Glenn Beck held his “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial this weekend. He, Sarah Palin, Alveda King, and tens of thousands of Americans celebrated our nation’s heritage, history, and restoration on the Capitol Mall.  C-SPAN carried the full event live. Click below to watch the entire, three-hour event. A few of the highlights:

Sarah Palin’s speech begins at: 32 mins

Awards ceremony for heroes: 50 mins

Alveda King’s speech begins at: 1 hr, 56 mins

Glenn Beck’s keynote begins at: 2 hrs, 8 mins

Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports

In the past, conservative uprisings have been put out when Republicans came to power. Bill Clinton’s first term — loaded with a broken promise to cut taxes, a tax increase, gays in the military, HillaryCare, Jocelyn Elders, Lani Guinier, Paula Jones, and Whitewater (to name a few scandals) — enraged most of the country. But after Republicans came to power in 1994, the nation simmered down — even when the Republican leadership backed down on Clinton’s well-deserved impeachment.

Politico has a revealing new story that, if Republicans retake Congress after the midterm elections, they intend to investigate a wide variety of Obama’s misdeeds, some of them grounds for impeachment. The story lists a few of the cases under investigation:

Jobgate. The most serious allegations on the list were raised by two Democrats: Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff. Both have said the Obama administration offered them jobs or other incentives to drop out of hotly contested U.S. Senate races in Pennsylvania and Colorado, respectively. The White House believed their primary opponents stood a better chance of winning, so they attempted to bribe these two, according to the candidates. If the allegations are true, they likely meet the definition of “impeachable offenses.” Former President Bill Clinton has contradicted the Obama administration’s story on the Sestak offer already. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA, has responded to the denials with calls for further investigation.

Bailouts. Republicans want to look into Obama’s endless bailouts. Investigators should pay close attention to the administration’s tactics in taking over General Motors on behalf of Big Labor, a move certainly unconstitutional, as his Chicago-style, backdoor arm-twisting could easily have crossed the line. Despite his promises to have the most transparent administration in history, much of Obama’s dealings remain hidden. As Obama said on the campaign trail, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

The New Black Panthers Case. Politico calls this scandal “microscopic”; readers outside the Beltway know it is anything but. It is perhaps the most explosive issue facing the Obama administration. In addition to letting off a pair of radical activists who threatened Republican voters with clubs, there is the broader allegation raised by J. Christian Adams that Barack Obama and Eric Holder have decided to drop all cases against minorities. That kind of blanket discrimination makes a mockery of the idea of “blind justice” and undermines one of the key pillars of our government.

ACORN. Despite its defunding, ACORN continues its dubious voter registration schemes under another name. In addition to presidential funding, the committee should investigate ACORN’s role in the Obama ‘08 campaign to determine the extent of coordination the president had with this often-indicted organization.

The article lists a few other, in some cases local scandals. May I suggest a few more to Rep. Issa, et. al.?

Government Propaganda. Darrell Issa has led the way on the Obama administration’s funding of covert propaganda. His committee drafted a 36-page report of Obama’s potential crimes, many of which your tax dollars finance. He made a compelling case at least some of these cross the line into illegality. Now, let him prosecute it.

Invasion of Privacy. The Fourth Amendment forbids the government from searching Americans without a warrant. However, a recent court case has found the government does not need a warrant to attach a GPS to your car while it is parked in your driveway. Forbes has reported full-body-scanning vans now prowl the streets, as well. Does the administration obtain a warrant to scan (and thus see naked) everyone monitored? If not, does it retain the images of people not covered by warrant? Does it act on information it finds without a warrant?

Politico quotes some Republicans who want to curtail all talk of silly things like upholding the Constitution or following the rule of law. Let’s hope this time any potential investigations are not short-circuited from within.

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Floyd Reports

When Missouri voters attempted to stop ObamaCare at the ballot box via the initiative process, the national news media took notice. In the August 3 vote, 7 in 10 voters in the “Show Me State” supported Proposition C, which overturns government mandates requiring health insurance. Proposition C actually bars penalties against people who pay their own health bills without insurance.

On August 2, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled against a U.S. Justice Department request to throw out a lawsuit brought by Virginia against ObamaCare. Virginia is arguing in the lawsuit that the U.S. Congress had unconstitutionally exceeded its powers by forcing individuals to buy insurance.

Hudson wrote, “While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate — and tax — a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce…”

Hudson continues by saying there is, “some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side’s position.” Hudson’s decision sets up the opportunity to have appellate and eventually the Supreme Court decide these issues.

But our personal favorite of the many lawsuits challenging ObamaCare is from Arizona. Yes, the land of immigration enforcement could also be the site of a major constitutional battle about ObamaCare. The citizens of Arizona are restless with their Washington, D.C. overseers.

The Goldwater Institute, a public policy outfit named for Arizona’s most famous son, is taking a different swing at the question.

Representing a local business owner, Nick Coons of Tempe, Ariz., the Goldwater Institute has built an intriguing legal strategy which will shake up the debate: “Mr. Coons pays for all of his medical care out of his own pocket and he wants to continue making his own health care decisions. Under the federal health care bill, Mr. Coons will face significant fines from the IRS if he doesn’t buy a health insurance plan that has been approved by the government by 2014.”

In announcing the lawsuit Coons complained, “The government is making me spend money on something that I don’t want. Is a stranger who works for the government in some other part of the country really going to know what I need? I am the best qualified to make these decisions for myself.”

The Goldwater Institute’s lawyer is well-known constitutional litigator Clint Bolick. Bolick argues, “The new federal law also violates Mr. Coons’ medical privacy by forcing him to disclose his medical records to an insurance company, and those records could be accessed by the federal government and others without his permission.”

We have always been disturbed by the arrogance of government officials that seem to believe they have a right to know the most intimate details of your discussions with your doctor. ObamaCare will violate the sanctity and privacy of the relationship you have with your physician.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution would be shocked by the manipulation we have recently experienced at the hands of Congress, Obama, and out-of-control federal judges. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sums it all up when he said of ObamaCare’s attempts to regulate the behavior of doing nothing: “Even the king and the parliament acknowledged they didn’t have this power back before the Declaration of Independence.”

By Chuck Norris, Human Events

Sound too conspiratorial to be true? Like the cover-up ops of spy novels? Well, it’s reality. And it is possibly the most bizarre, inhumane and abusive way that the White House is expanding its power over the American people.

It’s not an extremist belief or theory of the far right. It’s a fact that has been confirmed by The New York Times, The Washington Post and MSNBC and even documented by the far-left online magazine Salon.com.

And it’s the gravest nightmare of U.S. citizens and abandonment of our Constitution to date: a presidential assassination program in which U.S. citizens are in the literal scopes of the executive branch based upon nothing more than allegations of terrorism involvement as the branch defines it.

Of course, the CIA has executed covert assassinations of foreigners for decades. But tragically, Obama is expanding this program to include American, non-Islamic, stateside, homegrown terrorists.

It all started in January, when The Washington Post reported: "As part of the operations, Obama approved a Dec. 24 strike against a (Yemeni) compound where a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was thought to be meeting with other regional al-Qaeda leaders. Although he was not the focus of the strike and was not killed, he has since been added to a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing or capture."

"A shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing"?

Read More

By Neil Braithwaite, Canada Free Press

Without a hint of hesitation after Arizona passed their new immigration law, President Obama immediately condemned our 48th State by calling Arizona’s new immigration law misdirected, troubling, and potentially discriminatory. What followed was an onslaught of protests and proposed boycotts against Arizona from New York to Los Angles filled with allegations of hate and racism over their new immigration law. So the question that remains is; by standing idly by while all this is taking place, is President Obama, in essence, encouraging harm against the very country that he swore an oath to protect?

A reading of the United States Constitution, Article IV section 4 should leave no doubt as to the President’s duty and obligation to each and every state in the union: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

President Obama has purposefully chosen not to intervene with Arizona’s Governor to try and resolve this volatile issue nor has he spoken out against any financial sanctions currently imposed or proposed against the state of Arizona. Neither has the President commented on, spoken against, nor tried to quell the incendiary hate speech and acts of violence that occurred at several protests across the country. The President has kept silent while both domestic and foreign leaders continue their overt condemnation of the state of Arizona and its citizens.

Adding insult to injury, President Obama stood on the lawn of the White House and not only listened to Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon make allegations of discrimination against Arizona and its citizens, but whole heartedly agreed with President Calderon’s statements.

The President then had the audacity to allow President Calderon to address a joint session of congress and reiterate his charges of discrimination where Obama’s administration accomplices, along with a majority of Democrats, rose to a standing ovation as President Felipe Calderon condemned the state of Arizona and its people.

Read More:

By Robert Moon, Examiner

 Obama is seeking to increase his Executive powers

Imagine how people would have reacted if President Bush had been caught trying to sneak through legislation that would have illegally given him the power to take over and destroy any financial institution he pleased, on a whim, with zero checks and balances.

That is what Democrats are quietly rushing through Congress for Obama.

It’s called H.R. 4173 and it is already through the House. If it is signed into law, Obama will literally gain the kind of terrifying, un-checked power usually reserved for fascists and Third World dictators–the power to strong-arm, intimidate and crush any business that gets in his way. There will not even be judicial oversight.

What’s that? Your company refuses to go "green?" Expect a knock at your door. Your business donated to the wrong party? You will be receiving a letter. Your company resists union takeovers? There will be consequences.

If Obama doesn’t like what your business is doing, Obama simply gets to take it over, fire the executives, sell off all its stocks, and basically burn it to the ground.

Read More:

By Wendy Wright, American Spectator

 Barack Obama doesn’t seem to care about the Constitution

One detail was missing from President Obama’s list of qualifications for his nominee to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court: Any mention of the Constitution.

He just doesn’t get it.

At a time when Americans are furious over Obama’s headlong plunge into socialism, when his Democrat party is losing elections and hemorrhaging incumbents because voters reject their big-government "remaking America" agenda, the chameleon forgot to adapt.

The master wordsmith — who knows how to say what people want to hear — blew it.

He didn’t state the main qualification for any person who serves in government, the absence of which has lit a brushfire of discontent, fidelity to the Constitution.

He and his allies haven’t taken that first step to recovery — acknowledging their problem. It’s their utter disregard for the Constitution that is causing this big mess. The concept of a limited government, restrained in what it can and should do, is foreign to them, while for most Americans it’s in our DNA. This is what puts Obama at odds with so many Americans.

Read More:

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the �due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to ‘be bound by oath or affirmation’ to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:

And another to the Bill of Rights:

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

By Vince Hayley, FoxNews

 My Subjects do what I say!

Put aside all the serious fights over the climate science, the astronomical costs associated with capping carbon emissions, the endless demands for carbon reparations, compliance and verification, etc., the only question that really matters this week at the Copenhagen Conference on climate change is whether President Obama is really going to end up corrupting the American constitutional system in front of the entire world.

Who will President Obama heed? The American people and our constitutional system of checks and balances, or the collection of dictators, tyrants, and mostly undemocratic heads of government convened by the United Nations in Copenhagen this week? They are tempting the American president to do what he wants to do and what they mostly do: ignore the will of their own people and sign a political agreement based on an unconstitutional sham.

Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution is crystal clear: “He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

In 1997, the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to tell President Clinton that it was the view of the Senate that the United States should not sign any international agreement on climate change that either did not mandate all countries to limit emissions or which would otherwise result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

Read More: