The Studebaker Brand

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
I may never vote again. I will not vote for an establishment Republican. I will never vote for a Democrat, and cannot vote for a media choice Republican. My mind was made up in 2008. In this case, media is clearly pushing Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Karl Rove Republicans want either one, and Democrats are satisfied with either one should Hillary lose the general.

Incidentally, newcomer John Kasich is media’s third choice. Kascich’s addition to media endorsement tells me that conservatives’s have but one choice —— a large, medium, or small a-hole. The more the public is turned off, the more that media mouths pump up interest in their liars, losers, and UN-loving traitors.

Media invented the Republican Brand. To no one’s surprise Donald Trump is blamed for damaging the Republican brand because of this:




If you ask me what the Republican brand is? I’d answer the brand is less successful than Studebaker; the old Studebakers looked good, but they didn’t not run very well. I owned one in the middle 1950s and it cost me more to repair than I paid for the damned thing:

images

March 18
1933
Studebaker goes bankrupt

On this day in 1933, American automaker Studebaker, then heavily in debt, goes into receivership. The company’s president, Albert Erskine, resigned and later that year committed suicide. Studebaker eventually rebounded from its financial troubles, only to close its doors for the final time in 1966.


If anything, the Republican brand is subsidized by the Democrat party.

subsidize (verb, transitive)
subsidized, subsidizing, subsidizes

1. To assist or support with a subsidy.

2. To secure the assistance of by granting a subsidy.​

As much as I think Donald Trump is a serious candidate, I will not devote a lot of time watching FOX put him down so they can make their pro-illegal immigration choices look better. It is not that I am offended for The Donald, I am simply sick of the positive wall-to-wall coverage open-borders wannabes are getting.

Sanctuary Cities

Howard Richman’s brief article is about the environmental fraud, while he makes a nice tie-in to Donald Trump:


The proponents of borders open to criminal immigrants proclaim that those who oppose them are "racists."
The proponents of trade agreements with mercantilists proclaim that those who oppose them are "protectionists."
The proponents of man-made global warming proclaim that those who oppose them are like "Holocaust deniers."​

Donald Trump is currently telling the truth about illegal immigration and trade agreements and is refusing to be silenced by attacks.

July 9, 2015
Nobel laureate's 'Emperor's New Clothes' speech about global warming
By Howard Richman

Blog Nobel laureate s Emperor s New Clothes speech about global warming

Nothing exposes media culpability in the county’s immigration horrors more effectively than does claiming the moral ground in Sanctuary Cities:



The power of media provided everything Democrats wanted; everything from the welfare state, to defeat in Vietnam, to open-borders, to the TPP, yet media mouths never made an effort to oppose Sanctuary Cities in the beginning. Now they are telling us they want to reform immigration policies that they and their politicians created.

I can only guess how Communist bias in the other networks is handling illegal aliens killing Americans. I can tell you how the entire media deserves a lion’s share for Sanctuary Cities:

Media always supports those candidates who favor amnesty for illegal aliens; ergo, media had a big hand in setting up Sanctuary Cities to begin with because they never tried to stop them. Now, they claim something has to be done about it because of one murder in San Francisco.

Sanctuary Cities did not begin and end media culpability. Media played a major role in everything that went wrong in this country since the LBJ years; most notably the media’s love of the late Ted Kennedy who gave us today’s immigration problem.

EVERY ILLEGAL ALIEN IS A CRIMINAL, yet media lack of serious opposition to open-borders made it easier for the mass migration of millions of criminals to pour across our border.

FOX’s favorite choice, Jeb Bush, calls amnesty “Legal Status but not citizenship.” God only knows how Marco Rubio is double-speaking illegal immigration these days. Whatever it is the media is for it.

Media mouths insist that Republicans cannot win if they oppose amnesty for millions of illegal immigration, or the billions of tax dollars illegal immigrants get in free stuff. Media mouths never tell us that every tax dollar that goes to illegal aliens is laid on the backs of needy Americans. Hell, the money going to medical care and free education for illegal aliens alone would cover dental care for every American. Question: When did you hear a media mouth advocate more for needy Americans, or even less for illegal aliens? Answer: Never. But I will wager that you heard media mouths praise politicians who advocate huge cuts in Medicare in order to save it. Once again, tax dollars are being rerouted to illegal aliens.

Incidentally, Jeb Bush’s legal status for illegal aliens does not include free stuff. I’d sure like to hear him explain to a liberal judge how that works.

Media mouths never pointed out the difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants to their guests. Not only did they fail to correct their guests, they compound the misdirection in their own comments. Giving every immigrant the same status has been on-going since 2008. One expects it from Democrats, but John McCain and Bush the Younger pioneered the technique.

Media has been lying about the actual number of illegal aliens that came to this country since 2008. The real number is closer to 30 million than it is to the eleven or twelve million the media was lying about in 2008.

Last but not least, not one media mouth every asked where the United Nations got the authority to force Americans to accept refugees under the guise of economic hardship in their homelands. The United Nations has no such authority to order states to accept refugees for any reason, let alone the authority to change the definition of political asylum.
 
Last but not least, not one media mouth every asked where the United Nations got the authority to force Americans to accept refugees under the guise of economic hardship in their homelands. The United Nations has no such authority to order states to accept refugees for any reason, let alone the authority to change the definition of political asylum.
What’s missing in Levin’s correct analysis is the acceptance that Taqiyya the Liar’s coup was executed for the United Nations before they were ready. I’m certain the United Nations preferred waiting until the American people were completely disarmed before giving the green light to whoever was president. It is too late to completely disarm Americans; so they have to pray that their boy did not act hastily. Mark Levin is right calling it a silent coup:

“So, Obama’s pushing the ‘browning of America,’ not my phrase, theirs, ‘with open amnesty.’ Even if it means murderers, rapists and whatever come in. His friends in the sanctuary cities, he hasn’t spoken against a sanctuary city yet, has he? Despite the mayhem and the murder?

"Not a word. Nothing.

Mark Levin: 'We’ve Had a Silent Coup in This Country'
By Emily Richards | July 9, 2015 | 12:57 PM EDT

Mark Levin We ve Had a Silent Coup in This Country CNS News

Everything that piece of scum in the White House did, he did for the United Nations. He did not get his marching orders from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Nobody gave him instructions, he did it on his own to empower and appease the global government crowd. No other president did more for the United Nations and less for his own country. He took all of the small steps the New World Order crowd has been taking for decades and decided that the time had come to take one giant leap.

Believe this or not, but you can bet that the ruling class is sweating it out. Every one of them knows how much most Americans despise the United Nations; so they have to be asking themselves: Did the filthy sack of shit get away with it? or is it going to blow up in his face and take us down with him?

Megyn Kelly’s observations make me think the sewer rat is so confident he firmly believes he got away with it:




I got the enclosed transcript that came up below the Mike Huckabee video. I highlighted the comments that certainly indicate a silent coup of sorts:

MEGYN KELLY, HOST: With the White House ducking the issue of its own acquiescence in these city's decision to flout the federal immigration laws which were duly enacted. When asked repeatedly this week to speak to this case, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest declined to weigh in other than to refer folks to the Department of Homeland Security. A stark contrast to what we saw after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri. A man we now know was attacking a police officer at the time of his death. His funeral saw three Obama officials in attendance, his death drew comments from President Obama personally. And the administration also sent in the DOJ and 40 FBI agents dispatched to Missouri after Michael Brown was killed.

Where is the swarm of agents in San Francisco? Then there was Freddie Gray in Baltimore, a repeat drug offender who was killed in police custody. Here again his funeral was attended by three Obama administration officials and again the President spoke personally to Freddie Gray's death. And again, sent the DOJ in to investigate. When Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, the President spoke to his death which was later ruled to be in self-defense. But Kate Steinle, nothing. No comments, no swarm of FBI agents, no DOJ investigation, nothing. Why?


Marc Thiessen is a Fox News contributor and the former chief presidential speechwriter for President George W. Bush. Richard Fowler is a nationally syndicated radio host. Thank you for being here, both. Marc, why?

MARC THIESSEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, the silence from President Obama is absolutely deafening. He had plenty to say when it came to Trayvon Martin, when it came to Michael Brown, when it came to Freddie Gray, but all of the sudden a woman is killed by a criminal alien, and all of a sudden the President is tongue tied. He's got nothing to say. Why is that? The answer is simple. In all of those other cases, he had liberal policy points that he wanted to make about gun control, about police bias, about racial profiling. In this case he has no policy points he wants to make because the policies that he supports are the ones that got this woman killed. His support for sanctuary cities, his support for releasing criminal aliens into the communities. So he doesn't want to highlight this because there's no political gain to be made from it.

ADD ON:

I found the video the above transcript comes from:


 
Last edited:
I can only guess how Communist bias in the other networks is handling illegal aliens killing Americans. I can tell you how the entire media deserves a lion’s share for Sanctuary Cities:
Words fail me:

2015-07-12.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top