Well, thanks to some knuckleheads who clearly didn’t think before they acted, CNN’s Campbell Brown, and the left in general, have obtained more ammunition to use against us, as demonstrated on the “Campbell Brown Show”. 

As the video points out, this event happened right outside of a town hall meeting that was being held by Barack Obama in Phoenix, AZ. Some demonstrators decided that it would be a great idea to flaunt their “open carry” of semi-automatic weapons law, presumably to prove some kind of point. 

Did you enjoy yourselves? Did you like having your 15 minutes of fame? I hope so, because you’re going to be seeing yourselves on the air, over and over again, as the Liberals single you out as examples of just how “dangerous and unreasonable” we are. You’ve just confirmed that idiotic statement by Ed Schultz and other left-wingers who seriously believe that we want Obama shot dead.  I know they’re going to spin it like this. Nice job, you morons.

I’m not criticizing your firearms, or your open carry laws. As a concealed weapons permit holder myself, I actually kind of envy your freedom to do such. I have no problems with your right to carry at all.

But seriously… right outside a town hall where the President of the United States is holding a meeting? You really thought that was necessary? You do know he has secret service agents watching you, right? How stupid can you be? Don’t you see that our opponents on the left look for this kind of thing? And then you GAVE it to them on a silver platter! If I could, I’d smack the back of each and every one of your heads.

Ok, deep breath… chewing out session is over now.

Look fellas, I understand why you did what you did. I realize that in your minds, you felt that you were giving Obama a little reminder about your right to carry firearms. You were determined to show that you can’t be pushed around. I know that you weren’t deliberately trying to make our side look bad, and you probably thought that you were doing us a favor by thinking that you were displaying our strength. I get that. I respect that. 

But ladies and gentlemen, you really need to start thinking before you act. You need to consider the long-term consequences of your actions before you carry them out. There are a lot of reporters with news cameras out there, and a vast majority of them aren’t friendly to our side. They are just waiting for us to screw up.

Let me give you a little lesson in history. 

Back in the days of the Vietnam War, our soldiers learned the hard way that they had to be extremely mindful of where they discarded their junk, particularly hollow objects like tin cans… and it had nothing to do with environmental consciousness. 

Why, you ask? Because our enemies of that time, the Viet Cong, AKA “Charlie”, collected the discarded junk and devised clever improvised explosives out of them.   Cans, bottles, even stuffed animals and ballpoint pens.   Charlie knew that Americans were, in general, naturally curious people. If they see a can, they kick it… boom! If they see a pen, or a toy, they pick it up… boom! That’s how a lot of these traps worked. Ever see that scene in “Full Metal Jacket” where the soldier picks up the stuffed animal and it blows up in his face? Yeah, like that. The very things that our soldiers had discarded were used against them later.

Here’s what I’m trying to tell you… don’t help Charlie. Don’t help Liberal commentators such as the likes of Campbell Brown and Ed Schultz by providing them with more ammunition then they already have. Think about the consequences of what you’re planning on doing before you carry it out.  What are the long-term effects? How could this possibly be used against us later? Remember… just because you can do it, doesn’t mean you should.

Because if you don’t remember this, like Charlie’s clever traps; your actions could blow up in your face, taking not only you out, but your brothers-in-arms as well.

Sources:

Gun Toting Obama Protesters: Campbell Brown Show, CNN.com 08/18/09

A few days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton alluded that the North Koreans were acting like spoiled children, due to their “constant demands for attention”.   The North Koreans shot back that she “looks like a primary schoolgirl”. 

Looks like the North Koreans weren’t far off. 

Last Monday, Hillary released her inner child and displayed a cry for attention of her own during a question and answer session with a Congolese university student in Kinshasa. The French speaking student, through a translator, asked her what her husband Bill Clinton and NBA star Dikembe Mutombo thought about an international financial matter. That didn’t sit well with Hillary.

“Wait. You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?” she snapped. “My husband is not the Secretary of State; I am. So you ask my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I’m not going to be channeling my husband.”

Ouch. 

I have a visual image of a 2-year old, pant-suited Hillary, sitting on the floor, pounding and kicking her little hands and feet and screaming, with tears in her eyes, “I’M the Secretary of State! Not Billy! It’s ME, ME, MEEEE!”

The State Department tried to brush the incident off, saying that there was actually a misunderstanding. The student claims that he had meant to ask what President Barack Obama thought, not Bill Clinton, but this really doesn’t change the nature of Hillary’s response. 

So… just why was Hillary in such a snippy mood that day?   What could have set her off? Maybe it was the hot African sun? 

Could she have resented the fact that her trip to Africa was overshadowed by her husbands so-called “rescue” of the two U.S. journalists from North Korea who have recently been returned home? 

Could it be possible that she heard rumors earlier that day about her hubby putting the moves on those said journalists on the plane? Granted, there’s no proof of that, but I wouldn’t put it past the guy. Come on, admit it; we all wondered about that at least once. This is Bill we’re talking about.

Or maybe… just maybe… she’s feeling resentment of having to take a lesser office after being so close to winning the grand prize, the Presidency of the United States? 

I can’t help but wonder why she received that position. It certainly wasn’t for her international experience… she didn’t have any at the time. I’m talking about actual problem solving, not “meet and greets” and giving speeches. 

Perhaps she believes that Obama, using the old adage “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”, tossed her a bone and offered her the position of Secretary of State to better keep a closer eye on her?  

Perhaps she was thinking, while standing at the podium taking questions that day; “I could be sitting the Oval Office right now, in the air conditioning and planning my takeover of America, but no… that inexperienced, rookie buffoon is sitting in my chair, doing my takeover, with that idiotic smirk on his face, while I’m stuck here in some god-forsaken pit in the middle of Africa, listening to some ninny, some peon, ask me what my worthless, skirt-chasing husband’s opinion is instead of mine!? That does it!”

I’m probably wrong, of course, but doesn’t that sound just a little bit like Hillary?

Whatever the reason for her outburst may be, I imagine that as time goes on, we’ll be seeing more of this from her. Little by little, the real Hillary is going to come out… and it’s not going to be pretty.

Sources:

Hillary Clinton Trades Insults with North Korea: Times Online, 07/23/09

US Official Gropes to Explain Clinton’s Outburst: Associated Press, Yahoo News, 09/12/09

Apparently, the Democrats calling attendees of town hall meetings “mobs sent by the Republicans” just isn’t enough for them. 

Now they are being referred to by some Democrats as “Nazis”. 

U.S. Representative Brian Baird (D-Vancouver) has stated that he will not attend any further town hall meetings due to the unruliness of the attendees.   Though he has attended such meetings in the past, he has decided to follow the example of some of his fellow Democrat representatives… hold a “phone-in” town hall meeting instead. 

In a telephone interview he held last Wednesday, Baird stated that “What we’re seeing right now is very close to brown shirt tactics. I mean that very seriously”.

Rep. Baird is not the only one who has alluded to this. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, after insulting the protester’s grass roots movement by calling it an “astro turf movement”, has claimed that she has seen protesters “carrying signs with swastikas, and things like that”.  

Did she actually see any protesters carrying signs with swastikas? Maybe she has, but I wonder if Pelosi ever considered if the swastikas were being used in reference to her? 

Nah, I’m giving her too much credit. I’ll say this much, though. The liberals sure didn’t hesitate to use the swastika in reference to George Bush. Pelosi certainly didn’t seem bothered by them back then. Go ahead, google the words “Bush, Nazi and swastika” and see how many pictures you get. 

You want to talk about brown shirt tactics? Fine, let’s talk about them. Here are a few examples…

A brown shirt tactic is when an administration of a sitting president actually provides an email address for the purpose of their supporters to snitch on their fellow citizens. Know someone who doesn’t agree with the Obama plan? Report them to us, and we’ll investigate. While the site gives the impression that this is only for those non-solicited type emails and web ads, the whole thing smacks of “big brother”.

This actually isn’t the first time that Obama has pulled a stunt like this. In the early days of his campaign for the presidency, his “Fight the Smears” website’s original mission statement was to “track down and expose” those who were spreading “false rumors” about him. It never elaborated on what exactly would happen to the “smearers” once they were exposed. However, as of this writing, it appears that the mission statement was removed a long time ago. 

Another brown shirt tactic is for a sitting president to encourage his supporters, in this case the labor unions (specifically the AFL-CIO and the SEIU), to attend these town hall meetings for the purpose of countering the anti-public option health care protesters.   Granted, I’ve only heard that Obama has given them their marching orders, I haven’t seen any actual proof of this, but what I have noticed is a lack of appeals by Obama to these labor unions to keep their activities peaceful. Labor unions unfortunately have a bad reputation for using “physical” methods of getting their way with people, as Kenneth Gladney, a victim of an assault by members of the SEIU after a health care town hall meeting, can tell you.   Fortunately, Mr. Gladney seems to be doing alright, as he stated in his interview. 

Another brown shirt tactic is an administration creating a “boogyman” out of a specific group, in this case the insurance companies, in order to encourage your populace to blame them for all of their problems. Kind of like what Hitler and the Arabs have done to the Jews. “See those people there? THEY are the cause of all your suffering!”

Brown shirt tactics is shutting people who oppose you out of an open town hall meeting, and sneaking your supporters in through a back door.

Of course, another brown shirt tactic is for the sitting president of the United States to openly demonize the citizens of his own country who disagree with his policies. 

Not since the days of Nixon have I ever heard of a president of the United States using his supporters to suppress and intimidate those citizens who disagree with him. I don’t recall Reagan, either of the Bush’s, or even Clinton or Carter pulling this. Obama’s tactics would be more suitable for a tyrannical, third-world leader (like Hugo Chavez. I did point out at one time how alike they are) than an American president. While we haven’t heard any fiery tirades from him yet, he has been ranting about not wanting to hear the “people who created this mess talk” and to “get out of our way”.  

Funny he should mention that; that’s precisely what conservatives like myself say about the government; especially under the current administration.

Sources:

Facts are Stubborn Things: Macon Phillips, 9/4/09

Fight at Carnahan Town Hall Event: posted by “moogrouge”, YouTube

Victim of Alleged SEIU Town Hall Assault in St. Louis Interviewed by Cavuto: Matthew Balan, NewsBusters

Dems Sneak Union Thugs into Carnahan Town Hall: posted by “mghoft”, YouTube

Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer Attack Concerned Citizens: posted by “snickerpoohed”, YouTube

Stop the Presses: I’ve Found Nancy Pelosi’s Swastika Pictures!: Vocal Minority

Unions to Take on Conservative Groups Health Care Town Halls: Sam Stein, The Huffington Post

I’ve heard this ad several times on the radio, and I was finally able to watch the video version of it this morning.   The ad, sponsored by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), claims that the angry protestors that have been showing up in recent town hall meetings are actually “mobs” that have been organized by “desperate right wing Republican extremists”, whose only goals are to destroy President Obama and to prevent the change that an “overwhelmingly majority of Americans voted for in November”.   The ad also claims that this activity is “straight from the playbook of high-level Republican political operatives”. 

The ad can be viewed on Hannity’s “Great American Blog”.

Congratulations, ladies and gentlemen; those of us who disagree with Obama’s health care reform policy have just been promoted to mob status.  Next they’ll be accusing us of racism. Oh, wait… they already have.

Whoops, I forgot; they're officially “insurance reform” policies now. Obama’s advisors informed him that he picked the wrong target for the public’s wrath. It turns out that most people like their health care. It’s the insurance companies that people hate.

Alright, back to the ad. I’m not going to address all of the claims about the Republicans being responsible for “8 years of failure” and millions of lost jobs and such… that would turn this column into a novel. Rather, I’m going to look at the part of the ad which makes accusations about the Republicans somehow being responsible for the mobs.

First ad quote: “Desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs, just like they did during the election. Their goal? Destroy President Obama and stop the change that Americans voted for overwhelmingly in November”.

Interestingly, the ad does not site any proof, or sources, of these “well-funded allies” organizing mobs. Granted, the ad may not have had the time to quote any sources, but you would think that they would have at least flashed the names of some of the organizations responsible for placing the plants at the town hall meetings on the screen.

So who are these allies? You’re guess is as good as mine. Maybe one of you can enlighten me.

You also hear a couple of quick audio clips of Republican Senator Jim DeMint (“It will break him”) and conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh (“I hope he fails.”)

Here is the full quote from Sen. DeMint: “This health care issue is D-Day for freedom in America. If we lose this, we’ll probably have half of our economy in some way controlled by the federal government. We can’t allow that to happen. And on the other side of it, if we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

Sounds to me that “breaking President Obama” is more of an added bonus to defeating the health care reform bill, not the overall purpose.

As far as Limbaugh’s “I hope he fails” comment, it was taken out of context. Limbaugh was implying that he wanted Obama’s socialist policies to fail, not fail as a president.

Moving on to another quote; “This mob activity is straight from the playbook of high-level Republican political operatives.”

As if to demonstrate this “playbook”, you are briefly shown an official-looking document with the phrases “opportunity to yell out” and “intermittent shout outs” highlighted on the document, in large print. This is right at the 0:42 second mark.   The document piqued my curiosity, so I looked it up (Rocking the Town Halls – Best Practices) on the web.   You can click on the link provided and read a copy of it for yourself. 

This is actually a memo from a conservative organization called “Right Principles”, which I believe was passed out or delivered to its members. I would hardly call this a page from the playbook of high-level Republican operatives. Also, note that while the memo does encourage its members to shout and yell out, it also informs you not to cause a scene either.   Questions that you ask must contain as many facts and figures as possible.   The shouting is encouraged if the politician is caught lying, or just saying something ridiculous, but once you’ve made your point, you need to sit back down again. 

Judging from the rowdy behavior on the videos I’ve seen of some of the the protesters at the town hall meetings, I don’t think too many of them read that particular memo.

Last quote: “They have no plan for moving our country forward, so they’ve called out the mob.”

Alright, first of all, I’d like to point out that, once again, the ad offers no proof of Republicans “calling out the mob” to disrupt town hall meetings. While it may be true that some conservative organizations have encouraged their members to attend these meetings, that doesn’t make them a mob with the sole purpose of disrupting them.  In all likelihood, many of the protesters were planning on attending anyway.   The organizations just informed them of where and when they were taking place.  You can bet that liberal organizations have been encouraging their members to attend these meetings as well.  Should we accuse them of organizing mobs? They’ve certainly been encouraging their labor unions to participate. It’s been said that Obama himself has asked labor unions to attend.

Second, it’s not that the Republicans have no solutions of their own; their plans just aren’t publicized much in the mainstream media.  I will admit, however, that it's partially their own fault, as they don't seem too keen on promoting them.  Some ideas that have been introduced include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Greater utilization of Health Savings Accounts (HSA’s), which are similar to retirement accounts, only they can be used to cover for pre-conditions that are not covered by standard insurance policies.

The Patient’s Choice Act of 2009, which promotes a Health Insurance Exchange to allow patients to choose the plans that best suites them, using market competition which would bring down prices.  Obama’s plan, while it features a version of the Health Insurance Exchange, does not promote these companies to compete with each other. They would be more or less controlled by the government, which would result in rationing.

Cross-state insurance purchasing: Currently, you are only allowed to purchase insurance from your state of residence.  By allowing insurance companies to compete with each other nationwide, rather than restricting the customer to only their state of residence, this would help bring prices down due to the increased competition. For example, if you live in the state of Florida, you can only buy health insurance from that state. However, if you get the option to purchase insurance from any state of your choosing, you can pick whatever plan is right for you, at the price you want, regardless of the state it is offered in. Some states offer cheaper insurance plans than others. Companies nationwide would start bringing their prices down in order to avoid losing customers to their competitors. This was actually introduced by John McCain during the last campaign.

Reducing Insurance Mandates: Many health insurance plans come with mandates that you simply do not need or want, like coverage for chiropractors, hair transplants, alcoholism, etc. This increases the cost. Having the ability to remove these mandates would decrease the cost of the coverage. This actually goes hand-in-hand with McCain’s suggestion for cross-state purchases.

Unlike the supporters of the Obama plan, I won’t claim that these ideas are perfect, but at least now you can set your “Obamacare” supporting friends straight the next time they tell you that “all the Republicans do is complain, they don’t have any ideas of their own”.

In conclusion, be wary of what you see in the media, whether it’s a news program, a talk show (either right-wing or left-wing), or a political ad. Don’t assume that everything they say is true. Get in the habit of checking their claims for yourself.   I guarantee that you’ll begin to see politics with a different eye.

Sources and Interesting Links:

Memo Details Co-ordinated Anti-Reform Harrasment Strategy: Beyond Chron; The Voice of the Rest: 08/05/09

Sound of the Day 8/5: Hannity Producers, Fox News Blog

HSA Frequently Asked Questions: United States Department of the Treasury

McCain’s Plan is Sound: Michael F. Cannon, CATO Institute.

Patient’s Choice Act May 2009: pdf file

Right Principals; Unapologetically American: Conservative website

By now, most of you have seen or heard the controversial video montage, which shows Obama, in his own words before he was president (along with clips of Rep. Barney Frank and Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky), stating how he wanted to eventually eliminate private insurance over time, which is contrary to what he’s telling us now. In case you haven’t seen it, or if you just want to refresh your memory, the video can be found here on youtube. The clip begins with a more recent speech (6/16/09) denying that his plan would eliminate private insurance. It then flashes back to March 24^th, 2007, while he was still a candidate, stating something quite different from what he just said a few weeks ago.   It then flashes even further back to 2003, where he clearly states that he prefers a single payer (government controlled) health care system. At the end of the clip, it jumps forward again, to another recent speech, where he claims “Nobody is talking about a government takeover of health care”. 

Oh, really? I think Barney Frank, Jan Schakowsky, and even your own clips would disagree with you.

Well, the White House is very unhappy with this video (which was linked to the popular website “The Drudge Report”), so they have unleashed one of their propagandists, “Communications Director of the Office of Health Reform” Linda Douglass, to do damage control. She has released her own 3-minute video, “The Truth About Health Care Insurance Reform”. Have a look at it for yourself. 

Such a kindly, friendly looking lady, isn’t she? Observe how at one point, after informing us of how “people who are trying to scare people” put Obama’s sentences and phrases out of context and “cobbling them together” to make it appear that he was saying something completely different, the camera gets a close-up of her removing her glasses and staring earnestly into the camera to demonstrate just how sincere she is in uncovering the “real truth” about the video montage. 

Ms. Douglass then proceeds, in close-up, to lie right to your face.

First, she claims that someone with “a lot of time on their hands” edited and cherry picked the videos to get Obama to say something he didn’t really mean. 

This is only half true. While the video montage is technically “edited” (it’s a montage, after all), it’s only true in the sense that it was several clips stitched together to illustrate what is being said now, and what was being said back then. The sentences and phrases themselves are un-touched and complete. The only parts that were cut out were the applause of the audience in a couple of cases, which only would’ve wasted time.

She then shows you two clips that she claims that you’ll “probably never see”. 

Wrong again, I’ve heard both of these clips in their entirety, on talk radio. Both of these clips were recorded fairly recently, and all they do is re-state Obama’s talking points about how you get to “keep your private plan, if you like it”. 

Right. I think page 16 of the health care bill says differently. 

Ms. Douglass then launches into the typical liberal tactic of tugging on your heartstrings, saying how badly we need this plan, how uninsured Americans have been waiting “decades” for a moment like this, and how they (the White House) won’t fail us this time.

Not once did Ms. Douglass ever try to actually prove that the video montage was fake.  She did not replay the video montage, nor did she demonstrate where Obama’s sentences and phrases were “cobbled together”. 

Now, after you have watched Ms. Douglass’s video, I want you to watch the video montage one more time. Can you see where Obama’s phrases were edited? I sure can’t. It looks pretty genuine to me.

Here is my direct challenge to you, “Communications Director” Douglass; prove your claims. 

If you’re so convinced that the video was edited, than prove it to us. Show us exactly where the sentences and phrases were “cobbled together”.   I want you to post those sections of the clips, in their entirety, with what Obama “really said”. Remove the editing, remove the voiceovers. If you’re not going to back it up, then don’t throw it out to us. Don’t give us this nonsense about going to the government website to get the “real story”.  Most people, including myself, are smart enough to know that it’s just going to repeat what you’re claiming.  Most of us know that Obama has been lying to us. What makes you think that we’re going to believe what he posts on the official website? We’re not that stupid. 

I actually feel a little bad for you… really, I do. Obama doesn’t want to take the heat for his lies, so he sends poor peons like you to take the hits for him, while he continues on his merry way, doing what he does best; smiling, campaigning and lying to our faces.   Doesn’t that bother you even a little bit? Do you really want to keep working for this man for what he’s doing to you?  

Let Obama do his own damage control.

Sources and Helpful Links:

Health Care Bill (H.R. 3200) pdf file

Shock Uncovered: Obama in His Own Words Saying His Health Care Plan Will Eliminate Private Insurance (by Naked Emperor News 1) Youtube

The Truth About Health Care Insurance Reform (by Linda Douglass) Youtube

Before I begin, I want to inform you of what this article is not about; trashing hybrid cars. I personally feel that hybrid cars are a fantastic invention, and while they may have their share of problems (high prices, inaccurately advertised fuel savings, and bigger repair bills due to the complexity of the vehicles… especially with having two motors), as technology improves over time and development becomes less expensive, these vehicles have a bright future ahead of them. At least until something better comes along.

My problem is with the "cash-for-clunkers" stimulus program, which has been sponsored by our government. 

Here’s the deal; the government has promised to give car owners a $3,500 - $4,000 rebate towards a purchase of a brand new hybrid, providing that they trade in their old vehicle in exchange for the hybrid.   There are, of course, several restrictions, as noted in the “Cash for Clunkers Rules” website. 

One of the things bothering me about this program (other than the fact that the government is even involved in this), is that the new car can only be a hybrid vehicle.   The government's reasoning behind this is that they claim that it wants to encourage car owners to save on gas that they would normally have burned with the old clunkers, thus saving them money on gas in the long run.  

Ok, sure… that sounds fiscally sound. There’s a problem with this, though.  

I suspect that the reason so many owners of these clunkers have been holding on to them for so long, is that they felt that they just can’t afford something better. So what makes them believe that they can suddenly afford a $19,000 to $25,000 hybrid, even with the government rebate? These clunkers, which can be up to 25 years old to qualify for the trade in, are in all likelihood, already owned free and clear.   True, they may not work as well as they used to, but they at least get you where you need to go. In fact, one of the requirements of the trade-in is that you have to be able to drive the car to the dealership, not tow it. This rule is especially baffling, since the clunkers are taken to the junkyard and scrapped for parts anyway, with the exception of the engine itself, which is rendered useless (and with that, good luck getting replacement parts for the engine on your older cars in the future). I’m sure there are plenty of people who have already planned on getting a new hybrid anyway, but I’m assuming that these particular folks already had the common sense to be saving their money to buy one for awhile, so they wouldn’t really need the government rebate that badly.  

So why would the government be encouraging people, who have already paid off their old cars, to buy brand new hybrids and put themselves into debt all over again (that’s assuming that they’ll not default on their payments and lose the vehicle anyway)?   Why do they insist on hybrids, when there are plenty of used, standard cars, or even gas-saver models which costs thousands less, for the budget-minded consumer?

The answer is that the government isn’t really interested so much in helping you save in gas money as it is in enforcing their environmentalist policies, brought on by the so called “global warming” catastrophe.  

This government program, which nearly failed last week due to website snafus, red tape, and just plain running out of money (and these are the same guys who want to run health care), is a combination of tactics using the consumer’s sense of guilt for the size of his carbon footprint, and enticement by waving four grand under his nose that would help “alleviate” his guilty conscience by running out and purchasing an environmentally friendly car.  

I guess that since they’re having some difficulty with the “cap and trade” bill, they’ve resorted to this.

Don’t get me wrong… hybrids are environmentally friendly. As I’ve said before, I have nothing against hybrids. I don’t blame the cars. I’m blaming the government for influencing people into buying them when they may not be financially able to purchase them, just for the sake of enforcing its own environmentalist agenda.   Nobody, the consumers in particular, wants to be known as the bad guy who is ruining the planet. Everyone wants a clean conscience, so it’s understandable why they may be so easily influenced.  What makes this deplorable is that the politicians know this as well, and they are taking full advantage of this fact. 

Folks, if you’re an owner of one of these clunkers, and you’re on a budget, try not to be taken in by this program, unless you’ve already been planning on getting a hybrid to begin with, and you’re financially able to handle it. If you really need a replacement for that old clunker that’s on its last legs, and you’re on a budget, look into a standard used car, or even a gas-saver model. One website I ran into that can help you locate such a car is “pricequotes.com”. Of course, this isn’t the only such site. You can find plenty on your preferred search engine.   It could save you thousands, without a so called rebate being furnished by your fellow taxpayers.

Don’t ever let the government, or anyone else, influence you over your choice of vehicles (or anything else for that matter) out of a sense of guilt. It’s your money; get what you want, get what you can afford.  If you really want a hybrid, and you can afford it, then go get one.  Just don't allow yourself to get into financial jeopardy for the sake of some politician who claims "that's what's best for the planet". 

Sources and Helpful Websites:

CARS; Car Allowance Rebate System

Cash for Clunkers Rules:

Hybrid Cars—Pros and Cons:

PriceQuotes.com: