Lately I've found myself wearing a lot of monochrome outfits and I totally love it! Today's outfit post is one of these examples. A casual outfit in different shades of bordeaux and pink antique, with my old Zara ankle boots and my new 3.1 Phillip Lim clutch.
Hope you all are having a wonderful Sunday so far!



                                                                                   Coat: vintage
                                                                                   Jeans: H&M/ similar Here
                                                                                   Ankle boots: Zara/ option Here 
                                                                  Sweater: Preswick & Moore/ option Here  
                                                                                   Clutch: 3.1 Phillip Lim/ on sale Here 
                                                                                   Gloves: Echo/ option Here
                                                                                   Sunglasses: Ralph Lauren

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

This from the Queen of gimmickry.

The Hill - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday rejected the House GOP’s three-month plan to increase the debt ceiling.

A spokesman for Pelosi said that the bill coming to the floor next week, which would raise the debt ceiling with the condition that Congress will not get paid if the House and Senate fail to pass a budget, is a "gimmick."

“This is a gimmick unworthy of the challenges we face and the national debate we should be having. The message from the American people is clear: no games, no default,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said.

He called for a “clean” debt-ceiling increase without conditions.

“We need a clean debt ceiling increase and a bipartisan and balanced budget that protects Medicare and Social Security, invests in the future, and responsibly reduces the deficit,” he said. “This proposal does not relieve the uncertainty faced by small businesses, the markets and the middle class.”

Democrats want a budget that has a “balance” between spending cuts and tax increases.

GOP leaders said Friday that they will hold the debt-ceiling vote next week and that they are backing down from a previous demand that all debt-ceiling increases be accompanied by an equal amount of actual spending cuts.

Instead of concrete cuts, the GOP plan tries to force the Senate to pass a budget for the first time in four years. The GOP is banking that cutting off an unpopular Congress's pay will poll well with the public and be hard for Democrats to oppose.

The Pelosi reaction to the plan is more negative than that of the White House and Senate Democrats.

President Obama’s spokesman said Friday it is encouraged by the GOP shift.{Read More}

Ya know the person is out their when even their own progressive party is in opposition at certain levels.

Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

President Obama has nominated Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) for Secretary of Defense. As expected in a typical knee jerk reaction conservatives have come out in opposition to Hagel. Qualifications be damned as the only reason given are 1) his prior support for negotiation with Iran, and 2) Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) supports his nomination.

The Hill - The conservative American Future Fund group is questioning Sen. Charles Schumer's (D-N.Y.) decision to back former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) for secretary of Defense.

The group, which launched a media campaign earlier in the week, released a new ad Friday focusing on Schumer's decision to back Hagel.

On Tuesday, after meeting privately with Hagel a day earlier, Schumer said he supported Hagel for secretary of Defense. Schumer had previously refrained from saying whether he would support or oppose Hagel's nomination.

The American Future Fund ad, "How Badly" asks "how badly does Chuck Schumer want to be the Senate Majority Leader?"

Schumer is the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate.

"And what did President Obama promise him?" a voiceover in the ad continues. "After a career of supporting Israel, Schumer now backs Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary. The Same Chuck Hagel who supported direct negotiations with Iran after Iran's president threatened to wipe Israel off the map. The same Chuck Hagel who complained about 'the Jewish lobby.' Even the liberal Washington Post writes 'Hagel is not the right choice for Defense Secretary.' "

The ad concludes: "No on Chuck Hagel."

Critics of Hagel for secretary of Defense have regularly cited his past comments accusing a "Jewish lobby" of strong-arming lawmakers. Opponents have also said Hagel is too soft on sanctions on Iran meant to deter the country from getting a nuclear bomb. Hagel has expressed regret for his comment about a "Jewish lobby," calling it a "poor choice of words."

The American Future Fund ad is part of a multi-pronged media campaign in opposition of Hagel for secretary of Defense.

American Future Fund spokesman Stuart Roy told The Hill on Wednesday that its anti-Hagel campaign would be "very visible nationwide" by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

Just the fact the Neocons and rEpublican party fake conservatives are speaking out against Mr. Hagel is enough to support his nomination for the position.

There is no reason to stand in opposition to this nomination. Other than to be obstructionists for the sole purpose of being obstructionists. Pathetic really...

Via: Memeormndum

Because I love accessories, shoes, bags, jewelry, hats, and gloves, I decided to dedicate a post to each category once in a while.
Today's Accessories in the spotlight are -S H O E S -
I love them all, no exception, and I also want them in all the colors of the rainbow & patterns. Flats, high heels, sneakers... which one is your favorite?

I'm on the hunt. (imagine me in fabulous riding boots and a wonderful tweed jacket with my beagle by my side)

I've got a piece of furniture begging for a paint job. It's true. It told me it wanted to be painted. In a heavy Scottish accent oddly enough. So it's very possible I misunderstood, but I'm certain he said he wanted to be navy.

Happy to oblige Scottish furniture, but the problem is there are no fewer than 10,000 different paint colors claiming to be navy. You may remember I've had navy paint problems in the past, so I'm still rather nervous about making another navy pick.

There is after all a fine line between "that's a really dark royal blue" and "is that black...or blue". I'm going for "hot damn that is one fine piece of navy furniture!".

Something like this...

source

source

source

source

So don't hold out on me. Do you have any good navy paint colors in your stash? Please share if you do!

Do you have a color you can never seem to get right? Have any talking furniture? For more furniture ideas see my Pinterest board.

Sorry I haven't been posting much lately.

Let's just say that I've been taking a break from my computer. As a night person, I somehow managed to get on a morning schedule. On the one hand, it allows me to see the sun. That's a good thing I guess. On the other hand, it allows me to see the sun! ;)

I'm fairly sure it is just temporary. I shall return with more charts in the not too distant future. I can't define exactly when that will be but if I'm still on a morning schedule several weeks from now I may need serious medical attention, lol.

And on that note, I shall leave you with something to remember me by.



I played a bit of Rocksmith today, but not at anywhere near this level. Not even the same ballpark!

Watergate A Non-Starter Compared To Benghazi
A "Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" 
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
*********************
Are the American people going to have to wait for another administration to get to the bottom of the Benghazi affair? 

Now, I'm just an ole country boy living on the edge of a vast, wet, green swamp here in subtropical North Carolina, BUT even I can see there is a massive cover-up of the incident in Benghazi. 

It appears to us to be collusion between the Obama Administration and the Mainstream Media -- a "vast left-wing conspiracy" to keep the truth of what happen in that murderous night in Libya from the American people.

There has been lie upon lie ladled out with great gusto to slime over the facts about that night and even more important, whatever the hell was going on in Benghazi that was so illegal the US government was willing to sacrifice the lives of four Americans to keep it quiet and hidden from the American people?

Months ago, we told you we suspected illegal gun running to the Syrian rebels by the CIA in collusion with the US State Department.  I still do.  And until I get SOME proof otherwise, I will hold to that suspicion.  So far, it is the only explanation, at least for me, that makes sense and fits that which we actually know.

Look.  We NEED to get to the bottom of this mess.  Think about it.  There is the possibility that not one, but TWO, US presidents will have been involved in a nefarious plot that resulted in four Americans losing their lives.  I say TWO presidents because it looks more and more as if Mrs. Bill Clinton will run for President in 2016 ... and, I have no doubt,  WIN! 

Every excuse up to and including lying, obfuscation, physical illness, natural disaster, mass murder, and fake firings, has been used to squelch any digging below the mere surface of what has become an odiferous dung heap of laxation. (The country way of saying this is rather more descriptive.)  It reminds one of a boil, a pustule, that just cries out for lancing.

I AM awed, however, at the massive effort at foot-dragging by the Mainstream Media when it comes to following-up on what has to be (at least in my estimation)  THE story of 2012. 

Can there be any doubt, at all, that had the current President been a Republican the press would have been baying at the Oval Office door day and night as if they were a pack of rabid wolves?  
But wait!  We're talking about the State Department here.  THE government department filled with career liberal political hacks who feed those little tidbits we call "leaks" to the liberal press in exchange for just such favors as this when the defecation hits the rotary oscillator. 

Just a few days ago, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs released a  report that said:  “In the months leading up to the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi, there was a large amount of evidence gathered by the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and from open sources that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely. While this intelligence was effectively shared within the Intelligence Community (IC) and with key officials at the Department of State, it did not lead to a commensurate increase in security at Benghazi nor to a decision to close the American mission there, either of which would have been more than justified by the intelligence presented.”

While all that may be true, may I be so bold as to point out the obvious:  SOMETHING NEFARIOUS was going on there.  What was it??  Find out what undercover scheme was playing out that night in Benghazi and we will finally know why four Americans were left to fight, alone, for their lives until they were overrun and killed while their bosses, back in Washington, watched the entire play unfold in living color, on their TV's and lap tops, without raising a finger to save their lives. 

How in the name of all that is good, kind, and holy do you justify such a thing?  How?

You don't.  You don't have to.  Not when the current, and next, President and the members of the Mainstream Media comprise one very large putrid organism.  You don't have to when the same crowd controls at least half of the Congress,  and the other half is scared witless to rock the boat for fear of what that aforementioned Mainstream Media will say about them in print and on air.

We are talking about complicity by the highest officials in the USA in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, former Navy SEALS Tyron Woods and Glen Doherty and information management officer Sean Smith. 

And they are going to get away with it.

As I remember Secretary of State Clinton's somewhat delicate, shall we say -- selective -- memory displayed in the investigations of a former administration, with whom she was very close, I can only hope her concussion and blood clot will render no additional damage to her memory.  Heck, she might not even remember who "Ben Gazzi" is!   

THIS is what you voted for in November, America. I hope you love it. Be assured, there is more to come -- lots more.

Oh.  And if you think we haven't been arming rebels, and don't have US forces on the ground in Syria -- right now -- there's this bridge in Brooklyn I bet you can get a good price on -- today only.

© J. D. Longstreet

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

A proper government can accomplish positive things for the society it governs. In fact the founding fathers realized this and recognized that government indeed has a role in establishing and enforcing the rule of law. Law determined to be desirable by the majority of the citizens governed by said government.

Finding a proper balance between the government's authority to impose it's will on the people is the rightful domain of the governed to determine. With respect to firearm control and the President's determination to impose increased federal restrictions the nation finds itself in the middle of this debate.

In as much as our government bears the responsibility to insure the general welfare and safety of it's citizens it must also guarantee it preserves the freedoms and liberties protected in the Constitution.

Freedom and liberty carries with it a great and awesome responsibility.

Listen to, and read the following with the above in mind.

In response.

POLITICO - Sen. Rand Paul is pledging to undo some of President Barack Obama’s executive orders on guns that the Kentucky Republican believes overreach. “In this bill we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation,” Rand said Wednesday on Fox’s “Hannity,” referencing his legislation that is slated to be introduced in Congress next week. “And there are several of the executive orders that appear as if he’s writing new law. That cannot happen. Rand’s comments came several hours after Obama unveiled his plan to curb gun violence, an initiative that included 23 executive actions he promised to take to address the matter. Unilateral actions from the president include pushing for research into the causes of gun violence, improving the federal background check system and calling on federal law enforcement to trace guns that are collected during criminal investigations. “I’m afraid that President Obama may have this ‘king complex’ sort of developing, and we’re going to make sure it doesn’t happen,” Paul said, adding that the Founding Fathers specified that Congress should make law. {Read More}

There exists reasonable measures to accomplish what the President and much of the nation wants to accomplish. At least in part. What must be avoided is knee jerk reaction to what is a very emotional issue. Some of the Presidents proposals make ultimate sense. Some are questionable. At the end of the day Rand Paul is correct. Final determination of law must rest with the people. Via: Memeorandum

Taxmobile
Taxes By The Mile?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
***************

They are testing the waters again in Washington.  Always looking for an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis to squeeze even more money from the taxpayers of America.

The crisis? The US government's highway fund is going broke.  (Is it just me -- or am I the only American tired of lurching from one crisis to another on what seems like a daily basis?) 

There is a proposal being floated about (again!) in “Foggy Bottom” to tax US drivers for every mile they drive in their cars, trucks, vans, SUV’s, or whatever.  Last time they brought this scheme up the Congressional Budget Office referred to it as the “Vehicle Mile Tax” or VMT.

Here’s what has happened: Due to the high per gallon price of gasoline many drivers have greatly reduced the use of their cars and trucks.  My truck, for instance, is virtually parked.  I drive it one or twice a week and then only on short hops -- all within the city limits.  My truck is ten years old but has only about 50,000 miles on it. But it uses more gasoline than the family Buick.  So it remains parked.

It would seem that most American families are doing the same thing or something very much akin to it. 

(Yes, Virginia, there REALLY is a Law of Unintended Consequences!)

A huge portion of the per gallon price of gasoline is state and federal taxes.  So, you can imagine that when Americans began driving less and using less gasoline, the tax stream from gasoline into the tax coffers of the states and the federal government went from a roaring stream to a trickle.  And THAT got the attention of the “taxaholics” in Washington, DC and in the states. Thus the proposal to tax American drivers for every mile they drive -- and that is on top of the taxes we are already paying on every gallon of gasoline we purchase.

From an article in the Washington Examiner we learn: "The average driver pays about $96 a year in federal gas taxes, said GAO. Should the administration seek to raise the highway trust fund from $34 billion to the $78 billion needed to fix and maintain roads, that could rise to $248. Translated into a pay-per-mile plan, drivers would face a tax of 2.2 cents per mile compared to the 0.9 cents they pay now. Trucks would pay far more."  SOURCE:  http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-pay-per-mile-scheme-would-boost-taxes-250-percent/article/2518504#.UPWVTfJ0jTi

The article in the Washington Examiner offers a quote from some luminary at the GAO as follows:  "We modeled the average mileage fee rates that would be needed for passenger vehicles and commercial trucks to meet three illustrative Highway Trust Fund revenue targets ranging from about $34 billion to $78.4 billion per year. To meet these targets, a driver of a passenger vehicle with average fuel efficiency would pay from $108 to $248 per year in mileage fees compared to the $96 they currently pay annually in federal gasoline tax," said GAO."  SOURCE:  http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-pay-per-mile-scheme-would-boost-taxes-250-percent/article/2518504#.UPWVTfJ0jTi

I must tell you that my state, North Carolina, has one of the highest taxes on gasoline of any state in the Union.  So, when I heard about the “mileage tax” proposal, it got my attention.

Just so we are clear:  I HATE the idea! 

Back in 2008, here in North Carolina, something called the 21st Century Transportation Committee recommended the state adopt a “taxes by the mile” plan.  As I understood the proposal, the state would carefully record the miles each Tar Heel driver drove, over the preceding twelve months, and the vehicle’s owner would be charged the appropriate amount in taxes for each mile driven. As North Carolinians take their cars in each year for the mandated annual state inspection (which by itself is a gigantic tax scheme!)  The mileage on the odometer would have been recorded. This was to be the source of the mileage figures used to tax NC drivers. Transportation experts told us then that sometime later the state could switch to GPS tracking of NC Drivers.  This scheme was called the “Road Use Tax.”

It is interesting to note that North Carolina HAD a Democratic Party controlled legislature in 2008.

So what happened?  The NC voters told the Democrats in the NC Legislature to hit the very road they wanted to tax -- and replaced them with a Republican controlled legislature. Now North Carolina has a republican controlled General Assembly AND a republican governor.  The first time the North Carolina legislature has been solely controlled by republicans since 1870.  

Oregon and California have also considered imposing such road taxes on their citizens, as well.  We suggest they take a look at what happened in North Carolina before proceeding.

The fact that driver’s pockets would be picked by a “tax by the mile” (Vehicle Mile Tax) road tax was just too much for the North Carolina voters to stomach.

There is another disturbing aspect of these mileage tax rip-offs; the device attached to our cars would also emit a signal, much as a GPS device does, that would allow the government to know where we are, in our car, at all times

Sounds incredible, does it not? THAT HAS been suggested. More than likely, it would be continuous tracking of our road miles. Either way, it is just more big brother government intrusion into our lives.

Look:  US drivers pay approximately 35 billion dollars (plus) in federal gasoline taxes annually. You’d think our highways would be paved in gold rather than asphalt! 

This whole thing smacks of another trick by the liberal-socialists to herd Americans into mass transit. It is all a part of the “green agenda” to deprive Americans of their celebration of freedom – the automobile – in favor of bicycles, trolleys, and commuter trains, etc. ( I can just visualize empty commuter trains gliding along rusted rails through the piney woods and swamps of North Carolina.  Oh, WAIT!  We already have AMTRAK!)

“Motorists are one of the most overtaxed groups in America, and the automobile has done more to enable this country’s economic success than any other invention.”  SOURCE:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/25/cbos-toll-road-fib/

I am inclined to believe this is more of the leftist agenda to dismantle America until it becomes just another third-world country.

It is unarguably more of the socialist/democrats tax and spend, tax and spend, agenda.  Hey!  They NEED the money to buy votes!  I mean, someone has to pay for the Obamaphones, right?


© J. D. Longstreet

Speaking about sunshine - is nowhere to be found, except in my outfit :) I can't help but love yellow more and more, especially when outside is a cloudy and foggy day.
I hope you have more luck than me with the weather!



                                                                                   Coat: Zara/ option Here
                                                                                   Pants: Levi's/ option Here
                                                                                   Heels: Shoemint
                                                                                   Top: Jones New York
                                                                                   Necklace: DIY, made by me
                                                                                   Bag: thanks to me char/ Here
                                                                                   Sunglasse: thanks to zeroUV/ Here

We've turned the corner. Now that the holidays are over, we are in the long depressing stretch of the gray, cold nothing that is winter. Not even a cuddly warm sweater or cute new scarf can trick me into being happy about the next two months. My mind is obsessed with nothing but getting warm.

And what better way to warm up than with a nice warm, quite bath. Nothing but me and my champaign (or champs as the RHOOC ladies call it).

source

source

source

source

source

I feel more relaxed already. Check out my bathroom board on Pinterest for more eye candy.

What do you do to help you get thru these frigid months? Do you have a nice big tub you use regularly? If you don't use it, can I come over and borrow it? Little Mermaid always ends up in my tub and she's not keen to share.

Obama Flirting With Impeachment
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
***************

"Dear Leader" Obama is flirting with Articles of Impeachment.  The power of the Presidential Executive Order is simply not robust enough to amend the constitution. 

Look.  The 2nd Amendment is was it is... period.  You want to change it?  The process is simple, but very difficult.  It was meant to be both.

You need the affirmative vote of 2/3rds of BOTH houses of Congress -- and then -- it goes to the people of the states where 3/4's of the states must vote for it (in the affirmative) in order to ratify it.

Please note that at no time is the office of the President involved. 

The man who would be "King of America" may not be pleased about this, but, hey, things are tough all over!

So far, Obama is playing his cards close to the chest and the MsM is, of course, aiding and abetting him -- as is their wont for "progressive" (otherwise known as Marxist) presidents.

The thing is -- we have been hearing unconfirmed rumors for months, even during the Presidential campaign that Presidential Executive Orders were in the making for gun control during Obama's second term. Frankly, I would have been surprised had they not been in a state of, shall we say-- "preparation" -- during those months.

But Obama is going to have to tread softly ... VERY softly, indeed. 

There ARE most certainly things Obama can order done with an EO.  Neither amending the Constitution, or violating the Constitution, is among them.

In an Article at Mother Jones authors Tim Murphy and Adam Serwer offer fourteen things they say Obama can do without going through the Congress:

Appoint a full-time ATF director.

Prosecute people who try to buy guns illegally.

Add a second serial number to new guns or improve placement of the first one.

Background checks for gun dealers' employees.

Don't let dealers who lose their license retain inventory.

Make gun sellers report details of sales to manufacturers.

Stricter regulations on inventory.

Require agencies to fork over data on mental health and drugs.

 Require the FBI to contact state and local agencies in case of mental health rejections.

Investigate thefts of five or more guns—and make states report them.

Require dealers to track all trace requests.

Use existing data to figure out which gun shows are the worst—and target them.

Create a special DOJ unit to track interstate gun trafficking, abetted by state agreements.

Enforce the 1968 Gun Control Act.

For the details you really need to read the article in its entirety at:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/obama-administration-gun-control-congress-executive-order-regulation

Obama and his cadre of legal eagles must know that anything he does administratively  that even appears as if it is infringing upon the 2nd Amendment will draw fire and a possible move toward his impeachment.

On January 14th, The Washington Tines reported  the following: 

Rep. Steve Stockman threatened on Monday to defund the White House and potentially file impeachment charges if President Obama pushes forward with gun control measures without congressional approval.

The Texas Republican called Mr. Obama's plans to skirt Congress and implement some controls administratively "an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic."

"I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment," Mr. Stockman said.  Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/jan/14/rep-stockman-threatens-impeach-obama-gun-control/#ixzz2HzUP76No

The paper goes on to quote Congressman Stockman as saying:  "Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible ..."   The article continues:  "Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court."  Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/jan/14/rep-stockman-threatens-impeach-obama-gun-control/#ixzz2HzVT5z3y

This is where realism sticks its ugly head into the debate.  There is virtually NO CHANCE of getting a conviction on impeachment charges against Obama through the US Senate.  None. 

(NOTE:  IMPEACHMENT is a formal document charging a public official with misconduct in office.  The House of Representatives can bring the formal charges of impeachment -- but the Senate must decide the guilt or innocence.) 
 
So, the stage is being set for a brawl.  But what we are witnessing now is all Kabuki Theatre.  No one should kid themselves that Obama's people are burning the midnight oil to laboriously writing the Executive Orders so as to pass constitutional muster.  No.  I believe those EO's were written long ago and only require dusting off and placing upon the public table.

The lines have been drawn now.   Obama is about to find himself up against most of the republicans and a goodly number of his own political party in this fight.  If he isn't mindful, he may yet find himself in the dock for his impeachment trial before the Congress.

How ironic that would be. 

© J. D. Longstreet

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

As President Obama moves to decisive action on increased firearm control he is aware, I'm sure, of certain limitations on his authority. If not things could get very interesting,

>TPM - Former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, now a prominent emeritus official at the Heritage Foundation, became the latest conservative to warn that President Obama could risk impeachment if he takes executive action on reducing gun violence in an interview Monday night.

Speaking with Newsmax, Meese said Congress may have to consider impeaching Obama if he were “to try to override the Second Amendment in any way” with an executive order. He did allow that there are some executive actions related to guns that Obama could take wouldn’t be impeachable.

“It would be up to the Congress to take action, such as looking in to it to see if, in fact, he has really tried to override the Constitution itself,” Meese told Newsmax. “In which case, it would be up to them to determine what action they should take — and perhaps even to the point of impeachment.”

He said that there are certain executive actions the White House can take without fear of impeachment.

“An executive order without specific congressional authority can only apply to those portions of the government that are under his control — in their words, the executive branch,” Meese said. “Now there are some things he can probably do in regard to the actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or some other governmental agency in its operations.”

“But to impose burdens or regulations that affect society generally, he would have to have Congressional authorization,” he said. {Read More}

As we are a nation governed by the rule of law, rather than by the dictates of a single man or a mob, I'm confident any attempt by this President to act outside the bounds of law, or act unconstitutionally will be met with sound rebuke by both the right and left.

Via: Memeorandum