However, it looks like there might have been some truth to that list. A pro-life group in Wisconsin was recently investigated by police and the government for literally no reason at all.

The Department of Homeland Security admitted today that it improperly conducted a threat assessment on pro-life and pro-abortion groups in Wisconsin. The assessment came before an expected rally last year in response to the University of Wisconsin Hospital board decided to allow abortions.

In February 2009, pro-life advocates planned to protest the hospital’s decision to open up a new Madison Surgery Center doing abortions.

The Associated Press reported today that the department said in a memo that it “destroyed all of the copies of the assessment after an internal review found it violated intelligence gathering guidelines about ‘protest groups which posed no threat to homeland security.’”

AP indicated the assessment was reportedly only shared with the director of Wisconsin’s intelligence-sharing center and local police in Middleton, Wisconsin, the site of the rally.

Today, a pro-life organization in Wisconsin informed LifeNews.com of its concerns.

In response to an open records request by the Alliance Defense Fund and Pro-Life Wisconsin, the Middleton Police Department and the Wisconsin Department of Justice, along with the Department of Homeland Security all refused on February 4 to release copies of the threat assessment.

Pro-Life Wisconsin officials told LifeNews.com that the assessment was “inappropriately shared” and should never have targeted pro-life groups.

“The majority of Americans identify themselves as pro-life, and the Middleton Police Department has shown they are out of touch with this peaceful majority,” said Peggy Hamill, state director of the pro-life group. “Pro-lifers are not a minority of the population, nor are they second-class citizens. We refuse to let our First Amendment rights be silenced.”

A few months later in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights concluded the investigation was an improper use of department resources.

The conclusion said the department inappropriately directed against activities protected by the First Amendment, in which law enforcement inappropriately engaged in “the collection, retention and dissemination of U.S. person information regarding protest groups which posed no threat to homeland security and… violated [DHS] Guidelines.”

Hamill said DHS destroyed its copies of the report, but the Middleton Police Department retained its copy.

In January 2010 the Alliance Defense Fund, on behalf of Wisconsin pro-life advocates, asked the Middleton Police Department for a copy of the report pursuant to Wisconsin’s open records laws.

The Middleton Police Department refused to disclose the report and further said that the DOJ similarly refused to authorize disclosure of the report, despite the fact that DHS had already determined that the report was an improper investigation of freedom of speech activities.

“This move by DHS illustrates the Obama administration’s goal of silencing pro-lifers. It is disturbing that a local police department has apparently tapped into the security apparatus of the federal government to potentially obstruct free speech,” Hamill concluded.

“Last year, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano unjustly included pro-lifers in a report on domestic terrorism, and here we see her words in action,” she said.

I don’t suppose we’ll be seeing the ACLU standing up to fight this one, will we?

I’m curious. Why exactly would the government feel the need to investigate a rally? Just because it’s pro-life? I know, I know — DHS “apologized”. All that really means is that they’re sorry someone complained and the news got out about it. If no one ever acknowledged that this was wrong and illegal, do you honestly think there ever would have been an apology issued? Even more disturbing is that the local police department won’t release their copy of this report to let us know just why, exactly, this pro-life group was deemed a threat. Was it simply because they were pro-life? It sure does look that way.

All throughout Bush’s presidency, liberals protested him on a seemingly daily basis. They burned him in effigy, they fantasized about assassination, and they said over and over again that dissent was the strongest form of patriotism. Protesting, they said, is an important civil right. But now the tables have turned and we have a liberal extremist, pro-abortion president in office. Dissent is no longer tolerated, and protesting? If you’re on the wrong side of the issue, that’s not allowed, either.

Unfortunately for Obama, I don’t think this will stop pro-lifers, though. They’re some of the most incredible people around. Regardless of how much they get smeared and slandered, regardless of the potential cost, they keep on fighting for the sanctity of human life. They don’t do it for profit or gain, and they do it even if it means the government will try to silence them. Obama’s DHS tried to pick a fight, and they really should have known better. When you actually have morals and are willing to fight for what you believe in, a little bullying won’t be enough to scare you away.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Taxpayers might want to pay close attention to this Sunday’s Super Bowl broadcast or they’ll miss Uncle Sam’s 30-second, $2.5-million reminder to stand up and be counted.

That’s what the Census Bureau paid CBS to get their message notched somewhere between a National Lampoon reprisal, a weird dude with big glasses, a beer-can house and men without pants.

And, that’s just a fraction of what the bureau plans to spend this year to get Americans to answer a simple, 10-question survey.

The bureau is spending $133 million between January and May — or, more than $13 million for each of 10 questions, one of which reads: What is your telephone number? — to publicize the national head-count. Part of that effort is the Super Bowl ad, which Kendall Johnson, a spokeswoman for the bureau, confirmed Wednesday to FoxNews.com cost $2.5 million to air. The ad, produced by actor and director Christopher Guest, also will appear in other media, Johnson said.

It’s insane that the government is spending so much money on a freaking public service announcement. Obama has already quadrupled the deficit. Unemployment is out of control. The economy is showing no signs of improving. Yet Obama still found it necessary to spend $2.5 million on a 30 second ad? It’s as if this ad sums up the entire problem with the Obama presidency. To them, what’s another few million dollars? It’s as if Marie Antoinette has been reincarnated into our new president, who is just as clueless as she was. Why on earth do we need a $2.5 million commercial for the census during the Super Bowl? To put this into perspective, even Pepsi isn’t buying any ad spots during the game. Pepsi decided not to buy any because… it was too expensive. We’re spending more and more money on more and more crap that doesn’t even matter. There’s no reason to have an ad for the census during the Super Bowl, none whatsoever.

Oh, and check out this interesting little nugget about the census:

Every U.S. household, including those occupied by non-citizens and illegal immigrants, must be counted.

Including illegal immigrants. Way to go, Obama. You’ve turned something that’s fairly routine into another FUBAR mess.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

If the election were held today, Sen. Blanche Lincoln would lose in a landslide, according to the latest polling from Public Policy.

The poll shows 33% of voters would pick the Arkansas Democrat, while 56% would vote for Republican Rep. John Boozman.

The 23-point edge for Boozman, who has yet to officially announce his campaign, underscores that Lincoln is one of the most vulnerable incumbents of the 2010 cycle. Among independents, Boozman fares even better, 66%-20%.

Also troubling for Lincoln is her 27% approval rating, and 62% disapproval rating among Arkansans. Even among self-identified Democrats, her approval rating is a lackluster 51%, and just 17% of independents approve.

The number one thing dragging down her numbers? According to Public Policy, it’s health care. A majority of voters are against it. They’re so against it, that Public Policy even found Boozman beating other Democrats, in case Lincoln were to step down. Arkansas looks to be a state that will not stay in the Democratic Party’s hands. Two Democrats already cut and run, but Lincoln hasn’t yet. After she sees these numbers, will she realize that it’s her turn to retire too? I’m sure she’s getting pressure from party leaders to do so, because they’ll think that some other Democrat will have a better chance of holding the seat.

These signs from across the country should be a cue to Obama to scale back a bit. Americans hate his policies, they hate what Democrats are doing in Congress. They voted for change and transparency, and got the same old bloated big government, the same Chicago corruption, and the same overspending. People aren’t happy. They aren’t much happier with Republicans, but most Americans don’t buy Obama’s repeated whining about how it’s Bush’s fault. They know exactly who created this mess, and it’s the Democrats. And now, the Democrats either need to make some changes, and fast, or pay the price.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

That may literally be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Or the smartest. I’m not quite sure.

Here’s why: because Obama’s just given himself an excuse for being voted out of office in 2012. My guess is, he knows that there’s a very good chance he won’t be around for a second term and he’s making excuses now. He — and the Democrats — can now say that the reason he only stuck around for one term is because he is Just. So. Awesome.

This, of course, defies all logic. If Obama was such an amazing president, then he’d get voted in for a second term. Period, end of story. Mediocre presidents don’t get reelected. The really good ones do. The fact is, no one likes Obama anymore, except perhaps his fluffers in the media. Liberals don’t like him because he’s not liberal enough. Moderates think he’s too extreme. And conservatives think he’s a socialist. He’s disliked on almost every front. People seem to like him just fine as a person — he genuinely seems like a nice guy and a good husband and father — but they hate his policies. It’s not because he’s so awesome that he won’t get reelected. He won’t get reelected because he is nothing but a huge disappointment who is ruining the country on an epic scale.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

As top Democrats cast about for a way to get health care reform back on track, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took one option off the table Thursday, saying her caucus doesn’t have the stomach to pass the Senate bill unless changes are made.

“In its present form, without any change, I don’t think it’s possible to pass the Senate bill in the House,” Pelosi said. “I don’t see the votes for it at this time.”

The White House and Senate Democrats had hoped the House could simply approve the Senate’s bill and send it to President Barack Obama’s desk, easily the quickest option available to the Democrats. But Pelosi’s remarks remove that option from the mix of strategy and policy solutions party brass has considered to move forward in the health care fight.

“‘Unease’ would be a gentle word in terms of the attitude of my colleagues toward certain provisions of the Senate bill,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday morning.

… Also Thursday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that congressional Democrats are weighing a quick pathway to passage because “I don’t think we want to do health care the next three months.”

“Obviously, you cannot just proceed as if nothing happened, because something very significant happened,” Schumer said referring to the party’s defeat in the Massachusetts Senate special election. “There is a strong view in both caucuses that we want to do some good things in health care and the question is how — how much and how quickly.”

Brown’s win in Massachusetts sent a strong message to Democrats. Their arrogance is finally starting to crack a little, because now they’re realizing that there are indeed consequences to ignoring the will of your constituents. When someone like Scott Brown, who has promised to vote against the health care bill, was able to win Ted Kennedy’s old seat, Ted Kennedy who fought for universal health care for so long… well, it speaks pretty loudly. Democrats have ignored the anger of voters for months at town hall meetings across the country, and they’re finally getting the fact that they can’t ignore them anymore. They’re realizing that voters didn’t really consider universal health care to be that much of a priority anyways. Trying to ram this down our throats will have disastrous consequences, as Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts has proven.

This is a huge loss for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Because its Massachusetts, Martha Coakley still has a shot at winning this, no matter how disastrous a campaign she may have run. There are plenty of voters there that will rubber-stamp a Democrat into office without bothering to find out what they stand for. Scott Brown, however, has enthusiasm on his side. Voter turnout will be key. Republicans and independents are both leaning towards Scott Brown. Who will be showing up at the polls today?

My guess is that we’re going to see a very tight race here. Scott Brown has enthusiasm on his side, and Republicans and independents are fired up. But Martha Coakley also is a Democrat, and that in and of itself is going to ensure that she gets plenty of votes as well. So who will the victor be? Martha Coakley ran an awful campaign, and Massachusetts voters have been insulted and ignored. Romneycare is currently in effect in Massachusetts as well, ensuring almost universal coverage there as is, so many voters don’t want Obamacare — either because they like Romneycare and don’t want Obamacare messing it up, or because they hate Romneycare and don’t want to see it expanded on a national level. Finally, Scott Brown has done an excellent job as coming across as a moderate who believes in fiscal responsibility and is a man of the people. Between those two, my guess would be that Scott Brown is going to squeak out a narrow win today, which will undoubtedly send shockwaves through the Democratic establishment.

And if he doesn’t win?

Well, it’s still a victory for us, in a sense. This election has scared the pants off of Democrats. If Democrats can’t easily get elected in a traditionally liberal state like Massachusetts, how will they fare in battlegrounds like Nevada? Democrats have also been forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on Martha Coakley, money that they could have been using in races that will be even harder for them to win. The repercussions of this race go much farther than just who will be sitting in Ted Kennedy’s seat.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

She’s apparently been trying to win the title of Worst Political Campaign Ever, and she might have just clinched it with her little dig at Scott Brown over Fenway Park.

The appearance characterizes Coakley’s approach to this truncated race. Aware that she has little time for the hand-shaking and baby-kissing of a standard political campaign, she has focused instead on rallying key political leaders, Democratic activists, and union organizers, in hope they will get people to the polls.

… Despite that, there is a subdued, almost dispassionate quality to her public appearances, which are surprisingly few. Her voice is not hoarse from late-night rallies. Even yesterday, the day after a hard-hitting debate, she had no public campaign appearances in the state.

Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.

“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that. “This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [Salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.’’

There are just so many things wrong with that statement.

It shows her elitism and arrogance unbelievably. Aside from the apparent feeling that the seat belongs to her just by virtue of her party, she just admitted that she doesn’t need to bother meeting with constituents because she’s meeting people like Kim Driscoll, and political leaders, and Democrat activists. I guess they’re the ones that matter, huh? I know it’s a “special election” and all, but that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t need to fight for this seat. Prancing around with this mindset of “Oh, I’m a Democrat, therefore Ted Kennedy’s seat just automatically belongs to me regardless of what the people think,” is idiotic. Acting as if she doesn’t need to give her constituents the time of day is ludicrous. She can make all the snide remarks about Scott Brown shaking hands with people in the cold that she wants, but that’s what you’re supposed to do when you’re trying to get elected. She seems to have forgotten that she’s trying to get elected in Massachusetts, and not in Washington D.C. — if she remembered that, maybe she’d spend more time trying to impress Massachusetts voters and less time rubbing elbows with the Democrat establishment, Big Pharmacy lobbyists, and union leaders. Most normal politicians, Republican or Democrat, do go shake hands with voters. Even if it means standing in the cold outside of Fenway Park.

Finally, has she forgotten who she’s talking to? What state she’s wanting to represent in the Senate? It’s Massachusetts. You do not make sneering insults about Fenway Park. What’s she going to do next, insult the Red Sox? That’d really just be the cherry on top of a delightful campaign. Fenway Park and the Red Sox are damned near sacred to Massachusetts residents, Bostonians in particular. Really, I’m starting to think that she just doesn’t want to get elected or something. Because anyone with half a modicum of sense knows that you do not go into Boston and mess with Fenway Park.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!