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: