Left Considers Patriotism Extreme

The Attack On The Tea Party Has Begun

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

************** 

Until fairly recently in America patriotism was defined as “devotion to one's own country and concern for its defense.”  Nationalism was considered “devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.”  Both were, in my opinion, GOOD things.

No longer.

The political left has striven tirelessly over the past generation to push America into their dream of global governance, of a one-world government, and a world without borders. Add to this leftist hallucination -- socialism as the accepted form of world government and you have a perfect formula for a world continuously at war, of a world where famine wrecks havoc in backwards nations, a world where there are bloody religious conflicts, a world where financial uncertainty brings anarchy to the streets of major metropolitan areas around the globe.

Then remove the one nation that has for decades served as the guiding authority to a world seeking some kind of stability, and we have, well, we have the world we live in today.

     

In America, a group of citizens concerned that their government was no longer listening to them, was no longer responding to the real problems inside America and pressing Americans to accept the leftist dream of a socialist government and redistribution of the wealth of America, from Americans who earned their wealth to those who did not, said: “ENOUGH!”

That movement grew with the ferocity of an American prairie fire.  It grew from the grassroots of America and it spread from coast to coast and border to border in unbelievable rapidity. 

These Americans demanded that the US government constrain itself to the confines of the US Constitution. They further demanded frugality and common sense from our national legislature. And they made a promise, too.  They promised the politicians of the American republic that if they did not return to the fundamentals upon which America’s very foundation had been built, they would be replaced at the earliest election.

They called themselves the Tea Party, even though they were not, in truth, a political party so much as a political movement.  “TEA” in their name is an acronym.  It stands for: “Taxed Enough, Already.”

They were not ashamed of their devotion to the Founding documents of America – the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution with all 27 of its amendments known as “The Bill of Rights.” And they were not afraid to express their love for their country, or their patriotism and their devotion to America’s unique culture, which was formed in a crucible containing bits of culture from most other nations of the world as well as from those ancient Americans we proudly refer to as Native Americans. 

Their fervor for a government defined by the constitution blind-sided the political left in the government, in the world of academia, in the mainstream media, in the religious community of America, and in all fifty states of the USA. 

The political right in America, which had adopted a “go along to get along” philosophy of governing, was caught flat-footed and sent reeling by the audacity of their tea party constituents who confronted them at every opportunity and told them, in no uncertain terms, to either shape-up, or they would be shipped-out at the next election. 

The “next election” occurred in November of 2010.  The Congress was turned on its head.  There was the largest turnover of seats in both houses in over 60 years!  It was monumental and it was historic.  The politicians, both left and right, who had discounted the Tea Party movement’s power and determination, were shocked with incredulity!  They had forgotten that the citizens of America are, indeed, AMERICANS!  Many of those politicians paid for their disbelief with their political careers prematurely ended.

Today, the political left is frightened witless of the Tea Party.  As another likely historic election approaches, in their fear they are lashing out in all directions! They are pointing their guilty fingers at the wholly American Tea Party movement with fantastic accusations blaming the Tea Party for everything from the biblical flood to the near financial collapse of America. 

The left KNOWs there is an accounting coming, in November of 2012, and THEY are on the wrong side of the of the argument over America’s future, either as a socialist nation or -- as a democratic representative government that listens and responds to the voice of its people.

With each accusation from the left, the Tea Party movement grows in strength, in numbers, and in its determination to purge the US government of those who would impose a European-style socialist government and culture on Americans.  The defenders of an “open borders” policy for America will be shown the door and removed from office.  Those politicians who seek to continually enlarge the government, and increase its intrusion into the lives of Americans, ought to be searching the want ads for employment for they will most certainly be without jobs in November of 2012.

Between now and the election in 2012, the democrats, the political left in the press, and the limousine liberals and progressives, with their mountains of money, will attack the Tea Party directly, and indirectly with front organizations funded by huge infusions of cash from the super-rich leftist power brokers from around the globe. In fact, the counter attack by the left has already begun. 

If there is any doubt, listen for the same phrase or phrases used by the democrats, the media, the academics, and the leftist entertainment moguls.  Pay attention to how it is used over and over again (changing every few days) to defame the Tea Party movement.  The repeated use of the same phrase in interviews, in press releases, by journalists and columnists, in TV programs, in movies, and even from the pulpit, is all the evidence you need to recognize it as a planned, coordinated attack in the left’s attempt to crush or emasculate the Tea Party.

Far from being a deterrent to good government in America, the Tea Party has brought some sanity back to Washington, DC.  They deserve accolades, not accusations, and they deserve -- and -- need the support of Americans who desire a free and prosperous America once again.

J. D. Longstreet

 Super Committee = Super Failure

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

**************** 

The so-called Super Committee is a FARCE. It is doomed to failure. 

Can anyone reasonably believe there is even the smallest chance that a 12-member committee made up of party loyalist from each side can, somehow, be miraculously overcome by celestial waves of bipartanship?  Come on now.  Really?  Seriously?  Naah.  Ain’t gonna happen.

This committee has to develop a plan that features both spending cuts and tax increases.  Seven members of the 12-member committee must approve any debt-reduction plan before it comes up for a Congressional vote.

Now here’s the “kicker”:  If the committee fails to recommend up to $1.5 trillion in savings by Thanksgiving, as much as $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts will be enacted, including up to 2 percent cuts in Medicare payments to healthcare providers.

OK.  Lets look at who, exactly, is on that committee. On the GOP side, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have chosen Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio)..

On the Democratic side, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has appointed Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.).  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi chose Reps. James Clyburn (D-SC), Xavier Becerra (D-Ca), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md).

This Super Committee (The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.) it seems to me, has been set up to fail.  I simply do not see any way a deadlock can be avoided.  In my opinion, the committee should be dissolved immediately and the Congress should suck it up -- and do their darn jobs!

The “poor excuse for a committee” committee is somehow expected to do what the Congress, as a whole, could not do -- and even the President and the Speaker of the House could not do it. 

OK.  So what IS this so-called “Trigger Mechanism, anyway?”  Well, it works like this:  The trigger mechanism is the product of months of unsuccessful negotiations among congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House to strike a broader deal to rein in entitlement programs like Medicare and to overhaul the tax code. It would split spending reductions equally between U.S. defense and domestic programs.

Understand:  This would be a HUGE cut back in funding for the military.  At a time when America is fighting three wars, if the trigger mechanism kicks in defense spending would be cut by 9.1 percent over a decade and non-defense programs would be cut 7.9 percent.  If this is allowed to happen, we are looking at a hollowed-out military right when America is sitting square in the middle of our enemies collective bulls eye.

Medicare would be cut by 2 percent.  But that cut would be aimed at the healthcare providers – doctors who care for Medicare patients.

Already, a huge number of doctors are refusing to see Medicare patients.  If their reimbursement is further cut, expect even more doctors to refuse taking Medicare patients.  This will impact America’s seniors tremendously.

The legislation that created this super committee calls for the committee to find savings through spending reductions and tax increases.  REALLY?

Look.  The Democrats will not agree to spending cuts and the Republicans will not agree to raise taxes.  Can you say:  “Deadlock?”

The more I investigate this super committee, the more I am convinced it was set up from the outset for failure. 

And consider this:  If the panel does just happen to agree on a plan, Congress has until Dec. 23 to hold an up-or- down vote on the plan or the trigger will be pulled, setting off $1.2 trillion in automatic, across-the-board spending cuts over nine years.  Of course, this avalanche of spending cuts will not begin until after the presidential election in 2012.  No, the cuts aren’t even scheduled to begin until sometime in 2013.  Heaven forbid the politicians should rile the electorate just before the election!

Now, here’s the thing:  Even if the trigger mechanism goes into effect, the Congress can get around it. They can delay the cuts or even override the cuts if they choose.  (Who said the cuts were “automatic,” anyway?) 

Even if the spending cuts were to actually go into effect, the Congress has the power to turn around and INCREASE the spending by way of so-called “emergency funding,” which, by the way, falls outside the super committee’s caps.  Some have suggested it would not be outside the realm of possibility for Congress to do exactly that.  I mean, they DO have a history of getting, shall we say – “creative,” when it comes to finding ways to spend our money.

There is no way to prevent a congress in, say, 2014, from simply reducing the amounts of the spending cut(s) or just overturning the super committee’s so-called automatic spending cuts.  It would be as if the super committee never existed in the first place.

Yep.  I’m convinced the super committee is a farce. It is just more “slight of hand” by our national leaders to placate irate voters who would like to see America saved from pending destruction.

Prepare for a humongous fight between now and Christmas over spending and raising taxes. 

How do we get past this and get America back on a financially firm footing?  We will do it by replacing Obama in the White House with a fiscally conservative President and with conservative control of both house of the Congress.  It is only going to get progressively worse until we do.

J. D. Longstreet 
 

Defense-Less ... Alan Caruba

Defense-Less

By Alan Caruba

As bad as the present financial crisis is, how much worse would it be if the enemies of the United States of America, emboldened by a smaller Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, decided that they could engage in military aggression against their neighbors with impunity? Or worse.

With time out for conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has played an essential role in maintaining global peace and the safety of the sea lanes. The threat horizon, however, is always changing.

The same week the U.S. was grappling with the aftermath of the Standard and Poor’s downgrade of our credit rating, the Chinese announced they were putting an aircraft carrier, their first, out to sea for its initial trials before further retrofitting. Two others are reportedly being built.

In July, the scholars of the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Foreign Policy Initiative got together to produce an 8-page report, “Defending Defense: Warning – Hollow Force Ahead!”

They addressed a number of myths about the U.S. armed forces, among which was that they will “continue to enjoy a technological advantage over any and all adversaries”:

“Fact: The Pentagon has nearly skipped a generation of modernization programs while, at the same time, failing to ‘transform’ U.S. forces for the future. The defense budget growth of the past decade was largely on consumables related to current operations. All of the defense cuts over the past two years mortgaged the future to pay for the present.”

“Today’s military flies the same basic planes (e.g., F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fighters’ B=52, B-1 and B-2 bombers, and a variety of support aircraft) sails the same basic ships (e.g., Trident ballistic missile and Los Angeles-class attack submarines; Aegis-equipped destroyers and cruisers, Nimitz-class aircraft carriers), and employs the same basic ground systems (e.g., Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Black Hawk and Apache helicopters) that it did at the end of the Cold War.”

The former Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, twenty years ago!

Frank J. Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy and columnist for The Washington Times, recently warned that “History demonstrates that previous military drawdowns invited aggression by our enemies. After World War I, American drew down forces until the U.S. Army had fewer than 100,000 men in uniform. That weakness invited Nazi aggression in Europe and the imperial Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. The post-Vietnam drawdown invited the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and proxy wars for Communist domination from Central America to Angola.”

In an analysis by Commander Bryan Clark, U.S. Navy (Ret) and Dr. Dan Whiteneck, written for the U.S. Naval Institute, the authors noted that, unlike the Reagan years that contributed to the Soviet collapse, “the Navy cannot afford to buy 15 or more ships each year.” Instead it “can afford to buy about ten and half of those are small combatants or support ships. As a result, the Fleet is now at 286 ships, down from 344 in 1998.”

For those who believe the homeland is safe, “the number of ships under way around the United States for homeland defense and training dropped from an average of 60 in 1998 to 20 today.”

Air Force data, as noted above, suggests that the fleet of aircraft being used today is in part an old one. A lot of aircraft will be retired, but the money for newer aircraft is going to be harder to come by. Fewer aircraft of all kinds means that the reach of the USAF will be shorter. It takes a long time to train a fighter or bomber pilot, a maintenance crew, and to provide the logistics to keep what we have airborne. No sensible person wants to contemplate what fighting a modern war would be without air superiority.

In January 2011, Spencer Ackerman reported that the Marines are in the line of budget cuts. “The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is dead. The Marines’ version of the F-35 is on a two-year time-out.”

The U.S. military has been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001 and in Iraq since 2003. Ackerman noted that “The stresses of a decade’s worth of constant deployment have taken their toil on both services (Army and Marine) in myriad ways: measured in suicide rates and post-traumatic stress, family cohesion, and the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Increasing the size of the Army and Marines were (former Secretary of Defense) Gates’ way of mitigating those affects.”

Not only did the raising of the debt ceiling initiate the decision by Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+, a Heritage Foundation scholar, Kim Holmes, noted that the political deal incorporated spending cuts envisioned to be between 6 percent and 7.5 percent “in defense spending from the President’s budget request in February for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, respectively.”

“We will have to sacrifice the future security of all Americans,” said Ms. Holmes, “without actually getting at the cause of the debt crisis—namely, runaway spending on Social Security and other big social entitlements.”

Experts who devote years to studying the nation’s defense budget and realities know it is incredibly complex; far more than a brief look can begin to address. For example, part of the defense budget represents increasing health costs that include not only those injured in combat, but the growing number of retirees. Another part of the problem is the bizarre procurement procedures employed.

Then, too, there are new threats such as cyber-war and, as 9/11 demonstrated, non-state terrorism. What are we to make of the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review that pledged the United States to not respond with nuclear weapons to a biological or chemical attack as long as the attacking nature was in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

There are no easy answers and surely no easy choices, but my guess is that a politically correct military that is now required to accept homosexuals in its midst and will not even publicly identify the Fort Hood killer as a Muslim is in serious trouble, made worse by the reductions in its arsenal of weapons to fight current and future wars.

There will be savings as the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts wind down, but it would be a familiar and dangerous mistake to reduce defense expenditures, a favorite choice of Democrats. History demonstrates this is always unwise.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

************************

 Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

Flash Mobs: Being Young, Black, and Male in America Today ... Alan Caruba

Flash Mobs: Being Young, Black, and Male in America Today

By Alan Caruba

Those who follow my commentaries know that I rarely discuss race in America. I find it an unhappy topic at best and, from my readings in U.S. history, I feel safe in saying there was never a good time to be Black in America.

Slavery before, during and after the American Revolution was a stain on the nation and, though some were slave owners, the Founding Fathers knew it. To get the new Constitution ratified among the thirteen States, they had to trim their sails to the point where Article One, Section Two refers to “those bound to service” and, for the purpose of taxation of “free persons”, the slaves were counted as “three fifths of all other Persons.” Ugh.

It would, of course, take a Civil War to end slavery, though Lincoln’s preferred solution was to put the slaves on a ship back to Africa. That was not likely because by 1861 when the war began, there were 3,954,000 slaves, the majority of whom lived on plantations where, from Virginia to Texas, they often outnumbered whites by 13 to 1.

My awareness of Blacks was limited in my youth, growing up in an upscale New Jersey suburban community where they were quite scarce. You could count the number of Black students in my high school on one hand. When I was drafted in the Army most of my service in the early 1960s was on a base in the Deep South. It gave me a close up view of segregation. When I was discharged, I became a journalist on a weekly serving a small New Jersey city neighboring Newark. I was there when the city’s first Black mayor was elected.

It was the time of the Civil Rights movement, filled with marches and tumult. I met Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1967 Newark erupted in rioting, the result of poverty, and of sense of being powerless and disenfranchised. The Italians who had run the city gave way to Black politicians and, five decades later, they still are in charge, but the social problems remain.

If anyone would have told me that America would elect a Black President, I would have said that was impossible. I was wrong and so were the many Blacks who rejoiced in the election of Barack Obama, confident that he would take the lead, representing them, paying particular attention to their issues. Obama proved to be more concerned with Islam.

I got to thinking about that when several commentators, referring to how he would be remembered, said that Obama would no longer be remembered as the first Black President, but rather as the first Downgrade President. When he addressed the nation on August 8, his cool detachment seemed alarmingly at odds with the tumult on Wall Street and around the world that had been triggered by Standard & Poor’s decision.

How do Blacks perceive Obama, I wondered.

A friend, Milton, a retired Black corporate executive, attorney, business owner who edits and writes for BlackQuillandInk.com, a website for Black conservatives, responded to my question noting that Black support for Obama’s candidacy was about 98%, but has slipped since to around 86%.

It was his view that the Blacks “have been poisoned to dislike non-Blacks” and to see themselves “as victims.” I understand the victim part, but was surprised by his observation regarding the animosity, if only because White America has gone to fairly extraordinary lengths to redress the ills of the past.

As America’s most famous minority, Blacks are now outnumbered by Hispanics and are being by-passed by virtually all other minority in America in terms of achievement and upward mobility. The chains may have been removed, but, as the syndicated columnist. Walter E. Williams, noted in July 2010, “The pathology seen among a large segment of the Black population is not likely to change because it is not seen for what it is. It has little to do with slavery, poverty and racial discrimination.”

“Today’s black illegitimacy rate is about 70%,” said Williams. “When I was a youngster, during the 1940s, illegitimacy was around 15%...Today, only 35% of black children are raised in two-parent households.”

And it gets worse. In an August 2010 Washington Post article by columnist George Will, he wrote that “By the early 2000s, more than a third of all young black non-college men were under the supervision of the corrections system. More than 60% of black high school dropouts born since the mid-1960s go to prison. Mass incarceration blights the prospects of black women.”

In recent weeks, from the Wisconsin State Fair to Philadelphia, from Milwaukee to Los Angeles, reports of flash mobs of young Blacks attacking whites are stirring racial fears. The most dangerous factor in Black cities and neighborhoods are the hordes of young males, raised by one parent, dropouts from school, no skills, no jobs, no prospects, and lots of angry energy that is too often diverted into crime and violence.

Barack Obama’s economic policies have failed the nation, but they have been especially adverse on Blacks. Black unemployment and foreclosures, for example, have skyrocketed under Obama and remain disproportionately high as compared to other communities. In short, Obama has done nothing for Blacks in America either on the macro and micro level to improve their opportunities or attitudes.

He has nothing in common with them; a half-white Columbia University graduate and Harvard educated lawyer, former instructor at the University of Chicago, married to a Princeton and Harvard graduate, herself an attorney. They have two girls that go to private school and their inner circle of friends, Black and white, are dedicated Marxists.

The editor of BlackQuillandInk.com says. “The Black community refuses to admit how wrong they were in voting for Obama.”

© Alan Caruba, 2011

*************************

Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

Rick Perry to Announce Tomorrow

Rick Perry to Announce Tomorrow

Will officially become a candidate for US President 

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

“Get ready for Rick Perry.


The Texas governor will make his presidential campaign announcement on Saturday, his spokesman Mark Miner confirmed to POLITICO, marking the first time a Perry aide has said for the record that Perry is officially going to be a candidate.


"He'll make his intentions very clear on Saturday," Miner said, adding, "it's true" that he will say he is running for president.” (From Politico. Read the entire article HERE.)


NOW the REAL contest begins!


About the only prediction I can make that I feel sure about, concerning the Perry candidacy, is:  he will almost certainly be tarred with the racist brush, oh, within a few hours of his announcement tomorrow.


There is a rumor already floating about that Gov. Perry is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.  So far as I am concerned, that makes him an even BETTER candidate for my consideration when I cast my ballot for a conservative candidate in the primary and in the general election. 

See – I am a member, of long standing, in the Sons of Confederate Veterans. 




I mentioned the “rumor” of Perry’s membership in the SCV because I am certain that the SCV will be painted by the Mainstream Media as some sort of racist, separatist, NEO-Confederate organization.  It is none of those.  If it were any of those – I would not be affiliated with them -- in any way.


As far as “NEO” is concerned, the Sons of Confederate Veterans has been around since 1896 – well over a hundred years.  That is hardly “neo” (new). Before 1896, they were the “United Confederate Veterans.”  So, the organization really dates back to shortly after the War Between the States (The US government’s approved title for the so-called Civil War.)


From the Sons of Confederate Veterans Website:

“The citizen-soldiers who fought for the Confederacy personified the best qualities of America. The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South's decision to fight the Second American Revolution. The tenacity with which Confederate soldiers fought underscored their belief in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. These attributes are the underpinning of our democratic society and represent the foundation on which this nation was built.

Today, the Sons of Confederate Veterans is preserving the history and legacy of these heroes so that future generations can understand the motives that animated the Southern Cause.


The SCV is the direct heir of the United Confederate Veterans, and the oldest hereditary organization for male descendants of Confederate soldiers. Organized at Richmond, Virginia in 1896, the SCV continues to serve as a historical, patriotic, and non-political organization dedicated to ensuring that a true history of the 1861-1865 period is preserved.


Membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans is open to all male descendants of any veteran who served honorably in the Confederate armed forces.” From the SCV website at: http://www.scv.org/ or click HERE.)


I would direct your attention to the phrase above:  “the SCV continues to serve as a historical, patriotic, and non-political organization” One of the quickest ways I know for an SCV camp to have it’s charter lifted by it’s division headquarters, or international headquarters, is for that camp to become involved, in any way, in a political event or movement.  We do not discuss politics at or camp meetings. It is verboten!
 
Now.  Having said that, I expect there will be tremendous pressure brought to bear on the Texas Division of the SCV, and even International Headquarters in Tennessee, to declare whether or not Gov. Perry is a member of “the Sons.”  It is extremely unlikely there will be a response from either.  Why?  Because it comes dangerously close to a political act, which is, as we noted above, forbidden.   Remember that if, and when, the Mainstream Media begins to whine that the SCV will neither confirm or deny the governor’s membership.

Governor Perry will do well in the southern states.  No doubt about that. In my opinion, he will quickly overtake Romney in the polls, especially in the south.  Where he will have trouble will be in the northeastern states, the northern states, and the left-wing Pacific coast states.


No more than I know about the governor, at this point, I would say that if the good people of Texas found him suitable to be governor of their fair state -- that, alone, is a heck of a recommendation … in my humble opinion, of course.

Perry strikes me as being the polar opposite of Obama. Lord knows, a huge portion of the electorate is searching for just such a candidate.  Couple that with the fact that Perry has governing experience… and we MAY have a winner.


Mr. Romney is not that appealing to southerners. The criticism I hear most often of Romney is his “moderate” form of conservatism.  Please allow me to say, as a southerner, I have had about all I want of “compassionate conservatives” or any other type of watered-down conservatism.


In the weeks ahead we will learn more than we ever thought possible about Gov. Perry.  Some of what we learn may be troubling. Rest assured the political left will make a massive and concerted effort to destroy Gov. Perry politically.  It’s the way they do business.

If I had any advice for Perry’s campaign machine it would be that they should be as determined at gaining the Oval Office as the Obama machine will certainly be at denying him that goal.

Believe it, or not, way back in my youth I was a track announcer for a red clay, stock car racetrack in South Carolina. (I also was an arena announcer for a rodeo, too, but that is a story for another time.) The enthusiasm, the grit, the determination, the fearlessness, and the will to win, demonstrated by the drivers in those amazing machines could serve as a lesson to conservative candidates going up against Obama. 

It is said that one of my favorite drivers had a metal plaque bolted to the dashboard of his race car.  It is reported to have said:  “Switch on ignition, put foot on floor, and turn left.”   We suggest that Gov. Perry adopt these few motivational words as the motto for his campaign – with one slight change:  “Switch on ignition, put foot on floor, and turn RIGHT!”
 
Good Luck, Governor.

J. D. Longstreet