually doing." Though the activities are classified, a senior Obama administration official also would not deny that such a program was under way. He indicated that the U.S. was not involved in every action, referring to recent alleged explosions at Isfahan and elsewhere. But, he added: "I wouldn't assume that everything we do is coordinated."

Former undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who oversaw America's Iran engagement during the Bush administration, asked Sunday about reports that the U.S. program began under George W. Bush, said he could not comment on intelligence matters.

Read the full article at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/a... /

U.N. Envoy: U.S. Isn't Protecting Occupy Protesters' Rights
By Dan Froomkin
December 2, 2011

WASHINGTON -- The United Nations envoy for freedom of expression is drafting an official communication to the U.S. government demanding to know why federal officials are not protecting the rights of Occupy demonstrators whose protests are being disbanded -- sometimes violently -- by local authorities.

Frank La Rue, who serves as the U.N. "special rapporteur" for the protection of free expression, told HuffPost in an interview that the crackdowns against Occupy protesters appear to be violating their human and constitutional rights. "I believe in city ordinances and I believe in maintaining urban order," he said Thursday. "But on the other hand I also believe that the state -- in this case the federal state -- has an obligation to protect and promote human rights."

La Rue, a human rights activist who's been at the UN for three years, essentially agrees with the National Lawyers Guild—that forcible, violent raids on Occupy encampments in New York, Los Angeles, Oakland and other cities, infringe upon citizens' First and Fourth Amendment rights and are a violation of moral decency to boot. "The demonstrations are treated as if they're presumptively criminal," said NLG co-chair Mara Verheyden-Hilliard. "Instead of looking at free speech activity as an honored and cherished right that should be supported and facilitated, the reaction of local authorities and police is very frequently to look at it as a crime scene."

La Rue's communique to the US government will "ask what exactly is the position of the federal government in regards to understanding the human rights and constitutional rights vis-a-vis the use of local police and local authorities to disband peaceful demonstrations."

Read the full article at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/o...

20 Ways the Obama Administration Has Intruded on Your Rights
Is there a fundamental difference between the Bush presidency and the Obama presidency in the area of domestic civil liberties?
by Bill Quigley
Bill Quigley is a human rights lawyer and professor at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. He is also a member of the legal collective of School of Americas Watch.
November 30, 2011

The Obama administration has affirmed, continued and expanded almost all of the draconian domestic civil liberties intrusions pioneered under the Bush administration. Here are twenty examples of serious assaults on the domestic rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience that have occurred since the Obama administration has assumed power. Consider these and then decide if there is any fundamental difference between the Bush presidency and the Obama presidency in the area of domestic civil liberties.

Patriot Act

On May 27, 2011, President Obama, over widespread bipartisan objections, approved a Congressional four year extension of controversial parts of the Patriot Act that were set to expire. In March of 2010, Obama signed a similar extension of the Patriot Act for one year. These provisions allow the government, with permission from a special secret court, to seize records without the owner’s knowledge, conduct secret surveillance of suspicious people who have no known ties to terrorist groups and to obtain secret roving wiretaps on people.

Criminalization of Dissent and Militarization of the Police

Anyone who has gone to a peace or justice protest in recent years has seen it – local police have been turned into SWAT teams, and SWAT teams into heavily armored military. Officer Friendly or even Officer Unfriendly has given way to police uniformed like soldiers with SWAT shields, shin guards, heavy vests, military helmets, visors, and vastly increased firepower. Protest police sport ninja turtle-like outfits and are accompanied by helicopters, special tanks, and even sound blasting vehicles first used in Iraq. Wireless fingerprint scanners first used by troops in Iraq are now being utilized by local police departments to check motorists. Facial recognition software introduced in war zones is now being used in Arizona and other jurisdictions. Drones just like the ones used in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan are being used along the Mexican and Canadian borders. These activities continue to expand under the Obama administration.

Wiretaps

Wiretaps for oral, electronic or wire communications, approved by federal and state courts, are at an all-time high. Wiretaps in year 2010 were up 34% from 2009, according to the Administrative Office of the US Courts.

Read the full article and the 17 other ways the Obama Administration is intruding on your rights at:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/153283/20_w...