Video: Crazy Barry at Government Motors Has The Car For You!


video via Moonbattery

How much is a new Chevy Volt electric car worth?

The sticker price is $41,000.  However, with federal subsidies, you could pay as little as $33,500.  Additional subsidies provided by the state of California could knock it down even lower, for residents of the Golden State.  So what’s the price?

$41,000, of course.  The subsidies just mean you don’t pay all of it.  The utterly bankrupt federal government takes money from other taxpayers, and uses it to discount your purchase.  Since California is teetering on the edge of total collapse, and may well require federal bailouts in the near future, taxpayers across the country could end up paying additional sums to support Volt purchases that happen to occur within the state of California.  These transfer payments are mixed into the thickening concrete surrounding the American economy, making it just a few inches deeper.

But wait, there’s more.

You’ll have to see Dr. Zero for the rest.

Rush devoted most of his show, Friday to the Volt.

Did you know this?  No, no.  The backup engine requires premium gasoline.  The primary power plant, the battery they claim gets 40 miles to a charge, which means you’ve got 20 miles to go someplace and get home.  The backup gets you 340 miles using premium gasoline.  Now, something’s askew here.  Shouldn’t whatever gets you 40 miles to the charge be the backup?  Like I asked you a couple days ago, “When you people look at your cars, how many of you know what range you get out of a full tank?”  I guarantee you not very many of you are getting 340 miles out of a tank.  Not many.  I’m sure some of you are, depending on what you’re driving.  Okay, so, “It also requires premium gasoline, seats only four people (the battery runs down the center of the car, preventing a rear bench [where the drive train would go) and has less head and leg room than the $17,000 Chevrolet Cruze, which is more or less the non-electric version of the Volt.”

As Mr. Edward Niedermeyer writes: “In short, the Volt appears to be exactly the kind of green-at-all-costs car that some opponents of the bailout feared the government might order GM to build.” Who would that be? Who would these “opponents” be?  You know, this didn’t start with Obama.  It starts with Algore.  He had the first electric car idea.  Well, “President Obama’s task force reported in 2009 that the Volt ‘will likely be too expensive…” This is from GM.  I’m sorry, it’s Obama’s task force.  “President Obama’s task force reported in 2009 that the Volt ‘will likely be too expensive to be commercially successful in the short term’…”

So another Bam task force making something nobody wants, and even the defenders in the Fake Media — I’m reading some of the critics of me out there in the partisan political operative media — say, “Well, I guess Mr. Limbaugh was opposed to the Internet because it wasn’t fast enough at first. I guess he was opposed to getting into buying products that…” You people fail to understand. You do not make any effort to understand.  This is not a criticism of General Motors and it is not a criticism of the Volt.  We in the country class of this great nation are aghast. We are apoplectic over the fact that a bunch of know-nothings, a bunch of people who have a chip on their shoulder about this country are now running some of the greatest industries that twine this country’s greatness — and they don’t know diddly-squat, and they’re turning these great industries into nothing more than arms of their political agenda.

The Chevrolet Volt is a political statement.  When President Obama is driving around in a limousine that has every protection and has the same weight that his current gasoline-powered limousine has and when it’s powered by a battery, then I’ll think about it.  When Air Force One is powered by solar panels or windmills or self-generating propellers or whatever the hell else the wizards of smart have on the design table, then I’ll think about getting on one.  But putting four seats on top of a lawn mower that runs on premium gasoline as a “backup,” is not innovation.  It is classic liberal screw-upism, incompetence, and danger.

Charles Krauthammer agrees:

“The only people who are going to buy it are going to be very rich people who are going to park it outside their townhouse for ostentatious show of how virtuous they are while they drive around in their Cadillac Escalade.”

“This is a classic example of what happens when the political and ideological desires of an administration are imposed on a private company…It’s not how many jobs you create or even save, it’s can you sell a product in the market that will make a profit? Otherwise, it’s a farce.”

See also: Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin: Chevy Volt Slogan-Mania:

The Chevy Volt, the $41,000 before-tax-credit, four-seat car that you might as well buy because you’re paying for it anyway, goes 40 miles on a charge before the engine that requires premium gasoline kicks in and will probably cost its buyers more than a few friendships because the “dude, can I bum your electrical outlet for a few hours so I can get back home?” thing will get old fast, is officially on the market.

This means that the search for the perfect Chevy Volt slogan is on. My current favorite is from Twitterer Gunservatively: “I could have had a V8.”

One website had nothing but good things to say about Government Motors, Chrysler, and The Volt.

Obama News and Resources reported: Obama Drives Volt, Touts Auto Industry Bailout Results:

One of the companies that Obama bailed out was Chrysler. Obama appeared at both the Chrysler factory as well as the GM factory in Detroit, Michigan on Friday and addressed the workers there. In addition, the President of the United States also test drove the Volt. The Volt is the first car made by Chrysler that is completely electric.

With the jobs and thus production increase resulting from Obama’s bailouts, Chrysler made a profit of $143 million in 2010’s first quarter, while GM has made a staggering $865 million profit.

After arguably the worst year ever for the car industry in United States history, the work of President Obama is finally bringing better days. Automotive companies are now able to provide more jobs to American’s, as well as boost the economy.

With Obama’s risky move a year and a half ago paying off, one of the biggest industries in American history is once again proving to be highly profitable.

Check out the site….Who are these people? Seriously.

Is this part of Organizing For America? Some Soros group? Former Journolistas?


Why Do They Hate Us?

I don’t really care, frankly. I just want to defeat them.

I’m talking about liberals, of course.

Dennis Prager, who makes  note of the recent Jounolist revelations, (with their nasty death wishes and violent fantasies, to their nicknames for conservatives, “Nascar retards”, and rat-fu**ers”),  is interested in the reason why:

Here are three possible answers.

First, the left thinks the right is evil.

Granting for exceptions that all generalizations allow for, conservatives believe that those on the left are wrong, while those on the left believe that those on the right are bad, not merely wrong. Examples are innumerable. For example, Howard Dean, the former head of the Democratic Party said, “In contradistinction to the Republicans … (Democrats) don’t believe kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

Or take Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who, among many similar comments, said, “I want to say a few words about what it means to be a Democrat. It’s very simple: We have a conscience.”

Has any spokesman of the Republican Party ever said anything analogous about Democrats not caring about the suffering of children or not having a conscience?

Second, when you don’t confront real evil, you hate those who do.

You can see this on almost any school playground. The kid who confronts the school bully is often resented more than the bully. Whether out of guilt over their own cowardice or fear that the one who confronted the bully would provoke the bully to lash out more, those who refuse to confront the bully often resent the one who does. During the 1980s, the left expressed far more hatred of Ronald Reagan than of Soviet Communist dictator Leonid Brezhnev. And, when Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” the liberal world was enraged … at Reagan.

Those (usually on the left) who refused to confront communism hated those (usually on the right) who did. They called the latter “war mongers,” “cold warriors,” charged them with having “missile envy” and with loving war.

Today, the left has similar contempt for those who take a hard line on Islamic terror. The liberal and leftist media routinely place quote marks around the words War on Terror. To the left, such a war is manufactured by rightists for nefarious reasons (oil, self-enrichment, imperialism, etc.). Indeed, the Obama administration has actually forbidden use of the term “Islamic terror.” America is at war with a nameless enemy. The real enemies the Democratic administration is prepared to name are the Republican Party, tea parties, Fox News and talk radio.

Third, the left’s utopian vision is prevented only by the right.

From its inception, leftism has been a secular utopian religion. As Ted Kennedy, famously quoting his brother Robert F. Kennedy, said, “Some (people) see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?” That exemplifies leftwing idealism — imagining a utopian future. There will be no poor, no war, no conflict, no inequality. That future is only a few more government programs away from reality. And who stands in the way of such perfection? Conservatives. How could a utopian not hate a conservative?

I think it’s a combination of all three.

I often wonder how many of these lefties would admit to being communist or terrorist sympathizers/ enablers. It’s certainly true that to the leftist brain, the only  real enemy is conservatism.

Stanley Kurtz, meanwhile wonders what’s wrong with calling them what they are:

What is so strange about the idea that President Obama might be a socialist? True, it would be a big deal if the president of the United States considered himself an opponent of the capitalist system, especially when he’s consistently dismissed and denied the socialism charge. On the other hand, the idea that a committed socialist might play a prominent part in everyday American politics is not particularly surprising.


As I’ll show in my forthcoming book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, this vision of socialism has long shaped President Obama. (I announced the book yesterday. You can see the cover and a description of the book’s argument here.) The point is that the notion that Barack Obama is a socialist is too often dismissed as a lurid and impossibly extreme scenario, as if being a socialist had to mean throwing Molotov cocktails and demanding instant revolution. On the contrary, Harold Meyerson’s regular columns in The Washington Post show us that, even if their long-term goals are radical, it’s entirely possible for sophisticated socialists to participate in the everyday back-and-forth of American politics. This is the way to think about Obama.

People really need to get over their squeamishness about rebranding the Democrats….these guys are Socialists…. Social Dems, or Democratic Socialists. Charles Krauthammer has been calling Obama’s policies and ambitions “Social Democrat” for over a year, now.

Newt Gingrich schooled a shocked Bill O’Reilly on that score, months ago. It’s way past time to be shocked by this.

See also:

Ed Driscoll: JournoList: The View from Inside the MSM’s Cocoon

AoSHQ: Howard Zinn, Commie Bastard


Ten Buck Fridays Poll: August 1 – 6

Keep this quote, (via RightKlik) in mind as you vote in this TBF poll to help out a conservative candidate:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Ronald Reagan (1911 – 2004)

The candidates this week are: Donna Campbell, M.D. (TX-25), Nick Popaditch (CA-51), Mike Stopa (MA-3), Scott Rigell (VA-2), Bobby Schilling (IL-17), Allen West (FL-22), Marco Rubio (FL-Sen) , Delia Lopez (OR-3) , Mike Crane (GA-13) , John Faulk (TX-18) .

As always, I’ve put the new poll up on my right sidebar.

The ND fav this week is Harvard physicist, Mike Stopa, the bright and personable candidate running in MA-3. One of his competitors is a self described recent convert to conservatism who’s made political contributions  to liberal Democrats in recent years.

Here’s a video compilation of Stopa doing some politicking on the 4th of July and making an appearance on Fox:

Here’s Stopa’s oped supporting the AZ immigration law in the Boston Globe: Why the Arizona immigration law makes sense here, too.