Tuesday, April 17, 2018
David Hogg's boycott against Laura Ingraham actually helped her ratings rise by over 20 percent. That's what a report by NEWSBUSTERS is saying.
Hogg's boycott came about after he accused Laura Ingraham of making derogatory comments about Hogg being unable to qualify to get into college. She apologized, but Hogg instead of withdrawing his attacks, doubled down on Ingraham, claiming she was only apologizing to save her advertisers.
27 advertisers did pull their advertising from Ingraham's show, but other refused, including the My Pillow company, and Fox news stood behind Ingraham, announcing that they would not "allow voices to be censored by agenda driven intimidation efforts."
Hogg was the student journalist that spearheaded, along with survivors of the Parkland high school shooting, nationwide anti-gun protests, aided by Leftist activists and news media.
Rich Noyes at Newsbusters said that "...Fleeing advertisers may have thought they were avoiding controversy, but they are apparently skipping out on a TV audience that’s clearly quite loyal, and bigger than ever..."
Read the full report HERE...
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
It's the old bait and switch.
For about the last decade Facebook has baited you with a host of features, under the guise of helping you, and the "world" to be in "better communication." Here's the way Kathleen Chaykowski put it in her report, when she wrote in Forbes, in the "Tech Section in 2017. In this she quotes Zuckerberg:
"... When Facebook ... filed to go public in early 2012, Mark Zuckerberg noted that the social network wasn’t originally designed to be a company. 'It was built to accomplish a social mission — to make the world more open and connected,' Zuckerberg wrote in Facebook’s S-1 filing, presenting the business as an engine supporting this goal ..."
You see, he didn't design it to be a company. It was all for you. But, fast forward, a few years later, and, well, he made it into a company. Bait. Switch. And we all know what the Corporate bottom line is: $.
And part of that bottom line is to increase profits. How do you do that in a business model that is based on "free" use? Change it so that there is an initial "free-use" basic level, and then incrementally charge for additional features. Why would they do it this way? Because they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The cookie jar contained YOU and your personal info which you gave to them so they could make their mega-bucks. It's a big scandal now, as you may have heard, and Zuckerberg is now going to supposedly get a shellacking from congress, and woe is he, he will self flagellate, until the cows come home, and then he will make the changes accordingly.
Except, it's all a ruse.
How is it a ruse? Well let's start with an article by Daniel Lyons in May of 2010 in NEWSWEEK: Lyons told us that:
"...you might not know about the latest trend among hipster techies: quitting Facebook. These folks, including a bunch of Google engineers, are bailing out because Facebook just changed its rules so that much of your personal profile information, including where you work, what music you like, and where you went to school, now gets made public by default. Some info is even shared with companies that are special partners of Facebook, like Yelp, Pandora, and Microsoft. And while there are ways to dial back on some of this by tinkering with your privacy settings, it’s tricky to figure out—intentionally so, according to cynics..."Lyons said, also that:
"... The fear is that people are being lured into Facebook with the promise of a fun, free service, and don’t realize that they’re paying for it by giving up loads of personal information. Facebook then attempts to “monetize” one’s data by selling it to advertisers that want to send targeted messages ... Most folks using Facebook have no idea this is happening. Even if you’re very tech-savvy and do know what the company is up to, you still have no idea what you’re paying for Facebook, because people don’t really know what their personal data is worth ..."
Mind you, that was May of 2010.
On March 21, 2018, Zuckerberg, speaking to CNNMoney's Laurie Segall, he says this:
How does he not get struck by lightning? Makes you wonder, doesn't it, especially since Lyons told us in 2010 that:
"...The biggest problem, however, is that the company keeps changing the rules. Early on, you could keep everything private. That was the great thing about Facebook—you could create your own little private network. Last year, the company changed its privacy rules so that a lot of things—your city, your profile photo, the names of your friends—were set, by default, to be shared with everyone on the Internet. Sure, you could change everything back and make it private. But most people probably didn’t bother. Now Facebook is going even further by insisting that unless you agree to make things like your hometown, interests, and friends’ names public, then you can’t list them at all..."And, of course, there was also this, again, from Lyons:
"...The whole kerfuffle is a misunderstanding, according to Elliot Schrage, Facebook’s vice president of communications and public policy. In his version of events, the company is simply making changes to improve the service it provides to users by giving them more 'granular' control over what they share, and if people don’t share information they have a 'less satisfying experience.' Facebook is innovating so rapidly, he says, that people don’t fully understand what the company is doing, and that change is scary ... Some critics think this is more about Facebook looking to make more money. Its original business model, which involved selling ads and putting them at the side of the page, totally flopped. Who wants to look at advertisements when they’re online connecting with their friends? Facebook denies that financial motives drove the changes. 'Of all the criticisms, that’s the one I find most distressing—that anything we’ve done is damaging to users in order for us to make more money,' says Schrage..."
It is now April of 2018. See the time lapse here? What has Zuckerbook been doing for eight years? Can you say "caching!"
It gets better. Actually it gets much worse. And this is why this is a ZuckerBook Circus:
Zuckerberg is going to testify before a Congressional committee, but Zuck's not going to be Under Oath. Oh, he's still "compelled by statute to tell the truth," but he's not under oath. So watch his testimony. If he claims he didn't know about all this until recently, then he will have lied, will he have not?
And then there is this little anecdote: FACEBOOK just happens to be a BIG contributor to the committees that are going to be questioning him: "...The congressional panel that got the most Facebook contributions is the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which announced Wednesday morning it would question Zuckerberg on April 11.
Members of the committee, whose jurisdiction gives it regulatory power over Internet companies, received nearly $381,000 in contributions tied to Facebook since 2007 ..." according to Herb Jackson at USA TODAY.
AND Paul V. Fontelo, reporter at ROLL CALL, tells us that 30 lawmakers hold stock in Facebook, including THREE who may be questioning the Zuck.
Of course, no one told Mark Zuckerberg back in 2010 about that article in NEWSWEEK by Daniel Lyons. He runs Facebook, but he didn't know about Schumer and Co., and that oh so tiny complaint filed with the FTC that was so minuscule that he never found out about it.
TODAY he is saying that he swears he found out just two weeks ago that bad actors were harvesting users’ private info by the millions. Kevin Poulsen, writing for the Daily Beast, intimates he's lying:
"... But the company was alerted long, long before that ... Facebook was warned five years ago that the 'reverse-lookup' feature in its search engine could be used to harvest names, profiles, and phone numbers for virtually all its users..."But the company just found out two weeks ago? (You can read that HERE)
So, have you been scammed? You signed on to be in communication with your loved ones, your friends, your groups, but in reality you were providing information that Facebook had promised you it would not sell. In effect you were an unwitting employee of Facebook, and if this is the case, how much back-pay does Facebook owe you for the use of the precious personal data you, your friends, your family, etc., have provided to ZuckBook, so that it could be sold for zillions?
Mark Zuckerberg in an "Open Letter" said this in 2006:
"...I wanted to make sure we did something about it, and quickly. So we have been coding nonstop for two days to get you better privacy controls. This new privacy page will allow you to choose which types of stories go into your Mini-Feed and your friends' News Feeds, and it also lists the type of actions Facebook will never let any other person know about..." (Read it HERE)
As Rich Lowery put it in a New York Post editorial today, "...Facebook has always been one big swindle.."
My money is on the money: I think the purpose of the ZuckerCircus is more money, but not for you.
What are you going to pay for this time?
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Douglas Burton's article at the Free Beacon titled "Putin Tests the West" says that an attack by Russia on U.K soil against a British subject, specifically the nerve gas poisoning of two of its citizens, is part of a pattern of attacks, and he leads with this sub-headline: "... Kremlin watchers: Russian poisonings, election meddling require harsh response..."
Granted, Burton is reporting on the facts, and he tells us that "...An uptick in tense U.S. Russia relations saw Moscow expel 60 dimplomats from Russia ... as retaliation for the United States ordering the removal of 60 Russian officials Monday..."
That we know.
He also reports that at least 27 nations have expelled Russian diplomats as well, thus standing in solidarity with the United Kingdom where a nerve gas poisoning nearly claimed the life of a former Russian spy and his daughter March 4. And he says that for Russia observers who have been urging a tougher stance against the Putin regime, the White House move was long in coming.
We learn that Luke Harding, "a Kremlin specialist with the Guardian newspaper, in a speech to "Kremlin watchers" called PutinCon, called the poisoning what it was: "... a demonstrative attack, really a kind of terrorist attack..."
At that conference, at which "security was tight, and the location of the event was kept undisclosed until hours before it began," a "presenter," a Vladimir Kara-Murza, related his experience, claiming that "... he survived two assassination attempts by poisoning and went on to continue his advocacy work at Open Russia..."
Mind you, this was a conference, held in secret, sort of, by an agency "created and funded by the Oslo-based Human Rights Foundation. For those of us not on the "inside" of this matter, the HRF aims to expose the abuses of dictators worldwide.
Burton reminds us of "...the murder of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko in the United Kingdom in November 2006..." Again he quotes Harding:
"... The real story is that the Kremlin is sending a message to these agents. We can do this to you and your family ..."
We can presume from the article as Burton details that we have a dictator doing as he pleases internationally, punishing ex-operatives in the nations which employed them against him, as he paints himself as "under siege by a hostile Western Conspiracy" (as Harding put it).
Putin waltzed into his 19th year of power, Burton says, "... as either president or premier of the Russian Federation on March 18, despite allegations of ballot stuffing..."
Here's the message, I think: A Russian dictator is going around assassinating or attempting to assassinate operatives that spied on him and his country. He's doing it at will, because he can, and is going to continue to do so, until what? Someone stops him?
Burton provides more details, but the telling tale is a quote he provides by Amy Knight, "an American scholar specializing in Russian history."
"...How many more brazen murders will it take before we take steps to prevent Mr. Putin carrying out more of these crimes? ..."Well, alright already.
I would be remiss if I submitted my take just a wee bit lopsided, because, if I remember correctly, didn't dictator Obama take out a terrorist with a drone not too long ago? Did not Obama take political actions via the U.N. and also purposefully meddle in Israel's election to take out (politically) Benjamin Netanyahu?
Now, when it's our side, we don't mind raining holy hell on ISIS terrorists in a foreign land to keep them from attacking us HERE.
We got a terrorist "rain-on" on September 11, 2001. We then rained hell on Iraq. We are still making Afghanistan pay for hosting the Taliban.
Putin did more than poison a few individuals. He invaded Crimea. He attempted to invade the Ukraine.
In case you hadn't noticed, the NORKS are raining missiles over Japan... as a threat, for now, but nevertheless, the missiles are real.
Just last week missiles were launched against Saudi Arabia from Yemen. Yesterday Palestinians "marched" against Israel. Israel retaliated.
Let's stop the pushy-footin' around. It's WAR. WE are at war. The world is at war. I know. You have to get up every morning and go to work. It LOOKS like business as usual. It's not.
You do go about your business, but you do it in spite of being at war. YOU are in a war in your own country. A foreign culture has been "genociding" you for generations, as you go about your business, and, as if it's still business as usual.
Just in the past few weeks you have been attacked again. You were told to surrender. You were told to lay your weapons down, give them up, raise up your hands, and give yourselves up.
It is warfare.
When we face it, and call it what it is, we can then handle it by coming up with the correct solutions. Enemies know that it's a war. They need to know that we know that too.
See the Burton article HERE...
See more NEWS at Red Clix Headliners
Friday, March 30, 2018
Adam Kredo at the Free Beacon has a story today that tells about the Palestinian Authority paying the salaries of convicted terrorists. While that's not necessarily news, what IS news is that the P.A. is doing so with U.S. dollars provided by the American Taxpayer. Why THAT is news is because a U.S. law mandates the P.A stop doing that or lose American aid dollars. According to Kredo:
"...Palestinian officials in recent days have rejected a new U.S. law, known as the Taylor Force Act, or TFA, that bans the PA government from providing salaries to terrorists and their families, a longstanding policy that had become the center of controversy after it was found U.S. taxpayer aid dollars to the Palestinians had been used to subsidize this practice ... While the Taylor Force Act—named after an American who was killed by a Palestinian terror attack in 2016—mandates the PA cease these payments or face a cutoff in U.S. aid, Palestinian officials have made clear in recent days they have no intention of ending this practice of funneling U.S aid dollars to the Palestinian Authority Martyr's Fund ... Palestinian leaders have continued to praise the so-called "pay-to-slay" policy since the TFA's passage, prompting outrage and concerns from Israeli and U.S. lawmakers who spoke to the Free Beacon about the situation..."
Kredo tells us that rather than hiding the fact that the Palestinian Authority is doing that, they are now flaunting it, bragging, and that the P.A.'s President, Mahmoud Abbas, has vowed to continue the misuse of U.S. payments in defiance of the new law. He quotes that Abbas said in January:
"..."There is something that the Americans are telling us to stop—the salaries of the martyrs and the martyrs' families ... Of course we categorically reject this. We will not under any circumstances allow anyone to harm the families of the prisoners, the wounded, and the martyrs. They are our children and they are our families. They honor us, and we will continue to pay them before the living..."
Kredo reports the payout in the new allocations of foreign aid dollars budgeted to the P.A. amounts to about $355 million in U.S. dollars.
According to Kredo, U.S. Reps are protesting the P.A.'s use of this money for Terrorists, but U.S. officials assertions are not phasing the Palestinians and continue their defiance.
What it looks like from the conservative side of the issue is that legislators figured out a way to object to the Palestinian Authority funding of terrorism by passing a law that isn't enforceable. As of yet they have been "outraged" and have protested the practice, but they have not withheld any funds as the law mandates.
Read the full article HERE....X
SEE more RED CLIX Headliners HERE
Thursday, March 29, 2018
So they cancel Tim Allen's show, but now "revive" Roseanne?
My Conservative barometer tells me that most news, movies, sit-coms, etc., are commercials for Left Wing agendas: Socialist Media promotes itself, and, since they hold a monopoly on movie and t.v. screens, what they show us is propaganda for Marxist culture.
So what's up with this ROSEANNE hype showing record views?
Has the devil been converted and brought over from Dark Side, or is there something afoot here?
Marketing methods include wrapping a "message" in a pretty package so it will be "accepted."
It's the proverbial "sugar-coated pill" that makes the bitter medicine easier to swallow: Kids vitamins as cartoon characters; "Muscle cars;" Anti-depressant "medication," telling you you might commit suicide and murder, all the while showing you aesthetic images. You may have noticed that when they sell you anti-depressants they do not show you people jumping off buildings, blowing their briains out, or butchering people. They tell you in a "voice-over" that might happen, but the images show something else.
Not too long ago Tim Allen's show was taken off the air, according to ABC, not because of Allen's or the show's political views, but because they didn't have any room for it in their programming.
Now they do.
Because it's Roseanne? Because they saw the error of their money marketing ways? Because they want to make money?
But it's just a wee bit too coincidental that this series comes just in time for the mid-term elections.
It smacks to me like "You see how all us Marxists can get along with all those Intolerables? See how tolerant we are? We don't want to get rid of the Constitution. We don't want to take their guns. We just want to laugh and be merry. Cumbaya!"
It's time for your pill.
*See: RED CLIX HEADLINERS Here
Friday, March 23, 2018
If President Donald Trump signs the $1.3 trillon (with a "T") spending bill to fund the government for the rest of fiscal year 2018, he is not just accelerating his own political demise, he is guaranteeing it. Conservatives will throw a fit, and he will not survive it.
The bill is a ploy by Democrats and Republicans that is used over and over against Conservatives.
It is a familiar tactic used by criminal con men to get what they want. This time, the congressional flimflammers authored a 2200 page funding bill that no one was expected to read before the "deadline," that is, before the time the government is shut down, if doesn't get the money it needs to "function."
Who is at fault for this?
You have handed to your government a credit card to spend your money any way they wish, with no obligation and no means of paying for it, when the bill is due.
What do they buy with your credit?
According to Democrat leadership, everything they wanted. Republicans even admit that this is a bipartisan spending Bill and that it demonstrates what can be done if both parties decide to work together.
It's like two criminal factions gloating about how nice it is that they worked together to rob you.
In a Washington Times article by David Sherfinski, Sally Persons and Stephen Dinan, these reporters state"
"...The bill was a testament to what Congress could do when both sides agreed to open the federal checkbook, with the GOP touting the biggest cash infusion for the military in 15 years, and Democrats saying they won billions of dollars in new spending on health care, education and infrastructure despite being largely shut out of power in Washington, D.C. ..."
Imagine that. You were even bribed. Do you like that? The bribe? "Here's your military spending bone and the scraps for your border wall. Now shut up and give us our pork so we can bribe our voters with it."
Even the White House announced that Trump would sign the Bill. According to White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, regarding the bill:
"...Is it perfect? No. Is it exactly what we asked for in the budget? No. Were we ever going to get that? No, that’s not how the process works..."
Words of wisdom. How it really works is this:
You elect criminal politicians, who promise you the moon, and then they enrich their themselves and their special interest financiers with your tax money, and you wind up being bilked. Again.
It's a very bleak scenario, but there might be a saving Grace in all this.
If you and I express enough outrage to get the President to VETO this Bill, we can save this President, and maybe the nation, AND, he can SHAME Congress for their criminal enterprise.
He can berate them up one side of Capitol Hill and the other, and cash in as a fiscal hero, while drowning out the whining of the spend-thrift tantrum throwers with a salvo that indicts them for the thieves that they are.
That's not a way for him to make friends of shady politicians, but, hey, those are the same "friends" that have vowed to impeach him, (and you and your conservative agenda, by the way).
But you have to be fast. Act now. There is a deadline for this, and this is not a flim flam. The President HAS been swayed by voter outrage before has he not?